Darlington FC V Warrington Town

[Darlogramps]

Stop responding to Spen.

Everyone knows he is a WUM. A pathetic, sad, lonely WUM with nothing better to do in his pitiful existence than scroll through messageboards and wind-up fans of teams he believes to be some sort of rival. He really has nothing better to do.

He's sat in his little room with his computer jerking off to everyone biting.

Ignore him. Don't respond and he'll get bored, crawl back to his pit and find someone else to harass.

[fozzovmurton]

Stop responding to Spen.

Everyone knows he is a WUM. A pathetic, sad, lonely WUM with nothing better to do in his pitiful existence than scroll through messageboards and wind-up fans of teams he believes to be some sort of rival. He really has nothing better to do.

He's sat in his little room with his computer jerking off to everyone biting.

Ignore him. Don't respond and he'll get bored, crawl back to his pit and find someone else to harass.

Guess I just can't help myself at times...I thought I was a knob...I got nothing on that dude

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[CrazyDarlo]

Stop responding to Spen.

Everyone knows he is a WUM. A pathetic, sad, lonely WUM with nothing better to do in his pitiful existence than scroll through messageboards and wind-up fans of teams he believes to be some sort of rival. He really has nothing better to do.

He's sat in his little room with his computer jerking off to everyone biting.

Ignore him. Don't respond and he'll get bored, crawl back to his pit and find someone else to harass.

How about west, do they have a forum?

[theoriginalfatcat]

I've been reading up on the England V Honduras friendly (mentioned first by Loan_Star on another thread) The game was delayed for over 40 minutes, however the players seemed able to cope when they eventually kicked off again.

I seem to remember a few tasty tackles flying in on England - however Roy didn't need to quote health and safety to get the game called off, and I think we can all agree that the England world cup squad is a little more valuable than Warrington Town's.

I do not know what the real reason Warrington gave was so cannot comment on that.

It's in The Echo report Spen, have a read, health and safety/possible injury to players - it's hard to believe I know.

[TDS]

The Rule quoted above is one of many rules. all of which have to be considered. If for example team A were down to 8 players when one of their players kicked the referee causing him to be unable to continue refereeing and there is no 4 th official. The game could not continue with the remaining 2 officials as team A would be down to 7 men as the player who kicked the referee would be sent off. In those circumstances the rule quoted does not hold sway as the rule about the number of players would take effect. An extreme example maybe.

Aaaaaahahahahhhahahahahhaha. What the fuck is this?! Where have you imagined that up from? An extreme, useless, irrelevant, imaginary load of shite. Ban this fucker. My word.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bogratsteve]

just in case you had not seen http://www.darlington1883.co.uk/?p=7521

[spen666]

For a supposedly clever legal person seems to have a chronic lack of understanding of rules. The rule is the game must be played with 2 officials.

Let's look back at a previous post by Divas, where he has copied up said rule

15.3 (Page 531 of the Handbook)

In the event of any of the Match Officials appointed for a match not being in attendance at the match or becoming unable to complete the match it shall be completed under the control of the remaining Match Officials unless the competing Clubs are able to agree upon a substitute who is acceptable to the Match Referee;


The word seems to be "shall" which to me means the same as "must"

Our learned friend Spen

It may be if I was saying Warrington were correct in their actions.

I do not know what the real reason Warrington gave was so cannot comment on that.

The bigger point for me is there are all these calls for sanctions against Warrington before it has been established they are guilty of anything. Indeed, at present they have not been charged (yet) let alone found to have breached any rule.



The Rule quoted above is one of many rules. all of which have to be considered. If for example team A were down to 8 players when one of their players kicked the referee causing him to be unable to continue refereeing and there is no 4 th official. The game could not continue with the remaining 2 officials as team A would be down to 7 men as the player who kicked the referee would be sent off. In those circumstances the rule quoted does not hold sway as the rule about the number of players would take effect. An extreme example maybe.

In such circumstances, team A have a defence to a charge under the rule quoted.


In all cases, natural justice requires a team to be given an opportunity to explain or defend their actions before a decision is made as to whether they are guilty of an offence. Too many people are jumping to the punishment phase before the NPL have decided if Warrington are indeed guilty.

I do not know the reason why Warrington refused to play on. As I have asked elsewhere, if their objection was re warming up again, then why did the kick off not be delayed to allow this to happen? That would have ended and potential defence for Warrington? It seems an obvious course of action to cut off that line of defence

As far as I was aware a game can go on with a minimum of 7...Look at the Sheffield Utd v WBA game in 2002, was called off when Sheff Utd were down to 6

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

so substitute 6 for 7 in my example - same point applies





I find it quite laughable that so many on here seem to think I am defending Warrington's actions. I am not. I have no idea why they refused to play.

The legality or otherwise of Warrington's actions is a matter for the NPL to decide. If they decide Warrington acted illegally then they will proceed to punish them with a fine, costs/comp and points deduction. The match will almost certainly be replayed. I am not aware of a situation where a result has been allowed to stand in a league game after only 30 or so minutes were played.

