FAI Junior Cup 2009/10

[Ronald1]

anyone have the teams that lined out.

Regional - Hartigan;Aherne;Reidy;Mullins;Cowpar;Butler;O'Dono ghue;O'Connell K;Galvin;Nash;O'Connell F; Subs Used - McMahon(GK);Foley;Finucane
Fairview - Hickey;Hehir;Harmon;Neary;Buckley;O'Brien;Hefferna n;Barrett;Grant; O'Sullivan;Doyle; Subs Used - Cosgrave;Danagher;Hannon

[abbeyvale]

Regional - Hartigan;Aherne;Reidy;Mullins;Cowpar;Butler;O'Dono ghue;O'Connell K;Galvin;Nash;O'Connell F; Subs Used - McMahon(GK);Foley;Finucane
Fairview - Hickey;Hehir;Harmon;Neary;Buckley;O'Brien;Hefferna n;Barrett;Grant; O'Sullivan;Doyle; Subs Used - Cosgrave;Danagher;Hannon

How many attended this game lads?

[joeSoap]

I would say around 300. Most likely that another 300 turned around and walked away when they saw the admission fee.

[Monkfish]

this is a junior thread go back into limerick fc thread to mouth about what your saying and p.s junior clubs own jackman not lfc there wouldn't be a senior club only for junior clubs helping out limerick:away:

Sher you've no bother sticking your nose in at the senior section Rory, iv an interest in the junior game around town and attend quite a few games any chance I get and if iv something to say about it ill say it here, problem?

Now whats the reaction to the Star newspapers dedicated junior pullout today describing Fairview as ''the Dublin side'' when reporting the View/Regional game? anyone else see it?

[putthemunder]

dont agree, at this stage of the competition there should have been out of town refs, thought the ref had a poor game, out of his depth, couldn't disagree with the sending off but ruined the game as a contest.

[da bishop]

dont agree, at this stage of the competition there should have been out of town refs, thought the ref had a poor game, out of his depth, couldn't disagree with the sending off but ruined the game as a contest.agree their should be out of town officials,but the official concerned was hardly out of his depth,was obviously indecisive regarding the sending off,however given he was a long way off incident through no fault of his own,it was understandable,the fact the linesman helped him showed good teamwork on their behalf.

[joeSoap]

Lads, keep it on topic or I've no doubt the thread will be closed.

[Goals4fun]

agree their should be out of town officials,but the official concerned was hardly out of his depth,was obviously indecisive regarding the sending off,however given he was a long way off incident through no fault of his own,it was understandable,the fact the linesman helped him showed good teamwork on their behalf.

I think mr kiely struggled a bit to be honest. He gave the free, was not even going to book the keeper (should not have needed assistance for that), let fairview position the ball and a few seconds later the linesman got involved. The mr kiely went in a gave the red. He then proceeded to get the free taken untill regional went balistic to make a sub to get a keeper in goals. People around me were laughing at the ref.
Was not sure about the sending off as i believed the view player knocked the ball away and jj did not move (is he supposed to get out of the way of the player???), think they ball was knoecked out of play also and therefore he did not stop a goal scoring chance...

but that is history.....

[TopperHarley]

Gave them 5 euro at the door and they were happy to take it,otherwise i i woulda watched it up by the buses

[Damo]

A replay here is the only sensible conclusion. Pike have played an illegal player-plain and simple. The reason they played him is that their local governing body, the LDMC, mis-informed them as to the status of this player or players. Therefore Pike were unaware of the situation as a result of this mis-information and it should be pointed out here that the LDMC are representatives of the FAI in the area. Pike had no reason to question the judgement of the LDMC (who have admitted responsibility)and picked their players according to what they were informed the rules were. Saint Michaels objection is valid, but not water tight legally and if this matter is not resolved the way the FAI ruled (ie a replay) then it will get ugly and go to arbitration. If this happens, there's not a court in the land that will rule against Pike. If I were Michaels manager I would grab the replay chance with both arms while it is still on the table.

How could you say this? Have you some kinda of doctorate in admin law? It is nowhere the foregone conclusion you make it out to be if this case does drag on into arbitration. That's tantamount to saying Pike are pleading ignorance (thinking they had a properly registered player and took their league's word for it) and this ignorance not being a defence in the eyes of the law.

[green&white]

How could you say this? Have you some kinda of doctorate in admin law? It is nowhere the foregone conclusion you make it out to be if this case does drag on into arbitration. That's tantamount to saying Pike are pleading ignorance (thinking they had a properly registered player and took their league's word for it) and this ignorance not being a defence in the eyes of the law.

