Under 19's away for 10 days in Bulgaria

**pineapple stu** · 19/10/2010, 4:21 PM

Also, it clearly is a breach of the rules, and it's not a minor issue to play a player who - according to the strict interpretation of the rules - is ineligible for a game. Come on Stu - do you really believe what you're typing?

If the FAI are now saying that that rule is irrelevant, than fair enough. But strike it from the rule book and ensure that when UCD or Bohs - or any other club - next have an international call-up and don't really feel like releasing the player, that that's ok too.

**SkStu** · 19/10/2010, 4:43 PM

if the rule calls for a points deduction then the rule should be scrapped. Of all the things that points can be and have been deducted for should this really be included? I dont think so.

I havent been paying a lot of attention to every post in this thread obviously. It is obviously a breach. I just fancied a moan.

**Charlie Darwin** · 19/10/2010, 5:14 PM

I thought the standard result of fielding an ineligible player was to give the non-offending party a 3-0 walkover. Surely that's what people mean by a points deduction?

**MariborKev** · 19/10/2010, 5:20 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

But strike it from the rule book and ensure that when UCD or Bohs - or any other club - next have an international call-up and don't really feel like releasing the player, that that's ok too.

PS,

In my view this is the distinct difference, Derry did not refuse to release him.

He played, got injured, contacted the squad management about the injury and said management then released him, for the entire trip. Hence he was free to play for Derry in their next game, which was 8 days later.

**mrtndvn** · 20/10/2010, 2:08 AM

Mr Stu et al

Your very quick to point out that Derry fans aren't quoting this supposive rule that we've broken, unfortunately, aren't so quick to quote the facts on this case.

These are presented to you in the post above ^^

And also backed up by the FAI

Originally Posted by FAI Statement

"The player (Patrick McEleney) was called into the Republic of Ireland Under-19 squad but contacted management to inform them that he was injured.

"As a result, he was withdrawn from the squad. 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.

"Having established the facts with the assistance of the FAI International and Disciplinary Departments, we are satisfied that there is no action to be taken in relation to this matter."

If you can't understand these points, well that isn't our fault.

No Rules broken, no case to answer.

Originally Posted by Patrick McEleney

Shels only put in a complaint cause we battered them at the Brandywell, which was stupid

**passerrby** · 20/10/2010, 1:42 PM

but kev the rule does not say a player maybe deselected if unfit. If the player is selected and cannot/will not fullfil the fixture then he is excluded from any matches his club may play five days of the international game.and i dont think anybody had the right to make that call.
now that would be my interputation of the rule but i think we can all see what we want to see. anyway while i feel derry have broken a rule with the help of the league I would hate to have gained an advantage because of a rule violation rather than on the field of play.
best of luck on the run in, and may the best team win.

**pineapple stu** · 20/10/2010, 2:06 PM

The rule seems to be in two parts -

Originally Posted by Rule part 1

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).

Originally Posted by Rule part 2

Any selected player failing to join the panel shall not be permitted to play for his Club for the same period.

If they're to be taken separately, Derry have broken part 2 while claiming that rule 1 exonerates them. McEleaney failed to join the panel, and so can't play for his club for five days after the relevant fixtures.

If the rule is just part 1 on its own, I think it's too open to fudging (such as the current claim that it's ok for Derry to let their player go cos it was agreed by the FAI ). You'll end up with a case where two clubs have players in the squad - one is told he can go home, but the other is told he's not allowed play for his club cos it wasn't agreed with management. You can't have rules which can be overridden because "Ah sure it's grand; we'll cover you".

**osarusan** · 20/10/2010, 2:30 PM

It seems that McEleny called the Irish management and told them he was injured. The management squad then said 'ok, fine, we'll release you from the call-up and carry on as usual.' What I want to know is why they didn't say 'ok, fine, we'll release you from the call-up, but you can't play any game until 5 days after X date.'

Seeing as there is a rule in place which carries the hefty penalty of forfeiting a game, I'm confused as to why the FAI seemingly made no attempt to enforce / investigate.

**passerrby** · 20/10/2010, 2:41 PM

i think this rule was brough in to ensure clubs did not try to stop players fulfilling international obligations in favour of their club needs therefore it should follow that when derry said he was unavailble due to inury (and i have no doubt he was injured) then the league should remind them that rule Number whatever applies.

**EalingGreen** · 20/10/2010, 3:23 PM

I don't know how the Rule was applied (or disregarded) to the letter.

However, from the spirit of the rule, I'd say McEleney/Derry are in the clear. For ultimately the purpose of the rule is to ensure that where a player is required by both club and country, then the latter shall prevail (with a penalty to be imposed on the club, should they try to circumvent the FAI).

However, whilst the FAI may have intitally stated they wanted the player, when they heard the state of his fitness etc, they then decided they didn't. In which case Derry* should be free to use him as they wished.

Remember, the FAI could always have released him with the 5-day proviso, had they wanted.

* - If you think about it, it is actually the club which is being released of its obligation (i.e. to make the player available) by the FAI, as much as the player, since the latter has no guarantee he will actually be selected by his club.

**pineapple stu** · 20/10/2010, 3:32 PM

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

when they heard the state of his fitness etc

The state of his fitness which should have indicated that actually, he was perfectly well able to play a game when needed (as evidenced by the fact that - on the same day he was apparently needed for an Ireland game - he was able to play for Derry)?

**Schumi** · 20/10/2010, 3:33 PM

Maybe Derry have lower standards.

**passerrby** · 20/10/2010, 3:34 PM

is there any part of the rules that allows the league to release player/club from its obligation once he is selected. and if so can the league say that one player might be eneilgable and another player from a different club may not.

**EalingGreen** · 20/10/2010, 3:38 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The state of his fitness which should have indicated that actually, he was perfectly well able to play a game when needed (as evidenced by the fact that - on the same day he was apparently needed for an Ireland game - he was able to play for Derry)?

Then that should be a question for the FAI doctors, then.

The fact is, the FAI released the player because they did not need him. If they had been concerned that he might eg have been feigning injury in order to play for his club, then they (FAI) always had the option of imposing the 5-day rule.

The fact that they did not do so, nor raise any objections subsequent to Derry playing him, suggests that they have no problem with either Derry or the player.

In which case, it's no business of any other club (imo).

**Charlie Darwin** · 20/10/2010, 3:40 PM

The FAI's statement seems to suggest that McEleney was no longer required by the time his injury cleared up, so Derry would seem to be in the clear. I just don't understand why they didn't invite him back along when he did regain fitness, since he'd already been released by his club and was presumably willing to travel.

**pineapple stu** · 20/10/2010, 3:47 PM

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

The fact is, the FAI released the player because they did not need him. If they had been concerned that he might eg have been feigning injury in order to play for his club, then they (FAI) always had the option of imposing the 5-day rule.

Which, as noted earlier, opens up allegations of favouritism from the FAI if they release one player and don't release another.

**passerrby** · 20/10/2010, 3:51 PM

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

Then that should be a question for the FAI doctors, then.

The fact is, the FAI released the player because they did not need him. If they had been concerned that he might eg have been feigning injury in order to play for his club, then they (FAI) always had the option of imposing the 5-day rule.

The fact that they did not do so, nor raise any objections subsequent to Derry playing him, suggests that they have no problem with either Derry or the player.

In which case, it's no business of any other club (imo).

a. who said they released him as they did not need him.. they released him as he was injuried
the fact they did nothing leads the cynic in me to believe they wished to give derry every opportunity to get back to the premier

**EalingGreen** · 20/10/2010, 3:55 PM

Originally Posted by passerrby

a. who said they released him as they did not need him.. they released him as he was injuried
the fact they did nothing leads the cynic in me to believe they wished to give derry every opportunity to get back to the premier

Had that been the case, they wouldn't have selected him in the first place.

In fact, if one wanted to be truly cynical, they'd have selected another player, from one of Derry's less-favoured rivals, just to screw with them.

**pineapple stu** · 20/10/2010, 4:05 PM

FAI - "McEleaney, you're called up". Duly announced
Derry - "Actually, hold on - we've a big game that day. We need him. Anything you can do for us?"
FAI - "Yerrah, sure go ahead..."

Not the most implausible of situations.

**osarusan** · 20/10/2010, 4:06 PM

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

The fact is, the FAI released the player because they did not need him. If they had been concerned that he might eg have been feigning injury in order to play for his club, then they (FAI) always had the option of imposing the 5-day rule.

They released him as he told them he was injured (which I don't doubt). Seeing as he was selected as it was felt he would be of value to the international squad, and seeing the rule is in place to stop players feigning injury in order to avoid international duty (as well as other reasons I'd imagine) , why did the FAI make no effort to determine the extent of his injury?