Hartlepool - Ineligible Player [Merged Threads]

[Twinkle Toes]

Why should we be awarded the points? We have lost 12 games at home, since we didn't get points in those games does that mean we didn't play them? Of course not. So us not getting points doesn't negate the game.

How did Liddle influence the win? How can we say with any certainty that whoever played instead of him would not have had the same effect? How can we say his replacement wouldn't have been better than him? (I know an immediate argument would be "if there's a better option he would have been played" but we all know football isn't that predictable. Players you expect to be dead weight can have a great game (such as Carole when he replaced LuaLua a few games ago, performing better than anyone expected).

We didn't get any goals, who's to say we would have scored if Liddle didn't play?

I can't see any justification for just giving us the points, to be honest. I tink it's just wishful thinking.

He was on the pitch.

 

[Seagull73]

Why should we be awarded the points? We have lost 12 games at home, since we didn't get points in those games does that mean we didn't play them? Of course not. So us not getting points doesn't negate the game.

How did Liddle influence the win? How can we say with any certainty that whoever played instead of him would not have had the same effect? How can we say his replacement wouldn't have been better than him? (I know an immediate argument would be "if there's a better option he would have been played" but we all know football isn't that predictable. Players you expect to be dead weight can have a great game (such as Carole when he replaced LuaLua a few games ago, performing better than anyone expected).

We didn't get any goals, who's to say we would have scored if Liddle didn't play?

I can't see any justification for just giving us the points, to be honest. I tink it's just wishful thinking.

Understand what you are saying, but it isn't really the point. The fact is, Hartlepool gained an 'unfair' advantage by playing a player they shouldn't have done - deliberate or otherwise (That's how the league will term it)

What's not clear is that there doesn't appear to be any precedent within the league about awarding the points to the opposition. What's interesting is that there are a few within the FA Cup, and teams get kicked out of the competition usually, with the other team being reinstated and getting a bye. So the question is begged then, what's the difference? The opposition gets the advantage in a cup competition, why not the league?

 

[Taybha]

YouDigTV - Countdown Conundrum

 

[Acker79]

Understand what you are saying, but it isn't really the point. The fact is, Hartlepool gained an 'unfair' advantage by playing a player they shouldn't have done - deliberate or otherwise (That's how the league will term it)

What's not clear is that there doesn't appear to be any precedent within the league about awarding the points to the opposition. What's interesting is that there are a few within the FA Cup, and teams get kicked out of the competition usually, with the other team being reinstated and getting a bye. So the question is begged then, what's the difference? The opposition gets the advantage in a cup competition, why not the league?

I'm not denying Hartlepool should have the points taken, they should. But we don't know, and how can the FA say, that the advantage they garnered was such that without him we would have won the game, which is what they'd be doing if they gave us the three points. They are replaying the games in theory, and that is not healthy for the game, especially if the theory game is being played out by politicians or office men who haven't played competitive football since they were at school 20 years ago.

 

[Seagull73]

I'm not denying Hartlepool should have the points taken, they should. But we don't know, and how can the FA say, that the advantage they garnered was such that without him we would have won the game, which is what they'd be doing if they gave us the three points.

I agree - we can't possibly know that - nobody can. The question I was raising was about precedents. In the FA Cup, the precedent is quite clear, you get kicked out, and your opponents are reinstated and given a bye. The point you are making would surely bring that judgement into question too?

That being the case, and this is a ritorical (?) question, why should it not be the case in a league game? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Lush]

Poyet speaks out.

Brighton and Hove Albion | News | Latest News | Latest News | Poyets Points Claim

Gus Poyet says the Football League must award Albion three points from last Monday's match at Hartlepool, after it was discovered the home side fielded an ineligible player.

Central defender Gary Liddle collected his tenth caution of the season in Hartlepool's previous match at Leyton Orient, and was therefore serving an automatic two-match ban - and now, in the interests of fair competition, Poyet feels the League can only take one course of action.

The Albion boss explained, "I am sure Hartlepool did not realise he was suspended. It was not a case of cheating, but they made a mistake and that player should not have been on the pitch so the three points should go to the opposition.

"They cannot just deduct the points from Hartlepool. For the sake of fair competition we should be awarded them. All teams play 46 games in a season, so it would be unfair if we only played 45 matches.

"The Football League has to be careful with the decision they make. It does not matter if they did it with intention or not, the only decision they can make in this instance - and I would say the same if my team were the guilty party - is to give the three points to the opposition."

Hartlepool and Liddle have been charged by the Football Association for the offence.

