presthaven
Academy Starlet
Great Spotted Woodpecker
Posts: 162
|
Post by presthaven on Mar 30, 2008 16:06:18 GMT
BREAKING: Owls could face points deduction
« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »
View GalleryBy Robert Gledhill
SHEFFIELD Wednesday's Championship survival hopes could be dealt a blow if the Football League deduct them a point for fielding too many loan players in their 1-1 draw against Stoke City at Hillsborough on Saturday.
The outcome of the League's expected investigation, demanded by the Potteries club following Frenchman Franck Songo'o second-half equaliser, would affect promotion-chasing Hull City if Stoke are awarded the three points.
Wednesday remain in the bottom three but the draw left them just one point behind Southampton and Barnsley, whom they have two and one games in hand over, respectively.
League rules state that a maximum of five loan players (either short or long-term) can be named in the match-day 16 but the Owls named six.
Graham Kavanagh (Sunderland), Ben Sahar (Chelsea) and Songo'o (Portsmouth) started the game and Adam Bolder (QPR), Enoch Showunmi (Bristol City) and Bartosz Slusarski (West Bromwich Albion) were on the bench.
Stoke fielded five loan players in their squad and were forced to leave out Paul Gallagher and Gabriel Zakuani to comply with the laws.
Only Showunmi came off the bench and the Owls will be hoping that this fact will weigh in their favour and that they can escape with a fine rather than a point deduction.
However, with the points situation being so tight at both the top and the bottom, that may not be enough to placate other clubs, including Stoke.
For the full story read Monday's Yorkshire Post.
The full article contains 252 words and appears in n/a newspaper.Last Updated: 30 March 2008 4:34 PM
|
|
|
|
Post by daverichards on Mar 30, 2008 16:32:15 GMT
best solution would be to remove the goal scored by their on loan player, one of the 6 , and award stoke a 1-0 win
|
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 30, 2008 16:34:35 GMT
Stoke awarded the 3 points???  , unlikely but POSSIBLE? |
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Mar 30, 2008 16:36:29 GMT
And just what the fuck has it got to do with "just Showunmi came off the bench?" because afterall they were all fucking ineligible to play after naming 6 loanees, were they not?.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodkab1ock on Mar 30, 2008 16:37:07 GMT
if they are deducted the point then i am sure the league will have no way of not awarding us the win, as they are as good as saying wednesday are guilty but we wont reward the main team who have been wronged that been us.
|
|
|
|
Post by PolPotter on Mar 30, 2008 16:37:26 GMT
Didn't Leeds receive a 2k fine for the same mistake?
Will we get awarded 3 points? We'd have more chance platting snot!
|
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 30, 2008 16:37:55 GMT
The fact that the paper has mentioned us being "awarded 3 points", it has given me some hope!!
Tazi, thinking exactly the same mate!
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodkab1ock on Mar 30, 2008 16:38:40 GMT
Didn't Leeds receive a 2k fine for the same mistake? Will we get awarded 3 points? We'd have more chance platting snot! go and read the other thread mate the circumstances are not the same leeds lost so they gained nothing, sheff drew and got a point and we lost 2 points. |
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Mar 30, 2008 16:40:01 GMT
IlfordDave.
Exactly my thoughts on that other thread.
That goal in my opinion has to be wiped off because it came from a player who in effect should not have being on the field of play let alone subs-bench.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin1302 on Mar 30, 2008 16:40:33 GMT
Didn't Leeds receive a 2k fine for the same mistake? Will we get awarded 3 points? We'd have more chance platting snot! Leeds lost that game though so it didn't matter |
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Mar 30, 2008 16:43:51 GMT
Replay would be fair I think!
Doubt they'll do that though, sheff wed will prob get a fine and the point deducted!
Which means we'll still get a point which doesn't help us!
|
|
|
|
Post by PolPotter on Mar 30, 2008 16:44:31 GMT
So Wednesday can expect a larger fine and the goal and point removed?
