Post history

History for Steptoe

ISPS Handa Women's Premiership

Back to topic

Current version

Posted December 06, 2020 23:01 · last edited December 06, 2020 23:02

Steptoe wrote:

20 Legend wrote:

Steptoe wrote:

The JourneyFan wrote:

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

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/domestic/123545217/nz-football-chooses-not-to-penalise-national-womens-league-leaders-for-eligibility-error?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

This decision should be appealed - NZF would not have a leg to stand on. It MUST follow its own rules. No discretion in matters of eligibility.

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 read that also, but there are precedents where player ineligibility came to light outside the 48 hour window and points deductions were applied. For cases involving an obscure administrative error, opposing sides would have no knowledge on which to base a protest. A few seasons back, Mainland Football operating under the same eligibility rules, discovered an administrative error in a player's registration 7 games into the season, and deducted all points accumulated in matches for which the player was on the team card. This decision influenced the destination of the league title.

The crux is NZF's implication that sanctions for ineligibility breaches can be applied only as a result of a protest by the opposition team. This is not correct, as the above Mainland Football decision shows. 

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.

Previous versions

1 version
Unknown editor edited December 06, 2020 23:02
Steptoe wrote:
20 Legend wrote:
Steptoe wrote:
The JourneyFan wrote:

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

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/domestic/123545217/nz-football-chooses-not-to-penalise-national-womens-league-leaders-for-eligibility-error?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

This decision should be appealed - NZF would not have a leg to stand on. It MUST follow its own rules. No discretion in matters of eligibility.

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 read that also, but there are precedents where player ineligibility came to light outside the 48 hour window and points deductions were applied. For cases involving an obscure administrative error, opposing sides would have no knowledge on which to base a protest. A few seasons back, Mainland Football operating under the same eligibility rules, discovered an administrative error in a player's registration 7 games into the season, and deducted all points accumulated in matches for which the player was on the team card. This decision influenced the destination of the league title.
The crux is NZF's implication that sanctions for ineligibility breaches can be applied only as a result of a protest by the opposition team. This is not correct, as the above Mainland Football decision shows. 

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.