Awarding clubs league points.

[SMorgan]

A fairly bizarre and unprecedented decision was taken recently which is likely to lead to season-ruining trouble in the future, yet it has gone fairly unnoticed with little comment.

In the dispute between Wexford and Limerick, Wexford were awarded a 3-0 win and with that came the three points. The awarding of the game to Wexford didn't bother anybody, as neither club are in the running to win the league. I doubt if even Limerick are too put out by the decision. However this is something that hasn't happened before and the decision has huge potential for a massive row in the seasons to come as it sets a precedent.

When Shamrock Rovers player an ineligible player a few seasons back, Rovers were docked points, but the opponents (Dundalk) were not awarded points and rightly so. In the Paul Marney affair, St. Pats were docked points but points were not awarded to their opponents. There is good reason for this as awarding points in a league competition is disadvantaging clubs that were not involved in the games.

The Wexford decision is now there and it will be used if a club with a chance of winning a title find themselves playing a club with an ineligible player. The fall out from that will be considerable with massive negative publicity for the league. UEFA award 3-0 wins all the time for disciplinary reasons. But that's in the knock-out stages of their competitions. They won't do it in the league stages.

There is a rumour going around that Waterford will be awarded 3 points (2 additional) for a league game against Athlone because Athlone allegedly played an ineligible player. If that is the case, then that should be totally unacceptable to Shels, Dundalk and Sporting Fingal.

[micls]

but the wexford thing isnt got to do with an ineligible player. The other team refused to play.

in that situation the only sensible thing is to award Wexford the win, they werent given a chance to play the game for the points.

The other situations are completely different. In the Waterford situation Athlone should be docked but Waterford should get nothing going on precedent

[SMorgan]

Well Micls, I hope that is the case.

See the last line of this match report.

http://www.waterford-united.ie/nextpage.php?subaction=showfull&id=1224276658&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

[The Lilywhites]

http://extratime.ie/newsdesk/articles/966/

[Tis-smeee]

Other incidents were under the old system not the new shiney fai one

[Mr_Parker]

Other incidents were under the old system not the new shiney fai one

FAI one or FIFA one? The IFA have also changed to similar rules in recent seasons, following the adoption of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.

[jebus]

Yeah we genuinely don't care. We're obviously better than those minnows and no one can catch us for the coveted 5th place position in the First Division, so what harm?

[garyderry]

FAI one or FIFA one? The IFA have also changed to similar rules in recent seasons, following the adoption of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.

The FAI had nothing to do with league rules under all those old examples
the FAI only took over running the league from the clubs themselves last year
before it was a joke, clubs could vote in the way that suited there club in
each case. At least now the FAI are independent (mostly)

[Dodge]

LOL if you think the running of the league is any different to years ago. The FAI have always been involved, and the clubs still have too much say.

The only real difference is the club contract and licensing

Oh and Pats got the points back for Marney

[bigmac]

There is a rumour going around that Waterford will be awarded 3 points (2 additional) for a league game against Athlone because Athlone allegedly played an ineligible player. If that is the case, then that should be totally unacceptable to Shels, Dundalk and Sporting Fingal.

That's not to help us win the league - it's just to keep up the historical precedence of Waterford being the beneficiaries if and when Premier clubs go bust and get relegated. :D

[jinxy lilywhite]

Is there any official line in relation to the Waterford Athlone debacle. I don't know how Waterford could argue that they'd win the game if that player wasn't playing.

More than likely Mr Delaney helping out his home town club and wanting to screw us over again

[GenerationXI]

Unless some ludicrous number of points were to be awarded I don't see how it would really make a difference. In the eyes of the League, Limerick went to Wexford, lost 3-0 and Wexford won the three points. How does that make a difference. Indeed, it is precisely the same if a team field an ineligible player. In the eyes of the league, they walked onto the pitch with 10 men and lost. There are rules and they must be followed. I don't see how it causes any great complications.

[stann]

See the last line of this match report.

That line was taken from what was said on our local radio on the night of the game, and reported here. It doesn't add anything else to the debate over what has already been posted on here again and again. Don't be citing it as if it's some further proof of something that may not yet happen.


Is there any official line in relation to the Waterford Athlone debacle. I don't know how Waterford could argue that they'd win the game if that player wasn't playing.

More than likely Mr Delaney helping out his home town club and wanting to screw us over again

Waterford haven't argued anything, the first they heard about it is when they were told they'd be getting the points, so let's nip that in the bud straightaway. Whether they will get the points or not is to be clarified this week, we're told. The official line is it apparently is in the rules, but that it's a discretionary thing. I don't think they will in the end, but you'll just have to wait and see.
I can only assume the last sentence is a poor attempt at humour. :o for you if you actually believe that.

[holidaysong]

You can't compare the ineligible player situation with the Wexfordgate situation.

