Awarding clubs league points.

[stann]

No one knows as it is still with the committee. As soon as I receive it I will post it here as will Stann.

Indeed.
The decision will not be made until tomorrow evening's meeting of the disciplinary committee, so nothing will be forthcoming until then.

Duffman, IF it does come to pass then Athlone would have to pay a fine as well as lose the point, so yes, there is a sanction. I would imagine it would be of the order of the Limerick one, as that was also forfeiture of a match.
EDIT - In other words, what Pineapple Stu said. :)

By the way, Jinxy, just to get things straight, you believe that John Delaney got the rules changed months ago, because he somehow foresaw that Waterford would be in a race for the title that they would let slip, so two weeks previous to the time he foresaw that happening he arranged for an ineligible player to be played against us? Of course, it's so obvious when it's spelled out like that!

[Mental Man]

I hope the FAI have stocked up on new fire extinguishers, christmas is just around the corner again :D

[noby]

John Delaney got the rules changed months ago, because he somehow foresaw that Waterford would be in a race for the title that they would let slip, so two weeks previous to the time he foresaw that happening he arranged for an ineligible player to be played against us?

And he would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those pesky kids.

[jinxy lilywhite]

By the way, Jinxy, just to get things straight, you believe that John Delaney got the rules changed months ago, because he somehow foresaw that Waterford would be in a race for the title that they would let slip, so two weeks previous to the time he foresaw that happening he arranged for an ineligible player to be played against us? Of course, it's so obvious when it's spelled out like that!

When you put it like that Stann, you never know.

Seems to be a concerted effort by some powers that be over the last 3 years to put obstacles in our way.
Won't mean much though when we beat Waterford on Friday.

[Louth4sam]

Its a pain in the hole and worked out badly for us and Shels but if its in the rules its in the rules.
We could very well get screwed over yet again by FAI rule changes but unfortunately there isn't anything we can do about it.

[SMorgan]

To be honest even as a Dundalk fan, I am not particularly put out by Waterford getting the two points. I can't see them winning the league with the 2 points. I am more concerned about down the line and if a league title or promotion/relegation will be decided on it.

Imagine a situation were Harps are one point ahead of Cobh in the race against relegation and Cobh play the last game of the season away to Bohs and get tanked 4 nil. Then its discovered Bohs played somebody they shouldn't have. In that situation Cobh will have to get the three points. Would that be fair on Harps if they didn't win their final game?

You can't write something off as "well they are the rules".

I don't berlieve any other league in the europe would award league points off the field.

[blue til i die]

so even if you break the rules, nothing should happen? What if the ineligible player was the goalkeeper who made a few great saves during the game. whether or not the player played 90 minutes or 9 minutes, ineligible players are ineligible. if it was you're team, you'd be calling for the points too. rules are rules. every team signed up for them. heard Robbie Benson wasn't signed by Athlone Town and he came on for O'Dowd on 77 minutes in that game at the RSC??

[Battery Rover]

heard Robbie Benson wasn't signed by Athlone Town and he came on for O'Dowd on 77 minutes in that game at the RSC??

He has played for the club for the past two seasons

[Duffman]

rules are rules. every team signed up for them.
Given that rule book is dated 4 months after the start of the season I wonder did every team sign up for them. Perhaps of course thats a meaningless date but I would like to know definitively.

[Battery Rover]

Given that rule book is dated 4 months after the start of the season I wonder did every team sign up for them. Perhaps of course thats a meaningless date but I would like to know definitively.


By signing the participation agreement you sign up in the interests of fairness and compliance with the rules

[stann]

heard Robbie Benson wasn't signed by Athlone Town

As Battery Rover posted above, that's not the reason. Lads, posting these 'I heard's isn't very helpful at this point. Was told what the problem was, and I imagine Battery Rover knows too, but best not post it here until the decision is made one way or the other.

[Battery Rover]

As Battery Rover posted above, that's not the reason. Lads, posting these 'I heard's isn't very helpful at this point. Was told what the problem was, and I imagine Battery Rover knows too, but best not post it here until the decision is made one way or the other.


Yep know the story but not going to post it on a forum to give people fuel to attack. Totally agree with Stann.

[blue til i die]

but best not post it here until the decision is made one way or the other.

why? shur gwan tell us

[Rob_the_cat]

And it was 2006, which was before the new super duper league. (Though obviously, I agree that it's the same thing under a different name)

And the replay was in direct contravention of a court case taken by Kilkenny about ten years ago, when their replay against Dundalk was ruled void or something (can't remember the exact details, but I'm pretty sure Ollie managed to get the law changed to suit him).

