Bohs v Shels

[garyderry]

Sorry Gareth, but reading the rule, how is granting you a replay a penalty on us as per the rules. The rules can penalise us clearly more than the 3 points but this is not a penalty. Its a cop out and will not stand up in court which hopefully someone will take action on.

not a hope of this being let stand as it is, its a disgraceful decision, fair play my a***

[garyderry]

fair point gareth. but the fact is that from now on all games involving a suspended player will have to be replayed. That is obviously unsustainable.

all games involving suspended players will NOT have to be played in future, unless the rulebook is changed,

the FAI cannot just arbitrarily make up the rules as they go along, and this decision cannot possibly standup in any arbitration or any court in the land.

[Gareth]

Sorry Gareth, but reading the rule, how is granting you a replay a penalty on us as per the rules. The rules can penalise us clearly more than the 3 points but this is not a penalty. Its a cop out and will not stand up in court which hopefully someone will take action on.

The penalty is making you play an extra game in the season, one you have won already I guess. However I am merely speculating on that. The rule does state that the Board can impose other penalties and once they can prove its a penalty, then it will stand in court as this is a rulebook all clubs signed to adhere to before the league began. So once its deemed a penalty, it will hold. That I guess, is now up to the FAI to prove should this get court bound.

[garyderry]

The penalty is making you play an extra game in the season, one you have won already I guess. However I am merely speculating on that. The rule does state that the Board can impose other penalties and once they can prove its a penalty, then it will stand in court as this is a rulebook all clubs signed to adhere to before the league began. So once its deemed a penalty, it will hold. That I guess, is now up to the FAI to prove should this get court bound.

god your off your head if you think oillie's logic on additional penalties will stand up in court :confused:

how on earth is giving $hel$ a chance to win extra points a punishment to bohs, who's season is clearly over?

[Gareth]

all games involving suspended players will NOT have to be played in future, unless the rulebook is changed,

the FAI cannot just arbitrarily make up the rules as they go along, and this decision cannot possibly standup in any arbitration or any court in the land.

The FAI did not change the rule book, it implemented the extra clause in the rule, however the addition of a replay will need to be proved as a penalty. Justification of the extra punishment will need to be explained possibly but maybe not as the Board does get scope with the wording of the rule. All future cases do not necessarily deem a replay a must, only the exact same situation as this might. I speculate on this, but does anyone think Farrelly stating they contacted teh league etc could be brought to bare for the extra clause being executed? Just speculation here. I am merely looking at a rule and thinking out loud!!!

[EireBadBoy]

Bohs can now also demand a replay for a defeat to Derry when Hargan played and was allegedly suspended.

Honestly, I really think they should go for it. I really do. I also wish any team affected this season would do the same. The league is a shambles now anyway and can't get any worse. Why should $h€l$ get something nobody else does?

Bombard the useless hures at Merrion Sq. with appeals and watch them implode - that would be the best end of season entertainment we could wish for.

[Gareth]

god your off your head if you think oillie's logic on additional penalties will stand up in court :confused:

how on earth is giving $hel$ a chance to win extra points a punishment to bohs, who's season is clearly over?

I am not "off my head". I am also not applying Ollie Logic. I am looking at a rule and speculating. Which if that means I'm off my head, then so be it.

I did say I am not the FAI an dtehy will need to answer the second part if it went to Court.( can you read the posts before your eyes roll?)

[garyderry]

I am not "off my head". I am also not applying Ollie Logic. I am looking at a rule and speculating. Which if that means I'm off my head, then so be it.

I did say I am not the FAI an dtehy will need to answer the second part if it went to Court.( can you read the posts before your eyes roll?)


the FAI made it pretty clear in there statement they are ignoring the rules, and making there decision in the interest of "fair play", so stop your bull trying in some wierd logic to see what doesnt exist, a rule that allows the FAI to AWARD $hel$ a reply, that bohs dont want to play,

Oillie logic if you ask me,

[Gareth]

the FAI made it pretty clear in there statement they are ignoring the rues, and making there decision in the interest of "fair play", so stop your bull trying in some wierd logic to see what doesnt exist, a rule that allows the FAI to AWARD $hel$ a reply, that bohs dont want to play,

Oillie logic if you ask me,

My logic is not weird. I am just reading the rulebook and stating the rule the FAI executed and saying they need to back it up based on that, or they are in breach of the rule. However if you wish to consider this weird, then do so. Doesn't change the rule. I agree FAIR PLAY is not, in anyones book, covered under the extra clause. They will need a better reason than that I feel.

[Gareth]

By the way, I think Shels should have gotten a 3-0 win, or the decision let lie as is, if I can offer my own opinion. I don't thinka replay fits the bill at all. Its a farcial choice and something I can struggling to figure out at all. Just in case you think I am defending the decision made. I am trying to figure out how they came to it, and if it will stand re the rulebook, and it all boils down to one single issue. Can they prove the replay is a penalty on Bohs. Going to court btw is a breach of the rulebook according to

23.1 In any dispute between Member Clubs in the League or between a Member Club and the League or between a Member Club and the FAI, any party to the dispute has recourse to the appeals procedure of the F.A.I under the rules of the FAI. On receiving the decision of the F.A.I. Appeals Board, any party to the dispute can then refer the matter to arbitration.

