Romford chucked out of Cup?

[Steph]

It is a memorial trophy of a fella associated with Burnham Ramblers. Seems reasonable to have a one leg final played at Burnham.

[theabbeyabbott]

Yeh I know, just wondered what peoples views were, seeing as others mentioned gate receipts, thats all.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Quote:

coupwotcoup? said:
Even this competition, of which we are now not a part, has differing rules/laws as you progress.
They may have changed slightly since '94 but go something like this. Up to and not including the semis, you can sign a player on the day to play in said cup. However, come the semis and any player on the park, must have appeared in at least two league games (something we fell foul of then, and nearly repeated the dose two years later).

Agree, Coup - at this level, the various rules that exist in different competitions can prove a minefield.

This partiucular rule has been around for longer than Romford FC and is, quite sensibly, designed to prevent Clubs bringing in players just for the semi's or final. Ricky Muir hardly fell into that category as he'd been on Romford's books for ages before the ill-fated Sawbo game, was registered with the ESL as a Boro player and had appeared for the Club in other competitions.

Think what might have happened in the days that Roy Drake was ever present until a League Cup tie against Fords, when we had to bring in someone else on the day because Drakey was crocked. If that had been the final, we couldn't have done so and would have been forced to play an outfield player between the sticks as we hadn't got another 'keeper that would have played the required 2 League games. That would have devalued the ESL's showpiece match.

Rule changes can be proposed and voted on by Clubs at the League's AGM. Instead of the "Two League appearances" rule for the later stages of the League Cup, how about proposing changing it to requiring players to have been registered with the Club and the ESL for a designated period of time (say, a month) before the round in which they appear? This way, squad players who might not have played the necessary 2 League games could still be brought in if a Club has a shortage of regular first-teamers.

If nothing else, it might just save you another sprint to the dugout when you see an "ineligible" sub warming up......

[zody]

a very good point, hedge, good to see you putting that across,

 

I know that the voices in my head are not real, but they do have some pretty neat ideas sometimes!

[coupwotcoup]

Nine years down the line and still haven't got my breath back yet. Did you read my post about each player having a card or the other from Boroman re some kind of database system. From little acorns, who knows?

[Dave Hedgehog]

Quote:

coupwotcoup? said:
Did you read my post about each player having a card or the other from Boroman re some kind of database system. From little acorns, who knows?

Great ideas - but we're talking about a League that can't even arrange fixtures for a full season.

How about microchips? Don't they do that for stray dogs? A microchip behind the ear, link it to a scanner at the end of the tunnel and, if the player that passes is ineligible, a trap door opens and he's consigned to a bottomless pit.

[coupwotcoup]

And don't forget no Bank Holiday matches and ET v Romford midweek...Sorry, it is old ground, but still irks!

[Two Fat Feet]

Re signing players on a month beforehand - I've thought about that as well on many occasions (including the one where Barkingside brought on Alex Cancar at last knockings a couple of seasons ago just to get him eligible for their semi-final, for which their regular 'keeper was suspended, only for Paul Rogan to chip him for a 1-0 win when we'd been murdered for the previous 92 minutes).

 

But the main thing that occurred to me was that it meant you could dual-register a non-contract player from, say, a Conference South club, not use him all season and call in a favour if their manager's a mate. It would not stop players being called in specifically for the semi-final whether you were short of players or not, unless you had to be able to prove that you simply could not raise a side for reasons of eligibility, suspension, unavailability or injury - the first two are easy to verify, the others would require some pretty watertight documentation.

 

The rule at present is that a player has to have appeared in two League competition matches by the time of the semi-final, even to be eligible for the Final. That rule has been amended slightly since we won it in 1996, as Tony Sorrell hadn't even signed when we played the semi-final yet he was able to play in the final. At least this way the player has been a regular part of the squad at some point during the season, the obvious drawback is that you have to take the chance of either using a second-string goalkeeper on purpose on two occasions, probably very close to the date (reserve 'keepers probably won't hang around for the whole season if they've never had a first team opportunity), or take the chance on your regular 'keeper being available. Remember we went to the Gordon Brasted Final last season with no goalkeeper on the bench - apart from Robin Ruston, the only ones eligible were Stuart Horne, who was injured (and in Barbados) and Nicky Wilson who had been declared by Reedy to be persona non grata.

 

I can't think of a rule which would be relatively foolproof.

[coupwotcoup]

Yes.

[coupwotcoup]

But seriously, the whole thing is all very contentious...A bit like the reserves against Aveley a few years back. And v Leyton in the Thamesside in 94. We wallow in tape of varying hues at our level...

[Two Fat Feet]

Don't get me started on the Aveley thing ...

[Dave Hedgehog]

Quote:

coupwotcoup? said:
And v Leyton in the Thamesside in 94.

An entirely different kettle of fish!

If nothing else, at least the Thamesside changed their decidedly vague rules the next season so that the situation couldn't arise again.

