Awarding clubs league points.

[christo]

Well the case is all based around specifics and based on those circumstances,
I would say No, we didnt field an ineligible player.

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.

Nothing about it on the suspensions and fine link for this week though

[Ash]

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.

Under normal circumstances, then yes, but the point I am making is that there
are abnormal circumstances surrounding the case, which I cannot go into, and
to me these alleviates any blame from Athlone.

[pineapple stu]

You didn't ring the FAI and ask if he was OK to play, did you?!

[sligored]

Under normal circumstances, then yes, but the point I am making is that there
are abnormal circumstances surrounding the case, which I cannot go into, and
to me these alleviates any blame from Athlone.

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.

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.

[Ash]

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.

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 bold
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!

[sligored]

Oh I know, and opinions are like árses, we all have them but making a bold
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.

If you confirm this i will retract what i said

[Ash]

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.

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 details
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.

[Longfordian]

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?

[stann]

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.

[sligored]

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.

If you confirm this i will retract what i said

from fai press release


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

[Ash]

from fai press release


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 from
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.

[RonnieB]

2500 that's a lot of meatballs.

[Ash]

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

[Dodge]

So does that mean Waterford lose the 2 points?

[Ash]

So does that mean Waterford lose the 2 points?

I presume so ... and we should regain the one we lost.

Didnt get the full details, just was told the outcome

[blue til i die]

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

[pineapple stu]

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.

[blue til i die]

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

[pineapple stu]

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.

[jinxy lilywhite]

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