someone dig up those 4 horseshoes NOW!
any chances the conference will do anything for us on their review?
http://www.crawleytownfc.net/n ... hp?ID=1077[/url]
crawley point deduction reduced to 1 on appeal
http://www.footballconference. ... sp?id=1075
The appeal boards decision to uphold the deduction of a point and apply fines as per the original process confirms that the Conference commission applied the rules correctly.
How can they have applied the rules correctly if they originally deducted 5 points?
The appeal boards decision to uphold the deduction of a point and apply fines as per the original process confirms that the Conference commission applied the rules correctly.
How can they have applied the rules correctly if they originally deducted 5 points?
But the Conference have 'spun'it like this.......
http://www.footballconference.co.uk/new ... sp?id=1075
http://www.footballconference.co.uk/new ... sp?id=1075
So Crawley have been successful in having the same penalty applied for their error as the other three clubs have - lose all points gained where the player in question started the game. Good, I'm glad
It may not be a fitting punishment for the crime, it may not solve the internal mess that appears to be Conference administration, & it may not take into account what an utter #@#@#@ Steve Evans is, but it is now at least consistent with the other clubs penalised and the minimum possible under the rules that are in place - and I for one do not have an issue with it.
...and only replaces the points they blew the other day losing 3-0 at home to Salisbury..
It may not be a fitting punishment for the crime, it may not solve the internal mess that appears to be Conference administration, & it may not take into account what an utter #@#@#@ Steve Evans is, but it is now at least consistent with the other clubs penalised and the minimum possible under the rules that are in place - and I for one do not have an issue with it.
...and only replaces the points they blew the other day losing 3-0 at home to Salisbury..
Re:
Totally agree. They have now suffered the same punishment as us so no one can suggest that we wrong not to appeal."Mooro" wrote:So Crawley have been successful in having the same penalty applied for their error as the other three clubs have - lose all points gained where the player in question started the game. Good, I'm glad
It may not be a fitting punishment for the crime, it may not solve the internal mess that appears to be Conference administration, & it may not take into account what an utter #@#@#@ Steve Evans is, but it is now at least consistent with the other clubs penalised and the minimum possible under the rules that are in place - and I for one do not have an issue with it.
...and only replaces the points they blew the other day losing 3-0 at home to Salisbury..
Re:
Partially correct.......BUT it depends what our appeal was going to be based based upon."theox" wrote:Totally agree. They have now suffered the same punishment as us so no one can suggest that we wrong not to appeal."Mooro" wrote:So Crawley have been successful in having the same penalty applied for their error as the other three clubs have - lose all points gained where the player in question started the game. Good, I'm glad
It may not be a fitting punishment for the crime, it may not solve the internal mess that appears to be Conference administration, & it may not take into account what an utter #@#@#@ Steve Evans is, but it is now at least consistent with the other clubs penalised and the minimum possible under the rules that are in place - and I for one do not have an issue with it.
...and only replaces the points they blew the other day losing 3-0 at home to Salisbury..
If we had based it on the fact that they (The Conference) hadn't picked up the error for so long that it became a much more serious problem than it ever should've been then it would have been a very different appeal altogether.
Imagine if, because of their terrible administration, Hutch had been playing for the whole season and they only noticed a problem after the last league game.........and we had scraped into the playoffs. Would they then be justified to deduct ALL of the points from ALL of the games he started?
The problem has been made many times worse because they cannot do their job properly in my opinion.
DISCUSS.
-
GodalmingYellow
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
Re:
On the face of it that looks fair, but it isn't."Mooro" wrote:So Crawley have been successful in having the same penalty applied for their error as the other three clubs have - lose all points gained where the player in question started the game. Good, I'm glad
It may not be a fitting punishment for the crime, it may not solve the internal mess that appears to be Conference administration, & it may not take into account what an utter #@#@#@ Steve Evans is, but it is now at least consistent with the other clubs penalised and the minimum possible under the rules that are in place - and I for one do not have an issue with it.
...and only replaces the points they blew the other day losing 3-0 at home to Salisbury..
Eddie Hutchinson is our player. He is under contract to us and was for 2 years previous, with a further year to run when the offence occurred. He could not have played for anyone else.
The Crawley player in question, Isiah Rankin, was a new player to Crawley. He had never been previously registered with Crawley.
Our offence is purely a technical one. Crawley's is more serious.
On top of that remain the issues that points should not be deducted for this offence. It's not as if we played with 12 against 11. And it's not as if we played a player whose registration had been rejected, or someone who was new to the club.
And as Roo says, there still remains the issue that the offence was allowed to perpetuate.
I think Crawley have now recieved less punishment for a greater offence than us.
Re:
Don't really agree on the first point as we didn't register Hutch immediately as Patto didn't want him so it was a 'new' registration later than the rest of the squad. In any event, any registration error is purely a 'technical' one. So, also don't agree that they have been treated more harshly. All points gained when starting an unregistered player have been deducted from all clubs."GodalmingYellow" wrote:On the face of it that looks fair, but it isn't."Mooro" wrote:So Crawley have been successful in having the same penalty applied for their error as the other three clubs have - lose all points gained where the player in question started the game. Good, I'm glad
It may not be a fitting punishment for the crime, it may not solve the internal mess that appears to be Conference administration, & it may not take into account what an utter #@#@#@ Steve Evans is, but it is now at least consistent with the other clubs penalised and the minimum possible under the rules that are in place - and I for one do not have an issue with it.
