So Stop Out win on goals “for” based on the 3 goals they were given for the overturned result against Lower Hutt. In-other-words they won on 3 goals “for” they never scored?
Surely be pretty bad look for NZF to go against the initial judgement of the competition manager for capital football (and then the upheld initial appeal)...
Talk around the traps is that LHC believe they were told by CF that dispensation were either granted or not needed. So perhaps there was some miscommunication or misunderstanding.
Talk around the traps is that LHC believe they were told by CF that dispensation were either granted or not needed. So perhaps there was some miscommunication or misunderstanding.
Sounds hard to believe. If they had evidence of this I doubt we would be in this situation. Some talk that the nix thought they had cart blanche permission from NZF to play whatever ages they like (despite this being LH)
Talk around the traps is that LHC believe they were told by CF that dispensation were either granted or not needed. So perhaps there was some miscommunication or misunderstanding.
Sounds hard to believe. If they had evidence of this I doubt we would be in this situation. Some talk that the nix thought they had cart blanche permission from NZF to play whatever ages they like (despite this being LH)
I think a broad dispensation for the Nix/LH would be a reasonable accommodation, but unless the regulations are updated & the rest of the league is made aware of it then it shouldn't have happened. If the appeal stands it'll be a farce (so based on my experiences with Capital Football I fully expect the appeal to succeed).
Not sure I agree on this. Dispensation rules exist as a check and balance to protect young people and parents from a range of physical and mental wellbeing risks. I don't think (any) club should have carte blanche to ignore a safeguarding control.
Which is fine on the face of it, but I'd love to know what checks CF actually do (if any).
They have the process and checks detailed on their website
Except that doesn't say anything about ongoing monitoring of players with dispensation. It says why it's important and how to get it but after that, what are the check and balances to make sure clubs and schools are continuing the management of the player?
There is precedence however for CF telling a club one thing and then NZF overturning it.
Many years ago when I was at Naenae we lost a CP/Cap 1 play-off against Olympic, who fielded a Central League player after being told by CF that it was ok to play him. We appealed to NZF and CFs decision was overturned by NZF.
If Lower Hutt have been given permission by CF to play these players, but didn't bother to cross check this with NZF then it's on them I guess?
There is precedence however for CF telling a club one thing and then NZF overturning it.
Many years ago when I was at Naenae we lost a CP/Cap 1 play-off against Olympic, who fielded a Central League player after being told by CF that it was ok to play him. We appealed to NZF and CFs decision was overturned by NZF.
If Lower Hutt have been given permission by CF to play these players, but didn't bother to cross check this with NZF then it's on them I guess?
The issue here is NZF telling the Phoenix they could do something without telling CF, or CF deciding they didn't like it and using their power as the administrator of the competition.
This is just crazy - Stop Out are preparing for the play offs, NZF then decide in Lower Hutt's favour, Stop Out lose the two points they gained through this decision, Island Bay win the league - Stop Out will then appeal the decision and the merry go round continues. Since LHC got themselves out of relegation trouble, will they then withdrawal their appeal, leaving Island Bay upset as Stop Out picked up points not earnt on the field. The whole lot needed to be sorted long before now!
So 2ndBest - by you saying CF have no right of appeal, are you saying NZF have ruled in LHC favour and Island Bay have now won the league? Play Offs, delayed?
Please see the below message sent to participating clubs in the Capital Football Men’s Capital Premier and Capital 1 competitions.
Capital Football would like to provide an update to those clubs participating in the Capital Football Men’s Capital Premier and Capital 1 competitions regarding the dispensation regulation breach by Lower Hutt City AFC.
The New Zealand Football Disciplinary Committee (NZF DC) have reviewed the appeal made by LHCAFC and have made the decision to overturn the sanctions imposed by the Competitions Administration before 22 July 2022. See below:
The sanctions imposed on the LHCAFC and the points reduction for the matches before 22 July 2022 are rescinded or overturned and points restored. The sanctions imposed on the LHCAFC and the points reduction for the matches after 22 July 2022 still stand.
Please note, it is stated in the NZ Football Disciplinary Code, this decision can be further appealed to the New Zealand Football Appeals Committee.
Capital Football Management and Board are currently working through the next steps and will send out further communications to Clubs no later than 5pm Friday 2 September.
Capital Football can confirm that the decision has been made to postpone the scheduled Central League playoff game this weekend (Saturday 3 September).
Again, we appreciate your patience while we work through this. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Lower Hutt have applied for dispensations every year ... why would this year be any different? The rules around applying for dispensations have not changed. Even if they were told something like 'you won't have any issues' they surely still need to apply and go through the process like everyone else.