The FA need to decide on whether it's a points deduction or not by Saturday as it's not just Millwall affected but Wigan too.
As it stands if Wigan don't beat Wolves on Saturday they are relegated regardless of Rotherham's result.
Or are they? It's confusing and unfair on Wigan if they don't win.
If they don't beat Wolves then mathematically Wigan are relegated if Rotherham aren't docked three points. But if Wigan lose and Rotherham are docked three points then it's game on again for Wigan and then suddenly they're not relegated after all.
So which is it FA? Wigan relegated or not relegated? It's a sitaution The FA could find themselves in by Saturday if they don't sort it out this week.
What about Brighton? they were beaten by a team who played an unregistered player. Can't they claim the points.
Millwall's Ex chairwomen Heather Rabbatts is a director at the FA ? Just saying.
Rotherham expect to get docked 3 points and i'm sure they will as they won the game. The goal difference may come into it. Could CAFC Old pals act, yet save the lions; or will they be devoured by the Wolves on the last day. Que sera sera.
Why can’t the FA make a simple statement on this. E.g. ‘Any team fielding an unregistered player will be deducted 3 points’. Every club (even Millwall) deserve to know exactly where they stand at every point of the season. It would eliminate doubt and possible accusations of cronyism.
Why can’t the FA make a simple statement on this. E.g. ‘Any team fielding an unregistered player will be deducted 3 points’. Every club (even Millwall) deserve to know exactly where they stand at every point of the season. It would eliminate doubt and possible accusations of cronyism.
The thing is, this is what happens in Sunday league, you loss the game 3-0 and the other team wins 3-0.
The real problem is, do the FL want to get mired in what could become a long legal battle?
If Blackpool were fined, how can you have different verdicts for the same offence?
If Rotherham have points deducted, they will undoubtedly get in the lawyers, especially if the end result is relegation. They will argue the point that a legal precedent has been set. And it would be difficult to argue against, and can be argued that a form of prejudice is being employed against Rotherham.
This isn't a new thing. I remember when John Terry was sent of against Manchester City, for a rugby tackle on Sinclair on the half way line. At the time, I thought it was absolutely the right decision at the time. Chelsea appealed, and as JT was England captain, the red card was reduced to yellow on appeal.
But they didn't think it through...
Because that meant anybody was given carte Blanche to rugby tackle any quick skilful strikers who were too good for their markers. The referees had one hand tied behind their back, knowing that the ultimate sanction had been removed from them by this decision. (I actually saw an example against Rommerdahl at the Valley the very next season.) Anybody who did it, if sent off, had an appeal already written for them.
And what message does it send out? It's OK to cheat. If a player is too quick for you, just rugby tackle them. The worst that happen is a yellow card. (Even if it was a second yellow, it is still only a 1 game ban, rather than 3.)
So, once the decision is made, it is something which is difficult to overturn. If the FL had had the good sense to impose a points deduction AND fine to Blackpool, Rotherham would have no legal recourse. At the time of the Blackpool offence, it wasn't known that Blackpool were going to be relegated.
As a legal example, say someone takes a unloaded shotgun into a bank, tries to rob it but is caught in situ by the triggering of a hidden alarm. The next person who does exactly the same thing knows that he has limited time, takes less money, and gets away, but is later arrested due to phorensic evidence. Is ignorance a defence against breaking the law? Is stupidity a justification for a reduced sentence?
The FA and FL are famous for backing down under any sort of legal pressure. Manchester United under SAF were famous for getting away with practically anything, because they used to turn up at FA headquarters with a team of highly paid and qualified lawyers and barristers. So the FA would run scared, and back down. But then, of course, the precedent is set.
So, I don't think Rotherham will get a points deduction THIS SEASON. The safe (and I'm not saying it's right) decision is, that if there is to be a points deduction, it will be for the start of NEXT season.
Heard from a friend who is employed by Rotherham , it will be dealt with on Thursday .The player in question relating to this was on loan at Rotherham and they wanted to extend the loan , they sent the papers to the FA but no one signed it off.
Heard from a friend who is employed by Rotherham , it will be dealt with on Thursday .The player in question relating to this was on loan at Rotherham and they wanted to extend the loan , they sent the papers to the FA but no one signed it off.
The real problem is, do the FL want to get mired in what could become a long legal battle?
If Blackpool were fined, how can you have different verdicts for the same offence?
