Limerick Oscar Traynor Manager 2006

**Old keeper** · 30/07/2006, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Bonovox

Oldkeeper - I have been saying for years now that the said rule is a load of crap. No need to change it at an AGM but a word of warning - if LDMC ever ban a player for not showing up for an Oscar Traynor they could find themselves in a lot of trouble in a court of law. You cannot infringe on the human rights of a player by insisting he has to play when he doesn't want to. Yes, I have taken advice on it - I suggest LDMC do likewise before someone catches them out and see's an opportunity to make a quick buck ;-)

I must say that the advice you were given is flawed as any player who registers with the Limerick District League signs a form and in doing so agrees to be bound by the rules and regulations of the league, as rule 39 is a standing rule there is no issue, The league would not insist that a player play if he is unwilling but the consequences of his action will be that he will be unable to play in any league game for 1 month. I suggest your advisors revisit the matter.

**Old keeper** · 30/07/2006, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by newlad

and when will it be known do u think??

Should know mid August or sooner

**newlad** · 30/07/2006, 5:04 PM

Originally Posted by Bonovox

Oldkeeper - I have been saying for years now that the said rule is a load of crap. No need to change it at an AGM but a word of warning - if LDMC ever ban a player for not showing up for an Oscar Traynor they could find themselves in a lot of trouble in a court of law. You cannot infringe on the human rights of a player by insisting he has to play when he doesn't want to. Yes, I have taken advice on it - I suggest LDMC do likewise before someone catches them out and see's an opportunity to make a quick buck ;-)

i would of thought if you were signing a form you sign on the pretence you obey the rules, so maybe you wouldnt win a case, sign for another league that does'nt have that rule

**Bonovox** · 30/07/2006, 5:38 PM

Originally Posted by Old keeper

I must say that the advice you were given is flawed as any player who registers with the Limerick District League signs a form and in doing so agrees to be bound by the rules and regulations of the league, as rule 39 is a standing rule there is no issue, The league would not insist that a player play if he is unwilling but the consequences of his action will be that he will be unable to play in any league game for 1 month. I suggest your advisors revisit the matter.

Oldkeeper, I admire your foresight on LDMC but as a relative newcomer to the scene I will let you know that LDMC rules have been the subject of much heated discussions over the years and have often been found wanting. Can you tell me at what AGM was this rule passed by the clubs? I suggest your advisors revisit the matter as mine are much more capable than the bunch you unfortunately have to work with. You have been warned! ;-)

PS Keep up the good work on the website. Its excellent!

**Old keeper** · 30/07/2006, 8:48 PM

Originally Posted by Bonovox

Oldkeeper - I have been saying for years now that the said rule is a load of crap. No need to change it at an AGM but a word of warning - if LDMC ever ban a player for not showing up for an Oscar Traynor they could find themselves in a lot of trouble in a court of law. You cannot infringe on the human rights of a player by insisting he has to play when he doesn't want to. Yes, I have taken advice on it - I suggest LDMC do likewise before someone catches them out and see's an opportunity to make a quick buck ;-)

Hi Bonovox,
Your advice is flawed, as all players who sign forms to play in the LDL agree to be bound by the league rules and as the rule stands currently players will be suspended for one month if they do not make themselves available to represent the league. This is not an infringement of anybodys human rights as it is the decision of the player, but the player is aware of the consequences of his decision.
In relation to courts of law, any court will firstly insist that all avenues of appeal are used within the governing body before the court will deal with the issue, the best any player could hope for would be to have a high court injunction preventing the suspention until the appeal is heard and that would be a waste of about �5000, as under our rules once any appeal is made the player would be avalible to play until the appeal decision is made.
I suggest that your advisors revisit the issue

**Old keeper** · 30/07/2006, 8:58 PM

Sorry lads I forgot I replied to that postand just replied again!!!!!!!!!!!

**Old keeper** · 30/07/2006, 9:13 PM

Originally Posted by Bonovox

Oldkeeper, I admire your foresight on LDMC but as a relative newcomer to the scene I will let you know that LDMC rules have been the subject of much heated discussions over the years and have often been found wanting. Can you tell me at what AGM was this rule passed by the clubs? I suggest your advisors revisit the matter as mine are much more capable than the bunch you unfortunately have to work with. You have been warned! ;-)

PS Keep up the good work on the website. Its excellent!

Thanks Bonovox, but I never depend on anybody for advice, I am long enough in the tooth and have been around the block a few times, with regard to the rules, each club has a rule book and while they may dissagree with these they are however bound by them and must follow the governing bodies appeal proceedure.
Even if the rule was changed in the LDL and there was a conflict, the FAI rule would over ride the local rule and the FAI rule is as follows

FAI RULE 49.
POWER TO DEAL WITH PLAYERS REFUSAL TO PLAY IN REPRESENTATIVE MATCHES
Any player selected to play in any International or other match arranged by The Association and who without good and sufficient cause refuses to comply with the arrangements of The Council for the playing of the match, or fails to play in such match, may be adjudged by The Council to be guilty of misconduct, and such player, or any Club which may be deemed to have encouraged such player to such misconduct, may be dealt with as The Council shall deem appropriate.

