| EFL panel to meet today to vote… 10:26 - Sep 25 with 5207 views | SitfcB |
…on the Blackburn outcome.
By Alan Nixon
Ipswich's appeal to replay their game at Blackburn in full will be heard by an eight-person panel today.
And bizarrely one of the key members of the group is from deadly rivals Norwich City.
The Canaries nominee Zoe Webber is one of THREE Championship representatives in the judges.
Others include Middlesbrough, who are a key promotion rival to Ipswich, and Preston.
Lower division clubs have three votes while two of the EFL execs are also in on the discussions and final vote.
The decision has become a loaded issue as Blackburn want the result to stand after the 80th minute abandonment or just the replay of the closing stages against ten men.
Ipswich wants the full game and okayed 11v11 to make this a major row - that will be settled by many with a big interest in the outcome. |  |
| |  |
| Kind of my point on 14:53 - Sep 25 with 283 views | Dyland |
| Is this real? on 14:35 - Sep 25 by SuffolkPunchFC |
"EDIT: Actually literal lollers this going to a vote! Ridiculous. What are the rules ffs! Is the rule that the EFL merry pranksters get to have a vote to decide stuff? Arbitrary to say the least."
There are various reasons that it might need to go to the committee that are NOT related to the decision on replay vs result being awarded e.g.
- the rules say that if the clubs can't agree on a rescheduled date, the EFL with discuss and impose a date
- there are costs that can be awarded to the visiting team for the abandonment, and the EFL will decide on these
- Blackburn pushing for an unreasonable / unprecedented decision
So, before jumping to conclusions, it's useful to understand all the rules and conditions in play. [Post edited 25 Sep 14:47]
|
I'm talking about a decision whether to replay games or not was being voted on by reps from Championship clubs. Which is a ridiculous concept.
My use of the word 'stuff' is possibly misleading :) |  |
| |
| It’s an EFL decision, not the FA. (n/t) on 16:33 - Sep 25 with 129 views | Trequartista |
| It’s an EFL decision, not the FA. (n/t) on 14:23 - Sep 25 by SuffolkPunchFC |
From your question I'm guessing you're not familiar with typical legal documents or contracts? That's not intended as a criticism - few people have this experience.
It is very common with contracts, rulebooks, bylaws, etc for there to be a collection of authorities with a vested interest, and each will have written 'their' rules in isolation. It won't be a case that they wrote them with the intent for them to be in conflict, however given the size of many of these 'legal' documents, and the history (changing regularly over time), it's is almost impossible to be 100% sure that they never get 'out of step'.
It such cases, there is usually one authority that is considered the ultimate authority, and therefore in the subservient authorities' laws you write an article that says that 'in the event of a conflict in the laws/rules, XXX's shall prevail'.
In this case the EFL has this, and the FA>EFL where a conflict arises. |
It was an attempt at satire. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