They can still deduct three points and say that they are being entirely consistent, because in each case they've deducted any points that have been earned. The rules seem to be quite clear, I'm no lawyer but I don't see any reason for legal Challenge based on what it says in the rules: 42.2 Any Club playing an unregistered or ineligible Player in a League Match may have three points deducted from its score and/or be liable to such other penalty as the Board may decide.
The real problem is, do the FL want to get mired in what could become a long legal battle?
If Blackpool were fined, how can you have different verdicts for the same offence?
They can still deduct three points and say that they are being entirely consistent, because in each case they've deducted any points that have been earned. The rules seem to be quite clear, I'm no lawyer but I don't see any reason for legal Challenge based on what it says in the rules: 42.2 Any Club playing an unregistered or ineligible Player in a League Match may have three points deducted from its score and/or be liable to such other penalty as the Board may decide.
Fair enough. The rules are quite clear. But I still think Rotherham would be able to appeal it.
The dodgy word is "may". A guy I worked with got away with a sacking because of that word "may".
He was doing a job he didn't like, so stuffed tons of paperwork in his drawer, and didn't do it.
He was caught, disciplined, and transferred to another department.
He was given a final written warning, but his manager, in the warning, instead of saying "will be dismissed", wrote "may be dismissed".
Lo and behold, he did exactly the same thing. But my firm, not wanting to risk a legal dispute, gave him a SECOND final written warning! (Oxymoron, or what?)
So, if the FL want to make sure they aren't liable for a legal challenge, change the word "may" to "will".
Like this, they are able to cherry pick who gets what punishment.
The real problem is, do the FL want to get mired in what could become a long legal battle?
If Blackpool were fined, how can you have different verdicts for the same offence?
They can still deduct three points and say that they are being entirely consistent, because in each case they've deducted any points that have been earned. The rules seem to be quite clear, I'm no lawyer but I don't see any reason for legal Challenge based on what it says in the rules: 42.2 Any Club playing an unregistered or ineligible Player in a League Match may have three points deducted from its score and/or be liable to such other penalty as the Board may decide.
Fair enough. The rules are quite clear. But I still think Rotherham would be able to appeal it.
The dodgy word is "may". A guy I worked with got away with a sacking because of that word "may".
He was doing a job he didn't like, so stuffed tons of paperwork in his drawer, and didn't do it.
He was caught, disciplined, and transferred to another department.
He was given a final written warning, but his manager, in the warning, instead of saying "will be dismissed", wrote "may be dismissed".
Lo and behold, he did exactly the same thing. But my firm, not wanting to risk a legal dispute, gave him a SECOND final written warning! (Oxymoron, or what?)
So, if the FL want to make sure they aren't liable for a legal challenge, change the word "may" to "will".
Like this, they are able to cherry pick who gets what punishment.
And that IS discrimination!
I reckon it'll be like appealing a parking ticket. You think you've got good grounds but the system doesn't give a shit. That's my subjective CAFC view. My objective view is the pts deduction is fair. It will be humorous though if Millwall still can't get out of it with Rotherham's pt deduction
The real problem is, do the FL want to get mired in what could become a long legal battle?
If Blackpool were fined, how can you have different verdicts for the same offence?
They can still deduct three points and say that they are being entirely consistent, because in each case they've deducted any points that have been earned. The rules seem to be quite clear, I'm no lawyer but I don't see any reason for legal Challenge based on what it says in the rules: 42.2 Any Club playing an unregistered or ineligible Player in a League Match may have three points deducted from its score and/or be liable to such other penalty as the Board may decide.
Fair enough. The rules are quite clear. But I still think Rotherham would be able to appeal it.
The dodgy word is "may". A guy I worked with got away with a sacking because of that word "may".
He was doing a job he didn't like, so stuffed tons of paperwork in his drawer, and didn't do it.
He was caught, disciplined, and transferred to another department.
He was given a final written warning, but his manager, in the warning, instead of saying "will be dismissed", wrote "may be dismissed".
Lo and behold, he did exactly the same thing. But my firm, not wanting to risk a legal dispute, gave him a SECOND final written warning! (Oxymoron, or what?)
So, if the FL want to make sure they aren't liable for a legal challenge, change the word "may" to "will".
Like this, they are able to cherry pick who gets what punishment.
And that IS discrimination!
