The Ref Stop

Bournemouth and Goal Line Technology

The Ref Stop
Justylove said:
Championship there are a number of things going on related to FFP irregularities, specifically around how stadium assets were accounted for. There are a number of clubs that could get dragged down into the relegation zone depending on the outcome and how severe any penalties imposed might be.

L2 there is a challenge around the Stevenage/Macclesfield points deduction situation.
Click to expand...

Championship - Wigan have appealed their 12 point deduction and if successful that will relegate Barnsley. Sheffield Wednesday and Derby have been charged with aggravated breaches of financial fair play which carries a maximum deduction of 21 points, so if both found guilty and given maximum punishment Wigan would escape regardless of their appeal as would Charlton. Just a 9 point deduction would relegate Wednesday and save Charlton. It is all a bit of a mess, especially as Wednesday were charged over 8 months ago and Derby 6 months ago.
 
RustyRef said:
Championship - Wigan have appealed their 12 point deduction and if successful that will relegate Barnsley. Sheffield Wednesday and Derby have been charged with aggravated breaches of financial fair play which carries a maximum deduction of 21 points, so if both found guilty and given maximum punishment Wigan would escape regardless of their appeal as would Charlton. Just a 9 point deduction would relegate Wednesday and save Charlton. It is all a bit of a mess, especially as Wednesday were charged over 8 months ago and Derby 6 months ago.
Click to expand...
For once, it's nice to see these things play out as we're not involved.

As a league administrator I know this sort of stuff doesn't just stop in the professional game either. Currently trying to wade through complications over player registrations in my own league. Just read the rules people and stick to them.
 
Brian Hamilton said:
Like @socal lurker I believe this is a publicity stunt. If we look at this as a single incident then there is an error, a single error, that cannot be denied. It must however be considered on this basis

  1. if the goal had been given, it would have immediately and irrevocably changed the dynamics of that game. It would have impacted on each and every subsequent moment and action that occurred in that game, possibly resulting in a different result or the same result.
  2. if the result had changed, that would have changed the dynamic of each and every subsequent game played in that competition.
  3. if the result had remained the same, it is possible that some other fact may have changed, for example a sanction or injury being incurred by a player. The result of this may have changed the the dynamic of each and every subsequent game played in that competition by that player
  4. prior to the commencement of any season, the rules governing the basis on which the competition will operate are voted on and agreed by the AGM of the competition, which is made up of representatives of all the member clubs
  5. these rules are likely to refer to the protocol which will apply in the case of a malfunction or failure of any technology intended to support or supplement the decision making process adopted by the match officials
  6. within the rules agreed, there is a commitment by each and every participant to adhere to and accept the competition rules
  7. within the laws of football, there is a stipulation that the decisions of the referee... are final
For Bournemouth to have any chance of success, they would have to demonstrate that everything which followed after that decision remained the same, i.e. every tackle, sanction, injury, substitution, official decision and result would have to have been unchanged. They would also have to demonstrate that they did not accept the adoption of the competition rules nor did they accept the authority of the match official in this or any other game.

Point 4 applies to Tranmere as they will have been party to the meeting which agreed PPG and also have given their agreement to accept the outcome of said meeting as binding. And they used to laugh at me for my insistence that match officials had a copy of the competition rules for every competition in which they took part. It seems some clubs need to read the small print as well.
Click to expand...
While I don't think you're wrong in reality, I don't think the butterfly effect generally has a huge amount of legal standing. Judges/juries can only decide based on what happened, it's not their place to speculate on an infinite number of branching hypothetical universes. Points 1-3 are fair and reasonable to discuss between us, but would result in a lawyer being laughed out of court if he tried to base his entire case on them.

If there is a defence from the FA/PL, it will be made based on your point 4 and 5. Point 6 I would assume is inarguably true, so will just be mentioned as a fact and then they go on to discuss the details of those competition rules.

