| Boro going up would be a complete farce! 19:15 - May 19 with 4975 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
I kind of welcome the EFL call but Jesus, they should not be rewarded for their joke of a season since March.
|  |
| |  |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:13 - May 20 with 408 views | bartyg |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 15:56 - May 20 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
Oh DW, I take downvotes are a badge of honor by some of the takes around here. If you can't understand a team winning a SF and preparing for their opponent for a week and then 3 days before having to prepare for a different one in the biggest game in English football being unfair, then that's on you. Especially in the context of the way those 2 games went for Boro.
The EFL have been backed into a corner, but Boro have been massively lucky here, let's does not pretend otherwise.
Maybe listen to that Boro podcast I linked and see his view. Boro have not earned their place in this final on the pitch by some of their own fanbase's admission. Sure, that's not their fault that Saints broke a rule off the pitch but they have gained a huge break to just advance. The idea this isn't a discussion and won't be if they go up is plain stupid. Let's just hope for footballs sakes Hull win. [Post edited 20 May 15:58]
|
Boro have benefitted, yes, but in lieu of a time machine I'm not sure there was a cleaner outcome here? |  |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:14 - May 20 with 404 views | positivity |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:04 - May 20 by badadski |
I think the safest punishment would have been discounting Soton from playoffs and having 7th placed team to take their place. I don't like the Middlesbrough get out of jail for free card, losing and still progressing regardless of the spying against them as their is every chance they would have lost even without the spy gate.
It would have been more just that they have to play against the next best team to prove their worth before playing finalists. That's just my thoughts as how much advantage can truly be attained from spying for 30 mins on one training session that cant have been gotten out of a whole seasons worth of match play and data analytics? |
so boro play wrexham who've been on the beach for 2 weeks, while hull kick their heels for another week? hull are prepped for a game on saturday, they're not daft, they'l have prepared for the possibility of soton and boro.
don't see your scenario being an advantage for hull, quite the opposite! |  |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:17 - May 20 with 390 views | Bellevue_Blue |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:12 - May 20 by NedPlimpton |
Sorry, i don't really see what the distinguishing features of a direct vs indirect impact on the game are. They both have an impact on the game and therefore the outcome, no?
With spying you can nullify an opponents threat from set pieces, find out how they're likely to set up, find out if certain players are back from injury, get insights into tactics etc. All of which could potentially have a huge impact on the outcome of a match. Probably more so than whether an ineligible player is playing, who could have a shocker on the day, or get injured in the first minute etc
Not really seeing how direct impact vs indirect impact makes any difference |
All of this is speculative legally speaking ..
"With spying you can nullify an opponents threat from set pieces, find out how they're likely to set up, find out if certain players are back from injury, get insights into tactics etc."
You can't dispute if someone was involved in a game. The ineligible player physically participated in the game when they were not allowed to. Every tackle, pass, interception, shot etc they contributed is therefore a direct consequence of the breach.
With spying, the breach is obviously serious, but the competitive impact is much harder to isolate and prove because there isn’t that same direct link between the infringement and actions within the match itself. | | | |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:17 - May 20 with 388 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:11 - May 20 by positivity |
boro were massively lucky to play a team who thought the only way they could beat them was to cheat on them? that's a novel take!
could just as easily argue that hull were massively lucky to beat a millwall team who played beneath their capabilities!
from a selfish point of view, i'd love hull to win as they're clearly a poorer opponent than boro (as the 2 games against them, the 7 point deficit and the gd deficit of 21 shows).
however, from a justice point of view and for football's sake, the better team should win, which is boro.
hull will be properly prepared, boro's minds will be all over the place, if anyone has an advantage it's the tigers |
Boro said they were preparing in case. They only had one team that could be their opponent, Hull (apparently) had two but were obviously preparing for Southampton. They are massively disadvantaged. Also, Boro lost after missing 27 chances at home again! | |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:19 - May 20 with 378 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:08 - May 20 by Bellevue_Blue |
What relevance does a horse race/ Olympic games have on the EFL and the Playoffs?
Take the emotion out of it and create an argument based on the relevant rules. Don't needlessly insult people because they don't agree with you! |
Exactly!
Let's also not forget that a team that actually won their SF have had their preparation thrown into disarray. | |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:22 - May 20 with 365 views | Ryorry |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:08 - May 20 by Bellevue_Blue |
What relevance does a horse race/ Olympic games have on the EFL and the Playoffs?
Take the emotion out of it and create an argument based on the relevant rules. Don't needlessly insult people because they don't agree with you! |
Not much any of us can do about your inability to see comparisons or think logically. |  |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:22 - May 20 with 361 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:22 - May 20 by Ryorry |
Not much any of us can do about your inability to see comparisons or think logically. |
You're getting testy when challenged eh | |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:23 - May 20 with 351 views | itfcjoe |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:19 - May 20 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
Exactly!
Let's also not forget that a team that actually won their SF have had their preparation thrown into disarray. |
Not because of anything Boro have done though |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:25 - May 20 with 346 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:13 - May 20 by bartyg |
Boro have benefitted, yes, but in lieu of a time machine I'm not sure there was a cleaner outcome here? |
At least you're saying they benefitted it was hard to get that out of some of them.
I agree a very tough choice for the EFL to make, personally I think Hull should have gone up or they should have suspended the first playoff game as soon as they charged them before the first leg. | |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:28 - May 20 with 336 views | Bellevue_Blue |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:22 - May 20 by Ryorry |
Not much any of us can do about your inability to see comparisons or think logically. |
Comparisons only work if the regulatory frameworks are comparable. A horse race, the Olympics and the EFL playoffs all operate under different governing rules, disciplinary structures and precedents.
The relevant question isn’t “is spying bad?” or "should they be punished?" — everyone agrees it is and they should.
The question is whether the EFL regulations and precedent make expulsion or forfeiture procedurally straightforward in this specific competition. That’s a much more nuanced argument than simply saying “cheating = automatic disqualification and progression for Boro” | | | |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:30 - May 20 with 329 views | Ryorry |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:02 - May 20 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
You should consult an EFL rule book before calling any of this simple. |
If you apply your own logic as you've previously stated, ITFC shouldn't have been promoted because we played badly for part of the season, and were inconsistent for another part of it.
Your arguments just don't add up - no need to take my word for it, numerous people with solid reps on here have told you this repeatedly. No idea why you're continuing to dig. | |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:30 - May 20 with 329 views | NedPlimpton |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:17 - May 20 by Bellevue_Blue |
All of this is speculative legally speaking ..
"With spying you can nullify an opponents threat from set pieces, find out how they're likely to set up, find out if certain players are back from injury, get insights into tactics etc."
You can't dispute if someone was involved in a game. The ineligible player physically participated in the game when they were not allowed to. Every tackle, pass, interception, shot etc they contributed is therefore a direct consequence of the breach.
With spying, the breach is obviously serious, but the competitive impact is much harder to isolate and prove because there isn’t that same direct link between the infringement and actions within the match itself. |
I get what you're saying, but surely the issue isn't the impact on the outcome of the game, it's that an offence has happened?
The severity of the punishment should match the potential impact that something has on a game. For those those clubs that field an ineligible player, they don't only get chucked out of the competition if he has a good game. They get DQ'd because the offence happened
I don't think you'd need to prove that the infringement impacted the outcome of the game. Just that the infringement happened in the first place |  | | |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:41 - May 20 with 289 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:30 - May 20 by Ryorry |
If you apply your own logic as you've previously stated, ITFC shouldn't have been promoted because we played badly for part of the season, and were inconsistent for another part of it.
Your arguments just don't add up - no need to take my word for it, numerous people with solid reps on here have told you this repeatedly. No idea why you're continuing to dig. |
What? We got more points than Boro and finished second.
I never said they didn't deserve their place in the playoffs, they just fluffed autos and the first leg, ran out of gas but now have some kind of bye by default, which throws the other semifinalist winner into a huge disadvantage for preparation. Very fortunate. | |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:49 - May 20 with 271 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:22 - May 20 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
You're getting testy when challenged eh |
That's rich coming from you. You've been testy with everyone who disagrees with you in this thread!
Just because one Boro podcaster agrees with you doesn't suddenly make you right. If their fanbase is anything like ours on here it'll be equally full of miserable moaners.
And this constant thing about Boro missing chances - the EFL can't legislate on stuff like that, all they can do is remove the team that cheated. It's very lucky for Boro that Saints cheated, but it's not their fault. They didn't ask them to cheat!
Boro might not deserve to go through on how they played, but then Hull don't deserve to go up without having to play a final either. Hull finished 6th, well behind the rest above them. Why should they benefit from Southampton's cheating more than the team who actually played them?! |  |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:53 - May 20 with 263 views | positivity |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:17 - May 20 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
Boro said they were preparing in case. They only had one team that could be their opponent, Hull (apparently) had two but were obviously preparing for Southampton. They are massively disadvantaged. Also, Boro lost after missing 27 chances at home again! |
utter nonsense, hull would be completely negligent if they failed to prefer for boro, when that was an obvious possibility!
boro's playings were poleaxed after losing in the second half off extra time against a cheating team, then mentally on the bench, then the faint glimmer of hope, then the hope and uncertainty, if they are ready for saturday they've done brilliantly.
boro losing after making 27 chances, doesn't change anything, makes them unluckier if anything! | |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:53 - May 20 with 262 views | Bellevue_Blue |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:30 - May 20 by NedPlimpton |
I get what you're saying, but surely the issue isn't the impact on the outcome of the game, it's that an offence has happened?
The severity of the punishment should match the potential impact that something has on a game. For those those clubs that field an ineligible player, they don't only get chucked out of the competition if he has a good game. They get DQ'd because the offence happened
I don't think you'd need to prove that the infringement impacted the outcome of the game. Just that the infringement happened in the first place |
I'm certainly not disputing that a rule breach occurred.
The disagreement stems from whether you can use precedent and punishments from ineligible player cases to justify expulsion in this case when the regulations treat the two offences differently.
