Another shocking example of double standards........

will1977

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

End of the day FA have set down a precedent. So clubs in the future have to stick the ruling of fielding a strongest team. And at least Rafa put out a team. Not so long ago that United pulled out of FA cup to play in World Club championship which was absolutely appalling IMO.

Thats about the 5th irelevent comment you have mad on this matter.
I think every football fan on here agrees that it is double standards.

The one thing I hate and cringe at is football fans with blind faith that will argue and argue to defend their team when it is blindly obvious to everyone that there is no defence to it.

Stop digging, your only making yourself sound more irrational :cool:

everdead.ie

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

End of the day FA have set down a precedent. So clubs in the future have to stick the ruling of fielding a strongest team. And at least Rafa put out a team. Not so long ago that United pulled out of FA cup to play in World Club championship which was absolutely appalling IMO.

I know this is off topic but didn't the fa ask them to go because they where trying to get the euro 2004 comp at the time or some other competition so hardly there fault they weren't in the country at the time

Spiritoftheseventies

Archimedez wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? Have you even answered a single question anyone has asked you? You are so predictable...

Poster: "Why were you okay with Liverpool doing it, but not Wolves?"
You: "Wolves play their home games at Molineux, and wear an orange type home jersey. Cleary, they are a football team."

You consist of nothing but WTF statements.

Excuse me Archi but have spent the last two pages trying to explain the situation. Thats contributing to the debate. Withdraw that last remark:mad:

SantryRed

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Excuse me Archi but have spent the last two pages trying to explain the situation. Thats contributing to the debate. Withdraw that last remark:mad:

Answering with irrelevant statements is not explaining a situation.

magma69

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xywqv1cDH8

_blank_

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

have spent the last two pages trying to explain the situation.

No, you've spent the last hour and a bit putting up strawmen and irrelevencies, muddying the discussion.

Can you explain why you felt the need to mention the withdrawal of United from the FA Cup. What has that to do with this discussion.

A straight answer, if you are capable of it.

SlickRic

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Excuse me Archi but have spent the last two pages trying to explain the situation.

no you're not, sorry.

the situation is being explained to you, you're being asked questions which you will not directly answer.

Liverpool having 'exceptional circumstances' is ludicrous. we still had a game to play before the final.

Either Liverpool and Wolves both had a right to do what they did, or both didn't. you can't pick and choose.

it comes down to...you like Liverpool and therefore will defend them all the way. you hate utd and want an excuse to moan about a game they won.

Spiritoftheseventies

SlickRic wrote: »

no you're not, sorry.

the situation is being explained to you, you're being asked questions which you will not directly answer.

Liverpool having 'exceptional circumstances' is ludicrous. we still had a game to play before the final.

Either Liverpool and Wolves both had a right to do what they did, or both didn't. you can't pick and choose.

it comes down to...you like Liverpool and therefore will defend them all the way. you hate utd and want an excuse to moan about a game they won.

Thats absolute crap. English FA made a decision here based on McCarthy's decision. Thats what this is about. And as I have said they have now set down a precedent. To dissuade other teams from doing what Wolves did.

SlickRic

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Thats absolute crap. English FA made a decision here based on McCarthy's decision. Thats what this is about. And as I have said they have now set down a precedent. To dissuade other teams from doing what Wolves did.

bearing in mind this is on-topic, do you think it's the right decision, and do you think the FA should have done something to Liverpool before that final?

Mr Alan

While i think its a silly judgement, i think the only reason its happened is cause iirc Mick virtually admitted he didnt think they'd win at OT & wasn't bothered. Ferguson/Rafa etc will always at least publically maintain that they are trying their best to win (we all know they aren't, but they don't flaunt it in the same way Mick did). Add to that in the last few weeks Mick proclaimed in a post match interview that Wolves can take points off anyone & actually name-checked Utd, i see why the judgement has been made as it has.

will1977

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Thats absolute crap. English FA made a decision here based on McCarthy's decision. Thats what this is about. And as I have said they have now set down a precedent. To dissuade other teams from doing what Wolves did.

Why wasn't that precedent made when Ferguson or Benitez fielded weakend teams ???

Spiritoftheseventies

SlickRic wrote: »

bearing in mind this is on-topic, do you think it's the right decision, and do you think the FA should have done something to Liverpool before that final?

Yes I think it is the right decision. And if Rafa was to play a severely weakened team when he wasnt involved in a big final then yes punish the club.

Xavi6

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Yes I think it is the right decision. And if Rafa was to play a severely weakened team when he wasnt involved in a big final then yes punish the club.

Some might say that a game between Wolves and Burnley is their cup final.