I'm surprised this hasn't come up. Nor indeed was it raised in 2006, even though by that stage, then Dundalk follower Daniel McDonnell had a national media gig. My memories pretty hazy but heres how I recall it.

Basically what happened in the 1999/00 season was as follows. Kilkenny City manager Pat Byrne signed Fran Carter in advance of a game with Limerick. He wanted to get him registered in time, but either Fran was in Galway or Pat was away I'm not sure which, so there was a spot of forgery done on the player registration form. Fran lined out in the game, and City won. It subsequently came to light about the forgery, and Kilkenny forfeited the 3 points, though no award was made to Limerick. Kilkenny took the matter to appeal. Which never really would have been of consequence were it not for their spectacular close to the season under temporary boss Paul Power (Pat having been the victim of Eddie Foley red cards on numerous occasions culminating in an obscenely lengthy ban) combined with a typical end of season collapse from Dundalk under Terry Eviston, seeing the 2 sides fighting it out for the 3rd place playoff spot.

After much deliberation in the appeal rooms, it was decided that the matter should be decided by arbitration. Showing their usual foresight the League saw fit to appoint Mooncoin native and friend of City, Milo Corcoran to this role. He ruled that the Limerick game should be replayed, which it was on the Thursday preceding the final round of fixtures. City made the playoffs with Waterford.

At some stage in the process Dundalk went to the High Court to seek an injunction against the fixture, but they were unsuccessful.

The Paul Shiels decision in 2006 was quite ludicrous, as he carried a suspension from Dublin City to Rovers, even though the League had nullified Dublin City's results.

There was NO REPLAY of the Bohs-Shels fixture in 2006. Ollie argued his case on that, and I even recall reading an interview with him in the Sunday Times right after Shels won the league where he said he believed he was right in principle, and that he would pursue the case further. Sadly he suffered his stroke not long after.

The problem which we have with the Waterford-Athlone fixture is that it was a draw, rather than an Athlone win, so there is no easy solution to dock Athlone the points. I don't believe Waterford should automatically get the 3 points, as they did not earn them. However unless the rules have been changed the FAI are well within their remit to award those points. With Dundalk and Shels to come at home, I would have a strong fancy for Waterford to finish top on the back of this boost. Having said that, the whole licensing/wage cap/money issues/ground suitability situation will make the promotion/relegation battle about so much more than league placings.

[Blue-Army]

Still nothing confirmed then? Why the wait?

[stann]

The problem which we have with the Waterford-Athlone fixture is that it was a draw, rather than an Athlone win, so there is no easy solution to dock Athlone the points. I don't believe Waterford should automatically get the 3 points, as they did not earn them. However unless the rules have been changed the FAI are well within their remit to award those points. With Dundalk and Shels to come at home, I would have a strong fancy for Waterford to finish top on the back of this boost. Having said that, the whole licensing/wage cap/money issues/ground suitability situation will make the promotion/relegation battle about so much more than league placings.

Nice post Rob, but if you take a look at the thread again, I commend post 28 to your attention. :)
The rules have changed, it's been posted and mentioned many times above. Previous examples are irrelevant, because they were under the old rules. The new rule and the sanctions are spelled out in crystal clear fashion.


Still nothing confirmed then? Why the wait?

Christ, man, patience! :D
It's still only Wednesday morning. The Disciplinary Committee always meets on Wednesday evenings. That's the answer to both your questions. ;)

[OneRedArmy]

You can't write something off as "well they are the rules".Of course you can, particularly when you signed up to the rules!


I don't berlieve any other league in the europe would award league points off the field.What a ridiculous statement.

[JC_GUFC]

in crystal clear fashion.



Would that be Waterford Crystal?! ;)

Another case that hasn't been mentioned was the Noel Hunt affair when he was on loan to Waterford from Rovers he then went back to Rovers for one match to play a league cup tie before returning to Waterford and played against Dublin City.

Ronan Seery then claimed that 'I can't believe it's not Home Farm' should have been awarded the 3 points for the game which would have put them in a playoff position ahead of Harps.

Being the generous man that he was he even offered Harps a playoff for the playoff spot.

It was thrown out anyway but as has been mentioned the rules have since changed and it looks like Waterford could be 2 points closer to the top tonight.

[jinxy lilywhite]

1) How difficult can it be to check that a player is registered or not? All it takes is a phone call, or a fax, or a phone call to verify a fax was received to check registration papers?

