[Archived] Don't know where to put this

[47er]

Just now, den said:

Don't understand how you can say it's unenforceable BB, when other clubs have been fined and Hudds could well be.

Its a relatively small fine though Den.

More importantly it doesn't prevent the offence occurring and the damage is never undone. Birmingham have already been assured that their result stands so in reality, the rule is unenforceable.

Only early intervention, before the game is played could prevent the transgression and I don't see how that could work.

In short, its unfair but we have to live with it. 

[DE.]

29 minutes ago, den said:

Don't understand how you can say it's unenforceable BB, when other clubs have been fined and Hudds could well be.

You're not enforcing the rule though, you're actually changing it to read "you may field a significantly weaker team if you wish, but it will incur a mandatory fine". 

[Stuart]

5 hours ago, Batman. said:

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.

You're talking like these sorts of rules haven't been discussed, agreed and implemented regularly over the decades.

I presume you would have fought the introduction of substitutes? Well, how many is acceptable? 2, 3, 4? What happens if a player gets injured after all three subs have been used? No, no, no, it's unworkable.

We wouldn't even be talking about this if Wagner had made 5 changes rather than TEN! It would have been common sense.

Take a step back and think about what you are saying. An entire team changed for a single game. So it's not the same team. We may as well do away with squad limits completely and just let those teams who want to play a different side every month. You know, keep players fresh.

The daft things is, the issue at stake here is integrity, when in reality there is no integrity in football any more. Wagner and Redknapp have proved it.

[speeeeeeedie]

56 minutes ago, Blue blood said:

Regardless of wrongdoing the rule is unenforceable imo, as there as so, so many ambiguous circumstances:

I also reckon a clever club could argue their way through the changes - A and B were carrying knocks and didn't want to risk them, C and D were tactical switches, we wanted more pace etc., E is a first teamer but hasn't played much due to injuries, and we wanted a look at a couple of youngsters.

The ambiguous circumstances are central to why the rule wasn't broken. The club can use any number of the "satisfactory reasons" (stated in the rule) to explain it away. You gave a few examples, I can add some easily. I'm sure a skilled manager like Wagner has even more he can offer as he's privy to information unavailable to the public, and even the EFL.

If Huddersfield do end up getting charged I doubt that they'd contest it. It's a small fine. Chicken feed if they get promoted. I'm pretty sure that Wagner won't be happy about it though as it is a judge against his ability to manage his club.

If they are fined, any Huddersfield player who played against Birmingham should be straight on to the PFA and their agent asking them to sue the EFL. They've effectively judged that those players aren't good enough potentially affecting future earnings.

"Sorry pal I'm not offering you a contract, the EFL says that you aren't good enough to play in the Championship". 

This thread has had legs for a few days. It was all started by self professed boycotter Al. He's disappeared again and is missing the debate.

[Stuart]

3 hours ago, AggyBlue said:

Are you the Birmingham City or Huddersfield Town spokesperson on this issue?

You seem to be posting far too many posts whilst answering/arguing with anyone who suggests any wrongdoing. 

It isn't a chatroom, what's wrong with posting your opinion and leaving it at that?

Disagree. He's made some valid points and responded to the discussion (certainly more civil than when he used to be old Shilito). Granted I don't agree with him but I appreciate him trying!

[Stuart]

Just now, speeeeeeedie said:

The ambiguous circumstances are central to why the rule wasn't broken. The club can use any number of the "satisfactory reasons" (stated in the rule) to explain it away. You gave a few examples, I can add some easily. I'm sure a skilled manager like Wagner has even more he can offer as he's privy to information unavailable to the public, and even the EFL.

If Huddersfield do end up getting charged I doubt that they'd contest it. It's a small fine. Chicken feed if they get promoted. I'm pretty sure that Wagner won't be happy about it though as it is a judge against his ability to manage his club.

If they are fined, any Huddersfield player who played against Birmingham should be straight on to the PFA and their agent asking them to sue the EFL. They've effectively judged that those players aren't good enough potentially affecting future earnings.

"Sorry pal I'm not offering you a contract, the EFL says that you aren't good enough to play in the Championship". 

This thread has had legs for a few days. It was all started by self professed boycotter Al. He's disappeared again and is missing the debate.

It's not about individual players' abilities, it's about the ability of the TEAM selected. It wasn't even a cohesive team, just a mishmash of youngester and reserves all in the same 11.

[Batman.]

