McGlynn & O'Neill betting bans

[marinobohs]

But the pojnt being made to you is that the rulebook doesn't seem to make the distinction between betting on matches involving your own team and matches not involving your own team, as long as you're not playing in the matches. Now you may not like that, or agree with it (I think the former is more serious also) but if that is what the rulebook says, the multiple bets by McGlynn would be punished more strictly than the single bet by Dempsey.

The ruling appears to be less than specific to be fair. Perhaps if it is that black and white (as you suggest) then a standart penalty should apply (X games per breach) this would be the logic of your argument but is clearly not the present situation. As ever as long as decisions are made on an ad hoc basis there will be speculation of favouritism/discrimination. Ban will probobly be reduced to one month on appeal anyway - no logic but the authorities seem to allow for "roll back" when making decisions

[CMcC]

Firstly I support Bohs.

At first glance I thought this punishment was outrageous considering the Dempsey punishment.

However I can see the arguement made here and understand the point re the frequency and volume of the offence. Some posters here mentioned 5 bets vs Dempsey's 1 bet.

Now, similiarly I would assume most people would consider Dempsey's offence potentially more serious as he would (potentially) have more of a chance to influence the outcome of a game his club were playing in - considering he's a squad player of the club participating in the game the bet was struck on.

More issues would need to be teased out, like how a player missing the game could in itself have as much influence on the outcome as one actually playing (e.g. Rooney missing a game for Man United could influence their performance thus potentially influencing the result)

This could be irrelavant however because IMO the key factor to consider is that (my understanding of the rule as posted earlier) the rule doesnt mention specifically your own team must be playing in the game to make it an offence. It mentioned the competition which raises a number other questions such as:

1) Does that mean players with a premier club can bet in the first division as thay are not in that competition and vice versa.

2) Obviously cup competitions are a no no, but what happens when their club exits the cup? Are they fair game then to have a punt.

3) What happens in the situation where say a Limerick player decided to have a punt on say Bohs or Rovers in their first European tie this season?

Also if point 1 above can be argued, at least argued its open to interpration does that mean, as someone posted, that as some of the bets struck (but not all) were in the 1st division they could be off the table and not an offence?
Therefore bringing his 5 offences verses Dempsey's 1 offence down to possible 2 or 3 : 1.
I dont have details of the exact bets struck - maybe someone could post it.

The key issue here is that maybe the tack to take would be that the rule is too loose and open to interperation and that it was reasonable to assume you could bet in 1st Division matches. That would not obsolve him from the stupid move to back in Premier games but it may mean the punishment is looked at again.

What would be interesting re the punishment is if the FAI could be pushed to say they took frequency and volume into the equation (as some have argued on this thread) to counter the precedent arguement and it would be IMO a better arguement in an appeal situation. Its reasonable to assume it may have had some bareing.

The player was an idiot. Bohs should not have to pay him a cent though. He didnt declare this when signing for the club (i assume) and when signing a player you have to assume he has not violated any rules of the association that would make him unable to do the duties he is employed to do. He should not be paid for the duration of the ban as he cannot fulfil his contractual obligations through no fault of the club and, more importantly, not as a result of fulfilling any club duty, but through his own idiotic actions.

[marinobohs]

Firstly I support Bohs.

At first glance I thought this punishment was outrageous considering the Dempsey punishment.

However I can see the arguement made here and understand the point re the frequency and volume of the offence. Some posters here mentioned 5 bets vs Dempsey's 1 bet.

Now, similiarly I would assume most people would consider Dempsey's offence potentially more serious as he would (potentially) have more of a chance to influence the outcome of a game his club were playing in - considering he's a squad player of the club participating in the game the bet was struck on.

More issues would need to be teased out, like how a player missing the game could in itself have as much influence on the outcome as one actually playing (e.g. Rooney missing a game for Man United could influence their performance thus potentially influencing the result)

This could be irrelavant however because IMO the key factor to consider is that (my understanding of the rule as posted earlier) the rule doesnt mention specifically your own team must be playing in the game to make it an offence. It mentioned the competition which raises a number other questions such as:

1) Does that mean players with a premier club can bet in the first division as thay are not in that competition and vice versa.

