Under 19's away for 10 days in Bulgaria

**pineapple stu** · 15/10/2010, 9:57 AM

So can we clarify when someone can fall foul of the rule quoted earlier?

**Buile Shuibhne** · 15/10/2010, 10:05 AM

By the time he had recovered from the injury he was no longer required to fulfil his international duties and so he was eligible to play for Derry City.

It must be discretionary.

They (the FAI) can decide later whether a player is/was required or not.

**pineapple stu** · 15/10/2010, 10:36 AM

Just as a general mod point - don't dismiss people's posts by groundlessly calling the posters pathetic. That's just trolling. If you have a valid point, you should be able to make it without resorting to personal abuse.

**Candystripe** · 15/10/2010, 10:47 AM

I'm guessing that the squad left on Sunday and it was six days later before he played in the Shels game.

If he recovered on the Tues I doubt they would have flew him over anyway but AFAIK he had to have a late fitness test before the game which was played on the Sat.If the game had of been on the Friday it may have been a whole lot different as that fell with-in the five day rule when he pulled out.

Looks like nothing to see here.

**osarusan** · 15/10/2010, 10:49 AM

The five-day rule is not from the day he pulls out, but from the date of the international game a player is selected for. That game was on the 7th, yet he played on the 9th.

Any Participant Club refusing to release a player(s) selected for an International or Representative panel
under the jurisdiction of the FAI shall not be entitled to play such players(s) until a period of five (5)
calendar days has elapsed from the date of such fixture(s). Any selected player failing to join the panel shall
not be permitted to play for his Club for the same period. Call-ups of registered players by Associations
other than the FAI for International duty are governed by the regulations of FIFA.

Some other poster mentioned that as he had not been checked by an FAI doctor, there was no case to answer. That, while still smelling slightly of bullsh!t, seems a more likely reason.

**Derry** · 15/10/2010, 11:33 AM

Well you can close the thread now, as the FAI have said,

DERRY CITY HAVE NO CASE TO ANSWER,

**Shedendinvisibl** · 15/10/2010, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Derry

Well you can close the thread now, as the FAI have said,

DERRY CITY HAVE NO CASE TO ANSWER,

Which means that the FAI can't be arsed sorting this out properly and by stonewalling it then are hoping it will be forgotten about within a day or so. I hope that Monaghan Utd or Shels take this further; a first day law student would obtain a judgement in the Law Courts over this fudge.

**nzamcdza** · 15/10/2010, 12:42 PM

Paddy Mc faked an injury pulled out of the ROI squad and was then MOTM when we hammered Shels.

Turns out that there is something dodgy about this and we have the harps and shels fans up in arms.

FAI state no case to answer.

What a great week!

Enjoy the first division again next year lads!!

**Mr A** · 15/10/2010, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by nzamcdza

Paddy Mc faked an injury pulled out of the ROI squad and was then MOTM when we hammered Shels.

Turns out that there is something dodgy about this and we have the harps and shels fans up in arms.

At least you're honest.

Derry Journal took this issue seriously: http://www.derryjournal.com/derry/De...ion.6583196.jp I guess they published before the FAI statement.

**passerrby** · 15/10/2010, 12:52 PM

I dont think derry did to much wrong just tried to protect their interests and got away with it. the league on the other hand has been sadly lacking in leadership, moral backbone and honesty...... which is what one has come to expect.

**SwanVsDalton** · 15/10/2010, 12:59 PM

We certainly seemed to have away with it. I'd certainly like to know how though - does this mean it's a rule the FAI just don't enforce or can't enforce? Either way seems to be another example of FAI rule ambiguity which can only lead to disaster.

**Shedendinvisibl** · 15/10/2010, 1:16 PM

Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton

We certainly seemed to have away with it. I'd certainly like to know how though - does this mean it's a rule the FAI just don't enforce or can't enforce? Either way seems to be another example of FAI rule ambiguity which can only lead to disaster.

It's easily enforced, though. If you are called up for international duty and cry off for whatever reason then all they need do is instruct a club not to play the relevant player until x date. While it's a loss that Derry would have done without said player for a vital game, it's also unfair to Shels that a player that wasn't supposed to be available to play did in fact line out; the fact that he made an impact on the game shows up the law to be an ass unless it's applied correctly or fairly.