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 30, 2008 16:44:40 GMT
IlfordDave. Exactly my thoughts on that other thread. That goal in my opinion has to be wiped off because it came from a player who in effect should not have being on the field of play let alone subs-bench. That argument just won't wash tazi. They only played four of the six loanees, so while they definitely broke a rule and should be punished, there's no way we can argue that THAT particular player "shouldn't have been on the pitch." |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 30, 2008 16:46:15 GMT
Replay would be fair I think! No it wouldn't - that would give SW the chance to benefit even further from their rule break. |
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Mar 30, 2008 16:47:57 GMT
IlfordDave. Exactly my thoughts on that other thread. That goal in my opinion has to be wiped off because it came from a player who in effect should not have being on the field of play let alone subs-bench. That argument just won't wash tazi. They only played four of the six loanees, so while they definitely broke a rule and should be punished, there's no way we can argue that THAT particular player "shouldn't have been on the pitch." In my opinion Potterlog it makes no difference whatsoever because due to Wednesday naming 6 loanees it enables them to have even more of an unfair/illegal advantage when it comes to making tactical switches due to having more options. |
|
|
|
Post by polofrance on Mar 30, 2008 16:49:15 GMT
If this game had been played in France Stoke would have been awarded a 3-0 win due to the fact of Sheff Wed fielding an ineligable player, happens every year over here
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodkab1ock on Mar 30, 2008 16:50:41 GMT
and that is what we should argue Tazi if we do i dont see how we cam lose
|
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Mar 30, 2008 16:52:35 GMT
Replay, but they can't play any loan players at all would be fair!  |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 30, 2008 16:54:11 GMT
That argument just won't wash tazi. They only played four of the six loanees, so while they definitely broke a rule and should be punished, there's no way we can argue that THAT particular player "shouldn't have been on the pitch." In my opinion Potterlog it makes no difference whatsoever because due to Wednesday naming 6 loanees it enables them to have even more of an unfair/illegal advantage when it comes to making tactical switches due to having more options. Quite agree tazi, but that's a totally different point. Did they have extra options available to them? Yes Did the six named loanees directly influence the outcome of the match? I don't think it will be difficult to argue that they didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by tsueam on Mar 30, 2008 16:56:12 GMT
The only thing that really matters is that they have broken the rules by naming 6 loan players in their squad, which means they should be punished..how many played or didn't is irrelevant really.
But...the loan players that did play made a big difference ...
Obviously Songo'o with the goal and I hate to say that Kav did well but also after the match Brain Laws himself said what a difference he thought Showumni had made as an aerial threat!
He also said he didn't want to bring on the new-boy from West Brom as he wouldn't know their style of play so well and so Showumni was the ideal choice ... the subs gave them a tactical flexibility, - in another match they may have needed / used Bartosz to go all out for a win. So they were employed of Sheff's benefit.
This must make it harder for Sheffield Wednesday to argue.
|
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Mar 30, 2008 17:03:28 GMT
In my opinion Potterlog it makes no difference whatsoever because due to Wednesday naming 6 loanees it enables them to have even more of an unfair/illegal advantage when it comes to making tactical switches due to having more options. Quite agree tazi, but that's a totally different point. Did they have extra options available to them? Yes Did the six named loanees directly influence the outcome of the match? I don't think it will be difficult to argue that they didn't. Their equaliser was gained from an on loan player, and i do believe after bringing on another loanee. I fail to see how that would be seen as failure in influencing a match. |
|
KOS
Youth Player
...stranger
Posts: 379
|
Post by KOS on Mar 30, 2008 17:06:32 GMT
Did the six named loanees directly influence the outcome of the match? I don't think it will be difficult to argue that they didn't. Of course they directly influenced the outcome. This argument makes me think about a Brian Clough quote 'if the player was not interfering with play, what was he doing on the pitch?' Ok granted not all six were on the pitch but TP played by the rules and had to limit his loan players in the squad. Sheff Wed didn't. I'd like to add I think Wednesday will suffer a punishment but I can't see stoke benefiting. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 30, 2008 17:09:02 GMT
Quite agree tazi, but that's a totally different point. Did they have extra options available to them? Yes Did the six named loanees directly influence the outcome of the match? I don't think it will be difficult to argue that they didn't. Their equaliser was gained from an on loan player, and i do believe after bringing on another loanee. I fail to see how that would be seen as failure in influencing a match. I'm kind of playing devil's advocate really, I agree with you taz. BUT, as they only employed a legal number of players on the pitch, I don't think it'll be difficult for SW to argue that the match wasn't affected because not one but two of the loanees were sat on the bench the whole time. Edit - either way there's not a chance Stoke will benefit. I think a hefty fine and the one point deducted is the fairest outcome. Sadly I think we'll get squat out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Mar 30, 2008 17:09:48 GMT
Me neither, i cannot see Stoke benefitting simply because of the ammount of mither this would bring to the game, though in my opinion this is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Mar 30, 2008 17:11:36 GMT
Their equaliser was gained from an on loan player, and i do believe after bringing on another loanee. I fail to see how that would be seen as failure in influencing a match. I'm kind of playing devil's advocate really, I agree with you taz. BUT, as they only employed a legal number of players on the pitch, I don't think it'll be difficult for SW to argue that the match wasn't affected because not one but two of the loanees were sat on the bench the whole time. Makes no difference Potterlog because quite simply it gave them more options when it came to tactical switches let alone Laws stating as to how much impact Showumni had on the match after stepping off the bench. In addition, just how many more options could there actually be upon breaking this kind of rule, 10's, hundred, hundreds?. Above all else i suppose the options are endless. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 30, 2008 17:13:54 GMT
I'm kind of playing devil's advocate really, I agree with you taz. BUT, as they only employed a legal number of players on the pitch, I don't think it'll be difficult for SW to argue that the match wasn't affected because not one but two of the loanees were sat on the bench the whole time. Makes no difference Potterlog because quite simply it gave them more options when it came to tactical switches let alone Laws stating as to how much impact Showumni had on the match after stepping off the bench. I know, I'm talking in terms of making the punishment more lenient - I think this argument will be taken into account. I don't really agree with it, but I think it will be. |
|
, unlikely but POSSIBLE?