With an ineligible player, those punishments exist because the breach directly affects participation in the match itself. Someone who was not entitled to play physically took part in the game, which is why the regulations around ineligible players explicitly reference sanctions like forfeits, replay orders and expulsion.
With spying, the regulations are drafted much more broadly and don't specifically reference expulsion or match forfeiture in the same way.
So my point isn't that the rule break should not be punished in a proper way. It's that using ineligible player precedents as though they're directly comparable legally or procedurally doesn't really work. | | | |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:55 - May 20 with 255 views | positivity |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:19 - May 20 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
Exactly!
Let's also not forget that a team that actually won their SF have had their preparation thrown into disarray. |
they won their sf against a team who wasn't cheating, they're just lucky they weren't good enough to finish 5th! | |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:58 - May 20 with 249 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:49 - May 20 by The_Flashing_Smile |
That's rich coming from you. You've been testy with everyone who disagrees with you in this thread!
Just because one Boro podcaster agrees with you doesn't suddenly make you right. If their fanbase is anything like ours on here it'll be equally full of miserable moaners.
And this constant thing about Boro missing chances - the EFL can't legislate on stuff like that, all they can do is remove the team that cheated. It's very lucky for Boro that Saints cheated, but it's not their fault. They didn't ask them to cheat!
Boro might not deserve to go through on how they played, but then Hull don't deserve to go up without having to play a final either. Hull finished 6th, well behind the rest above them. Why should they benefit from Southampton's cheating more than the team who actually played them?! |
It' a good debate, pull up a seat and pour a pint. I never said Southampton shouldn't be removed boss. I think Hull are the most wronged here and Boro didn't earn their place in the final on the pitch. | |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:58 - May 20 with 249 views | NedPlimpton |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:53 - May 20 by Bellevue_Blue |
I'm certainly not disputing that a rule breach occurred.
The disagreement stems from whether you can use precedent and punishments from ineligible player cases to justify expulsion in this case when the regulations treat the two offences differently.
With an ineligible player, those punishments exist because the breach directly affects participation in the match itself. Someone who was not entitled to play physically took part in the game, which is why the regulations around ineligible players explicitly reference sanctions like forfeits, replay orders and expulsion.
With spying, the regulations are drafted much more broadly and don't specifically reference expulsion or match forfeiture in the same way.
So my point isn't that the rule break should not be punished in a proper way. It's that using ineligible player precedents as though they're directly comparable legally or procedurally doesn't really work. |
Fair enough
For what it's worth I don't think the ineligible player comparison has been used to justify the severity of the punishment, more to show what happens when a punishment of this nature takes place. i.e. the other team get a bye | | | |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:59 - May 20 with 245 views | positivity |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:30 - May 20 by Ryorry |
If you apply your own logic as you've previously stated, ITFC shouldn't have been promoted because we played badly for part of the season, and were inconsistent for another part of it.
Your arguments just don't add up - no need to take my word for it, numerous people with solid reps on here have told you this repeatedly. No idea why you're continuing to dig. |
he was the same, when he was the board's chief trump cheerleader on here. everyone told him he'd be a narcissistic disaster, but he was set on it.
once he has a view he will defend it to the death against all logic and evidence; the comical ali of twtd | |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 17:08 - May 20 with 217 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:58 - May 20 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
It' a good debate, pull up a seat and pour a pint. I never said Southampton shouldn't be removed boss. I think Hull are the most wronged here and Boro didn't earn their place in the final on the pitch. |
I never said you did say Southampton shouldn't be removed, err boss.
You're making a straw man to avoid addressing what I've actually said.
I'll reframe it: Why do Hull deserve to go up without having to play a final?
Why should they benefit from Southampton's cheating more than the team who actually played them?! | |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 17:16 - May 20 with 202 views | Jon_456 |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 16:58 - May 20 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
It' a good debate, pull up a seat and pour a pint. I never said Southampton shouldn't be removed boss. I think Hull are the most wronged here and Boro didn't earn their place in the final on the pitch. |
You keep going on and on about Boro not earning their chance to be in the final.
Don’t know how many times it needs to be said. They weren’t given a fair chance to do so when their opponent cheated. | | | |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 17:33 - May 20 with 179 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 14:21 - May 20 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
No but you couldn’t even understand that Town getting a point at WBA was good so I doubt you’ll understand my point here. |
 |  |
| |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 18:46 - May 20 with 144 views | Smoresy |
If the winning team is found to have breached a competition's rules, isn't it normal practice for the loser to progress instead? Giving the winner of the other tie a bye feels more weird to me, and even moreso when the loser in this case was the victim of said breach.
Hull going up would be in our best interests, agree there. [Post edited 20 May 18:48]
| | | |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 18:49 - May 20 with 129 views | armchaircritic59 |
| Boro going up would be a complete farce! on 19:16 - May 19 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Sunderlands end to last season was hopeless. |
It was, because they knew they had a play off spot wrapped up well before the end and had no chance of the automatics. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
