Forfeit game! Points deduction.

[raging blue 1972 894]

Just now, The Dude said:

No. If we done it now and got the season stopped you'd all be demanding we had points deductions so we wouldn't be top of the table.

simple answer yes or no could we do this and be awarded the title

[Dave Hedgehog 10,673]

A player who legally isn’t allowed to compete in a sport for at least 14 days isn’t eligible to play in any sport for at least 14 days.

SIMPLE AS THAT.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, raging blue 1972 said:

simple answer yes or no could we do this and be awarded the title

No.

[raging blue 1972 894]

Just now, The Dude said:

No.

why not

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Real Ranger said:

In what way does that mean they deliberately flouted the rules.

No one is denying they didn’t break the rules.

Players must be registered in the UEFA player list to play in UEFA competitions (or be eligible for games to serve a suspension). Legia removed him fro their 25 man pool and added someone in his place so they still had a full complement of players available to them, effectively nullifying the point of the suspension.

If you have a 25 man squad and one player is suspended then you have 24 available? Is that fair to say?

Legia had a 25 man pool, had one layer suspended and had 25 players available.

 UEFA and CAS both found that they deliberately flouted the rules. That was specifically the reason why the result was overturned.

[bornabear 6,202]

11 minutes ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

Can this thread not be moved it doesn't even concern us in the first place... 

Post of the day mate.

Make a new thread called " who wants an argument".

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, raging blue 1972 said:

why not

Because it would go to a vote again over ending the season. With only three games played so far, they wouldn't be ending the season on PPG.

[The Dude 20,026]

5 minutes ago, British_Empire said:

I don't think anyone's doubting they fielded an ineligible player though. It's a yardstick/precedent for celtic again, 5 or 6 years later though. 

If it was good enough for them to benefit from once, it should be good enough for them to be properly accountable for now IMO.

It's not a yardstick if Celtics player wasnt ineligible.

[BridgeIsBlue 66,606]

Just now, bornabear said:

Post of the day mate.

Make a new thread called " who wants an argument".

Going the same way of the big corruption thread over the summer. 

We all want them punished but it'll never ever  happen, pointless talk. 

[raging blue 1972 894]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Because it would go to a vote again over ending the season. With only three games played so far, they wouldn't be ending the season on PPG.

what if the scot gov said season over - I mean they would have to pass it to pay out the money, that's how it works isn't it

[The Dude 20,026]

9 minutes ago, Swally said:

Any Club which

(i) Plays a Player who is not eligible to Play;

(ii) Plays a Player in circumstances which are not in accordance with the Rules and/or Regulations; and/or

(iii) applies to Scottish FA Register a Player without the consent of the Board where such consent is required by the Rules or Regulations, shall be in breach of these Regulations

Did celtic play a player in accordance with the current rules & regulations?

Doesn't health & safety & government ruling trump SPFL rules?

To a point yes. Were celtic aware the player should have been quarantined they would have been obliged not to play him. Which comes back to the main point when did celtic find out he was in Spain. If it was before Killie then theyve fucked it. If it was after, its on the player.

You cant quarantine someone when you don't know they should be quarantined.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, raging blue 1972 said:

what if the scot gov said season over - I mean they would have to pass it to pay out the money, that's how it works isn't it

If the Scot Gov said the season was over just now, there'd be a fuckload of refunds the SPFL had to pay out  to commercial partners before there was even a thought given to paying club.s

[bornabear 6,202]

[raging blue 1972 894]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

To a point yes. Were celtic aware the player should have been quarantined they would have been obliged not to play him. Which comes back to the main point when did celtic find out he was in Spain. If it was before Killie then theyve fucked it. If it was after, its on the player.

You cant quarantine someone when you don't know they should be quarantined.

but you said a club is ultimately responsible

[raging blue 1972 894]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

If the Scot Gov said the season was over just now, there'd be a fuckload of refunds the SPFL had to pay out  to commercial partners before there was even a thought given to paying club.s

doesnt matter would the season be over and we be champions because I tell you say 30 games into the season and this shit is still with us - I could see them doing it if in the lead

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, raging blue 1972 said:

but you said a club is ultimately responsible

And my post doesnt contradict that.

