FAI Junior Cup 2009/10

**Longshanks** · 13/04/2010, 9:03 AM

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

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** · 13/04/2010, 9:48 AM

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

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** · 13/04/2010, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by redcardrory

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** · 13/04/2010, 1:08 PM

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** · 13/04/2010, 2:57 PM

Originally Posted by joeSoap

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** · 13/04/2010, 3:12 PM

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

**joeSoap** · 13/04/2010, 3:26 PM

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

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** · 13/04/2010, 3:38 PM

Originally Posted by the snake

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** · 13/04/2010, 4:12 PM

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** · 13/04/2010, 4:29 PM

Basically this is probably gonna drag out another while yet

**Pearoso27** · 13/04/2010, 4:37 PM

Originally Posted by Goals4fun

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** · 13/04/2010, 8:13 PM

Originally Posted by Pearoso27

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** · 13/04/2010, 8:16 PM

Originally Posted by Pearoso27

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