Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tynierose

Nicky Walker suspension (SJFA)

Recommended Posts

If that is the case then the sjfa approach isn't new and isn't aimed at Bo'ness as you might think from some of the comments I've seen. Bo'ness secretary and mgt team should have been aware of the ruling and, whether they agree with it or not, either played Walker yesterday or dropped him. There is an element of this where it looks as if they have tried to engineer a row. I'm not saying Bo'ness don't have a decent argument but deliberately not playing a player if you know the position and then complaining that the sjfa has stuck to its rules is a bit naive.

Personally, I think the rules should align to SFA cup competitions in so much as you get banned for offences in that competition and league offences should be dealt with in league games. Then Bo'ness wouldn't have an issue. I also think the sjfa are far too lenient on the totting up of yellow cards but that's another argument

WHat I would say is that common sense needs to prevail here. If Bo"NEss had chucked in a league game mid-week to avoid a player playing in the Scottish the SJFA would have the right to keep the suspension for the Scottish. If however the player in this situation would have made the scottish tie had it not been for the weather he should play in the scottish. Issue here is the rules are not clear and it seems the SJFA are using the "final say" element of the rules inconsistently in this case. Have Bo"Ness actually been told he can't play against Hurlford ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's either 1 or 2

Statement 1

He was banned for 2 games.

He has to serve his suspension on whatever game is "officially" scheduled.

Therefore he has served 1 of his suspended games.

Bon'ess did not play him in the re-arranged game. Their choice if they know the rules.

I do not follow what is the difficult part to follow.

This is a secretarial cock up issue.

I don't normally defend the beaks but cannnot see what they have contributed that is wrong !

Statement 2

Having searched all the rule books I cannot find said rule clearly defined anywhere.

Wing it

Correct Al and finally after 9 pages sense prevails. He was banned for 2 scheduled games those being Camelon and Hurlford, the Carnoustie game was "rearranged" at late notice. You can't pick and choose which games he misses.

Could he have played yesterday? Did anyone check? or was he left out through martyrdom so that Tynie could start some conspiracy campaign against Bo'ness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another - utterly pointless - analogy is that if you buy an off peak rail ticket, you can't get on a train scheduled to run within peak time, even if it is 30 minutes late and well into off peak time. Such use of the ticket would need to be approved by the operating company. In this case the operator has a position and they have not exercised any discretion. Bo'ness should know that and deal with it however unfair they perceive it. The Petershill position clarifies that this is not new and other clubs have had to manage it.

Edited by HTG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another - utterly pointless - analogy is that if you buy an off peak rail ticket, you can't get on a train scheduled to run within peak time, even if it is 30 minutes late and well into off peak time. Such use of the ticket would need to be approved by the operating company. In this case the operator has a position and they have not exercised any discretion. Bo'ness should know that and deal with it however unfair they perceive it. The Petershill position clarifies that this is not new and other clubs have had to manage it.

So why is it not in the rule book? Surely the East League secretary should be able to advise the club on it's position. This situation has been ongoing since the Broxburn game - 21 days ago - so surely should have been resolved by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why is it not in the rule book? Surely the East League secretary should be able to advise the club on it's position. This situation has been ongoing since the Broxburn game - 21 days ago - so surely should have been resolved by now.

Surely Bo'ness know the answer then? If the SJFA say that player is suspended from the Junior Cup as it's the officially agreed "next game", Bo'ness must know that. If the ERSJFA secretary allows a game to go ahead in its place - presumably at your own club's request - then he's doing you a favour in the same way as he did with us yesterday. It's not in his or your team's interests to be idle when your pitch is playable but nor does it mean that by doing you a favour and sanctioning a fixture you would not otherwise have had that he should then carry the can for whether you have a player who may or may not be available if your club has already been told what the position is.

I assume your club was told the position? You don't have to like it - I wouldn't either. But if you knew what it was - liked or otherwise - why did you not pick him and get on with it. The only point at which Bo'ness would have a case here is if they had asked the SJFA for clarity and had received no response. In that situation I'd have complete sympathy with Bo'ness.

Nobody has yet answered the question further up this thread - did Bo'ness know the SJFA position before the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I think 2 games suspension should mean he misses the next 2 games, no matter how these next 2 games pan out I can't help think Bo'ness have tried to be sly about the whole situation.

They knew there would be uncertainty over this issue and should have contacted the SJFA last week (as last Sat there was an attempt to play a rearranged fixture) to clarify the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checked back my programme files to check if I was right, this was from the programme for the match against Cumnock on 15th January 2011 as mentioned further up the thread.

"Ryan Jordan is due to serve a one match ban after his sending off at Pollok, but the SJFA have decided that he should be available to play today, and he will serve his ban against Tayport in the Emirates Cup as originally scheduled."