23.2 In accordance with the FIFA statutes, members undertake not to refer disputes with any other members or the Association to a court of law. Such disputes must be processed through the appeals system of the Association or, where applicable by way of referral to arbitration.

[garyderry]

My logic is not weird. I am just reading the rulebook and stating the rule the FAI executed and saying they need to back it up based on that, or they are in breach of the rule. However if you wish to consider this weird, then do so. Doesn't change the rule. I agree FAIR PLAY is not, in anyones book, covered under the extra clause. They will need a better reason than that I feel.

I can see under the rule book how they could fine bohs heavier (wouldnt agree with it but can see how it could be interpreted), i could see how they could take additional points off them, but how can it be seen to give $hel$ a bonus for bohs minor mistake (and from what i hear if it goes to court its more likely to be proven not bohs mistake at all but the EL/FAI and no punishment at all)

i can see how the clubs may wish to change the rules to something like an automatic 3-0 win to the opposition, or a replay (if desired by the members ie the clubs), however it as far from "FAIR PLAY" as possible to make up the rules as they go along and award a replay with nothing in the rules and numerous precedents being set over the years to the contrary.

And if it was in the interests of "FAIR PLAY" how come $hel$ are not being punished in the interests of fair play, for having the knowledge that jason mcguiness was suspended (and bohs not knowing) and keeping this quiet i the knowledge that they could force a reply if $hel$ bdidnt win the right way. $hel$ can whinge all the want about it wasnt their responsibility, however if the reason behind decisions is "FAIR PLAY" then yes the onus was on $hel$ to play fair in the first place.

There is a pandoras box being opened here, i hope $hel$ and the FAI are ready for it,

[garyderry]

By the way, I think Shels should have gotten a 3-0 win, or the decision let lie as is, if I can offer my own opinion. I don't thinka replay fits the bill at all. Its a farcial choice and something I can struggling to figure out at all. Just in case you think I am defending the decision made. I am trying to figure out how they came to it, and if it will stand re the rulebook, and it all boils down to one single issue. Can they prove the replay is a penalty on Bohs. Going to court btw is a breach of the rulebook according to

23.1 In any dispute between Member Clubs in the League or between a Member Club and the League or between a Member Club and the FAI, any party to the dispute has recourse to the appeals procedure of the F.A.I under the rules of the FAI. On receiving the decision of the F.A.I. Appeals Board, any party to the dispute can then refer the matter to arbitration.

23.2 In accordance with the FIFA statutes, members undertake not to refer disputes with any other members or the Association to a court of law. Such disputes must be processed through the appeals system of the Association or, where applicable by way of referral to arbitration.

well if the FAI can change and make up the rules as they go along, the only protection the clubs have is in the law, isnt it Oillie who forced the FAI into this stupid decision in the first place threatening court action.

when on earth is it in the rules to allow the FAI award a 3-0 win either,

and by the way as an aside, im not bitter at the thought of Derry not winning the league, i was in cork and celebrated the entire night with the cork fans when they won the league on the field WITHOUT cheating or BULLYING, worthy winners of the 2005 season, something no matter what happens i could ever say about $hel$ if you do win this season, nor the season of the Marney affair. I have no problem with worthy champions, as cork were last season.

Not that $hel$ or oillie care how they win the league,

[Gareth]

when on earth is it in the rules to allow the FAI award a 3-0 win either,
Totally valid point. I withdraw that, as I cant find a reason for it.


well if the FAI can change and make up the rules as they go along, the only protection the clubs have is in the law, isnt it Oillie who forced the FAI into this stupid decision in the first place threatening court action.
Well they clearly failed to read their rules then, and would know a court action would see us expelled from the league I imagine.


and by the way as an aside, im not bitter at the thought of Derry not winning the league, i was in cork and celebrated the entire night with the cork fans when they won the league on the field WITHOUT cheating or BULLYING, worthy winners of the 2005 season, something no matter what happens i could ever say about $hel$ if you do win this season, nor the season of the Marney affair. I have no problem with worthy champions, as cork were last season.Not that $hel$ or oillie care how they win the league,

We have so far won it on the pitch. In fact the only points change has been a deduction of 6 against us for two games we won. In your case, you had 3, for a game and a loss. This replay has yet to take place. If we win the league, it will be done so on the pitch. The Bohs game will probably be overturned on appeal? If not, its disappointing, but to say we have cheated to be top at this moment, is bull****.