I reckon it'll be like appealing a parking ticket. You think you've got good grounds but the system doesn't give a shit. That's my subjective CAFC view. My objective view is the pts deduction is fair. It will be humorous though if Millwall still can't get out of it with Rotherham's pt deduction
It's a mess, as what happens to the other team on the day, should they be awarded the 3 points?
Imagine an ineligible player scores the only goal for a mid table team like Blackburn against Brighton, who get relegated by 1 point. Deducting the 3 points from Blackburn doesn't help Brighton, who without that player in the Blackburn team could have got the point they needed to stay up...
People are massively over complicating it on here. It's quite simple, if you gained points in the match where you fielded an ineligible player you lose those points. If you lost the game, there was obviously no advantage in fielding that player and there were no points gained, so you just get a fine for being idiots. It really is that simple.
Mitigating circumstances could be if say the player only came on for the last five minutes and Rotherham were already 3 or 4 nil up. But that wasn't the case, he played the full 90 minutes, was voted MOM and they scrapped a tight 1 nil win. Rotherham will almost certainly lose 3 points, but don't get your knickers in a twist, as we will almost certainly still go down.
Mitigating circumstances could be if say the player only came on for the last five minutes and Rotherham were already 3 or 4 nil up. But that wasn't the case, he played the full 90 minutes, was voted MOM and they scrapped a tight 1 nil win. Rotherham will almost certainly lose 3 points, but don't get your knickers in a twist, as we will almost certainly still go down.
Where (if any) do you see your points coming from out of the last 3 games?
Fair enough. The rules are quite clear. But I still think Rotherham would be able to appeal it.
The dodgy word is "may". A guy I worked with got away with a sacking because of that word "may".
He was doing a job he didn't like, so stuffed tons of paperwork in his drawer, and didn't do it.
He was caught, disciplined, and transferred to another department.
He was given a final written warning, but his manager, in the warning, instead of saying "will be dismissed", wrote "may be dismissed".
Lo and behold, he did exactly the same thing. But my firm, not wanting to risk a legal dispute, gave him a SECOND final written warning! (Oxymoron, or what?)
So, if the FL want to make sure they aren't liable for a legal challenge, change the word "may" to "will".
Like this, they are able to cherry pick who gets what punishment.
And that IS discrimination!
i think your employer needs to grow some!
The word 'May' is totally appropriate as 'Will' indicates pre-judgement and each disciplinary case should be treated on its own merits. 'May' means that you reserve the right and if an employee was on a live final written warning and he/she repeated the offence then it would be a pretty cast-iron safe dismissal.
Thing is the FA and Football League are basically cowards they do not want to actually relegate anybody, they don't mind make it hard to avoid the ineviatble though. So baring in mind the speed they work at I expect a points deduction but to be applied for next season, unless Rotherham go down by themselves or finish far enough above the drop that one point or goal difference would keep them up anyway.
People are massively over complicating it on here. It's quite simple, if you gained points in the match where you fielded an ineligible player you lose those points. If you lost the game, there was obviously no advantage in fielding that player and there were no points gained, so you just get a fine for being idiots. It really is that simple.
But it does get complicated because teams have been deducted points after losing the game and as Blackpool were only issued with a fine it really isn't as clear cut as you make it sound.
Mitigating circumstances could be if say the player only came on for the last five minutes and Rotherham were already 3 or 4 nil up. But that wasn't the case, he played the full 90 minutes, was voted MOM and they scrapped a tight 1 nil win. Rotherham will almost certainly lose 3 points, but don't get your knickers in a twist, as we will almost certainly still go down.
People are massively over complicating it on here. It's quite simple, if you gained points in the match where you fielded an ineligible player you lose those points. If you lost the game, there was obviously no advantage in fielding that player and there were no points gained, so you just get a fine for being idiots. It really is that simple.
But it does get complicated because teams have been deducted points after losing the game and as Blackpool were only issued with a fine it really isn't as clear cut as you make it sound.
Blackpool only got a fine rather than points deduction because they lost the game. That is consistent with @MillwallFan 's reasoning.
People are massively over complicating it on here. It's quite simple, if you gained points in the match where you fielded an ineligible player you lose those points. If you lost the game, there was obviously no advantage in fielding that player and there were no points gained, so you just get a fine for being idiots. It really is that simple.
