Bohs v Shels

[Mr_Parker]

Gareth, I generally respect your posts but your analysis of the rules are just plain wrong.

The clause you quote relating to "other action" refers only to other action to be potentially taken against Bohs. The rulebook does not have any provision for the other club to replay, receive the points or in any way alter the result of the game.

Is this fair? Probably not, but this is irrelevant, as your club signed up to the rules.

Trying to lump the Derry and Dublin City fcuk ups into the same pot is simply smoke and mirrors, because each decision should be reached independently on its own merit.

As it stands Derry avoided losing points because the rules weren't followed.

We have a saying in Derry "take your oil". Thats exactly what Shels need to do.

And to finish off, even you must see the irony in the FAI awarding Ollie something in the interests of fair play. A concept to which he is an absolute stranger.

Disgusted.

I haven't read all of this thread and this might have already been mentioned but does anyone know if the FAI adapted the FIFA Dsciplinary Code (June 2005) into their Articles of Association?

From what I have read about this case, it would seem Shelboune do have a point i.e. the FIFA code indicateds 3 points with a 3-0 scoreline awarded. However if the FAI had adapted these into their Articles/rules then whatever adaptation the FAI made when including them into their Articles would have come into affect but again from what I have read it does not seem that the FAI have adapted them into their Articles.

Is there any links to the FAI Constitution/Articles and the Eircom League rules?

[Calcio Jack]

Eventhough the decision benefits my club i can't see how it was made.

Surely now Dundalk & Shamrock Rovers will also have to be replayed or is it just a precdent for some cases?

Dundalk can't now turn around and demand a replay, the difference being that Shels didn't accept the original decision to dock 3 points from Bohs but from day one made an official appeal which resulted in yesterdays decision. Dundalk haven't followed that route and have missed the deadlines by which they should of appealed.... now that of course doesn't mean the FAI wouldn't now entertain a appeal from Dundalk, however IMO were Dundalk to do that it would be nothing more than an opportunistic ruse on their part , which IMO would make them no better than the idiots in Merrion Square.

[OneRedArmy]

I haven't read all of this thread and this might have already been mentioned but does anyone know if the FAI adapted the FIFA Dsciplinary Code (June 2005) into their Articles of Association?

From what I have read about this case, it would seem Shelboune do have a point i.e. the FIFA code indicateds 3 points with a 3-0 scoreline awarded. However if the FAI had adapted these into their Articles/rules then whatever adaptation the FAI made when including them into their Articles would have come into affect but again from what I have read it does not seem that the FAI have adapted them into their Articles.

Is there any links to the FAI Constitution/Articles and the Eircom League rules?

This was not incorporated into the EL rules.

Remember that until the end of this season, the EL and FAI are separate bodies, with the EL being the primary administrative rulemaker and the FAI having an appelate function.

I'm certainly not contesting the fairness of the rules as currently drafted (the 3-0 rule makes absolute sense), but you can't start retrospectively applying rules!

The rules as applied to this season offer no avenue for the team playing against a suspended player to alter the result.

In addition, Sonofstan is correct. The 3 point deduction is NOT the 3 points won in the match.

[Gareth]

To the various posters saying what I said was talking bull**** and that I am wrongly looking at the rules, I will state slowly and clearly once again (I assume people are just reading parts and not all of my posts).

I disagree with the replay. I think its a bad decision that was always going to provoke this reaction.

Secondly there is a subsequent rule in the book which covers this and does not mention penalty.

21.6 In the case of protests, if the Management Committee has any doubts as to qualification of any player taking part in a competition, it shall have power to call upon such player of the Club, for which he is registered, or for which he played, to prove that he is qualified according to the Rules, and, failing satisfactory proof, the Management Committee shall have the right to deduct the points from the offending Club and take such other action as it may consider necessary . Scores in such matches shall be rendered void, and the Management Committee may also deal with the offending player if necessary.

