Huddersfield in trouble over weakened side.

[Royalwaster]

5ft 6?

I didn't know they stacked shit that high.

Give it a break - OK he's a terrible manager, but he's a nice guy and was an amazing player. So while I rejoice everytime an opposing team appoint him as a manager, I'd not stoop so low as to abuse him in this way.

[From Despair To Where?]

Lighten up, it was a joke.

As I said on here when he got sacked, nice bloke, great player, shit manager

[genome]

Huddersfield's team against Birmingham was AFAIK, the same team (minus I think one player) that drew with a near full-strength Man City.

So... *shrugs*

[Hoop Blah]

As much as a manager has some right to pick his team as he sees fit for any fixture it's clear that making ten changes to a side is fielding a weakened side regardless of how good those players that play are. A few changes here and there is acceptable and normal and can be excused as rotation, changing basically the whole side isn't.

Giving the the excuse that it's up to other teams to amount enough points over the rest of the season to make any one game versus a weakened side irrelevant is also daft because whatever happened over the rest of the season that one result has potentially changed the standings significantly.

[From Despair To Where?]

But it's ok for a full strength Aston Villa team to put in a totally gutless performance, devoid of effort against another team fighting against relegation.

Its swings and roundabouts and in this case, the law is an ass. One match our of 522 does not make any more or any less difference than any other. These are first team squad players playing in a first team game.

[Hound]

Its a bullshit ruling with too many grey areas that is rarely enforced and even when it is, there's little more than a slap on the wrist.

and it happens every year. Its probably wrong of Wagner to play a weakened side (and it clearly was), but likewise would they have done any better if the first team had played and only put in 75% to try to prevent themselves getting injured.

Its a very difficult rule to enforce and doing anything meaningful on it. So it will keep happening. Just a shame this time it benefitted crooked 'Arry. I can only imagine the whingeing if it had been him on the receiving end of it

[genome]

As much as a manager has some right to pick his team as he sees fit for any fixture it's clear that making ten changes to a side is fielding a weakened side regardless of how good those players that play are.

Why? Nothing to stop Wagner saying that he thinks those players are of equal ability... the rule is far too vague.

[From Despair To Where?]

And as far as I see it, a £50,000 fine doesn't cut it. If they want it to be taken seriously, they have to define what constitutes a weakened team and then have a proper punishment, say a 3pt deduction carried over to the next season.

Do clubs then have to submit a first choice of 15 and a back up squad and then present a disposition saying Player A is now a first choice because player B is injured and Player C is out of form?

Or do you just have a vague first team squad of 25-30 players augmented with a handful of the bright talents from the academy and you pick whoever you want for your matchday squad?

Its unenforceable.

[Nameless]

The rule is exactly as it should be. To be absolutely specific would be impossible and simply provide a clear set of things to find ways round.
The rule as it stands establishes a principle of fair play. Wagner knowingly and deliberately flouted it. As I said pr viously, he'll get a small fine and have achieved his objective for his club. Which is his job !
I agree that it is no better to send out a full strength side that just doesn't try, but I doubt sides do that under preplanned instructions from their manager.
Listing how many career appearances players have misses the point, despite having played 400 games or score twice recently these players collectively represent a weaker sid than their usual one. The fact that they played well against City in the cup,is also irrelevant, unless you think Lincoln could hold their own in the Championship based on a couple of dec not cup results.
I hope Wagner never finds himself relying on another club to do him a favour.....

[NewCorkSeth]

And as far as I see it, a £50,000 fine doesn't cut it. If they want it to be taken seriously, they have to define what constitutes a weakened team and then have a proper punishment, say a 3pt deduction carried over to the next season.

Do clubs then have to submit a first choice of 15 and a back up squad and then present a disposition saying Player A is now a first choice because player B is injured and Player C is out of form?

Its unenforceable.

Its fairly simple. The governing body reviews the previous 10 league matches (to see whose played recently and how often), reviews league minutes played that season by each player involved in the game in question vs. players not involved (to check for disparity), account for injury and check the number of changes from the last game. If a large quantity of players have been changed (like 10) red flags should be going up immediately.

If, after review suggested above, the players changed into the squad have played significantly less than the other squad players so far that season it is clearly fielding a weakened team (as is the case with the Birmingham game).

This is not the same as making a change for an injured player or changing a player who is out of form. This is 10 changes. He started his reserve team. The same reserve team he put out in a pointless cup tie he expected to lose. That, in and of itself, should be evidence enough he didn't take the Birmingham game seriously.

Final point there is an argument to be made that if you make 10 changes to your regular starting line-up, no matter how strong the players put in are perceived to be, its still a weakened line-up.

[Kuhl_Runnings]

Didn't we play a really weakened side against Watford in 2015 when it was like 2 days before the FA Cup quarter final against Bradford? Don't remember how many changes were made but we didn't get into to trouble IIRC

[John Smith]

And as far as I see it, a £50,000 fine doesn't cut it. If they want it to be taken seriously, they have to define what constitutes a weakened team and then have a proper punishment, say a 3pt deduction carried over to the next season.

Do clubs then have to submit a first choice of 15 and a back up squad and then present a disposition saying Player A is now a first choice because player B is injured and Player C is out of form?

Its unenforceable.

Its fairly simple. The governing body reviews the previous 10 league matches (to see whose played recently and how often), reviews league minutes played that season by each player involved in the game in question vs. players not involved (to check for disparity), account for injury and check the number of changes from the last game. If a large quantity of players have been changed (like 10) red flags should be going up immediately.

If, after review suggested above, the players changed into the squad have played significantly less than the other squad players so far that season it is clearly fielding a weakened team (as is the case with the Birmingham game).

