barnsleydulwich
Active Member
I just knew you were having a dig into this. Good lad 
Former Billericay owner Glenn Tamplin takes over Romford FC
- Thread starter YTC
- Start date
HELVETICVS
ILLE QVI PVLSAT SVM
Apologies for being AFK, I've been building a bonfire.
Yes, sorry you had to read all that - I remain incapable of pithiness.
The points appear pertinent, though.
I'm saying that, from what I am able to gather, Numbers 1 & 2 are almost certainly Suspensions which were not properly served.
#2 is a little nuanced, it is a somewhat unique opportunity to test the Regulation.
I am unable to find a close precedent, but continue searching.
Numbers 3-8 are potentially Suspensions which were not properly served.
The above being sufficient prima facie evidence for inquiry.
Given the prima facie 9-12 are matters which the FA should be looking into and taking account of -to say the least- in conjunction with the nearly-unprecedented levels of abuse of the system this Season.
Mr Tamplin will no longer be able to claim first offence in respect of any E3 Charges which may arise, should that be the case.
One would also hope that the various Rules regarding notification of Financial inputs are also being examined over at Wembley, whilst they measure up the offices on the way out...
Now, off to have a bonfire - hopefully of The Vainy One's Vanities.
Last edited:
HELVETICVS
ILLE QVI PVLSAT SVM
Agree with you on point 2, but they are aiding in enabling this to happen and, in addition, almost certainly abetting in respect of certain Offences contrary to Law, as Alleged. Given the matters have been raised, it is for those Statutory Authorities to undertake their duties.
Furthermore, we all know how this ends - ask the people of New Brighton, Colne, Northwich, Merthyr, Chester, blah blah blah no-one ever listens, anyway.
The "enjoy it while it happens, &c., great ride, blah blah" Bollocks. Stop cheating.
It's Distortion of Competition and against the Rules, or just fuck the Rules, let's not bother.
Most neutrals [and even other Isthmian Opponents, I would add] are supportive of one horse over another in this particular race. It'll all make a great film one day, I'm sure.
Agree with your points 1 & 3 unreservedly.
As to point 4, I refer you to my first response at the final line.
Except substitute 'Governing Bodies' for "Statutory Authorities".
You and anyone else [DHFC and others] are welcome to enjoy the Play-Offs, but the way I understand it your Club has already earned Promotion. The right way.
Your choice, my friend - I'm not stopping you from enjoying them.
Plus, you don't have to read this thread - but it is the best online source about the Subjects of the Thread. Quite a successful one, too.
However, as a personal response I must add :
Good God man,
have you no sense of How The Movie Ends?
Last edited:
Moroccan Sunset
Well-Known Member
No.
Moroccan Sunset
Well-Known Member
You're kidding, right? It's just starting to get really exciting. It's like a cross between a serialised John Le Carre novel and a Dispatches documentary, with a disgusting crook cast as the antagonist.
If the law thing ever gets boring HELVETICVS, you should seriously consider career in the BBC writers-room. Holby City is desperate for this kind of suspense.
Last edited:
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
So HELVETICVS have you or anyone else submitted this info to the league/fa etc?
HELVETICVS
ILLE QVI PVLSAT SVM
Quite. Given the Thread title, it's easy to avoid.
Alternatively, ignore the poster [me] if irked. It's easy to do.
On the other point, there is definitely a whole series of TV shows to be done on the chicanery of Clubs playing the world's most popular game.
Personally, I find that the off-field and boardroom tales are always far more interesting than on-field matters, with greater variety. Christ, the game's not changed since the two John Charles' Simplest Game.
Of course.
I am a complete bastardbitchcunt.
I get the feeling that the League wants to avoid another fiasco a la Enfield.
And also to be shot of them - BTFC must be a huge pain in the arse, to be fair to them.
As to The Association, I have no locus standii in the matter as I am not an Official of any Clubs which are Members of the Isthmian League - as I said, I have no dog in the fight. That is part of the reason for my visits to this Parish, given that a large number of eyes are focused here.
The information posted was in response to an enquiry.
The situation has been ongoing [and raised] since after the Second Sunday of March. Naturally, the data have been updated given that Accruals by BTFC's Participants have continued since.
Last edited:
Richard Indge
One time wonder
Regarding matt paine something to review
If I can add something else for clarification and review - regarding Callum Butcher. The 2 yellow card offences against Harrogate Town will have resulted in an automatic red card offence under Law 12 (section S7). In such circumstances a one match suspension is served for the red card, and both yellow cards are discarded.
HELVETICVS
ILLE QVI PVLSAT SVM
Hmmm. Interesting.
One certainly more so than the other.
If I might counter, robustly :
keith1
On the point of Mr Butcher and s7, hence 2a, b & c - each of which is complicated by the issuance of cards whilst Participating for Mansfield, naturally at a different level for the purposes of Regulation 11. It is, to an extent, dependent upon what the Association may have sent out at that point in terms of Censure. There are a number of different ways in which the Regulation may be tested.
Richard Indge
Welcome to the site.
I hope that you're visiting or lurking this thread for professional reasons if you're from E&Y.
Whilst I respect your position that the Club has made a public pronouncement, I always prefer these things to have an official letterhead due to my rather old-fashioned nature.
Naturally I must take your point that it’s been put out there in public by BTFC, but I must also say that I have my reservations as to its veracity.
For what it’s worth, these are my comments in respect of BTFC’s statement on such an important matter being made via Twitter, which appears to be the only reportage of any sort on the point :
1. It [meaning the Appeal Hearing itself as opposed to the purported outcome] appears only on Twitter, the font of all truth and knowledge, and even then apparently nowhere else, wheresoever.
2. Nowt on BTFC’s website, either as currently hosted upon this bright Sunday Morn or on t’Internet Archive.
3a. Nowt on thefa.com via any strict search operands utilising relevant search terms, &c.
e.g. Google :
billericay site:thefa.com - Google Search
or DuckDuckGo, the sensible person’s choice :
billericay site:thefa.com at DuckDuckGo
3b. Nowt here, within the catalogue of Written Decisions
The website for the English football association, the Emirates FA Cup and the England football team
3c. Nowt here in 2017
FA charges - December 2017
NB that The FA v Tarkowski was Heard on 20 December for an incident 16/12/2017, the same day of incident occurrence as Paine’s was as a Participant for BTFC.
NB that whilst the file which is publicly hosted on thefa.com was created on 19 December, it also includes all of the Hearings which post-date its date of creation per the URL. It is a revisionist document as may be seen from the given date of publication, which is 3 January 2018.
Three Appeals were upheld during the entire month : Accrington, Deverdics and Boreham Wood.
There is no mention of Billericay Town at all.
3d. Nowt here in 2018
FA charges - January 2018
FA charges - February 2018
FA charges - March 2018
The foregoing at 3b-3d would be where one would presume to expect to find such decisions, being the Association’s equivalent of Daily Court Listings, merely published for the whole month daily after each of the Days’ Sittings have been Held.
There is no mention of Billericay Town at all.
Whilst on the subject of where the Association hides these little gems, here’s The Veiny One’s cases prior to Consolidation as a Case [in the singular] :
FA charges - November 2017
3f. I haven’t used an FAN or equivalent for the WGS or old-school systems, nor am I an Isthmian League Secretary who might receive League Updates, but I would still expect some form an official publication from the Association [or even from the League to be honest] on the point to exist, had a Hearing occurred.
Everybody else’s Hearings covering that same period of Cup Ties have been published, so it is most curious that BTFC has not. Perhaps they are on Frequent Flyer Miles and their cases are expeditiously handled by a hidden Supreme Court of Judicature paid for by the Club’s Fine-age…
4. Nowt on t’Isthmian website, or on any of the podcasts or fanzines, &c. which cover it.
5. Nowt on t’Echo, BTFC’s sycophantic local rag - indeed, so sycophantic that comments have been turned off on all of their BTFC ‘articles’ since 2017's ejaculations on the part of The Vainy One. As the Club’s main cheerleader within ‘The Real Media’, other than one lone loon on each Red Top, one would expect to read of it within their esteemed pages.
It [meaning the Appeal Hearing] is, of course, only addressed indirectly within the report of a later game, in which the original Dismissal is briefly mentioned as having been overturned, “Paine, in the team after his red card against Havant & Waterlooville had been overturned, had the first chance after three minutes.”
