Rotherham fielded an ineligible player against Albion
- Thread starter El Turi
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
In both your example and Turkeys there would be an obvious intent to benefit and it's nothing like a rather stupid oversight on a loan player who had already been there for a month. I think the FA may do more than just deduct 3 points if any club were to be as stupid as you and Turkey are suggesting.
The stance on this is also at odds with that taken if it is a cup game. If a club is found to have have fielded an illegible player in a cup win, they are thrown out, and the team they beat go through. They don't say that the victors are disqualified, but the opposition lost so are still out, too.
severnside gull
Well-known member
I can see the logic so on that basis Rotherham should get points docked PLUS a fine
It's giving a deliberately extreme example, as an illustration, yes.
The point is, how can you possibly maintain that the player's presence has not adversely affected the opposition?
In a perfect world, Rotherham would be deducted 3 points AND the game replayed.
There is a precedent of sorts: this is what happened to Middlesbrough in 1996/7 when they cried off from a home game against Blackburn without prior approval (citing illness). They had 3 points deducted and the game was replayed. They won the game when it was eventually replayed but those deducted 3 points ended up relegating them.
There is a precedent of sorts: this is what happened to Middlesbrough in 1996/7 when they cried off from a home game against Blackburn without prior approval (citing illness). They had 3 points deducted and the game was replayed. They won the game when it was eventually replayed but those deducted 3 points ended up relegating them.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
I don't think there is a perfect solution so the one currently in place seems as good as any and certainly better than awarding 3 points to us as I doubt we would have scored if we'd played all weekend! we did nothing wrong but we didn't do anything to deserve picking up the full three points which could in another scenario have hurt a team around us in the relegation mix?
You can't. But I suppose in this case you can easily argue that the quality of the loan player was not sufficient to provide a score changing disadvantage. It is little more than a judgement call though.
severnside gull
Well-known member
.......a bit more than a simple administrative oversight when the loan had actually expired and was not renewed by the players's club - more like chronic mismanagement but given Evans' history.........
Brian Fantana
Well-known member
I suppose the *fairest* thing to do would be for Rotherham to have 3 points docked and then the match replayed. As it is, I'd be quite happy for them to just lose the points as a) it nicely increases our buffer to the bottom 3 and b) we'd probably lose the replayed game against them anyway!
It can't be a judgement call though. It has to be a clear rule. If any player is good enough to be selected (and in this case, play 90 minutes, keep a clean sheet, and make a goal saving block tackle) then he's by default positively affected the game in his team's favour. You have to assume that whatever the level of his performance, he's playing because the other options available to the side were judged inferior. Otherwise he wouldn't be selected at all.
Ha ha I was about to say the same thing. Not like he doesn't have a history with all sorts of dodgy arrangements and such. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Evans had arranged the loan agreement and signed the paperwork!
I'd hate to be the admin guy responsible. Bet there will be an interesting fracas when Evans meets him/her in the corridor.
If the game is replayed and rotherham win again they get 3 points back so lose nothing ,thus are given a second chance . The decision should be to dock them 3 pts as a punishment as well as a fine . Also award 3 points to the team played against as no matter how large or small a part the player played he still would have influenced the game. .
I do agree with you, it has to be a rule. My rule would be "3 points deduction and game replayed". However, in reality, I am wondering whether his inclusion would have affected the result. It might have done, but I suspect the conclusion of the FA will be that with Leon Best up front and half a side made up of loan signings, Brighton are shìt and wouldn't have scored if the game had lasted 900 minutes.
My guess - and this is based on the current standing - is that Rotherham will be deducted ONE point. Which conveniently puts Millwall and Wigan both back to within two games of overhauling them (rather than three), whilst putting them back to needing two games to overhaul us, rather than one.
That's not what happened to Chesterfield when they beat MK Dons after fielding an ineligible player: the game was ordered to be replayed
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
There will be spittle and colourful unintelligible language!
fair point and that's hopefully where common sense comes into play and the general rule is changed for that situation. I'm uneasy with the idea that a club, say Brighton escape relegation but then are relegated because points are awarded to a rival team e.g. Millwall because say Wolves fielded an ineligible player against Milwall 5 months before. OK they might say that Wolves and Millwall should replay, Millwall having lost the first time, but then Millwall win the replay and that results in innocent Albion relegated
Monsieur Le Plonk
Lethargy in motion
and they are away to Fulham on Wednesday. Useful news this for us but especially handy if you are Fulham.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
The reason that happened was that they found that Wolves had provided the necessary paperwork by the deadline for their loan player to play, and that all necessary permissions were in place other than C'field informing the FA correctly. In their finding the FA accepted that Chesterfield hadn't actually done anything wrong, or sort to gain and advantage, and while they could have been chucked out, a replay at MKDons was deemed suitable punishment for what was described as a technicality.
Yes, but just to muddy the waters, it goes on to say:
"6.9 PLAYING AN INELIGIBLE PLAYER
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 the
ineligibility is related to the Player’s status only.
The Board may also order that such match be replayed on such terms as are decided by the
Board which may also levy penalty points against the Club in default."
I think Rotherham losing the three points, and maybe a small fine, should be all that happens. I really don't want an extra match this bloody awful season!