FAI Junior Cup 2009/10

**Goals4fun** · 24/03/2010, 7:51 AM

[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.........

**serpico** · 24/03/2010, 8:26 AM

Goals ye played a fella who wasn't even signed."Sergio ".?????that's what ye had on the card.now come on.

**the bandit** · 24/03/2010, 9:55 AM

Originally Posted by serpico

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.

**Goals4fun** · 24/03/2010, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by serpico

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....

**serpico** · 24/03/2010, 10:46 AM

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.

**faces** · 24/03/2010, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by serpico

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

**serpico** · 24/03/2010, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by faces

what paper

Limerick leader.

**Longshanks** · 24/03/2010, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by serpico

Limerick leader.

Wonder what it says in the 'Tipp Tribune' or equivalent 'local' paper, surely the same impartial reporting of a fudge, No???

**Goals4fun** · 24/03/2010, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by serpico

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...

**Longshanks** · 24/03/2010, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Goals4fun

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

**gaidin** · 24/03/2010, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by are you serious

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???

**serpico** · 24/03/2010, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by gaidin

Where will the match be replayed???

cooke park apparently.

**leather** · 24/03/2010, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by are you serious

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....

**Quietman** · 24/03/2010, 1:37 PM

Originally Posted by leather

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.

**the bandit** · 24/03/2010, 2:01 PM

Originally Posted by Quietman

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

**Poolman** · 24/03/2010, 2:06 PM

Originally Posted by Quietman

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.

**bridgeceltic** · 24/03/2010, 2:08 PM

Originally Posted by Quietman

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...

**da bishop** · 24/03/2010, 3:15 PM

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.

**Quietman** · 24/03/2010, 3:25 PM

Originally Posted by da bishop

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.........

**Fairkop** · 24/03/2010, 3:29 PM

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.