Arbitration Verdict - No Replay

**BohsFans** · 14/11/2006, 1:21 PM

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

I think Bohs will be up for this match. They're playing the campions electish and have a chance to upset the apple cart on the last day I don't think it matters if it was shels or derry or whoever we were playing in that situation they'd love to have a say in the destination of the title. Plus shels have given the players enough reason to hate them over the last few weeks anyway

Why do you think this?

I'll quote someone from our mb:

Lads, forget about it. These ****s have let us down time and time again this season. Why would this game be more important to them than beating Rovers in the cup or Shels in the League Cup?? If they couldn't raise their games when the result actually ****in' mattered to Bohs, why do people suddenly expect them to pretend to give a **** now??

We have the worst back 5 in living memory, a midfield barely going through the motions and no strikers. Why does anyone have even the slightest hint of confidence in these shower of dicks??

**The Sheliban** · 14/11/2006, 5:21 PM

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

A victory for commnn sense and, more importantly, the rule book ! A defeat for incompetence, making rules up, and bullying your way in football.

Unfortunately I don't think it'll make any difference to the destination of the title, but at least a decent decision has been made for a change. Makes Friday all the more exciting for everyone as well.

Have you been following this saga at all? How is it a victory for the rulebook, when this whole mess was caused by there being no specific penalty in the rulebook for fielding players while suspended? Deducting three points is every bit as much "making rules up" as having the game replayed.

Incidentally, this rubbish Bohs team is the same one that beat us 2-1 earlier in the season? Our recent form is none too clever and I can see Bohs doing to us what they did to Derry in the Brandywell.

**OneRedArmy** · 14/11/2006, 5:26 PM

Originally Posted by The Sheliban

Have you been following this saga at all? How is it a victory for the rulebook, when this whole mess was caused by there being no specific penalty in the rulebook for fielding players while suspended? Deducting three points is every bit as much "making rules up" as having the game replayed.

I'll re-phrase what Steve says, its a victory for the rulebook all the clubs signed up to, not a notional rulebook Ollie decided he would like to have when a particular set of circumstances went against him.

Anyway, you've two more potential legal cases up your sleeves in case things get hairy on Friday night.

**TonyD** · 15/11/2006, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by The Sheliban

Have you been following this saga at all? How is it a victory for the rulebook, when this whole mess was caused by there being no specific penalty in the rulebook for fielding players while suspended? Deducting three points is every bit as much "making rules up" as having the game replayed.

Have I got this wrong ? Is the penalty in the rulebook for fielding a suspended player not that the offending club gets deducted 3 points ? And is that not also the precedent established for similar cases ? Thats what I've gleaned from following the saga.

**BohsFans** · 15/11/2006, 5:54 PM

The full text from the Arbitration:

http://www.fai.ie/index.php?option=c...k=view&id=1437

**Dr.Nightdub** · 15/11/2006, 6:44 PM

Interesting that Ollie represented Shels himself, whereas the League, the FAI and Derry had all appointed barristers. Or rather, could all afford to appoint and pay barristers.

**CollegeTillIDie** · 16/11/2006, 7:06 AM

In 1995/96 Cork City travelled to play UCD at Belfield and beat us 1-0 . They fielded not 1 not 2 but 3 unregistered players. Cork City were deducted three points. UCD got nothing. This latest decision is consistent with that precedent!

**wws** · 16/11/2006, 9:44 AM

Originally Posted by Dr.Nightdub

Interesting that Ollie represented Shels himself, whereas the League, the FAI and Derry had all appointed barristers. Or rather, could all afford to appoint and pay barristers.

Believe it or not but Ollies father was a prominent drafter of the original rule book - and nobody knows it better than Ollie -why would he waste money on solicitors? He was probably the most knowledgeable person at the meeting

**R�iteoir** · 16/11/2006, 6:41 PM

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

In 1995/96 Cork City travelled to play UCD at Belfield and beat us 1-0 . They fielded not 1 not 2 but 3 unregistered players. Cork City were deducted three points. UCD got nothing. This latest decision is consistent with that precedent!

Were either side Albanian?

Oily was citing the weakest precedent since Jimmy Carter

**EnDai** · 16/11/2006, 7:43 PM

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

In 1995/96 Cork City travelled to play UCD at Belfield and beat us 1-0 . They fielded not 1 not 2 but 3 unregistered players. Cork City were deducted three points. UCD got nothing. This latest decision is consistent with that precedent!

Is it a relevant precedent though?
i.e: Are registered players who are rendered illegible due to suspensions earned whilst playing for the club not treated differently to players who actually are not officially part of the clubs squad?

For the record, having read the arbitrators report, I agree with the decision due to the explanations given. I do, however, think there is need for change in the rules for next season.

**chippie0001** · 16/11/2006, 7:58 PM

Originally Posted by EnDai

For the record, having read the arbitrators report, I agree with the decision due to the explanations given. I do, however, think there is need for change in the rules for next season.

Most definately a rule change needed, probably a whole new rule book. Just take a copy of someone like the premiership or the scottish league etc as they generally have watertight decisions.