Agreed to a point. Except for the fact that the team beaten by the side using an ineligible player (can't remember who they were, sorry) could claim that they might have won or drawn the game without that player's contribution and therefore could seek the award of points. The deduction of points from the offending team doesn't help the team who lost the game. Any subsequent award of points to the loser would have an impact on the league table. The fairest all round solution would seem to me to be a replay of the game.
The FL should have a fixed rule for this. Unfortunately, because they don't - whatever they do - if it affects the relegation outcome, they will be sued. They will probably either make a decision based on legal advice or try to wait until after the weekend, where they might have a clearer picture on the effects a points deduction will have.
People are massively over complicating it on here. It's quite simple, if you gained points in the match where you fielded an ineligible player you lose those points. If you lost the game, there was obviously no advantage in fielding that player and there were no points gained, so you just get a fine for being idiots. It really is that simple.
But it does get complicated because teams have been deducted points after losing the game and as Blackpool were only issued with a fine it really isn't as clear cut as you make it sound.
Blackpool only got a fine rather than points deduction because they lost the game. That is consistent with @MillwallFan 's reasoning.
Either last season or the season before Torquay were deducted a point for fielding an ineligible player despite losing the match, the winning team were deducted 3 points for fielding an ineligible player and both were fined.
Im just pointing out that it isn't as clear cut as is being made out.
Personally i think they should be deducted 3 (i also think the opponents should get the win)
People are massively over complicating it on here. It's quite simple, if you gained points in the match where you fielded an ineligible player you lose those points. If you lost the game, there was obviously no advantage in fielding that player and there were no points gained, so you just get a fine for being idiots. It really is that simple.
But it does get complicated because teams have been deducted points after losing the game and as Blackpool were only issued with a fine it really isn't as clear cut as you make it sound.
Blackpool only got a fine rather than points deduction because they lost the game. That is consistent with @MillwallFan 's reasoning.
Either last season or the season before Torquay were deducted a point for fielding an ineligible player despite losing the match, the winning team were deducted 3 points for fielding an ineligible player and both were fined.
Im just pointing out that it isn't as clear cut as is being made out.
Personally i think they should be deducted 3 (i also think the opponents should get the win)
The other point, that hasn't been mentioned on here (I don't think) is what the standard procedure of for registering players that have been on loan and are having their loan extended. It might be that there is no formal procedure to notifying the club that the new loan has been approved, or it might be that the rule book doesn't, explicitly, say that the club extending the loan has to have it confirmed in writing by the Football League.
Thus it might be plausible that the FL can't prove that Rotherham broke the rules as the club might have, genuine, reason for assuming that the loan has been extended. There might be precedents for teams not receiving this notification by a specific date.
I would have thought that the FL would do anything to prevent having to 'make a decision' or a ruling that changes the outcome of the season after all the football (or almost all of it) has been played.
Rotherham's odds compared to Milwall's would suggest that the bookies think that they will not go down which, in turn, suggests that they don't think there would be a points deduction.
Of it could just be that Millwall haven't beaten eleven men for over two months! ;-)
People are massively over complicating it on here. It's quite simple, if you gained points in the match where you fielded an ineligible player you lose those points. If you lost the game, there was obviously no advantage in fielding that player and there were no points gained, so you just get a fine for being idiots. It really is that simple.
But it does get complicated because teams have been deducted points after losing the game and as Blackpool were only issued with a fine it really isn't as clear cut as you make it sound.
Blackpool only got a fine rather than points deduction because they lost the game. That is consistent with @MillwallFan 's reasoning.
Either last season or the season before Torquay were deducted a point for fielding an ineligible player despite losing the match, the winning team were deducted 3 points for fielding an ineligible player and both were fined.
Im just pointing out that it isn't as clear cut as is being made out.
Personally i think they should be deducted 3 (i also think the opponents should get the win)
There was an inegilible player in both teams in the same fixture?
Comments
As it stands if Wigan don't beat Wolves on Saturday they are relegated regardless of Rotherham's result.
Or are they? It's confusing and unfair on Wigan if they don't win.
If they don't beat Wolves then mathematically Wigan are relegated if Rotherham aren't docked three points. But if Wigan lose and Rotherham are docked three points then it's game on again for Wigan and then suddenly they're not relegated after all.
So which is it FA? Wigan relegated or not relegated? It's a sitaution The FA could find themselves in by Saturday if they don't sort it out this week.
If it's done tomorrow for example, Millwall can then go into the game knowing a win can take them out the bottom 3, that could be a big lift.
Millwall's Ex chairwomen Heather Rabbatts is a director at the FA ?
