How is that relevant. You are the one who used flair context into a debate, this shows more about you than my comments which are purely fact based.
Because both groups have run so far afoul of the rules, it's like being accused of jaywalking by two bank robbers. Filthy rich bank robbers.
You need to digest less British media propaganda then. Just because one is corrupt doesn't make you incompetent at your actual job.
It calls into question the legitimacy of their findings of fact and law. You don't take as gospel the rule of a judge who takes bribes.
It says so right in the Quoted text.
You quoted a section about notice and are pretending it's a section that defines when a "call up" is final for the duration of a tournament. There is no such definition.
The section you quoted doesn't say that the date of the notice is the date the call up goes into legal effect and the relevant statutory prohibitions begin to toll. The notice annex is not a definition of "call up". If it were, it would be in the section of the statute entitled, "definitions." It's not like they hid the dictionary buddy, it's right at the front.
There are plenty of sections adjacent to the one you quote, where it specifies rules for medicals of injured players and what procedures must be followed in that instance. But those aren't definitions. The requirement for the allowance of a medical contained in the adjacent section doesn't mean that when a medical is requested, it's an official call-up.
For example, take the following sentence.
"Individuals wishing to shop at this store must wear pants."
This sentence establishes a requirement that if the customer wants to shop, the customer must wear pants. It does not mean that when a person puts on pants they are then officially shoppers. It's is a necessary, but not necessarily a sufficient condition.
I actually file motions in a court on almost a daily basis. The first step is to file notice of the pending motion. You notify the court and opposing counsel that you intend to move for certain relief on a certain date. But if I show up to court on that date and don't actually make my application for relief, nothing happens. I haven't made my motion. I've fulfilled the law's requirement for notice, thereby giving me the right to move for relief, but I haven't actually moved for relief.
Adverse parties could then reasonably proceed under the assumption that the application was not made and no longer needs to be opposed. Which brings me to this.
The infringement occurred on 25 January.
not entitled to play for the club with which he is registered during the period for which he has been released or should have been released pursuant to the provisions of this annexe.
It cannot be that the player "should have been released" and therefore an infringement occurred on 25 January. It was impossible for West Ham to release the player at that time, as the deadline for picking squads had already passed by 3 weeks, and the player was unable to physically travel to Senegal. Senegal never showed up to court, so to speak, to follow-up on their motion they gave notice of. They could have selected him for the squad and therefore locking in their exclusivity. If he became healthy, as he did, we would have no right to him. But at the time the call-up had to be made official, which under the rules of ACON was required on 7-1, Senegal did not select Sakho. He was unavailable due to injury on THAT DAY, not 25-1. If we played him on that day, or within the statutory grace period, you would be right. But we did not.