Our situation was probably different from Bo'ness though, at the time we were mired in the relegation places and it actually suited us to hve him play in the league game rather than the cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I think 2 games suspension should mean he misses the next 2 games, no matter how these next 2 games pan out I can't help think Bo'ness have tried to be sly about the whole situation.

They knew there would be uncertainty over this issue and should have contacted the SJFA last week (as last Sat there was an attempt to play a rearranged fixture) to clarify the issue.

Pish. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Official games, scheduled games, interim games WTF !! The disciplinary rules clearly state the player is banned for the next two games. Nicky has missed the required next two games. It really should be that simple. Tom Johnston is digging his heals in and isn't going to change his mind. Time this wage thief of a clown was hunted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Bo'ness know the position ahead of the game?

Can someone please answer this question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think u had 2 much 2 drink last nite senderos!!

Not enough I'm afraid haha.

As I've mentioned previously and as HTG has just asked did Bo'ness seek clarification on this matter before the rearranged game be it yesterday or the previous Saturday? It's the SJFA remember so not everything is straight forward.

Can't see Mr Johnston changing his mind so looks like Walker has missed a game that he shouldn't have.

Could be here all day questioning what is right and wrong with this but IMO Bo'ness should have sought clarification prior to the rearranged league game being played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Original games were Camelon and Broxburn. Broxburn abandoned therefore next game ERJFA sancioned game against Carnoustie arranged as Hurlford game postpoed for three weeks. Players needed game and Bo'ness wanted not to fall behind in games. Walker now completed ban and should be available. Note original ban would not have covered Hurlford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Bo'ness know the position ahead of the game?

Can someone please answer this question.

you wont get an answer.

Its the age old SJFA have it in for them nonsense....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Original games were Camelon and Broxburn. Broxburn abandoned therefore next game ERJFA sancioned game against Carnoustie arranged as Hurlford game postpoed for three weeks. Players needed game and Bo'ness wanted not to fall behind in games. Walker now completed ban and should be available. Note original ban would not have covered Hurlford.

this original ban would not have covered Hurlford is just utter pish !! the broxburn game is struck from the records it was abandoned.

stop looking for conspiracy theories where there are none....... You played a hastily arranged game and from what I can gather from reading here and facebook

knew the situation prior to this game. Did anyone actually ask if he could play yesterday or did you just leave him out to try and claim he was suspended ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this original ban would not have covered Hurlford is just utter pish !! the broxburn game is struck from the records it was abandoned.

stop looking for conspiracy theories where there are none....... You played a hastily arranged game and from what I can gather from reading here and facebook

knew the situation prior to this game. Did anyone actually ask if he could play yesterday or did you just leave him out to try and claim he was suspended ?

"Did anyone actually ask if he could play yesterday or did you just leave him out to try and claim he was suspended ?"

No one seems to want to answer that simple question posed by yourself, HTG and I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't if club asked. Not sure why they would have to. Suspended two games and two games played. Anything else up to SJFA to advise. Not fault of BU that Broxburn game adandoned. Not fault of BU that Hurlford game podtponed three weeks. Carnoustie game sanctioned by ERJFA. If problem ERSJA should not have sanctioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't if club asked. Not sure why they would have to. Suspended two games and two games played. Anything else up to SJFA to advise. Not fault of BU that Broxburn game adandoned. Not fault of BU that Hurlford game podtponed three weeks. Carnoustie game sanctioned by ERJFA. If problem ERSJA should not have sanctioned.

But the sjfa position was known. So it would be for Bo'ness to confirm whether that had changed. I've sympathy with the Bo'ness view that if you can serve a 2 game suspension in league games following an offence in a league game there shouldn't really be an issue. But clearly there is. Petershill have experienced it and this time it was also known about. Simply assuming that views have changed would be negligent. Why would Bo'ness not want to be sure of their ground if there was a risk they'd lose the player for another game and when they could have played him yesterday.

Clearly it's frustrating but disagreeing with the decision is a step beyond pretending it doesn't exist. If he is able to play next week then Tynie's needing to sort himself out before going off on these big rants - arsehole!

Sits back and awaits text from the arsehole ... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The committee guys we spoke to yesterday were clear that Walker was suspended yesterday, that's why there are questions being asked as to why he can't play next week. The SJFA need to clarify publicly what the situation is and stop it dragging on all week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The committee guys we spoke to yesterday were clear that Walker was suspended yesterday, that's why there are questions being asked as to why he can't play next week. The SJFA need to clarify publicly what the situation is and stop it dragging on all week.

Don't disagree with that. It would help if Bo'ness could confirm who changed the situation. Clarity on all sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...