Jump to content
Cornwall Football Forum
Dave Deacon

Trelawny League - Saturday October 21st 2017

Recommended Posts

I repeat once again

"Combo Rule 8(O)  

Any Club found to have played an ineligible Player in a match or matches shall have any points gained from that match or matches deducted from its record, up to a maximum of 12 points, and have levied upon it a fine. The Management Committee may also order that such match or matches be replayed on such terms as are decided by the Management Committee which may also levy penalty points against the Club in default. 

The Management Committee 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 where the ineligibility is related to the Player’s status.    

In exceptional circumstances the Management Committee may, at its discretion, award the points available in the match in question to the opponents, subject to the match not being ordered to be replayed."

My personal answer

This was an ORDINARY League match. If it was, perhaps, a Championship decider it might make a difference to the League's decision but The Combination League did not award points to the team that lost the game in this instance. Please go back through the seasons and you will find teams have only been awarded points if their game was never played due to their opponents not being able to raise a side.

Last comment from me on the subject as it is getting a little tedious now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/10/2017 at 10:25, Sijames said:

i understand that, but the game wont be recorded as being played so how can they 'play' an ineligible player?

Because the offence was committed in an official league game.does not matter that it was abandoned

 

Sorry Sijames not following thread before replying

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cornishteddyboy said:

I repeat once again

"Combo Rule 8(O)  

Any Club found to have played an ineligible Player in a match or matches shall have any points gained from that match or matches deducted from its record, up to a maximum of 12 points, and have levied upon it a fine. The Management Committee may also order that such match or matches be replayed on such terms as are decided by the Management Committee which may also levy penalty points against the Club in default. 

The Management Committee 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 where the ineligibility is related to the Player’s status.    

In exceptional circumstances the Management Committee may, at its discretion, award the points available in the match in question to the opponents, subject to the match not being ordered to be replayed."

My personal answer

This was an ORDINARY League match. If it was, perhaps, a Championship decider it might make a difference to the League's decision but The Combination League did not award points to the team that lost the game in this instance. Please go back through the seasons and you will find teams have only been awarded points if their game was never played due to their opponents not being able to raise a side.

Last comment from me on the subject as it is getting a little tedious now. 

@cornishteddyboy my issue is, the Halsetown v Penryn game was an 'Ordinary' match was it not? exactly the same offence happened, i.e playing an ineligible player, yet one league awards points to the opposition and the other doesnt even though these are Rules / Laws governed by the FA? quoting @B_D 'Looking on the Combo website, they have this exact ruling in place (which is taken from the FA’s Standardised Rules). ' It seems to me that rather than adhering to the FA Standardised Rules its more of an opinion based decision which differs between the Combo & Trelawny league, even though they should both be doing the same in this situation?! i know others have rightly mentioned about the management committee  making some decisions but because you have a different group of people sitting on the Combo one and the Trelawny one they seem to have come up with different decisions, which should never be the case espeically when the powers that sit in the FA have directed something else? 

i cant for the life of me work out how the Combo can decide one thing, and the Trelawny another? when its EXACTLY the same offence? how on earth someone from Holmans or Halsetown haven't picked up on this and questioned it is beyond me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sijames said:

@cornishteddyboy my issue is, the Halsetown v Penryn game was an 'Ordinary' match was it not? exactly the same offence happened, i.e playing an ineligible player, yet one league awards points to the opposition and the other doesnt even though these are Rules / Laws governed by the FA? quoting @B_D 'Looking on the Combo website, they have this exact ruling in place (which is taken from the FA’s Standardised Rules). ' It seems to me that rather than adhering to the FA Standardised Rules its more of an opinion based decision which differs between the Combo & Trelawny league, even though they should both be doing the same in this situation?! i know others have rightly mentioned about the management committee  making some decisions but because you have a different group of people sitting on the Combo one and the Trelawny one they seem to have come up with different decisions, which should never be the case espeically when the powers that sit in the FA have directed something else? 

i cant for the life of me work out how the Combo can decide one thing, and the Trelawny another? when its EXACTLY the same offence? how on earth someone from Holmans or Halsetown haven't picked up on this and questioned it is beyond me!

The Combination League obviously found that there weren't "exceptional circumstances" evident when this went to Committee. That is down to the Combination League though, not us. We are two different Leagues and of course, will operate within our own rules, despite both League's rules originating from the Standardised Rules (which can be amended by the Leagues (member clubs) at an AGM or/and SGM with FA approval). What they decide to do is up to them. I certainly won't be dragged into a debate of "they did this, you did that".

