So Auckland played an ineligible player and should have been docked 9 points but hey lets not worry about that, people make mistakes..... NZF strikes again
They are though:
"the regulations also state that opposing teams must lodge protests regarding player eligibility within 48 hours of the match in question, which none of Central, Canterbury, or Capital did."
Auckland are the best performing team and deserve to be in the final. But this decision is so inconsistent. What about poor old Southern United last year. Docked points by NZF for a far far less breach in eligibility rules. This decision stinks of preferential treatment.
So Auckland played an ineligible player and should have been docked 9 points but hey lets not worry about that, people make mistakes..... NZF strikes again
They are though:
"the regulations also state that opposing teams must lodge protests regarding player eligibility within 48 hours of the match in question, which none of Central, Canterbury, or Capital did."
They are though:
"the regulations also state that opposing teams must lodge protests regarding player eligibility within 48 hours of the match in question, which none of Central, Canterbury, or Capital did."
This outcome is unacceptable, Auckland knew they had done it and kept it quite, they should lose some points, its unfair on all other teams and integrity of the game! Federations need to object this outcome, would it have made a different to the outcome if it was anyone else but Auckland? Very disappointed to see rules are not “rules” Capital would have least be in contention
So Auckland played an ineligible player and should have been docked 9 points but hey lets not worry about that, people make mistakes..... NZF strikes again
They are though:
"the regulations also state that opposing teams must lodge protests regarding player eligibility within 48 hours of the match in question, which none of Central, Canterbury, or Capital did."
I'm not too clear who was involved in the Mainland Football situation but it's worth noting NZF only introduced this rule in the last 1 or 2 seasons.
I know people feel like there has been inconsistency in the past but that's a very clear rule and circumventing it would only serve to double down on that inconsistency.
So Auckland played an ineligible player and should have been docked 9 points but hey lets not worry about that, people make mistakes..... NZF strikes again
They are though:
"the regulations also state that opposing teams must lodge protests regarding player eligibility within 48 hours of the match in question, which none of Central, Canterbury, or Capital did."
I'm not too clear who was involved in the Mainland Football situation but it's worth noting NZF only introduced this rule in the last 1 or 2 seasons.
I know people feel like there has been inconsistency in the past but that's a very clear rule and circumventing it would only serve to double down on that inconsistency.
as opposed to the clear rule on a player having an ITC before they can play?
also interesting that Northern Football waited more than 48 hours to inform NZF that they knew the rule had been breached
https://thejourneyfan.blogspot.co.nz/
New Zealand Football Media Association Website of the year 2015 & 2016
So Auckland played an ineligible player and should have been docked 9 points but hey lets not worry about that, people make mistakes..... NZF strikes again
They are though:
"the regulations also state that opposing teams must lodge protests regarding player eligibility within 48 hours of the match in question, which none of Central, Canterbury, or Capital did."
The relevant clause in the 2020 ISPS Womens Regulations is:
The NZF Disciplinary Code penalties are:
NZF's decision not to penalise Auckland in this instance is not in accordance with its own rules.
The 48 hour rule exists to prevent teams sitting on knowledge from game 1 off a season and conveniently bringing it up at the end.
Even if Northern brought it to light within 48 hours of their final game at most they'd be given the loss for a single league game.
The 48 hour rule exists to prevent teams sitting on knowledge from game 1 off a season and conveniently bringing it up at the end.
Even if Northern brought it to light within 48 hours of their final game at most they'd be given the loss for a single league game.
So you are saying its up to the other teams to check Auckland's admin rather than Auckland getting it right in the first place?
Given that Emma Fletcher required an ITC as she'd last played in Canada you'd have thought that would have been a clue...
https://thejourneyfan.blogspot.co.nz/
New Zealand Football Media Association Website of the year 2015 & 2016
The 48 hour rule exists to prevent teams sitting on knowledge from game 1 off a season and conveniently bringing it up at the end.
Even if Northern brought it to light within 48 hours of their final game at most they'd be given the loss for a single league game.
So you are saying its up to the other teams to check Auckland's admin rather than Auckland getting it right in the first place?
Given that Emma Fletcher required an ITC as she'd last played in Canada you'd have thought that would have been a clue...
That seems to be what the rules suggest?
The 48 hour rule exists to prevent teams sitting on knowledge from game 1 off a season and conveniently bringing it up at the end.
Even if Northern brought it to light within 48 hours of their final game at most they'd be given the loss for a single league game.
So you are saying its up to the other teams to check Auckland's admin rather than Auckland getting it right in the first place?
Given that Emma Fletcher required an ITC as she'd last played in Canada you'd have thought that would have been a clue...
That seems to be what the rules suggest?
Why is everyone so caught up in an honest human error at admin level in an office somewhere far away from Auckland's playing squad derailing their season?
It would be very harsh on those players after how they've played this season to have it all pulled from under them because of someone they've never met pressed the wrong buttons on a computer.
I'm pleasently suprised that NZ went with football over administration for once. I think places that really care about the game this would happen.
If administration is unfairly and purposely trying to gain an advantage I total understand punishments being made. But when its a genuine mistake like this I'd find it harsh on the players who actually play and compete in football matches.
Why is everyone so caught up in an honest human error at admin level in an office somewhere far away from Auckland's playing squad derailing their season?
It would be very harsh on those players after how they've played this season to have it all pulled from under them because of someone they've never met pressed the wrong buttons on a computer.
I'm pleasently suprised that NZ went with football over administration for once. I think places that really care about the game this would happen.
If administration is unfairly and purposely trying to gain an advantage I total understand punishments being made. But when its a genuine mistake like this I'd find it harsh on the players who actually play and compete in football matches.
because when Southern United made an honest human error, in forgetting to list a registered player on the team sheet, they had a 4-0 win turned into a 3-0 loss and a pretty clear message from NZF that there was no room for leeway
and I know if my club made a similar mistake we would get penalised
Basically why bother with the rules if they are just going to ignore them when it suits them to
https://thejourneyfan.blogspot.co.nz/
New Zealand Football Media Association Website of the year 2015 & 2016
Why is everyone so caught up in an honest human error at admin level in an office somewhere far away from Auckland's playing squad derailing their season?
It would be very harsh on those players after how they've played this season to have it all pulled from under them because of someone they've never met pressed the wrong buttons on a computer.
I'm pleasently suprised that NZ went with football over administration for once. I think places that really care about the game this would happen.
If administration is unfairly and purposely trying to gain an advantage I total understand punishments being made. But when its a genuine mistake like this I'd find it harsh on the players who actually play and compete in football matches.
I feel for the players in the Auckland team but at a National League level these mistakes should not happen - I was firm on this with the Southern United case and I'm firm on it with this case.
This issue is much more serious than the Southern United case - and it doesn't matter if a mistake has been made or if it was intentional. A player playing in your national league without an ITC is a serious no no for a national body - I'm told OFC are already looking into this and may defer to FIFA if they don't get the answers they are looking for.
Last time NZF was caught by FIFA playing players without ITC's it was a 50K fine.
I'd see it as NZF had the wrong stance on the Southern United outcome and now we are making strides forward as a footballing nation and seeing sense. From this point onwards I hope they are consistent. Football people need to make these decisions.
I'd see it as NZF had the wrong stance on the Southern United outcome and now we are making strides forward as a footballing nation and seeing sense. From this point onwards I hope they are consistent. Football people need to make these decisions.
this is a stride forward? what, is your last name Hay?
I'd see it as NZF had the wrong stance on the Southern United outcome and now we are making strides forward as a footballing nation and seeing sense. From this point onwards I hope they are consistent. Football people need to make these decisions.
I'd be ok with this if NZF came out and explained themselves in regard to these two cases. Even to the point that they accepted they were overly harsh last season in docking SU points. And explained what we can expect with consistency in the rules going forward from here.
I'd also like that! It would show that NZF care about the game of football and its players both should be at the centre of every decision they make.
I'd see it as NZF had the wrong stance on the Southern United outcome and now we are making strides forward as a footballing nation and seeing sense. From this point onwards I hope they are consistent. Football people need to make these decisions.
I'd be ok with this if NZF came out and explained themselves in regard to these two cases. Even to the point that they accepted they were overly harsh last season in docking SU points. And explained what we can expect with consistency in the rules going forward from here.
If club administrators know players need an ITC, you would think a regional organisation would as well. This stinks to me and doesn’t add up. I think there has actually been some deception involved.
If the club administrator has had to ask for an ITC there is NO way that this is an honest mistake. Will be interesting when they applied for the ITC and when the Emma Fletcher was added to the squad!
On an aside, the time requirement for lodging a protest is redundant as has been shown time and time again. If I were involved I would be appealing this decision for sure.
She has her ITC they got it in about 3 days after they were informed of their issue - however she now can't play because at the time the window for registration of players closed she was ineligible to play so now can't be added to the squad officially.
In NZF's emails to all federations they asked the feds to let them know if the feds were ok for her to be added back in but it had if anyone had an issue then she would remain in-eligible.
So on one hand - not able to be added into the team as she missed the window - on the other hand not ruled as an in-eligible player because no-one complained within the magical 48 hours timeframe (not that anyone had any idea AFF had made this mistake so why would they just lodge a complaint out of the blue).
She has her ITC they got it in about 3 days after they were informed of their issue - however she now can't play because at the time the window for registration of players closed she was ineligible to play so now can't be added to the squad officially.
In NZF's emails to all federations they asked the feds to let them know if the feds were ok for her to be added back in but it had if anyone had an issue then she would remain in-eligible.
So on one hand - not able to be added into the team as she missed the window - on the other hand not ruled as an in-eligible player because no-one complained within the magical 48 hours timeframe (not that anyone had any idea AFF had made this mistake so why would they just lodge a complaint out of the blue).
Wow. I wish I could say 'unbelievable' ... but how can an organisation deliver such inconsistency with a straight face? All the while trying to simply sweep it under the carpet. Surely isn't over, particularly given the ITC aspect.
As cultured as Che Bunce's left foot and as profilic as John Lammers
She has her ITC they got it in about 3 days after they were informed of their issue - however she now can't play because at the time the window for registration of players closed she was ineligible to play so now can't be added to the squad officially.
In NZF's emails to all federations they asked the feds to let them know if the feds were ok for her to be added back in but it had if anyone had an issue then she would remain in-eligible.
So on one hand - not able to be added into the team as she missed the window - on the other hand not ruled as an in-eligible player because no-one complained within the magical 48 hours timeframe (not that anyone had any idea AFF had made this mistake so why would they just lodge a complaint out of the blue).
Supporter For Ever - Keep The Faith - Foundation Member - Never Lets FAX Get In The Way Of A Good Yarn
I actually don't believe the Club (being Eastern Suburbs) were trying to avoid an ITC - the reality is the team officially is an AFF team so from what I understand and from what I'm told someone at AFF who was entering the team into COMET just picked the wrong player - same name, different DOB.
But for me intent doesn't come into it - player required an ITC, didn't get one, has played - should lose points.
I actually don't believe the Club (being Eastern Suburbs) were trying to avoid an ITC - the reality is the team officially is an AFF team so from what I understand and from what I'm told someone at AFF who was entering the team into COMET just picked the wrong player - same name, different DOB.
But for me intent doesn't come into it - player required an ITC, didn't get one, has played - should lose points.
Really don't see why NZF isn't just doing the right thing here. It's not like Auckland even loses anything if they do; they don't get relegated at the end of the season, even if ALL their points are docked. So they might miss out on the final one year. That's probably not a bad thing.
Much cheaper and easier to go and watch a final in Auckland of course, if you are based in Albany, And nice to cheer for your local team.
I actually don't believe the Club (being Eastern Suburbs) were trying to avoid an ITC - the reality is the team officially is an AFF team so from what I understand and from what I'm told someone at AFF who was entering the team into COMET just picked the wrong player - same name, different DOB.
But for me intent doesn't come into it - player required an ITC, didn't get one, has played - should lose points.
Really don't see why NZF isn't just doing the right thing here. It's not like Auckland even loses anything if they do; they don't get relegated at the end of the season, even if ALL their points are docked. So they might miss out on the final one year. That's probably not a bad thing.
Much cheaper and easier to go and watch a final in Auckland of course, if you are based in Albany, And nice to cheer for your local team.
but that's the rub, Auckland played the player in 3 games so would lose something, namely 9 points meaning they wouldn't be in the final - if NZF followed their rules it would mean the final would likely be Canterbury v Capital or possibly Northern
https://thejourneyfan.blogspot.co.nz/
New Zealand Football Media Association Website of the year 2015 & 2016
I actually don't believe the Club (being Eastern Suburbs) were trying to avoid an ITC - the reality is the team officially is an AFF team so from what I understand and from what I'm told someone at AFF who was entering the team into COMET just picked the wrong player - same name, different DOB.
But for me intent doesn't come into it - player required an ITC, didn't get one, has played - should lose points.
Really don't see why NZF isn't just doing the right thing here. It's not like Auckland even loses anything if they do; they don't get relegated at the end of the season, even if ALL their points are docked. So they might miss out on the final one year. That's probably not a bad thing.
Much cheaper and easier to go and watch a final in Auckland of course, if you are based in Albany, And nice to cheer for your local team.
but that's the rub, Auckland played the player in 3 games so would lose something, namely 9 points meaning they wouldn't be in the final - if NZF followed their rules it would mean the final would likely be Canterbury v Capital or possibly Northern
Cost cannot be factor as to where the Grand Final is being played as the rules / regs for the league say that the team that finishes on top of the table gets hosting rights, not the final will be played in Auckland.
Cannot see how or why NZ Football are not enforcing their own rules and if no action is taken on this occasion then what will happen when the next case of an ineligible player occurs.
For this reason alone all the Federation's should be appealing the NZF ruling.
Looks like Auckland is losing the points: https://www.nzfootball.co.nz/newsarticle/98484
"As New Zealand Football was notified of the matter outside the 48-hour time limit afforded to clubs to protest a result, New Zealand Football did not initially issue a retrospective punishment instead advising the player was ineligible to play in future fixtures."
"citing that the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players is strict on matters of eligibility irrespective of any time limits set out in the competition regulations"
Essentially the RSTP overrules the competition rules. Some interesting thoughts at the end of this though:
Looks like Auckland is losing the points: https://www.nzfootball.co.nz/newsarticle/98484
"As New Zealand Football was notified of the matter outside the 48-hour time limit afforded to clubs to protest a result, New Zealand Football did not initially issue a retrospective punishment instead advising the player was ineligible to play in future fixtures."
"citing that the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players is strict on matters of eligibility irrespective of any time limits set out in the competition regulations"
Essentially the RSTP overrules the competition rules. Some interesting thoughts at the end of this though:
Looks like Auckland is losing the points: https://www.nzfootball.co.nz/newsarticle/98484
"As New Zealand Football was notified of the matter outside the 48-hour time limit afforded to clubs to protest a result, New Zealand Football did not initially issue a retrospective punishment instead advising the player was ineligible to play in future fixtures."
"citing that the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players is strict on matters of eligibility irrespective of any time limits set out in the competition regulations"
Essentially the RSTP overrules the competition rules. Some interesting thoughts at the end of this though:
Auckland did NOT self report in any way shape or form.
Looks like Auckland is losing the points: https://www.nzfootball.co.nz/newsarticle/98484
"As New Zealand Football was notified of the matter outside the 48-hour time limit afforded to clubs to protest a result, New Zealand Football did not initially issue a retrospective punishment instead advising the player was ineligible to play in future fixtures."
"citing that the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players is strict on matters of eligibility irrespective of any time limits set out in the competition regulations"
Essentially the RSTP overrules the competition rules. Some interesting thoughts at the end of this though:
Auckland did NOT self report in any way shape or form.
I thought I read that they did. Who picked it up?
Looks like Auckland is losing the points: https://www.nzfootball.co.nz/newsarticle/98484
"As New Zealand Football was notified of the matter outside the 48-hour time limit afforded to clubs to protest a result, New Zealand Football did not initially issue a retrospective punishment instead advising the player was ineligible to play in future fixtures."
"citing that the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players is strict on matters of eligibility irrespective of any time limits set out in the competition regulations"
Essentially the RSTP overrules the competition rules. Some interesting thoughts at the end of this though:
Auckland did NOT self report in any way shape or form.
Yes they did! They went to NZF when they realised the mistake.
? | STATEMENT | Statement by NRF regarding the eligibility issue in the Auckland Football/@ESAFC Women's team.
— Auckland Football (@AuckFootballFed) December 11, 2020
⬇️⬇️⬇️https://t.co/7CotoiLRCm pic.twitter.com/b9Syi12oeq
By now I'm sure you have all heard the news. We are absolutely gutted with the outcome of the appeal and disappointed we aren’t able to finish off our stellar season with an opportunity to play for a spot in the grand finale.
— Auckland Football (@AuckFootballFed) December 11, 2020
Read more: https://t.co/IYrCw9Utcs
??⚪️? pic.twitter.com/dOb6AOgRHd
Supporter For Ever - Keep The Faith - Foundation Member - Never Lets FAX Get In The Way Of A Good Yarn
Looks like Auckland is losing the points: https://www.nzfootball.co.nz/newsarticle/98484
"As New Zealand Football was notified of the matter outside the 48-hour time limit afforded to clubs to protest a result, New Zealand Football did not initially issue a retrospective punishment instead advising the player was ineligible to play in future fixtures."
"citing that the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players is strict on matters of eligibility irrespective of any time limits set out in the competition regulations"
Essentially the RSTP overrules the competition rules. Some interesting thoughts at the end of this though:
Auckland did NOT self report in any way shape or form.
Yes they did! They went to NZF when they realised the mistake.
100% incorrect. The error was found by a party of outside of AFF or Eastern Suburbs and was reported to AFF via NZF.
Looks like Auckland is losing the points: https://www.nzfootball.co.nz/newsarticle/98484
"As New Zealand Football was notified of the matter outside the 48-hour time limit afforded to clubs to protest a result, New Zealand Football did not initially issue a retrospective punishment instead advising the player was ineligible to play in future fixtures."
"citing that the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players is strict on matters of eligibility irrespective of any time limits set out in the competition regulations"
Essentially the RSTP overrules the competition rules. Some interesting thoughts at the end of this though:
Auckland did NOT self report in any way shape or form.
Yes they did! They went to NZF when they realised the mistake.
100% incorrect. The error was found by a party of outside of AFF or Eastern Suburbs and was reported to AFF via NZF.
Chopah - says who? My understanding was that wasn't the case. Happy to be proven wrong but I have it on pretty good word.