God I hope they put the actual interview on Seagulls World. Watching Gus go off on one will be well worth the monthly sub.

 

[johnnyrocketpants]

Blimey, but there's a lot of sour grapes on this thread!
We lost, get over it.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

Blimey, but there's a lot of sour grapes on this thread!
We lost, get over it.

I don't think it's sour grapes at all. Yes we lost the game, but 'Pools gave themselves an unfair advantage. Maybe we should've thought "f*** it, we'll play Murray (yesterday) as it'll be better than playing the other strikers".

 

[The Oldman]

If we had won the match, what then? Hartlepool are the trangressors and should be punished irrespective of the result. Cannot see us getting any points unless the game is replayed.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

If we had won the match, what then?

Another 3 points on top of the 3 we'd won.

 

[johnnyrocketpants]

I don't think it's sour grapes at all. Yes we lost the game, but 'Pools gave themselves an unfair advantage. Maybe we should've thought "f*** it, we'll play Murray (yesterday) as it'll be better than playing the other strikers".

And just how many would Murray have scored yesterday? One? Two? A hatrick? If 'pools had played a legit player, he could have hammered 6 past us. As I said before, get over it. We lost and I hope the FA don't go too harsh on them 'cos they can't afford it.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

And just how many would Murray have scored yesterday? One? Two? A hatrick? If 'pools had played a legit player, he could have hammered 6 past us. As I said before, get over it. We lost and I hope the FA don't go too harsh on them 'cos they can't afford it.

So what's the point in having rules then if - at the end of the day - it doesn't seem to make much difference to anything if they're ignored?

 

[S'hampton Seagull]

And just how many would Murray have scored yesterday? One? Two? A hatrick? If 'pools had played a legit player, he could have hammered 6 past us. As I said before, get over it. We lost and I hope the FA don't go too harsh on them 'cos they can't afford it.

Take 3 points from them and award them to us without a fine then.

 

[bhaexpress]

So what's the point in having rules then if - at the end of the day - it doesn't seem to make much difference to anything if they're ignored?

I don't think that Hartlepool did it deliberately, they made a mistake and will get punished.

 

[Bhafcman]

I had a bet on us that game and it was the only to let me down I think does anyone know if this could change anything?

 

[bhaexpress]

I had a bet on us that game and it was the only to let me down I think does anyone know if this could change anything?

No.

 

[johnnyrocketpants]

So what's the point in having rules then if - at the end of the day - it doesn't seem to make much difference to anything if they're ignored?

Well, there are differences aren't there? If, say, Man U deliberately feilded a player who was inelegible to play, and tried to cover it up, then fine them millions and deduct points. But if little 'pools do, accidentally, and then inform the FA of the oversight, then I think they should be received with a bit of sympathy.
I'm sure the last thing the FA need is yet another club struggling to survive to be killed off because it is they that have imposed a large fine, and potentially finished another club.

 

[Acker79]

I agree - we can't possibly know that - nobody can. The question I was raising was about precedents. In the FA Cup, the precedent is quite clear, you get kicked out, and your opponents are reinstated and given a bye. The point you are making would surely bring that judgement into question too?

That being the case, and this is a ritorical (?) question, why should it not be the case in a league game? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Well, you say this is rhetorical, but there is an answer: The FA cup is a knock out competition.

We're not out of league One never to play again because we lost to Hartlepool.

By taking the victory away from Hartlepool, the football league don't have to avoid giving a bye to the team that would have been their opponents next.


Another issue, what would stop us fielding an illegal player v gillingham in the last game of the season knowing that a point for gillingham sends crystal palace down? We get to play like we're trying to win to hide the shenanigans, yet on a technicality we send our rivals down? I know that's not often going to be a situation that ill be encountered, but it is something they have to consider when deciding what to do with the points they take away.

 

[Bhafcman]

No.

darn. thanks fr info

 

[Twinkle Toes]

Well, there are differences aren't there? If, say, Man U deliberately feilded a player who was inelegible to play, and tried to cover it up, then fine them millions and deduct points. But if little 'pools do, accidentally, and then inform the FA of the oversight, then I think they should be received with a bit of sympathy.
I'm sure the last thing the FA need is yet another club struggling to survive to be killed off because it is they that have imposed a large fine, and potentially finished another club.

I didn't say that I don't feel any sympathy for 'Pools, but the fact of the matter is they f***ed up & something should be done about it. I'd honestly expect the same if Albion screwed up in a similar way. Shirley it's basic stuff?

Anyway, I think we'll have to agree to disagree over this one & see what happens later in the month.