Bohs v Shels

[bohs til i die]

Let me start by saying that I think its all a crock of crap whats going on.

But I would like to point out playing a SUSPENDED player, is different to playing an UNREGISTERED player. I would also like to state that every club has a right to appeal and also a right to see things get carried out the way the rules dictate, and if these things are not carried out correctly then they can raise the issues.

Numerous clubs appeal decisions, raise issues, etc. In this case Shels raised the issue. If the rulebook was correctly written, then the case would have been closed promptly rather than the crap that occured and the stuttering from teh EL/FAI.

I don't like football being brought to a court/commitee etc,but if the club in question has an issuse, then thats the porcess used. Rovers should have right to be ****ed off royally. Derry fans should question the slating of Shels appealling when they also appealled a decision via this route to get their case heard.

Basically it boils down to a **** league administration when it comes to a decent rulebook and everyone knows, if push comes to shove, Ollie will shove, and then shove a little more. However point out what he has done outside the rules of normal process in this case. I may not like it, but to say Shels are at fault here, I say nay its the league and its lack of consistancy and solid rules.

so why dont you and all the other Shels fans/minions gang up and tell ollie to refuse the offer of a replay?

[Dodge]

But I would like to point out playing a SUSPENDED player, is different to playing an UNREGISTERED player

Whats the difference gareth?

[Gareth]

I don't even know where to start in telling you how futile that would be. And its not a case that shels can refuse, it would go to a Arbitration, which can only be brought about by shels or the league and the final decision would nto be up to them. As much as the league is a joke the way it is run, Shels fans still want their club to survive and continue. A protest would go mainly on deaf ears, I am pretty sure. Some clubs are not run by fans. Nor are they a democracy. The issue though is not Shels, its the decision of the FAI. Shels mentioned a numebr of scenerios that could happen. None of which the FAI was bound by, They made their decision and as by the rules, we abide by it, or suffer the consequences.

[Gareth]

Whats the difference gareth?

One is Unregistered, as in not registered in the league to play. The other is a registered player, suspended for a game. I will consult my newly acquired rule book and see if their are separate rules for each scenerio.

[Duffman]

Its gonna be great explaining this whole scenario to the masses after "The Premiership" on Saturday night. The pub will love this

[Gareth]

UNREGISTERED

19.11 Any Club found to have played an un-registered player or players in any match under the jurisdiction of the League (save as otherwise provided for in the competition rules for the U21 League) shall be fined €2,500 per match and shall forfeit three points per match in which the player has played in as an unregistered player.

19.12 In circumstances where the General Manager is satisfied that the failure to register a player(s) was due to human error and there was no intent to contravene the rule on the part of either the Club or the player in question and in circumstances where the League has not notified the Club of the non-registration of the player, discretion may be exercised to reduce the penalty to a minimum of three points.

No mention in that rule of suspended.

21.4 In a match under the jurisdiction of the League any Club playing a player who is under suspension by the FAI or the F.A.I. National League will have three points deducted from its score in respect of each match the suspended player has participated in and be liable to such other penalty as the Board decides. The onus is upon the Club to satisfy itself that the player is not under suspension


Two different rules governing two different situations Dodge. I think I explained that well enough for no confusion?

[garyderry]

UNREGISTERED

19.11 Any Club found to have played an un-registered player or players in any match under the jurisdiction of the League (save as otherwise provided for in the competition rules for the U21 League) shall be fined €2,500 per match and shall forfeit three points per match in which the player has played in as an unregistered player.

19.12 In circumstances where the General Manager is satisfied that the failure to register a player(s) was due to human error and there was no intent to contravene the rule on the part of either the Club or the player in question and in circumstances where the League has not notified the Club of the non-registration of the player, discretion may be exercised to reduce the penalty to a minimum of three points.

No mention in that rule of suspended.