Robinson the hero once again as Billericay see off Thurrock
6. Nowt on Phoenix FM, BTFC’s marginally less sycophantic local radio station, excepting actual reportage of the incident :
FA Trophy 1st Round: Billericay Town 3 Havant & Waterlooville 1 - Phoenix FM
Surely BTFC wouldn’t simply announce that an Appeal had occurred and been Upheld on Twitter as if it had happened, when it had not, and pretend that it had?
Surely not? No bugger’s that flagrant, surely…surely…
And yet, I can find no trace in any of the places in which I would presume to expect fingerprints.
Surely not?
Whilst I would note that thefa.com does not allow full crawling per its robots.txt header file, I would still expect to come across some form of mention if it [the announcement] was in any way official. Not every Judgment results in a Written Decision but, by way of example, the analogous claim made by BTFC against Robert Evans’ Dismissal is easily found.
One certainly more so than the other.
If I might counter, robustly :
keith1
On the point of Mr Butcher and s7, hence 2a, b & c - each of which is complicated by the issuance of cards whilst Participating for Mansfield, naturally at a different level for the purposes of Regulation 11. It is, to an extent, dependent upon what the Association may have sent out at that point in terms of Censure. There are a number of different ways in which the Regulation may be tested.
Richard Indge
Welcome to the site.
I hope that you're visiting or lurking this thread for professional reasons if you're from E&Y.
Whilst I respect your position that the Club has made a public pronouncement, I always prefer these things to have an official letterhead due to my rather old-fashioned nature.
Naturally I must take your point that it’s been put out there in public by BTFC, but I must also say that I have my reservations as to its veracity.
For what it’s worth, these are my comments in respect of BTFC’s statement on such an important matter being made via Twitter, which appears to be the only reportage of any sort on the point :
1. It [meaning the Appeal Hearing itself as opposed to the purported outcome] appears only on Twitter, the font of all truth and knowledge, and even then apparently nowhere else, wheresoever.
2. Nowt on BTFC’s website, either as currently hosted upon this bright Sunday Morn or on t’Internet Archive.
3a. Nowt on thefa.com via any strict search operands utilising relevant search terms, &c.
e.g. Google :
billericay site:thefa.com - Google Search
or DuckDuckGo, the sensible person’s choice :
billericay site:thefa.com at DuckDuckGo
3b. Nowt here, within the catalogue of Written Decisions
The website for the English football association, the Emirates FA Cup and the England football team
3c. Nowt here in 2017
FA charges - December 2017
NB that The FA v Tarkowski was Heard on 20 December for an incident 16/12/2017, the same day of incident occurrence as Paine’s was as a Participant for BTFC.
NB that whilst the file which is publicly hosted on thefa.com was created on 19 December, it also includes all of the Hearings which post-date its date of creation per the URL. It is a revisionist document as may be seen from the given date of publication, which is 3 January 2018.
Three Appeals were upheld during the entire month : Accrington, Deverdics and Boreham Wood.
There is no mention of Billericay Town at all.
3d. Nowt here in 2018
FA charges - January 2018
FA charges - February 2018
FA charges - March 2018
The foregoing at 3b-3d would be where one would presume to expect to find such decisions, being the Association’s equivalent of Daily Court Listings, merely published for the whole month daily after each of the Days’ Sittings have been Held.
There is no mention of Billericay Town at all.
Whilst on the subject of where the Association hides these little gems, here’s The Veiny One’s cases prior to Consolidation as a Case [in the singular] :
FA charges - November 2017
3f. I haven’t used an FAN or equivalent for the WGS or old-school systems, nor am I an Isthmian League Secretary who might receive League Updates, but I would still expect some form an official publication from the Association [or even from the League to be honest] on the point to exist, had a Hearing occurred.
Everybody else’s Hearings covering that same period of Cup Ties have been published, so it is most curious that BTFC has not. Perhaps they are on Frequent Flyer Miles and their cases are expeditiously handled by a hidden Supreme Court of Judicature paid for by the Club’s Fine-age…
4. Nowt on t’Isthmian website, or on any of the podcasts or fanzines, &c. which cover it.
5. Nowt on t’Echo, BTFC’s sycophantic local rag - indeed, so sycophantic that comments have been turned off on all of their BTFC ‘articles’ since 2017's ejaculations on the part of The Vainy One. As the Club’s main cheerleader within ‘The Real Media’, other than one lone loon on each Red Top, one would expect to read of it within their esteemed pages.
It [meaning the Appeal Hearing] is, of course, only addressed indirectly within the report of a later game, in which the original Dismissal is briefly mentioned as having been overturned, “Paine, in the team after his red card against Havant & Waterlooville had been overturned, had the first chance after three minutes.”
Robinson the hero once again as Billericay see off Thurrock
6. Nowt on Phoenix FM, BTFC’s marginally less sycophantic local radio station, excepting actual reportage of the incident :
FA Trophy 1st Round: Billericay Town 3 Havant & Waterlooville 1 - Phoenix FM
Surely BTFC wouldn’t simply announce that an Appeal had occurred and been Upheld on Twitter as if it had happened, when it had not, and pretend that it had?
Surely not? No bugger’s that flagrant, surely…surely…
And yet, I can find no trace in any of the places in which I would presume to expect fingerprints.
Surely not?
Whilst I would note that thefa.com does not allow full crawling per its robots.txt header file, I would still expect to come across some form of mention if it [the announcement] was in any way official. Not every Judgment results in a Written Decision but, by way of example, the analogous claim made by BTFC against Robert Evans’ Dismissal is easily found.
Last edited:
HELVETICVS
ILLE QVI PVLSAT SVM
The Procedure for making a Claim against ‘Wrongful Dismissal’ is as follows, per Regulation 7 stipulated by the FAH 2017/18 at p.397 [with the dates pertinent to BTFC added in square brackets] :
“In the case of a claim of wrongful dismissal for offences with a penalty imposed under the Laws of the Game of an immediate dismissal…an indication by e-mail…by 5pm on the second working day following the game [19/12] is required to alert The Association that a claim is to be submitted.
Evidence upon which the claim is founded, which must include a video and/or DVD recording showing the incident, must be submitted by the Player concerned and his Club, and must be received by The Association by 5pm on the fourth working day following the match [21/12].”
So, the Association would have had to receive both the indication of a Claim [due by 19/12] and the Evidence Bundle [due 21/12] on either of the Monday [18/12] or Tuesday [19/12 at the latest] in order to have reached a Decision per the Tweet on Wednesday 20 December, i.e. on that day, AND to have made a request for the Claim to be dealt with through an expedited process in order for it to have occurred on that day.
“Once the claim is lodged with The Association and it is confirmed that the video and/or DVD shows the incident as reported by the Referee/Assistant Referee and the claim has conformed with the criteria, the Club will then be advised whether the claim has been accepted or not.”
Here, accepted simply means received. Not that the Dismissal has been overturned.
The following is the Procedure [with the pertinent dates added in square brackets] in ordinary circumstances :
“An accepted claim will be placed before a Regulatory Commission by the 8th working day following the match [29/12] and in all cases by 6pm on the day before the commencement [22/12] of the scheduled commencement of the sanction [26/12].”
I will repeat that here, "accepted" simply means received and not that the Dismissal has been overturned.
The Appeal would, ordinarily, have had to have been dealt with by 22 December at the latest to have an effect on the Scheduled Commencement of the Sanction [26/12].
For the Purported Appeal to have been heard and Upheld by 20 December 2017 [per the Tweet] then an expedited and extraordinary process may have occurred. The Tarkowski incident was apparently expedited, after all, whereas Warren Feeney [Crawley’s Asst.Mgr.] was not - being dealt with on the 27 December.
A lengthy Issuance List was published for 19 December, including both Paper & Personal Hearings - BTFC are not on it.
The complex case involving several different Charges against Lanzini appears on the 19 December Listing, to be dealt with via a Paper Hearing with the resultant Decision appearing on the monthly Listing.
In the absence of evidence in support of BTFC’s claim beyond the Purported Appellant's own Twitter Feed, solely for the sake of argument and also accepting the Purported Appeal prima facie, it could have taken place on 20 December alongside Tarkowski’s - which is also absent from the Written Decisions, yet notably Tarkowski is included in the Disciplinary Listings multiple times.
In support of the foregoing position as The Devil’s Advocate it must be presumed that, if BTFC’s Tweet is correct, that they also applied for the same form of Expedited Hearing as Burnley FC.
I have my doubts about that.
