Tues April 23rd. Arthur Pearce cup Semi Final. Mawnan res. Vs Threemilestone res.

[Roy D]

Arthur Pearce cup Semi Final

Mawnan reserves (Trelawney div 1)  vs Threemilestone reserves (Trelawney div 4)

At Vogue Park, St Day. 6:15/6:30 ko, depending on whether you beleive the club or the full time website.

Refreshments available at the bar & rumours St Day are putting on a bbq for spectators! 

[Phil]

Good luck boys. (Tms)

[Soccer Follower]

Mawnan Res. 0  Threemilestone Res. 1

A first half goal by Glen Patterson who waltzed his way through the Mawnan defence to score won this Arthur Pearce Cup semi-final.

Overall,Threemilestone were the better team,creating far more chances,and deserved their place in the final.

Man of the match for me was Liam Patterson who won every header and tackle.

[Shifty]

TMS Reserves by far the better side tonight.

On their game from the 1st kick to the last. Mawnan just never got going,  though only being 1-0 there was hope till the end. (It's the hope that kills you!)

 

Good luck to TMS in the final.

[Roy D]

We (Tms) missed a few early chances which made the 2nd half harder than it should have been. Mawnan are a big, physical side who were always in the game, but failed to create many clear cut chances. Nice to get some revenge after they knocked our 1st team out of the League cup earlier in the season. 

Now on to the final Kernick Road, Penryn on Sunday May 5th. Liam Patterson hoping to complete the treble in his 1st season in management. 

[Tom Trust]

Enjoyed the occasion: two teams who wanted to win, just the 26th minute goal that separated them. One or two missed chances, mainly by Threemilestone. I was amused how they just kicked in 1960s style before the game, no structured warming-up or training exercises, even though they were out ages before kick-off as is the modern way. Whatever happened to the days of emerging from the dressing-room about 15mins before kick-off, kicking a couple of balls around, one or two taking shots at goal, then going straight into the game (sigh!)?

Great hosting by St Day, a really well-supported club behind the scenes: don't know who the ref was but he did an excellent job. Some dreadfully Premier League-style time-wasting tactics by Threemilestone, balls held by the corner flag, late, late substitutions of players who dawdled off the pitch, delaying over free-kicks!

Mawnan huffed and puffed in the 2nd half but could not get through a resolute defence to trouble the 'keeper.

Where and when is the final, against whom?

[Dave Bartlam]

1 hour ago, Tom Trust said:

Enjoyed the occasion: two teams who wanted to win, just the 26th minute goal that separated them. One or two missed chances, mainly by Threemilestone. I was amused how they just kicked in 1960s style before the game, no structured warming-up or training exercises, even though they were out ages before kick-off as is the modern way. Whatever happened to the days of emerging from the dressing-room about 15mins before kick-off, kicking a couple of balls around, one or two taking shots at goal, then going straight into the game (sigh!)?

Great hosting by St Day, a really well-supported club behind the scenes: don't know who the ref was but he did an excellent job. Some dreadfully Premier League-style time-wasting tactics by Threemilestone, balls held by the corner flag, late, late substitutions of players who dawdled off the pitch, delaying over free-kicks!

Mawnan huffed and puffed in the 2nd half but could not get through a resolute defence to trouble the 'keeper.

Where and when is the final, against whom?

Junior Cup Day - May 5th against New Inn Titans Reserves at Kernick Road

[Clubman]

11 hours ago, Roy D said:

We (Tms) missed a few early chances which made the 2nd half harder than it should have been. Mawnan are a big, physical side who were always in the game, but failed to create many clear cut chances. Nice to get some revenge after they knocked our 1st team out of the League cup earlier in the season. 

Now on to the final Kernick Road, Penryn on Sunday May 5th. Liam Patterson hoping to complete the treble in his 1st season in management. 

Same day as the Junior  Cup  Final? 

[Dave Bartlam]

44 minutes ago, Clubman said:

Same day as the Junior  Cup  Final? 

