kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 12:28:22 GMT
This forum is funny.
|
|
|
Post by DrGonzo on Mar 31, 2008 12:29:01 GMT
ricksastokie - I think you are spot on with your point. The FA have set rules and so should set punishments for breaking those rules - then there are no arguments like this when they are broken. If they fine Sheff Wed a small amount then it's not worth anyone abiding by the rules - it would have been worth us putting Gallagher in the squad.
IMHO Wednesday should simply be punished with a 1 point deduction and we can all move on.
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 12:29:30 GMT
You're all arguing that YOU should be GIVEN points for something WE did wrong?
Our punishment will be what it is, you have no say in the matter
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 12:30:04 GMT
Stoke are chasing a blind alley if they think they'll get the game awarded to them. Stoke were not put at any disadvantage because of Wednesday being incredibly stupid.
The only thing that can happen here is a punishment to ourselves. It would not be fair on the other promotion chasing sides if Stoke were gifted two additional points because we've made a mistake.
The additional player(s) had no impact on the game as they were unused substitutes, so there is absolutely no way that it will be replayed or declared as abandoned. End of as far as Stoke are concerned, they couldn't beat a rubbish Wednesday side, with a full team of eligible players on the field at any one time. Tough luck, you drew, get over it.
Now to Wednesday...
We've been really stupid here. You seriously hope that someone would have responsibility, in addition to Laws, as to checking the team for eligibility. Laws should know better, but there should be a procedure in place to prevent this sort of thing happening.
So there is either a systemic problem - where the club (as a entity) is at fault for not putting measures to make sure this can't happen. Or a failure to observe proper procedures, where the finger starts to point at Laws and co.
Either way we've really un-workable this one up.
The punishment.
Absolute minimum a fine and stern telling off. A maximum would be taking that single point off us. I really can't see a punitive sentence here (i.e. taking more off than we 'gained' by breaking the rules). That's just the way I see it.
Because we didn't field the player in question that may just save our skins (in terms of the point), just. But there's no guarantee.
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 12:30:32 GMT
GOING DOWN, GOING DOWN , GOING DOWN.
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 12:33:05 GMT
GOING DOWN, GOING DOWN , GOING DOWN. You sir, are a grade A tit. If you think it's commendable to condone a player breaking someone's ankle (as one of your players already has done earlier in the season), then you're not worth arguing with.
|
|
|
Post by stokebill on Mar 31, 2008 12:38:39 GMT
"Stoke were not put at any disadvantage because of Wednesday being incredibly stupid."
Argghhhh!!!!
Whether the result would have been different is of course debatable, and we'll never know.
But Stoke were at a disadvantage, because..
1) Sheff Wed were able to select players from the bench depending on how the game was progressing. For example (not really knowing enough about your side) Showunmi comes on if you are losing, Bolder comes on if you are winning.
2) When Sheffield equalised Stoke had 2 defenders and one goalkeeper at their disposal on the bench due to injury, suspension and having 5 loan players in the squad. Paul Gallagher would have been used had we done the same as you.
Are you honestly saying that you would think it fair if, for example, a 6th loan player comes off the bench on the 4th May, scores, and sends you down? Would this not affect you?
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 12:40:00 GMT
I've been diagnosed as a grade A tit. GET IN!! At least we aren't going down though
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 12:44:37 GMT
"Stoke were not put at any disadvantage because of Wednesday being incredibly stupid." Argghhhh!!!! Whether the result would have been different is of course debatable, and we'll never know. But Stoke were at a disadvantage, because.. 1) Sheff Wed were able to select players from the bench depending on how the game was progressing. For example (not really knowing enough about your side) Showunmi comes on if you are losing, Bolder comes on if you are winning. 2) When Sheffield equalised Stoke had 2 defenders and one goalkeeper at their disposal on the bench due to injury, suspension and having 5 loan players in the squad. Paul Gallagher would have been used had we done the same as you. Are you honestly saying that you would think it fair if, for example, a 6th loan player comes off the bench on the 4th May, scores, and sends you down? Would this not affect you? No, because we'll already be down by then... But seriously, the two rules concerning loan players are very different - Having 6 players in the 16 is for me, far less serious as having 5 players on the pitch. When you look at it, Leeds were fined £1000 for breaking BOTH rules, whereas Wednesday only broke one, the 'lesser' rule.
|
|
|
Post by ricksastokie on Mar 31, 2008 12:45:05 GMT
You're all arguing that YOU should be GIVEN points for something WE did wrong? I'm not arguing that! I'm arguing that the FA should put their house in order and implement rules and punishments so that all clubs know in advance the consequence of their actions.
|
|
|
Post by cymap on Mar 31, 2008 12:46:11 GMT
Kivo, the advantage is that Laws would have had to have a rethink on his selections like our manager did. Unfortunately your manager didnt have to shuffle his pack , who know who would have been on the pitch affecting whatever area of the game if you had to lose one of your loanees, thats how it affected us .
