Farrend Rawson

[Kernow]

​If it's a 3 point deduction, I have no problem. I have a feeling it will be more though...

​Well three points is the norm for that kind of rule breaking, there doesn't seem to be any reason for it to be more. Rawson had no major impact on the game (he didn't score the winning goal or anything). It should be three points and I hope Rotherham still stay up. Wigan should be brought back to their level after hiring a racist and then defending what he said while the investigation was still going on, and Millwall are just Millwall.

[Carl Sagan]

Very odd that their manager apparently ddin't know he'd originally been recalled and then didn't know the loan had apparently extended until the end of the season. Yet now as has been said, according to OB he's since been brought back here. One thing you can normally say categorically about Derby is that we're very well run behind the scenes, but something's gone wrong here.

No implications/sanctions can come our way, but I feel bad for Rotherham who will surely lose 3 points. Hope they stay up.

Funny if Rawson finds himself in the team tomorrow night after all!

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Could bite us on the bum if it gives Millwall more to play for?

[tomsdubs]

Blackpool got a fine for the same thing this season, if they docked points that'd probably result in court action by Rotherham.

[maydrakin]

Blackpool got a fine for the same thing this season, if they docked points that'd probably result in court action by Rotherham.

Blackpool got no points from that game though, they lost.  Rotherham gained three points, so will lose them and get a similar fine...

[Ashz09]

The game Rawson featured in was it the game he blocked a goal bound shot? Hopefully this leads to a fine and that's it. If I we're the teams below thoe I would be fuming if they only got a slap on the wrist

[McRamFan]

Jake Nicholson came on a sub for the start of the second half for AFC Wimbledon's home game with Cheltenham Town on Saturday 22nd March 2014 and scored a goal in the 4-3 victory. Nicholson had joined Wimbledon from Morton on a renewable monthly contract and his first month ended on March 19th. Unfortunately a bout of illness at the club meant that officials overlooked extending the contract on March 20th and so when he played two days later he was unregistered and so ineligible to play.

[Ambitious]

A great piece on Rawson!

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/rotherham/rotherham-united-young-rawson-has-a-farrend-in-millers-boss-steve-evans-1-7217793

 

He arrived at Rotherham United as a callow 18-year-old hardly anyone had heard of.

He left as one of the best-known players in the country, his name in every newspaper and plastered all over football websites.

In between, he played four matches for the Millers and revealed his massive potential. Through no fault of his own, he could also end up costing the club three crucial points in their fight for Championship survival.

Farrend Rawson. We all know who he is now.

The Football League have charged Rotherham with fielding the young centre-half in the 1-0 win over Brighton on Easter Monday when he was ineligible to play. The club had taken him on a youth loan in March and believed they had a second deal in place to keep him to the end of the season.

The rights and wrongs of that will play out before an independent three-man disciplinary commission sooner rather than later, when a three-point deduction for the Millers is thought to be the most likely outcome.

Whatever happens, Millers manager Steve Evans believes he has worked with a player who could eventually represent his country.

“I think, personally, the boy will go on and play in the Premier League,” Evans said. “He’s certainly a young man I think that highly of.

“I don’t want to build up this kid any more because for him to reach the levels he’s capable of has to have people around him putting the right things in his head and keeping a very even keel about it.

“But it wouldn’t surprise me to see him play for England.

“He’s 18. If he’s going to play for England as a centre-back he’s probably going to be 24/25. He’s got seven years of development to get there.”

Evans pitched Rawson in for a debut so instant that he’d met his new teammates only on the coach on the way to the Huddersfield Town clash in early March.

Some observers thought he was mad, but the Rotherham boss, having driven to Southampton and back in midweek, had seen enough in a Saints v Rams youth match to know what he was doing.

Rawson took 10 minutes to settle, improved up to half-time and was then utterly commanding throughout the second half as the Millers pulled off a 2-0 Yorkshire-derby win.

“I know for a fact - people around the club like Paul Warne (fitness coach) tell me - that when we picked him for his debut at Huddersfield a lot of people thought I’d lost the plot,” Evans revealed.

“We don’t go and pluck 18-year-olds from other people’s youth teams and put them in without thinking they’re quite exceptional.”

“Sometimes in football you have to give people the opportunity to shine. It shouldn’t be about age being a restrictor. It should be about if you’re good enough.”

After playing against the Terriers, Rawson featured in defeats against Wigan Athletic and Nottingham Forest before his final match, the 1-0 bank-holiday home triumph over Brighton.

