tonyd
1st team Player
Posts: 1,496 
|
Post by tonyd on Jul 31, 2013 7:34:31 GMT
I'm not sure really if the punishment didn't fit the crime. We're talking about 3 points. If Thurrock had got another 2 points in the 42 games that season, it wouldn't have mattered. I'm sure it wouldn't have gone that far if it didn't make a difference to their league status. With AFC it was 18 points (which was reduced to 3) and thrown out of all cups (which didn't get reversed). From what I can see for pretty much the same thing. Neither club 'did it on purpose' but then ignorance is no excuse. The strange thing about this was that the punishment remained unchanged throughout this process, although this could be more to do with the FA and league officials realising that deducting point for every game would just be idiotic. Well, the AFCW case set the precedent that you can't deduct points from all the games the player took part in - a pity imo, as it had previously been very clear what the punishment was going to be. I don't think the offences were really equivalent - Thurrock played a player who was banned, AFCW didn't realise they needed international clearance for a player joining from a Welsh team. If the clubs had gone through the correct process thoroughly, the Thurrock player wouldn't have been allowed to play, the AFCW player would. The only sympathy I have is that the Ryman League did not act quickly enough in applying the penalty. However, to have deferred the penalty to the following season would have been worse, again imo. |
|
|
|
Post by Del on Jul 31, 2013 8:08:22 GMT
Good news.I look forward to the (Boxing) day when we can go and watch Sutton play there again. I wouldn't give a damn if we never play there again! |
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Jul 31, 2013 13:09:49 GMT
I only realised last night that I can see the bobbins' ground from the 2nd floor of my house. I discovered this by accident as they happened to have the floodlights on  Sad though it is for them, I don't disagree with Thurrock's punishment. I said so at the time and I'll say so again: I didn't agree with AFCW's. What's the point of a punishment if it's adjusted for the convenience of the perpetrator? |
|
Millsy
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,246
|
Post by Millsy on Jul 31, 2013 21:44:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by os on Aug 1, 2013 0:11:04 GMT
27.3 In the event that the FA Appeal Board in Wimbledon found that there was a discretion not to deduct the points from a defaulting club that it had obtained from matches where it played an ineligible player I have no difficulty in concluding that the decision was wrong. It runs contrary to the plain wording of the Rule which uses the mandatory “shall” and is to be contrasted with its later use of the word “may” in respect of penalty points.
To me says it all!
The points deductions are set in stone no matter how the offence is committed and that the AFCW decision was incorrect, therefore Thurrock could not win in any event?
|
|
Millsy
1st team skipper
Posts: 2,246
|
Post by Millsy on Aug 1, 2013 18:12:49 GMT
27.3 In the event that the FA Appeal Board in Wimbledon found that there was a discretion not to deduct the points from a defaulting club that it had obtained from matches where it played an ineligible player I have no difficulty in concluding that the decision was wrong. It runs contrary to the plain wording of the Rule which uses the mandatory “shall” and is to be contrasted with its later use of the word “may” in respect of penalty points.To me says it all! The points deductions are set in stone no matter how the offence is committed and that the AFCW decision was incorrect, therefore Thurrock could not win in any event?
“Any club found to have played an ineligible player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted from its record and have levied upon it a fine. The Company may vary this decision in respect of the points gained only in circumstances where the ineligibility is due to the failure to obtain an International Transfer Certificate or where ineligibility is related to the Player’s status only."The Thurrock 'issue' doesn't relate to International Clearance. That aside, I can't work out if the arbitrator is saying in '24' that rule 6.9 (b) is generically invalid anyway or not. |
|
|
|
Post by os on Aug 1, 2013 20:33:33 GMT
27.3 In the event that the FA Appeal Board in Wimbledon found that there was a discretion not to deduct the points from a defaulting club that it had obtained from matches where it played an ineligible player I have no difficulty in concluding that the decision was wrong. It runs contrary to the plain wording of the Rule which uses the mandatory “shall” and is to be contrasted with its later use of the word “may” in respect of penalty points.To me says it all! The points deductions are set in stone no matter how the offence is committed and that the AFCW decision was incorrect, therefore Thurrock could not win in any event?
“Any club found to have played an ineligible player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted from its record and have levied upon it a fine. The Company may vary this decision in respect of the points gained only in circumstances where the ineligibility is due to the failure to obtain an International Transfer Certificate or where ineligibility is related to the Player’s status only."The Thurrock 'issue' doesn't relate to International Clearance. That aside, I can't work out if the arbitrator is saying in '24' that rule 6.9 (b) is generically invalid anyway or not. I think that the arbitrator is stating clearly that rule 6.9 'Any club found to have played an ineligible player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted' And that "only in circumstances where the ineligibility is due to the failure to obtain an International Transfer Certificate" contradicts the term 'ANY' therefore the second statement cannot be valid? And thus the AFCW decision was wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by markf2 on Aug 1, 2013 21:13:14 GMT
No it isn't. It states that they CAN vary in respect of international clearance. If this was in place at the time then the AFCW decision was fine. Not sure why you keep going on about something that happened some years ago now.
|
|
|
|
Post by os on Aug 1, 2013 22:55:37 GMT
No it isn't. It states that they CAN vary in respect of international clearance. If this was in place at the time then the AFCW decision was fine. Not sure why you keep going on about something that happened some years ago now. Simply because its quoted in and forms part of the Thurrock case. |
|
|
|
Post by markf2 on Aug 2, 2013 12:22:18 GMT
As said above, Thurrock's case has nothing to with international clearance therefore it has no part in their case. It appears in the rule to afford an organisation the opportunity to consider international clearance cases on their own merits as these are not always as clear cut as playing a banned player as was Thurrock's error.
The AFCW case and Thurrock's are completely different and the former is therefore irrelevant to the latter.
|
|
jd
Spectator
Posts: 3
|
Post by jd on Aug 2, 2013 22:16:51 GMT
I understand (received wisdom) that the rules were changed after the AFC Wimbledon shambles merely for clarification purposes. As they stand, it all does seem pretty clear and I'm surprised Thurrock persisted. Maybe they should be more concerned with the quality of advice they received rather than vilifying the FA. They apparently spent £12.5k on the appeal and arbitration. Have they been misled?
|
|
