Tottenham Hotspur are in real danger of having points docked for illegally playing Wilson Palacios in their Premier League clash against Bolton Wanderers yesterday.

 

The Honduran international was serving a ban for his former club Wigan Athletic, and there are rumours that because he played in yesterday's game, legal action should be taken against Spurs.

 

The suggestion is that if Palacios was still a Wigan player, his ban would have finished on 31st January, but because he moved to White Hart Lane, the ban should see him cup tied for Carling Cup and FA Cup games, meaning his ban should be carried over these games.

 

Therefore, his fixture list should read:

 

Wednesday Jan 21 2009 Burnley CC (A) (cup tied)

Saturday Jan 24 2009 Manchester United FA (A) (cup tied)

Tuesday Jan 27 2009 Stoke City (H) (suspended)

Saturday Jan 31 2009 Bolton Wanderers (A) (suspended)

Sunday Feb 08 2009 Arsenal (H) (ban lifted)

 

This news was revealed by a Wigan fans' website, and it is not known whether the Premier League will take legal action against Spurs, but what seems certain is that Palacios should have been made unavailable to Harry Redknapp and therefore should not have been played in the 3-2 defeat against Bolton yesterday.

 

Source: yeoldtreeandcrown.com

 

From goal.com

 

Mods please delete. On other post.

Edited February 1, 200917 yr by Trotski

"Having picked up his 10th booking of the season on Saturday - ironically against Manchester City - Palacios is suspended for his next two games.

 

However, he is ineligible to play against Manchester United in the FA Cup on Saturday anyway, having been involved in Wigan's third round defeat against Tottenham earlier in the competition.

 

The 24-year-old will use up one of his suspensions while he watches his team-mates take on United, and will also be forced to sit in the stands when Spurs host Stoke City on Tuesday night.

 

But he could be eligible to make his debut at Bolton's Reebok Stadium on Saturday January 31, provided that Spurs complete his registration by midday tomorrow (Friday)."

 

http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/content/...3A20%3A29%3A277

Failing that deadline, Palacios will not be an official Tottenham player on Saturday and his suspension will then roll back one game to include the Premier League clash against Bolton.

 

 

but we'd established one of his banned games couldn't be the cup game v united as he was cup tied?

I reckon Spurs would have a pretty strong case if they denied that he 'played' yesterday

regardless, this would have to be points deduction stuff if proven

 

surely?

but we'd established one of his banned games couldn't be the cup game v united as he was cup tied?

Correct

I am lost

but we'd established one of his banned games couldn't be the cup game v united as he was cup tied?

 

Cockneys are saying a loophole in FA rules allows a suspended player to use up a match of his suspension even if he is cuptied and ineligible to play in the match.

The reason he could play yesterday was because his work permit didn't get awarded until Monday so he was still officially a Wigan player when they played in the FA cup against United,which counted as one of his games that he was banned from and then the second game he was banned was the Stoke game for Tottenham.

If he was still oficially a Wigan player when Spurs played United, then it can't logically count towards a suspension.

Compared to what West Ham got away with this is nothing, where's that one up to?

Just be thankful the Premier league and FA don't order yesterday's game to be replayed.

 

Sh*t ....... I've probably given them the idea now .....

Bet the FA wouldnt let a little club like Droylsden get away with it if it anything like that ever happened

regardless, this would have to be points deduction stuff if proven

 

surely?

Come on cassie this is a london club, they'll either get a slap on the wrist or a fine (like West Ham).

 

If we'd done it though the FA would throw the book at us!

Edited February 1, 200917 yr by ex-Leeds

Come on cassie this is a london club, they'll either get a slap on the wrist or a fine (like West Ham).

If we'd done it though the FA would throw the book at us!

 

Nail on head. Can you imagine the uproar spurs get relegated by a point after being deducted 3. Will either be dragged out till season as finished or they will find them guilty and say dont do it again!!

I know it's less than two hours until the transfer deadline closes but you'd think there'd be at least a bit about it on SSN until the FA decide Spurs have no case to answer.

There is no story here - they have no case to answer for - that is why it is not on the news sites.

 

The fact is that players bans are counted on the games the TEAM plays - and not on the INDIVIDUAL.

 

So although Palacios could not play in the FA Cup tie (because he was cup-tied) Spurs did play the game - and this was counted (under the rules) as the first of his two match suspension.

 

He sat out the next Spurs league match and thus he was quite eligible to play against us.

 

It may seem unfair - but those are the rules.

 

I guess it is similar to a player serving his ban whilst he is recovering from some injury - the ban would be served even though he would not have been fit to play in the matches he missed anyway!

Edited February 2, 200917 yr by Sluffy

Sluffy,

I'd argue that not eligible and not able are two different kettles of fish.

Sluffy,

I'd argue that not eligible and not able are two different kettles of fish.

 

I do agree with you - but the result is the same.

 

It would be much fairer if players had to miss the required number of suspended games in matches where they are both eligible and fit to play - but the rules don't actually say that - hence missing a game you couldn't play in because you are cup-tied is just the same as missing a game because you have say a broken toe. Neither player can actually play in the match but one match of the suspension is served never the less.

So although Palacios could not play in the FA Cup tie (because he was cup-tied) Spurs did play the game - and this was counted (under the rules) as the first of his two match suspension.

 

He sat out the next Spurs league match and thus he was quite eligible to play against us.

 

It may seem unfair - but those are the rules.

 

No, since signing him they have played Burnley away in the carling cup, then Man Utd in the FA cup, in both of these fixtures he is ineligle by cup-tie, therefore cannot be picked and these cannot be be counted as part of his suspension. then he sat out of the game with Stoke, which should have been his first game, his second should have been against us, its as simple as that. Spurs may have played the game but he wasnt allowed either way.

 

regardless of what anyone says i doubt anything will be done however it should be, teams have been kicked out of comps recently for this, Bury / Droylsden.

No, since signing him they have played Burnley away in the carling cup, then Man Utd in the FA cup, in both of these fixtures he is ineligle by cup-tie, therefore cannot be picked and these cannot be be counted as part of his suspension. then he sat out of the game with Stoke, which should have been his first game, his second should have been against us, its as simple as that. Spurs may have played the game but he wasnt allowed either way.

 

regardless of what anyone says i doubt anything will be done however it should be, teams have been kicked out of comps recently for this, Bury / Droylsden.

 

He has served his two match suspension.

United & Stoke.

The fact that he was ineligible for the United game is irrelevent, he was a registered member of the squad when that game was played, the suspension overrules the ineligibility.

 

Perosnally I thinks its an awful rule, but its one thats been in place for a number of years.

It used to be the case that a player was suspended for a period of time rather than a number of matches. This led to inequalities in that one club may play more matches than another club in the same period. This was the reason for the current rule.

So, if you get a three match ban and then your next three games get postponed due to freezing conditions, are you then clear to play?

So, if you get a three match ban and then your next three games get postponed due to freezing conditions, are you then clear to play?

 

No, because they haven't happened

He has served his two match suspension.

United & Stoke.

The fact that he was ineligible for the United game is irrelevent, he was a registered member of the squad when that game was played, the suspension overrules the ineligibility.

 

Perosnally I thinks its an awful rule, but its one thats been in place for a number of years.

 

I totally agree, what a stupid rule that is, personally I think this rule must change, he cannot play because he?s cup tied so if he wasn?t suspended he couldn?t play anyway, how is that being punished? Basically he served a one match ban.