Even Derby manager Steve McClaren had harboured doubts, but the former England boss was happy to admit he’d been proved wrong.

“When we went to take him, I think in the conversation Steve McClaren didn’t think he was quite ready for the rigours of the Championhip,” Evans conceded after the Seagulls game.

“But they don’t think that now. Obviously Macca and his staff get him evaluated here, as we do with our players who go out on loan. They’re absolutely really, really excited about the progress he’s made.

“It’s a big call for us to play a young man like that, but I know for a fact from speaking to Macca how highly he thinks of Faz.”

Following that match, Evans announced Rawson would be staying at AESSEAL New York Stadium, but by the following Saturday at Middlesbrough there was confusion as the Millers manager revealed the deal was off.

Two days later, the FL had an announcement of their own: Millers charged.

The victory over Brighton had left Rotherham clear favourites to avoid the drop, with Wigan and Millwall occupying the last two relegation places.

Now English football waits for the hearing to debate and deliver its decision, a verdict with the power to radically alter the landscape at the foot of the second tier.

The Millers showed last Wednesday they won’t be derailed by off-field issues, turning in one of their best performances of the season at Fulham where they drew 1-1 and were desperately unlucky not to win.

Evans has handled the situation well, remaining calm and focused, acknowledging that beating relegation remains in the club’s own hands and calling on his players to show the fighting spirit which has seen them defy the odds throughout his three years at the helm.

“We’ll just fight tooth and nail to make sure we give this great football club another season in the Championship,” he said.

After the fixtures last Saturday, when Evans’ team were without a match, Millwall are four points behind Rotherham while Wigan, having played a game more, are five adrift.

The FL were absolutely right not to let the panel sit before the weekend. Any points deduction for Rotherham heading into last Saturday would have given the Lions and Latics an unfair boost.

They would be absolutely wrong to let it drift for too long and risk their ruling affecting the relegation placings after playing matters are concluded.

Millwall are away to Blackburn tomorrow night. After that, they have two games left, as do Wigan, while Rotherham have three - home encounters against Norwich City and Reading respectively on Saturday and next Tuesday and then the last-day clash at Leeds on May 2.

After tomorrow’s Millwall match and before Saturday’s fixtures would be, in the interests of fair competition, the best time for the hearing to take place. If a three-point deduction is the outcome, the Millers would then have one game over their rivals to make right the damage.

It would be a sporting tragedy if an administration issue involving a player who started four games came back to haunt a club who have so far battled so hard over 43.

Survival needs to be settled on the field, not in a courtroom.

[Albert]

I never understood the concept of points deductions for paperwork issues, it screams of bad governance more than anything else. If a club simple got a piece of paper work wrong, why would you take points from a club for it. If it were to gain some advantage, that makes sense, but when it's just a clear mistake by the club, I don't really see the harm. Give them a fine, and explain to them what they did wrong so they can do better in the future. 

For example, in this case. Rawson wasn't ineligible for any other reason other than them forgetting to extend the loan, something they have since done. I would have a system in place where as long as they could have been eligible had the paper work been done properly, then the loan could be considered to have been started before that match, and the club receives a fine for good measure. The point has been gotten across, and a small behind the scenes mistake doesn't screw with the league standings. No advantage was gained by playing the player in the first place, as without a backroom mistake they would have been eligible in any case. 

The same goes for other such errors, as long as they would have been eligible, and in limited squads, the players used "in their place" would have to have not been used. Ultimately though, it just seems so minor to cost points, and a club potentially their place in the league. 

[Ashz09]

Good piece that just hope he doesn't become over hyped seems everyone knows who he is by that article. Could be worth sending him on loan again but with our defenders form at the moment could be worth using him next season if we're still in the championship.

 

Millers fans rate him that's for sure different kind of pressure when your fighting at the top thoe.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

I never understood the concept of points deductions for paperwork issues, it screams of bad governance more than anything else. If a club simple got a piece of paper work wrong, why would you take points from a club for it. If it were to gain some advantage, that makes sense, but when it's just a clear mistake by the club, I don't really see the harm. Give them a fine, and explain to them what they did wrong so they can do better in the future. 

For example, in this case. Rawson wasn't ineligible for any other reason other than them forgetting to extend the loan, something they have since done. I would have a system in place where as long as they could have been eligible had the paper work been done properly, then the loan could be considered to have been started before that match, and the club receives a fine for good measure. The point has been gotten across, and a small behind the scenes mistake doesn't screw with the league standings. No advantage was gained by playing the player in the first place, as without a backroom mistake they would have been eligible in any case. 