[Two Fat Feet]

Sorry, can't hold it in.

 

Firstly, the Foley thing is fair and square. If a player is cup-tied, he's cup-tied, end of story. Unless it's the Eastern Floodlight, which must have some very relaxed rules if Mark Brett was able to score against us for Barking in the group match at Rush Green, and play FOR us in the return match (the one where McKnight scored).

 

The fact that Foley was signed from Burnham should at least have prompted some sort of alarm bell at the time, although possibly the fact that he actually took the transfer form to the league himself to get it through quickly suggests that all that may have slipped under the radar.

 

Leyton I can't answer for, it sounds like the rules were a bit vague in those days. For the uninitiated, the issue was that Sean Junor came on as a sub and scored the winner, despite not having been named - the tie was ordered to be replayed but both teams withdrew. As I understand it, the rules required just the subs to be named, but the ref (was it Wiffen?) maybe interpreted it differently and said that team sheets were not even required. As a side issue, the game was finished as soon as Junor scored the winner as it looked like some serious blood was going to be spilt on the pitch if any injury time was played! Also Dave Flemming scored for Leyton.

 

Anyway, Aveley reserves. This was simply us falling foul of taking the rules literally - following the letter of the rules rather than the spirit. We used three players who had played more than ten first team games that season, and were thus deemed ineligible - however there was no rule written that actually said as much. All it said was that a maximum of six players could be used who had played ten games - nothing was stated that disqualified them if they had played more than ten. In practice it meant that if they had played less than ten it wasn't an issue, more than ten they were ineligible, and if it was exactly ten you could use six of them, which seemed an extremely odd clause. Essex F A refused to explain their interpretation (Cyril Dowsett actually put the phone down on me when I asked him to clarify it), saying simply that this was the interpretation which had been applied in the past, but they did amend the rule for the following season so it would be clearer - leaving in the six players clause which was by then superfluous, so they obviously hadn't really taken much interest in doing it properly. My main gripe was that they couldn't even quote the precise rule that made them ineligible, they just took the rule to mean what they wanted it to mean, not what it actually said. Oh and get this, when Essex initially wrote to me to ask my views on the matter, I explained exactly what we had done and how the rules made them eligible, and the next letter I received stated that by our own admission we had fielded three ineligible players and were thus removed from the competition!

 

Thank you for your patience, those that are still with me. Amazes me how many people still get irate about that game, even though they hardly ever took any interest in the reserve team before or since.

[coupwotcoup]

Seven years of angst all coming out on one night....Glad you got a life now geezer, keep it up.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Ok, if it's good enough for Baldy...

 

The Thamesside, in those days, did not require a teamsheet. The only requirement was to "advise" the referee the names of the substitutes (for some vague reason!) but did not stipulate HOW the ref should be informed.

 

The ref for the Leyton game was Peter Ruggeiro (apppologies if that's mis-spelled) who had also reffed Boro's game on the previous Saturday. In advising him the substitutes, Mr. Ruggeiro asked if it was the same side as Saturday - as it turned out, the same players were used but Sean Junor was already late, so the ref was told that it was indeed the same side except that Junor wouldn't start and would be one of the subs.

 

What happened next was pure pantomime. With no team sheets, the Leyton announcer didn't know who the Romford players were so he asked some Boro supporters in the crowd. They were unaware that Junor wasn't going to start and he duly announced the WRONG team, having not got the info from any official source.

 

Sod's law then came into play, Junor came on as a late sub and scored the winner. Leyton were suitably embarassed at losing at home to an ESL outfit so clutched at the fact that Junor hadn't been named as a sub. They appealed and a hearing took place.

 

Now, you'd think that the only person who could confirm beyond doubt whether or not the referee had been informed of who the subs were was the ref himself BUT, Mr. Ruggeiro was unable to attend the hearing! The Thamesside committee ruled that Romford had not complied with the rule to name their subs and ordered the game to be replayed.

 

I later told Mr. Ruggeiro about the decision and he was amazed at the verdict of the hearing! He wrote a letter saying that he was fully aware of who Romford's subs were to be and that if Romford hadn't complied with the "naming of subs" rule, then neither had Leyton!

 

Eventually, having failed to agree a replay date and with the other half of the draw having produced a finalist, both Romford and Leyton withdrew.

 

Next season, Thamesside introduced teamsheets!

 

So, now you know!

[Two Fat Feet]

Always got Wiffen and Ruggerio mixed up. Both useless.

[coupwotcoup]

Whiffen/Wiffen was a total twat, while Ruggerio was just a smug twat.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Yeah, but give him his due - Peter Ruggerio did at least write in support of Romford when he found out what had happened!

[Dave Hedgehog]

.....and, to redress the balance, there is always the Danny Imray story and one or two other things that I'm not going into detail about.....

 

Some you win, some you lose.

[Two Fat Feet]

oh you tease.

 

nothing I can add to Mark Ol - er, Danny Imray which isn't already on the Archive.