A player, who knew he was registered to another club in the League, signed registration forms for Halsetown and then played for said club in a competitive fixture without bringing it to the attention of his management team. It was an unfortunate one for Halsetown as a Club because they have been charged in accordance with Rule 8o (loss of points and a fine) for something which they were unaware of - however, if they had contacted me before the game to ask whether this player was registered elsewhere before they signed him on, this could have been avoided. This is recommended practice that I put on the clubs (and most do contact me beforehand) - send me the player details before you register them (and play them) and I'll let you know whether they are eligible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sijames said:

@cornishteddyboy my issue is, the Halsetown v Penryn game was an 'Ordinary' match was it not? exactly the same offence happened, i.e playing an ineligible player, yet one league awards points to the opposition and the other doesnt even though these are Rules / Laws governed by the FA? quoting @B_D 'Looking on the Combo website, they have this exact ruling in place (which is taken from the FA’s Standardised Rules). ' It seems to me that rather than adhering to the FA Standardised Rules its more of an opinion based decision which differs between the Combo & Trelawny league, even though they should both be doing the same in this situation?! i know others have rightly mentioned about the management committee  making some decisions but because you have a different group of people sitting on the Combo one and the Trelawny one they seem to have come up with different decisions, which should never be the case espeically when the powers that sit in the FA have directed something else? 

i cant for the life of me work out how the Combo can decide one thing, and the Trelawny another? when its EXACTLY the same offence? how on earth someone from Holmans or Halsetown haven't picked up on this and questioned it is beyond me!

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

farcical explanations!

16 hours ago, B_D said:

The Combination League obviously found that there were "exceptional circumstances" evident when this went to Committee. That is down to the Combination League though, not us. We are two different Leagues and of course, will operate within our own rules, despite both League's rules originating from the Standardised Rules (which can be amended by the Leagues (member clubs) at an AGM or/and SGM with FA approval). What they decide to do is up to them. I certainly won't be dragged into a debate of "they did this, you did that".

The Trelawny League Managment Committee did not find any "exceptional circumstances" in this instance. A player, who knew he was registered to another club in the League, signed registration forms for Halsetown and then played for said club in a competitive fixture without bringing it to the attention of his management team. This is not an "exceptional circumstance". It was an unfortunate one for Halsetown as a Club because they have been charged in accordance with Rule 8o (loss of points and a fine) for something which they were unaware of - however, if they had contacted me before the game to ask whether this player was registered elsewhere before they signed him on, this could have been avoided. This is recommended practice that I put on the clubs (and most do contact me beforehand) - send me the player details before you register them (and play them) and I'll let you know whether they are eligible. 

if the highlighted section of what you said is correct, why award the points to Penryn then? these discrepancies need to be looked at by the county FA / FA as it clearly isnt currently being done in the correct manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreeably, I haven't explained it very well at all judging by your response; so, I will again highlight what Steve has said: 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.

When responding yesterday, I was very busy in work and so wasn't giving my full attention to this thread. I since have corrected my post to reflect the decision made by the Trelawny League and to avoid confusion, which revolves around the "exceptional circumstance" wording (I've removed that part). I am still new to this role and I continue learning (this was the first time this has happened where a team has won), but rest assured that both Leagues have acted in accordance with their own rules. We do things differently, yes probably. But that is down to the individual League Management. 

5 hours ago, Sijames said:

if the highlighted section of what you said is correct, why award the points to Penryn then? these discrepancies need to be looked at by the county FA / FA as it clearly isnt currently being done in the correct manner.

There was a discrepancy on my part when explaining on this thread. There are no discrepancies with how we operate or what we do as a League. We class the offences as being rare (which they are) which is why we award the points to the non-offending side. In my understanding, it's how the League has always operated. 

On that note, I apologise for the confusion caused. I got a little bit confused with the Combination side of things when I had no idea what had happened, mix that with a busy afternoon in work. Easy mistake to make. We do class these events as an "exceptional circumstance" based on the rarity as Steve explained which is why we award the game to the opposition.... The difference being, Steve understands these rules a hell of alot better than I do and can explain them alot better - which is why I have him on speed dial! The text that you highlighted was incorrect on my part - a minor moment of confusion set in; and that is why a Committee make these decisions and not just me ;) 

Just to reiterate the fact we work on the “exceptional circumstances” part of our rules, I quote from the top of my confusing post “The Combination League obviously found that there weren't "exceptional circumstances" evident when this went to Committee” I’m not entirely sure why I typed “did not” and “not” in the part you picked up on, when this wording is the one we use (8o.iii) when it goes to a committee decision. Next time, I will read my posts before submitting.