 

[British_Empire 9,648]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

To a point yes. Were celtic aware the player should have been quarantined they would have been obliged not to play him. Which comes back to the main point when did celtic find out he was in Spain. If it was before Killie then theyve fucked it. If it was after, its on the player.

You cant quarantine someone when you don't know they should be quarantined.

But Legia Warsaw and Sion didn't believe their respective player/s were ineligible or else there's no way on earth that'd have played them mate.

This is the problem for me, you can put up a defence for them but it falls apart under the guise of clubs responsibility for their players - ignorance was no excuse in the eyes of the law for Legia Warsaw. 

The very last line, in bold, how can you punish Legia Warsaw and turn a 6-1 or 6-2 aggregate win into a 3-0 defeat when they didn't know their player was ineligible mate?

[Swally 6,289]

IMO Pouring over the rules and adhering to them in an autistic way often doesn't help. It's only the start of resolving an issue.

Case law wouldn't exist if we as human beings could write laws for every conceivable situation, write them perfectly and apply them.

The rules are just a starting point. 

Is there anything written in the rules about the Coronavirus? I doubt it, but they may have written something in - you never know.

Will the rules be changed after all of this is resolved? - possibly.

Should celtic get away with fielding a player who was by the dictionary definition ineligible to play? - depends what actually happened regarding boli boli and how they controlled the situation.

[bornabear 6,202]

Well, the sunshine has really gone away today, back to the normally British cloud.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, raging blue 1972 said:

doesnt matter would the season be over and we be champions because I tell you say 30 games into the season and this shit is still with us - I could see them doing it if in the lead

Season would be over. Would depend on a vote of clubs whether trophies were awarded etc.

Aye, clubs are going to deliberately encourage their players to break the law hoping that the government ends the season, likely putting clubs out of business, and then hope clubs vote again to award titles etc.

[raging blue 1972 894]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Season would be over. Would depend on a vote of clubs whether trophies were awarded etc.

Aye, clubs are going to deliberately encourage their players to break the law hoping that the government ends the season, likely putting clubs out of business, and then hope clubs vote again to award titles etc.

but they didn't know - hey if it works previously

right I'm out need a beer after this - enjoy your day lads (and gals)

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, British_Empire said:

But Legia Warsaw and Sion didn't believe their respective player/s were ineligible or else there's no way on earth that'd have played them mate.

This is the problem for me, you can put up a defence for them but it falls apart under the guise of clubs responsibility for their players - ignorance was no excuse in the eyes of the law for Legia Warsaw. 

The very last line, in bold, how can you punish Legia Warsaw and turn a 6-1 or 6-2 aggregate win into a 3-0 defeat when they didn't know their player was ineligible mate?

They DID know the player was ineligible. He was named on the circular sent to clubs listing player suspensions in the week before the game. Legia put him on the bench regardless insisting he'd served his ban. Before the first leg against celtic he also featured on the circular and had three games of a three game ban to serve.

 

[Swally 6,289]

2 minutes ago, raging blue 1972 said:

but they didn't know - hey if it works previously

right I'm out need a beer after this - enjoy your day lads (and gals)

Understandable mate

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, raging blue 1972 said:

but they didn't know - hey if it works previously

right I'm out need a beer after this - enjoy your day lads (and gals)

So clubs are going to send players away and not know about it?

Enjoy your beer.

[Real Ranger 3,193]

11 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Players must be registered in the UEFA player list to play in UEFA competitions (or be eligible for games to serve a suspension). Legia removed him fro their 25 man pool and added someone in his place so they still had a full complement of players available to them, effectively nullifying the point of the suspension.

If you have a 25 man squad and one player is suspended then you have 24 available? Is that fair to say?

Legia had a 25 man pool, had one layer suspended and had 25 players available.

 UEFA and CAS both found that they deliberately flouted the rules. That was specifically the reason why the result was overturned.

To answer your question, I agree  they should have had 24.

They obviously made a mistake believing he was eligible for the second leg.

If they had deliberately flouted the rules they would have to had believed he was crucial to the chances of them getting a result ( he clearly wasn’t ) and if not starting him bringing him on if the tie was in the balance.

The fact they brought him on at 6-1 with 2 minutes remaining is all the evidence anyone needs to realise they had made an honest mistake over his eligibility to play.