spurs to be docked points?

Helix

they played wilson palacios today... he was suspended for hitting 5 bookings, as confirmed by the fa website yesterday morning pre-match

the precedent is there, and afaik its in the rules

how the hell does a top flight club manage to screw something like that up??

redzerdrog

Helix wrote: »

how the hell does a top flight club manage to screw something like that up??

well it is spurs:p

Helix

thats what makes it deliciously funny imo

PHB

lol Spurs, lol

DSB

How many would they be docked?

opr

How many points would the likely deduction be ?

I ask as some of the bookies may not have adjusted prices on them going down to take this into account yet.

Opr

JPA

It was 10 bookings so 2 games he was meant to miss.


How does the suspension thing work anyway? I know if it's a straight red they are suspended straight away but what about reaching 5 or 10 bookings?


So he missed the Man Utd FA cup game and the game in mid week?
Isn't that his 2 matches?

OPENROAD

Can't see this on any website, is it on ssn?

Charlie

podge018

He served his 2 games. Close this.

staker

typical boards soccer thread. now i know what it feels like to be a liverpool supporter:D

therecklessone

Some good work on this thread, give yourselves a round of applause/slow handclap (delete as applicable)

LuckyLloyd

Ardscoil Ris

Helix

DSB wrote: »

How many would they be docked?

3 points per game, so 3 points

Helix

therecklessone wrote: »

Some good work on this thread, give yourselves a round of applause/slow handclap (delete as applicable)

well according to the fa website this morning, his ban ended after todays round of games

Carcharodon

And there was me getting my hopes up when I saw the thread title.
Bah Humbug

podge018

where on the fa website deals with suspensions?

therecklessone

It's no longer viewable on their suspensions list because it has passed, but if you search for Palacios on the site you get a hit saying:

Wilson Palacios Suazo. 24/01/2009. 31/01/2009. Suspended from all football until the Club have completed 2 first team matches for 5/10/15 cautions ..

The two dates are the start/end dates of the suspension, I suspect Helix has taken the 2nd date to indicate the suspension ends at the end of the 31st Jan, whereas I believe it means the suspension ends on the 31st therefore he is available to play.

He was suspended for two games, if it started on the 24th then it was ManYoO in the cup and Stoke in the league.

Mitch Connor

he wasn't eligeble for the UNited game in the cup though, as far as i know, so can't have served a suspension in it (you can only serve a suspension with games you could actually play in)

JPA

Mitch Connor wrote: »

he wasn't eligeble for the UNited game in the cup though, as far as i know, so can't have served a suspension in it (you can only serve a suspension with games you could actually play in)

Is that actually true? Link?

Mitch Connor

JPA wrote: »

Is that actually true? Link?

player ratings for the FA Cup third round match between Spurs and Wigan...

http://www.skysports.com/football/user_ratings/0,19768,11065_3089170,00.html

Palacios played, so he was cup tied and could not play for spurs in the game against United because of that. I'm not certain that means he can not have served his suspension (as he could never have played even if he was not suspended) but as far as i know that is the case.

JPA

Mitch Connor wrote: »

player ratings for the FA Cup third round match between Spurs and Wigan...

http://www.skysports.com/football/user_ratings/0,19768,11065_3089170,00.html

Palacios played, so he was cup tied and could not play for spurs in the game against United because of that. I'm not certain that means he can not have served his suspension (as he could never have played even if he was not suspended) but as far as i know that is the case.

I don't think cup tied will come into it. Nothing will happen.

podge018

Mitch Connor wrote: »

(you can only serve a suspension with games you could actually play in)

You just made that up.

podge018

As the FA site said "Suspended from all football until the Club have completed 2 first team matches for 5/10/15 cautions .. "

until the club.

mike65

PP still quoting 9/1 to go down so they don't know about this!

Mitch Connor

podge018 wrote: »

You just made that up.

I know it is the case in the champions league - I played was suspended for 6 games (or something like that) and his club did not register him for the group phase because of it. His suspension was not served within the group phase because he was not allowed to play for his club in those games anyway.

Would seem stupid a suspension can be served in a game you are not allowed to play in anyway. How is that actually a suspension?

JPA

mike65 wrote: »

PP still quoting 9/1 to go down so they don't know about this!

Except this is BS.

mike65

Exactly! If PP don't factor it, it hasn't happened.

therecklessone

Any media reports I've seen said the suspension included the Cup game, I have no idea why that is the case but there you go.

I know for a fact that the PL fantasy site (which is usually spot on for suspensions) had him as available for yesterday's game because I looked at his stats before picking my own team.

JPA

Where did this start? Someone on a forum somewhere?

Charlie

JPA wrote: »

Where did this start? Someone on a forum somewhere?

From here.

JPA

Charlie wrote: »

From here.

Who's this Helix character?

Charlie

Maybe there is something to this.

From Goal.com

Tottenham Hotspur Face Point Deduction

Tottenham Hotspur are in real danger of having points docked for illegally playing Wilson Palacios in their Premier League clash against Bolton Wanderers yesterday.

The Honduran international was serving a ban for his former club Wigan Athletic, and there are rumours that because he played in yesterday's game, legal action should be taken against Spurs.

