[Archived] Don't know where to put this

[DE.]

The rule was removed from the PL and it's functioning just fine. 

[lraC]

How about amending the rule slightly. In a situation like this, were the entire future of a club is at stake, perhaps the league should ask the club with, nothing to play for, to submit their proposed team 48 hours before the fixture is due to be played. That way, they could get pre approval, or the league could warn them against it, prior to the fixture and make it clear what the punishment will be. There are quite a few games with nothing at stake this weekend and for teams playing those fixture, fair enough. We all sincerely hope though, that Bristol City and Ipswich field full strength side and in the interest of fairness Brentford too.

The damage is done with the Birmingham V Huddersfield and although it appears to have damaged our prospects of avoiding the drop, it can't be undone.

[Batman.]

The rules cannot co-exist.

You cannot limit clubs to a 25 man squad and then further limit them to only picking from 11-14 players from this 25. Or only making x amount of changes per game without medical confirmation. It would descend into a farce, with all sorts of fake injuries being manipulated. 

You just have to accept, like every season for the past 100 years, come the end of the season you will get unexpected results due to the differing priorities of various teams. I repeat, it's game management, and something we've been awful at this season.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, DE. said:

The rule was removed from the PL and it's functioning just fine. 

Until the 'rule' gets tested by a Manager changing ten players and another Manager rightly complaining because it's effectively handed their rivals 3 points.

 

 

[donnermeat]

There is clearly not enough meat on the bones of that rule, which I believe has been done that way intentionally.

[AggyBlue]

2 hours ago, lraC said:

The damage is done with the Birmingham V Huddersfield and although it appears to have damaged our prospects of avoiding the drop, it can't be undone.

From what I've read, Bristol City are about to blood some of their kids this weekend.

All we need now is Ipswich to come out and say the same and we might as well not bother playing our game.

3:30 get up, long days travel and about £100 all for nothing.

[DE.]

1 hour ago, blueboy3333 said:

Until the 'rule' gets tested by a Manager changing ten players and another Manager rightly complaining because it's effectively handed their rivals 3 points.

There is no rule, so it doesn't get tested. 

[LeChuck]

Just now, AggyBlue said:

From what I've read, Bristol City are about to blood some of their kids this weekend. 

All we need now is Ipswich to come out and say the same and we might as well not bother playing our game.

3:30 get up, long days travel and about £100 all for nothing.

Let's be honest though, so would we. In previous seasons, where we've had little play for in the final few weeks, loads of people on here were saying give some of the youngsters a run. 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, DE. said:

There is no rule, so it doesn't get tested. 

Ha. Yeah, good point.  What I meant was fans and managers of clubs would be quick to call for a 'rule' if they were adversely affected. My sincere hope is that Brentford make 10 changes, we stay up and Brum go down. Lets see what Redknapp has to say then.

[DE.]

32 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

Ha. Yeah, good point.  What I meant was fans and managers of clubs would be quick to call for a 'rule' if they were adversely affected. 

Possibly, but I think the PL have it about right. You can pick anyone out of your 25 man squad, but if half your team is unregistered u23's then it's a problem. 

[Stuart]

1 hour ago, AggyBlue said:

From what I've read, Bristol City are about to blood some of their kids this weekend.

All we need now is Ipswich to come out and say the same and we might as well not bother playing our game.

3:30 get up, long days travel and about £100 all for nothing.

Agreed. It should not be a lottery as to whether the team you are facing decide that they don't need to - or want to - compete.

On the 25-man squad rule being debated: if a team regularly rotates their squad and players have a similar ability and similar amount of game time, or at least a reasonable amount of matches then you could talk about a team with strength in depth. If you throw together an entire team of subs and reserves then you are throwing the game (i.e. not competing it). That goes against the whole concept of a competitive league.

Otherwise, it may as well be a randomly-generated 44 game season and then finish off with a couple of friendlies. If you didn't get to play two teams on a competitive basis then 'it's just bad luck'. The rule is there for this express purpose. The application of the punishment is the unfair part because it's nominal in today's footballing terms and it doesn't reimburse the teams harmed by the act. How about a fine equal to the losses sustained by all the relegated teams which are directly attributed to relegation - paid to those clubs?

Or just scrap the rule and leave the morality to each manager, and forget about the integrity of football. In which case, lift Joey Barton's ban at the same time.

By the way, here is the strength in depth of Huddersfield's squad - (league games played prior to Saturday):

Joel Coleman 2

Tommy Smith 39

Mark Hudson 17

Martin Cranie 7

Tareiq Holmes-Dennis 7

Dean Whitehead 10

Philip Billing 13

Joe Lolly 8

Jack Payne 10

Harry Bunn 6

Colin Quaner 8

I could make a case for either half of them. Blooding a few youngsters with some experienced first teamers - fine. Giving a run out to some substitutes that you might need to call on in the play-off run in - fine.  But not both with each other. Aside from this not being a dead runner game and the integrity of him and his club, Wagner will have learnt very little about those lads because it wasn't a proper run out. He may as well have gone to watch a reserve game. A keeper with only two games!