[lo36789]

so substitute 6 for 7 in my example - same point applies

I find it quite laughable that so many on here seem to think I am defending Warrington's actions. I am not. I have no idea why they refused to play.

The legality or otherwise of Warrington's actions is a matter for the NPL to decide. If they decide Warrington acted illegally then they will proceed to punish them with a fine, costs/comp and points deduction. The match will almost certainly be replayed. I am not aware of a situation where a result has been allowed to stand in a league game after only 30 or so minutes were played.

Don't want to bite but hey. To start with we find you quite laughable just in general.

Anyway give me the same scenario and we'll agree. The timing to me is irrelevant, if a team to down to 6 men a 3-0 scoreline is awarded to the opposition. Remember in the Sheff Utd v West Brom case 2 of the players were injuries. They don't have to be dismissals.

You could argue this is the same scenario. You can't play a game against 6 or fewer players, well Warrington effectively put out none. That would be my case and precedent (in a league game) would say it is a 3-0 win in our favour.

The FA trophy game. It is comparable, it is an almost identical situation but it is a cup game. It depends whether they view that as being the new precedent or whether there is a differentiation between league and cup competitions.

[joejaques]

[
In all cases, natural justice requires a team to be given an opportunity to explain or defend their actions before a decision is made as to whether they are guilty of an offence. Too many people are jumping to the punishment phase before the NPL have decided if Warrington are indeed guilty.

Agreed. Give them a fair hearing..................then hang 'em.

[super_les_mcjannet]

Stop responding to Spen.

Everyone knows he is a WUM. A pathetic, sad, lonely WUM with nothing better to do in his pitiful existence than scroll through messageboards and wind-up fans of teams he believes to be some sort of rival. He really has nothing better to do.

He's sat in his little room with his computer jerking off to everyone biting.

Ignore him. Don't respond and he'll get bored, crawl back to his pit and find someone else to harass.

I do wonder why he comes on here as he calls Uncovered "Kyle Uncovered" not sure if this make him Jeremy Kyle or one of the people on the show.

[theoriginalfatcat]

I have no idea why they refused to play.

You do Spen.

Health and Safety Spen!!

It's in The Echo Spen

Like I wrote before Spen.

[Bogratsteve]

[Bogratsteve]

http://m.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/11 ... ref=twtrec

The Echo thinks there is little chance of us been awarded the game.

I must say the ref seems to have not to have been in control of the situation very much

[al_quaker]

I've got to say I'm a bit surprised there has no been official statement from the league yet - even if it is just to say they are investigating and some sort of time scale on the decision.

[mikkyx]

I've got to say I'm a bit surprised there has no been official statement from the league yet - even if it is just to say they are investigating and some sort of time scale on the decision.

They said something (or a spokesperson did) on Saturday about how they couldn't deal with the situation until they had reports from both clubs but I don't think there's been anything since.

[dickdarlington]

I can't see us being awarded the points either. What will happen is Warrington will be fined the cost of hosting the game (approx £1K+, a penalty fine (probs £5K) and we will have to replay. I also expect that their idiot manager will face a lengthy suspension.

If we don't win, then the injustice will be worsened. However, Divas made a fair comment, as we have raised a formal complaint about it, it should free up the suspensions to play until a time when a decision has been made.

Ideally, the league would advise that the suspensions would be carried over for the rearranged game (if there is one), but that as a logic isn't feasible.

[al_quaker]

I've got to say I'm a bit surprised there has no been official statement from the league yet - even if it is just to say they are investigating and some sort of time scale on the decision.

They said something (or a spokesperson did) on Saturday about how they couldn't deal with the situation until they had reports from both clubs but I don't think there's been anything since.

Fair enough. Although I would expect them to have received the reports by now, so surely they can put some statement out today.

Re the suspensions - I think they should lift them until the investigation is complete. If the league rules that the match result will stand, then it would mean Thompson and Robinson will have been suspended for twice as long as they should have been. However, looking at Thompson's twitter, it looks like he will still be suspended tomorrow. Which quite frankly is a joke.

It's typical - we would have won on Saturday, and Thompson would have been available for one of our toughest matches of the season. Now he probably won't be available, and we might have to replay the match, which we could feasibly lose. Bloody Warrington Town.

[Twintowers]

Don't blame Warrington mate,blame monkey boy Reid.All of this lays at his door.Really hope they sack the fucker.

[al_quaker]

True - I actually hope Warrington don't get too much of a punishment. But Reid should get the book thrown at him.

[Mr_Tibbs]

I've got to say I'm a bit surprised there has no been official statement from the league yet - even if it is just to say they are investigating and some sort of time scale on the decision.

They said something (or a spokesperson did) on Saturday about how they couldn't deal with the situation until they had reports from both clubs but I don't think there's been anything since.

I think that was Dave Watters - the league's media/press officer, who also hinted that "Warrington could be charged by the NPL for failing to fulfill a fixture after failing to re-take the field against Darlington following an injury to a match official" in his First Division North Review, if that's any clue as to what's in their minds.

