Under 19's away for 10 days in Bulgaria

[EalingGreen]

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

And did they decline to release a player from another club?

Or did they also release another player, only with the 5 day rule imposed?

(Genuine questions)

Perhaps whoever gave the nod to release the player never even considered the effect it may have on his club's promotion situation?

Quite clearly, I do not know the ins-and-outs of this case, but as a general rule, I tend to look for "c o c k-up" before "conspiracy", especially when it comes to football's administrators.

Unless, of course, you tell me that John Delaney might have had a hand in this...

[passerrby]

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.

they did not select him the international manager whoever he is selelcted him. the league made the ruling on the breach or otherwise

[SwanVsDalton]

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

Has the FAI not released another U-19 player though? A lot of accusations of favouritism are already being made without there being a comparable example existing AFAIK.

[pineapple stu]

And did they decline to release a player from another club?

Or did they also release another player, only with the 5 day rule imposed?

I don't know enough about the ins and outs of the various international squads to answer those questions.

But in any event, it's coming away from the issue. The rule was broken, and the punishment in that rule wasn't issued. If the rule needs to be changed, fire ahead and do it. But you can't just ignore a rule because you feel like it. And that's more or less what's happened here.

[passerrby]

Has the FAI not released another U-19 player though? A lot of accusations of favouritism are already being made without there being a comparable example existing AFAIK.

stand to be corrected but think wexford were deducted 3 points for playing a player ealier in the season who was not avalible for international duty.

in honesty i agree with ealing more change of **** up than conspiriicy

[EalingGreen]

they did not select him the international manager whoever he is selelcted him. the league made the ruling on the breach or otherwise

Aye, but the Association which selected McEleney, was also that which released him, without imposing the 5-day penalty which was open to them.

Thereafter, when an objection was raised, it happened to fall to the League to adjudicate. However, the purpose of the rule is to ensure that when there is a club vs country conflict, the country shall prevail. And the FAI clearly confirmed to the League that their first-call over the player was not frustrated by the club.

Of course, other clubs may be thought to be suffering "collateral damage" when an Association releases a player prematurely, and he subsequently proves fit enough to play for his club in a vital game.

But such a scenario is much less frequent (once in a blue moon?) than the converse i.e. a club's domestic prospects suffering* because they are forced to release players to their Association for international duty.

* - Just ask any EPL manager, for instance.

[Schumi]

stand to be corrected but think wexford were deducted 3 points for playing a player ealier in the season who was not avalible for international duty.

Was that what it was for? I don't remember hearing about that.

[osarusan]

Close to the start of this season, Wexford had a victory against Salthill turned around to a 3-0 defeat after fielding an ineligible player. Don't think it was related to international duty though.

[EalingGreen]

But in any event, it's coming away from the issue. The rule was broken, and the punishment in that rule wasn't issued. If the rule needs to be changed, fire ahead and do it. But you can't just ignore a rule because you feel like it. And that's more or less what's happened here.

Technically, perhaps.

But the spirit of the Rule is to protect an Association should it feel it is being messed around by a club. And the League was reassured by the Association that it was not being messed-about, so there is no "victim", so no real transgression.

Of course, Derry's opponents may not like the player being released early by the Association.

Then again, I'm sure Derry didn't like his being called up by the Association in the first place, considering they had a critical match coming up.

That's the way it goes, sometimes - no Rule can ever anticipate every possible eventuality, in which case I personally feel the spirit of the law (common sense)should prevail over the letter (technicality).

[osarusan]

But the spirit of the Rule is to protect an Association should it feel it is being messed around by a club. And the League was reassured by the Association that it was not being messed-about, so there is no "victim", so no real transgression.

But on what basis were the Association able to reassure the league that they weren't being messed around?

[CSFShels]

I don't understand this spirit of the rule malarky people are going on about. A rule is just a rule. Not to be bended when a situation does not fit into the 'spirit' of the rule.

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't understand this spirit of the rule malarky people are going on about. A rule is just a rule. Not to be bended when a situation does not fit into the 'spirit' of the rule.

They said the same thing in Nazi Germany and look where that got them.

[garyderry]

Technically, perhaps.