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 12:47:46 GMT
You're all arguing that YOU should be GIVEN points for something WE did wrong? I'm not arguing that! I'm arguing that the FA should put their house in order and implement rules and punishments so that all clubs know in advance the consequence of their actions. Fair enough, if there was a CLEAR ruling that having 6 loan players in your 16 carries a 1 point deduction then we'd have no leg to stand on, but there isn't. For me having 5 loan players on the pitch is far more serious than what we did (and Leeds were fined £500 for doing that).
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 12:49:32 GMT
Kivo, the advantage is that Laws would have had to have a rethink on his selections like our manager did. Unfortunately your manager didnt have to shuffle his pack , who know who would have been on the pitch affecting whatever area of the game if you had to lose one of your loanees, thats how it affected us . Well, if he'd picked say, Boden instead of Bolder on the bench, the game would have had the exact same outcome. But then of course, your argument would be, if we'd had Boden instead of Showunmi on the bench, what would have happened? Well I can tell you now, my cat would have done better than Showunmi.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 31, 2008 12:52:53 GMT
I genuinely think they can 100% kiss goodbye to the point they 'earned' on Saturday.
From the first whistle, Laws had an illegal set of tactical moves open to him. The things he chose to do and not to do are irrelevant. His number of options were illegally extended and the whole pool of substitute options (some of which he used) became tainted with ineligibility.
We had to do major surgery on our bench and tie our hands behind our backs in the process to comply with the rules.
|
|
|
Post by stokebill on Mar 31, 2008 12:52:56 GMT
"But seriously, the two rules concerning loan players are very different - Having 6 players in the 16 is for me, far less serious as having 5 players on the pitch.
When you look at it, Leeds were fined £1000 for breaking BOTH rules, whereas Wednesday only broke one, the 'lesser' rule."
That's the Leeds example. The Bury example was a 3-0 defeat wasn't it? (not having the time to trawl through the forum). As has been said on here the FA should have clearly defined a penalty after the Leeds incident.
To be fair I can see very little difference between the 6 in 16, and 5 on the pitch infringement. Both are blatant law breaks, both affect the outcome of a game as a consequence.
|
|
kivo
Spectator
Posts: 35
|
Post by kivo on Mar 31, 2008 12:58:00 GMT
"But seriously, the two rules concerning loan players are very different - Having 6 players in the 16 is for me, far less serious as having 5 players on the pitch. When you look at it, Leeds were fined £1000 for breaking BOTH rules, whereas Wednesday only broke one, the 'lesser' rule." That's the Leeds example. The Bury example was a 3-0 defeat wasn't it? (not having the time to trawl through the forum). As has been said on here the FA should have clearly defined a penalty after the Leeds incident. To be fair I can see very little difference between the 6 in 16, and 5 on the pitch infringement. Both are blatant law breaks, both affect the outcome of a game as a consequence. Really? So Leeds use 5 loan players when you're only allowed 4 Wednesday use 3 loan players when you're only allowed 4 Who should get the more severe punishment?
|
|
|
Post by winger on Mar 31, 2008 13:00:25 GMT
* Laws had an illegal set of tactical moves open to him. *
Translation: some spanner from Bristol City reserves who never made it onto the pitch was on their bench.
* We had to do major surgery on our bench and tie our hands behind our backs in the process to comply with the rules. *
Translation: We left out Gally, a common sense decision for anyone who witnessed his 'Super Sub' contribution against (10 man) Watford.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 31, 2008 13:01:35 GMT
Correct translations, winger.
But that's not the point.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Wheeze on Mar 31, 2008 13:03:46 GMT
I personally think Sheff Weds should be thrown out of the league and made to be an example of, while giving us 15 points in the process. Also think when Sheff Weds have been thrown out of the league they ought be replaced with Kidsgrove Athletic.