Yup! 

[#sausagefingers]

Well done to new Inn and TMS 

For reaching the final both are div 4 sides in a cup with alot of higher league teams in it..

 

[Soccer Follower]

Hearing that,subject to any appeal,Threemilestone Res. have been removed from the Cup Final and replaced by Mawnan Res. due to an issue over player eligibility.

[Sh91]

2 hours ago, Soccer Follower said:

Hearing that,subject to any appeal,Threemilestone Res. have been removed from the Cup Final and replaced by Mawnan Res. due to an issue over player eligibility.

Haha love this.

[Roy D]

12 minutes ago, Sh91 said:

Haha love this.

Hahahaha yeah always good seeing a division 4 team get kicked out after beating a division 1 team Sam you sad, sad man. 

[patch]

Div 4 team beating a div 1 team using an unfair advantage. Silly sausages 

[ian beale]

I’ve been told they’re now also reviewing all tms team sheets from the season and they may in fact have the league taken off them this could be a big twist  

[#sausagefingers]

Most teams with a cup final on the horizon tend to get players squeezing in the 5 appearances to qualify. mainly players from other senior clubs... apparently TMS used a player who only made 1 appearance for them in semi final instead of minimum of 5 🤔 

[Dave Bartlam]

21 minutes ago, ian beale said:

I’ve been told they’re now also reviewing all tms team sheets from the season and they may in fact have the league taken off them this could be a big twist  

In any situation where player eligibility is questioned due to a number of appearances, it is standard protocol to check teamsheets to ensure that before making a decision (especially one a big as removing a team from a competition), all the facts have been gathered. All teamsheets were checked to make sure that the player was definitely ineligible before taking subsequent action.

Unfortunately your source has misunderstood procedures. 

The league Title is perfectly safe for Threemilestone Reserves. 

[golong]

Good luck to Mawnan in the final

[GEACH1]

Iv heard that threemilestone will be appealing the decision, 

will the final still go ahead on the weekend whilst an appeal is in progress , as you might have to play the final then re play it again if threemilestone win their appeal? 

 

[chesterfield]

Who was the player,rules are rules but if it’s a genuine threemilestone player who maybes not played sufficient games because of injury then maybe right decision would be to reinstate them for the final.

[Dragon]

Just to enlighten everyone into what has happened over the previous few days and also clairfy the situation. The player in question was a first team player 1 of 2 that played in the game. He unfortunately had not played 5 games for tms reserves but had played well over 5 for the 1st team so had been with the club all season. The day after the semi final it became apparent that the rules regarding players playing in semi finals and finals wasn't as clear as the numerous Facebook posts had stated. The original posts had mentioned about cups but not once did they say the rulings were for certain cups. So where we have tried clarifying this rule on whether a player needs to have played 5 games for the club or team (the posts said club) we were told it was all fine by the league representative and it was right in the wording of it being club. Not once during this response was it mentioned that this rule applied to a cup that we weren't even in. The first that this seemed to have all been brought to light about the rule being different for different cups was the day after the semi final... Which is a little bit too late as the rule had already been broken. We didn't feel we had broken a rule intentionally but all due to being so badly misinformed by the league. So rather than the league accepting their fault in misinforming us they chose to kick us out, posted on Facebook claiming their original posts were misunderstood (to put the blame onto tms) and they even tried editing those original posts to cover their own back up. It appeared that the league or the representative who gave this information out was just trying to cover their own back (funny enough there has also been a couple of resignations issued to the league recently... Coincidence?) so an appeal was made highlighting all of these points and including screenshots of all comments and messages showing all the information we had been given. Had we not been told all this in the first place and had it confirmed then the player would never have played. The appeal meeting was tonight where the league decided not to reverse their decision. There is an option if we still aren't happy with the decision to appeal to the Cornwall fa which is down the club whether they do that but conveniently enough for the league if that happens it won't get there until Monday which would be after the final. In my opinion and this is not the opinion of tmsfc or anyone in the committee of the club as I am just a player but my own opinion is disgusted with the league for the way this has happened and the way the league have dealt with it by covering up their own faults. A simple solution was to have accepted this error and order the game to be replayed as it was neither teams fault that this rule was broken. But instead they covered it up. Edited original posts to hide their own faults and make tms reserves look like they have broken the rule knowingly and put the blame fully on them. Really shows how poor the league is being run when it has people within its committee who will do that rather than just holding their hands up. And people wonder why participation numbers are reducing each year when a league is run this way. Again all of this is not the opinion of Tms football club but just a player and as this is a forum we are entitled to our opinion and that's what I have given. My main reason for this post was to clarify the situation and also clear any confusion as to what happened and who is at fault. I personally am very disappointed as I feel we earned our place in a cup final by beating a team 3 divisions above us in a well contested game. It has also meant that our season has now finished as this cup final would have been our final game so seems a shame to just all be finished in this way.

