Last nights blackpool team.

Dempsey

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You have answered your own question. Its semantics.

Resting players is fine. Fielding a weaker team is against the rules. The difference is hair splitting, but when you say you have done the latter as opposed to the former, you are pushing the envelope when it comes to the rules.

So its a bull**** reason to threaten clubs with fines. What happens on the field of play is the same but because a manager chooses his adjectives in a manner that the FA doesnt like, its worthy of a fine. Farcical in fact.

dfx-

smokedeels wrote: »

I like when managers question the FA. Like any job, the people who make the rules rarely experience them in practice, constructive criticism of the hierarchy can be beneficial.

Big difference between "you're doing this wrong" and "I'll do x if you dare punish me"

OhNoYouDidn't

Dempsey wrote: »

So its a bull**** reason to threaten clubs with fines. What happens on the field of play is the same but because a manager chooses his adjectives in a manner that the FA doesnt like, its worthy of a fine. Farcical in fact.

Its called life. The message is as important as the delivery.

Are you suggesting managers can say what they like about the football authorities and not be censured?

Dempsey

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Its called life. The message is as important as the delivery.

Are you suggesting managers can say what they like about the football authorities and not be censured?

LOL

No but they should be allowed to give honest answers when asked. Basically you saying that they should lie when fielding weaker teams (i.e. not their best because of injury, suspension & fatigue). I rather managers be allowed to say the truth without repercussion. Holloway has done nothing wrong and his threat to quit is based if the FA fine him or Blackpool, they are basically saying that he's brought the game into disrepute when he hasnt.

Also, the majority of EPL managers agree with Holloway & McCarthy regarding the right to make wholesale changes then you and the FA

OhNoYouDidn't

Dempsey wrote: »

LOL

No but they should be allowed to give honest answers when asked. Basically you saying that they should lie when fielding weaker teams (i.e. not their best because of injury, suspension & fatigue). I rather managers be allowed to say the truth without repercussion. Holloway has done nothing wrong and his threat to quit is based if the FA fine him or Blackpool, they are basically saying that he's brought the game into disrepute when he hasnt.

Also, the majority of EPL managers agree with Holloway & McCarthy regarding the right to make wholesale changes then you and the FA

The EFA have said fcuk all. It was a response to a media question.

What he said was that IF the EFA even investigate his team selection he will quit. Thats a stupid, aggressive and provokotive stance.

Dempsey

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The EFA have said fcuk all. It was a response to a media question.

What he said was that IF the EFA even investigate his team selection he will quit. Thats a stupid, aggressive and provokotive stance.

Your wrong, go watch what he said again. Are you arguing with people with inaccurate information?? :rolleyes:

EDIT

AFAIK, the FA are writing to Blackpool for an explanation

That_Guy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Its called life. The message is as important as the delivery.

Are you suggesting managers can say what they like about the football authorities and not be censured?

They should be allowed to get on with their jobs without fear of the FA sticking their noses in.

Blackpool's squad seems to be one which is stretched so there will be a time when they have to rotate and integrate younger players into the team.

If the FA are going to charge Blackpool then they surely have to charge every other team who fields a "weaker" team in the Carling Cup.

Absolutely disgraceful imo.

OhNoYouDidn't

That_Guy wrote: »

They should be allowed to get on with their jobs without fear of the FA sticking their noses in.

Blackpool's squad seems to be one which is stretched so there will be a time when they have to rotate and integrate younger players into the team.

If the FA are going to charge Blackpool then they surely have to charge every other team who fields a "weaker" team in the Carling Cup.

Absolutely disgraceful imo.

The debate has moved long beyond that. If the EFA get involved, and they will have to, it is as a result of his comments, not his actions.

I like Holloway and enjoy his rants, but there is an inevitibility that he was going to land in trouble when he went too far

kippy

That_Guy wrote: »

They should be allowed to get on with their jobs without fear of the FA sticking their noses in.

Blackpool's squad seems to be one which is stretched so there will be a time when they have to rotate and integrate younger players into the team.

If the FA are going to charge Blackpool then they surely have to charge every other team who fields a "weaker" team in the Carling Cup.

Absolutely disgraceful imo.

Can any one person here (outside of myself and may one or two more) actually see:
1. The reason why manager/club A gets fined and manager/cub B doesnt?
2. The reason why this "rule" is in place and why the FA have to enforce this rule should a manager admit to breaking it?

If you can grasp those two points you'll grasp why some get fined and some dont

In Holloways case he didnt admit to fielding a weakened team as far as I am aware so there is nothing to investigate, hence his stance.

If the FA were to try enforce this "rule" in a technical sense, they'd be screwed.

Pro. F

Neil3030 wrote: »

Basically, knowingly fielding a weakened side is failing to fulfil obligations to the league and other clubs in the utmost good faith.

Big clubs are insulated from this accusation on the basis that their squads are so strong, resting good players in lieu of fielding other good players is not considered fielding a weakened side.

Big clubs shouldn't get away with it because of their squad strength (and I'm pretty sure that they don't). Not playing your best players, no matter how good your second choices, is fielding a weakened team. The same rule should apply to the big clubs. I think the same rule does actually apply to the bigger clubs, I'm pretty sure Ferguson never actually admits that his league sides are ever weakened ones.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But if there is no rule there its wide open to corruption and abuse. Last day of the season and Chelsea are a point clear of Man United and Man City play Chelsea. Man City play a team with 11 debutants and an average age of 17. Fair?

This is a very good point. Without some sort of supervision from the FA the system would be open to abuse. There's what you describe here and then, even worse, there would be the strong chance of corruption too.

I still feel a bit uneasy that managers of smaller clubs might not feel free to be able to target the games they think they can win and pick their sides accordingly. Also, the FA enforcing their rules purely on manager comments seems far too clumsy to me.

Neil3030 wrote: »

It's a crock of s*** though, because sport is about strategy, tactics and gamesmanship, as much as it is about anything that goes on on the pitch. Strategic planning for fixtures is entirely the manager's perogative.

I sort of agree with you but you have to draw the line on strategic planning and gamesmanship somewhere. Competitions with too much of that can become total bullshít.

But maybe this partitcular type of strategic play wouldn't be a problem. I wonder what would happen if it was taken through to it's logical conclusion. It's the type of thing that I would do if I could get away with it. If I was the manager of some small club just promoted to the Prem I would probably be looking to forfeit (by fielding the weakened team) a few games a year. One or two of the midweeks and one or two at Christmas. Beyond that I doubt it would be beneficial. Doesn't sound that bad really.

Could the FA allow managers field weakened teams when it is clearly done for the benefit of the club as opposed to for some other sinister reason? Would it be too hard to police? Would it harm the integrity of the league because of the amount of forfeited games it would produce? Or would it actually just turn out to not be much of a problem? ...I'm not sure.

flahavaj

The thing that amuses me is why he thinks the FA will give a f*ck if he resigns? He has a point about being allowed to pick whomever he chooses. But the "I'll resign" sh*te is just tiresome drama and his next step down the road to being this season's Phil Brown.

yahoo_moe

smokedeels wrote: »

No manager would send out a team of 11 under 21's in the league with the knowledge that they would most likely lose the match. At least there's no precedent for it.

Pretty close - 10 Academy players and Malcolm Christie.

The rule has to be there and anyone who says otherwise is mental. However, implementation is tricky which is why you end up with these kinds of situations. Even if they'd won the game, you could've argued that their best XI would have achieved a better result in goal-difference terms.

noodler

Halloway's egotistical rants are getting very irritating.

Yes a manager should be allowed to pick who he wants but the manner in which he is conducting himself is terrible for somebody who is seen as a representative of Blackpool.

SSN reporter only asked, asked now, last night if it was fatigue or something more tactical and he just started on a big "how dare you rant".

super_furry

noodler wrote: »

Halloway's egotistical rants are getting very irritating.

He's the 2010 Phil Brown model.

Panthro

I'm with the Halloway, hope he stays in the Premier League, if nothing but else but the quotes alone.

Reporter: Ian, have you got any injury worries? Holloway: No, I'm fully fit, thank you.

orourkeda

It's part of the managers job to select the team.

The F.A shouldnt be surprised to see 11 players take the pitch. It's in the best interests of both the manager and the club that he represents to select as good a starting side as he can and outside influenece should not be placed.

x in the city

orourkeda wrote: »

It's part of the managers job to select the team.

The F.A shouldnt be surprised to see 11 players take the pitch. It's in the best interests of both the manager and the club that he represents to select as good a starting side as he can and outside influenece should not be placed.

the FA are just muppets of the highest calibre, cant complain or argue against anything...

your side gets ripped off 10 goals in a match gets 5 red cards, and the ref disallows 12 goals for your team

can you complain...


not a chance jose, thats a 5 match sidelin ban and a 250,000 pound fine

fekin ****..

GLaDOS

I agree with the princible, but think he's gone the wrong way about it tbh. Another attention grabbing momnet from Halloway, they're amusing, but getting a little recurring at this stage.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Its not. The interpretation in terms of Wolves wasn't the best, but its a needed and important rule.

So a private organisation should be told what to do and how to do it ? It is an unjustifiable and insulting rule. Blackpool's reserves came within an inch of taking a point away from home last night. These players should be commended, not chastised.

The rule is crazy, subjective and really unenforceable.

I notice you have failed to justify it.

dreamers75

yahoo_moe wrote: »

Pretty close - 10 Academy players and Malcolm Christie.

The rule has to be there and anyone who says otherwise is mental. However, implementation is tricky which is why you end up with these kinds of situations. Even if they'd won the game, you could've argued that their best XI would have achieved a better result in goal-difference terms.

So why have to name a 25 man squad if you cant play them in the manner you see fit?

Mr Alan

Are people intentionally missing the point of this whole thing?!

McCarthy was fined not simply for fielding a weakened team, but for saying the reason he did so was that he didn't think they could win either way. He effectively threw the game and admitted as much.

Holloway has made no such admission and in fact seemed genuinely pissed off at the accusation that he would do that.

The situations aren't the same. Holloways one is more comparable to Utd etc resting players before bigger games, still expecting to be able to beat the sides they're up against with the team they select.

kippy

Het-Field wrote: »

So a private organisation should be told what to do and how to do it ? It is an unjustifiable and insulting rule. Blackpool's reserves came within an inch of taking a point away from home last night. These players should be commended, not chastised.

The rule is crazy, subjective and really unenforceable.

I notice you have failed to justify it.

See Mr Alans post.

GLaDOS

dreamers75 wrote: »

So why have to name a 25 man squad if you cant play them in the manner you see fit?

You can play players form your youth squads as well I believe, kinda ruins the point

yahoo_moe

Het-Field wrote: »

So a private organisation should be told what to do and how to do it ?

Why do people keep making out like the FA are going to be picking teams for clubs? It's not a clever argument, it just completely misses the point.

It is an unjustifiable and insulting rule ... The rule is crazy, subjective and really unenforceable.

Sigh. It's not. It's there to enforce equal effort at all times so that the competition is fair and there are no favours done by one team to another (at least in terms of personnel). The rule as you and others choose to understand it may be crazy but it's not the FA's fault you're missing the point. Although they may have contributed to it by walking a fairly fine line at times themselves

yahoo_moe

dreamers75 wrote: »

So why have to name a 25 man squad if you cant play them in the manner you see fit?

And why do people keep dragging up the 25-man squad rule? The rule isn't that you must have a squad of 25, it's that you can have a maximum of 25, subject to home-grown and under-21 restrictions, etc. Very different to "The FA forces you to name a squad of 25 and then doesn't let you play them".

Most importantly, that rule is nothing to do with fairness of competition by making sure teams attempt to compete equally well against all opposition. It wasn't even in place last year when Wolves were fined. Also, just for the record, Wolves' fine was suspended, making it essentially just a warning.

x in the city

a manager can pick who ever he bloody wants to play, irrespective of whether they play western super mare reserves or real madrid.

the FA cant dictate who a manager should play ffs, joke of an outfit.

if a manager plays a side made up a petrol pump attendants and they lost 32 nil, well then its his fault but so what...


no one got killed...!:)

Het-Field

yahoo_moe wrote: »

Why do people keep making out like the FA are going to be picking teams for clubs? It's not a clever argument, it just completely misses the point.

Sigh. It's not. It's there to enforce equal effort at all times so that the competition is fair and there are no favours done by one team to another (at least in terms of personnel). The rule as you and others choose to understand it may be crazy but it's not the FA's fault you're missing the point. Although they may have contributed to it by walking a fairly fine line at times themselves

In fairness, it will do nothing of the sort. Eleven men of whatever footballing constitution and ability can throw a game. It doesnt matter if you field a weakened team or not. Simply because Manchester United pcik Berbatov,Rooney etc doesnt guarantee "equal effort at all times", and if they so decide, they can throw the game. Seeking to distinguish this on grounds of "it is less likely to happen with established players" is not acceptable. Remember Kevin Keegan's rant about Man Utd in 1996 ? Do you remember what stimulated that ? IIRC it was Alex Ferguson's claims about a less then robust performance by Leeds United, who had stormed through the season.

Dolph Starbeam

x in the city wrote: »

a manager can pick who ever he bloody wants to play, irrespective of whether they play western super mare reserves or real madrid.

the FA cant dictate who a manager should play ffs, joke of an outfit.

if a manager plays a side made up a petrol pump attendants and they lost 32 nil, well then its his fault but so what...


no one got killed...!:)

Ye actually is this rule used in other leagues that you have to play your strongest available side?

Nothing will happen over this, Halloway did not afaik say that he played a weakened side so there is nothing the FA can do. i still think its a stupid rule and as long as he picks players within his 25 man squad he should be able to do what ever the hell he likes.

yahoo_moe

Het-Field wrote: »

Eleven men of whatever footballing constitution and ability can throw a game.

Absolutely. But then they can be done for corruption or whatever. Obviously there are no guarantees but the FA has to try and uphold the integrity of the competition in whatever way possible. The wording of the rule is arguably from an era where teams didn't play up to 60 games a season but the spirit is impeccable imo...

x in the city wrote: »

if a manager plays a side made up a petrol pump attendants and they lost 32 nil, well then its his fault but so what...

... and this is why. If a top-7 team hammers one relegation candidate 4-0 but then plays a second XI (or a team of petrol pump attendants ) against another relegation candidate on the last day, how fair do you think the team that got spanked are going to feel if they go down by a point after their rivals draw or win?

The rule isn't there for the sake of the teams themselves - it's there for opponents and the image of the league. It could possibly do with being rephrased to something like "must play a team of reasonable strength" or something but the gist of it is right.

The Volt

It's subjective to say that X team is stronger than Y team regardless of what the OPTA stats say. If anything happens to Holloway then it's a travesty.

flahavaj

Het-Field wrote: »

In fairness, it will do nothing of the sort. Eleven men of whatever footballing constitution and ability can throw a game. It doesnt matter if you field a weakened team or not. Simply because Manchester United pcik Berbatov,Rooney etc doesnt guarantee "equal effort at all times", and if they so decide, they can throw the game. Seeking to distinguish this on grounds of "it is less likely to happen with established players" is not acceptable. Remember Kevin Keegan's rant about Man Utd in 1996 ? Do you remember what stimulated that ? IIRC it was Alex Ferguson's claims about a less then robust performance by Leeds United, who had stormed through the season.

I thought it was the opposite, he was saying if they tried as hard as they had against United they'd be doing far better than they were.

dreamers75

flahavaj wrote: »

I thought it was the opposite, he was saying if they tried as hard as they had against United they'd be doing far better than they were.

yeah same they did well vs united then rolled over for newcastle.

UnitedIrishman

dreamers75 wrote: »

yeah same they did well vs united then rolled over for newcastle.

And there was also the insinuation that Forest had taken it easy on Newcastle because they'd agreed to play Forest for Stuart Pearce's testimonial and most of their players wanted to see Newcastle win the league.

dreamers75

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

And there was also the insinuation that Forest had taken it easy on Newcastle because they'd agreed to play Forest for Stuart Pearce's testimonial and most of their players wanted to see Newcastle win the league.

yeah it was that tbh.

Epic tv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXpUdBlRZe8

Jordonvito

Holloway has to get fined, not that I think he deserves it or do I agree with the rule , just the rule is there and if McCarthy got fined last year it's only fair that Holloway does too.

Dolph Starbeam

Jordonvito wrote: »

Holloway has to get fined, not that I think he deserves it or do I agree with the rule , just the rule is there and if McCarthy got fined last year it's only fair that Holloway does too.

Main differences afaik are that McCarthy admitted that he did not field his strongest side and Holloway did not say that he fielded a weakened side. Also i think the 25 man squad rule will help Holloway also. He won't get fined.

Jordonvito

MOG7 wrote: »

Main differences afaik are that McCarthy admitted that he did not field his strongest side and Holloway did not say that he fielded a weakened side. Also i think the 25 man squad rule will help Holloway also. He won't get fined.

Was going to mention that alright, I suppose that technicality will help him.

x in the city

Jordonvito wrote: »

Was going to mention that alright, I suppose that technicality will help him.

if I was him and they fined me I would tell them at the meeting to suck my c0ck and walk out.

someone needs to stand up to the FA, be it a penis or some other living being...:rolleyes:

Mr.Nice Guy

It's a bullsh*t rule. Each manager should be entitled to play anyone he wants to from his 25 man squad. They are Premiership players after all. Each player that features is going to try his best. It's not for the authorities to determine who ought to play and who shouldn't. That's the manager's job.

kippy

Ah jaysus, this has to be the most frustrating thread on this forum (at the moment)
There are so many people who dont seem to "get it" despite numerous posts spelling it out.

Dolph Starbeam

kippy wrote: »

Ah jaysus, this has to be the most frustrating thread on this forum (at the moment)
There are so many people who dont seem to "get it" despite numerous posts spelling it out.

I think most people do "get it" but we simply think its a stupid rule, i do understand where the fa are coming from too. What imo is stupid is that if a manager admits to not playing his strongest available team then the fa can punish him, imo it should not matter what team is played, as long as every team goes out to try and win the game then thats all that matters. I'm sure even when McCarthy and Halloway rested 10 players they still wanted those players to do there best and to get points from the game, which in both matches the team only lost by 1 goal so its not as if they were way worse than the other team. As i think you said earlier in the thread the rule needs to be looked at at possibly re-worded as it is not the most clear.

kippy

MOG7 wrote: »

I think most people do "get it" but we simply think its a stupid rule, i do understand where the fa are coming from too. What imo is stupid is that if a manager admits to not playing his strongest available team then the fa can punish him, imo it should not matter what team is played, as long as every team goes out to try and win the game then thats all that matters. I'm sure even when McCarthy and Halloway rested 10 players they still wanted those players to do there best and to get points from the game, which in both matches the team only lost by 1 goal so its not as if they were way worse than the other team. As i think you said earlier in the thread the rule needs to be looked at at possibly re-worded as it is not the most clear.

The problem was the FA didnt come out and clarify why certain situations warrented a fine and other situations don't.
Its not that difficult to understand why a rule such as this exists however it is very easy to see why the only way to enforce it is if the manager themselves admit to breaking it......

yahoo_moe

kippy wrote: »

Ah jaysus, this has to be the most frustrating thread on this forum (at the moment)
There are so many people who dont seem to "get it" despite numerous posts spelling it out.

Indeed.

Plus people keep saying "Halloway". Maybe I'm being picky but it just reminds me of Ginger Spice.

Handsome Bob

The whole thing that happened to McCarthy last season was a joke but it makes me think that it's inevitable that Holloway will get fined too. What's worrying is that Holloway's outburst will only buoy the FA to take action for fear of being seen as being bullied by a manager.

Holloway really should have just kept quiet until the FA made a decision because now he has back himself into a corner. I like the chap but he's really starting to remind me of Phil Brown.

Super-Rush

Didn't McCarthy get a suspended fine?

paulcorr

gimmick wrote: »

Whats the point in having a squad if you cannot use it?

Bullshít controvery IMO.

Exactly you have a squad and your intitled to use every player in it.\The fa want managers to play their strongest 11,Will they next tell them what players to bring on when making a subsitution.