Consistency & Double Standards?

[rollingstone]

Had an interesting call earlier from someone within my club. Upon viewing the league table on mittoo, it appears that Newport Pagnall have been deducted the 3 points they gained by beating us a few weeks ago. The offence I'm led to believe is fielding an ineligible player who should have been suspended!.... Sound familiar? Only difference is Kings Lynn have the opportunity to 'win' the 3 points back with the match being replayed. Yet Newport Pagnall haven't been provided with that option. They simply lose the 3 points, end of.

Who does this affect? Well, I know we felt we could have taken points from that game and given the option would we like the chance of replaying the game? I don't know, I guess that's down to the people that run the club. Would have been nice to have the option though....

It certainly affects Pagnall. I'm sure they would like the 3 points back, or at least a chance to win them back....

Without any doubt, it affects Long Buckby massively. Their title rivals commit the very same offence and have the opportunity to get away with it. Pagnall don't? I notice on another thread Deeping also were denied a few years ago too. I sincerely hope for the UCL's sake that Lynn don't win the league by 3 points or less, assuming they beat Boston of course.... I reckon Buster's millions were wisely spent hiring that solicitor they apparently took to their appeal. If only us mere mortals had the same wealth and power to brow beat the league.

Consistent? Not for me. Double standards? Definitely.

Any comments or thoughts?

[jeffl]

Stoney, if the facts behind the offences are the same then the punishment should be. So if the punishment to KL wasn't, I would guess there was one or more anomolies sufficicient to warrant a different punishment. There was a heavy emphasis in the news release of having done everything reasonably possible etc ... perhaps that wasn't the case in the other instances. I don't know but sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.
Jeff

[fozwaldo]

The FA rule is that the player is responsible for knowing how many bookings he's received. It seems that in this case he didn't. Apparently KLT made enquires but neither the Lincs FA nor Spalding were able to confirm whether it was four or five cautions.

[middli01]

Actually King's Lynn were told by the Lincs FA both when the player first signed for the club and agin on the day of the game that it was 4 bookings. Alsoi the club received a letter informing the club of the suspension for the Boston game dated and received after the match was played. The confusion came down to a referee handing in a match report 3 weeks late in which Rob received the 5th booking.

[fozwaldo]

Thanks for that middi01. :-)

[kevinb]

And I thought ignorance is no defence. I dare bet Mr Hughes knows exactly how many £10's he was stopped for his cautions. It's the player's fault, no doubt the Referee concerned was/will be dealt with by his FA but Lynn should still be NOT allowed to have the chance to get the points again, in my humble opinion. (Don't think they'll need them anyway but that's not the point)

[buckbyman]

Based on the fact that the game between Boston & Kings Lynn has too be replayed. It raises a few questions;

1. Who is responsible for the costs of the new match
2. If Boston players get payed by the game, who is responsible for the cost
3. What about the spectators who already paid at the first game 271, I believe.
4. What team are Kings Lynn allowed to play, arguably they have a better squad now than they did last October, when the original game was played.
5. Why did Kings Lynn not appeal, because they can score more goals.

Questions have to be answered !!!

[baldysutd]

ANSWERS.
1: same as usual
2: same as usual
3:i'm personally happy to pay again. supporting non league
football
4:anyone who is not suspended
5:because they could lose the chance of re-gaining the 3 points

QUESTION
1: you sorted your floodlights yet.

[middli01]

Maybe Buckbyman should be concentrating on his own side after sat???

[Grissles Oleary]

Feb 26, 2012 19:59:35 GMT 1 buckbyman said:

Based on the fact that the game between Boston & Kings Lynn has too be replayed. It raises a few questions;

1. Who is responsible for the costs of the new match
2. If Boston players get payed by the game, who is responsible for the cost
3. What about the spectators who already paid at the first game 271, I believe.
4. What team are Kings Lynn allowed to play, arguably they have a better squad now than they did last October, when the original game was played.
5. Why did Kings Lynn not appeal, because they can score more goals.

Questions have to be answered !!!

All have been answered by Baldy,but does anyone actually think that Boston will lose out financially by playing us again? Lets face it they can afford to pay everything on an average home gate of 80,so another 200+ crowd will no doubt delight them.As always it will be a tough game over there,can't see them rolling over for us,can you?

[linnet1976]

As posted on another thread:

"buckbyman, cast your mind back a few years. Station Road 2004, Long Buckby 2 S & L 2. Hosts fielded an illegible player. Game re-played, Long Buckby 2 S & L 0. Two points gained instead of one lost. THAT'S a joke!!!! "

Your comments please buckbyman?

Sorted your floodlights yet??

[fozwaldo]

Thanks linnet1976. Incidentally, S & L were 'hard done to' that same season. S & L Res 1 Bedford Tn Res 0. Bedford played ineligible player. Re-play, S & L Res 0 Bedford 1.

[westlynnmike]

Hi buckbym

[westlynnmike]

Hi buckbyman, sorry about last post, it got sent before i had finished. Have Buckby got those lights fixed yet? FA rules state the football season must finish by 1st June. Do you think Buckby can fit everything in by then?

[buckbyman]

No the lights are not fixed and all fixtures have now been set, have a look at Mitoo, and the end of season will not interfere with the start of the Olympics !!!