Just bare in mind that when we make these decisions, the member clubs have a chance to appeal that decision within 7 days.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that it's due to the rarity of the occurance. We've had one other case [of an ineligible player] this season - that was due to the player playing whilst he was suspended. It doesn't happen very often. 

The other thing that the awarding of points does in this situation is to act as a deterrent because one game could possibly be worth [in hindsight] six points to the opponent. 

The difference between both leagues is their interpretation of that term "exceptional circumstance". Neither League has been  incorrect in how they've dealt with the individual occurances. Both have acted in line with our individual rules and the Standard Code of Rules. 

Unfortunately, the rubbish part of my role in the Trelawny League is that I have to enforce these rules, sometimes when I don't even want to (because I know the implications it can have on the club's). Unfortunately though, the rules are there for a reason and have to be followed and enforced. The fact I send weekly reminders to clubs who are on track to breach rules (a kick up the bum) hopefully puts that into perspective. 

It is the club's that have the say on rule changes though; we will be emailing all the club's by the end of February to see if there are any rule change proposals for the 18/19 season so if you are involved with a club and you have a rule change proposal, get it to us.

We act fairly and always offer the club's the chance to appeal. To my knowledge, our enforcement of this rule has not been appealed in many seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Bartlam I appreciate your replies and honesty. But, yes I'm sorry, I think if you are completely honest with yourself I find it hard to believe that once I stated the same incident happened in the combo as the trelawny league you didn't think to yourself a little bit....'how do we have different outcomes'? Although you state it's rare, the combo being only 1 division and then the 5 trelawny divisions I find it hard to believe that on average these 'rare' incidents haven't happened in or around the same amount of times over recent seasons.

i am not a member of either Holmans or Halsetown, but purely looking at the decisions made by individuals who collectively make up a management committee, and then the FA rules on this subject, along with the comparisons from both games irrespective of their leagues makes me wonder if someone is just hoping this would of got swept under the table. As the current discisions even though it's the same offfence are clearly wrong, and justice has not been served what so ever by the 'management committee'!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sijames said:

I think if you are completely honest with yourself I find it hard to believe that once I stated the same incident happened in the combo as the trelawny league you didn't think to yourself a little bit....'how do we have different outcomes'?

You are right, I did wonder this - I was straight on the phone this morning to a few people just getting their input as to why the two League's have different outcomes. It just boils down to interpretation and management of the ruling. Both League's are well within their rights to dock points (always happens), but they are both also well within their rights to award the points to the opposition - again I add the point that this should be acting as a deterrent.

Again, I will stick with one of my personable traits of being honest - I feel for the teams like Halsetown that have inadvertently and unintentionally fielded an ineligible player. That was reiterated in my phone call and email to the Halsetown Secretary when I contacted him informing the club what had happened. Whilst the outcome for them was not the desirable one, I know now that this team (and those that are now aware of the situation), will contact me prior to registering a player on the day to check whether the player is eligible to play - I've already received three such requests since this subject came to light on the forum.

We have a committee meeting before I deploy in a few weeks, this will be spoken about.

The thing that we all have to bare in mind is that this has (to my knowledge) always been the way that the Trelawny League has dealt with this offence. I don't think that any Club has ever raised a concern about the outcome. I think that one of the main reasons this occurrence is rare is down to the fact that the Clubs know the outcome. It acts as a deterrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sijames said:

I find it hard to believe that on average these 'rare' incidents haven't happened in or around the same amount of times over recent seasons.

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.

11 hours ago, Sijames said:

makes me wonder if someone is just hoping this would of got swept under the table.

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!

12 hours ago, Sijames said:

As the current discisions even though it's the same offfence are clearly wrong, and justice has not been served what so ever by the 'management committee'!

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.:mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the FA added the words " in exceptional circumstances" to the rule, the Combo League used to award points to a non-offending, losing team. I would say that there would need to be something "out of the ordinary" to be classed as an "exceptional circumstance", so, for example, if the unregistered or ineligible player had scored the goal or goals that resulted in victory, he would have had a direct - rather than indirect - influence upon the result. Similarly, if he was a keeper and saved 3 penalties!

In my book, something which happens infrequently doesn't make it exceptional.

I sit on both Management Committees and am fine about each having different interpretations, both of which are correct, as long as they apply them consistently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×