2) Time lag. The game was played on the 3/10 and took until the possibly 17/10 for this info to come out. What happened in those 14 days or why did it take 14 days.

[scej]

Out of interest, if Waterford had won the game by more than three goals would that result stand or would it be changed to 3-0?

[jinxy lilywhite]

Out of interest, if Waterford had won the game by more than three goals would that result stand or would it be changed to 3-0?

Result would stand I'd say.

[holidaysong]

Out of interest, if Waterford had won the game by more than three goals would that result stand or would it be changed to 3-0?

The original result would have stood. (Rule 126 in this (http://www.fai.ie/pdf/FAI_Rule_Book.pdf) PDF)

[Duffman]

Christ, man, patience! :D
It's still only Wednesday morning. The Disciplinary Committee always meets on Wednesday evenings. That's the answer to both your questions. ;)


No outcome from last nights meeting then? Smoke and mirrors :rolleyes:

[holidaysong]

The suspensions and sanctions issued by the committee should appear here (http://www.walkthechalk.com/extras.php?cid=19) at some point today.. I don't know of any other website that puts them up.

[The Lilywhites]

According to btid.net...

It's confirmed in today's Daily Star.

Blues receive a 3-0 win from the FAI's Disciplinary Committee and thus move onto 60 points.

Athlone used 16 year old sub Robbie Benson as a 77th minute replacement for David o' Dowd in the October 3 draw. It later emerged that the Ireland u17 international was not cleared to play for Athlone, although no blame was attached to the teenager for the mistake.

[GenerationXI]

I'm surprised . . .

[cue 3 lenghty and impressive paragraphs]

. . . I don't believe Waterford should automatically get the 3 points, as they did not earn them. However unless the rules have been changed the FAI are well within their remit to award those points.

If you wrote your post off the top of your head I'm impressed. That's an awful lot of info about the league for one brain. ;)

As has been pointed out, the rules have been changed, Athlone effectively cheated and now have to pay for it. There are rules, and contrary to popular belief, they are NOT there to be broken. :rolleyes:

[sligored]

i think the right decision is to give waterford the 3 points even though i can understand the frustration of dundalk and shels supporters.
if an ineligible plater in any way affected the match result the sanction should be forfeiture of the match. 3-0 seems to be the worldwise accepted norm in this case.
i do not in any way want waterford to be promoted as it is a long journey from sligo and a place we never seem to get points from but this judgement is based on logic.

if i was a shels or dundalk fan i would be pointing the finger of blame in the direction of athlone town.

[Ash]

if i was a shels or dundalk fan i would be pointing the finger of blame in the direction of athlone town.

I assume you are familiar with the specifics of this case to make a statement like that?

[sligored]

I assume you are familiar with the specifics of this case to make a statement like that?

did athlone field an ineligible player as from what i can see this seems to be the allegation. i know nothing of the specifics

[Ash]

did athlone field an ineligible player as from what i can see this seems to be the allegation. i know nothing of the specifics

Well without knowing the specifics you shouldnt really be telling Dundalk & Shels fans
where the should be pointing blame!
This case is all based around specifics and based on those circumstances, I would say
No, we didnt field an ineligible player.

I cant go into more detail as the Clubs have not been officially notified of a decision yet

[christo]

Well the case is all based around specifics and based on those circumstances,
I would say No, we didnt field an ineligible player.

But if Waterford do get the two points because ye fielded an ineligible player than the "fault", as it were, is with Athlone not Waterford, I think is his point.

Nothing about it on the suspensions and fine link for this week though

[Ash]

But if Waterford do get the two points because ye fielded an ineligible player than the "fault", as it were, is with Athlone not Waterford, I think is his point.


Under normal circumstances, then yes, but the point I am making is that there
are abnormal circumstances surrounding the case, which I cannot go into, and
to me these alleviates any blame from Athlone.

[pineapple stu]

You didn't ring the FAI and ask if he was OK to play, did you?!

[sligored]

Under normal circumstances, then yes, but the point I am making is that there
are abnormal circumstances surrounding the case, which I cannot go into, and
to me these alleviates any blame from Athlone.

this is a discussion forum ash and it allows people to read between the lines even if they do not know specifics of a case.

climb down off your high horse as the suggestion is that athlone are going to be docked a point by the fai disciplinary commitee

if we are to require specifics on each case before we can comment on same this would be a much worse forum.

[Ash]

this is a discussion forum ash and it allows people to read between the lines even if they do not know specifics of a case.

climb down off your high horse as the suggestion is that athlone are going to be docked a point by the fai disciplinary commitee

if we are to require specifics on each case before we can comment on same this would be a much worse forum.