The fact the FAI released a statement saying it is due to FAIR PLAY is massively off the scale wrong. I do not know what they were thinking.

Apart from that, I was merely trying to logically figure out, disregarding themedai statement, how the FAI could come to such a decision. There are rules that can be interpreted to fit the replay but its down to an Arbitaration committee to agree it fit the book.

I think because I am a Shels fan, people think I am trying to defend this action. I am not. You make your bed and lie in it. I know Shels had the right to appeal the decision orginally made, and under the rulebook, bringing a case to court can see you expelled from the league, I believe, so surely a threat of court action would not carry much weight.

Eitherway, I would like to point out we are top of teh table on the merts of our squad winning more points fairly. At this point our league position is justifed. I disagree with the label of cheats on our heads, because the players have done their bit this season and as a fan of the football, I will defend them.

[harps1954]

21.6 In the case of protests, if the Management Committee has any doubts as to qualification of any player taking part in a competition, it shall have power to call upon such player of the Club, for which he is registered, or for which he played, to prove that he is qualified according to the Rules, and, failing satisfactory proof, the Management Committee shall have the right to deduct the points from the offending Club and take such other action as it may consider necessary . Scores in such matches shall be rendered void, and the Management Committee may also deal with the offending player if necessary.

In relation to the point in bold above, the League Management Committee did not feel it necessary to take any other action against Bohs/McGuinness.

I think it is unfair here to blame the league. The league made a decision based on the rule above - a decision which they made on quite a few occassions over the last few years. Remember Athlone and Monaghan amongst others have had points deducted in the past for the same offence - playing a suspended player. There is two things here which annoy me:

1. I do know that Shelbourne have been the losers in this case as they are the ones that are missing out, without committing a crime. However, as far as I know, Shelbourne played Bohemians with eleven players against eleven players. They couldn't beat Bohemians ON THE PITCH and have now found a loophole that could see them get a second chance. Bohs ****ed up and were punished. Is there any Shels fan out there telling me that if Jason McGuinness had been sitting in the stands that Shelbourne would have won the game.

2. Shamrock Rovers were found guility by the League of the same offence that Bohemians committed and were dealt with in the same manner. However, when Rovers appealed the decision to the FAI and went to arbitration (at a cost of €5,000) the FAI deemed to League's decision to stand.

The eircom League are meeting on Friday (all the clubs) to decide if they are going to take this to arbitration. I have no doubt that they will. Then we have a situation were I think something like the following will happen.

- The Eircom League will present their case and point to the numerous situations in the past where they have applied this rule. The League will probably also point to the Shamrock Rovers situation just a few weeks ago.
- The FAI will present their case and must show where in the rulebook "Fair Play" is stipulated and show how they came to their decision.
- The Arbitrator (there is a panel of five arbitrators already in place from the start of the season) must then make a decision based on the evidence presented to him.

This could go on for another month yet. If you look at Rule 31 in the FAI rulebook (on the fai website) you will see that the eircom League has 10 ten days in which to seek arbitration. The arbritrator then must sit within 10 days of been appointed and a decision reached by the arbritator within 5 days. As the decision of the FAI appeals board was made on 31st October, it could be 24th November before there is a final outcome - after the season has ended.

If I was a betting man, I still reckon the original decision made by the Eircom League will stand as it is the only decision that can be applied through either the eircom League or FAI rulebooks.

[Mr_Parker]

This was not incorporated into the EL rules.

Remember that until the end of this season, the EL and FAI are separate bodies, with the EL being the primary administrative rulemaker and the FAI having an appelate function.

I'm certainly not contesting the fairness of the rules as currently drafted (the 3-0 rule makes absolute sense), but you can't start retrospectively applying rules!

The rules as applied to this season offer no avenue for the team playing against a suspended player to alter the result.

In addition, Sonofstan is correct. The 3 point deduction is NOT the 3 points won in the match.