SantryRed

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Yes I think it is the right decision. And if Rafa was to play a severely weakened team when he wasnt involved in a big final then yes punish the club.

So answer this question. Yes or no, you agree with the double standards?

Iago

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Yes I think it is the right decision. And if Rafa was to play a severely weakened team when he wasnt involved in a big final then yes punish the club.

the bit in bold is completely irrelevant

Peyton Manning

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Excuse me Archi but have spent the last two pages trying to explain the situation. Thats contributing to the debate. Withdraw that last remark:mad:

Oh really? Lets see....

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

McCarthy reckoned he had no chance of getting a result of United and fielded a weak team. It was more or less throwing the game. Regardless of what other managers do, if managers did that week in week out league would become a joke.

SantryRed wrote: »

So what do you think of Benitez ''throwing the game'' against Fulham a few years ago which relegated Sheffield United?

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

FA obviously examines each case on its merits. Can only comment on this one. McCarthy put out a weakened team and he must have known it was going to get in trouble. He took a risk and it didnt pay off. End of the day Wolves weren't docked any points. Other teams though may suffer from their actions later on in season.

You made your feelings clear on Wolves situation, when asked what you thought of Liverpool for doing the exact same thing, you refused to comment. No explanation.

SantryRed wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. What do you think of Benitez's decision?

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Listen you can debate pool any time you like but we are talking about Wolves here on this thread.

Again no answer. We're talking about a team being fined for not fielding a full strength team, yet you refuse to talk about Liverpool not being fined for not fielding a full strength team because for some reason, you deem it "off topic". Again, no explanation.

Des wrote: »

Why?

Because it doesn't suit you to comment on the Liverpool scenario?

Because you don't have an answer for it.

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Des you and I both know if we start talking about Liverpool we will be here all the day. A wolves weakened team and a Liverpool weakened team are two different things entirely. And as Lenin Benjamin rightly pointed out its a suspended fine. Wolves weren't deducted any points at the end of the day.

Again, you quote his post but dont address what he says - which sums up your contribution to this forum entirely. NO EXPLANATION.

SantryRed wrote: »

So you promote the double standards? A relgation six pointer for Wolves is as big as a Champions League final for Liverpool isn't it?

Here's the link to the statement : http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0,,12306~1969436,00.html

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

liverpool were playing in champions league final. Did Wolves have any big games on that week. I assume FA took into account that Liverpool were playing. And if Liverpool had beaten Milan it would have improved the top fours co-efficiency ratings.
For the record this is the team liverpool put out. Hardly a weak team to be fair.
Reina, Arbeloa, Paletta, Hyypia, Insua (Finnan 75), Pennant (El Zhar 65), Alonso, Sissoko, Gonzalez (Kewell 77), Fowler, Bellamy.

You are told that Wolves had a relegation 6 pointer that weekend. How do you reply? "Did Wolves have any big games on that week. I assume FA took into account that Liverpool were playing." Pathetic.

SantryRed wrote: »

So You do promote the double standards?

Yes Wolves had a big six pointer at home to Wolves on that Sunday. Liverpool's Champions League Final wasn't for another 10 days after their game against Fulham. Stop trying to defend your club and take a pop at Wolves. It's one or the other.

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Again, when confronted on your double standards, you dodge the question despite clearly knowing what he meant to say.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

A CL Final 18 days away, and it was 7 days til their next league game. Wolves had a massive game vs Burnley in their following game.

In Liverpools next game, against Charlton at home, they played a stronger side, with just 10 days to go.

If you use the excuse of the CL final making it acceptable for Liverpool to play a weakened side vs Fulham, how do you excuse or explain playing a strong side vs Charlton?

Personally, I think teams should be able to field whoever they want, they pay all of these players to do exactly that. Also, as long as the team put out is capable of competing or winning the game, I really don't care.

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

okay Mitch you saw that United Wolves game. Did Wolves look at any stage like they were going to get a result?

Im still waiting to see what you hoped to achieve with this response. It makes no sense whatsoever.

CHD wrote: »

So fining Wolves is a joke but Liverpool doing it and nothing happening a couple of years back is wrong?

Double standards left right and centre.

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Come on CHD. Dont tell me Chelsea wouldn't have done the same thing. Try and be fair here for once.

Whats that? Dodging your double standards again? Obviously. Its painful at this stage.

magma69 wrote:

Exactly. The law is the law, saying "but this....but that" have absolutely no bearing.

Judge: You stole money from the till.
Me: Yes but he is a millionaire so it won't really affect him.
Judge: Oh sorry, I did not realise, be on your merry way just don't steal from the poor.
Me: Thanks judge, I'm glad you saw sense.