For starters, BTFC would have to give good reasons as to why an Expedited Hearing would be necessary. One can only presume, in support of their position, they wished to get in before the Christmas Bank Holidays. Nonetheless, a Hearing Date was available to deal with the matter on Thursday 21 December even if nothing was available on Friday 22 December.
Is it possible that BTFC misunderstood the Association's response, being the Acceptance of Claim, as being an Upheld Appeal and then hit Tweet?
The FAH continues, in respect of the ‘Hearing’ itself, on p.398 :
“The Club, Player and Match Officials will NOT be invited to attend.
The Regulatory Commission will be dealing with the level of punishment only.
The dismissal from the field of play will always remain on the record of
the Club and the Player and be the subject of the administration fee and the appropriate number of penalty points for a sending off.”
Standard stuff about withdrawing a Claim :
“A claim may be withdrawn at any stage prior to it being heard by a Regulatory Commission without the relevant fee being payable.”
The Punishment [dealt with by Regulation 11, &c.] would be an Automatic Suspension, the length of which is dependent upon the Referee’s perception of the incident and his recorded reasons for Dismissal :
“The only decisions available to the Regulatory Commission are:-
(i) The punishment will remain with the fee being payable;
(ii) Only where the Regulatory Commission is satisfied that the Referee made an
obvious error in dismissing the Player, the punishment will be withdrawn, the fee waived and that paragraph 11(g) below will not be invoked if the Player is sent off again following the offence.”
But there still remains the issue of there being no ostensible record of a Commission dealing with the matter, even where Hearings in re other Participants [Burnley’s Tarkowski] are on record per the Disciplinary Listings.
The only mention of it directly is on Twitter and indirectly, within a local newspaper.
I would wager, though not a gambling type, that BTFC themselves were the source of the story for the Echo, dealt with in a mere line of less than a dozen words.
The matter cannot simply be dealt with by emails or some such cosy agreement between the Parties.
Only a Hearing on the Papers, aided by Video, could have Upheld an Appeal and yet there is no record of the same, from what I am able to ascertain. It is peculiar.
I would be very surprised if an the Association was moved of its own volition to repeal the Dismissal, even if in return for a Withdrawn Appeal on the part of BTFC.
“In the case of a claim of wrongful dismissal for offences with a penalty imposed under the Laws of the Game of an immediate dismissal…an indication by e-mail…by 5pm on the second working day following the game [19/12] is required to alert The Association that a claim is to be submitted.
Evidence upon which the claim is founded, which must include a video and/or DVD recording showing the incident, must be submitted by the Player concerned and his Club, and must be received by The Association by 5pm on the fourth working day following the match [21/12].”
So, the Association would have had to receive both the indication of a Claim [due by 19/12] and the Evidence Bundle [due 21/12] on either of the Monday [18/12] or Tuesday [19/12 at the latest] in order to have reached a Decision per the Tweet on Wednesday 20 December, i.e. on that day, AND to have made a request for the Claim to be dealt with through an expedited process in order for it to have occurred on that day.
“Once the claim is lodged with The Association and it is confirmed that the video and/or DVD shows the incident as reported by the Referee/Assistant Referee and the claim has conformed with the criteria, the Club will then be advised whether the claim has been accepted or not.”
Here, accepted simply means received. Not that the Dismissal has been overturned.
The following is the Procedure [with the pertinent dates added in square brackets] in ordinary circumstances :
“An accepted claim will be placed before a Regulatory Commission by the 8th working day following the match [29/12] and in all cases by 6pm on the day before the commencement [22/12] of the scheduled commencement of the sanction [26/12].”
I will repeat that here, "accepted" simply means received and not that the Dismissal has been overturned.
The Appeal would, ordinarily, have had to have been dealt with by 22 December at the latest to have an effect on the Scheduled Commencement of the Sanction [26/12].
For the Purported Appeal to have been heard and Upheld by 20 December 2017 [per the Tweet] then an expedited and extraordinary process may have occurred. The Tarkowski incident was apparently expedited, after all, whereas Warren Feeney [Crawley’s Asst.Mgr.] was not - being dealt with on the 27 December.
A lengthy Issuance List was published for 19 December, including both Paper & Personal Hearings - BTFC are not on it.
The complex case involving several different Charges against Lanzini appears on the 19 December Listing, to be dealt with via a Paper Hearing with the resultant Decision appearing on the monthly Listing.
In the absence of evidence in support of BTFC’s claim beyond the Purported Appellant's own Twitter Feed, solely for the sake of argument and also accepting the Purported Appeal prima facie, it could have taken place on 20 December alongside Tarkowski’s - which is also absent from the Written Decisions, yet notably Tarkowski is included in the Disciplinary Listings multiple times.
In support of the foregoing position as The Devil’s Advocate it must be presumed that, if BTFC’s Tweet is correct, that they also applied for the same form of Expedited Hearing as Burnley FC.
I have my doubts about that.
For starters, BTFC would have to give good reasons as to why an Expedited Hearing would be necessary. One can only presume, in support of their position, they wished to get in before the Christmas Bank Holidays. Nonetheless, a Hearing Date was available to deal with the matter on Thursday 21 December even if nothing was available on Friday 22 December.
Is it possible that BTFC misunderstood the Association's response, being the Acceptance of Claim, as being an Upheld Appeal and then hit Tweet?
The FAH continues, in respect of the ‘Hearing’ itself, on p.398 :
“The Club, Player and Match Officials will NOT be invited to attend.
The Regulatory Commission will be dealing with the level of punishment only.
The dismissal from the field of play will always remain on the record of
the Club and the Player and be the subject of the administration fee and the appropriate number of penalty points for a sending off.”
Standard stuff about withdrawing a Claim :
“A claim may be withdrawn at any stage prior to it being heard by a Regulatory Commission without the relevant fee being payable.”
The Punishment [dealt with by Regulation 11, &c.] would be an Automatic Suspension, the length of which is dependent upon the Referee’s perception of the incident and his recorded reasons for Dismissal :
“The only decisions available to the Regulatory Commission are:-
(i) The punishment will remain with the fee being payable;
(ii) Only where the Regulatory Commission is satisfied that the Referee made an
obvious error in dismissing the Player, the punishment will be withdrawn, the fee waived and that paragraph 11(g) below will not be invoked if the Player is sent off again following the offence.”
But there still remains the issue of there being no ostensible record of a Commission dealing with the matter, even where Hearings in re other Participants [Burnley’s Tarkowski] are on record per the Disciplinary Listings.
The only mention of it directly is on Twitter and indirectly, within a local newspaper.
I would wager, though not a gambling type, that BTFC themselves were the source of the story for the Echo, dealt with in a mere line of less than a dozen words.
The matter cannot simply be dealt with by emails or some such cosy agreement between the Parties.
Only a Hearing on the Papers, aided by Video, could have Upheld an Appeal and yet there is no record of the same, from what I am able to ascertain. It is peculiar.
I would be very surprised if an the Association was moved of its own volition to repeal the Dismissal, even if in return for a Withdrawn Appeal on the part of BTFC.
Last edited:
HELVETICVS
ILLE QVI PVLSAT SVM
To briefly lighten the mood,
a slight diversion on a previous BTFC interpretation of the Merits of Bringing a Claim of ‘Wrongful Dismissal’, arising from an FA Cup Tie in this instance.
Per my preceding two Posts in respect of the FA’s systems quickly and simply uncovering details of the Dismissed Appeal in re Robert Evans' claim of Wrongful Dismissal, the Written Decision for which was attached above, Post #1919.
This incident is noteworthy because the footage shows an interesting interpretation of the phrase 'Wrongful Dismissal' on the part of BTFC. Mr Tamplin looks bemused that his man could be dismissed for merely delivering a jumping-flying-scissor-kick weird tackle combo straight out of a 1980s Atari game.
It's injury time, approaching the end of the Cup Tie, with BTFC one goal ahead in front of a home crowd at the STD-Arena and expectantly looking to reach FAC-R1 as per The Vainy One's promises.
I only can imagine what was in Mr Evans' head at the time.
It's all gunna happen...just like the Gaffa promised...promised a Brucie Bonus, too...
A Zeppelin ball means Brackley can launch a counter, their man's made a highly paid professional look as foolish as if it were parks' football from when you were a lad, jumpers for goalposts-style.
He's found clear space ahead of him having gained clear space behind, with his man left for dead...and he's got more pace and energy than his opponent...can you guess what's coming...
Interestingly, a search for the Brackley Town FAC Tie held at the Cocainerama-rena threw up some evidence of cheeky pyro, to which the locals took exception, and drew naughty words in response :
I don't agree with the pyro ban, but it is banned nonetheless.