Even though the EL are the primary rulemaker they are subserviant to the FAI rules and in turn FIFA. For example in the IFA Articles they state that were there is a conflict FIFA rules take precedent. I would be surprised if the same did not exist in the FAI Articles/Statutes?

Only a few years ago a Glentoran player was deemed to have been inelligible and glentoran were docked points etc. However Glentoran were able to show that the IFA's failure to impliment a FIFA directive in regards to 'players status' left the IFA with no choice but to do a 'u' turn on the matter.

[dcfcsteve]

I know little or nothing of Eircom League politics or about Ollie Byrne but to be totally honest if I was a Shels fans I would be very annoyed at this decision. The logical thing to do if a player fields an ineligible player is to award the game to the opposition. A replay is simply nonsensical. Why was it not awarded to Shels in the first place? Sure three points cannot just simply be wiped out. In the original game Shels did no wrong and were beaten by a team who had a player that should not have been on the pitch. Therefore it should have been a straightforward decision intially, a Shelbourne win.

No there shouldn't, as the rule book doesn't allow or enable that decision.

You can't just ignore what's in the rule book and seek to impose decisions you think are supposedly 'fair', despite what the book says.

[David]

No there shouldn't, as the rule book doesn't allow or enable that decision.

You can't just ignore what's in the rule book and seek to impose decisions you think are supposedly 'fair', despite what the book says.

It seems from what has been posted above the rules do allow for it.

[dcfcsteve]

In relation to the point in bold above, the League Management Committee did not feel it necessary to take any other action against Bohs/McGuinness.

I think it is unfair here to blame the league. The league made a decision based on the rule above - a decision which they made on quite a few occassions over the last few years. Remember Athlone and Monaghan amongst others have had points deducted in the past for the same offence - playing a suspended player. There is two things here which annoy me:

1. I do know that Shelbourne have been the losers in this case as they are the ones that are missing out, without committing a crime. However, as far as I know, Shelbourne played Bohemians with eleven players against eleven players. They couldn't beat Bohemians ON THE PITCH and have now found a loophole that could see them get a second chance. Bohs ****ed up and were punished. Is there any Shels fan out there telling me that if Jason McGuinness had been sitting in the stands that Shelbourne would have won the game.

2. Shamrock Rovers were found guility by the League of the same offence that Bohemians committed and were dealt with in the same manner. However, when Rovers appealed the decision to the FAI and went to arbitration (at a cost of €5,000) the FAI deemed to League's decision to stand.

The eircom League are meeting on Friday (all the clubs) to decide if they are going to take this to arbitration. I have no doubt that they will. Then we have a situation were I think something like the following will happen.

- The Eircom League will present their case and point to the numerous situations in the past where they have applied this rule. The League will probably also point to the Shamrock Rovers situation just a few weeks ago.
- The FAI will present their case and must show where in the rulebook "Fair Play" is stipulated and show how they came to their decision.
- The Arbitrator (there is a panel of five arbitrators already in place from the start of the season) must then make a decision based on the evidence presented to him.

This could go on for another month yet. If you look at Rule 31 in the FAI rulebook (on the fai website) you will see that the eircom League has 10 ten days in which to seek arbitration. The arbritrator then must sit within 10 days of been appointed and a decision reached by the arbritator within 5 days. As the decision of the FAI appeals board was made on 31st October, it could be 24th November before there is a final outcome - after the season has ended.

If I was a betting man, I still reckon the original decision made by the Eircom League will stand as it is the only decision that can be applied through either the eircom League or FAI rulebooks.

If fair play in its truest sense is followed (i.e. playing by the rules), then I can't see how arbitration could result in anything else than what you've stated.

You'd think the FAI mighty have pre-empted what would happen out of their decision, followed a similar logic flow to the above and realised it was highly likely that a replay decision would be reversed. Then, if they had foresaw what would probably happen, they could've made the right decision in the first place without destroying their credibility, p!ssing everyone off and making an absolute arse of the season.

