| How can southampton appeal when they have admitted their offences ? 07:23 - May 20 with 1401 views | muccletonjoe |
Seems like they are saying we know we have done wrong but the punishment is too harsh . Can they honestly see the EFL overturning it and giving them a crack at a £200m game?
There is absolutely no chance of that happening , imo, more likely to get a 4 point deduction for every breach of rules |  | | |  |
| How can southampton appeal when they have admitted their offences ? on 12:37 - May 20 with 93 views | Bellevue_Blue |
| How can southampton appeal when they have admitted their offences ? on 11:52 - May 20 by Weekender |
Its not about the extent of the advantage arising from the infringement, its the extent of the infringement that is under consideration.
I don't agree that the impact of fielding an ineligible player cannot be argued. To quantify that you would need to know what would have happened if that player had not played and a an eligible player had played in their place. |
They are essentially the same thing in the broader context to be fair but I do take your point.
I just think the ineligible player example is easier to directly connect to the integrity of the actual match itself.
Yes, you can argue hypotheticals around “what would another eligible player have done instead”, but the important bit is that 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.
Proving the rule breach is straightforward, but justifying expulsion as the appropriate sanction for something that did not directly take place within the 180+ minutes of football is a much bigger leap. |  | | |
| How can southampton appeal when they have admitted their offences ? on 13:05 - May 20 with 68 views | Ryorry |
| How can southampton appeal when they have admitted their offences ? on 12:37 - May 20 by Bellevue_Blue |
They are essentially the same thing in the broader context to be fair but I do take your point.
I just think the ineligible player example is easier to directly connect to the integrity of the actual match itself.
Yes, you can argue hypotheticals around “what would another eligible player have done instead”, but the important bit is that 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.
Proving the rule breach is straightforward, but justifying expulsion as the appropriate sanction for something that did not directly take place within the 180+ minutes of football is a much bigger leap. |
Again, the standard 3-0 win awarded to the opposition if there's been any off-field infringement would have resulted in Boro going through on aggregate anyway - ie a totally straightforward expulsion for Soton. |  |
| |
| How can southampton appeal when they have admitted their offences ? on 13:13 - May 20 with 55 views | Bellevue_Blue |
| How can southampton appeal when they have admitted their offences ? on 13:05 - May 20 by Ryorry |
Again, the standard 3-0 win awarded to the opposition if there's been any off-field infringement would have resulted in Boro going through on aggregate anyway - ie a totally straightforward expulsion for Soton. |
Again though, the major English football precedents for 3-0 awards or expulsions all involve the fixture itself being directly compromised in some way:
Middlesbrough F.C. vs Blackburn Rovers F.C. (1996) → Middlesbrough failed to fulfil the fixture. Blackburn awarded 3-0 win.
Blackpool F.C. vs Huddersfield Town A.F.C. (2015) → match abandoned after pitch invasion. Huddersfield awarded 3-0 win.
Swindon Town F.C. vs Luton Town F.C. (2026 Vertu Trophy) → Swindon expelled for fielding ineligible players. Luton reinstated.
I genuinely can’t think of a major English football precedent where a 3-0 reversal or expulsion has happened purely because of an off-field breach that took place outside of the actual match itself.
That’s why I don’t think this is remotely as procedurally straightforward as people are making out. [Post edited 20 May 13:17]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