The Oscar Traynor is an FAI competition and that is where it would end.
I dont know what AGM the FAI rule was voted in on nor do I know what AGM the LDMC rule was voted in on but if a judge were to read both rule books then any case would be sent packing

I always have my ducks lined up. You can download the FAI rule book on the website

**Bonovox** · 31/07/2006, 7:32 AM

Originally Posted by Old keeper

Thanks Bonovox, but I never depend on anybody for advice, I am long enough in the tooth and have been around the block a few times, with regard to the rules, each club has a rule book and while they may dissagree with these they are however bound by them and must follow the governing bodies appeal proceedure.
Even if the rule was changed in the LDL and there was a conflict, the FAI rule would over ride the local rule and the FAI rule is as follows

FAI RULE 49.
POWER TO DEAL WITH PLAYERS REFUSAL TO PLAY IN REPRESENTATIVE MATCHES
Any player selected to play in any International or other match arranged by The Association and who without good and sufficient cause refuses to comply with the arrangements of The Council for the playing of the match, or fails to play in such match, may be adjudged by The Council to be guilty of misconduct, and such player, or any Club which may be deemed to have encouraged such player to such misconduct, may be dealt with as The Council shall deem appropriate.

The Oscar Traynor is an FAI competition and that is where it would end.
I dont know what AGM the FAI rule was voted in on nor do I know what AGM the LDMC rule was voted in on but if a judge were to read both rule books then any case would be sent packing

I always have my ducks lined up. You can download the FAI rule book on the website

No need, I can quote it to you by by heart at this stage. Rule 49 of the FAI and rule 39 of the LDMC are completely different. Rule 49 of the FAI deals with games "arranged" by the association. Rule 39 of LDMC deals with games "arranged" by LDMC. There is a distinct difference. Again I ask the question....when did the clubs vote for this rule .........LDMC hardly sneaked it in at some stage? Surely not! My point is it doesn't have to be changed at an AGM, it is illegal in the first place and would be chucked out in a court of law. Maybe it's time to test the waters. I'll rest my case.

**Old keeper** · 31/07/2006, 8:36 AM

Originally Posted by Bonovox

No need, I can quote it to you by by heart at this stage. Rule 49 of the FAI and rule 39 of the LDMC are completely different. Rule 49 of the FAI deals with games "arranged" by the association. Rule 39 of LDMC deals with games "arranged" by LDMC. There is a distinct difference. Again I ask the question....when did the clubs vote for this rule .........LDMC hardly sneaked it in at some stage? Surely not! My point is it doesn't have to be changed at an AGM, it is illegal in the first place and would be chucked out in a court of law. Maybe it's time to test the waters. I'll rest my case.

Hi

I am sorry but the rule is not illegal and as all Oscar Traynor games are FAI games the league arranges these on behalf of the FAI so there is no difference. The problem with symantics is what has our league bogged down for so long with people thinking that their interpretation of a rule is the only one that counts. I would really like to stop discussing it, but If you feel that strongly and confident then if any player refuses to make himself available for the league You should bring a test case on the rule but I would strongly advise against this as you would have to go to Munster and then to Dublin on appeal and then to court and you would be landed with all the costs as you would loose. So lets say you have your opinion and I have mine but as the saying goes Doctors differ and paitents die.
Now no more discussion lets move on

**Old keeper** · 31/07/2006, 8:45 AM

By the way one other thing that has screwed our league over the years is the number of people who feel that if you dont agree with them then you are against them. I must say that going forward we have to remember that everybody is entitled to challenge any rule and also request information from the LDL, and the fact that someone will not be of the same opinion is a good thing and will help us to ensure that all decisions are taken in a proper manner.
So bonovox keep plugging away but also please challenge these rules at meetings or AGM's where precedent can be set.

**Bonovox** · 31/07/2006, 9:13 AM

Old keeper - we'll agree to disagree. Its good to talk.

**allab** · 31/07/2006, 1:12 PM

pa mull is puttin his name forward so cant see the job been givin to anyone else

**silvercircle** · 31/07/2006, 1:40 PM

Originally Posted by allab

pa mull is puttin his name forward so cant see the job been givin to anyone else

pa Mul has got the job...declan Considne is his assisant

**Goals4fun** · 31/07/2006, 2:28 PM

Originally Posted by silvercircle

pa Mul has got the job...declan Considne is his assisant

will be interesting to see the squad this year. wil be very different than last years as last year there were no pike players !! wonder if there will be any this year

**allab** · 31/07/2006, 4:05 PM

Originally Posted by Goals4fun

will be interesting to see the squad this year. wil be very different than last years as last year there were no pike players !! wonder if there will be any this year

keith hartnett martin o neill dec considine and colm enright were all named last year but none of them went to the games

**Old keeper** · 31/07/2006, 4:10 PM

Originally Posted by silvercircle

pa Mul has got the job...declan Considne is his assisant

I suppose there is no point in my letting you guys know that the decision needs to be made when all the applicants are reviewed? Regardless of who has applied there has to be a process to follow. so lets wait and see shall we?