Just now, Stuart said:

Take a step back and think about what you are saying. An entire team changed for a single game. So it's not the same team. We may as well do away with squad limits completely and just let those teams who want to play a different side every month. You know, keep players fresh.

The daft things is, the issue at stake here is integrity, when in reality there is no integrity in football any more. Wagner and Redknapp have proved it.

The integrity in my opinion is the only debate to be had here. I just think it's crystal clear that making 10 changes enhances Huddersfield's promotion chances more than making 5. I stated earlier in the debate that if avoiding Fulham was the intention, there were far more subtle ways to do it (5 changes and telling them to take it easy, for example. Either way, I suspect the end result would have been the same). It's that time of the season. Truth be told, had we have played Villa a month or two ago, I think they'd have had us. As it happens, they'd rather have been anywhere else on the day, much like Huddersfield. I would even suggest I would rather Huddersfield stuck out the team that drew with City (which they more or less did) with 11 players all trying to force their way into the team, rather than a team or are doing everything they can to avoid physical strain. Especially against a team fighting for their lives. If you had told me the 11 that drew with City against 10 of Birmingham (a red card now rescinded) I would have snapped your hands off.

Likewise, I believe our chances of beating Brentford on Sunday are enhanced by the fact they have nothing to play for, and we have it all. You can't compensate for one team wanting it much more than the other. I believe everything evens itself out over a season. We were fortunate last weekend to be playing a team who just didn't want to be there, with a set of visiting fans cheering us on to win. We can't have it both ways...

[den]

58 minutes ago, 47er said:

Its a relatively small fine though Den.

More importantly it doesn't prevent the offence occurring and the damage is never undone. Birmingham have already been assured that their result stands so in reality, the rule is unenforceable.

Only early intervention, before the game is played could prevent the transgression and I don't see how that could work.

In short, its unfair but we have to live with it. 

 

23 minutes ago, DE. said:

You're not enforcing the rule though, you're actually changing it to read "you may field a significantly weaker team if you wish, but it will incur a mandatory fine". 

The rule IS being enforced. If it wasn't, the EFL would do nothing at all. The fact it will be a small fine doesn't change that.

[blueboy3333]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/15268085._We_have_reminded_clubs_as_to_their_obligations___EFL_look_to_protect_integrity_of_the_Championship_on_the_final_day/?ref=mac

EFL latest on game-throwing. 'Subjective' my arse.

[Stuart]

15 minutes ago, Batman. said:

The integrity in my opinion is the only debate to be had here. I just think it's crystal clear that making 10 changes enhances Huddersfield's promotion chances more than making 5. I stated earlier in the debate that if avoiding Fulham was the intention, there were far more subtle ways to do it (5 changes and telling them to take it easy, for example. Either way, I suspect the end result would have been the same). It's that time of the season. Truth be told, had we have played Villa a month or two ago, I think they'd have had us. As it happens, they'd rather have been anywhere else on the day, much like Huddersfield. I would even suggest I would rather Huddersfield stuck out the team that drew with City (which they more or less did) with 11 players all trying to force their way into the team, rather than a team or are doing everything they can to avoid physical strain. Especially against a team fighting for their lives. If you had told me the 11 that drew with City against 10 of Birmingham (a red card now rescinded) I would have snapped your hands off.

Likewise, I believe our chances of beating Brentford on Sunday are enhanced by the fact they have nothing to play for, and we have it all. You can't compensate for one team wanting it much more than the other. I believe everything evens itself out over a season. We were fortunate last weekend to be playing a team who just didn't want to be there, with a set of visiting fans cheering us on to win. We can't have it both ways...

You've been ignored most of my post about how these things can be enforced so I'll assume you agree on that point.

What I would add is that I don't think it's 'crystal clear' that making 10 changes enhances Huddersfield's promotion chances. Promotion challenges are about momentum, and players need to keep playing to maintain consistency - unless they are carrying a knock that another week would see a player fully fit.

I truly hope this bites them on the bum in the biggest way possible - and that includes FFP restrictions (which curiously very few teams seem to get caught up in while the rules changed).

[lraC]

6 hours ago, gumboots said:

On a completely different note, and I really don't know where to put this, has Paul Senior begun to worry about his job security? The advert at the top of this site when I logged in was for the Senior dating agency! Lol

I know that post is tongue in cheek, but job security at Ewood has become a hot topic this week. Looks like all the cleaners has been laid off, including an employees with 13 years service. Add to that the story that some suppliers haven't been paid and Seniors job, might well be next.

