Jump to content
Cornwall Football Forum

Steve Carpenter

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Steve Carpenter last won the day on June 25

Steve Carpenter had the most liked content!

About Steve Carpenter

  • Rank
    Premier Contributor
  1. Mabe FC Fold

    The decision of the League at the time was that Penryn 4th's in Division 3 was the side that should be withdrawn and not the higher placed 3rd team. Penryn played this very cleverly (no I'm not going to go into details) appealed to the CCFA, won their case and the 4ths became the 3rds in Division 3. These circumstances weren't covered in League Rules at the time hower the wording in the current Rule 14d was introduced for 2012-13.
  2. Trelawny League - Saturday November 11th 2017

    Wouln't work quite as you may think Bundi. Two scenarios: 1. A breakaway league that affiliated to the CCFA would still have to fund affiliation fees, referee appointment costs and the administration overheads. It simply could not be cost free. Referee match fees are set by County as I'm sure you know. No referee that I know is doing it for the money and it's my firm belief that any that are are doing it for the wrong reasons. 2. A breakaway league that avoided the costs above by not affiliating to the CCFA would not: be able to play on an affiliated clubs ground be appointed official referees. Two key points which would make it almost impossible to get such a league off the ground.
  3. A bit of advice

    3G pitches are allowed in the league (FA Rule, Leage Rule 10) and Hayle have met their obligations by advising Madron of the footwear requirements. Very much down to Madron to sort out their footwear issues.
  4. Mabe FC Fold

    Me neither. Can't be done I'm afraid. Straight from the FA's legal department when the question was asked. It was and still is (as far as I'm aware) other than for contracted players. I don't have this to hand but I know B_D has a spread-sheet of teams by season. Off the top of my head the largest number of withdrawals (just) was for lack of players followed very closely by a lack of volunteers and then promotions to the Combination. After that it's a splattering of other reasons. If it's not in the stuff I handed over to you I may have this somewhere. Sadly there is no silver bullet for any of this.
  5. Another club folding!?

    Nor is it just football Richard. All team sports across the country and Europe are suffering similar downturns; sadly I think that Digger1000 isn't too far off the mark. Trelawny has reduced from 94 teams in 2012-13 to 67 now and that's not far off a 30% reduction in just 5 years.
  6. Another club folding!?

    A very sad day indeed when a long established club with such a rich history as Chacewater folds. It certainly makes you wonder if any club is only a season or less away from a similar fate particularly when Chacewater appeared to be so strong behind the scenes with the likes of Nigel leading from the front. A sad indication of the continuing decline in the game. Not necessarily the case with Chacewater Dave but one quote I had last season was 'Yes we've got plenty registered but you try getting them out of bed to play on a Saturday'. Those dedicated volunteers running clubs around the county have my greatest respect as it's getting harder and harder for them as each year passes.
  7. Trelawny League - Saturday October 21st 2017

    Broadly speaking they do and the outcome has been the same in every case. Despite what you may think they are rare and when you look at player registration issues last season they were pretty typical i.e. 4 dual registration players played and 4 unregistered players played. There were a further 4 player eligibility type offences. In all cases where the offending club had won the match it was awarded to the opposition. When this is put against a backdrop of @2500 registrations and over 950 league and cup matches these cases are clearly the exception. Not at all. Although I'm now only a VP I have been invited to attend meetings whilst I'm still around and nothing has changed. The Rules and any interpretation of them, as in this case, are and have always been consistently applied. We don't do secrets! Not wrong, just different application in different leagues; CTB makes an excellent point above for example. As long as each of those leagues acts consistently for any given set of circumstances then everyone in that league knows where they stand. Anyway, enough from me on this, this is a results thread after all. Lets see what tomorrow's games bring.
  8. Trelawny League - Saturday October 21st 2017

    The 'exceptional circumstances' phrase is a relatively new change to the Standard Code Of Rules. The Trelawny League have always acted in this way in response to these sort of offences and when the change came in given that the term means 'unusual and not likely to happen very often' took the decision to carry on as before. Pro-rata the number of offences of this type is tiny so meeting the definition. What the Combination League do is entirely their decision. I agree with CTB - tedium is now setting in!
  9. Trelawny League - Saturday October 21st 2017

    Just for clarity, it's the clubs that have to seek permission of the headmaster concerned in these circumstances. There are of course possible clashes for evening matches and I had one occasion when managing where one of my players played in a school match on a Saturday morning and the head wasn't happy for him to play again in the afternoon. Normally it's a formality but it's one of those FA Rules where the club welfare officers come into their own.
  10. Trelawny League - Saturday October 21st 2017

    Not far off. The minimum is 60 mins as per Rule10b(v): 'All matches outside of the NLS shall have duration of 90 minutes unless a shorter time (not less than sixty (60) minutes) is mutually arranged by the two Clubs in consultation with the referee prior to the commencement of the match, and in any event shall be of equal halves.' 10f as quoted by Bighairydave above covers abandonments. And of course all of this has been done to death in previous seasons if anybody wishes to dig out the old posts or, even more radically, read the League Rules (https://resources.thefa.com/images/ftimages/data/league3983534/40593.pdf) before posting.
  11. CCFA breach Junior Cup Rules

    No. Shall not would but that has clearly not been used. The rule as written has not been breached. If your not happy with it propose an amendment. Should any county FA breach their rules they would be held to account by those further up the food chain should a complaint be made and upheld.
  12. CCFA breach Junior Cup Rules

    In rules and regulations 'will' is used to express an intent or desire to do something; 'shall' on the other hand is prescriptive i.e. it's mandatory and if you were to word search on any leagues rules I'm sure you'd find many, many more instances of 'shall' than 'will' for precisely this reason. The rule as it is written gave, this year, the option to play the first round on 30th September which the Competitions Committee clearly chose to do. There's nothing new in this wording. When the rules were re-written in 2013 this was a direct copy across from the old rules. And lest we forget, the dates for this years JC rounds were published months ago. I suspect some, hopefully lighthearted, mischief making by Foot Loose as I know he understands the difference. Possibly. But for various reasons it's not always possible for all clubs to play on the first date and it's written as 'shall' then what do you do? The current wording gives a clear statement of intent as to when the competition will start and the actual date is published well in advance. Last year the first round was on 1st Oct. and in 2015 the 3rd Oct.; dates which pretty much fell on the same weekend as this years. As Asterix says, does it really matter that much?
  13. CCFA breach Junior Cup Rules

    This rule is deliberately written using the word 'will' to give flexibility in circumstances where, as was the case this year, the last Saturday in September falls on the 30th or thereabouts. If the word 'shall' had been used instead of 'will' then yes, the rule would not have been followed.