Spiritoftheseventies wrote:

End of the day FA have set down a precedent. So clubs in the future have to stick the ruling of fielding a strongest team. And at least Rafa put out a team. Not so long ago that United pulled out of FA cup to play in World Club championship which was absolutely appalling IMO.

Again, what the hell does the World Club Championship have to do it? And thats ignoring the fact that you dont know what youre talking about.

So tell me, do you still believe that you "have spent the last two pages trying to explain the situation"? Or are you just posting shite as usual?

kippy

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Yes I think it is the right decision. And if Rafa was to play a severely weakened team when he wasnt involved in a big final then yes punish the club.

What about the clubs that suffered and gained as a result of Rafas decision?

Mr. Alan,
That appears the be the only thing that sets this appart from other cases of blatent "under strength" teams being picked in that McCarthy admitted he was doing it for that reason.
However if thats the precedent it sets ie, admit to playing weakened teams and get punished for it, its fairly obvious how teams will get around this particular precident.

L'prof

Gillington wrote: »

10 changes from the team that drew against Arsenal in the league a week before hand.Whats the difference in the 2 cases? United faced no action for this.

United won the match!

SlickRic

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Yes I think it is the right decision. And if Rafa was to play a severely weakened team when he wasnt involved in a big final then yes punish the club.

why does the final bit make a difference?

it's up to the manager of the club what's important.

and yes Al, i can understand how they made the judgment due to the points you made, but it potentially sets a ridiculous precedent.

ironictoaster

Awful decision, McCarthy was simply being tactical.

everdead.ie

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Yes I think it is the right decision. And if Rafa was to play a severely weakened team when he wasnt involved in a big final then yes punish the club.

but the match they had against burnley was as big as that final for them bearing in mind how few points wolves have it could be the difference between staying up or relegation when Defoe and huddlestone where dropped/rested against fulham they came back 2 days later and said unlike the others who started both matches they weren't stiff or tired and they both had man of the match performances in that game.

Mr Alan

SlickRic wrote: »

and yes Al, i can understand how they made the judgment due to the points you made, but it potentially sets a ridiculous precedent.

Agree 100%.

Managers just shouldnt be as brazen about it as Mick was.

Spiritoftheseventies

everdead.ie wrote: »

but the match they had against burnley was as big as that final for them bearing in mind how few points wolves have it could be the difference between staying up or relegation when Defoe and huddlestone where dropped/rested against fulham they came back 2 days later and said unlike the others who started both matches they weren't stiff or tired and they both had man of the match performances in that game.

Yeah but how many "finals" are Wolves going to playing in then. It will be Burnley one sunday, another struggling team the next. Where do you draw the line?

Liam O

I think the fact that United also played a weakened team in the game made this decision even worse.

Warper

I agree with the fine as well. What he did was damage the integrity of the League. He practically handed Utd. 3 points. Sure why bother turning up at all? - it was a glossy walkover. Did he do the same in any other game - No. Therefore he is handing an unfair advantage to Man Utd who in effect gets a free 3 pts. It shouldnt happen. It was disrespectful to the everyone - the Wolves players, the fans and every other team in the League.

Btw this logic should apply to every team. Managers should be allowed to rotate their squad but something as obvious as what Wolves did deserves a fine. I also think they should be docked the 3 points they gave away.

everdead.ie

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Yeah but how many "finals" are Wolves going to playing in then. It will be Burnley one sunday, another struggling team the next. Where do you draw the line?

Simple you can't

Dublin_Gunner

Mr Alan wrote: »

Agree 100%.

Managers just shouldnt be as brazen about it as Mick was.

But TBH thats besides the point as well. Unless of course he just pished off the FA by giving his real reason, and being so blatant about it. Either way, no reason for a fine.

He's entitled to field whatever starting 11 out of his squad as he sees fit for the task at hand. Nowhere does it state 'who' should be in a managers starting 11.

Could this lead to a case where after each transfer window clubs are to register their starting 11 - and can only deviate from that due to injury/ilness etc etc?

Sure that would be totally stupid.

The FA are totally wrong here IMO, and I hope Wolves appeal so this does not become precedent - as this would have clubs nominating other clubs for fines due to fielding understrength sides.

Peyton Manning

Liam O wrote: »

I think the fact that United also played a weakened team in the game made this decision even worse.

I know, right? Wolves were quite clearly being charitable and giving Utd a chance. And they get fined for it. Big f*cking grinchy FA.

SantryRed

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Yeah but how many "finals" are Wolves going to playing in then. It will be Burnley one sunday, another struggling team the next. Where do you draw the line?

Jeses Christ! Man, seriously?

You can't have it both ways. It doesn't matter who played who next, it's either right or wrong. You can't say what Wolves did was wrong without saying what Liverpool did was wrong or what United did was wrong!

Actually, what do you think of United doing it against Hull at the end of last season?

Mr Alan

DublinGunner, yes it does, in the PL rules it says teams have to play their strongest teams. Now a managers "strongest" team cannot be proven, but Mc Carthy admitted he didn't play players cause he didn't think he'd win.

I don't agree with the decision, but he is as much to blame as anyone for being so brazen about it.

will1977

Can anybody show the quote where McCarthy said he "didn't think we could win" ??

Memnoch

It seems to be generally agreed that this wasn't a case of double standards, the problem wasn't Mick using his squad to maximum effect but that he publicly stated he would do so(not just rest players bet effectively throw the game), which is something that undermines the legitimacy and integrity of the league and while I accept that the fine is probably a bit harsh, it was probably justified under the circumstances.

Spiritoftheseventies, unfortunately, has painted himself into a logical corner and can't get out now without admitting he was wrong and the longer he left it the harder it became. He probably knows it too but is never going to admit it so it's pointless trying to engage him on the subject. 2 + 2 does not equal 5, no matter how many times you repeat it.

GavRedKing

Poor call by the F.A. tbh.

Happens all the time and this is the first real case of punishment being handed out. Joke really, considering we ( chelsea) rest some players for the cup games and other so called "easy games" and nothing is made of it.

Dublin_Gunner

Mr Alan wrote: »

DublinGunner, yes it does, in the PL rules it says teams have to play their strongest teams. Now a managers "strongest" team cannot be proven, but Mc Carthy admitted he didn't play players cause he didn't think he'd win.

I don't agree with the decision, but he is as much to blame as anyone for being so brazen about it.

But surely that's impossible to prove? Wolves strongest team (in order to win their more important game against Burnley) was played. So its not exactly a calculable figure of which players are the 'strongest'.

I do agree he was being a little arrogant making the statements that he did - and its probably as much for shouting his big mouth off as anything else. But its still a stupid decision.

Mr. Presentable

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

It's within the powers of the Premier League to punish Wolves for their team selection as the rules state that clubs shall field a full-strength team for every match, .

This is from your own post. The rules were applied to Wolves, but as far as I am aware, have never been applied to a club of higher standing than them.

Now I don't agree with the rule per se, but if it is going to be enforced it should be seen to be done equally.

On a side note, the fine is suspended, not withdrawn, under what circumstance will the fine become payable?

Dublin_Gunner

nipplenuts wrote: »

On a side note, the fine is suspended, not withdrawn, under what circumstance will the fine become payable?

Without reading the ruling, its just a guess. But I'd imagine on a repeat offence the fine would become payable, along with whatever fine for the second offence also.

Spiritoftheseventies

Memnoch wrote: »

It seems to be generally agreed that this wasn't a case of double standards, the problem wasn't Mick using his squad to maximum effect but that he publicly stated he would do so(not just rest players bet effectively throw the game), which is something that undermines the legitimacy and integrity of the league and while I accept that the fine is probably a bit harsh, it was probably justified under the circumstances.

Spiritoftheseventies, unfortunately, has painted himself into a logical corner and can't get out now without admitting he was wrong and the longer he left it the harder it became. He probably knows it too but is never going to admit it so it's pointless trying to engage him on the subject. 2 + 2 does not equal 5, no matter how many times you repeat it.

How many times do I have to say this. Liverpool did it once against Fulham. McCarthy stated his intention to rest players because he felt that it would be risky if anyone got injured for game with Burnley. But what is it issue here is why McCarthy chose the Man united game to rest his players and not another team. Thats I think is what at stake here

Mitch Connor

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

How many times do I have to say this. Liverpool did it once against Fulham. McCarthy stated his intention to rest players because he felt that it would be risky if anyone got injured for game with Burnley. But what is it issue here is why McCarthy chose the Man united game to rest his players and not another team. Thats I think is what at stake here

because the Burnley game was next and he felt he had a better chance of points there. A more legitimate excuse than Rafa saying they had a game 18 days later (with another one before it where he would play a stronger side)

Peyton Manning

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

How many times do I have to say this. Liverpool did it once against Fulham. McCarthy stated his intention to rest players because he felt that it would be risky if anyone got injured for game with Burnley. But what is it issue here is why McCarthy chose the Man united game to rest his players and not another team. Thats I think is what at stake here

Why does it matter who Wolves were playing? You have made no sense whatsoever in this thread. Seriously, all your posts look like this to me:

Mitch Connor

Archi.... you have way too much time on your hands!!

SlickRic

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

But what is it issue here is why McCarthy chose the Man united game to rest his players and not another team. Thats I think is what at stake here

Burnley was the bigger game.

If it had been Chelsea or Arsenal I would vouch he would have probably done the same thing.

He was stupid to be so blasé about it, as Al said i think, but he has every right to do what he wants.

Do you agree with that?

Spiritoftheseventies

Mitch Connor wrote: »

because the Burnley game was next and he felt he had a better chance of points there. A more legitimate excuse than Rafa saying they had a game 18 days later (with another one before it where he would play a stronger side)

I accept what you are saying with the eighteen days between two games but I think Rafa would have played a lot more games at that stage so he had to keep squad fresh. Just think McCarthy was wrong in his thinking. Ie we have no chance against United so we wont field a team against them. he made a call but FA had to be seen to act here.

Mr. Presentable

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

I accept what you are saying with the eighteen days between two games but I think Rafa would have played a lot more games at that stage so he had to keep squad fresh. Just think McCarthy was wrong in his thinking. Ie we have no chance against United so we wont field a team against them. he made a call but FA had to be seen to act here.

Yes, of course this is correct. But what rule is being applied?

the rules state that clubs shall field a full-strength team for every match,

It doesn't say anything here about the strength of the next opposition, the importance of the next game.

All that is being discussed is the fact that the rule is not being applied consistently.

Spiritoftheseventies

nipplenuts wrote: »

Yes, of course this is correct. But what rule is being applied?

the rules state that clubs shall field a full-strength team for every match,

It doesn't say anything here about the strength of the next opposition, the importance of the next game.

All that is being discussed is the fact that the rule is not being applied consistently.

Not saying that what Wolves did was any different to what pool did. But would argue that the circumstances were different.

SlickRic

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Not saying that what Wolves did was any different to what pool did. But would argue that the circumstances were different.

but that makes no difference whatsoever.

in fact, the Wolves situation called for resting players probably more than Liverpool's game.

Frisbee

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Not saying that what Wolves did was any different to what pool did. But would argue that the circumstances were different.

The circumstances are irrelevant.

Spud83

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Not saying that what Wolves did was any different to what pool did. But would argue that the circumstances were different.

and what you are being told is circumstances should mean jack **** when applying the rules.

So far you have used.

Yeah but Liverpool had a Cl final. So Wolves deemed the game against Burnley important enough to do it. Doesn't make jack difference to applying the rules.

Benitez was resting players after a long season? So Mick was resting people for a long season.

But United pulled out of the FA Cup?

McCarthy admitted he didn't think he could win? So he gets punished for being honest.

Its a joke of a rule, and a joke of ruling.

Teams should be allowed field whoever they want whenever they want. They pay a squad for that very reason.

Where does the line get drawn? Nine changes? Ten changes? Are the FA gonna check every squad members fitness before a match now?

Its a joke, and the whoever actually decided this should be slapped around the head and booted out the door cause they clearly don't have a clue about football.

Kess73

A manager's job is to do what he thinks is the best thing for the club he manages, not what is best or fair for other clubs.


What he did has been done by plenty of managers before he did it, and has been done by plenty since.

He was dead right to do what he thought was best, and if the FA want to punish him or Wolves in any way, then I hope they are ready for a constant stream of complaints and legal battles as clubs would be contesting every line up change made in games where they lost points.

kippy

So far from reading this I can say:
1. The majority of people beleive this smacks of double standards whatever about the merits of the charge.
2. The only thing that differentiates McCarthy from other managers that have done this is that he pretty much admitted to doing it.
3. Some believe this sets a precident. The only precident it sets is not to be blatently honest about your team selection and you'll get away with it.
4. Most wonder how this rule can be enforced without the manager admitting to it. What defines "best starting 11" and under what circumstances can you drop someone from it?
5. Some people wonder why this rule is in place at all if it cant be enforced without the said manager admitting to breaking it.
6. Some(very few) people dont get the principle of rules. They don't usually allow for excuses.
7. Some believe the fine is too small anyway and wont put managers off practicing this tactic.
8. The most blinkered of fans will argue black is white in order to "stand up for their team". No one is blaming Liverpool for doing anything. But seriously, they have done and many others have done the exact same thing before and gotten away with it.
9. I am not sure where this thread is going from here.

Kippy

Spiritoftheseventies

kippy wrote: »

So far from reading this I can say:

The only thing that differentiates McCarthy from other managers that have done this is that he pretty much admitted to doing it.

therein lies the problem. FA had to act once McCarthy admitted it.