cmr Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ted/8614025.stm Hartlepool have been charged by the Football Association for fielding an ineligible player during Easter Monday's home win over Brighton. The League One club picked Gary Liddle in the 2-0 victory when he should have been serving a two-match ban. Wonder what the charge will be, i can't recall any previous times this has happened, only bury in the FA cup Docking points would be extremely harsh given they are 1 point below us, if it happened to us i'd say the season would be over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ted/8614025.stm Wonder what the charge will be, i can't recall any previous times this has happened, only bury in the FA cup Docking points would be extremely harsh given they are 1 point below us, if it happened to us i'd say the season would be over. shouldnt have broken the rules...i would have no sympathy for latics if we did the same just another case of not running your club properly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 They have to lose points. Simple as. It sounds harsh but if the FA don't deduct (at the very least!) the points they earned with Liddle in the team then how can they justify kicking Bury and someone else (I can't recall who it was?) out of the FA Cup for the same offence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 Droylesden? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmr Posted April 11, 2010 Author Share Posted April 11, 2010 Yeh no excuses, amateur mistake but cant help feeling bad for them because if we were in that position i'd be gutted. But still, helps us out, but not so good if their point deduction keeps the trannies up :p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 It happens a bit in the non-leagues I think and I think every time the team concerned gets dropped points. I can't see how the FA can have one rule for league teams and one rule for conference and the like teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics4Ever Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 Seeing that the played & won the game with an ineligible player in the side, the punishments likely to be handed out are as follows: 1. The match awarded to Brighton as a 3-0 win, so taking 3 points off Hartlepool and crediting Brighton's total. 2. Remove the 2 goals scored and add 3 more goals to their goals against column. 3. Finally, a financial penalty and/or a 3 point deduction for breaking the rules (some or all of this could be suspended - depending on their previous discipline history). I reckon they could have a further point deducted though. 4. One other scenario would be to order the game to be replayed, but this would cause a big headache as other clubs would protest that Hartlepool get a second bite at the cherry, which would be grossly unfair. And if it was Latics, I would support all of the above....its hardly rocket science and surely is part & parcel of the day-to-day role of the Club Secretary! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 Lists AS Club Sec it aint rocket science to check who is on 9 bookings. As said elsewhere lets say we needed 1 point to stay up and key player suspended just play them and take fine. Has to involve points loss or meaningless. ah the round red cards , whatever happened to the round red cards... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 As HDGS said, I would imagine they will be docked 3 points, which is the amount of points gained in the game he played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics4Ever Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 As HDGS said, I would imagine they will be docked 3 points, which is the amount of points gained in the game he played. Is that 3 points in addition to the 3 points they won? Or just the 3 points won? Personally I feel they should be docked 6, otherwise they've not really suffered for their mistake...clubs have been kicked out of the FA Cup for the same offence, just taking off the points won would possibly send out the message its worth the risk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 Is that 3 points in addition to the 3 points they won? Or just the 3 points won? Personally I feel they should be docked 6, otherwise they've not really suffered for their mistake...clubs have been kicked out of the FA Cup for the same offence, just taking off the points won would possibly send out the message its worth the risk? That said, Hartlepool spotted their own mistake and made the Football League aware of it. I think removing the three points and a suspended fine is an appropriate response. After all, the player will still have to serve his ban this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics4Ever Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 That said, Hartlepool spotted their own mistake and made the Football League aware of it. I think removing the three points and a suspended fine is an appropriate response. After all, the player will still have to serve his ban this season. I'd not read the actual article in question, so was unaware Hartlepool had brought it to the FA's attention. In that case, I reckon the FA should reverse the result and give Brighton the points. Fine Hartlepool as well and impose a suspended points deduction for say 2 years for any future repetition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Nowt will happen! I know it has before in non-league, but I reckon they'll plead Easter and not realising it came into effect 2 days later or something ridiculous like that and the football league will :censored: themselves and not mess with it. Taking points off Hartlepool could be effectual relegation and I can't see the FL wanting to administer that at such a point in the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Dowds Green Shirt Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Nowt will happen! I know it has before in non-league, but I reckon they'll plead Easter and not realising it came into effect 2 days later or something ridiculous like that and the football league will :censored: themselves and not mess with it. Taking points off Hartlepool could be effectual relegation and I can't see the FL wanting to administer that at such a point in the season. Your wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Your wrong Nice, short and swift...care to add to why I'm wrong... The following today suggests I might actually not be that wrong... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ted/8614025.stm As Poyet says "The rule, if you read it, is very open and it gives plenty of the options to the Football League. It shouldn't be" Poyet is right....but I just don't see the FL having the balls to take the points off Hartlepool, IF, he was suspended for the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 They should lose the three points... I would dock them an extra point as well as a punishment... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 They should lose the three points... I would dock them an extra point as well as a punishment... The only thing in their favour is that they reported the rule breach first. So I'd suggest anything over and above the 3 points should be susepnded. Unless a 4th point would make Latics safe from the drop!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hometownclub Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 I can't really see how they can avoid docking them the 3 points TBH, the player was suspended, he played and they won the game, hence they will lose the 3 points, I can't see any other satisfactory conclusion. It would be a very dangerous precedent to set if they don't deduct the 3 points IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Dowds Green Shirt Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Nice, short and swift...care to add to why I'm wrong... The following today suggests I might actually not be that wrong... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ted/8614025.stm As Poyet says "The rule, if you read it, is very open and it gives plenty of the options to the Football League. It shouldn't be" Poyet is right....but I just don't see the FL having the balls to take the points off Hartlepool, IF, he was suspended for the game. Short and swift because quite simply you are wrong. If you want a more detailed response then fair enough. Here goes. Hartlepool once found guilty (I understand, and the BBC report also suggests that they are pleading not guilty despite they themselves bringing the issue to the attention of the FA) will be deducted 3 points. That is the automatic penalty in a league fixture I understand. The FA then also has the option of adding further punishment to the penalty imposed. That could include 1 or more of the following: - 1) Replay the game 2) Award the game to the opposition (Brighton) 3) Impose a fine The rule is left open to stop teams "playing the rules" by which I mean, say Brighton were going for promotion and Hartlepool did what they did and the FA then award the game to Brighton, you can bet your bottom dollar that the other teams in contention for promotion with Brighton would be jumping up and down complaining like mad saying that you cannot "award" points and that they have to be earnt and demanding that the game at the very least be replayed. Put another way, lets say that Sunderland beat Man U and it turns out that Sunderland played an ineligible player then would Chelsea and/or Arsenal be happy for United to be awarded the points? I don't think so. It basically allows the FA to apply rules that suits the competition. So in the FA Cup for example it is easy and straightforward to expel the team that is guilty of the breach of rules as they did with Bury last season and award the tie to their opponents as no other teams are affected. The 1, and I believe only, thing that could save Hartlepool is if the FA have made some sort of cock-up which is highly unlikely as it's quite a simple proceedure. A player gets shown a yellow card, it is recorded by the referee (who informs the FA) his assistants and the players club and subsequently the FA. After 10 yellow cards, before a set date, the player serves a 2 match suspension starting with the next available match. The club have no excuse. They keep records and will have known for some time that Liddle was appraoching the possibility of a ban as we knew with Greegs. Swindon and Exeter played on Saturday and are playing tonight, again only 2 days, but they knew before Saturday if anyone was on 9 bookings and therefore at risk of suspension. They also knew that if a player got sent off on Saturday he misses the next match. It is no different. Hartlepool informed the FA of their mistake and whilst the FA may be "understanding about it" they will still automatically dock them 3 points (just as they automatically threw Bury out of the FA Cup) and may or may not impose further penalties. Has Liddle transferred in/is on loan from from another club during the course of the season? If so has there been an admin error by the FA? That is likely to be the only matter that could be taken into consideration, but as I say, highly unlikely. You also said in your OP "Taking points off Hartlepool could be effectual relegation and I can't see the FL wanting to administer that at such a point in the season." What I would say to that is that any team that gets relegated and finsihes (shall we say for arguments sake) 3 points and possibly 6 (automatic 3 points deduction and a replayed game which they lose so a further 3 points) behind Hartlepool would then be looking for action to be taken on the grounds that Hartlepool should be relegated instead of them as Hartlepool had been in breach of the rules. So the FA