I have to agree with above, ignorance cannot be a defence. Irrespective of where or from whom advice was received , if any club use a player not properly registered then that club must accept responsibility. Both Park Utd and Clonmel Town (Pike obj) were expelled from FAI and Munster cups respectively for same offence. I cannot see where Pike can be treated differently.
Every club has same set of rules and are obliged to respect them. I hope this wont be "different strokes for different folks" decision .
The good name and great history of the Junior cup is possibly at stake here.

[Fairkop]

I have to agree with above, ignorance cannot be a defence. Irrespective of where or from whom advice was received , if any club use a player not properly registered then that club must accept responsibility. Both Park Utd and Clonmel Town (Pike obj) were expelled from FAI and Munster cups respectively for same offence. I cannot see where Pike can be treated differently.
Every club has same set of rules and are obliged to respect them. I hope this wont be "different strokes for different folks" decision .
The good name and great history of the Junior cup is possibly at stake here.

The ldmc have their fingerprints all over this case as well,they are in there to do a job and have no system in place to let clubs know if players are actually allowed to play as was the case of the park player whose form was sent in but not recieved by the ldmc,receipts and details of players coming back from l.o.i. should be put in writing that they are legal,otherwise this farce will continue every year.
Also the f.a.i. will have to come out and make the rules known to everyone and not wait till legal action is taken before they wake up.

[joeSoap]

How could you say this? Have you some kinda of doctorate in admin law? It is nowhere the foregone conclusion you make it out to be if this case does drag on into arbitration. That's tantamount to saying Pike are pleading ignorance (thinking they had a properly registered player and took their league's word for it) and this ignorance not being a defence in the eyes of the law. It's my opinion, thats all. The LDMC is an official arm of the FAI, and therefore its validation of a player, even if wrong, cannot make a club accountable once that player has been cleared. The LDMC cleared him, ergo, the FAI cleared him by its affiliation with the LDMC. It's not ignorance on Pike's behalf. Can you honestly tell me thay would have played Carroll if the LDMC told them not to?

[Damo]

It's my opinion, thats all. The LDMC is an official arm of the FAI, and therefore its validation of a player, even if wrong, cannot make a club accountable once that player has been cleared. The LDMC cleared him, ergo, the FAI cleared him by its affiliation with the LDMC. It's not ignorance on Pike's behalf. Can you honestly tell me thay would have played Carroll if the LDMC told them not to?

JS, I completely accept the point you make in the last sentence of your post above. I merely suggested that your contention that any court would side with Pike in an arbitration scenario as one that is without any solid foundation, in a purely legal context. I used the hypothetical situation of Pike pleading ignorance as one which a court (taking many other factors into account) could "potentially" give short shrift to. Basically, when parties to a dispute take legal recourse, history has shown that nothing is ever cut and dried.

[Longshanks]

We should all know what has gone on by this time next week

[Damo]

Is mick o brien, Adrian Ryan and Barry ryan scouts for St Michaels? or are they involved in some way.

Barry Ryan is managing the Tipp Oscar Traynor team as far as I know.

[Fairkop]

Barry Ryan is managing the Tipp Oscar Traynor team as far as I know.ya barry ryan is manager of tipp ot,adrian ryan managed st,micheals and played with pike i think.....who,s mike o brien?

[the bandit]

ya barry ryan is manager of tipp ot,adrian ryan managed st,micheals and played with pike i think.....who,s mike o brien?
Gerry smyths fella.I mean scout.

[leather]

Final word from myself on this matter...Having read the FAI's letter to pike, I have to say that the Fai are a disgrace...Pike should be in semi final end of story ..
I would go as far as to say that if the result does not stand all limerick clubs should bycott the competition next season..

[Goals4fun]

Final word from myself on this matter...Having read the FAI's letter to pike, I have to say that the Fai are a disgrace...Pike should be in semi final end of story ..
I would go as far as to say that if the result does not stand all limerick clubs should bycott the competition next season..

unless 'Leather' is a closet pike fan, fair play to him posting a strong opinion in favour of another limerick club as he has done. If what leather says is true then i think somebody from pike should 'leak' the letter onto here and see what happens. .......at least everubody would know what the real story/situation is then

[kev08]

afaik two lads went to saints after game sayin pike were illegal these two people i cant name but 1 was very close to saints before:eek: lots know who these are anyway

[the only 1]

1 of these lads play with view?

[the only 1]

afaik two lads went to saints after game sayin pike were illegal these two people i cant name but 1 was very close to saints before:eek: lots know who these are anyway

who are they so def not any lads mentioned above anyways

[kev08]

any odds for fai lads or is it suspended no none of lads above ger 1 boro man was there with an ex saints player with view now

[the only 1]

any odds for fai lads or is it suspended no none of lads above ger 1 boro man was there with an ex saints player with view now

haha my name not ger u on about cossie so?