...and only replaces the points they blew the other day losing 3-0 at home to Salisbury..
Eddie Hutchinson is our player. He is under contract to us and was for 2 years previous, with a further year to run when the offence occurred. He could not have played for anyone else.
The Crawley player in question, Isiah Rankin, was a new player to Crawley. He had never been previously registered with Crawley.
Our offence is purely a technical one. Crawley's is more serious.
On top of that remain the issues that points should not be deducted for this offence. It's not as if we played with 12 against 11. And it's not as if we played a player whose registration had been rejected, or someone who was new to the club.
And as Roo says, there still remains the issue that the offence was allowed to perpetuate.
I think Crawley have now recieved less punishment for a greater offence than us.
Of course I totally agree that all the punishments are ridiculous and the Conference officials are a bunch of clowns but hey-ho, what doesn't kill you can only make you stronger (feel free to insert your own meaningless cliche).
Its just a massive shame that any club is affected by this farce. I just hope it doesn't happen to any other club, ever. Well, except Swi**on obviously.
Re:
[quote="theox. In any event, any registration error is purely a 'technical' one. So, also don't agree that they have been treated more harshly. All points gained when starting an unregistered player have been deducted from all clubs.
Its just a massive shame that any club is affected by this farce. I just hope it doesn't happen to any other club, ever. Well, except Swi**on obviously.[/quote]
Presumably playing a player registered for another club would come under a different category of offence then.
My vote for a club to be hit by a MASSIVE points deduction would be MK Dons. And the unfairer the better. (I await a reply from DLT)
Its just a massive shame that any club is affected by this farce. I just hope it doesn't happen to any other club, ever. Well, except Swi**on obviously.
[/quote]Presumably playing a player registered for another club would come under a different category of offence then.
My vote for a club to be hit by a MASSIVE points deduction would be MK Dons. And the unfairer the better. (I await a reply from DLT)
Re:
One has to separate the justice angle from the legal angle here.
Based on all the rules that led to this, it is obvious that Crawley had a basis for appeal and Oxford didn't.
You can't appeal against the rules being crap and unjust, you can only appeal against misapplication of the rules.
As usual I expect the resident oxvox antagonist to have a pop: do you honestly believe the petition had anything whatsoever to do with the reinstatement of those points?
The real challenge is getting the rules changed so that the implementation, detection of errors, and penalties for these things are corrected.
Would there be better good-feeling if we'd been deducted 11points and had it reduced to 5 on appeal?
Based on all the rules that led to this, it is obvious that Crawley had a basis for appeal and Oxford didn't.
You can't appeal against the rules being crap and unjust, you can only appeal against misapplication of the rules.
As usual I expect the resident oxvox antagonist to have a pop: do you honestly believe the petition had anything whatsoever to do with the reinstatement of those points?
The real challenge is getting the rules changed so that the implementation, detection of errors, and penalties for these things are corrected.
Would there be better good-feeling if we'd been deducted 11points and had it reduced to 5 on appeal?
Re:
BTW that press-release from the Conference is a disgraceful example of spin. "The fact that the tribunal changed the penalty shows that we applied the penalty correctly, and we are pleased to annouce that our review will report 2-3 months later than expected".
What also seems to have happened is the relevant rule and its application to substitutes is now different to when I asked the FA about it.
Version 1 - what the FA told me...
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 in accordance with the Fines Tariff. The Company may vary the 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 in the case of where a substitute player who was intended to be a participant in a match or was listed on the official team sheet did not participate in that match.
Version 2 - posted on TIU by Oxymoron
6.8 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 in accordance with the Fines Tariff. The Company [that is, the Football Conference] 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 in the case of where a substitute player who is ineligible participates in a match or is listed on the official team sheet but does not participate in that match.
----------------
So the rule has changed from only allowing discretion for non-playing substitutes to allowing full discretion for substitutes, whether they play or not.
Why can't the Club / the FA / the Conference / Oxvox / people in the know at least tell us the rules clearly, what exactly the club got wrong, and explain how the Conference have applied the points deduction.
At least we didn't win or draw more games / Eddie didn't start more games when not registered. Seems this must have been at least 6 games when he was on the team sheet, possibly up to 11.
Version 1 - what the FA told me...
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 in accordance with the Fines Tariff. The Company may vary the 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 in the case of where a substitute player who was intended to be a participant in a match or was listed on the official team sheet did not participate in that match.
Version 2 - posted on TIU by Oxymoron
6.8 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 in accordance with the Fines Tariff. The Company [that is, the Football Conference] 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 in the case of where a substitute player who is ineligible participates in a match or is listed on the official team sheet but does not participate in that match.
----------------
So the rule has changed from only allowing discretion for non-playing substitutes to allowing full discretion for substitutes, whether they play or not.
Why can't the Club / the FA / the Conference / Oxvox / people in the know at least tell us the rules clearly, what exactly the club got wrong, and explain how the Conference have applied the points deduction.
At least we didn't win or draw more games / Eddie didn't start more games when not registered. Seems this must have been at least 6 games when he was on the team sheet, possibly up to 11.