will actually be keen to bring this to a conclusion with a formal decision/ruling on punishment asap so as not to cause any further problems or confrontations with other clubs. And just for clarity it is the FA that rules and not the Football League as you suggest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 (edited) I understand, and the BBC report also suggests that they are pleading not guilty despite they themselves bringing the issue to the attention of the FA Hold on...I never said they weren't the rules...it's about whether they'll be found guilty and then about how they get interpreted. I think they'll be found not guilty...as there'll be some BS techinicallity like Easter Bank Hol not being an administration day so the card isn't processed until the Tues so it's the game after he should miss etc etc. that will get them off and end the scenario. Cheers for the full rules tho Edited April 12, 2010 by boundaryblue80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 (edited) Here's the rules on suspension (page 10). (iv) If a Player accumulates ten cautions in FTCM between the opening day of the Playing Season and the second Sunday of April in the same Season, he will be suspended automatically for a period covering:- Two First Team matches (viii) Any period of suspension arising from cautions will commence forthwith. Page 54 outlines potential penalties: 8.1 The Regulatory Commission shall have the power to impose any one or more of the following penalties on the Alleged Offender: (a) a reprimand and/or warning as to future conduct; b. a fine; c. suspension from all or any specifi ed football activity from a date that the Regulatory Commission shall order, permanently or for a stated period or number of matches; (d) the closure of a ground permanently or for a stated period; (e) any order which may be made under the rules and regulations of a Competition in which the Alleged Offender participates or is associated, which shall be deemed to include the deduction of points and removal from a Competition at any stage of any Playing Season; (f) expulsion from a Competition; (g) expulsion from membership of The Association or an Affi liated Association; (h) such further or other penalty or order as it considers appropriate. If my interpretation of the context of the document is right, it looks like there's no set penalty and a wide potential discretion for the panel. It's my sense of fair play that says they should lose all points gained in that match. As happened with Crystal Palace playing a non-registered player last season. Edited April 12, 2010 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Dowds Green Shirt Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Hold on...I never said they weren't the rules...it's about whether they'll be found guilty and then about how they get interpreted. I think they'll be found not guilty...as there'll be some BS techinicallity like Easter Bank Hol not being an administration day so the card isn't processed until the Tues so it's the game after he should miss etc etc. that will get them off and end the scenario. Cheers for the full rules tho Ok no problem. HOWEVER. The rule is that the player misses "the next match" which in this case was Brighton. It is an absolute offence AND there is no interpretation to it, same as Wilbraham misses MK Dons game against us tomorrow for the red card at Norwich on Saturday.It does not matter if the next game is 7 days away or even the next day. There is no right of appeal and the proceedure is cast in stone, with the 1 exception being a claim of mistaken identity. i.e. the wrong player being shown the yellow/red card. As far as I am aware, Hartlepool are not claiming that the wrong player was booked. The following are taken from the FA rules and regulations: - " A Club shall do all things necessary to ensure that a Player associated with it complies with a penalty or order imposed pursuant to the Rules and regulations of The Association." and " * Suspensions for reaching 5, 10 or 15 yellow cards to begin with immediate effect* *Only for clubs competing in the Premier League, Football League and Football Conference National" and "Furthermore, if a player does accumulate the permitted number of cautions prior to a cut-off date then the suspension will now be automatic as opposed to the current seven day rule. " The first quote is taken from rule E12 of THE FA RULES The 2nd and 3rd above are shown on THIS PAGE FROM THE FA's WEBSITE Hope this helps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stebuzz Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 They should lose the three points... I would dock them an extra point as well as a punishment... did liddle score either of the 2 goals. if he did then its much more serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics4Ever Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 For me Ste, its irrespective of whether he played 1 minute and failed to touch the ball, or played 90 and scored 1 or both of the goals. He was part of the Hartlepool side and he & the club broke the rules (the lad in question would have known he was booked and most probably known how many bookings he was on - we had a similar situation with Gregan on 9 bookings!) They should be punished for it and rightly so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics4Ever Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 For me Ste, its irrespective of whether he played 1 minute and failed to touch the ball, or played 90 and scored 1 or both of the goals. He was part of the Hartlepool side and he & the club broke the rules (the lad in question would have known he was booked and most probably known how many bookings he was on - we had a similar situation with Gregan on 9 bookings!) They should be punished for it and rightly so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.