James
13/09/2001, 8:56 AM
$hels have appealed the lack of punishment dished out to Pats inc St francis.
here here i say, from shels web (http://www.shelbournefc.ie/)
11th Sept 2001, Shelbourne appealed the decision of the eircom League in the matter of St Patrick’s Athletic FC fielding an unregistered player in a number of league games.
The appeal is directed at the eircom League officers, rather than St Patrick’s Athletic FC.
The letter of appeal makes the following points:
The Officers decided “ that an inadvertent breach” of the Rules only had occurred. The club was fined £1,000.
The League accepts that the player was unregistered, the Club accepts that player was unregistered, and yet the Officers fail to implement the rule.
This totally illogical and illegal interpretation of the rules places our club in the position in which we believe we must appeal the decision and therefore it pits club against club in a manner that should not happen.
It is the duty of the Officers to safeguard the rules and to implement them. It is also their duty to protect the integrity of the League.
This abdication of responsibility by the Officers ultimately means that, in future, clubs can successfully argue (a) that they made a mistake; (b) that they forgot, or (c) that they are incompetent.
It means that the rulebook can now be set aside and ignored, as it has no validity.
It means that all rules are now subject to the whims and private interpretation of the Officers hearing the case.
This brings the entire League into disrepute.
here here i say, from shels web (http://www.shelbournefc.ie/)
11th Sept 2001, Shelbourne appealed the decision of the eircom League in the matter of St Patrick’s Athletic FC fielding an unregistered player in a number of league games.
The appeal is directed at the eircom League officers, rather than St Patrick’s Athletic FC.
The letter of appeal makes the following points:
The Officers decided “ that an inadvertent breach” of the Rules only had occurred. The club was fined £1,000.
The League accepts that the player was unregistered, the Club accepts that player was unregistered, and yet the Officers fail to implement the rule.
This totally illogical and illegal interpretation of the rules places our club in the position in which we believe we must appeal the decision and therefore it pits club against club in a manner that should not happen.
It is the duty of the Officers to safeguard the rules and to implement them. It is also their duty to protect the integrity of the League.
This abdication of responsibility by the Officers ultimately means that, in future, clubs can successfully argue (a) that they made a mistake; (b) that they forgot, or (c) that they are incompetent.
It means that the rulebook can now be set aside and ignored, as it has no validity.
It means that all rules are now subject to the whims and private interpretation of the Officers hearing the case.
This brings the entire League into disrepute.