Bury field an ineligible player

and are kicked out of the FA Cup.</p>

</p>

Leeds do it and are fined 2 grand.</p>

</p>

Oh aye.</p>

 

Leeds didn't field an ineligible player nt

 

Different governing bodies of the competitions

I'm getting deja vu all over again!

 

YHPM

<img src ="http://www.torontal.com/dmodel/Adele%20Stephens.jpg">

 

Principle's exactly the same. nt

 

RE: YHPM

She'd get drenched.

 

Smart.

This bbs is ****.

 

Is there a connection ?

Do you see what I did there ?

 

Bury are appealing, say they did have permission to play

him from Danny Wilson but just didn't get thenecessary paperwork sorted. Hartlepool seem to be supporting them in it.</p>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/fa_cup/6199485.stm</p>

 

No

Totally befuddled.

 

Get them to play the tie again

I think Leeds did so in the European cup in the early 90s (played in Barcelona)

 

That would seem sensible to me. As for the Leeds thing,

then as far as I know, the league deducts any points the club earned while fielding the ineligible player, always have done. Leeds didn't get any points from the game so nothing to deduct. The league are being consistent as far as I can see.Can't see what the whinging is about.

 

I think the reason for all the whingeing is perfectly clear

It's because we all hate Leeds and it would be great for the Reds if they got points deducted.

 

The Leeds European tie

Leeds were awarded the 2nd leg 3-0 (default UEFA score if they award a game) when Stuttgart fielded an ineligible player.
However, Stuttgart had won the 1st leg 3-0, hence the 3rd game.

 

RE: That would seem sensible to me. As for the Leeds thing,

Leeds had too many loanee's in their named 16 for the match which meant that although they still didnt lose the match they have gained an advantage over everybody else in the league because the extra loanee taking up a position in the squad was one position that a regular leeds player could not use (obviously) which meant that every other team in the league that stuck to the rules that we all know have one extra chance of having one of their own players booked or sent off meaning that they'd miss a game. Leeds eliminated this possibility by using an extra loanee player instead.

Of course that isn't what leeds were thinking when they 'forgot' the rule but it is what happened and it's just one example of how they have benefited. Other examples may include financially and fitness wise as a regular player got a day off to relax.

 

How did it prevent one of their own players getting booked/sent off

when it was an unused sub? Unless you are saying that the player that would have otherwise occupied the place on the bench would, at some point, have remonstrated with the 4th official and managed to get himself sent off!

I detest Leeds as much as the next person, but there are vast differences between with the 2 cases and they aren't comparable.

 

You could argue they did

As soon as 5 players are named, the sixth one is an ineligible player.

 

Just been on Radio 5

This is the second time Bury have done this.

Last year they were docked a point for fielding an ineligible player in a league game.

 

RE: Just been on Radio 5

Isn't Neville Neville of Phil and Gary fame, Bury's General Manager?

 

Perhaps that's the rule...

... lose one point for FIELDING an ineligible player, get fined for having one on the bench ?