Redknapp will have been delighted when he was handed the Hudds team sheet.

Let's see how many of those play this Sunday.

Wagner has made a rod for his own back because he has to play that same side again this weekend to back up his own squad argument. His best players will have been out of action for two weeks right at a time of the season when they need to keep the football going.

Out of interest, how many players did Sheff Weds rest against Ipswich? Reading against Wigan? Both teams got a win. Instead all eyes will be on Wagner again this weekend. If the only thing that matters is his own team and the rules are meaningless (much less any integrity of the league), then he will surely throw use his full squad for this match as well in order to avoid paying Fulham? I presume people would be just as comfortable if he did that?

[AllRoverAsia]

Well said Stuart.

Wagner will play his 'first team' this week as otherwise they will have had no competitive matchtime for 3 weeks by the time they play the first leg play off.

Squad management my hairy arse.

[speeeeeeedie]

The Guardian has now picked up on it; https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/04/weakened-team-huddersfield-birmingham-championship-relegation-play-offs?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Fiver+2016&utm_term=224538&subid=6923483&CMP=EMCFTBEML853

Comments galore too.

[blueboy3333]

From the Guardian article^:-

'The notion of a full-strength side is normally for cup finals or other knockout rounds, major derbies or grudge matches against immediate rivals. A game between a side in fifth place and one in relegation trouble on the penultimate weekend of the season does not really come into that category'

Never read such nonsense. A full-strength side is the one that plays the majority of the season when a club wants to win games. 

'...would probably have gone unnoticed but for breaking the 10th commandment. Which is, simply, don’t change the whole team. It looks bad'

No, it's against the frigging rules.

 

[Batman.]

Just so I can understand better how this anger is being channelled, what is it people want? That the match is replayed, both teams are docked points, just Huddersfield docked points, fines?

[JohnD]

I don't understand all the fuss?

Yes Huddersfield were out of order and deserve to be punished, it will just be a fine.

What did Birmingham do wrong?

[Batman.]

Just now, JohnD said:

What did Birmingham do wrong?

According to one poster Harry Redknapp used the dark arts of magic to mind coerce Wagner into making 10 changes.

[den]

Just now, JohnD said:

I don't understand all the fuss?

Yes Huddersfield were out of order and deserve to be punished, it will just be a fine.

What did Birmingham do wrong?

Win.

[AllRoverAsia]

Huddersfield are totally innocent. There convincing defence is that they were only playing small heath. A suspended modest fine for Hudds and a Knighthood for 'Arry for services to 'Arry.

Joking aside and TBH I dont want the fans of Huddersfield punished so anything more than a fine is a no go.

Basically is a dead issue for Rovers and we all now need to look after ourselves for Sunday.

[Stuart]

48 minutes ago, Batman. said:

Just so I can understand better how this anger is being channelled, what is it people want? That the match is replayed, both teams are docked points, just Huddersfield docked points, fines?

1) To vent about the fact that we and Forest have been cheated out a fair crack at staying up. Whilst Birmingham have been the sole beneficiaries.

2) Yes, points deduction seem fair. It would certainly make other teams think twice*

3) A whacking great fine. Something which would stop teams breaking the rules because 'they can afford it'**

4) Redknapp and Birmingham censured for comments prior to the game which could be construed as influencing Wagners decision making. After all. What Harry wanted to happen, happened.

What is most irritating of all is that the rules and regulations are so @#/? poor in the first place. Even if Rovers fans 'win' then we will not benefit. We will simply be pipe cleaners for future clubs.

* obviously this won't happen

** there is a possibility of a punitive fine being imposed - although unlikely due to precenent

[Batman.]

So what is the threshold for such sanctions being imposed? Three changes to the line up from the previous game? Four? Five? Six?

This has to be black and white, as all rules need to be. If a rule isn't black and white, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

[Stuart]

Just now, Batman. said:

So what is the threshold for such sanctions being imposed? Three changes to the line up from the previous game? Four? Five? Six?

This has to be black and white, as all rules need to be. If a rule isn't black and white, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Five.

Happy?

[Rover_Shaun]

Squads of 11?

[punerover]

We ourselves are to blame for the position we are in but in the words of Kevin Keegan "I will tell you, honestly, I would love it if Brum go down and uddersfield dont make the playoffs, love it".

[Batman.]

8 hours ago, Stuart said:

Five.

Happy?

So you're proposing a rule where you cannot make more than five changes from game to game? What happens if there are two or three injuries from the previous game? Suspensions? Subject to appeal it can be extended? What if a team has three games in a one week period?

I'm sorry, but it's not enforceable, and nor should it be. Huddersfield did nothing wrong, and all our appeals will do is raise awareness of the stupidity of rule, and see to it's justified removal.