Seriously though, they ought throw the book at Sheff Weds for whats happened. When non league clubs break the rules they suffer severe punishments. Nantwich Town recently feilded an illegible player in cup match. They won the match but as a result were thrown out of the competition. This is basically what Sheff Weds have done. anyone of those 6 players was illegible cos you are only allowed 5 and not 6 players in your 16 man squad. Sheff Weds are a professional football club, so why should they get off lighty when part time non league clubs dont?
1 point deduction to sheff weds and heavy fine and 3 nil win awarded to us is say.
It wont happen though cos the league hierachy will bottle it!
Oh and Kivo, if you have/had a problem with Dicko remaining on the pitch then go complain to the ref about it.
|
|
|
Post by cymap on Mar 31, 2008 13:04:31 GMT
Well I can tell you now, my cat would have done better than Showunmi. It doesnt make any difference how he played , he played simple as that. He had an affect on the game when he might not have done if not selected.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 31, 2008 13:07:22 GMT
Good point well made on t'other thread.
|
|
10 Pint Potter
Youth Player
Goaarrn you rip roaring Potters!!!! WE ARE PREMIER LEAGUE SAY WE ARE PREMIER LEAGUE!
Posts: 417
|
Post by 10 Pint Potter on Mar 31, 2008 13:07:43 GMT
"Stoke were not put at any disadvantage because of Wednesday being incredibly stupid." Argghhhh!!!! Whether the result would have been different is of course debatable, and we'll never know. But Stoke were at a disadvantage, because.. 1) Sheff Wed were able to select players from the bench depending on how the game was progressing. For example (not really knowing enough about your side) Showunmi comes on if you are losing, Bolder comes on if you are winning. 2) When Sheffield equalised Stoke had 2 defenders and one goalkeeper at their disposal on the bench due to injury, suspension and having 5 loan players in the squad. Paul Gallagher would have been used had we done the same as you. Are you honestly saying that you would think it fair if, for example, a 6th loan player comes off the bench on the 4th May, scores, and sends you down? Would this not affect you? No, because we'll already be down by then... But seriously, the two rules concerning loan players are very different - Having 6 players in the 16 is for me, far less serious as having 5 players on the pitch. When you look at it, Leeds were fined £1000 for breaking BOTH rules, whereas Wednesday only broke one, the 'lesser' rule. that's not the point though, the point is the rules were broken even if you think it was less serious, you had a better choice of players at your disposal due to that 6th player. i think stoke should get some sort of reprieve but i highly doubt they will, sheff wed should have the point deducted though
|
|
|
Post by thingscouldbemarvellous on Mar 31, 2008 13:10:09 GMT
"The additional player(s) had no impact on the game as they were unused substitutes"
Picture these scenarios:
1.Ten minutes to go, Wednesday are one up and looking comfortable, and Brian Laws decides he wants to send his best striking option on from the bench to inject some pace and hopefully grab the goal to kill the game or provide one for a team mate - step up Bartosz Slusarski, a loanee striker from West Brazil, prolific in their reserves, shows promise and seemingly knows where the net is
2.The game is tense, the score is level and Laws considers a draw adequate, he decides he needs to send on someone to shore up the midfield so that it doesn't buckle and get overrun, to ensure the scoreline holds - Adam Bolder, a loanee, a natural replacement
3.Wednesday are behind and need to equalize, like on Saturday, and Laws wants someone to bully the opposition defenders and hopefully force an error, culminating in a goal. - On comes Enoch Showumni, a loanee, who on Saturday, came on and added an extra dimension to Wednesday's attacking play, resulting in Song'o's equalizer, Songo'o of course being another loanee.
Are there players currently on permanent contracts that could have sat on the bench instead of one of these boys? Absolutely. Burton O'Brien, Robert Burch, Ronnie Wallwork anyone?Why couldn't one of these players be on the bench instead?
Laws obviously considered the loanees to be better all round options to have on the day, breaching a very well-known rule in the process.
The punishment should be severe, simple as.
If Wednesday end up with a fine of a grand or two like Leeds, then i fully expect Stoke, and all teams in this league for that matter,to take advantage of this and use more than their allotted allowance of loanees for the last stretch of this season's games, if they feel like it.
The FA obviously don't mean what they say with these rules if teams can break them and simply be served with a slap on the wrist and a fine equalling the square root of fuck all.
In Stoke's case, a £1000 fine x 5 games = £5000
A small price to pay for promotion, right?
Leicester are sitting just above the relegation zone. They have five massive games coming up that will ensure their survival if they end favourably. There are seven loanees in their squad.
