|
|
I-League Division II Exclusive: Why Shillong Lajong’s Points Should Have Been Docked Off For Fielding An Ineligible Player?
Goal.com delves into the ambiguity surrounding the suspension of Seikhohao Tuboi and places the facts in front of YOU – the Indian football fan.
15-May-2011 9:21:00 AM
By Rahul Bali
The All India Football Federation (AIFF) chose to suspend Seikhohao Tuboi, after playing four matches for Shillong Lajong, for having being registered with at least two state associations while failing to take appropriate action against the club as stated in the I-League second division regulations.
In the Art IV of the Second Division I-League regulations, point 3 states,” Any team refusing to play or does not turn up for the match at the scheduled time or refuses to start or complete a match or fields an ineligible player shall be scratched from the competition. The match shall be forfeited and the opponents present at the venue shall be declared winners by a three (3)-goal difference and three (3) points shall be awarded to them. If the goal difference was higher at the time the match was abandoned for the team’s refusal to continue to play, that goal difference shall remain. The team may be further penalised by the AIFF Disciplinary Committee.”
The issue was first brought to notice when Southern Samity lodged a protest to the match commissioner against Shillong Lajong for fielding Tuboi after he had also played for Army XI in the Kolkata League. However the AIFF dismissed the remonstration as the regulation mentions that the protest “must be submitted to the Match Commissioner with a copy to the General Secretary of AIFF, as soon as the final registration of players has been completed.”
Meanwhile an internal enquiry was conducted and a couple of members from the Players Status Committee were consulted upon and thereby a decision was taken to suspend Tuboi midway through the competition by the AIFF.
The question to be raised is why was the enquiry conducted if the protest was dismissed in the first place? Now that the player was suspended, the AIFF acknowledged the protest but the application of the regulation was only applied partly.
United Sikkim owner and skipper Bhaichung Bhutia expressed his opinion on the issue and stated that only the “player (Tuboi) was being made a scapegoat” as the other parties involved escaped unharmed especially Shillong Lajong.
At The Centre Of Controversy
Tuboi’s suspension from playing further for Shillong Lajong in the I-League Second Division confirmed that the player was “ineligible” and therefore according to article IV, point three of the regulations, action must have been taken against the club.
It is learnt that Shillong Lajong have claimed ignorance over Tuboi plying his trade for Army XI and that the player has affirmed that he didn’t inform the club of his decision to play in the Kolkata League.
Logic suggests that any club owner or team management would be aware if their player doesn’t turn up for training for more than a few days and there is a general enquiry into the player’s whereabouts as the club pays the salaries. No club is that daft to keep paying a player his monthly salary while he is away representing some other club in another state!
“Only players who are first registered with the respective State Association for the 2010-2011 season are eligible to take part in the League,” states the regulations. On being contacted, the AIFF officials chose to remain mum.
All of the above clearly points that the AIFF failed to take action against Shillong Lajong as per the I-League Second Division’s regulations and that has put the integrity of the competition at stake.
In the Art IV of the Second Division I-League regulations, point 3 states,” Any team refusing to play or does not turn up for the match at the scheduled time or refuses to start or complete a match or fields an ineligible player shall be scratched from the competition. The match shall be forfeited and the opponents present at the venue shall be declared winners by a three (3)-goal difference and three (3) points shall be awarded to them. If the goal difference was higher at the time the match was abandoned for the team’s refusal to continue to play, that goal difference shall remain. The team may be further penalised by the AIFF Disciplinary Committee.”
The issue was first brought to notice when Southern Samity lodged a protest to the match commissioner against Shillong Lajong for fielding Tuboi after he had also played for Army XI in the Kolkata League. However the AIFF dismissed the remonstration as the regulation mentions that the protest “must be submitted to the Match Commissioner with a copy to the General Secretary of AIFF, as soon as the final registration of players has been completed.”
Meanwhile an internal enquiry was conducted and a couple of members from the Players Status Committee were consulted upon and thereby a decision was taken to suspend Tuboi midway through the competition by the AIFF.
The question to be raised is why was the enquiry conducted if the protest was dismissed in the first place? Now that the player was suspended, the AIFF acknowledged the protest but the application of the regulation was only applied partly.
United Sikkim owner and skipper Bhaichung Bhutia expressed his opinion on the issue and stated that only the “player (Tuboi) was being made a scapegoat” as the other parties involved escaped unharmed especially Shillong Lajong.
At The Centre Of Controversy
Tuboi’s suspension from playing further for Shillong Lajong in the I-League Second Division confirmed that the player was “ineligible” and therefore according to article IV, point three of the regulations, action must have been taken against the club.
It is learnt that Shillong Lajong have claimed ignorance over Tuboi plying his trade for Army XI and that the player has affirmed that he didn’t inform the club of his decision to play in the Kolkata League.
Logic suggests that any club owner or team management would be aware if their player doesn’t turn up for training for more than a few days and there is a general enquiry into the player’s whereabouts as the club pays the salaries. No club is that daft to keep paying a player his monthly salary while he is away representing some other club in another state!
“Only players who are first registered with the respective State Association for the 2010-2011 season are eligible to take part in the League,” states the regulations. On being contacted, the AIFF officials chose to remain mum.
All of the above clearly points that the AIFF failed to take action against Shillong Lajong as per the I-League Second Division’s regulations and that has put the integrity of the competition at stake.
Our 
provides the best breaking news online and our 
football fan community is unmatched worldwide. Never miss a thing again!
provides the best breaking news online and our football fan community is unmatched worldwide. Never miss a thing again!Inside Goal.Com
-
Vote for your Goal.com World Player of the Week
Have your say on who you think should win Goal.com's weekly honour
-
Euro 2012 a timely respite for depressed Spain
With 24 per cent unemployment, wage cuts and little hope for improvement in the short term, the continental competition will at least take people's minds off their sad situation
-
Welbeck impresses but it's a bad day for Johnson
Ashley Young has also all but secured his place in the starting line up against France while Steven Gerrard put a good shift in. Here's how the Belgium friendly affected the England player's chances of featuring in Euro 2012
-
Five players Rodgers could sign for Liverpool
The new Reds boss was unveiled to the press on Friday and must immediately begin work on revitalising a thin squad with some additions in the transfer market
-
Lambert the latest in EPL manager merry-go-round
The Scot officially left Norwich City on Saturday to become the second new boss in June, following the appointment of Brendan Rodgers at Liverpool on Friday