More improperly registered players?

[Brahma Bull]

[As for Burton amd the pitch invasion and alleged assaults

&quotalleged assaults&quot - what is this all about?

Mr Alan Alger of Blue Square posted on the Conference Official Forum that the Setanta 'Floor Manager', a 59 year old man, was knocked to the ground and assaulted.

This happened at the time Beano and Turley were being interviewed by Rebecca Lowe and the interview was cut because of the pitch invasion.

It is alledged that Beano got knocked/pushed by Burton fans and a Mr Turley came to his aid.

[Brahma Bull]

Baboo - here's the link. Mr Algar made the opening and fourth posts.

http://www.conferenceforum.co.uk/cboard ... read=29666

[Baboo]

Baboo - here's the link. Mr Algar made the opening and fourth posts.

http://www.conferenceforum.co.uk/cboard ... read=29666

Thanks.

Now if that had been big bad Oxford that had failed to control people purporting to supporter their team imagine the publicity and outcome.
Anyone surprised that this has been kept quiet (if indeed it did happen) as its dear little Burton.

[Sideshow Rob]

Dennis Strudwick claims that the Conference are treating Histon in the same way that they treated the other four clubs but he is comparing apples with pears. The two offenses are quite different.

Could Histon claim that they didn't know that Coker had been playing in a foreign country and that it was merely an innocent oversight that caused them to play him? Or could they waited for the clearance to come through like Wrexham and Mansfield have done when in the same situation this season? It cannot be compared with forgetting that a tear-off slip of a receipt for Hutchinson's registration papers was not received.

Strudwick, Lee and their fellow board member chums from Histon and Burton should look back to the last time the international clearance rule was broken and see that the Conference applied the full points deductions on Altrincham and Weymouth. Not to do so on this occasions shows preferential treatment to a sickening degree.

[Sideshow Rob]

Time to get the old prayer mat out.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/search/4302 ... off_hopes/

&quotHowever, Mr Thomas is still furious at the “incompetence

[A-Ro]

Don't get me wrong I don't agree with the points deduction in any way shape or form but I really don't get this

“It’s one rule for one and one for another.

“If we have been deducted points then they should have points deducted as well.

[ty cobb]

A-Ro you make it sound like we've been done a favour by only being deducted 5 points.

The facts are we are guilty of exactly the same offence as Mansfield and Crawley and yet we have been deducted the most points purely because the Conference didn't pick up the error (if you can call not checking a slip was not recieved an error) as quickly as it picked it up for the other teams. Histon also played a ineligable player but were lucky because he played as a sub, therefore no points taken off. Whilst consistant with the rulings made so far it is not within the spirit of the laws to apply a penalty purely based on when the ruiling body picked up the error.

This is not fair.

Furthermore, when AFC Wombles were facing a 21 points deduction the FA felt this was clearly ridiculous and changed it to 3 points claiming taking the full points off would be excessive and I think the rules were amended to reflect the international point.

To be deducted 5 points for this is just not on - it should be 3 at most (consistant with the AFC Wombles decision) to keep a sense of proportionality, this is why we should have appealed.

I actually think the FA would have just fined us given the fact Eddie was registered with them and was our player and it was obvious no advantage was being sought.

There is no way they would have increased it back to 11 points. The decision to not appeal will very likely cost us a play off place - those 2 points would be very useful now.

[A-Ro]

I'm not saying it's fair, I'm saying that they have applied the current rules even handedly, there is not one rule for one etc.

Had we appealed and got it reduced to 3 points then it would have caused an uproar from the other clubs who were dealt with in accordance with the rules.

The rules are crap, the administration is crap but it is all crap that was agreed and voted for by the BSP board which, at the time, included Mick Brown.

[Isaac]

Do we actually know for certain it was voted for by the board? My feeling given the evidence is that assuming any level of competence on the part of the conference board is not necessarily wise. Especially if Brian Lee claimed it.

I said at the time the club should have appealed. Not on the basis of the rules being implemented incorrectly (which seemed to be the only thing the club felt they could appeal on), but on the basis that the rules were unfair for this type of issue and the points deduction was arbitarily based on the luck of the random checks. AFC Wombles appealed against the rules as they were those years back, got most of their points back and a rule change followed. Most rule changes happen because of an unexpected set of circumstances - just because no-one thought of it before it happened does not mean things can't be fixed.

Problem was the club was scared of 11 points and a relegation battle. Not appealing implies acceptance and sadly unless the FA intervene (and I can't see they will at this late stage as it would be moving the goalposts for the other clubs in the playoffs) I really can't see anything changing.

[Mally]

My guess is that the Conference will change the rules at the end of the season and Brian Lee may well &quotdecide&quot to &quotretire&quot. They'll probably change it to a flat 3 point penalty for incorrecty registered players and/or a fine.

Of course we won't benefit because we'll check every registration in triplicate anyway. It will be our rivals who benefit.

[slappy]

The rules possibly won't be changed as I think that there is an overriding set of principes from FIFA / the FA that you lose any points won whilst fielding inelegible players. What can and has been changed are the procedures to try and prevent teams playing ineligible players / pick up errors.

[Hog]

Judging by the last paragraph of this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 010238.stm

Histon and the BSP have been keeping this under wraps for quite a while.

[theox]

Judging by the last paragraph of this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 010238.stm

Histon and the BSP have been keeping this under wraps for quite a while.

&quotBaldwin told BBC Radio Cambridgeshire: &quotThe rules allow for leniency in this instance because clubs cannot check every single registration.&quot &quot

Sorry, what??!?!?!?!?

[Baboo]

Judging by the last paragraph of this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 010238.stm

Histon and the BSP have been keeping this under wraps for quite a while.

&quotBaldwin told BBC Radio Cambridgeshire: &quotThe rules allow for leniency in this instance because clubs cannot check every single registration.&quot &quot

Sorry, what??!?!?!?!?

The stench is overpowering.

&quotIf you register a player, do everything properly and then the player is less than truthful there has to be leniency.&quot WHY?

&quotIt's very unfortunate, but this happened in August, clearly there are some people who would love to see Histon's play-off challenge destabilised with these stories coming out now,&quot

Well ours have been destabilised. What's good for the goose.

[Mooro]

Judging by the last paragraph of this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 010238.stm

Histon and the BSP have been keeping this under wraps for quite a while.

&quotBaldwin told BBC Radio Cambridgeshire: &quotThe rules allow for leniency in this instance because clubs cannot check every single registration.&quot &quot

Sorry, what??!?!?!?!?

I took that to mean that his club cannot go back and check every registration the player has had in the past (...to uncover that he had played abroad).

I too think there should be a universal switch across the leagues to a flat (probably 3pt) penalty for all registration issues, unless a club is shown to have acted deliberately, which would then apply the same penalty to all miscreants regardless of the actual results of games affected.

In hindsight, it looks far less likely that our penalty would have been upped to 11pts than it did at the time, which weighs the balance more towards should of having appealed, even though the apparent legal position for appeal was only the application of the rules in question rather than their validity.
Would the FA have dropped our penalty to 3pts (a al AFCW) from five I'm not sure - but ironically had we amassed a greater total with Hutch in the side they probably more likely would have done....if that makes sense.