The extratime.ie article shows that the precedent is there that the club fielding the ineligible player should get a three points deduction but that the result should stand (like what happened between ourselves and Shamrock Rovers in the 2006 season).

The Wexford/Limerick situation is different though, as their was no result as the match didn't take place, the FAI had to award the points to someone.

If it comes to light that Athlone did indeed play an ineligible player, I'd expect them to be deducted three points but for the 0-0 result to stand. In my opinion, Dundalk, Shelbourne and Fingal would be more than justified in challenging a decision whereby Waterford were awarded points.. However, I think that the FAI are right in awarding Wexford the three points, as that match against Limerick didn't take place, it's impossible to allow a result to stand.

[Battery Rover]

I saw an official team sheet this season that had the name of a player who wasn't even part of their squad and I believe the fine was only €100. He didn't play but a player not even on the team sheet did.

I know thats off topic as it has nothing to do with what happened in Waterford but there are loads of interprations of the rule book

[Dodge]

The extratime.ie article shows that the precedent is there that the club fielding the ineligible player should get a three points deduction but that the result should stand (like what happened between ourselves and Shamrock Rovers in the 2006 season).


The last time an ineligible player palyed in the premier division (Jason McGuinness for Bohs v Shels), Bohs were deducted 3 points and the match was replayed

And that was part of the new FAI league, wasn't it?

[Ash]

I saw an official team sheet this season that had the name of a player who wasn't even part of their squad and I believe the fine was only €100. He didn't play but a player not even on the team sheet did.

I know thats off topic as it has nothing to do with what happened in Waterford but there are loads of interprations of the rule book

Totally forgot about that!

[Longfordian]

I don't think that match was replayed Dodge. Ollie was looking for a replay alright, don't think he got one though.

[holidaysong]

The last time an ineligible player palyed in the premier division (Jason McGuinness for Bohs v Shels), Bohs were deducted 3 points and the match was replayed

And that was part of the new FAI league, wasn't it?

Nope, that was the same season as Rovers played an ineligible player against us (the last season before the FAI took over) and the Bohs-Shels match was not replayed.

[pineapple stu]

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).

[Dodge]

Wasn't sure on FAI thing but the game was 100% replayed

[Longfordian]

Now that I think of it wasn't Ollie looking for Shels to be given the three points?. I'll take your word for it on the replay, I genuinely can't recall it.

[holidaysong]

Wasn't sure on FAI thing but the game was 100% replayed


Now that I think of it wasn't Ollie looking for Shels to be given the three points?. I'll take your word for it on the replay, I genuinely can't recall it.

I'm sure there wasn't a replay. If Shels had been allowed a replay then they would have had to allow us one against Shamrock Rovers.

EDIT: Dodge, you're 100% wrong - there was no replay (http://www.shelbournefc.ie/features.php?id=7)!

[Dodge]

Just asked a couple of Bohs mates and they say the replay never happened. Ollie demanded ti alright but it was thrown out

Apologies (and I'd have lost huge money on that...)

[higgins]

Ollie was happy for the game to go to a replay as we had a chance of getting the 3 points had it been replayed. This was never a runner... The FAI made a lot of decisions that year that went against Shels, that was just one of them.

No replay and no 3 points awarded to Shels.

I 100% agree a replay should not have taken place.

[Dodge]

Ollie was happy for the game to go to a replay as we had a chance of getting the 3 points had it been replayed. This was never a runner... The FAI made a lot of decisions that year that went against Shels, that was just one of them.


That wasn't a decision that went against Shels. It was just a decision based on the rules. And as well know "Rules are rules"...

[higgins]

That wasn't a decision that went against Shels. It was just a decision based on the rules. And as well know "Rules are rules"...

The decision did go against Shels as Shels were punished when a player that shouldn't have been playing played and scored if I remember correctly.

The decision not to award the replay was correct in my opinion.

However you're wrong again Dodge...
The rule allowed the 3 points to be awarded, allowed a replay to take place and allowed Bohemians to be docked points.

The decision could have gone either way. As it happened it went against Shels i.e we were punished for Bohs messing up/knowingly playing suspended players.

[stann]

I know thats off topic as it has nothing to do with what happened in Waterford but there are loads of interprations of the rule book

Actually, it seems now that there aren't.
Thanks to Bluewater for digging this out on btid. This is rule 86 from the new FAI rulebook (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:ps4z7jtNygUJ:www.fai.ie/pdf/FAI_Rule_Book.pdf+fai+rules+of+association&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ie), effective from July 11th 2008, and it's pretty well spelled out.

RULE 86. INELIGIBILITY
1. If a player takes part in an official match despite being ineligible, his team shall be sanctioned by forfeiting the match and paying a fine.
2. If a player takes part in a friendly match despite being ineligible, his team shall be sanctioned by forfeiting the match and paying a fine.
3. Unregistered Players and Suspended Players are deemed to be ineligible

[pineapple stu]

Forfeit a friendly?!

