Hartlepool points ruling latest

[Acker79]

It's during one season that a team goes into administration, and can be the following season when the punishment is applied.

Even if they take the extra three points off Hartlepool as well as the three they won from us, it might end up having no effect on their survival (if they get round to the ruling before the end of the season), so, much like with the -10 for administration not being a punishment in that same year as the offence, the punishment is carried over to the next year.

 

[BensGrandad]

It's during one season that a team goes into administration, and can be the following season when the punishment is applied.

Even if they take the extra three points off Hartlepool as well as the three they won from us, it might end up having no effect on their survival (if they get round to the ruling before the end of the season), so, much like with the -10 for administration not being a punishment in that same year as the offence, the punishment is carried over to the next year.

I disagree with that as well. I think the offending clubs should be relegated to the lowest league division and promotion and relegation adjusted accordingly.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The logical conclusion is that Hartlepool have 3 points deducted for winning the game against us , we are given the 3 points and the result is recorded as an Albion 1-0 win (with an *). A further 3 points to be taken off as a punishment.

 

[BensGrandad]

The logical conclusion is that Hartlepool have 3 points deducted for winning the game against us , we are given the 3 points and the result is recorded as an Albion 1-0 win (with an *). A further 3 points to be taken off as a punishment.

Dont think it will be recorded as 1 = 0 win to us as when I was on Surrey County FA we were always told by the FA that in such circumstances we could not award a goal as there are ways according to the rules and laws of football on how a goal can be scored and awarding one isnt in that catergory. So if we are given the points, which is acceptable it would be recorded as 0 -0.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Dont think it will be recorded as 1 = 0 win to us as when I was on Surrey County FA we were always told by the FA that in such circumstances we could not award a goal as there are ways according to the rules and laws of football on how a goal can be scored and awarding one isnt in that catergory. So if we are given the points, which is acceptable it would be recorded as 0 -0.

In that case I think that we would all accept a 0-0* and the 3 points.

 

[BensGrandad]

I dont think that we will get the points and also we dont need them. I think they should lose the 3 points they got and be deducted 3 points as a punishment.

 

[Scoffers]

Why on earth does it take so long.

There should be an automatic punishment equal to the number of points you gained from the match where the ineligible player played.

But, of course, the ruling E10 allows for ambiguity and discretion, meaning all this delay, extra cost of setting up hearings and it is a total shambles

 

[beardy gull]

Why on earth does it take so long.

There should be an automatic punishment equal to the number of points you gained from the match where the ineligible player played.

But, of course, the ruling E10 allows for ambiguity and discretion, meaning all this delay, extra cost of setting up hearings and it is a total shambles

So no punishment if you lose?

 

[Arthritic Toe]

Has it ever happened that a result has been changed as a result of a breach of the rules? i.e. the result awarded to the losing side? That doesn't really seem to be a fair outcome either. The only fair solution would be to replay the match - but thats just not practical. Best compromise, I reckon is a 3 point deduction with immediate effect.

 

[supaseagull]

Has it ever happened that a result has been changed as a result of a breach of the rules? i.e. the result awarded to the losing side? That doesn't really seem to be a fair outcome either. The only fair solution would be to replay the match - but thats just not practical. Best compromise, I reckon is a 3 point deduction with immediate effect.

A Replay is fair? I don't think so.

If a sprinter fails a drug test he/she is eliminated from the race and is stripped of any medals they won...They don't re-run the race when the athlete is not under the influence of the drugs.

Hartlepool - whether purposely or through their own negligence have cheated by fielding a player that was not eligible to play for them. Therefore, as in athletics where the next placed athlete moves up a place, the same should happen in this instance and Hartlepool should be stripped of the three points and then given to Brighton.

By NOT taking this course of action, the League & the FA are setting a VERY dangerous precedent where teams can field ineligible players and say that they didn't realise the player was unable to play and will then use Hartlepool as the example that they should not have a points deduction.

