Shels & Longford to appeal points loss?

**bohs til i die** · 23/07/2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by GavinZac

when a club can't field a team for a game, it's declared a walk-over. is that not exactly whats happening here, and yet the eL are trying to act as if dublin city never existed?

Let the exisiting points stand. let everyone get their walkovers and 1+ goal difference so that its even. it may not be perfectly fair but its hardly perfectly fair to reward the teams who lost points and punish the teams who went out and beat them. between myself and my girlfriend we spent about �100 going to see us stuff dublin city 4-0. since we're acting as if the games never happened, can we get �20 back please? i assume the clubs will recieve a refund for match referee payments too, right? all bookings and suspensions recieved v DC negated, and those who served a suspension against them will get their bans back? and maybe those who received injuries against them could get some magic healing.

acting as if the games never happened is ludicrous and a mockery of our league. if shels or city lose the league by 3 points, i'll be disgusted.

Gavin, the FAIREST way to decide the league is by results between the 11 teams competing from start to finish.

There is no solution that is absolutely fair across the board, so by removing all results from the league table is as close as it will get.

If Cork or Shels are relying on points won against DCFC to win the title then you dont deserve to win it.

**GavinZac** · 23/07/2006, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by bohs til i die

Gavin, the FAIREST way to decide the league is by results between the 11 teams competing from start to finish.

There is no solution that is absolutely fair across the board, so by removing all results from the league table is as close as it will get.

whats unfair about giving everyone a walkover against them?

If Cork or Shels are relying on points won against DCFC to win the title then you dont deserve to win it.

3 points is three points... except in the eircom league where its a waste of time money and effort, apparantly.

**bohs til i die** · 23/07/2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by GavinZac

whats unfair about giving everyone a walkover against them?

3 points is three points... except in the eircom league where its a waste of time money and effort, apparantly.

Because some teams would be getting 6 points, other teams would be getting 3. Dublin City were doing OK this season and would have picked up points all the way.

I never said the solution was ideal, but in the grand shceme of things there is no fairer way then to decide the league based on what the 11 clubs do in 30 games against the other 10 teams in the table, having played each other three times.

Removing DCFC's record is as fair as it can be.

**Dodge** · 23/07/2006, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by bohs til i die

Removing DCFC's record is as fair as it can be.

And is standard practice throughout europe (thimk Reitoir posted a list elsewhere)

**GavinZac** · 23/07/2006, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by bohs til i die

I never said the solution was ideal, but in the grand shceme of things there is no fairer way then to decide the league based on what the 11 clubs do in 30 games against the other 10 teams in the table, having played each other three times.

acting as if the dublin city games never happened throws up a hundred other things which DID impact on games dublin city werent involved in. it also "robs from the rich, gives to the poor", pretty much punishing teams for putting effort into beating a very poor side.

i realise things wouldnt be perfect either way. you say its unfair that a few sides would be awarded 3 "extra" points; how is it fair that a few teams should be deducted 6?

the only thing im certain of in all this is that i fvcking hate Ronan Seery.

**R�iteoir** · 23/07/2006, 11:47 AM

Amateur Football League
Rule 17:
Should a club or team fail to complete its arranged fixtures, it shall have its complete record expunged.

FA Barclaycard Premiership
Rule 12:
If any Club ceases during the Season to be a member of the League, the record of the League Matches in which it has participated that Season shall be expunged from the table and the number of Clubs to be relegated at the end of that Season shall be reduced so as to maintain at 20 (or, if less, as near thereto as may be) the number of Clubs in membership of the League at the beginning of the next Season.

1961-62 Season:
Accrington Stanley resigned from the league after 33 games.
Their results were expunged.

1991-92 Season:
Aldershot withdrew after 36 games, all results expunged.

**GavinZac** · 23/07/2006, 11:53 AM

oh thats ok then, the english do it so its right.

**R�iteoir** · 23/07/2006, 12:00 PM

first one is from the AFL in Dublin btw

**Plastic Paddy** · 23/07/2006, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by GavinZac

oh thats ok then, the english do it so its right.

Lose the shoulder chip Gavin; the English set-up is the one with which most people are familiar and there is prevous form on which to call, hence England being used as an example.