Muppetry of the highest order....

[dcfcsteve]

It seems from what has been posted above the rules do allow for it.

What rules ?

The Eircom League rules don't - hence the decision the Eircom League came to.

[bohs til i die]

Just an idea

Ireland Play Scotland on the 14th in Dalymount ina B international. Imagine the furore and the response from UEFA if a game under their jurisdiction is held up because of a on pitch protest?

[David]

:

However, as far as I know, Shelbourne played Bohemians with eleven players against eleven players.

But one of Bohemians 11 players should not have been on the pitch.

[Stuttgart88]

Just an idea

Ireland Play Scotland on the 14th in Dalymount ina B international. Imagine the furore and the response from UEFA if a game under their jurisdiction is held up because of a on pitch protest?

Imagine the furore from punters like me!

I think the point above is the important issue, of the 11 vs 11, one wasn't entitled to play, so Shels should have the right to a replay in my opinion, just as a point of principle / moral justice. I hope the league is won irrespective of the 3 points at stake here.

Whatever about the notification and the timing of disciplinerary meetings etc., surely the clubs and the players themselves know when a suspension is due.

Utterly incredible situation all round.

[wws]

Whatever about the notification and the timing of disciplinerary meetings etc., surely the clubs and the players themselves know when a suspension is due.

a point not really mentioned heretofore

Bohemians played "silly buggers" here and IMO deliberately fielded McGuinness to create mischief

[OneRedArmy]

Shels should have the right to a replay in my opinion, just as a point of principle / moral justice.

If true moral justice were to prevail, Tolka would still be under 20 feet of water and Shels would have gone the way of Dublin City a long time ago.

[bohs til i die]

a point not really mentioned heretofore

Bohemians played "silly buggers" here and IMO deliberately fielded McGuinness to create mischief

why would we do that?

[Dodge]

Imagine the furore from punters like me!

Tough, even if I think any protest of this type pointless...

I think the point above is the important issue, of the 11 vs 11, one wasn't entitled to play, so Shels should have the right to a replay in my opinion, just as a point of principle / moral justice. I hope the league is won irrespective of the 3 points at stake here.

Whatever about the notification and the timing of disciplinerary meetings etc., surely the clubs and the players themselves know when a suspension is due.

Bohs contacted the FAI looking for confirmation and were told he was OK to play. Bohs argued they were not notified correctly but shose to accept the 3 point punishment

Derry played a player suspended, were not notified correctly, and had no action taken against them.

Rovers signed a player, who was suspended at a time he had no club, played him and were deducted 3 points. No replay

Its the ****ing inconsitencies that make it a sham

[David]

Tough, even if I think any protest of this type pointless...


Bohs contacted the FAI looking for confirmation and were told he was OK to play. Bohs argued they were not notified correctly but shose to accept the 3 point punishment

Derry played a player suspended, were not notified correctly, and had no action taken against them.

Rovers signed a player, who was suspended at a time he had no club, played him and were deducted 3 points. No replay

Its the ****ing inconsitencies that make it a sham

These are very fair points. Can't see anyone disagreeing.

[WeAreRovers]

Rovers signed a player, who was suspended at a time he had no club, played him and were deducted 3 points. No replay

Spot on about the inconsistencies. To clarify the Rovers position - when Dublin City shuffled off this mortal coil all of their players' registrations reverted back to the eircom league. It was then their responsibilty to inform all clubs about the players' availability, suspensions etc. they didn't do this.

To add insult to injury the Eircom League proceeded to ignore the fact they had blatantly broken their own rules in an admittedly unprecedented situation and then decided to lie and bluff their way through the process. Along the way they slandered the reputation of the player in question and his former manager.

Where's the Fair Play? Whether it be from the eL or the FAI? A blazer-wearing lying, incompetent fool is just that.

KOH

[Stuttgart88]

Ah well, if it's any comfort at least it's not just the FAI & eL...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugb...an/6098474.stm