|
|
Post by Do eet fer Paddock on Apr 3, 2008 12:14:14 GMT
Can't see the FA doing anything other than bottling it and giving Sheffield Wednesday a fine.
However, had this been in in the Premisership, with teams in corresponding positions going into the game, say Man Utd playing away at Bolton or Brum, the home team scraping a late point thanks to one the 6 loanee's, can anyone really see Man Ure not getting a replay or points from the game?
Just a thought
|
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Apr 3, 2008 12:19:33 GMT
They can only really give a fine now, but they should have changed the rules after the last time it happened or the time before.
Hopefully it will bring a change in the rules now where the other team is disqualified and receive a fine as well but that does little to help our cause.
I'm sure there was an incident in the prem between Boro and Blackburn where there was a discrepancy in the rules and the game was replayed, but can't remember what it was relating too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 3, 2008 12:21:33 GMT
Nowt to do with the FA - it is a Football League problem - it is their rules that were broken.a
|
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Apr 3, 2008 12:25:48 GMT
Boro game was back in 97 or something, they postponed a game because due to a flu outbreak they couldn't put out a team, they gave Blackburn about 48 hours notice.
The FA fined them 3 points and they lost the rearranged game. The 3 point deduction meant they were relegated that year.
In short, they should have put out a team of tea ladies and got thumped, then they would have stayed up
Matt
|
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Apr 3, 2008 12:31:44 GMT
Ah right, well that could well be put in relation as Sheff Weds would not have fielded a full team without the extra sub - But that was Prem League and not Football League.
Replay would be nice where we had the opportunity to win the extra two points but then Sheff wed would have nothing to gain and they''d probably put out a team of tea ladies - We'd win but with an undeserved two points coming our way, which i suppose highlights the fact that the FL need to clarify the rules and make it clear as to what future punishment will be!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 3, 2008 12:37:44 GMT
Wednesday had a reserve keeper they could have used as a sub. They could easily have fielded a full squad without using more than 5 loan players.
|
|
|
|
Post by knowles on Apr 3, 2008 12:38:16 GMT
I've written an article for tomorrow's Sentinel regarding it all. Not going to make any difference to the outcome but I am still pissed off with it all.
It is all ifs and buts to be honest, but had Songo'o (for arguments sake) been the one to miss out- where would their goal have come from?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2008 12:41:24 GMT
Boooooooring
We drew, get nover it, look to the future not the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by pattayapotter on Apr 3, 2008 12:51:44 GMT
That is very true, if it was a so called 'oversight' or 'technicality' why did they drop the sub keeper off the bench ?
I know we won't get anything but they should be screwed for this because it was definatley blatent cheating !
|
|
|
|
Post by SteveWyman on Apr 3, 2008 14:09:35 GMT
Two of the 6 loanees (Bolder and Slusarsky) warmed the bench all afternoon and had no impact on the game. As such I think it is appropriate that the league punish Wednesday (with a fine or point deduction) but I don't think we have any claim to compensation of any kind (such as a replay or award of points).
|
|
|
|
Post by tsueam on Apr 3, 2008 15:43:59 GMT
I know what you are saying but equally the manager selects a bench of players he feels will give him the best tactical options.
In this game, Showumni was the best option as an aerial threat but had the game gone differently he may have used Bartosz ... So I think there is an argument to suggest it helped Wednesday....
...certainly it would have helped us to have Zak on the bench
|
|