**SwanVsDalton** · 15/10/2010, 1:29 PM

Originally Posted by Shedendinvisibl

It's easily enforced, though. If you are called up for international duty and cry off for whatever reason then all they need do is instruct a club not to play the relevant player until x date. While it's a loss that Derry would have done without said player for a vital game, it's also unfair to Shels that a player that wasn't supposed to be available to play did in fact line out; the fact that he made an impact on the game shows up the law to be an ass unless it's applied correctly or fairly.

Sure the rule can be enforced in that respect fairly easily, but why hasn't it? Someone mentioned he may have needed to be checked out by in FAI doc, so, what I meant was, can they not be bothered to make sure a doctor checks out any possible injury withdrawal? Is it too much hassle? Did they not consider this when they drew up the rule?

Also surely something like this has happened before in the league - the FAI dismissal makes it seem like this is kinda of transgression happens occasionally (seems a bit quick to let Derry off the hook even for them...).

**Dodge** · 15/10/2010, 1:33 PM

I'd imagine its a fairly standard rule across all European leagues.

I'd also assume that the FAI didn't think they needed to put in a rule about their own docter. Thinking that clubs would want their players to be part of the FAI teams.

Naive maybe, but there are/were loads of "good faith" type rules/laws in the league throughout the last 20 years. Shels battered a fair few of them in court

**Flexy** · 15/10/2010, 1:34 PM

Originally Posted by passerrby

I dont think derry did to much wrong just tried to protect their interests and got away with it. the league on the other hand has been sadly lacking in leadership, moral backbone and honesty...... which is what one has come to expect.

Guys these Under 19 matches are pointless having players away for 10 days isnt right. You dont see Under 21's or Senior teams or even U23's away for 10 days at a time playing mid season mini tournaments. We the fans pay good money to watch the best players in our league not to be away for 10 days playing for Ireland.

**Dodge** · 15/10/2010, 1:42 PM

Originally Posted by Flexy

Guys these Under 19 matches are pointless having players away for 10 days isnt right. You dont see Under 21's or Senior teams or even U23's away for 10 days at a time playing mid season mini tournaments. We the fans pay good money to watch the best players in our league not to be away for 10 days playing for Ireland.

They're not pointless. just becausee you don't want to lose a player for 2 games.

And the reason they're away for 10 days is to CUT DOWN the amount of time they're away from their clubs. 3 games in a 6/7 day period is far more preferabel than going missing for 5/6 times instead (as they'd have to be home and away then...)

Oh and if you want pay good money for the "best players in the league", you're in the wrong decision. Stop being such a dramaqueen

**pineapple stu** · 15/10/2010, 1:43 PM

Flexy, it's been pointed out to you already that the number of scouts at these matches alone renders them not pointless.

Can you please read what other people have to say before coming in with blind defence of your club?

**Sam_Heggy** · 15/10/2010, 2:08 PM

Don't worry lads, Derry are 100% innocent as usual and all this is all just a made up story by us bitter Harps fans.

Sorry for inconvenience..............

**Roo69** · 15/10/2010, 2:13 PM

Originally Posted by nzamcdza

FAI state no case to answer.

Ireland did fairly well in these games from what I've hear, i reckon if they had of lost a few games the FAI would look at it completely differently.

Anyway, its over and done with now, no point in continuing this thread as the FAI have said Derry have done nothing wrong (even though they have)

**SwanVsDalton** · 15/10/2010, 2:28 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

I'd imagine its a fairly standard rule across all European leagues.

I'd also assume that the FAI didn't think they needed to put in a rule about their own docter. Thinking that clubs would want their players to be part of the FAI teams.

Naive maybe, but there are/were loads of "good faith" type rules/laws in the league throughout the last 20 years. Shels battered a fair few of them in court

In general clubs would want players to be involved, but I'd say most fans would feel a bit aggrieved at losing a key player for a prolonged period of time during a crucial run-in (not condoning btw).

Given it's fairly likely a club may not want a player to go it would surely require some addendum to enforce the rule, such as doctor or whatever? Good faith is one thing, but there doesn't seem to be a point in the rule if players/clubs can transgress with impunity.

Reminds me of the Ferrari team orders controversy a few months back, trying to exploit a loop hole by putting the onus on team member. Someone's mentioned the fact City released McEleney, but he withdrew himself - does that somehow avoid contravening the rule?

I dunno, whole thing's muddier than Tolka after a thunderstorm.