This is not the same as making a change for an injured player or changing a player who is out of form. This is 10 changes. He started his reserve team. The same reserve team he put out in a pointless cup tie he expected to lose. That, in and of itself, should be evidence enough he didn't take the Birmingham game seriously.

Final point there is an argument to be made that if you make 10 changes to your regular starting line-up, no matter how strong the players put in are perceived to be, its still a weakened line-up.

I can't agree with you Seth. I agree with From Despair: he has a squad to pick from, they're good enough to be in the squad and the manager has a right to play who he sees fit.

You're also forgetting Birmingham went down to 10 men and won the game 2-0. That in itself would prove they were always more up for it on the day, regardless of who they faced.

[Vision]

In the previous 3 matches prior to the Birmingham game, Wagner made 4 , 3 and 5 changes respectively. Clearly he had already decided to rotate his squad for the run-in. Whilst 10 changes seems like he's just slung a load of chancers in, looking at in the context of the 5 changes made in the previous game its not a case of him just doing for this game.

Also worth noting that the goalkeeper and Holmes-Dennis aside , every single player he started with against Birmingham had figured in some capacity in those previous 3 games.

[Hampshire Royal]

"The Premier League has changed their rules on so-called 'weakened' teams.

Top-flight clubs will now be allowed to pick any player in their 25-man matchday squad without fear of sanction from the Premier League.

Last season Blackpool were fined £25,000 after manager Ian Holloway made 10 changes for a match at Aston Villa.

And in December 2009 Wolves were handed a suspended fine after boss Mick McCarthy rotated his squad for their game at Manchester United.

The 20 Premier League clubs agreed at their AGM in early June that any combination of players named in their registered 25-man squads will be able to start a match.

The rule has not been totally withdrawn, and clubs will still be at risk of a fine if they select a number of younger players from outside their 25-man squad.

Nick Noble, spokesman at the Premier League said: "The 25-man squad rules do allow clubs to pick under-21 players beyond those named in their squad list and, with this in mind, it was agreed by the clubs that it was appropriate for the rule to remain in place in order to ensure the integrity of the competition."

Last November, Blackpool drew 2-2 at home to Everton, before Holloway then made 10 changes to his starting line up for a match at Aston Villa four days later.

Blackpool lost the match at Villa Park 3-2, with Holloway giving six players their first start in the Premier League.

Holloway defended his selection, saying at the time: "I've got every right to do what I like. Who are they to tell me my players are not good enough?"

He added that the players brought in had cost the club a lot of money, some of whom were internationals.

After the Premier League studied Holloway's selection Blackpool were fined £25,000 in January for distorting the integrity of the competition, a fine they later appealed."

The above was taken from a BBC Sport article on 15 July 2011.

[CountryRoyal]

Didn't we play a really weakened side against Watford in 2015 when it was like 2 days before the FA Cup quarter final against Bradford? Don't remember how many changes were made but we didn't get into to trouble IIRC

Good shout. Seeings how Watford finished 3 points (and a +1GD) above 3rd place if that doesn't constitute affecting possible promotion I don't know what does.

[Nameless]

Does that make it right ?
I would probably have agreed with Brian, it was probably the right thing to do for us, but that misses the point.
Doing what is right for you, but wrong for the rest/the competition isn't necessarily 'right'.
It's the managerial equivalent of the professional foul.

[CountryRoyal]

Does that make it right ?
I would probably have agreed with Brian, it was probably the right thing to do for us, but that misses the point.
Doing what is right for you, but wrong for the rest/the competition isn't necessarily 'right'.
It's the managerial equivalent of the professional foul.

Which is part of the game and has an according punishment which everyone accepts, despite its (at times) considerable subjectivity with regards to offence.

It was Clarke not Brian though.

[Nameless]

To be honest the 'professional foul' is no more subjective than the vast majority of the laws of football. The laws actually state they are essentially subjective, but that is a different topic !
Not sure where this is going. No one can seriously argue that Huddersfield fielded a weakened side, it's laughable to to think that they have 20+ players of equal ability. We'd know what a weakened Reading side looked like, so do Hudds fans.
Wagner shouldn't be locked up, or banned or anything. But 10 changes in a game against a team fighting for survival is unsporting. If he had made 5 changes thenhe'd have been ok, but to simply play all your second choice players (more or less) is insulting.

[Hoop Blah]

But it's ok for a full strength Aston Villa team to put in a totally gutless performance, devoid of effort against another team fighting against relegation.

Its swings and roundabouts and in this case, the law is an ass. One match our of 522 does not make any more or any less difference than any other. These are first team squad players playing in a first team game.

Villa are generally pretty shit and gutless, it's just a measure of their quality, so that is a bit different.

It's one match of 522 because it's only in rare circumstances that a team have the opportunity to do it. If Huddersfield had done the same back in September then I'm sure the league would've raised the question with them then as well. Fact is that they didn't because they didn't want to put out such a weakened side because they weren't in the play offs and resting players for future fixtures.

One game isn't more important than any other no, but if all that keeps Birmingham up is the extra points they won in that game which you'd have expected them to lose 6 or 7 times out of 10 this season, then there is a case to answer.

[From Despair To Where?]

9 of the 11 players where regulars in the first team squad. If they were not considered strong enough players for a team 4th in the league, they wouldn't be in the first team squad. I don't see how it matters if there was a potentially stronger player on the bench, its a squad game, he used his squad and the final standings are worked out over 46 games.

Villa's performance was so shocking, even Steve Bruce questioned the players' professionalism in his post match interview.

I'm not arguing that Huddersfield didn't field a weakened team, I'm arguing that Huddersfield fielded a team of 1st team squad players and I don't really see why it matters that they did. 1 game does not make or break a season.