[mulla]

i totally agree with you on this leather seen the letter myself fai are a disgrace st micheals had no proof only hear say what ajoke going in there to an appeal with no proof pike should be in the semi's and st micheals should have there appeal thrown out by the senior fai council this letter can not be published on this site cos the appeals are still in,people will have to wait till wednesday to see it,just take our words for it thats why st micks are quiet on this site

unfortunately not everyone could have the option of seeing the letter so i agree someone should "leak it",going by what leather says and being the only 1 on this site to talk of such a letter then of course pike should go through, can't believe it hasn't appeared on this site already though giving there has been so much debate on the subject

[da bishop]

loads of people seem to know about this letter lads,and given what yer saying it seems that micheals had no proof just hearsay,hardly the base for a strong objection,why then were micheals offered a replay,it does,n make sense.

[the dazzler]

loads of people seem to know about this letter lads,and given what yer saying it seems that micheals had no proof just hearsay,hardly the base for a strong objection,why then were micheals offered a replay,it does,n make sense.

excactly madness and tis talk of someone tellin st,mikes weird

[kev08]

excactly madness and tis talk of someone tellin st,mikes weird

its true mark letter says only proof saints had 1 of yere told them and boro lad, pike lad told me this they got names im sayin no names here anyone think it will be replay ?

[The Dark Knight]

lads seriously if that letter was posted pike would be in trouble with the fai just take our word for it st micheals went into an appeal with hear say and the fai never ruled it out of order :bomb:

That may be so, but as with anything the guardians of the game must investigate allegations and rule on the accordingly. I haven't seen the letter so I don't know but from what I hear, Colm Carroll was legal on the day of the match but was illegal in previous rounds.

That leaves the FAI with a difficult decision.

Their options are
1. Allow Pike to proceed to the semi final
2. Allow St Michaels proceed to the semi final
3. Allow Clonmel Town proceed to the final
4. Reinstate the team that Colm Carroll played against
5. Replay the quarter final

If what I hear is true, Colm Carroll played in the competition as an ineligible player under rule 86 of the FAI rule book Pike must forfeit that match.

Rule 86 point 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.

But the FAI's problem is what to do next.

1. They cannot allow Pike to proceed as it would contravene Rule 86
2. Allow St Michaels proceed into the Semi Final? as the player was legal there is no basis for this
3. Allow Clonmel proceed to the final? from a legal viewpoint, this would be the most sound but would make a mockery of the competition (and another small payday for the FAI)
4. Reinstate the last team that Colm Carroll played against while he was ineligible? - not practicable especially if it occurred a couple of rounds back
5. Replay the match? from a legal viewpoint, there is absolutely no basis for this but for the FAI it avoids a messy situitation

We'll know tomorrow.

[Longshanks]

That may be so, but as with anything the guardians of the game must investigate allegations and rule on the accordingly. I haven't seen the letter so I don't know but from what I hear, Colm Carroll was legal on the day of the match but was illegal in previous rounds.

That leaves the FAI with a difficult decision.

Their options are
1. Allow Pike to proceed to the semi final
2. Allow St Michaels proceed to the semi final
3. Allow Clonmel Town proceed to the final
4. Reinstate the team that Colm Carroll played against
5. Replay the quarter final

If what I hear is true, Colm Carroll played in the competition as an ineligible player under rule 86 of the FAI rule book Pike must forfeit that match.

Rule 86 point 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.

But the FAI's problem is what to do next.

1. They cannot allow Pike to proceed as it would contravene Rule 86
2. Allow St Michaels proceed into the Semi Final? as the player was legal there is no basis for this
3. Allow Clonmel proceed to the final? from a legal viewpoint, this would be the most sound but would make a mockery of the competition (and another small payday for the FAI)
4. Reinstate the last team that Colm Carroll played against while he was ineligible? - not practicable especially if it occurred a couple of rounds back
5. Replay the match? from a legal viewpoint, there is absolutely no basis for this but for the FAI it avoids a messy situitation

We'll know tomorrow.

Best post on this thread since this fiasco started

[joeSoap]

That may be so, but as with anything the guardians of the game must investigate allegations and rule on the accordingly. I haven't seen the letter so I don't know but from what I hear, Colm Carroll was legal on the day of the match but was illegal in previous rounds.

That leaves the FAI with a difficult decision.