[K-Hod]

I've enjoyed reading this debate. Good work lads and lasses!

[Batman.]

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

You've been ignored most of my post about how these things can be enforced so I'll assume you agree on that point.

What I would add is that I don't think it's 'crystal clear' that making 10 changes enhances Huddersfield's promotion chances. Promotion challenges are about momentum, and players need to keep playing to maintain consistency - unless they are carrying a knock that another week would see a player fully fit.

I truly hope this bites them on the bum in the biggest way possible - and that includes FFP restrictions (which curiously very few teams seem to get caught up in while the rules changed).

It's not that I've ignored them, it's that I don't find it comparable. 

You have 5 subs, you can use three, if you used them all and players get injured, you cannot replace them. It's black and white, as rules need to be. It seems odd that you suggest I'd have opposed this change when it's I who is arguing for the "freedom of selection."

Even with your rules things can be manipulated. Make fives changes, then make three subs after one minute. Or, in those circumstances where you have a few suspensions and injuries so you have to make more than five changes, can you apply for special dispensation? You'd have teams swindling injuries, and it could descend into farce. To make it black and white you'd have to say "any more than five changes (or five players from the previous line-up who cannot play) and you have to play with one less player," like with substitutions. Again, it could descend into farce.

The problem is, we disagree of the fundamental point. I think having a 25 man squad is sufficient, and you should be able to choose whoever you want from the squad. Like when you throw a ball back to the opposition after an injury, whether or not making 10 changes can be seen "against the spirit of the game" is up for debate. I personally see no problem with it.

At the moment, there is obviously a written rule regarding this. The Premier League have written this rule out after an incident a few years ago. Now the EFL have to decide just how strongly they believe in the rule. I suspect not very strongly, in which case it needs to be written out. 

[NinjaTattoo]

The whole 25man squad things does me as I bet if you count EVERYONE at a club its 4 times as much , from the 14 yr old that signed for City to the 9yr old thats signed with Liverpool, so even to whittle the squad down to 25 I bet is a headache for a manager knowing that a Rooney is lurking in the youth set up . Its just at what age do you bring him into the first team.

As I posted on another thread re this  Huddersfield had a 26 man squad  If i was manager id play my best/fittest/ head strong player I could for the formation I wanted for said game. I dont really get when people say its a 1st team and 2nd team listed as the 25/26 man squad. 

I might have a squad set up for 5-3-2 or 3-4-3 but use the different players i had for that position.

Whos to say that within a 25 man squad I had a 1st team and 2nd team a weaker player vs a strong player.

 

[Stuart]

1 hour ago, Batman. said:

It's not that I've ignored them, it's that I don't find it comparable. 

You have 5 subs, you can use three, if you used them all and players get injured, you cannot replace them. It's black and white, as rules need to be. It seems odd that you suggest I'd have opposed this change when it's I who is arguing for the "freedom of selection."

Even with your rules things can be manipulated. Make fives changes, then make three subs after one minute. Or, in those circumstances where you have a few suspensions and injuries so you have to make more than five changes, can you apply for special dispensation? You'd have teams swindling injuries, and it could descend into farce. To make it black and white you'd have to say "any more than five changes (or five players from the previous line-up who cannot play) and you have to play with one less player," like with substitutions. Again, it could descend into farce.

The problem is, we disagree of the fundamental point. I think having a 25 man squad is sufficient, and you should be able to choose whoever you want from the squad. Like when you throw a ball back to the opposition after an injury, whether or not making 10 changes can be seen "against the spirit of the game" is up for debate. I personally see no problem with it.

At the moment, there is obviously a written rule regarding this. The Premier League have written this rule out after an incident a few years ago. Now the EFL have to decide just how strongly they believe in the rule. I suspect not very strongly, in which case it needs to be written out. 

This is only true if you believe that every player in the 25 man squad is equal - give or take.

Despite this rule, unless you are Chelsea, this isn't the case, and teams still have a best 14 or so and a load of subs. It can't work any other way. Only 11 players can play and only 14 can feature in a match. Unless you have footballers who are happy to only play one game in three then this will continue to be the case.

The issue is not the strongest XI - that's inevitable - the issue is a 25 man squad. It's a preposterous idea.

[Batman.]

Just now, Stuart said:

This is only true if you believe that every player in the 25 man squad is equal - give or take.