[theoriginalfatcat]

I can't see us being awarded the points either. What will happen is Warrington will be fined the cost of hosting the game (approx £1K+, a penalty fine (probs £5K) and we will have to replay. I also expect that their idiot manager will face a lengthy suspension.

This looks likely, and it would be unfair.

Even if Warrington lose points - by giving a replay they will still get the chance to stop us from gaining our rightful 3 points, which could benefit them come the end of the season. Meanwhile the league get to pocket a nice little fine.

We lose out through absolutely no fault of our own.

[LoidLucan]

Look, it will be mission accomplished for Reid. His sole intention was to get his side another crack of the whip by pulling a fast one and avoiding certain defeat in an important game. I'm quite sure that Reid and his players were laughing about it on the way home and although there'll be some faux outrage when the fine and touchline ban are announced, behind the scenes Reid will be quietly pleased that he got what he wanted without too much damage. The cash penalty could easily be made up in a couple of fundraising nights and Reid won't give a monkeys about not being able to sit in the dugout for a time. I'm quite sure he'll feel it was worthwhile and, in an awful sort of way, you could almost admire his sheer audacity and quick thinking in that situation. He was well ahead of the game in quickly conjuring up this one.

The only fitting, just, fair and appropriate sanction to act as a deterrent would be to ensure that he didn't get what he wanted... ie they lose the points. But I'm quite sure that won't be the outcome. You see, crafty cheats do win sometimes.

The only thing we can do about it is to ensure that when the game is replayed we keep our heads and give them a sound tonking... much as we did against West Auckland at Heritage Park following that controversy.

[DAFTS]

If Warrington are not docked points and us awarded.the.match it sets a precedent for the.next hotheaded cheat to do the same. Sounds like DFC did all.it reasonably could and it was down to one man.taking.advantage of circumstances. Having seen Reid's verbals to linesmen last season I'm not surprised. We should not meekly.accept.a 'replay' - esp as so far we are the ones being punished re the suspensions for tomorrow. This is not.a reasonable abandonment of a match but a team refusing to.play as instructed by ref and league

Sent from my C5303 using Tapatalk

[LoidLucan]

I agree with that but I just don't think there will be very much we can do about it. Ray Simpson has obviously been told by people in the know that's there's little chance of us being awarded the points. And when it comes to football authorities, as we know, justice and fairness often don't win through. But I agree that it's appalling if Reid's cynical gameplan is successful. He wanted a replay when all looked lost and it looks like he'll get it.

[al_quaker]

So looks like we aren't going to hear anything from the league today. Brilliant. No doubt means we are without Thompson and Robinson for tomorrow. Superb.

[Beano]

If Warrington are found guilty of forfeiting the game, there will be no replay; we would be awarded a 3-0 win.

It will be a case of all, or nothing, with regards to punishment.

They'll either get off scot-free a la Colwyn Bay, or take all the punishments.

[quaker4life]

I can't see us being awarded the points either. What will happen is Warrington will be fined the cost of hosting the game (approx £1K+, a penalty fine (probs £5K) and we will have to replay. I also expect that their idiot manager will face a lengthy suspension.

More or less what I was thinking ^

As I said on the day I don't hate Warrington themselves for what happened, nor do I blame their players as some so ridiculously did on the day, although I understand there was alot of things said out of anger.

The blame lies souly with Shaun Reid, if what was said on social media to is to be believed he was even told by the club's secretary they'd have to play on as per league rules about being able to carry on with a replacement ref and one linesman.

However this raises questions as to why the game was stopped for so long in the first place, surely it would have been a case of one of the linesman swapping places with the ref and carrying on with the game? Either way I'm sure it'll all come out in the wash.

Obviously the league won't be able to release a statement until a full investigation has been carried out. Personal opinion is like most I'd prefer the points but I reckon as DickDarlington said Warrington will likely get slapped with a fine and we will replay the game at a later date.

However we must not dwell on the disgraceful and petulant actions of Shaun Reid, had Martin Gray done what he did yesterday I'd fully expect him to be sacked on the spot.

The focus must now be on tomorrow night's game with Spennymoor.

[al_quaker]

However this raises questions as to why the game was stopped for so long in the first place, surely it would have been a case of one of the linesman swapping places with the ref and carrying on with the game? Either way I'm sure it'll all come out in the wash.

It's preferable to have 2 linesman, so I guess that's why there was the initial stoppage. The time was presumably Mr Reid objecting, and others trying to persuade him. Of course, Mr Reid would probably have objected even if Howard Webb had been in the stand and volunteered his services.

[quakerray]

if there is a replay why dont we start it from the time it stopped and us start at 2-0.

[quaker4life]

if there is a replay why dont we start it from the time it stopped and us start at 2-0.

Usually if a match is abandoned it becomes null and void, the re-arranged game would be like any other league match it'd start at zero mins with the score at 0-0, put simply we'd just have to start over again the score and time of the previous match would not be included.