Or at least, the Association ostensibly purports that pyro is proscribed.
a slight diversion on a previous BTFC interpretation of the Merits of Bringing a Claim of ‘Wrongful Dismissal’, arising from an FA Cup Tie in this instance.
Per my preceding two Posts in respect of the FA’s systems quickly and simply uncovering details of the Dismissed Appeal in re Robert Evans' claim of Wrongful Dismissal, the Written Decision for which was attached above, Post #1919.
This incident is noteworthy because the footage shows an interesting interpretation of the phrase 'Wrongful Dismissal' on the part of BTFC. Mr Tamplin looks bemused that his man could be dismissed for merely delivering a jumping-flying-scissor-kick weird tackle combo straight out of a 1980s Atari game.
It's injury time, approaching the end of the Cup Tie, with BTFC one goal ahead in front of a home crowd at the STD-Arena and expectantly looking to reach FAC-R1 as per The Vainy One's promises.
I only can imagine what was in Mr Evans' head at the time.
It's all gunna happen...just like the Gaffa promised...promised a Brucie Bonus, too...
A Zeppelin ball means Brackley can launch a counter, their man's made a highly paid professional look as foolish as if it were parks' football from when you were a lad, jumpers for goalposts-style.
He's found clear space ahead of him having gained clear space behind, with his man left for dead...and he's got more pace and energy than his opponent...can you guess what's coming...
Interestingly, a search for the Brackley Town FAC Tie held at the Cocainerama-rena threw up some evidence of cheeky pyro, to which the locals took exception, and drew naughty words in response :
I don't agree with the pyro ban, but it is banned nonetheless.
Or at least, the Association ostensibly purports that pyro is proscribed.
Last edited:
HELVETICVS
ILLE QVI PVLSAT SVM
Back to the drudge - the FA Trophy incident itself,
involving the Dismissal of Matt Paine, v H&WFC on 16/12/2017
In looking for a report on the purported Appeal which would refute the Allegation in re Mr Paine’s Automatic Suspension, I thought I’d review the 16/12/2017 FA Trophy Tie against H&WFC incident itself.
The incident is here, cued at the point of the challenge :
Given the apparent dearth of information regarding the purported Appeal there is scant mention of the Referee’s report other than an indirect mention in the Echo. At first appearance, it appears that the player has won the ball, although even the BTFCTV Commentator grants that it was not won cleanly.
For this reason it is necessary to look at the challenge itself.
<1>
Mr Paine clearly wins the ball by a yard/half a yard with a sideways-facing right boot.
At this point, his opponent has committed his right leg to the challenge for the ball and both players are engaged in the challenge.
<2>
Upon the contact with the ball, Mr Paine’s studs are up and his right leg is off the ground. Mr Paine has lunged, slid or jumped into the challenge and is off his feet.
Consequently, the tackle is of an uncontrolled nature.
At this point his opponent has completed the downward stroke of committing his right leg in the challenge and is about to follow through, oo-er Missus.
<3>
Mr Paine’s studs are clearly up.
<4>
Mr Paine’s right boot is raised and contact made with the studs going into his opponent’s shin, forcing the H&W player's leg backwards against both its own motion and the player's direction of travel.
<5>
The H&WFC player’s foot rebounds from the contact with Mr Paine's boot and his right leg plants upon the surface in recoil from forceful contact with Mr Paine’s leg, which is not under control.
<6>
At this point and also previously at the point of contact with the opponent, Paine’s leg is clearly raised.
<7>
The force of Mr Paine’s challenge, in conjunction with the fact that his opponent’s right leg is now in contact with the playing surface, places the opponent off-balance during the continued forward motion of both players.
Mr Paine's leg continues to rise.
<8>
The inertia of the H&W player carries him on and he flies over the tackler.
From the incident, I'd say the Referee got it right straight away.
He would also have heard the impact of the contact occurring after the ball contact.
That tackle was a potential leg breaker, image #5 is particularly illustrative of that, despite the contact occurring after the tackler's winning of the ball.
Personally, I would have given a Card. Which colour would have depended upon the view from the individual's viewing position - which only the Referee may enjoy.
I'd also have made the tackle that Mr Paine did - it's just one of those incidents.
On Appeal, I would have Dismissed.
For the reasons that : an Offence has occurred, per the fourth to sixth still images from the video and that the Referee is best placed to adjudge the circumstances.
The Association should fain interfere other than when the Decision was clearly wrong. If the Referee had it down as reckless, in spite of the winning the ball, then he should be supported in his Decision by the Association.
I rather suppose that, if the purported Appeal has taken place, it may well have come down to a case of ‘depends on how the Referee has included it in his report’. If the purported Appeal took place and was Upheld, it may well be that perhaps the Referee’s resolve crumbled upon sight of the replay. Whilst conceding that Paine has initially won the ball, the Referee might have relented from his Decision on the day.
It may well be that the purported Appeal, upon being Upheld, embarrassed the Association in respect of the Referee’s performance in the Fixture. Add to the preceding sentence the fact that it’s the Association’s premier Non-League Competition, for which they are both the Sanctioning Body and also the Organiser, second only to the FA Cup and it’s quite conceivable that a poor decision could have been overturned quietly and without much fuss.
The upheaval following the Dismissal should've been acted upon as well...
BTFC's #5 clearly shoves the Referee, you can see his arm extended and then retracted as the Ref lurches forward during the video!
involving the Dismissal of Matt Paine, v H&WFC on 16/12/2017
In looking for a report on the purported Appeal which would refute the Allegation in re Mr Paine’s Automatic Suspension, I thought I’d review the 16/12/2017 FA Trophy Tie against H&WFC incident itself.
The incident is here, cued at the point of the challenge :
Given the apparent dearth of information regarding the purported Appeal there is scant mention of the Referee’s report other than an indirect mention in the Echo. At first appearance, it appears that the player has won the ball, although even the BTFCTV Commentator grants that it was not won cleanly.
For this reason it is necessary to look at the challenge itself.
<1>
Mr Paine clearly wins the ball by a yard/half a yard with a sideways-facing right boot.
At this point, his opponent has committed his right leg to the challenge for the ball and both players are engaged in the challenge.
<2>
Upon the contact with the ball, Mr Paine’s studs are up and his right leg is off the ground. Mr Paine has lunged, slid or jumped into the challenge and is off his feet.
Consequently, the tackle is of an uncontrolled nature.
At this point his opponent has completed the downward stroke of committing his right leg in the challenge and is about to follow through, oo-er Missus.
<3>
Mr Paine’s studs are clearly up.
<4>
Mr Paine’s right boot is raised and contact made with the studs going into his opponent’s shin, forcing the H&W player's leg backwards against both its own motion and the player's direction of travel.
<5>
The H&WFC player’s foot rebounds from the contact with Mr Paine's boot and his right leg plants upon the surface in recoil from forceful contact with Mr Paine’s leg, which is not under control.
<6>
At this point and also previously at the point of contact with the opponent, Paine’s leg is clearly raised.
<7>
The force of Mr Paine’s challenge, in conjunction with the fact that his opponent’s right leg is now in contact with the playing surface, places the opponent off-balance during the continued forward motion of both players.
Mr Paine's leg continues to rise.
<8>
The inertia of the H&W player carries him on and he flies over the tackler.
From the incident, I'd say the Referee got it right straight away.
He would also have heard the impact of the contact occurring after the ball contact.
That tackle was a potential leg breaker, image #5 is particularly illustrative of that, despite the contact occurring after the tackler's winning of the ball.
Personally, I would have given a Card. Which colour would have depended upon the view from the individual's viewing position - which only the Referee may enjoy.
I'd also have made the tackle that Mr Paine did - it's just one of those incidents.
On Appeal, I would have Dismissed.
For the reasons that : an Offence has occurred, per the fourth to sixth still images from the video and that the Referee is best placed to adjudge the circumstances.
The Association should fain interfere other than when the Decision was clearly wrong. If the Referee had it down as reckless, in spite of the winning the ball, then he should be supported in his Decision by the Association.
I rather suppose that, if the purported Appeal has taken place, it may well have come down to a case of ‘depends on how the Referee has included it in his report’. If the purported Appeal took place and was Upheld, it may well be that perhaps the Referee’s resolve crumbled upon sight of the replay. Whilst conceding that Paine has initially won the ball, the Referee might have relented from his Decision on the day.