[Woodster]

If Mawnan had any respect for themselves they wouldn't play in the final. They were absolutely crap in the semi 😂😂

[Gaff a cake]

Unlucky pal..... Up the titans 

 

[bighairydave]

Did the club send their squad list to be checked prior to the game?

[Azzurri]

34 minutes ago, Roy D said:

 It does feel like a kick in the teeth after battering a team 3 league's above, only to be kicked out for bringing on a player with 12 minutes remaining. As stated, we were misinformed many times, but it's always going to be difficult to get something overturned when you are appealing to the same people who misinformed you in the 1st place & the same being who disqualified you from the cup. Still a great 1st season for Tms reserves, I'm sure we would all have taken winning a league & cup double at the start of the season, just frustrating when it should have been a treble. 

Roy D, far from being misinformed, TMS asked a direct question regarding eligibility and were given a direct answer, clarifying the issue surrounding player eligibility. I called the Appeal meeting tonight so that TMS could put their side across and if necessary delay the final if that was to be the case. The resignations on the committee have nothing to do with this but are purely down to external work commitments. Whilst we as the Trelawny League committee understand the frustration of TMS, there has however been a rule breech and appropriate sanction has been applied. If there is any uncertainty regarding any of the rules, the complete set of rules can be found on the Full Time website.

Rob Noventa

Trelawny League Secretary

[Dragon]

Neither team did. Apparently it would have been signed off and cleared as OK had that been done. Which sort of shows the league rep still didn't know this rule themself until after the game. It may have helped the appeal but you would think screenshots and message proofs of texts, original posts, comments and then edited posts after the date would be clear enough to prove this wasn't just a simple matter of a team deliberately breaking a rule... Or even being naive enough to not realise the rule was there... The club sought advice as you would expect if wanting to clarify any rule and we got a response to which we then played this player. Had the response been correct in accordance with the rule then the player wouldn't have played.

3 minutes ago, Azzurri said:

Roy D, far from being misinformed, TMS asked a direct question regarding eligibility and were given a direct answer, clarifying the issue surrounding player eligibility. I called the Appeal meeting tonight so that TMS could put their side across and if necessary delay the final if that was to be the case. The resignations on the committee have nothing to do with this but are purely down to external work commitments. Whilst we as the Trelawny League committee understand the frustration of TMS, there has however been a rule breech and appropriate sanction has been applied. If there is any uncertainty regarding any of the rules, the complete set of rules can be found on the Full Time website.

Rob Noventa

Trelawny League Secretary

Here is just one screenshot showing the query from one of our players.. And there is a few more. Not once did this or the original Facebook post say anything about the rule on eligibility of players in cups being different for different cups. It was always just cups in general. These original posts were later edited (the day after the game) now making it clear it was different for different cups... Bit too late for that. Yes rules are in the rule book in black and white but if you've been advised numerous times and given confirmation on a rule then you expect to be able to trust a league representative. 

Yes the rule is what it is there was never a dispute with that. But it's the fact that kicking tms out of the cup is basically the league saying it is tms' fault... But really the league should be accountable for giving out this information. The resolution should have been due to it not being tms or Mawnan fault that this happened then game should be replayed. But the league won't accept responsibility for misinforming clubs. 

[Azzurri]

The Registration Sectetary knows the rules, better than most I might add. Had TMs submitted their squad list 5 days prior to the semi final, as per the rules, then this situation may have been avoided. TMS did submit their squad lists for the Jubilee Cup but not for the Arthur Pearce. I have reviewed the screenshots sent by TMS and along with the committee have concluded that there was no further action to be taken. I can categorically state that there has not been a cover up by anyone on the committee.

I assume you have the other screenshot showing where the question was asked regarding eligibility?

[Dragon]

Well he clearly didn't because he told us that we could play a player who had played 5 games for the club in a semi final or final. He never once mentioned in the replies or the original post that the rules were different depending on the cup which is what he should have done. And if he wasn't trying to cover anything up then why change those original posts to include those facts about different rules for different cups? There had already been a post up the day after the game stating about rules being different for different cups so why change previous posts... Because it was trying to get covered up rather than admit a big mistake had been made. And that mistake has cost our place in the final and the cover up has tried to put the blame onto tms rather than admitting it himself. 

[Woodster]

10 minutes ago, Azzurri said:

The Registration Sectetary knows the rules, better than most I might add. Had TMs submitted their squad list 5 days prior to the semi final, as per the rules, then this situation may have been avoided. TMS did submit their squad lists for the Jubilee Cup but not for the Arthur Pearce. I have reviewed the screenshots sent by TMS and along with the committee have concluded that there was no further action to be taken. I can categorically state that there has not been a cover up by anyone on the committee.

I assume you have the other screenshot showing where the question was asked regarding eligibility?

Can you read? It says 'defintely club'... Sent from Trelawny League 😂😭😂😭🤡🤡🤡🤡

[Gaff a cake]

Tms get over it ur not in the final just deal and wish at least 1 team good luck

 

 

[Roy D]

2 minutes ago, Gaff a cake said:

Tms get over it ur not in the final just deal and wish at least 1 team good luck

 

 

I already told Fenton I'll be down cheering on the Titans bud don't you worry! 

[Dragon]

No dave that's to do with divisional cups. Which is the same rule as the percy Stephens cup meaning a player needs to have player 5 games for the CLUB. So all divisional cups and PSC follow this rule and there is a different rule for the Arthur Pearce Cup where apparently it is only 5 games for the TEAM. It is the only cup in the league that does this which seems strange and you'd think it might as well be the same for all cups (especially considering regardless of club or team you can still only play 2 players from the higher team anyway). It's done anyway I've given my opinion and again it is not an opinion of Tms FC or any committee member it's my personal opinion that I don't believe tms are at fault and acted on the advice given and rather than the sensible solution of the league accepting it and arranging the game to be replayed on the basis of all that they just deem it as tms at fault and lose their place in the final which they worked hard to beat a team 3 divisions above. 

[Dave Deacon]

Got ya! I’ve deleted my post to avoid any further confusion!

”ARTHUR PEARCE CUP

a.The competition shall be decided on a knockout basis and open to all Clubs in the League who shall be allowed to enter their second team playing within this league. 

b. The entire management and control of the Competition shall be vested in the Management Committee who shall have the power to deal with any matter for which no specific provision is made.

c.In all matches, any player who has been duly registered with the League shall be eligible. No player can play for more than ONE Club in this Cup Competition during the current season. No player shall be eligible to play in the semi-final or final rounds unless he has played at least FIVE games for his team, or a lower division team of his club, in Competitions of this League in the current season. Upon application to the Management Committee, in an exceptional and proven circumstance only, special consideration may be given to the position of the goalkeeper.

d.Teams appearing in the Semi-Finals and Final shall submit the names of players from whom their team will be chosen to the League Registration Secretary at least 5 days prior to the semi-finals and final, together with the colours of the shirts, shorts and stockings they propose to wear. 

e.No more than TWO players who are considered to be first team regulars (see Rule 18p) may play for their reserve side in any Arthur Pearce Cup fixture. This total includes any Higher Ranked League players where the restrictions and qualifying criteria in Rule 18m shall also apply. 

f.In the event of any game in any round being undecided after normal time, then extra time not exceeding 30 minutes shall be played. If at the end of extra time the scores are still level, then the result shall be decided by the taking of penalty kicks in accordance with Laws of the Game.

g.If from any cause over which neither Club has control a match is not played to a conclusion, the match shall be replayed, or, in the event of any match not being played on the date arranged through the ground being declared unfit, the match shall be played on the following Saturday or as otherwise arranged by the Fixtures Secretary. The Management Committee may, after two postponements or any postponement thereafter, order a fixture to be reversed.

h.The Semi-Finals and Final shall take place on neutral grounds selected by the League Management Committee. The Management Committee shall take all receipts and pay all expenses.”

[Dragon]

Yeah that's the one. The issue wasn't with the rule it was with the information a few people received which was never clear there was a different rule for different cups (or rather a different rule for one cup in particular) we have obviously gone off this advice thinking it was reliable advice from a league rep, but the decision has stood and the season is over for us. 

[Dave Deacon]

What about the squad submission point 5 days in advance?

[Dragon]

Neither team had done that. But also the player that was ineligible was actually added last minute due to someone else pulling out 2 hours before kickoff... So even if the teamsheet had been submitted all this would have still happened because a player was played who hadn't played 5 games for our team (but had played 5 for the club). So it's been made out that tms has misunderstood and made the mistake when we feel the mistake came from advice we were given. Ultimately there are various reasons on both sides of all this that are both valid in their own rights but the decision has been made and we're the ones that have suffered in the end. 

[bighairydave]

3 hours ago, Dragon said:

No dave that's to do with divisional cups. Which is the same rule as the percy Stephens cup meaning a player needs to have player 5 games for the CLUB. So all divisional cups and PSC follow this rule and there is a different rule for the Arthur Pearce Cup where apparently it is only 5 games for the TEAM. It is the only cup in the league that does this which seems strange and you'd think it might as well be the same for all cups (especially considering regardless of club or team you can still only play 2 players from the higher team anyway). It's done anyway I've given my opinion and again it is not an opinion of Tms FC or any committee member it's my personal opinion that I don't believe tms are at fault and acted on the advice given and rather than the sensible solution of the league accepting it and arranging the game to be replayed on the basis of all that they just deem it as tms at fault and lose their place in the final which they worked hard to beat a team 3 divisions above. 

The divisional cups also are 5 for the team. It’s only on the PSC that is 5 for the club!

[Dragon]

No divisional cups is 5 for the club as well as percy Stephens. It's only the Arthur Pearce where it is 5 games for the team

[bighairydave]

1 hour ago, Dragon said:

No divisional cups is 5 for the club as well as percy Stephens. It's only the Arthur Pearce where it is 5 games for the team

Apologies! But non of the first team could play in divisional cup as its 5 for club, but only for that team or a team in leagues below.

[Dragon]

No the division cups are same rules as percy Stephens... Have to have played 5 games for the club not just team and can only play 2 players from the higher team max. 

[Manager.]

So Aslong as a player has played 5 games for the club as a whole he’s eligible to play in the Percy Stephens?

[bighairydave]

On 04/05/2019 at 14:46, Dragon said:

No the division cups are same rules as percy Stephens... Have to have played 5 games for the club not just team and can only play 2 players from the higher team max. 

c.In all matches, any player who has been duly registered with this League shall eligible. Noplayer can play for more than ONE Club in each Divisional Cup Competition during the current season.  All players must have played at least FIVE games (including Cup Competitions) for their club in either the respective division or a lower division of this League during the current season to be eligible to play in the semi-finals or final of these competitions. Upon application to the Management Committee, in an exceptional and proven circumstance only, special consideration may be given to the position of the goalkeeper.