[garyderry]

We have so far won it on the pitch. In fact the only points change has been a deduction of 6 against us for two games we won. In your case, you had 3, for a game and a loss. This replay has yet to take place. If we win the league, it will be done so on the pitch. The Bohs game will probably be overturned on appeal? If not, its disappointing, but to say we have cheated to be top at this moment, is bull****.

ok fair point ill have to agree with (and take back the $hel$ cheating), its not $hel$ but the FAI that to me look like they are cheating, and i can see no other word for what they have decided with a replay. There is nothing in the rules to justify it. But oillie should not be getting away with bullying the FAI in this way, and its a disgrace the FAI folded in such a way. And no way you can say oillie didnt bully the FAI,

The dublin city thing had nothing in the rules, and all precedents throughout europe (in senior competition / national ascotiations) had points expunged.

I cant see any other solution but to overturn todays decision and the teams team battle it out cleanly over the next two weeks.

[Gareth]

21.6 In the case of protests, if the Management Committee has any doubts as to qualification of any player taking part in a competition, it shall have power to call upon such player of the Club, for which he is registered, or for which he played, to prove that he is qualified according to the Rules, and, failing satisfactory proof, the Management Committee shall have the right to deduct the points from the offending Club and take such other action as it may consider necessary . Scores in such matches shall be rendered void, and the Management Committee may also deal with the offending player if necessary.

That kinda expands the barriers outside the remit of proving it was a penalty. Could prove harder to catch them out after seeing that one legally? Thoughts? GarryDerry, we both are in agreement that the replay idea sucks, because I do feel we can win the league regardless of the points lost in that game. The bullying surely had no weight attached if going to courts meant we would breach league rules and be subject to expulsion???

(by the way, I have been reading the rulebook this last hour so apologises for all the rule quoting)

[garyderry]

21.6 In the case of protests, if the Management Committee has any doubts as to qualification of any player taking part in a competition, it shall have power to call upon such player of the Club, for which he is registered, or for which he played, to prove that he is qualified according to the Rules, and, failing satisfactory proof, the Management Committee shall have the right to deduct the points from the offending Club and take such other action as it may consider necessary . Scores in such matches shall be rendered void, and the Management Committee may also deal with the offending player if necessary.

That kinda expands the barriers outside the remit of proving it was a penalty. Could prove harder to catch them out after seeing that one legally? Thoughts? GarryDerry, we both are in agreement that the replay idea sucks, because I do feel we can win the league regardless of the points lost in that game. The bullying surely had no weight attached if going to courts meant we would breach league rules and be subject to expulsion???

(by the way, I have been reading the rulebook this last hour so apologises for all the rule quoting)

That rule is in relation to the qualification of a player to play for a club, Jason McGuiness was clearly qaulified to play for bohs, just supposed to be suspended, and bohs will still debate the fact they were informed in the first place, if this indeed had been in relation to suspended players it would be completely wide open to decide anything anyone wanted, however the FAI have opened a complete hornests nest saying decisions are made in the interests of fair play, as they couldnt find anything in the rules.

I see oillie on tv3 bitter still bitter with Stephen Kenny in relation to dublin city, its hardly kenny's fault they went bust, he ask stephen "in the interests of winning the league on the pitch" to give $hel$ the points back from dublin city? its obvious thats where all this is coming from.

Its the interests of FAIR PLAY that really gets me, i know its not $hel$ responsibility to inform Bohs of mcguiness's suspension, however in the interest if "fair play" it is completely clear they should have felt compelled to inform bohs, i would be disgusted if derry officials attepmted this in any form, and im sure the vast majority of EL fans would feel the same about their club.

Oillie Byrne has no interest in the bets for the sport, the best for the league or the best of anything but $hel$, even to the detriment of $hel$ in the long run.

[Dr.Nightdub]

Isn't a bit bloody ironic that they want they game replayed as speedily as possible "in the interests of fair play".

Call me cynical but that to me translates as "We know most of Bohs squad is currently crocked and they're down to picking a team from half a dozen teenagers, the ball boys and the tea-lady, so a speedy replay against such a chronically-weakened Bohs should hand Shels the three points on a plate."

In the interests of fair play, the replay if it goes ahead should have to wait until Bohs' team selection for the original match is fully match fit again and available for selection.

And if Bohs "happened" to have an injury problem every week, and the replay had to be delayed indefinitely, so be it. I'm sure in the interests of inter-club co-operation, our "Osam Is Doubtful Dept" could act as consultants...

[Billy Lord]

I will do all in my limited power to belittle those who govern the game. Delaney and co are self-serving morons and they must be exposed as such.
Mickey Mouse league, you're having a laugh. Anyone who supports the EL/FAI axis of eneptitude is an idiot. QEfakkinD

[pete]

Eventhough the decision benefits my club i can't see how it was made.

Surely now Dundalk & Shamrock Rovers will also have to be replayed or is it just a precdent for some cases?

:confused:

[garyderry]

Eventhough the decision benefits my club i can't see how it was made.

Surely now Dundalk & Shamrock Rovers will also have to be replayed or is it just a precdent for some cases?