It may well be that the purported Appeal, upon being Upheld, embarrassed the Association in respect of the Referee’s performance in the Fixture. Add to the preceding sentence the fact that it’s the Association’s premier Non-League Competition, for which they are both the Sanctioning Body and also the Organiser, second only to the FA Cup and it’s quite conceivable that a poor decision could have been overturned quietly and without much fuss.
The upheaval following the Dismissal should've been acted upon as well...
BTFC's #5 clearly shoves the Referee, you can see his arm extended and then retracted as the Ref lurches forward during the video!
Last edited:
pompeydunc
Well-Known Member
Thanks for research. This is a lot to take in for a mere mortal!
If YOU think rules have been broken in terms of suspensions not being served, can YOU submit a complaint direct or notify our Secretary formally? No point doing all this research and just posting on a forum, as I really can't fathom the intricacies of it without spending a lot of time on it as well!
It's irrelevant to post pictures of Matt Paine red card. If it was rescinded after the game, then no offence has been committed.
If any of this is not nailed on fact and is instead wishful thinking, then not sure it's helpful to raise this? It would cause a major distraction when play-offs need to be our focus. I would hate for us to do an Enfield, unless there was hard and fast evidence of rules being broken.
If YOU think rules have been broken in terms of suspensions not being served, can YOU submit a complaint direct or notify our Secretary formally? No point doing all this research and just posting on a forum, as I really can't fathom the intricacies of it without spending a lot of time on it as well!
It's irrelevant to post pictures of Matt Paine red card. If it was rescinded after the game, then no offence has been committed.
If any of this is not nailed on fact and is instead wishful thinking, then not sure it's helpful to raise this? It would cause a major distraction when play-offs need to be our focus. I would hate for us to do an Enfield, unless there was hard and fast evidence of rules being broken.
HELVETICVS
ILLE QVI PVLSAT SVM
I have done so.
The problem is that I am not an Official of a Member Club in the relevant Competition. That is not a complete bar, but it makes gathering info difficult.
I completely disagree with you as to the relevancy of the images.
The relevancy of the Red Card images was that, in the absence of any formal report giving reasons for the actual Dismissal of Mr Paine, or as regards Upholding/Dismissing the purported Appeal by BTFC, then it is rather helpful to know what actually happened on the day.
This is particularly in respect of the unknown factor regarding the purported Appeal, which is somewhat anomalously missing from where it should be whilst all others are present.
Likewise, the previous Claim for Wrongful Dismissal against Mr Evans.
It helps to know on what Merit BTFC had filed that Claim in October and goes some way to knowing how their Club interprets the Rules.
I would aver, poorly.
Each Claim turns upon its own Merit and it helps to see what the incidents actually were.
It took next to no time to track them down and they take, I would guess, less than a minute to watch both.
An enquiry was made and I responded that there were, to my eye, a number of anomalies in respect of Regulation 11.
So, relevant to me and perhaps to others who might be interested.
To you, not - OK, so what?
Additionally, they are relevant because they clearly show the BTFC Captain pushing the Match Official - an Offence which has apparently not been dealt with through Schedule B or via consideration of an E16 or E18 Charge as such cases are usually treated.
One would expect the Commission to have noticed this if an Appeal had looked at the video evidence - it's right there in the link, straight after the foul.
This is still more surprising. Had the Association seen that footage, one would ordinarily expect action.
Swiftly and harshly.
As to the other matters, I doubt it is a distraction for the players as they will have been, and hopefully right now will continue to be, preparing for the Play-Offs.
I very much doubt that the ramblings of a half-wit such as my good self, upon The HellThread that most DHFC Supporters wish didn't exist and therefore don't visit or have even blocked/muted, will have a great effect on the 1st XI's Morale.
The quasi-judicial process is quite separate from the Foot-ball and for the Governing Body to determine in its sole discretion, barring protests, by June when it comes to next Season's allocations.
And Enfield Town were the recipients of the Points Deductions.
They weren't distracted from winning the Play-Offs, they were removed.
The Club had no right to be there in the first instance.
Enfield Town and Tajbakhsh appeal dismissed by Appeal Board
CLUB STATEMENT - News - Enfield Town Football Club
Because of the Points Deductions, they were not eligible to play.
The situation was farcical because, in spite of being aware of the matters earlier in the Season, it was not resolved in time and the Play-Offs were pushed back to begin on 14 May 2015 instead.
Enfield Town's play-off clash postponed
My point was, one hopes that the ducks are in a row given the days of recent yore.
As to hard evidence, I presume you mean to say we can only see if anything is said.
I agree. A statement some time ago, or at least response from the League as to enquiries made of it, would have made my mumblings moot.
It is the lack of hard evidence [in respect of the unpublished Purported Appeal] which is one of the issues.
I am not impressed that it has not been either published or otherwise resolved by now through a clarification or even by way of an updated amendment to the publication.
The problem is that I am not an Official of a Member Club in the relevant Competition. That is not a complete bar, but it makes gathering info difficult.
I completely disagree with you as to the relevancy of the images.
The relevancy of the Red Card images was that, in the absence of any formal report giving reasons for the actual Dismissal of Mr Paine, or as regards Upholding/Dismissing the purported Appeal by BTFC, then it is rather helpful to know what actually happened on the day.
This is particularly in respect of the unknown factor regarding the purported Appeal, which is somewhat anomalously missing from where it should be whilst all others are present.
Likewise, the previous Claim for Wrongful Dismissal against Mr Evans.
It helps to know on what Merit BTFC had filed that Claim in October and goes some way to knowing how their Club interprets the Rules.
I would aver, poorly.
Each Claim turns upon its own Merit and it helps to see what the incidents actually were.
It took next to no time to track them down and they take, I would guess, less than a minute to watch both.
An enquiry was made and I responded that there were, to my eye, a number of anomalies in respect of Regulation 11.
So, relevant to me and perhaps to others who might be interested.
To you, not - OK, so what?
Additionally, they are relevant because they clearly show the BTFC Captain pushing the Match Official - an Offence which has apparently not been dealt with through Schedule B or via consideration of an E16 or E18 Charge as such cases are usually treated.
One would expect the Commission to have noticed this if an Appeal had looked at the video evidence - it's right there in the link, straight after the foul.
This is still more surprising. Had the Association seen that footage, one would ordinarily expect action.
Swiftly and harshly.
As to the other matters, I doubt it is a distraction for the players as they will have been, and hopefully right now will continue to be, preparing for the Play-Offs.
I very much doubt that the ramblings of a half-wit such as my good self, upon The HellThread that most DHFC Supporters wish didn't exist and therefore don't visit or have even blocked/muted, will have a great effect on the 1st XI's Morale.
The quasi-judicial process is quite separate from the Foot-ball and for the Governing Body to determine in its sole discretion, barring protests, by June when it comes to next Season's allocations.
And Enfield Town were the recipients of the Points Deductions.
They weren't distracted from winning the Play-Offs, they were removed.
The Club had no right to be there in the first instance.
Enfield Town and Tajbakhsh appeal dismissed by Appeal Board
CLUB STATEMENT - News - Enfield Town Football Club
Because of the Points Deductions, they were not eligible to play.
The situation was farcical because, in spite of being aware of the matters earlier in the Season, it was not resolved in time and the Play-Offs were pushed back to begin on 14 May 2015 instead.
Enfield Town's play-off clash postponed
My point was, one hopes that the ducks are in a row given the days of recent yore.
As to hard evidence, I presume you mean to say we can only see if anything is said.
I agree. A statement some time ago, or at least response from the League as to enquiries made of it, would have made my mumblings moot.
It is the lack of hard evidence [in respect of the unpublished Purported Appeal] which is one of the issues.
I am not impressed that it has not been either published or otherwise resolved by now through a clarification or even by way of an updated amendment to the publication.
Last edited:
Moroccan Sunset
Well-Known Member
Like PompeyDunc says, I don't fully understand everything you're saying, but a) I get the jist of it and b) I'm sure it reads perfectly to someone fluent in the legal tongue. I have two questions, mind: 1) say Billericay were found guilty of one or more of the offences outlined above, what punishment would that result in? Would it definitely be points docked, or can they be fined?
2) Also, (I appreciate you may not have the answer to this, I'm just thinking aloud) what would happen if Billericay were found guilty after the play offs had been played? Surely the play offs wouldn't be replayed with Billericay participating? Would the FA bar them from promotion? Is there a previous scenario that bears similarity? If so, how did that pan out?