Just saying.
Rotherham expect to get docked 3 points and i'm sure they will as they won the game. The goal difference may come into it. Could CAFC Old pals act, yet save the lions; or will they be devoured by the Wolves on the last day.
Que sera sera.
If Blackpool were fined, how can you have different verdicts for the same offence?
If Rotherham have points deducted, they will undoubtedly get in the lawyers, especially if the end result is relegation. They will argue the point that a legal precedent has been set. And it would be difficult to argue against, and can be argued that a form of prejudice is being employed against Rotherham.
This isn't a new thing. I remember when John Terry was sent of against Manchester City, for a rugby tackle on Sinclair on the half way line. At the time, I thought it was absolutely the right decision at the time. Chelsea appealed, and as JT was England captain, the red card was reduced to yellow on appeal.
But they didn't think it through...
Because that meant anybody was given carte Blanche to rugby tackle any quick skilful strikers who were too good for their markers. The referees had one hand tied behind their back, knowing that the ultimate sanction had been removed from them by this decision. (I actually saw an example against Rommerdahl at the Valley the very next season.) Anybody who did it, if sent off, had an appeal already written for them.
And what message does it send out? It's OK to cheat. If a player is too quick for you, just rugby tackle them. The worst that happen is a yellow card. (Even if it was a second yellow, it is still only a 1 game ban, rather than 3.)
So, once the decision is made, it is something which is difficult to overturn. If the FL had had the good sense to impose a points deduction AND fine to Blackpool, Rotherham would have no legal recourse. At the time of the Blackpool offence, it wasn't known that Blackpool were going to be relegated.
As a legal example, say someone takes a unloaded shotgun into a bank, tries to rob it but is caught in situ by the triggering of a hidden alarm. The next person who does exactly the same thing knows that he has limited time, takes less money, and gets away, but is later arrested due to phorensic evidence. Is ignorance a defence against breaking the law? Is stupidity a justification for a reduced sentence?
The FA and FL are famous for backing down under any sort of legal pressure. Manchester United under SAF were famous for getting away with practically anything, because they used to turn up at FA headquarters with a team of highly paid and qualified lawyers and barristers. So the FA would run scared, and back down. But then, of course, the precedent is set.
So, I don't think Rotherham will get a points deduction THIS SEASON. The safe (and I'm not saying it's right) decision is, that if there is to be a points deduction, it will be for the start of NEXT season.
Just my belief...
http://www.football-league.co.uk/global/section6.aspx#erxDsqJC2rfl07bO.99
The dodgy word is "may". A guy I worked with got away with a sacking because of that word "may".
He was doing a job he didn't like, so stuffed tons of paperwork in his drawer, and didn't do it.
He was caught, disciplined, and transferred to another department.
He was given a final written warning, but his manager, in the warning, instead of saying "will be dismissed", wrote "may be dismissed".
Lo and behold, he did exactly the same thing. But my firm, not wanting to risk a legal dispute, gave him a SECOND final written warning! (Oxymoron, or what?)
So, if the FL want to make sure they aren't liable for a legal challenge, change the word "may" to "will".
Like this, they are able to cherry pick who gets what punishment.
And that IS discrimination!
Imagine an ineligible player scores the only goal for a mid table team like Blackburn against Brighton, who get relegated by 1 point. Deducting the 3 points from Blackburn doesn't help Brighton, who without that player in the Blackburn team could have got the point they needed to stay up...
The word 'May' is totally appropriate as 'Will' indicates pre-judgement and each disciplinary case should be treated on its own merits. 'May' means that you reserve the right and if an employee was on a live final written warning and he/she repeated the offence then it would be a pretty cast-iron safe dismissal.
Im just pointing out that it isn't as clear cut as is being made out.
Personally i think they should be deducted 3 (i also think the opponents should get the win)
Thus it might be plausible that the FL can't prove that Rotherham broke the rules as the club might have, genuine, reason for assuming that the loan has been extended. There might be precedents for teams not receiving this notification by a specific date.
I would have thought that the FL would do anything to prevent having to 'make a decision' or a ruling that changes the outcome of the season after all the football (or almost all of it) has been played.
Rotherham's odds compared to Milwall's would suggest that the bookies think that they will not go down which, in turn, suggests that they don't think there would be a points deduction.
Of it could just be that Millwall haven't beaten eleven men for over two months! ;-)