Rotherham fielded an ineligible player against Albion

El Turi · Apr 13, 2015

I think in most countries the opposition would be awarded a 3-0 win. I'm not sure why the football league don't follow this approach as even though Rotherham will probably have 3 points deducted they would have still benefitted by denying us the win, which would have put us further ahead of them.

Shy Talk · Apr 13, 2015

What about the goal they scored against us? Does that get expunged from the records, thus giving us a better goal difference?

Perry's Tracksuit Bottoms · Apr 13, 2015

El Turi said:
I think in most countries the opposition would be awarded a 3-0 win. I'm not sure why the football league don't follow this approach as even though Rotherham will probably have 3 points deducted they would have still benefitted by denying us the win, which would have put us further ahead of them.

I assume it's because this way only the offending team is disadvantaged. If the other team were awarded the points this would disadvantage that team's league rivals (other relegation contenders in our case), and there's no guarantee the three points would have been ours had the player not played.

BensGrandad · Apr 13, 2015

El Turi said:
I think in most countries the opposition would be awarded a 3-0 win. I'm not sure why the football league don't follow this approach as even though Rotherham will probably have 3 points deducted they would have still benefitted by denying us the win, which would have put us further ahead of them.

I do not understand how leagues etc can do that as it is not within the rules. The laws of football state how a goal can be scored and does not include being given them by a disciplinary commission. When on Surrey FA we was always told we could award points but with a 0-0 score line as we couldnt award goals.

Icy Gull · Apr 13, 2015

Perry's Tracksuit Bottoms said:
I assume it's because this way only the offending team is disadvantaged. If the other team were awarded the points this would disadvantage that team's league rivals (other relegation contenders in our case), and there's no guarantee the three points would have been ours had the player not played.

This makes perfect sense

jimbob5 · Apr 13, 2015

The_Viper said:
Rotherham should see those 3 points gone then, as well as a nice little fine. Does seem weird that they don't just award the 3 points the other way mind.

If you award 3 points to the other club [us in this case], that would unfairly affect other clubs. In fact you could even have a situation where a 3rd club just escapes relegation but this is reversed by the 2nd club getting 3 points in this way!

jimbob5 · Apr 13, 2015

Icy Gull said:
This makes perfect sense

Just read this after my post. A tad surprised it was even suggested.

BensGrandad · Apr 13, 2015

I would suggest they should just lose their 3 points and left at that.

hans kraay fan club · Apr 13, 2015

I really don't agree with those saying that the points should NOT be awarded to the opposition. Only removing the points from from the transgressors, is suggesting that the presence of the ineligable player was to the BENEFIT of them and yet somehow NOT to the DETRIMENT of the opposition. This is completely illogical.

Running with [MENTION=5]Turkey[/MENTION] 's example above - say we play Millwall on the last day, and they are a point behind us in the last relegation spot - we don't actually need any points if they don't get any. We field Leo Ulloa, who is down for the weekend and fancies helping out. Leo scores 2 and we win 2-0. The league deduct the 3 points we'd illegally won, but Millwall still get 0 and are relegated. How is this possibly just?

El Turi · Apr 13, 2015

jimbob5 said:
If you award 3 points to the other club [us in this case], that would unfairly affect other clubs. In fact you could even have a situation where a 3rd club just escapes relegation but this is reversed by the 2nd club getting 3 points in this way!

That doesn't seem right to me as we could play an ineligible player against Wigan safe in the knowledge that if we were to win and the points were deducted it wouldn't be too much of an issue as Wigan wouldn't gain any ground on us because they wouldn't get the win awarded to them.

spanish flair · Apr 13, 2015

hans kraay fan club said:
I really don't agree with those saying that the points should NOT be awarded to the opposition. Only removing the points from from the transgressors, is suggesting that the presence of the ineligable player was to the BENEFIT of them and yet somehow NOT to the DETRIMENT of the opposition. This is completely illogical.