But the spirit of the Rule is to protect an Association should it feel it is being messed around by a club. And the League was reassured by the Association that it was not being messed-about, so there is no "victim", so no real transgression.

Of course, Derry's opponents may not like the player being released early by the Association.

Then again, I'm sure Derry didn't like his being called up by the Association in the first place, considering they had a critical match coming up.

That's the way it goes, sometimes - no Rule can ever anticipate every possible eventuality, in which case I personally feel the spirit of the law (common sense)should prevail over the letter (technicality).

What on earth are you spouting your rubbish about.

THE FAI DID NOT NOT NOT RELEASE THE PLAYER FOR A LEAGUE GAME.

player was called into the u19 squad.
Player was delighted to be called in and was available.
Player plays the following Friday and get injured for his club
Player informs the FAI and is removed from the squad
Player early the following week recovers and immediately informs the FAI he will actually be available
FAI say they have replaced him and he is no longer needed
EIGHT days latter player plays for Derry (after confirming there is no issue with FAI)

Patrick McElaney was never released to play a match, by the time he had recovered from his injury the FAI had replaced him and didnt require him, simple as. There was no point in Paddy not playing over a week latter.

No rule was breached, and the player at all times was in contact with the FAI and available to the FAI.

[pineapple stu]

EIGHT days latter player plays for Derry (after confirming there is no issue with FAI)

Completey irrelevant.

Your point about him telling the FAI's he's actually not injured and the FAI saying that they've already replaced him is probably valid alright though.

[passerrby]

What on earth are you spouting your rubbish about.

THE FAI DID NOT NOT NOT RELEASE THE PLAYER FOR A LEAGUE GAME.

player was called into the u19 squad.
Player was delighted to be called in and was available.
Player plays the following Friday and get injured for his club
Player informs the FAI and is removed from the squad
Player early the following week recovers and immediately informs the FAI he will actually be available
FAI say they have replaced him and he is no longer needed
EIGHT days latter player plays for Derry (after confirming there is no issue with FAI)

Patrick McElaney was never released to play a match, by the time he had recovered from his injury the FAI had replaced him and didnt require him, simple as. There was no point in Paddy not playing over a week latter.

No rule was breached, and the player at all times was in contact with the FAI and available to the FAI.

so as long as you inform the fai that the player is injuried he will no longer be needed. espically if he recovers before his club match and then says he is available, he can be excused... now thats how to use the system

[shantykelly]

so as long as you inform the fai that the player is injuried he will no longer be needed. espically if he recovers before his club match and then says he is available, he can be excused... now thats how to use the system

And the FAI was perfectly within their right to use an FAI-associated doctor to check on the player, both when he suffered the initial injury, and then when he declared that he was fit and available for the U-19 squad. That they didn't do either is their own perogative, and I fail to see how this means that DCFC essentially cheated. Your post smacks of paranoia - cynicism I can understand, but I think in this instance you've gone beyond that.

[Mr A]

Given Derry's history I think he's perfectly justified.

[shantykelly]

so a young player with no previous association with the clubs recent history, and by some accounts was delighted to be chosen to represent his country, is, in your eyes, a cheat simply because he plays for DCFC? I wonder would this be an issue if A) the title wasnt coming down to the wire, or B) it wasnt Derry City. seems to me there's a lot of people looking for any excuse to accuse derry of cheating. and yes stu, before you get on your wee high horse, you were proved right with the previous setup. well done. any evidence this time round? or are you just getting your digs in early?

[passerrby]

well lets agree to differ, I believe that the league allowed your player to play in a game that he was not eligible to play in for their own reasons. but then i believed they gave you the least punishment available last year for the exact same reason.
I have long lost any faith in the leauge to be fair and equitable.

[pineapple stu]

and yes stu, before you get on your wee high horse, you were proved right with the previous setup. well done. any evidence this time round? or are you just getting your digs in early?

What are you talking about? I'm pointing out that a rule was broken, and that the appropriate punishment wasn't handed out. I've noted repeatedly that I've no problem with the rule being rewritten/rescinded if it's not reflecting what the clubs/the FAI want it to say.