In addition to the previous cases cited, Newport County resigned from the Conference in 1988/89 halfway through the season (they had played 20-odd of 42 games) and their record was expunged. This had a direct impact on one of my team-mates (I played youths and reserves for Barnet) at the time, Gary Abbott, who had become the first player since the Second World War to score hat-tricks in three consecutive English first-class fixtures only to see one of them wiped out as the away match at Newport (which we won 7-1 incidentally) was deleted from the record. And who - apart from afficionadi of the English non-league game - has heard of Abbott since? It could have been quite different if the record had stood.

So the precedent exists and has been consistently applied across the water (or in my case, on this side of it). Whether the eircom League follows suit or bows to the pressure of two obviously self-interested clubs remains to be seen.

PP

**R�iteoir** · 23/07/2006, 12:16 PM

I can post excerpts of rule books from Canada, the US, Australia, etc. which state the same thing if you want

**Raheny Red** · 23/07/2006, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by R�iteoir

first one is from the AFL in Dublin btw

Yeh, don't I know, 3 teams left my division last season. 3 ffs.

**RonnieB** · 23/07/2006, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by R�iteoir

I can post excerpts of rule books from Canada, the US, Australia, etc. which state the same thing if you want

I wouldnt waste your time. As im sure it would be wasted on him.

**GavinZac** · 23/07/2006, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by RonnieB

I wouldnt waste your time. As im sure it would be wasted on him.

no-one's answered yet, whats the story with suspensions, etc?

can i claim my money back from the administration, since i paid for a product/service and didnt recieve it, apparantly?

**green-blood** · 23/07/2006, 1:05 PM

all yellow cards/red stand

no you cant claim your money back

phew, glad thats sorted

**Gareth** · 23/07/2006, 1:54 PM

Originally Posted by bohs til i die

Gareth

The league cannot just make a decision based on the "top teams" having played DCFC twice. There is now 11 teams in the league and the table should be decided by results involving those 11 teams playing the other 10 teams 3 times.

You seem to want the league to do what suits Shels, I think the league has to do what is best for the league, what is the fairest way to all 11 teams.

Can you explain why you think the league didnt follow "correct procedure"?

I do not think what I said suggests I want the league to suit Shels. I stated that no matter what way you do this someone will feel at a disadvantage. Remove the Bohs glasses and read my post again. I was just thinking out loud different possiblities. Its all 10 teams now btw.

**pete** · 23/07/2006, 3:41 PM

Originally Posted by R�iteoir

Amateur Football League
Rule 17:
Should a club or team fail to complete its arranged fixtures, it shall have its complete record expunged.

If a similar rule existed in the eL rule book i doubt anyone would be appeling the decision. Based on that logic i assume no such clear-cut rule exists. A precedent in other countries does not really matter although a precedent in the eL may.

It seem unfair for yellow & red cards accrued in Dublin City games to stay (this would benefit teams that have only played Dublin City once) at the same time removing the points earned.

**pete** · 23/07/2006, 4:06 PM

Moderator: Can we keep this on topic for a change?

**bohs til i die** · 23/07/2006, 6:14 PM

Originally Posted by GavinZac

acting as if the dublin city games never happened throws up a hundred other things which DID impact on games dublin city werent involved in. it also "robs from the rich, gives to the poor", pretty much punishing teams for putting effort into beating a very poor side.

i realise things wouldnt be perfect either way. you say its unfair that a few sides would be awarded 3 "extra" points; how is it fair that a few teams should be deducted 6?

the only thing im certain of in all this is that i fvcking hate Ronan Seery.

Gareth

I follow Bohs. We played DCFC once. We won. If the league did things your way Bohs would be given 6 points for nothing. I dont think that is a fair way of doing things. Hardly Bohs goggles.

Gav
Some teams will lose 3, others 4 or 6. Your argument is based on Cork beating Dublin City twice. I think you'd be singing a different tune of Cork had not won either of those 2 games.

There is no other way to do this that is as close to being fair to all involved. What if a player got injured against DCFC in the 2nd game against DCFC and missed gameswhile other clubs are given 3/6 points for not having to risk injury?

There is no clear way of doing it, but by removing all results from the table it makes it as level a playing field as possible. That way the final table is decided by results involving those who played al 30 games.

**bohs til i die** · 23/07/2006, 6:17 PM

Originally Posted by GavinZac

acting as if the dublin city games never happened throws up a hundred other things which DID impact on games dublin city werent involved in. it also "robs from the rich, gives to the poor", pretty much punishing teams for putting effort into beating a very poor side.

how does it rob from the rich and give to the poor?