:confused:

naw oillie only asked for one game to be replayed so dundalk and shamrock rovers have to play within the rules and many previous precedents, not those made up on the fly by oillie and the FAI for "special fair play"

[dcfcsteve]

21.4 In a match under the jurisdiction of the League any Club playing a player who is under suspension by the FAI or the F.A.I. National League will have three points deducted from its score in respect of each match the suspended player has participated in and be liable to such other penalty as the Board decides. The onus is upon the Club to satisfy itself that the player is not under suspension


Clearly this part of the rulebook was applied for whatever reason. The league clearly acted on the extra clause in this case, whilst ignoring the entire rule in the Rovers case. I am not backing up the FAI, I am merely stating that what happened was within the rulebook, and Shels didn't make the decision (outside of the paranoia that we in fact run the league).

Absolute bullsh!t Gareth.

The rulebook is very clear that the core penalty is a 3pt fine. It leaves the door open for further penalties - e.g. financial - which Bohs sufered, but says nothing about ordering a replay. A replay is NOT a penalty, as if you win a replay how the hell have you suffered !?!? :confused:

The bottom line is that the original decision by the league upheld the rules, as listed above. Your gimp of a CEO didn't like or accept that, and went crying to the FAI using irrelevant examples from Outer Mongolia. The fact that the sole reason the FAI gave for their decision was "Fair play" shows that their decision was not based on any rules. As if it was, they would have stated which rule.

This is a complete and utter FAI fudge, forced on them by your ex-convict bully of a CEO. Shame on him and your seedy little club. It brings me no joy to see any football club in financial problems, but I have no doubt that there's a lot of people in Irish football who are now looking forward to the inevitable day that the financial sham that Shels is comes tumbling down. Call it Karma...

[dcfcsteve]

Bohs can now also demand a replay for a defeat to Derry when Hargan played and was allegedly suspended.

Please do - and I mean that genuinely.

Every club should rip the arse out of this rule now - including Bohs and Dundalk.

The FAI need to see what an absolute farec they've made of things by making up a rule to appease the outlaw Ollie Byrne.

Perhaps it's only by seeing this year's league race descend into utter farce that we will finally get some proper administration in domestic football. If the price of that is Derry having to replay Bohs, and possibly dropping points, then so be it. But the farce cannot continue any more.

[Billy Lord]

Well, I'm a Shamrock Rovers fan and I believe in fair play. What's good enough for Shels and Bohs is surely good enough for us and Dundalk?

[Burnsie]

although we have to be wary of these overtly biased opinions. i must say i have to agree with almost everything garyderry has said.

gareth's point about the rulebook itself is interesting though.


UNREGISTERED

19.11 Any Club found to have played an un-registered player or players in any match under the jurisdiction of the League (save as otherwise provided for in the competition rules for the U21 League) shall be fined €2,500 per match and shall forfeit three points per match in which the player has played in as an unregistered player.

19.12 In circumstances where the General Manager is satisfied that the failure to register a player(s) was due to human error and there was no intent to contravene the rule on the part of either the Club or the player in question and in circumstances where the League has not notified the Club of the non-registration of the player, discretion may be exercised to reduce the penalty to a minimum of three points.

21.4 In a match under the jurisdiction of the League any Club playing a player who is under suspension by the FAI or the F.A.I. National League will have three points deducted from its score in respect of each match the suspended player has participated in and be liable to such other penalty as the Board decides. The onus is upon the Club to satisfy itself that the player is not under suspension



do the highlighted passages suggest that the concept of a penalty is in fact limited to a points deduction and a pecuniary fine (so could not include the order of a replay)? the two elements are mentioned cumulatively in 19.11, and the fact that the minimum punishment in the next paragraph mentions one and not the other might mean that they are collectively exhaustive.

actually, that's probably a red herring. far more relevant is the point that what was decided simply cannot constitute "such other penalty" because it is patently not a penalty to bohemians at all. not in law and not in fact, since shels made it quite clear that what they were seeking was redress for their own situation, i.e. compensation.

the "fair play" justification is simply laughable for more reasons than this late hour will permit exploring. for one thing, the fact that shels knew of mcguinness's ineligibility and did not raise any objection at the point of kick-off surely robs them of any later recourse to the principles of "fair play", which though a nebulous concept must involve some element of reciprocity.

more importantly, it is a vague and elastic term that facilitates palm tree justice. it is ridiculous to invoke it in the face of and in spite of clearly stated rules.

what a mess lads.

[dcfcsteve]

How the hell can a replay be viewed as a penalty ?!?

If Bohs win the replay - how the hell have they been 'punished' by such a penalty ?? Srely a peanlty should punish you - not just have the potential to punish you, depending on its outcome ? I'm surprised they didn't propose dunking McGuiness in water, and if he drowned he'd be innocent and if he floats/swims then order a replay !

Bohs will also have what I suspect will be a fairly healthy attendance at this game - so they could end up winning it and making a good few quid. So where the fcuk is the penalty in all of that ??