How are you not eligible for a friendly anyway?

[Battery Rover]

How are you not eligible for a friendly anyway?

If you are with a different club and have not received written permission from that club for the player to take part. We have often used friendlies as trials for players

[holidaysong]

RULE 86. INELIGIBILITY
1. If a player takes part in an official match despite being ineligible, his team shall be sanctioned by forfeiting the match and paying a fine.
2. If a player takes part in a friendly match despite being ineligible, his team shall be sanctioned by forfeiting the match and paying a fine.
3. Unregistered Players and Suspended Players are deemed to be ineligible

These rules would appear to be different then to the rules in place in 2006 (pre FAI takeover), whereby offending clubs were deducted three points but the result stood.

If Athlone have played an ineligible player, then going by these rules Waterford would be entitled to the 3-0 forfeit victory. :(

Is is a suspended player that Athlone are supposed to have fielded?

[Duffman]

Are these the rules that all the clubs signed up to pre season? There seems to be a date of the middle of the season on that pdf file :rolleyes:

[The Lilywhites]

Decision confirmed. Waterford given the points. Up to 60 now, two behind Shels and Dundalk. :(

[Duffman]

Decision confirmed. Waterford given the points. Up to 60 now, two behind Shels and Dundalk. :(

Confirmed where?

[The Lilywhites]

Confirmed where?

By the FAI. No link, yet.

[Battery Rover]

By the FAI. No link, yet.

Cant be confirmed yet by the FAI as clubs would have to be informed first and I have received nothing as of 11pm when last I checked the fax machine

[The Lilywhites]

Well it is confirmed. The ineligible player is Robbie Benson(?).

[stann]

Cant be confirmed yet by the FAI as clubs would have to be informed first and I have received nothing as of 11pm when last I checked the fax machine


Well it is confirmed. The ineligible player is Robbie Benson(?).

I haven't got anything yet either, but it sounds as if it is official. Just wondering where you heard is all.
Robbie Benson, if it is he, was making his debut for Athlone against us according to a journalist down for the game, so it's to be assumed that there was something wrong with his registration, again, if it is he, rather than a suspension issue. I won't enrage Dundalk fans further by posting how long he played for!

[Blue-Army]

Someone told me that Milo Corcoran confirmed it to a blues supporter after the Limerick match..

[stann]

I think the Foot.ie Bureau of Investigation has gone a little further than 'I heard he said she saids' at this stage.

[SMorgan]

I go back to my original point they can't go awarding points because it's grossly unfair on clubs not involved in the game. The potential for trouble ahead is MASSIVE. Why can't the FAI see this?

[The Lilywhites]

From today's Indo.

Forfeit to boost Blues' title push

Tuesday October 21 2008

WATERFORD United have been handed a fresh boost in their push for the Eircom League First Division title after it emerged that Athlone Town fielded an unregistered player when the two met earlier this month, writes Neil Ahern.

As a result, Athlone are expected to forfeit the game, which ended in a 0-0 draw, meaning the original result will be overturned and Waterford United will be handed a 3-0 victory.

An FAI spokesperson last night confirmed this in accordance with regulations in the Participation Agreement and said, "The matter has been issued to the independent disciplinary commission and they will make their decision."

The Blues are four points off Shelbourne and Dundalk but if the commission's decision goes their way they will climb to within two points of the summit.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/forfeit-to-boost-blues-title-push-1504191.html

[jinxy lilywhite]

Mr. Delaney looking after his home town club.

Can see a high ct action if Waterford win the league by less than 2 points

[SMorgan]

I can't get over the shear stupidity of this action.

This is a High Court job, if not now, at some point in the future.

[pineapple stu]

In fairness, the clubs signed up to the rules. There's nothing intrinsically unfair about the decision (it's the most common award across the world for ineligible players), so I can't see how it can be challenged either within or without the rules.

Is that three *s for Athlone in the last decade now?

[Battery Rover]

Seeing as it is still with the disciplinary committee I cant see who the decision is already made. it is possibly a case of this is the leagues recommended saction but the independent committee are by no means bound by it.

[Duffman]

So is there no sanction for Athlone then as the offending team? Just DFC and Shels that suffer as a result of another teams inefficiencies/mistakes/oversight ?

[Dodge]

So is there no sanction for Athlone then as the offending team?
The game was awarded to their opposition.

[Battery Rover]

So is there no sanction for Athlone then as the offending team? Just DFC and Shels that suffer as a result of another teams inefficiencies/mistakes/oversight ?

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

[pineapple stu]

So is there no sanction for Athlone then as the offending team?
They lose one point, and presumably they'll be fined too (assuming the decision was made, etc).