I wonder if

[selby]

The club will be sharp enough to ask the FL about C. Rice playing against us, and making it public.
   If nothing else,it would put pressure on one of the teams we are up against for relegation.
   The momentom is with us,keep it that way.

[Copps is Magic]

10 minutes reading the rules will tell you they didn't break any. It would only bad for us if we pursued it publicly. Why would we want to give fuel in the fire to Chesterfield in a relegation battle?

[Filo]

Certainly the question needs asking, as it stands there was no agreement between the clubs for JCR to play in that game, so by default he was inelegible to play, we keep the point from our game and a 3 point deduction for them would do me

[Copps is Magic]

The club should either look the rules up, or send off a discreet email to the FA. Both will result in them realising that no rules were broken and that JCR WAS eligible to play against Sheff U as far as the rules are concerned.

Any further action would be a massive act of desperation on our part.

We are desperate but let's keep that to ourselves, eh, and not try and invent new rules?

[Filo]

The club should either look the rules up, or send off a discreet email to the FA. Both will result in them realising that no rules were broken and that JMC WAS eligible to play against Sheff U as far as the rules are concerned.

Any further action would be a massive act of desperation on our part.

We are desperate but let's keep that to ourselves, eh, and not try and invent new rules?

If nothing else, it's a grey area that needs addressing

[Copps is Magic]

We are desperate but let's keep that to ourselves, eh, and not try and invent new rules?

If nothing else, it's a grey area that needs addressing
[/quote]

It's a grey area no doubt but they aren't going to sort it out for little old Donny in the space of a few weeks.

[Dagenham Rover]

It still needs querying with the fa

All it needs is for drfc to ask for the fa for clarification which would start the ball rolling

[IDM]

It's clear enough to me - the FA sets the suspension for the next available first team fixture.  The FA does not demand that a loan arrangement makes a player ineligible to play against his parent club?  Therefore, in the letter of the FA's rules on suspensions, that particular fixture qualifies.

[BillyStubbsTears]

IDM.

And that is the flaw in the letter of the rule. It allows this situation where the spirit of the rule can be broken without the letter being broken.

Strictly speaking of course, Forrester didn't break the letter of any law when he dicked about on day one. But we were big enough as a club to accept that the spirit of the game is sometimes more important than a strict legalistic interpretation. That is to our credit.

Equally, Chesterfield's officials will have known damn well that they we flouting the spirit of the rule when they picked Campell-Rice. They cheated the spirit of the game. That was morally wrong.  They should be at the very least brought into the court of public opinion over that. And if we end up being sent down by our failure to win last Tuesday, the club should nurse a sense of righteous grievance and make sure that we f**king well dick them next time our paths cross.