Their options are
1. Allow Pike to proceed to the semi final
2. Allow St Michaels proceed to the semi final
3. Allow Clonmel Town proceed to the final
4. Reinstate the team that Colm Carroll played against
5. Replay the quarter final

If what I hear is true, Colm Carroll played in the competition as an ineligible player under rule 86 of the FAI rule book Pike must forfeit that match.

Rule 86 point 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.

But the FAI's problem is what to do next.

1. They cannot allow Pike to proceed as it would contravene Rule 86
2. Allow St Michaels proceed into the Semi Final? as the player was legal there is no basis for this
3. Allow Clonmel proceed to the final? from a legal viewpoint, this would be the most sound but would make a mockery of the competition (and another small payday for the FAI)
4. Reinstate the last team that Colm Carroll played against while he was ineligible? - not practicable especially if it occurred a couple of rounds back
5. Replay the match? from a legal viewpoint, there is absolutely no basis for this but for the FAI it avoids a messy situitation

We'll know tomorrow.

With regard to illegal players, an objection as to the validity of that player must be lodged within 72 hours. If not, then the result stands. Rule 86 only comes into play once an official objection is received by registered post. Colm Carroll also only played in one previous round to the best of my knowledge, against Aisling Annacotty, and no objection was raised or lodged. I am open to correction on this.

FAI Rule 156 B.
Appeals must be sent by registered post within four days of the date on which the written notification of the
decision being appealed against was received by the appellant. Appeals must be addressed to the FAI
Disciplinary Control Unit. In the event of a postal dispute or similar emergency, the appellant shall contact
the DCU to ascertain what temporary alternative arrangements have been put in place by the DCU. The
initial appeal documents must include a copy of the decision being appealed against and the appellant must
indicate the date upon which such decision was received by the appellant, and must confirm that an exact
copy of all documentation has been sent in accordance with Rule 156(B)(2), and that the Appeal Fee has been
enclosed in accordance with Rule 156(B)(3).

Pike have broken no rules if Colm Carroll was eligible against St Michaels. They broke them against Aisling, but because no appeal was entered it becomes a moot point.
I can only see this going Pikes way based upon this information.

[Pearoso27]

all i have to say as did leaher i have seen this letter and if pike don't win this appeal all limerick clubs should boycott this cup even if you don't like pike,this is going to give the fai a black eye pike are willing to go all the way to clear their names and i hope they do the fact st micheals were in limerick in ldmc head quarters looking throw forms, found nothing and took away nothing just shows they have nothing and this letter just shows they have nothing. it does look like st micheals can't beat pike on a playing field and now paper work come on saints drop the appeal go out replay the match and get on with the fai or fai give the appeal to pike ye made the mistake


The fact that you are willing to play a replay is admitting Pike did wrong! 48 hours and we will all know what is happening so lets all stop speculating wait for the outcome from The Senior Council and what will be will be! We can all get on with what is left of our season!

[joeSoap]

The hearing is at 3.30pm this afternoon, and an announcement should be made by 6.30pm this evening all going to plan according to the FAI. I have just spoken to a contact I have over there.

[The Dark Knight]

With regard to illegal players, an objection as to the validity of that player must be lodged within 72 hours. If not, then the result stands. Rule 86 only comes into play once an official objection is received by registered post. Colm Carroll also only played in one previous round to the best of my knowledge, against Aisling Annacotty, and no objection was raised or lodged. I am open to correction on this.

FAI Rule 156 B.
Appeals must be sent by registered post within four days of the date on which the written notification of the
decision being appealed against was received by the appellant. Appeals must be addressed to the FAI
Disciplinary Control Unit. In the event of a postal dispute or similar emergency, the appellant shall contact
the DCU to ascertain what temporary alternative arrangements have been put in place by the DCU. The
initial appeal documents must include a copy of the decision being appealed against and the appellant must
indicate the date upon which such decision was received by the appellant, and must confirm that an exact
copy of all documentation has been sent in accordance with Rule 156(B)(2), and that the Appeal Fee has been
enclosed in accordance with Rule 156(B)(3).

Pike have broken no rules if Colm Carroll was eligible against St Michaels. They broke them against Aisling, but because no appeal was entered it becomes a moot point.
I can only see this going Pikes way based upon this information.

This is the problem for the FAI. For Aishling to proceed or be reinstated they should have appealed within the specified timeframe. However Rule 86 does not state that an appeal needs to be made, it only states that "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."

There is no time limit on the FAI imposing the ultimate sanction of match forfeiture (and the way the Rule is worded they must expel Pike from the competition).

Now expelling Pike creates other consequences for the FAI, LDMC and every other league in the country. If you take Rule 86 and its legal meaning, Pike must forfeit all matches that Colm Carroll played prior to his reinstatement, Park are in the same boat in Div 1B and I'm sure most other Leagues in the country would experience something similar.

