Beecher Networks - Web Development, Hosting & Domains
Page 78 of 98 FirstFirst ... 2868767778798088 ... LastLast
Results 1,541 to 1,560 of 1952

Thread: FAI Junior Cup 2009/10

  1. #1541
    First Team Goals4fun's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    [QUOTE=centre mid;1337765]FAI Junior Council Protest Committee DecisionTuesday, 23 March 2010 16:01 PDF | Print | E-mail The Protest Committee of the FAI Junior Council heard a protest by St. Michael's in relation to their FAI Umbro Junior Cup Quarter-Final tie against Pike Rovers on March 14.


    Having heard the protest on Monday, March 22, in FAI Headquarters and having considered all the evidence presented by both parties, the Protest Committee have decided in the best interest of Fair Play, and for the common good of the Cup Competition and Football, that the original game be declared null and void and the game re-fixed for Cooke Park on a date to be decided.


    This decision as per rule can be appealed to the Senior Body. QUOTE]

    that is the fai alright. If pike did nothing wrong then they should be through. if they did wrong they should be out. This is not fair on Pike either and it's not a matter of scared to play etc etc

    I think this shows the fai as a crowd of cowboys (as we know) with the statement 'the Protest Committee have decided in the best interest of Fair Play, and for the common good of the Cup Competition and Football' , where was this statement when Park were thrown out in an earlier round when the fai said 'we can see ye did nothing wrong ', maybe this ruling is just for the big boys.........
    'You should never have a bad game, off the ball.......'

  2. #1542
    Banned serpico's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2008
    Location
    O connell st
    Posts
    374
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    13
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Goals ye played a fella who wasn't even signed."Sergio ".?????that's what ye had on the card.now come on.

  3. #1543
    Banned the bandit's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    110
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    re

    Quote Originally Posted by serpico View Post
    Goals ye played a fella who wasn't even signed."Sergio ".?????that's what ye had on the card.now come on.
    ye had a players nickname on the card according to member of junior council.

  4. #1544
    First Team Goals4fun's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by serpico View Post
    Goals ye played a fella who wasn't even signed."Sergio ".?????that's what ye had on the card.now come on.
    if you check back what happened was his forms were sent to the ldmc, (as normal with ,you get nothing back so you just wait the time for this to go through). This happened in late september. We did not play him till mid october (to allow his registration to go through) , put his name on the card and everything for our games. Then when we play regional in Nov they were made aware of a possible route of objection due to just seeing Sergio on the card (a newspaper reporter told them). Upon investigation it came out the ldmc never recieved the documents for him and paul carr. Why wait 2 weeks to play him? Why not put a different name on the card? we were trying to hide nothing and due to the registraton process not being right/transparent it became apparent that he was not signed. The fai recognised this and said that they could see we did not try to hide him or do anythign wrong, but rules are rules and we were kicked out. No talk of replay etc etc.

    We took it on the chin then, but now that the fai look at the above objection with the view of 'interest of Fair Play, and for the common good of the Cup Competition and Football' it sickens me.....

    Don't get me wrong I am not having a go at Pike but those idiots in HQ supposly running our sport. How can it be that if rules are broken it is one rule for one and one for another....
    'You should never have a bad game, off the ball.......'

  5. #1545
    Banned serpico's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2008
    Location
    O connell st
    Posts
    374
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    13
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Goals an extraction from today's paper."although pike rovers were required to clarify the registration status of one of their players it should be noted that the distirict league side were not found guilty of any wrongdoing and emerged with the reputation of the club intact."I think that says it all.

  6. #1546
    Banned faces's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Location
    county limerick
    Posts
    539
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    28
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by serpico View Post
    goals an extraction from today's paper."although pike rovers were required to clarify the registration status of one of their players it should be noted that the distirict league side were not found guilty of any wrongdoing and emerged with the reputation of the club intact."i think that says it all.
    what paper

  7. #1547
    Banned serpico's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2008
    Location
    O connell st
    Posts
    374
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    13
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by faces View Post
    what paper
    Limerick leader.

  8. #1548
    Reserves
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Location
    sligo
    Posts
    721
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    32
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    40
    Thanked in
    23 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by serpico View Post
    Limerick leader.
    Wonder what it says in the 'Tipp Tribune' or equivalent 'local' paper, surely the same impartial reporting of a fudge, No???
    'I can live with disappointment, its the hope I cant handle'

  9. #1549
    First Team Goals4fun's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by serpico View Post
    Goals an extraction from today's paper."although pike rovers were required to clarify the registration status of one of their players it should be noted that the distirict league side were not found guilty of any wrongdoing and emerged with the reputation of the club intact."I think that says it all.
    you are not listening to me......

    Pike should be through if they did nothing worng. say michaels beat them in the replay, why would that be fair? The result should stand as they were found of no wrong doing...
    'You should never have a bad game, off the ball.......'

  10. #1550
    Reserves
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Location
    sligo
    Posts
    721
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    32
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    40
    Thanked in
    23 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Goals4fun View Post
    you are not listening to me......