£1000 x 5 games = £5000
As long as they stay up, will they at all be arsed about forking out such a measly sum to ensure survival? I think not.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Do it for bringbackthevic on Mar 31, 2008 13:19:22 GMT
You can't guess punishment based on Leeds. The BIG point your missing there is that Leeds lost the game anyway so the FA took the easy way out and slapped their wrist knowing nobody would really care. However with Sheff W getting a draw it's a different kettle of fish. If the FA do deduct their point then I don't think they'll have any choice but to award the game to us.
|
|
|
Post by armitagestokie on Mar 31, 2008 13:28:05 GMT
The city suffered enough during the 'Blitz'--let them off.
|
|
|
Post by stokienorthants on Mar 31, 2008 13:32:24 GMT
I accept that Sheff Wed did wrong but anyone thinking for a moment that we could possibly benefit from this by way of additional points or even a replay is quite frankly delusional.
To do so would effectively penalise all of the other teams vying for promotion/play offs.
I still believe that we can achieve this on our own without any outside assistance.
G0000000000AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRN Stoke!
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Mar 31, 2008 14:05:59 GMT
"The additional player(s) had no impact on the game as they were unused substitutes" Picture these scenarios: 1.Ten minutes to go, Wednesday are one up and looking comfortable, and Brian Laws decides he wants to send his best striking option on from the bench to inject some pace and hopefully grab the goal to kill the game or provide one for a team mate - step up Bartosz Slusarski, a loanee striker from West Brazil, prolific in their reserves, shows promise and seemingly knows where the net is 2.The game is tense, the score is level and Laws considers a draw adequate, he decides he needs to send on someone to shore up the midfield so that it doesn't buckle and get overrun, to ensure the scoreline holds - Adam Bolder, a loanee, a natural replacement 3.Wednesday are behind and need to equalize, like on Saturday, and Laws wants someone to bully the opposition defenders and hopefully force an error, culminating in a goal. - On comes Enoch Showumni, a loanee, who on Saturday, came on and added an extra dimension to Wednesday's attacking play, resulting in Song'o's equalizer, Songo'o of course being another loanee. Are there players currently on permanent contracts that could have sat on the bench instead of one of these boys? Absolutely. Burton O'Brien, Robert Burch, Ronnie Wallwork anyone?Why couldn't one of these players be on the bench instead? Laws obviously considered the loanees to be better all round options to have on the day, breaching a very well-known rule in the process. The punishment should be severe, simple as. If Wednesday end up with a fine of a grand or two like Leeds, then i fully expect Stoke, and all teams in the league for that matter,to take advantage of this and use more than their allotted allowance of loanees for the last stretch of this season's games. The FA obviously don't mean what they say with these rules if teams can break them and simply be served with a slap on the wrist and a fine equalling the square root of fuck all. In Stoke's case, a £1000 fine x 5 games = £5000 A small price to pay for promotion, right? Leicester are sitting just above the relegation zone. They have five massive games coming up that will ensure their survival if they end favourably. There are seven loanees in their squad. £1000 x 5 games = £50000 As long as they stay up, will they at all be arsed about forking out sucha measly sum to ensure survival? I think not. Thoughts? Penny for Mandaric's thoughts anyone?. ???
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2008 14:09:50 GMT
Some points: 1. At 14:07 on Saturday, Nigel Johnson (Radio Stoke) interviewed our Assistant-Manager (Dave Kemp). Nige asked Kempy: "Has Gallagher been left out of the squad because of the 5-loan-player-only rule?" and Kempy replied "Yes, that's right, so Paul has had to drop out". 2. At 14:30 on Saturday The-Wendies handed in an ineligible-team to the referee 3. At 15:00 on Saturday, The-Wendies began play with said ineligible team Which loanee was or wasn't "picked last" is neither here nor there. The team select was ineligible to play. This must also be contrasted with the fact that not only did Stoke "know about the law" and change their matchday-squad to comply with it; but also by the fact that - during the game - we subbed Pearson for Bothroyd (a loanee for a loanee) to stay within the regulations. It is extremely likely Stoke will "do a Blades" if no recompense is forthcoming from any initial judgement by the Football-League. ah
|
|
|
Post by winger on Mar 31, 2008 14:14:13 GMT
* we subbed Pearson for Bothroyd (a loanee for a loanee) *
excuse me for being dense, but wtf does this mean? If you have five you can play them all, can't you?
|
|
|
Post by Stick It On Cort's Head on Mar 31, 2008 14:15:15 GMT
|
|