Running with [MENTION=5]Turkey[/MENTION] 's example above - say we play Millwall on the last day, and they are a point behind us in the last relegation spot - we don't actually need any points if they don't get any. We field Leo Ulloa, who is down for the weekend and fancies helping out. Leo scores 2 and we win 2-0. The league deduct the 3 points we'd illegally won, but Millwall still get 0 and are relegated. How is this possibly just?

That win against us also relegated Blackpool. I know they lost Saturday but who knows what would have happened if mathematically they still had a chance to stay up.?

Triggaaar · Apr 13, 2015

chaileyjem said:
I think its this.."any points gained" being key rule...

"Any Club found to have played an ineligible Player in a match shall have any points gained
from that match deducted from its record and have levied upon it a fine."

So, if you were one point ahead of your rivals going into the last game of the season, and a draw would give you the title and promotion (or save you from relegation), what you should do is hire the best players in the world for one game, stuff the opponents, getting you 3 points. Then you get your 3 points removed for fielding 14 ineligible players, and you win the title.

Great rule.

Damn, fixtures.

severnside gull · Apr 13, 2015

Blackpool earlier in the season got a fine (£30K of which half was suspended) for playing an ineligible player whose youth loan had expired.
In that case, as I understand it, the loan was subsequently extended.
In Rotherham's case the youth loan expired and was then not extended.

Is that enough of a difference to warrant docking three points or will they like Blackpool get let off with a fine?

El Turi · Apr 13, 2015

severnside gull said:
Blackpool earlier in the season got a fine (£30K of which half was suspended) for playing an ineligible player whose youth loan had expired.
In that case, as I understand it, the loan was subsequently extended.
In Rotherham's case the youth loan expired and was then not extended.

Is that enough of a difference to warrant docking three points or will they like Blackpool get let off with a fine?

Blackpool lost that game though so I think that's why they weren't deducted any points.

Tony Meolas Loan Spell · Apr 13, 2015

Maybe we knew this which is why we were UTTER GASH at Rotherham. No point in trying.

Wrong-Direction · Apr 13, 2015

Why doesn't anybody bloody know what this means for us!?

tiberious · Apr 13, 2015

severnside gull said:
Blackpool earlier in the season got a fine (£30K of which half was suspended) for playing an ineligible player whose youth loan had expired.
In that case, as I understand it, the loan was subsequently extended.
In Rotherham's case the youth loan expired and was then not extended.

Is that enough of a difference to warrant docking three points or will they like Blackpool get let off with a fine?

But Blackpool lost so did not gain any points. Rotherham gained 3 points so logically will loose them

Nathan · Apr 13, 2015

Can't help thinking Poyet was right when we had this situation with Hartlepool a few year back. Said something along the lines that the cheating team should be deducted 3 points and it goes down as a 3-0 win to the team that didn't cheat, and the team that didn't cheat get the 3 points.

mejonaNO12 aka riskit · Apr 13, 2015

There is no PROOF that the ineligable player has ROBBED us of a win.

However we have been unfairly denied the POTENTIAL to win the game fairly.

In the cases where a team is 4-0 down and an ineligable sub comes on for the last 2 mins, we all can agree that it makes no difference.

However, a defender playing 90mins in a clean sheet perfomance is a different matter. It's a PROPERLY difficult one for the power's that be.

There is no way you can just give us 3 un-earned points, but we deserve something for being denied the opportunity to gain a point(s)

Wrong-Direction · Apr 13, 2015

Nathan said:
Can't help thinking Poyet was right when we had this situation with Hartlepool a few year back. Said something along the lines that the cheating team should be deducted 3 points and it goes down as a 3-0 win to the team that didn't cheat, and the team that didn't cheat get the 3 points.

Hopefully this will be what happens and the only thing that keeps us up lol

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Rotherham fielded an ineligible player against Albion

Injured

Active member

King of Sussex

New member

Back on the rollercoaster

Banned

Banned

New member

The voice of reason.

Injured

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Injured

Slut Faced Whores

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page