 

[glasfryn]

I dont think that we will get the points and also we dont need them. I think they should lose the 3 points they got and be deducted 3 points as a punishment.

sounds good to me,either that or throw the cheats out of the league altogether

 

[Arthritic Toe]

A Replay is fair? I don't think so.

If a sprinter fails a drug test he/she is eliminated from the race and is stripped of any medals they won...They don't re-run the race when the athlete is not under the influence of the drugs.

Hartlepool - whether purposely or through their own negligence have cheated by fielding a player that was not eligible to play for them. Therefore, as in athletics where the next placed athlete moves up a place, the same should happen in this instance and Hartlepool should be stripped of the three points and then given to Brighton.

By NOT taking this course of action, the League & the FA are setting a VERY dangerous precedent where teams can field ineligible players and say that they didn't realise the player was unable to play and will then use Hartlepool as the example that they should not have a points deduction.

Its not the same as the athletics situation. The runner can be disqualified and all others move up a place. Thats fair.
Just suppose at the finish, we were 3rd from bottom, 2 points behind the team above. If we were awarded 3 points, it would be unfair for that other team to be relegated just because Hartlepool had cheated. The key thing is, whether or not the cheating affected the result - and its impossible to say one way or the other. Hence the replay as the only fair (but impractical) option.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

A Replay is fair? I don't think so.

If a sprinter fails a drug test he/she is eliminated from the race and is stripped of any medals they won...They don't re-run the race when the athlete is not under the influence of the drugs.

Hartlepool - whether purposely or through their own negligence have cheated by fielding a player that was not eligible to play for them. Therefore, as in athletics where the next placed athlete moves up a place, the same should happen in this instance and Hartlepool should be stripped of the three points and then given to Brighton.

By NOT taking this course of action, the League & the FA are setting a VERY dangerous precedent where teams can field ineligible players and say that they didn't realise the player was unable to play and will then use Hartlepool as the example that they should not have a points deduction.

Ok say if Brighton were awarded the 3 points off hartlepool and as a result it sent down a third team, surely that third team could protest that Brighton lost 2-0 and that the player in question wouldnt of had much of an impact on the games result.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

He made an impact by being on the pitch.

 

[Captain Haddock]

A Replay is fair? I don't think so.

If a sprinter fails a drug test he/she is eliminated from the race and is stripped of any medals they won...They don't re-run the race when the athlete is not under the influence of the drugs.

Hartlepool - whether purposely or through their own negligence have cheated by fielding a player that was not eligible to play for them. Therefore, as in athletics where the next placed athlete moves up a place, the same should happen in this instance and Hartlepool should be stripped of the three points and then given to Brighton.

By NOT taking this course of action, the League & the FA are setting a VERY dangerous precedent where teams can field ineligible players and say that they didn't realise the player was unable to play and will then use Hartlepool as the example that they should not have a points deduction.

Agree!

 

[happypig]

If Hartlepool didn't turn up for the match, they would have forfeited it and we would have got the 3 points. They turned up, and played with, an ineligible player and so they should forfeit the match. Any punishment to the club/player should be on top of that. That would seem to be a fair solution.

 

[Billy Mays]

I don't mean to sound excessively grumpy but it doesn't really matter actually does it?

 

[Simster]

If Hartlepool didn't turn up for the match, they would have forfeited it and we would have got the 3 points. They turned up, and played with, an ineligible player and so they should forfeit the match. Any punishment to the club/player should be on top of that. That would seem to be a fair solution.

Not true. Middlesbrough didn't turn up at Blackburn a few years back, were deducted 3 points, and the game was played later.

There is no way those three points should be ours, IMO.

 

[El Presidente]

We were utter toilet that match, and were deservedly beaten. Weasling about the points is fairly undignified to be honest.

 

[perseus]

The way the results are going in the penultimate games, it could be if Hartlepool are deducted three points, it could mean the difference for them between staying up and relegation!