The same goes for other such errors, as long as they would have been eligible, and in limited squads, the players used "in their place" would have to have not been used. Ultimately though, it just seems so minor to cost points, and a club potentially their place in the league. 

​But if the "paperwork issue" meant that a player played when he was not eligible to play they technically have gained an unfair advantage. I'm not saying they should suffer a points deduction but I can see why they may.

[RamNut]

The punishment should be that steve evans should have to run 400m and jump a three foot gate.

if he can do that then they should let them off.

[Albert]

​But if the "paperwork issue" meant that a player played when he was not eligible to play they technically have gained an unfair advantage. I'm not saying they should suffer a points deduction but I can see why they may.

​Except if the only reason they were ineligible was that someone forgot to do their paper work, which is exactly what's being talked about here. Playing a player who was banned is one thing, playing a youngster because you forgot to make sure that the loan was the full 93 is a very different matter. 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

I think it is regarded as very serious to deter "mistakes" generally regarding ineligible players. I do agree that punishment should be laid down though and not, as it seems, made up on the hoof.

[RLACML]

​Except if the only reason they were ineligible was that someone forgot to do their paper work, which is exactly what's being talked about here. Playing a player who was banned is one thing, playing a youngster because you forgot to make sure that the loan was the full 93 is a very different matter. 

​Completely agree. It's like the Legia Warsaw-Celtic thing all over again. Paperwork coming before football. A fine and a severe warning is the correct punishment for me. 

[cheron85]

​Except if the only reason they were ineligible was that someone forgot to do their paper work, which is exactly what's being talked about here. Playing a player who was banned is one thing, playing a youngster because you forgot to make sure that the loan was the full 93 is a very different matter. 

​If I forget to do paperwork the company I work for could be liable for millions of pounds...

Why should football be any different?

[TigerTedd]

​If I forget to do paperwork the company I work for could be liable for millions of pounds...

Why should football be any different?

And that would be a fine. Fine them a million pounds, but don't take away their points. 

Unless they end up more than 3 aboce millwall, in which case they'd probably take the points deduction and say no more about it. 

We can do them a favour by smashing Millwall, we owe them that at least, even if this wasn't really our fault. 

[cheron85]

And that would be a fine. Fine them a million pounds, but don't take away their points. 

Unless they end up more than 3 aboce millwall, in which case they'd probably take the points deduction and say no more about it. 

We can do them a favour by smashing Millwall, we owe them that at least, even if this wasn't really our fault. 

​Except that other teams have had points deducted for the same thing... You guys are saying "awww poor little Rotherham... let's NOT take points from them because they're a small team"... It's EXACTLY the same thing you're having a go at the league for!

One rule... applied equally... they messed up... they pay the penalty... they've known ALL season they might be down the bottom at the end so they should make sure they get their paperwork right...

[Ambitious]

It doesn't help he was named MOTM in the game he wasn't meant to be playing! 

[Albert]

​If I forget to do paperwork the company I work for could be liable for millions of pounds...

Why should football be any different?

​Because a football league is exactly that, a football league. If I wanted to watch the Bureaucracy Super League, I'd go out and find it, but I'm not interested in such nonsense. The bureaucracy in football is there to service the smooth running of the league, and such systems should be there to prevent teams from gaining an unfair advantage over one another. At the point that the bureaucracy starts to take precedence over the football, it is the bureaucracy that is at fault by it's very definition.

That's where my concern comes in on such cases. The point should be in terms of points deductions, whether or not it was done to gain an unfair advantage by the footballing staff, or whether it was a clerical error by the backroom team. In the case of the latter, they can still fine the club, but I can't see why paperwork errors should have anything to do with what happens on the league table. I don't see a column for "Paperwork Quality", so why should it suddenly have a say just because the league's registration processes can be done in error. 

If he'd already run through his 93 days and couldn't be eligible anymore, that would be one thing, but if they had done the paperwork correctly in the first place, it would have been fine. Judging by the fact that we didn't say anything about him not rocking up at Moor Farm, I'd assume that there were no issues with us not wanting him to stay either.

As for your analogy, I don't really see the relevance here. I don't think anyone's claimed that they would be against a fine for such. If you were talking about your company being wound up because of a paperwork error, there are generally enough protections in place to prevent that being an issue. In football however, there are no such protections, the league doesn't check teamsheets to prevent such errors, and don't put their hands in on such things. So they are very different scenarios.