Oh I know, and opinions are like árses, we all have them but making a bold
statement such as "I'd be pointing the finger at x,y,z" when you dont
actually know the case is plain silly in my view. Nothing to do with a high
horse, I just prefer not to make judgements like that unless I actually know
the facts! But hey, maybe thats just me!

As for requiring specifics on each case before commenting, a lot of cases are
cut and dry so no need for specifics, but sometimes things aren't all as simple
as they appear and so in such cases it kinda makes sence to hold off on the
judge, jury and executioner until you actually know the details!

[sligored]

Oh I know, and opinions are like árses, we all have them but making a bold
statement such as "I'd be pointing the finger at x,y,z" when you dont
actually know the case is plain silly in my view. Nothing to do with a high
horse, I just prefer not to make judgements like that unless I actually know
the facts! But hey, maybe thats just me!

As for requiring specifics on each case before commenting, a lot of cases are
cut and dry so no need for specifics, but sometimes things aren't all as simple
as they appear and so in such cases it kinda makes sence to hold off on the
judge, jury and executioner until you actually know the details!

are you saying that there is no chance that benson was ineligible for the game and are 100% positive that the fai should not discuss this at the disciplinary meeting.

If you confirm this i will retract what i said

[Ash]

are you saying that there is no chance that benson was ineligible for the game and are 100% positive that the fai should not discuss this at the disciplinary meeting.

If you confirm this i will retract what i said

As I said, in my mind, and basing my opinion solely on the actual specific details
I know, there is no doubt in my mind that the player was eligible to play.

As said before, due to the matter still being with the various committies I cant
go into the specifics but should they come to light it will show my reasons for
thinking so.

If however my info on the matter turns out to be incorrect then fair enough I'll hold
my hand up and agree with punishment.

[Longfordian]

It may have been something as simple as him being registered to play for Athlone's underage teams but not the senior team. They are registered separately. That's just a wild guess though as I know that kind of thing can be accidentally overlooked. Has he played any other games this season?

[stann]

Didn't post earlier as was a way and there was nothing to post anyway.
The Star aside, there has been no official decision yet, as the committees concerned opted for a 24 hour extension to address some new information.
The decision was due to be communicated this afternoon, but will now be released tomorrow.

[sligored]

are you saying that there is no chance that benson was ineligible for the game and are 100% positive that the fai should not discuss this at the disciplinary meeting.

If you confirm this i will retract what i said

from fai press release


Athlone Town forfeited the match (0-3) and fined €2,500 for playing an unregistered player v Waterford United (03.10.08).

now ash - lets defend your rule breach

[Ash]

from fai press release


Athlone Town forfeited the match (0-3) and fined €2,500 for playing an unregistered player v Waterford United (03.10.08).

now ash - lets defend your rule breach

I dont agree with the verdict at all and at the moment I am prohibited from
saying anything more on the topic. Being a reader between lines Im sure you
can figure out why.

And as I said in an earlier post, if the backing behind my sureness (is that a
word?) turns out to be based on false information then I hold my hand up
and accept the decision.

[RonnieB]

2500 :o that's a lot of meatballs.

[Ash]

Just been informed at our appeal against point deduction and fine arising from
the "player registration" issue was heard at 4pm yesterday ... and we won :)

That is all :D

[Dodge]

So does that mean Waterford lose the 2 points?

[Ash]

So does that mean Waterford lose the 2 points?

I presume so ... and we should regain the one we lost.

Didnt get the full details, just was told the outcome

[blue til i die]

if true i somehow doubt we'll do anything about it now. how do the FAI come to a decision, while the appeals panel come to a different decision :confused:

[pineapple stu]

I imagine it's because the FAI didn't read their rules properly when they made the decision (or the rules didn't read as they intended).

We got fined last year for having no technical area for an U-21s game which was played on the Fosters Avenue pitch, for example; we appealed on the basis that UEFA Licencing doesn't apply to the U-21s league, and we won.

[blue til i die]

but all i'm saying is, why did the FAI think he was ineligible, but the appeal came to a different finding. surely he's either eligible or he's not!! why did it take an appeals panel to figure it out :confused:

[pineapple stu]

Because (going my assumption; this isn't necessarily what happened) the FAI are idiots who don't understand their own rules until the errors are pointed out to them.

[jinxy lilywhite]

Had Waterford been in contention for the first division crown, would the appeals crowd of overturned the FAI findings? Just a question?
The points don't matter as much to Waterford now as they did last week