To be honest, I don't think the FA have the gonads to block their promotion, but it's nice to think of Tamplin squirming for a bit.
I also don't think that this is a distraction from play offs. I would be bloody amazed if any of the players read this thread. I'm sure Gav & Co. are focused on Thursday night's proceedings.
HELVETICVS
ILLE QVI PVLSAT SVM
1) Standardised Rule 6 sets out a number of matters regarding the Eligibility of players. There are two broad classes of Sanction which are relevant to DHFC® :
i) Mandatory Deduction of Points and ii) Discretionary Deduction of Points.
Rule 6.9 sets out a number of potential sanctions, amongst which the most relevant in this situation is a Deduction of Points.
The former Sanction, above, as being a Mandatory Class [(i)] is namely Ineligibility through Suspension and the latter Sanction as being a Discretionary Class [(ii)] through ‘other causes’ in only two respects : failure to obtain International Transfer Certificate with an inherent International Clearance, or incorrect registration of a Contractual Status, whether Loan or otherwise.
Fine-age usually occurs in all cases, but is largely nominal.
Other Sanctions may apply and in some prior cases have included Suspension of Licence.
As to Deductions relating to the individual occurrence of ineligibility, where it occurs in a Fixture which is Lost the other Sanctions apply alone; where it occurs in a Drawn Fixture the single Point gained is Deducted and the other Sanctions apply; where it occurs in a Won Fixture the 3 Points gained are Deducted. This occurs up to a maximum of 12 Points, even if the ineligible Participant(s) played in six Fixtures which gained 18 Points.
It is for those reasons that the Alleged & Potential Offences outlined in the Posts above are denoted in bold or underlined.
I cannot give a straight answer in respect of Mr Butcher because, as keith1 has pointed out, in ordinary circumstances scenarios 2a & 2b do not apply; however, 2c [if the Rule is consistently applied] does then apply.
Any potential Deduction of Points is dependent upon when the ineligible Participation falls, itself dependent upon the eligibility of the Participant.
Frankly, there have been so many Cautions & Dismissals I would be surprised if BTFC have correctly applied Automatic Suspensions correctly. Certainly, there are two matters amongst the eight players which would set Precedent and which must be addressed - or update the Association’s Regulations upon the points raised by those cases.
This is where the issue of their Licence granted by the Association comes into play.
The behaviour has been disgraceful, past Licences have been suspended or withdrawn for less.
I will also add that BTFC have half a dozen or so Participants which appear to have required International Clearance, but cannot lawfully know when this applied from outside the Isthmian League, so have not commented upon the matter until within the context of this Rule 6 discourse.
2) If there is any question as to the matter, I would imagine a postponement. To my mind, DHFC® have won the League [and, of course, the Moral victory!(TM)] but I somewhat gain the impression that cans of worms have been welded up.
There are precedents in respect of both Deductions at the end of the Season and [historically] for handing back of a Title, in addition to removal to/from Promotion Play Off Competitions, with a concomitant delay to the completion of the same.
Deering, for example, will be Suspended for 2 Fixtures if BTFC were to receive sufficient Deductions to place them in the PPO Competition after having Accrued 10 Cautions during the Season and an Automatic Suspension upon reaching his first 5 Cautions. Hence his inclusion at #8 within the Posts yesterday.
Promotion and Relegation issues are contained within the Regulations for the Operation of the National League System. If a Deduction of Points were to occur, the NLS Regulation 5.1 at FAH 2017/18 p.182 gives over determination of Promotion/Relegation issues to the Leagues Council.
Regulation 10 states that the NLS Regulations take Precedence over the Standardise Rules. This is an unresolved conflict within the Regulations and should be resolved, with Regulations 8-9 decreeing any Arbitration via Rule K.
Don't think they have the stones, either.
Haven't really considered Mr Tamplin squirming.
I'm not entirely convinced he exists, other than as peculiar-to-going-on-bizarre 1970s-80s Bond-Villainesque character placed within the same universe as my self as some form of abstract intellectual challenge by beings whose ineffable purposes I cannot fathom.
![GT crying [lrg].jpg](https://www.urban75.net/forums/data/attachments/134/134013-3f72bd46240fb2a7fe8278cf10d37d0b.jpg "GT crying [lrg].jpg")
I mean it can't be real, can it?
I'd simply like Rule adherence and fair punishment if breached; I'm not a fan of Distorted Competition either, if people do push the envelope they should be aware of the potential to rip it up.
As a matter of fact, when Mr Tamplin announced that he and his good lady wife were 11 weeks pregnant yesterday [before a four-figured number of people on a radio-mic, in the most Tamplinesque way imaginable] and again, with twins - I gave him a genuine smile. With teeth, too!
Good on yer Mr & Mrs Guv'nor.
Bit Cringe*, in the mode of delivery, but all the same -
* a lot Cringe
However, given the Distortion of Competition, in conjunction with the Breaches of Statutory & Common Law Duties - expect to be held to account if in breach.
Simple as that, really.
This.
Last edited:
pitchfork
Well-Known Member
Much as find all your posts interesting, I don’t see where it is going? If there was an issue the league would have acted by now. The facts may never be known and if they are they won’t be acted upon. Therefore the only facts that we do know is BTFC won the league (fairly or not) and we are in playoffs starting on Thursday, unless we are told differently by the league.
Moroccan Sunset
Well-Known Member
I think that's exactly the point he's making: if the league had known all of this, they would have acted. The fact that they didn't act, implies that they didn't/don't know.
Moroccan Sunset
Well-Known Member
At the very least, HELVETICVS's work requires explanation from the league, because, at the moment, there is none. If they can't offer an explanation, then an investigation should follow. If Billericay are found guilty of the offences, charges and punishments will follow.
That doesn't necessarily mean they'll get docked points - it may not get as far as that. It may just mean that the league has to explain what the fuckery is going on. The point is, we don't know how this will be resolved - which is probably why some of the papers are licking their lips. On the basis of the posts above, the league has some explaining to do, because, as it stands, this wasn't a fair fight for the league title.
That doesn't necessarily mean they'll get docked points - it may not get as far as that. It may just mean that the league has to explain what the fuckery is going on. The point is, we don't know how this will be resolved - which is probably why some of the papers are licking their lips. On the basis of the posts above, the league has some explaining to do, because, as it stands, this wasn't a fair fight for the league title.
Son of Roy
Misses BIG and RMV
Maybe the league have overlooked these matters, been negligent, made a mistake. It happens. There is point here about the rules that were known to all at the start of season being enforced. Without rules it wouldn't be football. On this basis next season teams might expect not to have to serve suspensions. What is the point of a fair play list?
Dulwich could miss out on lucrative sponsorship that goes with being champions.
If the league are to be forced to take this seriously there would have to be complaints from a number of other clubs and pretty quickly.
Dulwich could miss out on lucrative sponsorship that goes with being champions.
If the league are to be forced to take this seriously there would have to be complaints from a number of other clubs and pretty quickly.
HELVETICVS
ILLE QVI PVLSAT SVM
Having discussed the matter with Wembley this morning, I will add :
The Matt Paine 'Appeal' is not showing on external systems.
This is somewhat anomalous and what I had said previously within this place.
That does not mean that it is not tucked away somewhere or that it didn't take place, it may well be that someone forgot to add it to the List - curious, when dozens and dozens of others are Listed.
http://www.thefa.com/news/2017/dec/19/fa-charges---december-2017
Note that the last update for the above URL was 3 January.
Any bets on the Disciplinary List being quietly updated in the background, because someone realises they've dropped a bollock?
Notably :
I was also missing 30 Cautions and a Dismissal from my list of Cards brandished.
So, in fact, the Disciplinary situation is worse than I thought.
This also means that there's a good chance that my inquiry into the matter is incorrect, but OTOH it throws up new questions in place of the old.
For example, that means Waldren's 5th Caution per my records was in fact his 6th Caution and that he received at least 11 during the Season - the sheer number of additional Cautions is staggering. Sanctions apply at 5, 10, 15 & 20 Cautions, differently depending upon the time of the Season when Accrued.
It could be worse than I thought, it could be that BTFC are spot on.
Frankly, I'm gobsmacked at the numbers.
This means that BTFC have received 114 Cautions and 10 Dismissals during the Season.
That is an Accrual of 554 Penalty Points during the Season, which is incredible.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/fairplay
[doesn't work with Apple Devices]
They will almost certainly face some form of action at the end of the Season, depending upon whether those Penalty Points are 40% or 50% above the IL-PD Median.
