Printable View
But if Waterford do get the two points because ye fielded an ineligible player than the "fault", as it were, is with Athlone not Waterford, I think is his point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
Nothing about it on the suspensions and fine link for this week though
Under normal circumstances, then yes, but the point I am making is that thereQuote:
Originally Posted by christo
are abnormal circumstances surrounding the case, which I cannot go into, and
to me these alleviates any blame from Athlone.
You didn't ring the FAI and ask if he was OK to play, did you?!
this is a discussion forum ash and it allows people to read between the lines even if they do not know specifics of a case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
climb down off your high horse as the suggestion is that athlone are going to be docked a point by the fai disciplinary commitee
if we are to require specifics on each case before we can comment on same this would be a much worse forum.
Oh I know, and opinions are like árses, we all have them but making a boldQuote:
Originally Posted by sligored
statement such as "I'd be pointing the finger at x,y,z" when you dont
actually know the case is plain silly in my view. Nothing to do with a high
horse, I just prefer not to make judgements like that unless I actually know
the facts! But hey, maybe thats just me!
As for requiring specifics on each case before commenting, a lot of cases are
cut and dry so no need for specifics, but sometimes things aren't all as simple
as they appear and so in such cases it kinda makes sence to hold off on the
judge, jury and executioner until you actually know the details!
are you saying that there is no chance that benson was ineligible for the game and are 100% positive that the fai should not discuss this at the disciplinary meeting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
If you confirm this i will retract what i said
As I said, in my mind, and basing my opinion solely on the actual specific detailsQuote:
Originally Posted by sligored
I know, there is no doubt in my mind that the player was eligible to play.
As said before, due to the matter still being with the various committies I cant
go into the specifics but should they come to light it will show my reasons for
thinking so.
If however my info on the matter turns out to be incorrect then fair enough I'll hold
my hand up and agree with punishment.
It may have been something as simple as him being registered to play for Athlone's underage teams but not the senior team. They are registered separately. That's just a wild guess though as I know that kind of thing can be accidentally overlooked. Has he played any other games this season?
Didn't post earlier as was a way and there was nothing to post anyway.
The Star aside, there has been no official decision yet, as the committees concerned opted for a 24 hour extension to address some new information.
The decision was due to be communicated this afternoon, but will now be released tomorrow.
from fai press releaseQuote:
Originally Posted by sligored
Athlone Town forfeited the match (0-3) and fined €2,500 for playing an unregistered player v Waterford United (03.10.08).
now ash - lets defend your rule breach
I dont agree with the verdict at all and at the moment I am prohibited fromQuote:
Originally Posted by sligored
saying anything more on the topic. Being a reader between lines Im sure you
can figure out why.
And as I said in an earlier post, if the backing behind my sureness (is that a
word?) turns out to be based on false information then I hold my hand up
and accept the decision.
2500 :o that's a lot of meatballs.
Just been informed at our appeal against point deduction and fine arising from
the "player registration" issue was heard at 4pm yesterday ... and we won :)
That is all :D
So does that mean Waterford lose the 2 points?
I presume so ... and we should regain the one we lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Didnt get the full details, just was told the outcome
if true i somehow doubt we'll do anything about it now. how do the FAI come to a decision, while the appeals panel come to a different decision :confused:
I imagine it's because the FAI didn't read their rules properly when they made the decision (or the rules didn't read as they intended).
We got fined last year for having no technical area for an U-21s game which was played on the Fosters Avenue pitch, for example; we appealed on the basis that UEFA Licencing doesn't apply to the U-21s league, and we won.
but all i'm saying is, why did the FAI think he was ineligible, but the appeal came to a different finding. surely he's either eligible or he's not!! why did it take an appeals panel to figure it out :confused:
Because (going my assumption; this isn't necessarily what happened) the FAI are idiots who don't understand their own rules until the errors are pointed out to them.
Had Waterford been in contention for the first division crown, would the appeals crowd of overturned the FAI findings? Just a question?
The points don't matter as much to Waterford now as they did last week
i doubt it, they are free to do it now since they wont get any objections about it, maybe they just did it to show everyone how much of a shambles the FAI really are. :)
The story is as follows (per official communication to the club).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
The successful appeal was not based on the ineligibility of the player in question, but rather on an irregularity in the diciplinary committee proceedings.
The decision should have been made by means of a simple majority decision with no abstensions allowed. This was not fully understood it seems, and a member of the committee with what might have been percieved as a vested interest abstained (in fact absented himself), and it is on this basis that Athlone's appeal was successful.
Personally, it doesn't matter to us anymore so I couldn't care less, but it's harsh on a chap that the correct decision was reversed by him trying to do the right thing.
So basically as was pointed out the FAI didn't know their own procedures?. Marvellous, not that it matters.
No, it was posited that the FAI don't know their own rules, with the suggestion that it was the rules of eligibility that they got wrong. It wasn't. TBH this seems to be a rule that, if the person in question had followed it there would in all likelihood have been a greater cry of foul play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
It doesn't matter a whit to us now, but I could see that rule causing real uproar (not a few Dundalk fans on here and Keely) if it involved a team in the running for something, as basically the rule compels everyone on the disciplinary committee to vote on a decision of this nature even if they are from the area of one of the parties involved.
Why select someone with a Waterford connection for the 3 man panel in the first place?
Had these two points decided the league it would have been a disgrace.
So can somebody tell what the league table will be please.
Shels are a point ahead of Dundalk. That's all that matters.
I'm sure the FAI are rewriting it as we type!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rovers Maniac