21.4 In a match under the jurisdiction of the League any Club playing a player who is under suspension by the FAI or the F.A.I. National League will have three points deducted from its score in respect of each match the suspended player has participated in and be liable to such other penalty as the Board decides. The onus is upon the Club to satisfy itself that the player is not under suspension


Two different rules governing two different situations Dodge. I think I explained that well enough for no confusion?

so bohs should lose 3 points and there should be NO replay, as has been applied before, and precedents set,

maybe bohs should appeal the original decision re:the suspended player, and leave them in a real mess,

[Gareth]

21.4 In a match under the jurisdiction of the League any Club playing a player who is under suspension by the FAI or the F.A.I. National League will have three points deducted from its score in respect of each match the suspended player has participated in and be liable to such other penalty as the Board decides. The onus is upon the Club to satisfy itself that the player is not under suspension


Clearly this part of the rulebook was applied for whatever reason. The league clearly acted on the extra clause in this case, whilst ignoring the entire rule in the Rovers case. I am not backing up the FAI, I am merely stating that what happened was within the rulebook, and Shels didn't make the decision (outside of the paranoia that we in fact run the league).

[garyderry]

21.4 In a match under the jurisdiction of the League any Club playing a player who is under suspension by the FAI or the F.A.I. National League will have three points deducted from its score in respect of each match the suspended player has participated in and be liable to such other penalty as the Board decides. The onus is upon the Club to satisfy itself that the player is not under suspension


Clearly this part of the rulebook was applied for whatever reason. The league clearly acted on the extra clause in this case, whilst ignoring the entire rule in the Rovers case. I am not backing up the FAI, I am merely stating that what happened was within the rulebook, and Shels didn't make the decision (outside of the paranoia that we in fact run the league).

NO, clearly NEW rules have been made up by the FAI, under the influence / pressure of $hel$ to save them from extinction

[chippie0001]

21.4 In a match under the jurisdiction of the League any Club playing a player who is under suspension by the FAI or the F.A.I. National League will have three points deducted from its score in respect of each match the suspended player has participated in and be liable to such other penalty as the Board decides. The onus is upon the Club to satisfy itself that the player is not under suspension


Clearly this part of the rulebook was applied for whatever reason. The league clearly acted on the extra clause in this case, whilst ignoring the entire rule in the Rovers case. I am not backing up the FAI, I am merely stating that what happened was within the rulebook, and Shels didn't make the decision (outside of the paranoia that we in fact run the league).

Sorry Gareth, but reading the rule, how is granting you a replay a penalty on us as per the rules. The rules can penalise us clearly more than the 3 points but this is not a penalty. Its a cop out and will not stand up in court which hopefully someone will take action on.

[garyderry]

Sorry Gareth, but reading the rule, how is granting you a replay a penalty on us as per the rules. The rules can penalise us clearly more than the 3 points but this is not a penalty. Its a cop out and will not stand up in court which hopefully someone will take action on.

not a hope of this being let stand as it is, its a disgraceful decision, fair play my a***

[garyderry]

fair point gareth. but the fact is that from now on all games involving a suspended player will have to be replayed. That is obviously unsustainable.

all games involving suspended players will NOT have to be played in future, unless the rulebook is changed,

the FAI cannot just arbitrarily make up the rules as they go along, and this decision cannot possibly standup in any arbitration or any court in the land.

[Gareth]

Sorry Gareth, but reading the rule, how is granting you a replay a penalty on us as per the rules. The rules can penalise us clearly more than the 3 points but this is not a penalty. Its a cop out and will not stand up in court which hopefully someone will take action on.

The penalty is making you play an extra game in the season, one you have won already I guess. However I am merely speculating on that. The rule does state that the Board can impose other penalties and once they can prove its a penalty, then it will stand in court as this is a rulebook all clubs signed to adhere to before the league began. So once its deemed a penalty, it will hold. That I guess, is now up to the FAI to prove should this get court bound.