Complete and utter nonesense...:mad:

[crc]

I am utterly disillusioned with this whole mess. Obviously I'd still like Derry to win the league, but at the end of the day, what is winning such a farce of a league worth? The really sad fact is that this will turn many potential fans away from league, and even has the potential to turn away some existing ones (neither of which we can afford).

However, the point about defining what it means to suspend a player, is a good one. A player is suspended because of some indiscression he made in a previous game. The point of the punishment is to discourage the player from commiting the indiscression in the previous game in the first place. The point of the suspension is NOT to make the subsequent game easier on the opposition team.

Therefore, the suspension has absolutely nothing to do with Shelbourne. Unlike an unregistered or even a cup-tied player, the composition of the Bohs side that night was of no concern to Shelbourne. If for nothing else, because the order in which you play your fixtures is completely arbitrary. What if the game had been called off because of rain/snow/fog/UFO invasion, what then? Would McGuinness have served his suspension against the next team that Bohs played or against the refixed Shels game?

I repeat, because a suspension is punishment for a past indiscretion, [B]the suspension of a player does not concern a third club[B] (except in its capacity as a member of the league); it only concerns that players club and whichever governing body yer having for breakfast today.

[Macy]

How the hell can a replay be viewed as a penalty ?!?

If Bohs win the replay - how the hell have they been 'punished' by such a penalty ?? Srely a peanlty should punish you - not just have the potential to punish you, depending on its outcome ? I'm surprised they didn't propose dunking McGuiness in water, and if he drowned he'd be innocent and if he floats/swims then order a replay !
Even a point would reduce the penalty, not increase it. There is no justification on this in terms of increasing the penaties to Bohs, as there is no additional punishment. Worst case for Bohs is the same points deduction and more cash through the turnstiles, so the Shels fans can stop any pretence about the rule book saying they can increase the punishment, as that clearly isn't happening.

[David]

I know little or nothing of Eircom League politics or about Ollie Byrne but to be totally honest if I was a Shels fans I would be very annoyed at this decision. The logical thing to do if a player fields an ineligible player is to award the game to the opposition. A replay is simply nonsensical. Why was it not awarded to Shels in the first place? Sure three points cannot just simply be wiped out. In the original game Shels did no wrong and were beaten by a team who had a player that should not have been on the pitch. Therefore it should have been a straightforward decision intially, a Shelbourne win.

[OneRedArmy]

Gareth, I generally respect your posts but your analysis of the rules are just plain wrong.

The clause you quote relating to "other action" refers only to other action to be potentially taken against Bohs. The rulebook does not have any provision for the other club to replay, receive the points or in any way alter the result of the game.

Is this fair? Probably not, but this is irrelevant, as your club signed up to the rules.

Trying to lump the Derry and Dublin City fcuk ups into the same pot is simply smoke and mirrors, because each decision should be reached independently on its own merit.

As it stands Derry avoided losing points because the rules weren't followed.

We have a saying in Derry "take your oil". Thats exactly what Shels need to do.

And to finish off, even you must see the irony in the FAI awarding Ollie something in the interests of fair play. A concept to which he is an absolute stranger.

Disgusted.

[sonofstan]

One point which seems to be confusing people and which should be cleared up is this; we won the original game, and were therefore awarded three points. We were then discovered to have fielded an ineligible player and were, as a a punishment, docked 3 points by the league. What is important is that they are not the same three points; in other words the result of the game stands, the deducted three points are a simple deduction unrelated to any particular game.

This punishment still stands, and since Bohs have decided not to contest that decision - made by the league - it will presumably stand. What the FAI seem to have decided is this; Shelbourne were placed at a disadvantage in the game, and Bohs given an unfair advantage by allowing Jason McGuinness to play, and that, therefore the game should be expunged from the record. What this means is, presumably, we will have 3 further points - the points we were awarded for our win in the original game - taken from our total. Therefore the most we can hope to get is back to the status quo, whereas Shels can improve their position by three points - and Derry have effectively lost their game in hand.

As has been pointed out above, the injustice is clear; we should have been punished for a contravention of the rules of the league and were; if, in the eyes of the league, Shels were put at a decisve disadvantage because of Jason McGuinness' presence on the field - that is the most difficult thing to swallow - then, at the time, the result should have been reversed; a replay is an absurdity.

[Mr_Parker]

Gareth, I generally respect your posts but your analysis of the rules are just plain wrong.

The clause you quote relating to "other action" refers only to other action to be potentially taken against Bohs. The rulebook does not have any provision for the other club to replay, receive the points or in any way alter the result of the game.

Is this fair? Probably not, but this is irrelevant, as your club signed up to the rules.

Trying to lump the Derry and Dublin City fcuk ups into the same pot is simply smoke and mirrors, because each decision should be reached independently on its own merit.

As it stands Derry avoided losing points because the rules weren't followed.

We have a saying in Derry "take your oil". Thats exactly what Shels need to do.

And to finish off, even you must see the irony in the FAI awarding Ollie something in the interests of fair play. A concept to which he is an absolute stranger.