    Pike should be through if they did nothing worng. say michaels beat them in the replay, why would that be fair? The result should stand as they were found of no wrong doing...
    If that was in a local Tipp paper it would carry a lot more weight
    'I can live with disappointment, its the hope I cant handle'

  11. #1551
    Reserves gaidin's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Limerick
    Posts
    720
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by are you serious View Post
    The mistake was made by the LDMC. The replay has been ordered because Pike unwillingly played an illegal player. Pike don't deserve to be thrown out because they did nothing wrong, St Michaels dont deserve to be out because Pike gained an unfair advantage (unwillingly). The main question now is if the replay will go ahead at all?
    Where will the match be replayed???

  12. #1552
    Banned serpico's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2008
    Location
    O connell st
    Posts
    374
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    13
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by gaidin View Post
    Where will the match be replayed???
    cooke park apparently.

  13. #1553
    First Team leather's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    WORK
    Posts
    1,564
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    38
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    15 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by are you serious View Post
    The mistake was made by the LDMC. The replay has been ordered because Pike unwillingly played an illegal player. Pike don't deserve to be thrown out because they did nothing wrong, St Michaels dont deserve to be out because Pike gained an unfair advantage (unwillingly). The main question now is if the replay will go ahead at all?
    this ruling is going too open some can of worms in the future....
    sick of narcissists.....

  14. #1554
    Youth Team Quietman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    161
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by leather View Post
    this ruling is going too open some can of worms in the future....
    Lads, I believe St Michaels have gone to the Fai Senior Council to try and get the Junior Council decision overturned and have Pike diqualified.
    "There is no pressure at the top. The pressure's being second or third."

  15. #1555
    Banned the bandit's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    110
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Quietman View Post
    Lads, I believe St Michaels have gone to the Fai Senior Council to try and get the Junior Council decision overturned and have Pike diqualified.
    lads i dont think st micheals want a replay because they dont belive they can beat pike fact that coming from a micheals man

  16. #1556
    Banned Poolman's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shebeen
    Posts
    113
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Quietman View Post
    Lads, I believe St Michaels have gone to the Fai Senior Council to try and get the Junior Council decision overturned and have Pike diqualified.
    cant see the fai senior council overuling junior can you?..if junior council deemed they did nothing wrong st.michaels are getting replay for nothing.

  17. #1557
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    33
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Quietman View Post
    Lads, I believe St Michaels have gone to the Fai Senior Council to try and get the Junior Council decision overturned and have Pike diqualified.
    That would be correct from what i hear also.. It is really being dragged out now isn't it...

  18. #1558
    Reserves
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    825
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    34
    Thanked in
    27 Posts
    as it seems from posters here st.micheals have appealed to the senior council,which would make sense given they had objected to pike..are now back in the competition,only to be now playing the club they objected to ,it should be remembered they didn,t object to the ldmc who might have made a mistake allegedly.making out they would be afraid of a replay is rather petty.the big question is are pike or why have,n pike contested this replay ruling,if they have,n done anything wrong its seems crazy they would accept this decision,why should they have to replay a game they ,in the end ,won well and have they got santion to play the alleged illegal player,players in this match if not why not...in the interests of fair play surely they should be as it appears they had,nt ...unwillingly....done anything wrong.bottom line here is the fai have messed up and now passed the baton on to the senior council.there is no way pike should accept this.

  19. #1559
    Youth Team Quietman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    161
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by da bishop View Post
    as it seems from posters here st.micheals have appealed to the senior council,which would make sense given they had objected to pike..are now back in the competition,only to be now playing the club they objected to ,it should be remembered they didn,t object to the ldmc who might have made a mistake allegedly.making out they would be afraid of a replay is rather petty.the big question is are pike or why have,n pike contested this replay ruling,if they have,n done anything wrong its seems crazy they would accept this decision,why should they have to replay a game they ,in the end ,won well and have they got santion to play the alleged illegal player,players in this match if not why not...in the interests of fair play surely they should be as it appears they had,nt ...unwillingly....done anything wrong.bottom line here is the fai have messed up and now passed the baton on to the senior council.there is no way pike should accept this.
    There can be only two possible outcomes now.......1: The Fai Senior Council uphold the decision of the Junior Council and a reply is ordered, or 2: The Senior Council overturn the decision of the Junior Council and disqualify Pike from the competition thus leaving an all Tipp South semi between St. Michaels and Clonmel Town. Personally I can only see the latter decision coming out of this, which is a real pity IMO but having said that, Pike are guilty and it would seem like the fairest outcome.........
    "There is no pressure at the top. The pressure's being second or third."

  20. #1560
    First Team
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,088
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    41
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    the whole thing is a shambles and the cup has been devalued as a result.if rules have been broken those who broke them should be out.if they have not broke them the objection should have been thrown out,the FAI knew no matter who they ruled for there would be an appeal to the higher body so they took the easy option.

Page 78 of 98 FirstFirst ... 2868767778798088 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FAI Junior Cup 2009/10
    By the 12 th man in forum Junior League
    Replies: 189
    Last Post: 10/06/2010, 10:26 AM
  2. Munster Junior Cup 2009/10
    By Goals4fun in forum Junior League
    Replies: 518
    Last Post: 09/06/2010, 8:57 AM
  3. Connaught Junior Cup 2009/10
    By rava in forum Junior League
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 17/05/2010, 11:54 AM
  4. Leinster Junior Cup 2009/10
    By sheriff2 in forum Junior League
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06/10/2009, 1:40 PM
  5. Munster Junior Cup 2009/10
    By Get a life in forum Junior League
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08/09/2009, 11:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •