Changes in SWPL

[cornishteddyboy]

LEAGUE NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

From the SWPL WEBSITE

"Official Statement issued by the board on Thursday 22nd January.

1 The board have been informed by Buckfastleigh Rangers AFC that they have withdrawn from the league with immediate affect.

2 The board will be issuing the full punishment as prescribed under league rules and are very dissappointed with the club whose actions will cause a great deal of inconvience to member clubs, league officials etc. All results and statistics will be expunged from the records.

3 The board have also deducted 1 (one) point from the playing record of Tavistock AFC in the Premier Division as they have been found to have played a player whilst under suspension in the fixture away at Saltash United on the 17th January. The result of the match stands, again the league table has been updated to reflect this deduction.

Philip Hiscox (Company Secretary)"

[Guest BJs]

Feel sorry for the likes of Pete Wordon and Carl Throgmorton who put a lot of time and money into Buckfastleigh throughout the years

[whuru]

I did say at the start of the season when Goonhavern went that they wouldn't be the last for this season.......

[Grant]

Bit harsh on saltash as they only got a draw out the game. Shouldn't they get all 3 points?

Im sure it was an honest mistake from tavvy but was there also a fine? If not I see a loop hole here and the system could be easily abused!!!

[jannerlad]

Over the past couple of years Buckfastleigh have been in and out of the league. There are some good people at the club but unfortunately not enough of them. I think they were hoodwinked a little by Darren Raven. Making promises to the committee and knowing what circumstances he was working under. Then jumping ship and leaving Richard Cameron in the firing line. All credit to Richie but the inevitable was always going to happen.

Secondly, Saltash should be awarded all 3 points especially as the suspended Tavistock player was Ryan Honey who scored one of the goals in the 2-2 draw. If he wasn't on the pitch would Tavistock have scored?????????

[Guest]

Having seen the rules of the SWPL which are quite specific, I am also of the opinion that this rule should be changed and that the non transgressing team should be awarded all three points wether they won drew or lost.

In effect Saltash have been punished two points for something not of their making. Surely the result itself should be expunged as in effect the match itself should have been deemed not to have taken place. The advantage by Tavistock in playing Ryan Honey (who also scored) did in effect cost Saltash the victory. As I said the rules are explicit and sanctioned by the FA but how unfair is that.

The result - Tavistock have gained by Saltash not receiving the three points. It seems by transgressing teams can benefit over this. What if at the end of the season Tavistock pip Saltash by 1 point for one of the cash prizes? Not exactly fair is it. In my opinion the game should have been awarded to Saltash for the three points and a 0-0 result shown.

[Julian Chenery]

ECPL - full answer to your point on SWPL website as clarified by Phil Hiscox.

'The rule is an FA rule from Soho Square not a SWPL specific rule:

Standardised FA Rule 6.8 :

""Any club found to have played an inelligible player in a match shall have any points gained from that match deducted from its record and have a fine levied on it in accordance with the fines tariff."

There is no rule where a club can be awarded points that they have not actually earnt for an inelligible player, points may only be awarded where a team either fails to attend or whose conduct causes a match to be abandoned.

The rules of the league are the same for all pyramid leagues that are sanctioned direct by Soho Square and as a precedent only last week the Conference league deducted points from 3 clubs, inc Oxford United and Crawley Town and they did not award points to the clubs whom the inelligible players appeared against.

Last point - The actual player would be further charged by the County FA for the offence of "playing whilst under suspension" the player can be further suspended and/or fined by the County FA'

[Guest]

Try looking at:

RULES OF THE SOUTH WEST PENINSULA LEAGUE 6.8.

All Phil has done is expanded on that rule insofar as the offended against team. Check it out on Page 67 of the SWPL Handbook 2008-9

[Paul]

Another complete balls up. A sad day for local football when a club cant complete its fixtures for the season when were almost in Febuary. :SM_carton:

[Guest philglossop]

I think Plymstock United may be heading East next season?

What do you guys think?

[Guest fromacrossthewater]

Plymstock were in the East last year and did well and it is my understanding that players left due to the amount of travelling in the West league. From what i see Plymstock have always been an ambitious and well run club and have been messed around by the league so should be allowed back in the the East. Have Plymstock asked to move back into the East?