Disgusted.

I haven't read all of this thread and this might have already been mentioned but does anyone know if the FAI adapted the FIFA Dsciplinary Code (June 2005) into their Articles of Association?

From what I have read about this case, it would seem Shelboune do have a point i.e. the FIFA code indicateds 3 points with a 3-0 scoreline awarded. However if the FAI had adapted these into their Articles/rules then whatever adaptation the FAI made when including them into their Articles would have come into affect but again from what I have read it does not seem that the FAI have adapted them into their Articles.

Is there any links to the FAI Constitution/Articles and the Eircom League rules?

[Calcio Jack]

Eventhough the decision benefits my club i can't see how it was made.

Surely now Dundalk & Shamrock Rovers will also have to be replayed or is it just a precdent for some cases?

:confused:

Dundalk can't now turn around and demand a replay, the difference being that Shels didn't accept the original decision to dock 3 points from Bohs but from day one made an official appeal which resulted in yesterdays decision. Dundalk haven't followed that route and have missed the deadlines by which they should of appealed.... now that of course doesn't mean the FAI wouldn't now entertain a appeal from Dundalk, however IMO were Dundalk to do that it would be nothing more than an opportunistic ruse on their part , which IMO would make them no better than the idiots in Merrion Square.

[OneRedArmy]

I haven't read all of this thread and this might have already been mentioned but does anyone know if the FAI adapted the FIFA Dsciplinary Code (June 2005) into their Articles of Association?

From what I have read about this case, it would seem Shelboune do have a point i.e. the FIFA code indicateds 3 points with a 3-0 scoreline awarded. However if the FAI had adapted these into their Articles/rules then whatever adaptation the FAI made when including them into their Articles would have come into affect but again from what I have read it does not seem that the FAI have adapted them into their Articles.

Is there any links to the FAI Constitution/Articles and the Eircom League rules?
This was not incorporated into the EL rules.

Remember that until the end of this season, the EL and FAI are separate bodies, with the EL being the primary administrative rulemaker and the FAI having an appelate function.

I'm certainly not contesting the fairness of the rules as currently drafted (the 3-0 rule makes absolute sense), but you can't start retrospectively applying rules!

The rules as applied to this season offer no avenue for the team playing against a suspended player to alter the result.

In addition, Sonofstan is correct. The 3 point deduction is NOT the 3 points won in the match.

[Gareth]

To the various posters saying what I said was talking bull**** and that I am wrongly looking at the rules, I will state slowly and clearly once again (I assume people are just reading parts and not all of my posts).

I disagree with the replay. I think its a bad decision that was always going to provoke this reaction.

Secondly there is a subsequent rule in the book which covers this and does not mention penalty.


21.6 In the case of protests, if the Management Committee has any doubts as to qualification of any player taking part in a competition, it shall have power to call upon such player of the Club, for which he is registered, or for which he played, to prove that he is qualified according to the Rules, and, failing satisfactory proof, the Management Committee shall have the right to deduct the points from the offending Club and take such other action as it may consider necessary . Scores in such matches shall be rendered void, and the Management Committee may also deal with the offending player if necessary.

The fact the FAI released a statement saying it is due to FAIR PLAY is massively off the scale wrong. I do not know what they were thinking.

Apart from that, I was merely trying to logically figure out, disregarding themedai statement, how the FAI could come to such a decision. There are rules that can be interpreted to fit the replay but its down to an Arbitaration committee to agree it fit the book.

I think because I am a Shels fan, people think I am trying to defend this action. I am not. You make your bed and lie in it. I know Shels had the right to appeal the decision orginally made, and under the rulebook, bringing a case to court can see you expelled from the league, I believe, so surely a threat of court action would not carry much weight.

Eitherway, I would like to point out we are top of teh table on the merts of our squad winning more points fairly. At this point our league position is justifed. I disagree with the label of cheats on our heads, because the players have done their bit this season and as a fan of the football, I will defend them.

[harps1954]

21.6 In the case of protests, if the Management Committee has any doubts as to qualification of any player taking part in a competition, it shall have power to call upon such player of the Club, for which he is registered, or for which he played, to prove that he is qualified according to the Rules, and, failing satisfactory proof, the Management Committee shall have the right to deduct the points from the offending Club and take such other action as it may consider necessary . Scores in such matches shall be rendered void, and the Management Committee may also deal with the offending player if necessary.

In relation to the point in bold above, the League Management Committee did not feel it necessary to take any other action against Bohs/McGuinness.

I think it is unfair here to blame the league. The league made a decision based on the rule above - a decision which they made on quite a few occassions over the last few years. Remember Athlone and Monaghan amongst others have had points deducted in the past for the same offence - playing a suspended player. There is two things here which annoy me:

1. I do know that Shelbourne have been the losers in this case as they are the ones that are missing out, without committing a crime. However, as far as I know, Shelbourne played Bohemians with eleven players against eleven players. They couldn't beat Bohemians ON THE PITCH and have now found a loophole that could see them get a second chance. Bohs ****ed up and were punished. Is there any Shels fan out there telling me that if Jason McGuinness had been sitting in the stands that Shelbourne would have won the game.