Despite this rule, unless you are Chelsea, this isn't the case, and teams still have a best 14 or so and a load of subs. It can't work any other way. Only 11 players can play and only 14 can feature in a match. Unless you have footballers who are happy to only play one game in three then this will continue to be the case.

The issue is not the strongest XI - that's inevitable - the issue is a 25 man squad. It's a preposterous idea.

But if Chelsea rest Hazard and Costa and lose to a lesser team, under your rules they should be charged.

Or is it quantity over quality?

[Stuart]

Just now, Batman. said:

But if Chelsea rest Hazard and Costa and lose to a lesser team, under your rules they should be charged.

Or is it quantity over quality?

That's not what I said at all. First off, I said more than 5 changes could be construed as a weakened team.

Second, Chelsea are one of the very small minority of teams who could argue that the majority of their 25-man squad are of relatively equal ability.

Third, two changes isn't a weakened team.

We've started to debate the finer details of a rule that will probably never be created - although I argue it should. The actual exam question concerned the changing of TEN first team players and playing TEN substitutes. That's not right however much we go over the grey area you are trying to leverage.

[bob fleming]

Stop being obtuse batman. They broke the rules. Not only that, it simply wasn't the right thing to do. 

10 changes. From a top 6 team. Who contrived to lose to a crap team who had 10 men

Rewind 2 weeks and there is no way in the world they'd have started that team. Sorry but they deserve the pitiful fine that will come their way. Which Harry will pick up in loose change no doubt.

[Batman.]

Just now, bob fleming said:

Stop being obtuse batman. They broke the rules. Not only that, it simply wasn't the right thing to do. 

10 changes. From a top 6 team. Who contrived to lose to a crap team who had 10 men

Rewind 2 weeks and there is no way in the world they'd have started that team. Sorry but they deserve the pitiful fine that will come their way. Which Harry will pick up in loose change no doubt.

I'm not being obtuse in the slightest. I've acknowledged the rule break, I just disagree with the rule.

I think you should be able to use any combination of team you like within the 25 you are forced to submit. The Premier League agree, and soon so will the EFL.

 

[JonnyP]

I did the math FIFA 17 rated the Huddersfield team that beat Wolves away from home average 70.7 and the team that lost to ten men Brum 66.4 confirming their a bunch of W**kers haha 

[blueboy3333]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/05/jose-mourinho-manchester-united-arsenal-team-selection

Mourinho feeling the need to defend his team selection in advance of the Arsenal game. Not having a rule doesn't remove the issue.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, JonnyP said:

I did the math FIFA 17 rated the Huddersfield team that beat Wolves away from home average 70.7 and the team that lost to ten men Brum 66.4 confirming their a bunch of W**kers haha 

Case closed M'lud

[skinner05]

Jesus christ lads, talk about clutching at straws. We've got the play offs to think about and those players who came in have all played plenty of times this season. It wasn't like we threw a bunch of kids in. Here is what Wagner thinks about it (1 min 25)

 

I was disappointed with the performance and result as I wanted Birmingham to go down and hopefully it'll still happen this weekend. Good luck at Brentford

[bob fleming]

1 minute ago, Batman. said:

I'm not being obtuse in the slightest. I've acknowledged the rule break, I just disagree with the rule.

I think you should be able to use any combination of team you like within the 25 you are forced to submit. The Premier League agree, and soon so will the EFL.

 

It doesn't and shouldn't matter whether you agree or disagree with the rule. That's irrelevant really. Fact is they broke it.

Not only that, but in my opinion, what they did was morally wrong. If it was Rovers who made 10 changes against a team in the bottom three, who lost against 10 men, I'd be embarrassed. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing. They chose not to. 

[skinner05]

Just now, bob fleming said:

It doesn't and shouldn't matter whether you agree or disagree with the rule. That's irrelevant really. Fact is they broke it.

Not only that, but in my opinion, what they did was morally wrong. If it was Rovers who made 10 changes against a team in the bottom three, who lost against 10 men, I'd be embarrassed. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing. They chose not to. 

How can someone from outside the club determine what our strongest 11 is at any given time or for a particular game? It really is a ridiculous rule

It was our third game in a week and we were carrying plenty of knocks and tired bodies, It is easily arguable that the side we put out was the strongest on that day given how much fresher they were. Just because we lost doesn't mean it was down to having a weaker side out. We havdour strongest side out at Bristol and Forest recently and look how those games turned out...