| The EFL decision was the correct outcome 16:14 - Sep 25 with 738 views | IP1Blue |
Be interesting to see what the votes were considering the 3 champ clubs abstained and it only being a majority decision meaning other clubs voted against us. I understand them looking at changing the rules now however this should have been cut and dry in the rules already but past similar situations means only a full replay is acceptable however unfair on one team.
1:Has to be replayed, the rules at the moment only push that narrative and past decisions show that that it should be replayed unless BOTH teams agree - the score and red card IMO is irrelevant, as the pitch was unplayable and anything can happen in a game of football!! What’s to say they give a way a penalty and get a red card in the 86th min, football is to unpredictable! e.g if arsenal vs Newcastle pitch was deemed unplayable back in 2011 when it was 4-4 in the 70th minute when Arsenal were winning 4-0, when nobody ever thought Newcastle could get back into it then I don’t think people would have minded. However what that game shows is that anything can happen in a small amount of time in football and having 10 minutes plus a hefty amount of injury time to go means that you have no choice but to replay it even if you are 4-0 up and the other team have 2 sending offs. It doesn’t matter what the % chance of something happening is and low that might be, if there is a chance then that team deserves to have the opportunity to at least have a go.
2:The goal has to be wiped from Cantwells record as the league can’t let Cantrell have 47 games to score from in race for golden boot (NOT saying he’s in the running)
3:The greaves red card has to stand - if his red card for example was for badly injuring a Blackburn player, to then not get punished for it would not be right so the red card has to stand for that reason |  | | |  |
| The EFL decision was the correct outcome on 16:56 - Sep 25 with 632 views | bsw72 |
It makes sense that the board members who are also club directors in the Championship abstained - they could not be seen to influence or act in favour of another club in the division.
That means it was left to Liam Scully (Lincoln City) Julian Tagg (Exeter City), Charles Grant (Crewe Alexandra), plus Rick Parry and Trevor Birch. Not sure whether the non exec directors get a vote (Caroline Artis and Justine Roberts CBE). [Post edited 25 Sep 16:56]
|  | | |
| The EFL decision was the correct outcome on 17:10 - Sep 25 with 599 views | tommcd |
I've seen several posters suggest that because it was only a 'majority' decision it means that some of the panel must have voted for an option other than a full replay.
The way I interpreted it is that it means a 'majority' of the panel, which would mean 5 (or more) from 8. Three abstained (understandably / sensibly), so the remaining 5 must have all voted for the full replay to be considered a 'majority'.
Same logic in the terminology in a court / jury setting I think. A 'majority' verdict would be 7 (or more) in agreement from a jury of 12, number of abstentions doesn't come into it (nor reduce the 'majority' threshold below 7).
Or have I got completely the wrong end of the stick? |  | | |
| The EFL decision was the correct outcome on 17:13 - Sep 25 with 575 views | bsw72 |
| The EFL decision was the correct outcome on 17:10 - Sep 25 by tommcd |
I've seen several posters suggest that because it was only a 'majority' decision it means that some of the panel must have voted for an option other than a full replay.
The way I interpreted it is that it means a 'majority' of the panel, which would mean 5 (or more) from 8. Three abstained (understandably / sensibly), so the remaining 5 must have all voted for the full replay to be considered a 'majority'.
Same logic in the terminology in a court / jury setting I think. A 'majority' verdict would be 7 (or more) in agreement from a jury of 12, number of abstentions doesn't come into it (nor reduce the 'majority' threshold below 7).
Or have I got completely the wrong end of the stick? |
No, you're right - it's a safe bet the voting was 7-0 with 3 abstentions. [Post edited 25 Sep 17:14]
| | | |
| The EFL decision was the correct outcome on 17:29 - Sep 25 with 485 views | J2BLUE |
| The EFL decision was the correct outcome on 17:10 - Sep 25 by tommcd |
I've seen several posters suggest that because it was only a 'majority' decision it means that some of the panel must have voted for an option other than a full replay.
The way I interpreted it is that it means a 'majority' of the panel, which would mean 5 (or more) from 8. Three abstained (understandably / sensibly), so the remaining 5 must have all voted for the full replay to be considered a 'majority'.
Same logic in the terminology in a court / jury setting I think. A 'majority' verdict would be 7 (or more) in agreement from a jury of 12, number of abstentions doesn't come into it (nor reduce the 'majority' threshold below 7).
Or have I got completely the wrong end of the stick? |
I didn't put quite as much thought into it but I agree, I didn't automatically assume some voted against the replay. Majority just means more than half. 100% of all voters is a majority and while some might say 'why not say unanimously then?'; we all know how carefully worded these things are. |  |
| |
| The EFL decision was the correct outcome on 17:29 - Sep 25 with 480 views | tommcd |
| The EFL decision was the correct outcome on 17:13 - Sep 25 by bsw72 |
No, you're right - it's a safe bet the voting was 7-0 with 3 abstentions. [Post edited 25 Sep 17:14]
|
Thanks, I think you mean "5-0 with 3 abstentions" ?
Probably my fault for complicating my post with the 'court / jury' scenario using different numbers! | | | |
| The EFL decision was the correct outcome on 19:54 - Sep 25 with 297 views | bsw72 |
| The EFL decision was the correct outcome on 17:29 - Sep 25 by tommcd |
Thanks, I think you mean "5-0 with 3 abstentions" ?
Probably my fault for complicating my post with the 'court / jury' scenario using different numbers! |
No. There are 10 on the board and 3 abstained. | | | |
| The EFL decision was the correct outcome on 20:01 - Sep 25 with 265 views | Cafe_Newman |
The most likely decision came to fruition but we will do well to remember this if we ever find ourselves in Blackburn's situation in future.
The Rain Gods - it would appear - are on our side. It's important that we make it count.
COYB |  | | |
| The EFL decision was the correct outcome on 20:14 - Sep 25 with 213 views | Linners |
I'm more than happy to let this lie now, but Blackburn's 'threat' to appeal is starting to come across as a bit tin-pot.
They were unlucky, certainly, but it's not like they've given us the points. Play well in the rearranged game and they may well win.
They're starting to look a bit desperate. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The EFL decision was the correct outcome on 20:19 - Sep 25 with 178 views | Cafe_Newman |
| The EFL decision was the correct outcome on 20:14 - Sep 25 by Linners |
I'm more than happy to let this lie now, but Blackburn's 'threat' to appeal is starting to come across as a bit tin-pot.
They were unlucky, certainly, but it's not like they've given us the points. Play well in the rearranged game and they may well win.
They're starting to look a bit desperate. |
Tinpot indeed.
If they pip us to the play-off positions on a superior goal difference of +1 after beating us by three clear goals in the rearranged fixture, they'll look back on their whining now with some embarrassment. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