2. Shamrock Rovers were found guility by the League of the same offence that Bohemians committed and were dealt with in the same manner. However, when Rovers appealed the decision to the FAI and went to arbitration (at a cost of €5,000) the FAI deemed to League's decision to stand.

The eircom League are meeting on Friday (all the clubs) to decide if they are going to take this to arbitration. I have no doubt that they will. Then we have a situation were I think something like the following will happen.

- The Eircom League will present their case and point to the numerous situations in the past where they have applied this rule. The League will probably also point to the Shamrock Rovers situation just a few weeks ago.
- The FAI will present their case and must show where in the rulebook "Fair Play" is stipulated and show how they came to their decision.
- The Arbitrator (there is a panel of five arbitrators already in place from the start of the season) must then make a decision based on the evidence presented to him.

This could go on for another month yet. If you look at Rule 31 in the FAI rulebook (on the fai website) you will see that the eircom League has 10 ten days in which to seek arbitration. The arbritrator then must sit within 10 days of been appointed and a decision reached by the arbritator within 5 days. As the decision of the FAI appeals board was made on 31st October, it could be 24th November before there is a final outcome - after the season has ended.

If I was a betting man, I still reckon the original decision made by the Eircom League will stand as it is the only decision that can be applied through either the eircom League or FAI rulebooks.

[Mr_Parker]

This was not incorporated into the EL rules.

Remember that until the end of this season, the EL and FAI are separate bodies, with the EL being the primary administrative rulemaker and the FAI having an appelate function.

I'm certainly not contesting the fairness of the rules as currently drafted (the 3-0 rule makes absolute sense), but you can't start retrospectively applying rules!

The rules as applied to this season offer no avenue for the team playing against a suspended player to alter the result.

In addition, Sonofstan is correct. The 3 point deduction is NOT the 3 points won in the match.

Even though the EL are the primary rulemaker they are subserviant to the FAI rules and in turn FIFA. For example in the IFA Articles they state that were there is a conflict FIFA rules take precedent. I would be surprised if the same did not exist in the FAI Articles/Statutes?

Only a few years ago a Glentoran player was deemed to have been inelligible and glentoran were docked points etc. However Glentoran were able to show that the IFA's failure to impliment a FIFA directive in regards to 'players status' left the IFA with no choice but to do a 'u' turn on the matter.

[dcfcsteve]

I know little or nothing of Eircom League politics or about Ollie Byrne but to be totally honest if I was a Shels fans I would be very annoyed at this decision. The logical thing to do if a player fields an ineligible player is to award the game to the opposition. A replay is simply nonsensical. Why was it not awarded to Shels in the first place? Sure three points cannot just simply be wiped out. In the original game Shels did no wrong and were beaten by a team who had a player that should not have been on the pitch. Therefore it should have been a straightforward decision intially, a Shelbourne win.

No there shouldn't, as the rule book doesn't allow or enable that decision.

You can't just ignore what's in the rule book and seek to impose decisions you think are supposedly 'fair', despite what the book says.

[David]

No there shouldn't, as the rule book doesn't allow or enable that decision.

You can't just ignore what's in the rule book and seek to impose decisions you think are supposedly 'fair', despite what the book says.

It seems from what has been posted above the rules do allow for it.

[dcfcsteve]

In relation to the point in bold above, the League Management Committee did not feel it necessary to take any other action against Bohs/McGuinness.

I think it is unfair here to blame the league. The league made a decision based on the rule above - a decision which they made on quite a few occassions over the last few years. Remember Athlone and Monaghan amongst others have had points deducted in the past for the same offence - playing a suspended player. There is two things here which annoy me:

1. I do know that Shelbourne have been the losers in this case as they are the ones that are missing out, without committing a crime. However, as far as I know, Shelbourne played Bohemians with eleven players against eleven players. They couldn't beat Bohemians ON THE PITCH and have now found a loophole that could see them get a second chance. Bohs ****ed up and were punished. Is there any Shels fan out there telling me that if Jason McGuinness had been sitting in the stands that Shelbourne would have won the game.

2. Shamrock Rovers were found guility by the League of the same offence that Bohemians committed and were dealt with in the same manner. However, when Rovers appealed the decision to the FAI and went to arbitration (at a cost of €5,000) the FAI deemed to League's decision to stand.

The eircom League are meeting on Friday (all the clubs) to decide if they are going to take this to arbitration. I have no doubt that they will. Then we have a situation were I think something like the following will happen.

- The Eircom League will present their case and point to the numerous situations in the past where they have applied this rule. The League will probably also point to the Shamrock Rovers situation just a few weeks ago.
- The FAI will present their case and must show where in the rulebook "Fair Play" is stipulated and show how they came to their decision.
- The Arbitrator (there is a panel of five arbitrators already in place from the start of the season) must then make a decision based on the evidence presented to him.