The suggestion is that if Palacios was still a Wigan player, his ban would have finished on 31st January, but because he moved to White Hart Lane, the ban should see him cup tied for Carling Cup and FA Cup games, meaning his ban should be carried over these games.

Therefore, his fixture list should read:

Wednesday Jan 21 2009 Burnley CC (A) (cup tied)
Saturday Jan 24 2009 Manchester United FA (A) (cup tied)
Tuesday Jan 27 2009 Stoke City (H) (suspended)
Saturday Jan 31 2009 Bolton Wanderers (A) (suspended)
Sunday Feb 08 2009 Arsenal (H) (ban lifted)

This news was revealed by a Wigan fans' website, and it is not known whether the Premier League will take legal action against Spurs, but what seems certain is that Palacios should have been made unavailable to Harry Redknapp and therefore should not have been played in the 3-2 defeat against Bolton yesterday.

therecklessone

Tottenham Hotspur are in real danger of having points docked for illegally playing Wilson Palacios in their Premier League clash against Bolton Wanderers yesterday.

The Honduran international was serving a ban for his former club Wigan Athletic, and there are rumours that because he played in yesterday's game, legal action should be taken against Spurs.

The suggestion is that if Palacios was still a Wigan player, his ban would have finished on 31st January, but because he moved to White Hart Lane, the ban should see him cup tied for Carling Cup and FA Cup games, meaning his ban should be carried over these games.

Therefore, his fixture list should read:

Wednesday Jan 21 2009 Burnley CC (A) (cup tied)
Saturday Jan 24 2009 Manchester United FA (A) (cup tied)
Tuesday Jan 27 2009 Stoke City (H) (suspended)
Saturday Jan 31 2009 Bolton Wanderers (A) (suspended)
Sunday Feb 08 2009 Arsenal (H) (ban lifted)

This news was revealed by a Wigan fans' website, and it is not known whether the Premier League will take legal action against Spurs, but what seems certain is that Palacios should have been made unavailable to Harry Redknapp and therefore should not have been played in the 3-2 defeat against Bolton yesterday.

Charlie wrote: »

Maybe there is something to this.

Maybe there is Cha', but that link you've posted adds no more than the posts on this thread.

Bobalicious93

wow, can't doubt the validity of that article anyway, what with all the quotes and everything

Quint

Any other sources on this? Goal is banned from most mesaageboards because it's just made up. Wiki is more reliable

therecklessone

Quint wrote: »

Any other sources on this?

How about Section A of the FA's disciplinary procedures, which covers:

DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES CONCERNING FIELD OFFENCES
in First Team Competitive Matches (FTCM)
FOR PLAYERS AND OFFICIALS OF CLUBS OF THE
FA Premier League, Football League and the Football Conference National Division

?

6. PUNISHMENTS – Relating to First Team Competitive Matches
(a) CAUTIONS ADMINISTERED ON THE FIELD OF PLAY
(iii) A Player who has already been subject to disciplinary action as a result of
recording five cautions and then proceeds to record a further five cautions
during the same Season, will be subject to the following punishments: -

(iv) If a Player accumulates ten recorded cautions in FTCM between the opening day
of the Playing Season and the second Sunday of April in the same Season, he will
be suspended automatically for a period covering:-
Two First Team matches

(viii) Any period of suspension arising from recording cautions will commence on the seventh day following the date of his last offence. The suspension will cover all approved First Team matches until such time as his Club’s First Team has completed the number of matches appropriate to the punishment in approved Competitions during the period covered by its opening league match and ending with the final match in which the Club is playing in an approved domestic Competition.

Palacios picked up his 10th yellow card on 17th January in a 1-0 defeat by Man City, which means his two match suspension commenced on the 24th January (Man United in the FA Cup) and was completed on the night of the 27th January (following the PL vs Stoke)

I can't imagine this is an issue that has never arisen before, which is why the lack of any mention of players serving suspensions while cup-tied, coupled with the emphasis on the Club's First Team having completed the necessary number of matches, suggests to me this is a non-issue.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Sounds like a lot of horse excrement to me. But hey sounds like the sort of thing that the FA are likely to cook up.

Daemos

Click the Goal link again. At the end, it says that it's source is yeoldtreeandcrown.com

Website doesn't exist = fake news story.

therecklessone

DaPoolRulz wrote: »

Click the Goal link again. At the end, it says that it's source is yeoldtreeandcrown.com

Website doesn't exist = fake news story.

yeoldtreeandcrown.com doesn't exist. http://www.yeoldetreeandcrown.co.uk/ does.

Still a non-story.

Daemos

Looks to me like some Wigan fans aren't happy that Palacios left, and are trying to kick up a fuss to get Spurs in trouble.

(God, it sounds like something we'd do in secondary school to our ex)

Guy:Incognito

DaPoolRulz wrote: »

Looks to me like some Wigan fans aren't happy that Palacios left, and are trying to kick up a fuss to get Spurs in trouble.

(God, it sounds like something we'd do in secondary school to our ex)

If there was no grounds for it, how could Spurs get in trouble? If there is grounds then surely they are entitled to highlight it.