[garyderry]

The penalty is making you play an extra game in the season, one you have won already I guess. However I am merely speculating on that. The rule does state that the Board can impose other penalties and once they can prove its a penalty, then it will stand in court as this is a rulebook all clubs signed to adhere to before the league began. So once its deemed a penalty, it will hold. That I guess, is now up to the FAI to prove should this get court bound.

god your off your head if you think oillie's logic on additional penalties will stand up in court

how on earth is giving $hel$ a chance to win extra points a punishment to bohs, who's season is clearly over?

[Gareth]

all games involving suspended players will NOT have to be played in future, unless the rulebook is changed,

the FAI cannot just arbitrarily make up the rules as they go along, and this decision cannot possibly standup in any arbitration or any court in the land.

The FAI did not change the rule book, it implemented the extra clause in the rule, however the addition of a replay will need to be proved as a penalty. Justification of the extra punishment will need to be explained possibly but maybe not as the Board does get scope with the wording of the rule. All future cases do not necessarily deem a replay a must, only the exact same situation as this might. I speculate on this, but does anyone think Farrelly stating they contacted teh league etc could be brought to bare for the extra clause being executed? Just speculation here. I am merely looking at a rule and thinking out loud!!!

[EireBadBoy]

Bohs can now also demand a replay for a defeat to Derry when Hargan played and was allegedly suspended.

Honestly, I really think they should go for it. I really do. I also wish any team affected this season would do the same. The league is a shambles now anyway and can't get any worse. Why should $h€l$ get something nobody else does?

Bombard the useless hures at Merrion Sq. with appeals and watch them implode - that would be the best end of season entertainment we could wish for.

[Gareth]

god your off your head if you think oillie's logic on additional penalties will stand up in court

how on earth is giving $hel$ a chance to win extra points a punishment to bohs, who's season is clearly over?

I am not "off my head". I am also not applying Ollie Logic. I am looking at a rule and speculating. Which if that means I'm off my head, then so be it.

I did say I am not the FAI an dtehy will need to answer the second part if it went to Court.( can you read the posts before your eyes roll?)

[garyderry]

I am not "off my head". I am also not applying Ollie Logic. I am looking at a rule and speculating. Which if that means I'm off my head, then so be it.

I did say I am not the FAI an dtehy will need to answer the second part if it went to Court.( can you read the posts before your eyes roll?)

the FAI made it pretty clear in there statement they are ignoring the rules, and making there decision in the interest of "fair play", so stop your bull trying in some wierd logic to see what doesnt exist, a rule that allows the FAI to AWARD $hel$ a reply, that bohs dont want to play,

Oillie logic if you ask me,

[Gareth]

the FAI made it pretty clear in there statement they are ignoring the rues, and making there decision in the interest of "fair play", so stop your bull trying in some wierd logic to see what doesnt exist, a rule that allows the FAI to AWARD $hel$ a reply, that bohs dont want to play,

Oillie logic if you ask me,

My logic is not weird. I am just reading the rulebook and stating the rule the FAI executed and saying they need to back it up based on that, or they are in breach of the rule. However if you wish to consider this weird, then do so. Doesn't change the rule. I agree FAIR PLAY is not, in anyones book, covered under the extra clause. They will need a better reason than that I feel.

[Gareth]

By the way, I think Shels should have gotten a 3-0 win, or the decision let lie as is, if I can offer my own opinion. I don't thinka replay fits the bill at all. Its a farcial choice and something I can struggling to figure out at all. Just in case you think I am defending the decision made. I am trying to figure out how they came to it, and if it will stand re the rulebook, and it all boils down to one single issue. Can they prove the replay is a penalty on Bohs. Going to court btw is a breach of the rulebook according to

23.1 In any dispute between Member Clubs in the League or between a Member Club and the League or between a Member Club and the FAI, any party to the dispute has recourse to the appeals procedure of the F.A.I under the rules of the FAI. On receiving the decision of the F.A.I. Appeals Board, any party to the dispute can then refer the matter to arbitration.

23.2 In accordance with the FIFA statutes, members undertake not to refer disputes with any other members or the Association to a court of law. Such disputes must be processed through the appeals system of the Association or, where applicable by way of referral to arbitration.