This could go on for another month yet. If you look at Rule 31 in the FAI rulebook (on the fai website) you will see that the eircom League has 10 ten days in which to seek arbitration. The arbritrator then must sit within 10 days of been appointed and a decision reached by the arbritator within 5 days. As the decision of the FAI appeals board was made on 31st October, it could be 24th November before there is a final outcome - after the season has ended.

If I was a betting man, I still reckon the original decision made by the Eircom League will stand as it is the only decision that can be applied through either the eircom League or FAI rulebooks.

If fair play in its truest sense is followed (i.e. playing by the rules), then I can't see how arbitration could result in anything else than what you've stated.

You'd think the FAI mighty have pre-empted what would happen out of their decision, followed a similar logic flow to the above and realised it was highly likely that a replay decision would be reversed. Then, if they had foresaw what would probably happen, they could've made the right decision in the first place without destroying their credibility, p!ssing everyone off and making an absolute arse of the season.

Muppetry of the highest order....

[dcfcsteve]

It seems from what has been posted above the rules do allow for it.

What rules ?

The Eircom League rules don't - hence the decision the Eircom League came to.

[bohs til i die]

Just an idea

Ireland Play Scotland on the 14th in Dalymount ina B international. Imagine the furore and the response from UEFA if a game under their jurisdiction is held up because of a on pitch protest?

[David]

:

However, as far as I know, Shelbourne played Bohemians with eleven players against eleven players.

But one of Bohemians 11 players should not have been on the pitch.

[Stuttgart88]

Just an idea

Ireland Play Scotland on the 14th in Dalymount ina B international. Imagine the furore and the response from UEFA if a game under their jurisdiction is held up because of a on pitch protest?Imagine the furore from punters like me!

I think the point above is the important issue, of the 11 vs 11, one wasn't entitled to play, so Shels should have the right to a replay in my opinion, just as a point of principle / moral justice. I hope the league is won irrespective of the 3 points at stake here.

Whatever about the notification and the timing of disciplinerary meetings etc., surely the clubs and the players themselves know when a suspension is due.

Utterly incredible situation all round.

[wws]

Whatever about the notification and the timing of disciplinerary meetings etc., surely the clubs and the players themselves know when a suspension is due.




a point not really mentioned heretofore

Bohemians played "silly buggers" here and IMO deliberately fielded McGuinness to create mischief

[OneRedArmy]

Shels should have the right to a replay in my opinion, just as a point of principle / moral justice.If true moral justice were to prevail, Tolka would still be under 20 feet of water and Shels would have gone the way of Dublin City a long time ago.

[bohs til i die]

a point not really mentioned heretofore

Bohemians played "silly buggers" here and IMO deliberately fielded McGuinness to create mischief

why would we do that?

[Dodge]

Imagine the furore from punters like me!
Tough, even if I think any protest of this type pointless...



I think the point above is the important issue, of the 11 vs 11, one wasn't entitled to play, so Shels should have the right to a replay in my opinion, just as a point of principle / moral justice. I hope the league is won irrespective of the 3 points at stake here.

Whatever about the notification and the timing of disciplinerary meetings etc., surely the clubs and the players themselves know when a suspension is due.

Bohs contacted the FAI looking for confirmation and were told he was OK to play. Bohs argued they were not notified correctly but shose to accept the 3 point punishment

Derry played a player suspended, were not notified correctly, and had no action taken against them.

Rovers signed a player, who was suspended at a time he had no club, played him and were deducted 3 points. No replay

Its the ****ing inconsitencies that make it a sham

[David]

Tough, even if I think any protest of this type pointless...


Bohs contacted the FAI looking for confirmation and were told he was OK to play. Bohs argued they were not notified correctly but shose to accept the 3 point punishment

Derry played a player suspended, were not notified correctly, and had no action taken against them.

Rovers signed a player, who was suspended at a time he had no club, played him and were deducted 3 points. No replay

Its the ****ing inconsitencies that make it a sham

These are very fair points. Can't see anyone disagreeing.

[WeAreRovers]

Rovers signed a player, who was suspended at a time he had no club, played him and were deducted 3 points. No replay



Spot on about the inconsistencies. To clarify the Rovers position - when Dublin City shuffled off this mortal coil all of their players' registrations reverted back to the eircom league. It was then their responsibilty to inform all clubs about the players' availability, suspensions etc. they didn't do this.

To add insult to injury the Eircom League proceeded to ignore the fact they had blatantly broken their own rules in an admittedly unprecedented situation and then decided to lie and bluff their way through the process. Along the way they slandered the reputation of the player in question and his former manager.

Where's the Fair Play? Whether it be from the eL or the FAI? A blazer-wearing lying, incompetent fool is just that.

KOH

[Stuttgart88]

Ah well, if it's any comfort at least it's not just the FAI & eL...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/international_and_australian/6098474.stm