This is unlikely to affect The Hamlet® as it is separate to the issue of eligibility.
It is what it is, the matter is being looked into.
We will see what happens now...
The Matt Paine 'Appeal' is not showing on external systems.
This is somewhat anomalous and what I had said previously within this place.
That does not mean that it is not tucked away somewhere or that it didn't take place, it may well be that someone forgot to add it to the List - curious, when dozens and dozens of others are Listed.
http://www.thefa.com/news/2017/dec/19/fa-charges---december-2017
Note that the last update for the above URL was 3 January.
Any bets on the Disciplinary List being quietly updated in the background, because someone realises they've dropped a bollock?
Notably :
I was also missing 30 Cautions and a Dismissal from my list of Cards brandished.
So, in fact, the Disciplinary situation is worse than I thought.
This also means that there's a good chance that my inquiry into the matter is incorrect, but OTOH it throws up new questions in place of the old.
For example, that means Waldren's 5th Caution per my records was in fact his 6th Caution and that he received at least 11 during the Season - the sheer number of additional Cautions is staggering. Sanctions apply at 5, 10, 15 & 20 Cautions, differently depending upon the time of the Season when Accrued.
It could be worse than I thought, it could be that BTFC are spot on.
Frankly, I'm gobsmacked at the numbers.
This means that BTFC have received 114 Cautions and 10 Dismissals during the Season.
That is an Accrual of 554 Penalty Points during the Season, which is incredible.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/fairplay
[doesn't work with Apple Devices]
They will almost certainly face some form of action at the end of the Season, depending upon whether those Penalty Points are 40% or 50% above the IL-PD Median.
This is unlikely to affect The Hamlet® as it is separate to the issue of eligibility.
It is what it is, the matter is being looked into.
We will see what happens now...
Billericay's points are high, but the figure is somewhat skewed by the large number of games they've played.
If you calculate points per game (the frankly daemonic) Dorking, Merstham, Lowestoft and Harrow are all ahead.
Dorking Wanderers 11.37037
Merstham 9.098039
Lowestoft Town 8.77551
Harrow Borough 8.326531
Billericay Town 8.147059
Margate 8.071429
Brightlingsea Regent 8
Leiston 7.433962
Metropolitan Police 7.137931
Dulwich Hamlet 6.851852
Wingate & Finchley 6.793103
Harlow Town 6.75
Folkestone Invicta 6.641509
Thurrock 6.48
Tooting & Mitcham United 6.44
Worthing 6.32
Staines Town 6.285714
Tonbridge Angels 6.235294
Leatherhead 6.178571
Enfield Town 5.859649
Needham Market 5.803922
Burgess Hill Town 5.773585
Kingstonian 5.381818
and if you calculate league matches only - they're just marginally higher than Dulwich
1 Dorking Wanderers 554
2 Merstham 416
miss a few.....
9 Billericay Town 328
10 Leiston 328
11 Hendon 324
12 Dulwich Hamlet 310
If you calculate points per game (the frankly daemonic) Dorking, Merstham, Lowestoft and Harrow are all ahead.
Dorking Wanderers 11.37037
Merstham 9.098039
Lowestoft Town 8.77551
Harrow Borough 8.326531
Billericay Town 8.147059
Margate 8.071429
Brightlingsea Regent 8
Leiston 7.433962
Metropolitan Police 7.137931
Dulwich Hamlet 6.851852
Wingate & Finchley 6.793103
Harlow Town 6.75
Folkestone Invicta 6.641509
Thurrock 6.48
Tooting & Mitcham United 6.44
Worthing 6.32
Staines Town 6.285714
Tonbridge Angels 6.235294
Leatherhead 6.178571
Enfield Town 5.859649
Needham Market 5.803922
Burgess Hill Town 5.773585
Kingstonian 5.381818
and if you calculate league matches only - they're just marginally higher than Dulwich
1 Dorking Wanderers 554
2 Merstham 416
miss a few.....
9 Billericay Town 328
10 Leiston 328
11 Hendon 324
12 Dulwich Hamlet 310
HELVETICVS
ILLE QVI PVLSAT SVM
Yes, sorry - I should have said that the total points accrued during the Season is divided by the number of matches played before the 40% or 50% is calculated from the Median in the table.
When they told me the Dorking number, I was equally surprised given that the Club hasn't played anything like the number of Fixtures that BTFC have.
BTFC's 114 Cautions and 10 Dismissals is dumb as fuck, tho...
Thugg Life, Bitches.
copyright, Thugg Life Mansion Enterprises inc.
Nice to see the proper Latinised Greek spelling of Daemonic too, Latahs.
It would be grossly unfair to successful teams [admittedly that applies to the Vainy One's Vanity Project at this point] if the Penalty Points were simply totted up without amelioration in respect of the number of Fixtures completed.
Each Caution is 4pts, each Dismissal accrues 10-12pts depending upon the actual type of Dismissal per Law 12. So Dorking have averaged a Dismissal per game.
Incredible scenes.
In addition, 12pts are also awarded for E3 misconduct Charges when proven.
Those don't appear in the tables until the Regulatory Commission is convened at the end of the Season.
Arrangement of the IL-PD Clubs by League Fixtures is irrelevant, though - it applies in all First Team Competitive Matches [FTCM], including those purportedly 'worthless' County Cup Ties. Regulation 12(b) of the FAH 2017/18 at p.406-407.
It's interesting to see that BTFC are theoretically average in League Fixture discipline, though.
Hey Mark Baker, nice to see you popping in again.
Same can't be said of your attitude in other places - grow up, you're being a silly little boy.
Your Club and its Supporters could learn a lot from The Hamlet®.
Don't forget to remind Glenn I very much look forward to seeing him this summer.
When they told me the Dorking number, I was equally surprised given that the Club hasn't played anything like the number of Fixtures that BTFC have.
BTFC's 114 Cautions and 10 Dismissals is dumb as fuck, tho...
Thugg Life, Bitches.
copyright, Thugg Life Mansion Enterprises inc.
Nice to see the proper Latinised Greek spelling of Daemonic too, Latahs.
It would be grossly unfair to successful teams [admittedly that applies to the Vainy One's Vanity Project at this point] if the Penalty Points were simply totted up without amelioration in respect of the number of Fixtures completed.
Each Caution is 4pts, each Dismissal accrues 10-12pts depending upon the actual type of Dismissal per Law 12. So Dorking have averaged a Dismissal per game.
Incredible scenes.
In addition, 12pts are also awarded for E3 misconduct Charges when proven.
Those don't appear in the tables until the Regulatory Commission is convened at the end of the Season.
Arrangement of the IL-PD Clubs by League Fixtures is irrelevant, though - it applies in all First Team Competitive Matches [FTCM], including those purportedly 'worthless' County Cup Ties. Regulation 12(b) of the FAH 2017/18 at p.406-407.
It's interesting to see that BTFC are theoretically average in League Fixture discipline, though.
Hey Mark Baker, nice to see you popping in again.
Same can't be said of your attitude in other places - grow up, you're being a silly little boy.
Your Club and its Supporters could learn a lot from The Hamlet®.
Don't forget to remind Glenn I very much look forward to seeing him this summer.
Last edited:
HELVETICVS
ILLE QVI PVLSAT SVM
Right, the last few pages have gotten very wordy, nerdy & technical.
My apologies for the contention - I was asked a question & the foregoing was part of my answer.
Lightening the mood, someone should tell Glenn Trumplin [whose account seems to have died a death, rather a while ago] that The Veiny One went Full Drumpf back in Feb.:
Tamplin slams reports as “fake news”
Hate that phrase.
And, amusingly, The Vainy One has just made it onto Deadspin for the 2nd time :
How one rich man's weird dream transformed a British Pro Soccer team
A lengthy read, but reasonably comprehensive and probably the most detailed other than This Parish & nextwards thence, the excellent 200% articles.
It's perhaps over-long for most visitors to this 'Parish', but it's nice to know that the villainy is catalogued over in the 'Exarchy'. A couple of DHFC® mentions, to boot - hence its inclusion in the HellThread, in its very useful role as The Repository.
The article lacks a couple of pertinent details in some parts, as true Tamplinographers will recognise.
Good effort, though.
And, of course, the use of the headline's terminal phrase "British Pro Soccer team" sets my teeth on edge, whilst each of the four words individually manages to be wrong per se within a phrase which [though Americanized] is right.
1. British/English
2. Pro/well, guess it is now...was once semi [even if Brickell's still a Brickie]
3. Soccer/never ever the case, only ever Foot-ball.
[and always hyphenated; use without hyphenation means the generic which attaches to the identifier Football Code, e.g. Rugby, Australian, Canadian &c.]
4. Team/Random bunch of Mercenary Bastards
Furthermore, whilst remaining outside of the UK, upon the point of the Elliott Kebbie reported allegation of Extortion which was previously noted in This Parish :
Owner of Non-League Club Charged with Blackmail | Balls.ie
Oh no mate!
It's *STILL* all over the internet!
Wasn't there an announcement of an amicable "settlement" 14 days later?
In one of those media outlets that The Vainy One uses frequently?
EDIT : Found it.
Billericay sign Conlon on loan
"A few players have gone recently. We came to an agreement with Elliot, and it has all been done amicably."
So, for those that perhaps weren't aware, the entire world is watching all of this Fuckmuppetry going on. Billericay's gone international all right, just not in the way of that stupid photo taken in a Dubai sports shop was purporting to though, eh Mark Baker?
My apologies for the contention - I was asked a question & the foregoing was part of my answer.
Lightening the mood, someone should tell Glenn Trumplin [whose account seems to have died a death, rather a while ago] that The Veiny One went Full Drumpf back in Feb.:
Tamplin slams reports as “fake news”
Hate that phrase.
And, amusingly, The Vainy One has just made it onto Deadspin for the 2nd time :
How one rich man's weird dream transformed a British Pro Soccer team
A lengthy read, but reasonably comprehensive and probably the most detailed other than This Parish & nextwards thence, the excellent 200% articles.
It's perhaps over-long for most visitors to this 'Parish', but it's nice to know that the villainy is catalogued over in the 'Exarchy'. A couple of DHFC® mentions, to boot - hence its inclusion in the HellThread, in its very useful role as The Repository.
The article lacks a couple of pertinent details in some parts, as true Tamplinographers will recognise.
Good effort, though.
And, of course, the use of the headline's terminal phrase "British Pro Soccer team" sets my teeth on edge, whilst each of the four words individually manages to be wrong per se within a phrase which [though Americanized] is right.
1. British/English
2. Pro/well, guess it is now...was once semi [even if Brickell's still a Brickie]
3. Soccer/never ever the case, only ever Foot-ball.
[and always hyphenated; use without hyphenation means the generic which attaches to the identifier Football Code, e.g. Rugby, Australian, Canadian &c.]
4. Team/Random bunch of Mercenary Bastards
Furthermore, whilst remaining outside of the UK, upon the point of the Elliott Kebbie reported allegation of Extortion which was previously noted in This Parish :
Owner of Non-League Club Charged with Blackmail | Balls.ie
Oh no mate!
It's *STILL* all over the internet!
Wasn't there an announcement of an amicable "settlement" 14 days later?
In one of those media outlets that The Vainy One uses frequently?
EDIT : Found it.
Billericay sign Conlon on loan
"A few players have gone recently. We came to an agreement with Elliot, and it has all been done amicably."
So, for those that perhaps weren't aware, the entire world is watching all of this Fuckmuppetry going on. Billericay's gone international all right, just not in the way of that stupid photo taken in a Dubai sports shop was purporting to though, eh Mark Baker?
Last edited:
HELVETICVS
ILLE QVI PVLSAT SVM
That last little incident from above was mentioned back in Post #1443 for those that missed it, or for those that don't have/use Twitter.
It's a damnable shame if you did, because this was the preceding 24hrs before, and the trigger for, the famous photograph of The Veiny One at the gym, you know - the steam-out-of-the-ears red-faced close up of some steroidal action, in action.
I don't feel it got the appreciation owed to XV Brigada at the time because The Good Ship Lollycrackers lurched off in yet another direction soon thereafter - never a dull moment with swashbuckling Cap'n Glenn.
What happened in young Glenn's life, in spite of his clearly having a loving family and [ostensibly] any material wont, which made him so needy for the attention of complete strangers - people that he will never even meet - to the extent that he would so clearly prostitute his dignity by lying about a posed photograph with retailers to whom he gives custom?
Worse yet, from the pose and inclusion of the till receipt, it is abundantly clear that a Member of Staff has said "Gosh, you've spent a lot - you should take a photo! LOL".
And a lightbulb goes on in his head*.
The Vainy One has then taken it and run with it, in a way that only the truly Gonzo can.
Still, at least it introduced the world to these wonderful facial expressions :
* Cocaine, probably.
And, in response to the criticism,
"Live in Dubai. Can 100% confirm nobody knows about you or your club",
Tha God Himself deigned to respond in kind :
A simple, simple little lie on the part of The Veiny One then blossomed into a whole meltdown as he tried to lad-banter and user-block his way out of a Tweetstorm.
The Dubai Incident of 2018 remains a strong contender for a Didn't Happen of the Year Award, so strongly did it not happen and so early in the year, too.
The denouement :
Lawks! Praise be to The Veiny One!
Can't keep a good man down, world - how bloody dare you all to try.
Well, some things in life are inevitable, aren't they Glenn?
How does that saying go...only a couple of things..?
I love Glenn.
For Glenn sheweth me the way.
The Way of the Lion and the Lamb, and the Eagle, w-oh.
Look upon the Works of ye Glenn - who hath crumbled the mighty Burgess Hill, twice.
The Vainy One doth also show me rightly the way to preen, so I look good even when hopping a fence.
Lo, Glenn hath brought forth prized Argentum unto the poor and destitute of the Ricay and made his own Word corporeal.
Praise be unto to The Mightily-Veiny One, dweller amongst us, Goodly Waver of the Wads and True Cap'n of the Righteous Ship Lollycrackers.
DIVI SANCTI AVGVSTVS, Odes & Prayers of Tamplinomics, Ch.XVI XLLMAO
It's a damnable shame if you did, because this was the preceding 24hrs before, and the trigger for, the famous photograph of The Veiny One at the gym, you know - the steam-out-of-the-ears red-faced close up of some steroidal action, in action.
I don't feel it got the appreciation owed to XV Brigada at the time because The Good Ship Lollycrackers lurched off in yet another direction soon thereafter - never a dull moment with swashbuckling Cap'n Glenn.
"Shopping in Nike Dubai
and the staff recognised us
and couple them showed me they follow Billericay
and wanted pictures."
and the staff recognised us
and couple them showed me they follow Billericay
and wanted pictures."
Book of Tamplinomics, 21 Jan. 2018 glenntamplin/status/955012352201691136
What happened in young Glenn's life, in spite of his clearly having a loving family and [ostensibly] any material wont, which made him so needy for the attention of complete strangers - people that he will never even meet - to the extent that he would so clearly prostitute his dignity by lying about a posed photograph with retailers to whom he gives custom?
Worse yet, from the pose and inclusion of the till receipt, it is abundantly clear that a Member of Staff has said "Gosh, you've spent a lot - you should take a photo! LOL".
And a lightbulb goes on in his head*.
The Vainy One has then taken it and run with it, in a way that only the truly Gonzo can.
Still, at least it introduced the world to these wonderful facial expressions :
* Cocaine, probably.And, in response to the criticism,
"Live in Dubai. Can 100% confirm nobody knows about you or your club",
Tha God Himself deigned to respond in kind :
A simple, simple little lie on the part of The Veiny One then blossomed into a whole meltdown as he tried to lad-banter and user-block his way out of a Tweetstorm.
The Dubai Incident of 2018 remains a strong contender for a Didn't Happen of the Year Award, so strongly did it not happen and so early in the year, too.
The denouement :
Lawks! Praise be to The Veiny One!
Can't keep a good man down, world - how bloody dare you all to try.
Well, some things in life are inevitable, aren't they Glenn?
How does that saying go...only a couple of things..?
I love Glenn.
For Glenn sheweth me the way.
The Way of the Lion and the Lamb, and the Eagle, w-oh.
Look upon the Works of ye Glenn - who hath crumbled the mighty Burgess Hill, twice.
The Vainy One doth also show me rightly the way to preen, so I look good even when hopping a fence.
Lo, Glenn hath brought forth prized Argentum unto the poor and destitute of the Ricay and made his own Word corporeal.
Praise be unto to The Mightily-Veiny One, dweller amongst us, Goodly Waver of the Wads and True Cap'n of the Righteous Ship Lollycrackers.
DIVI SANCTI AVGVSTVS, Odes & Prayers of Tamplinomics, Ch.XVI XLLMAO
Last edited:
Similar threads