2) Obviously cup competitions are a no no, but what happens when their club exits the cup? Are they fair game then to have a punt.

3) What happens in the situation where say a Limerick player decided to have a punt on say Bohs or Rovers in their first European tie this season?

Also if point 1 above can be argued, at least argued its open to interpration does that mean, as someone posted, that as some of the bets struck (but not all) were in the 1st division they could be off the table and not an offence?
Therefore bringing his 5 offences verses Dempsey's 1 offence down to possible 2 or 3 : 1.
I dont have details of the exact bets struck - maybe someone could post it.

The key issue here is that maybe the tack to take would be that the rule is too loose and open to interperation and that it was reasonable to assume you could bet in 1st Division matches. That would not obsolve him from the stupid move to back in Premier games but it may mean the punishment is looked at again.

What would be interesting re the punishment is if the FAI could be pushed to say they took frequency and volume into the equation (as some have argued on this thread) to counter the precedent arguement and it would be IMO a better arguement in an appeal situation. Its reasonable to assume it may have had some bareing.

The player was an idiot. Bohs should not have to pay him a cent though. He didnt declare this when signing for the club (i assume) and when signing a player you have to assume he has not violated any rules of the association that would make him unable to do the duties he is employed to do. He should not be paid for the duration of the ban as he cannot fulfil his contractual obligations through no fault of the club and, more importantly, not as a result of fulfilling any club duty, but through his own idiotic actions.

It appears (nothing is certain) that the rule prohibits a player betting on any competition he is taking part in -would this include a different division ? unclear. Unlikely (but not certain) that a player not involved in Europe would be prohibited from betting on a european game.
Agree fully that rule is unspecific and as I said this leaves interpretation and penalty in the hands of FAI, an organisation not known for consistency or fairness. Also agree that McGynn was stupid (easy answer is for a pro footballer not to bet on games in Ireland) and that Bohs should not pay him for an ban resulting from issues not related to Bohs.

[Dodge]

I'd imagine the FAI left the rule as vague as it is to prevent all possible loopholes. It really as simple as "if you play in the league of Ireland, you can't bet on any games involving League of Ireland teams"

My wording, but to be honest, any LOI player who bets is looking for trouble. Plenty of other things people can bet on

[micls]

But the point being made to you is that the rulebook doesn't seem to make the distinction between betting on matches involving your own team and matches not involving your own team, as long as you're not playing in the matches. Now you may not like that, or agree with it (I think the former is more serious also) but if that is what the rulebook says, the multiple bets by McGlynn would be punished more strictly than the single bet by Dempsey.

However in football 2 offences which break the same rule do not always have the same punishment.

I.e. 2 offences considered 'violent conduct' could get significantly different bans if one is considered more serious.

When there is no specified punishment there is room to punish diferrent offences in different ways.

Just because the same general rule was broken by both does not automatically equate to the severity of the offense. So the FAi could decide that under this rule betting against your own team is worse and deserves a longer punishment, as with violent conduct.

[marinobohs]

I'd imagine the FAI left the rule as vague as it is to prevent all possible loopholes. It really as simple as "if you play in the league of Ireland, you can't bet on any games involving League of Ireland teams"

My wording, but to be honest, any LOI player who bets is looking for trouble. Plenty of other things people can bet on

Totally agree Dodge and whats more bearing in mind the "ambiguity" of the rule I think any player gambling on any LOI match is stupid to take the risk.
I suppose one amusing aspect is that none of those caught to date seem to have made any money out of it - so if it was fraud/cheating they were not very good at it

Much simpler to have a rule banning betting on specified matches (Prem. first FAI Cup etc) and a specific penalty for breach. this would clarify the situation and forever end the "I didn't think it was wrong" defence (which can thereafter be reserved for Derry players charged with incest/paedophile or animal linked offences ).

[Mr A]

If you do that you end up with the same punishment for a €5 bet and a €10,000 bet. OK, you could legislate for that too but there'll always be something that was not thought of (as licensing has proved repeatedly).