Does the FAI want to set this precedent? I suspect not.

There next problem is what to do next?

There is no legal avenue fro them to get out.

[the snake]

Good stuff dark night it all started to make some bit of sense to me ....replay to me seems fair

[joeSoap]

This is the problem for the FAI. For Aishling to proceed or be reinstated they should have appealed within the specified timeframe. However Rule 86 does not state that an appeal needs to be made, it only states that "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."

There is no time limit on the FAI imposing the ultimate sanction of match forfeiture (and the way the Rule is worded they must expel Pike from the competition).

Now expelling Pike creates other consequences for the FAI, LDMC and every other league in the country. If you take Rule 86 and its legal meaning, Pike must forfeit all matches that Colm Carroll played prior to his reinstatement, Park are in the same boat in Div 1B and I'm sure most other Leagues in the country would experience something similar.

Does the FAI want to set this precedent? I suspect not.

There next problem is what to do next?

There is no legal avenue fro them to get out.

There is no reason for the FAI to order Pike to forfeit the fixture against Aisling because Aisling, or anybody else who wanted to object had the right to do so within 4 days. This was not done. That is why therre is no legal avenue for them to get out. Therefore I can see the only realistic option but to be to leave things stand and put Pike through to the semi final. St Michaels played and were comprehensively beaten by a fully legitimate side. Aisling were not, but for whatever reason, did not pursue with an objection. There are many ridiculous permutations possible, but St Michaels should not be a part of them in my opinion.

[Goals4fun]

Good stuff dark night it all started to make some bit of sense to me ....replay to me seems fair

how can michaels be beaten by a fully legit team advance to the semi's. How can pike be made play a replay of the 1/4 final match due to a previous round infringement (2/3 rounds previous)?
If i was michael i would withdraw my appeal as this is sounding like a farce. they were beaten fairly on the day, simple as.


I think the fai are a bunch of muppets and this proves that. Somebody said that delaney has ties in michaels but this is going beyond belief.

I hope for the good of the game Pike go through.

[The Dark Knight]

I agree with JoeSoap and Goals4Fun, St. Michaels cannot proceed to the Semi final. If the FAI were to adjudicate that the Aishling game was forfeited then they could reinstate Aishling and replay all rounds from then (not an option) or put Clonmel into the final. (this would cause problems for all Leagues as for the reasons set out above)

Aishling would then be able to protest (as this decision would indirectly effect them) against Clonmel elevation and we'd going through this again.

The only avenue I can see Pike pursuing is that by allowing them to proceed after the Aishling match, the FAI were admitting that no offence had occurred in that match. From a legal viewpoint, that does not really standup.

A legal nightmare.

[the snake]

Basically this is probably gonna drag out another while yet

[Pearoso27]

how can michaels be beaten by a fully legit team advance to the semi's. How can pike be made play a replay of the 1/4 final match due to a previous round infringement (2/3 rounds previous)?
If i was michael i would withdraw my appeal as this is sounding like a farce. they were beaten fairly on the day, simple as.


I think the fai are a bunch of muppets and this proves that. Somebody said that delaney has ties in michaels but this is going beyond belief.

I hope for the good of the game Pike go through.

Ok i have one question why has Colm Carrol not played for Pike since the quarter final of the FAI Junior? If he is legal and Pike are so confident of the fact why no involvement from the player since???

[joeSoap]

Ok i have one question why has Colm Carrol not played for Pike since the quarter final of the FAI Junior? If he is legal and Pike are so confident of the fact why no involvement from the player since???

Thats the Pike managements business..nobody elses.

[Mega Tots]

Ok i have one question why has Colm Carrol not played for Pike since the quarter final of the FAI Junior? If he is legal and Pike are so confident of the fact why no involvement from the player since???

it speaks volumes,clearly they do not want to be thrown out of munster as well so cannot play him as they KNOW there is a problem where he is concerned,even the staunchest pike man has to admit this,its clear cut

[thomas72]

Thats the Pike managements business..nobody elses.


o god

[supporter]

Thats the Pike managements business..nobody elses.

Why are you answering the same question twice

[Mega Tots]

Why are you answering the same question twice

i think he was hoping it might sound genuine the second time because it sure didnt the first time

[thomas72]

Why are you answering the same question twice

joesoap is the new MOD trying to sound clever my guess :)

[joeSoap]

My posts weren't loading actually. Sorry

[joeSoap]

Both cases were heard, and apparently there will be no decision made now until tomorow.

[Spindoctor]

colm carrolll is out injured not in hiding

are you a spokesman for every club in town?:disappointed: