Sorry Smithy, I don't remember who did them. I don't think Frank's mate was involved
Chatham Cup 2014
Smithy
You made a statement "The current rules are simply not fit for purpose though. Not accurate, not clear."
The simple answer or explanation is that they were written by lawyers, to be interpreted by lawyers.
If they were written by lawyers, they weren't very good ones.
Didn't NZF use Frank's mate's firm in Auckland? Small shop, does mostly private client stuff?
there's an old saying "what do you call one hundred lawyers at the bottom of the sea?….. a bloody good start"
there are a lot of bloody great lawyers but there are also a lot of awful ones who balance it out to a point that you are best to keep the lawyers out of it if you can.
most lawyers are trained to make holes for later use and sometimes they cannot help themselves from doing this and i feel this is what has happened here with some help from some stupid people who think they know what they are doing.
So about that Chatham Cup.......
So about that Chatham Cup.......
Do Birkenhead have a case for appeal against Spoonley?
No... He had returned to his winter club so the 15 day rule doesn't apply ( new rule)
Phoenix and TW are not clubs..( apparently)...
Central within the rights.
No... He had returned to his winter club so the 15 day rule doesn't apply ( new rule)
Phoenix and TW are not clubs..( apparently)...
Central within the rights.
And they won fair and square on the pitch. Being 3-0 up early in the second half and playing only 10 men, Birkenhead should have closed the game out. Instead gave away 3 soft penalties and conceded a goal mouth scramble in added time. Only really have themselves to blame.
Rules are a bit of a moveable feast for NZF ...
Too many jobs for the lads and club paid staff who also have NZF roles for my liking - lack of transparency and the appearance of impartiality (but that's another story).
Was a bit like watching fainting goats for a while there on Sunday.
Rules are a bit of a moveable feast for NZF ...
Too many jobs for the lads and club paid staff who also have NZF roles for my liking - lack of transparency and the appearance of impartiality (but that's another story).
Was a bit like watching fainting goats for a while there on Sunday.
And as mentioned here previously - would NZF really risk the USD$500k windfall that City bring to the table each year? You can buy allot of Volkswagens with that....
Birkenhead Utd v Central Utd Highlights
Um sorry Buffy but the 1st is a deadset penalty. JHM got the ball alright, after clearing out the guy that had the ball first.
The 3rd one he is tripped and the number 2 ain't disputing it.
I think you need to clean your glasses mate. I have to agree - that is a choke.
And 4th wasnt offside either
My thoughts were that at 3-0 up Birko should have sewn it up. The first was a pen. The second I could not see it on the screen and the third was pretty soft.
Dunno why you would appeal Spoonley playing for them - watching the vid i would day he could put his hand up for the first two goals and probably the third....
A soft penalty is still a penalty Leggy. I'm no Central fan but you can't deny that's a foul. What should be raised is what is the number 2 being coached that would make him do that when the ball player is heading towards the touchline away from goal? Just jockey him out of the box and don't get beaten if he tries to turn you.
Those things are coach killers.
Im no Central fan, far from it!
At first thought I reckon first pen could've been just outside, Ref could've gone either way. Second unseen. Third def foul. Fourth poor poor poor defending.
Overall, in one word....Choke!
Actually reading back over your comments this week Buffy its probably you that needs to hang your head in shame. Pens are legit (well 2 of the 3 we can see) and you don't need to touch on the winner cause its clearly onside.
Give yourself an uppercut mate.
Actually reading back over your comments this week Buffy its probably you that needs to hang your head in shame. Pens are legit (well 2 of the 3 we can see) and you don't need to touch on the winner cause its clearly onside.
Give yourself an uppercut mate.
LOL!
Actually reading back over your comments this week Buffy its probably you that needs to hang your head in shame. Pens are legit (well 2 of the 3 we can see) and you don't need to touch on the winner cause its clearly onside.
Give yourself an uppercut mate.
I'm keeping out of this, but I did laugh at the last line.
Please guys ...I think drink might have been involved....
Coverage of the IBU goals on Island Bay's facebook page including the tasty first one.
Coverage of the IBU goals on Island Bay's facebook page including the tasty first one.
Please guys ...I think drink might have been involved....
I suspect there always is with your posts!
Why the hold up for the replay between North Shore and Wanderers or are all the NZ Footy staffers over at the World Cup.
Surely the rules are clear cut and like any other year if the rules are broken you are out so cannot see Mangere have any reason to appeal anyway.
If it drags on much longer the 'open' draw for 1/4 final will get messy if clubs do not know where that have to travel to.
Honestly, do people not understand the concept of appealing?
1) A team has a right to appeal, regardless of how frivolous it may be.
2) NZF has to address that appeal. There are regulation outlining how this is done, including assembling a panel to assess the appeal.
Honestly, do people not understand the concept of appealing?
1) A team has a right to appeal, regardless of how frivolous it may be.
2) NZF has to address that appeal. There are regulation outlining how this is done, including assembling a panel to assess the appeal.
But what are Mangere appealing on as NZ Football have already ruled that they fielded an ineligible player so can only assume that they are appealing on the 'sentence' which is expelled from the cup
Surely cannot expect to stay in the cup and have a fine or something similar imposed when rules have been breached.
Honestly, do people not understand the concept of appealing?
1) A team has a right to appeal, regardless of how frivolous it may be.
2) NZF has to address that appeal. There are regulation outlining how this is done, including assembling a panel to assess the appeal.
But what are Mangere appealing on as NZ Football have already ruled that they fielded an ineligible player so can only assume that they are appealing on the 'sentence' which is expelled from the cup
Surely cannot expect to stay in the cup and have a fine or something similar imposed when rules have been breached.
That is irrelevant though. They have the right to appeal. Until the time window for the appeal has passed, or the appeal is resolved, it would be irresponsable to continue on.
They are wise to tread with caution.
There have already been instances in the northern league this season where protests have been upheld at federation level - then reversed upon appeal at NZ Football level.
They are wise to tread with caution.
There have already been instances in the northern league this season where protests have been upheld at federation level - then reversed upon appeal at NZ Football level.
in this case i am told that the federation has had no involvement at all - NZF call - appealed to NZF.
Yes, my point wasn't related to a federation as such, just to the fact that the interpretation of regulations at one point in the hierarchy is not necessarily that of another set of eyes somewhere else in the chain. One man's certainty is another man's doubt, etc.
I recently heard from two sources (on both sides of the issue) about the interesting case concerning Manurewa, who had a player sent off for violent conduct. They successfully appealed at federation level after presenting video evidence of the game - showing no punch was actually ever thrown.
Straight forward, you may have thought...
But the matter was duly referred to NZ Football by the referees, and the red card successfully reinstated (on the basis that the rules recognise the ref as the sole judge of facts in the amateur game).
So, even though it never happened, and everyone knew it never happened, the charade trumped reality. :-)
You know or would love the Capital 1 -Fed 5 - NZF protest history then. 11 team -Ten team league. LOL
IMO - NZF found in favour of the club after Fed decision appealed. In the findings NZF told the Fed how to do what they wanted. (Change the rules)
NZF statement: ASB Chatham Cup
Monday 23 June, 2014
For immediate release
The New Zealand Football Appeals Committee has heard the appeal of Mangere United regarding their ASB Chatham Cup second round tie with Hamilton Wanderers.
After winning the second round tie against Hamilton Wanderers on Sunday 15 June via a penalty shootout, Mangere United were found to have fielded an ineligible player in the match; a ruling which the south Auckland club appealed.
On appeal, the committee have upheld the original decision regarding the eligibility of the player while requesting New Zealand revisit the penalty for fielding the ineligible player.
As a result, New Zealand Football has determined that, as per FIFA regulations, Mangere United will forfeit the match with a 3-0 loss – rather than the original decision to overturn the result.
New Zealand Football Competitions Manager Chris Kemp says while the delay in the scheduled third round match between North Shore United and Hamilton Wanderers is not ideal the right course of action is being followed.
“While we acknowledge the delay in being able to move forward, the most important aspect of this situation is that we adhere to a correct and proper process which safeguards the interests of all parties involved,” Kemp said.
Mangere United have until Friday 27 June to lodge a further appeal.
The scheduled third round tie between North Shore United AFC and Hamilton Wanderers will be scheduled as soon as the process involving Mangere United’s appeal is completed.
So how many appeals can they have?
Circus.......
Appeal over decision is over.
Can appeal over sentence. Just like in real life.
that'd be a tough job. Its a pretty standard sentence.
I'm thinking of gunning it up SH2 from Napier to Ngongotaha on Sunday for some Chatham Cup action in the Village
I'm thinking of gunning it up SH2 from Napier to Ngongotaha on Sunday for some Chatham Cup action in the Village
Watch out for wild horses.
Appeal over decision is over.
Can appeal over sentence. Just like in real life.
Wouldnt know never been in Court
So if NZF had awarded 3-0 win to Hamilton 1st up then would be sorted by now
for me the frustration is the trickle effect on clubs - for example North Shore who are a pretty innocent party in this have been messed around a bit - and from my point of view we don't know if our game against them this weekend will be going ahead or not. Then Wanderers are in pretty much the same position as well. It's pretty uncool from Mangere to be so inconsiderate - if your wrong cop the punishment and let everyone else move on.