As mentioned above, a certain level of ambiguity is probably necessary in the rules to prevent people using loopholes in the rulebook.

[SkStu]

im on board with the 5 bets is a greater offence than 1 bet rule that has been argued here. Makes good sense and provides some rationale as to why the ban is on the lengthy side.

However, and this is just by the way, if you are going to say that a bet is a bet is a bet, irrespective of who you betted against or for (i.e. your own team), then i reject the assertion in Dodges posts that the monetary amount of the bet(s) could or should matter. If the offence is just breaching the rule then the other issues should not be looked at. If you were to look at the other issues (amount, team involved) then the issue gets messy and then you could probably argue that Dempseys offence was worse (morally) and that Morrows was worse again (morally). Other than that i agree with the general consensus here and also that McGlynn was stupid.

[MariborKev]

Morrow made money on a number of his. Albeit he was betting on us to win.

[osarusan]

Morrow made money on a number of his. Albeit he was betting on us to win.

Should that make a difference though? The rule is against betting, not winning.

However, and this is just by the way, if you are going to say that a bet is a bet is a bet, irrespective of who you betted against or for (i.e. your own team), then i reject the assertion in Dodges posts that the monetary amount of the bet(s) could or should matter. If the offence is just breaching the rule then the other issues should not be looked at.

I think Dodge's point was that nobody is going to try and influence a game to win 40 or 50 euro, whereas it's more likely when somebody is betting 10,000 or so. But I'd argue that they're different offences - the first is simply betting on a game, the second is actually trying to influence the result of a game, and would merit a much much harsher punishment, if I were writing the rules.

[Dodge]

I reckon that job is vacant osarusan

[MariborKev]

Should that make a difference though? The rule is against betting, not winning.

I agree, I was merely responding to the point about the players not winning any of the bets.

[marinobohs]

I agree, I was merely responding to the point about the players not winning any of the bets.

Mea Culpa MK ! was not aware of Morrows "win(s)". Just struck me that as fraud goes it was not very lucrative (but still wrong/contrary to rules none the less)

[BohsFans]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=480ZUVwpAEg

2:32 Fenlon's view on the McGlynn suspension.

[SkStu]

I think Dodge's point was that nobody is going to try and influence a game to win 40 or 50 euro, whereas it's more likely when somebody is betting 10,000 or so. But I'd argue that they're different offences - the first is simply betting on a game, the second is actually trying to influence the result of a game, and would merit a much much harsher punishment, if I were writing the rules.

yes, i understand that Osarusan and i agree but there is only one offence - betting on any game. The FAI punishment suggests, and so do the majority of posts here, that it is the quantity of bets that should be the defining feature of the offence (5>1). By taking this approach they are ruling out the consideration of any other factors (amount of the bets and whether you did or could have influenced the outcome of those bets). Its a remarkably flawed approach to take in my opinion, if that is the approach that the FAI has taken.

personally, i think this will be reduced on appeal. No particular reason for thinking that, i just have a feeling.

[Dodge]

How do you know they they didn't take into account the amounts bet? We're all just guessing here

[MariborKev]

Exactly Dodge.

We already know that Morrow, McGlynn and O'Neill bet or more games and for more money than Dempsey ergo heavier punishment.

[marinobohs]

Exactly Dodge.

We already know that Morrow, McGlynn and O'Neill bet or more games and for more money than Dempsey ergo heavier punishment.

the point is not that simple, surely obvious that there is a difference between betting on a game you are playing in and betting on one you have no connection with ? The rule may not currently say so but nor does it say anything about the size or frequency of the bet(s). You are presuming that the FAI muppets gave added credance to the multiplicity and size of bets involved while ignoring the "closeness" of the player to the fixture, I dont see the logic of this argument at all

[MariborKev]

MB,

You just keep moving goalposts.

Your point above claiming that no account was taken of the size of the bets. I am merely proposing that the length of ban suggests that some was.

[Dodge]

Or at the very least we can't say either way.