Point 7 is an interesting one. I doubt it will come down to this, but I can't help feeling just because football's rulebook is called the laws of the game, I don't think that magically makes it a legal document. If something occurred that pitched the LOTG against the laws of the land, the LOTG would be out of the window in a heartbeat. The only thing that might save it is a variation on your point 6 - the fact the teams chose to sign up to it. But that still doesn't make it 100% ironclad.
 
GraemeS said:
While I don't think you're wrong in reality, I don't think the butterfly effect generally has a huge amount of legal standing. Judges/juries can only decide based on what happened, it's not their place to speculate on an infinite number of branching hypothetical universes. Points 1-3 are fair and reasonable to discuss between us, but would result in a lawyer being laughed out of court if he tried to base his entire case on them.

If there is a defence from the FA/PL, it will be made based on your point 4 and 5. Point 6 I would assume is inarguably true, so will just be mentioned as a fact and then they go on to discuss the details of those competition rules.

Point 7 is an interesting one. I doubt it will come down to this, but I can't help feeling just because football's rulebook is called the laws of the game, I don't think that magically makes it a legal document. If something occurred that pitched the LOTG against the laws of the land, the LOTG would be out of the window in a heartbeat. The only thing that might save it is a variation on your point 6 - the fact the teams chose to sign up to it. But that still doesn't make it 100% ironclad.
Click to expand...
There is a long standing principle in litigation, of which many forum users will be aware, known as "consequential loss". It is a loss which is incurred indirectly as a result of damage or action. The loss is regarded as exceptional and unrecoverable. I think that better describes the impact of the butterfly effect on Bournemouth's case and thank you for raising that point.

On the aspect of Bournemouth's prior commitment to a rule of which they have now fallen foul, they will struggle to wriggle out from under that one. Their only argument would be that the terms of contract between themselves and the competition organisers was unfairly weighted in favour of the organisers. I don't think it will ever get near a challenge of rules vs LoTG vs statute. The only body likely to be able to push that one would be a highly resourced insurance company who would be seeking to excuse themselves from a pay out under a policy taken to protect against consequential loss. Oh look, we're back where we started.
 
Also litigation like this will take years, what will they do, delay the start of the season until it’s resolved?

Bournemouth are already selling off players, talk of Wilson going for as little as £10m just to get his £110k per week wages off the books.

It’s going to be an interesting story to follow, if indeed it becomes a story beyond press speculation.
 
Brian Hamilton said:
Like @socal lurker I believe this is a publicity stunt. If we look at this as a single incident then there is an error, a single error, that cannot be denied. It must however be considered on this basis

  1. if the goal had been given, it would have immediately and irrevocably changed the dynamics of that game. It would have impacted on each and every subsequent moment and action that occurred in that game, possibly resulting in a different result or the same result.
  2. if the result had changed, that would have changed the dynamic of each and every subsequent game played in that competition.
  3. if the result had remained the same, it is possible that some other fact may have changed, for example a sanction or injury being incurred by a player. The result of this may have changed the the dynamic of each and every subsequent game played in that competition by that player
  4. prior to the commencement of any season, the rules governing the basis on which the competition will operate are voted on and agreed by the AGM of the competition, which is made up of representatives of all the member clubs
  5. these rules are likely to refer to the protocol which will apply in the case of a malfunction or failure of any technology intended to support or supplement the decision making process adopted by the match officials
  6. within the rules agreed, there is a commitment by each and every participant to adhere to and accept the competition rules
  7. within the laws of football, there is a stipulation that the decisions of the referee... are final
For Bournemouth to have any chance of success, they would have to demonstrate that everything which followed after that decision remained the same, i.e. every tackle, sanction, injury, substitution, official decision and result would have to have been unchanged. They would also have to demonstrate that they did not accept the adoption of the competition rules nor did they accept the authority of the match official in this or any other game.

Point 4 applies to Tranmere as they will have been party to the meeting which agreed PPG and also have given their agreement to accept the outcome of said meeting as binding. And they used to laugh at me for my insistence that match officials had a copy of the competition rules for every competition in which they took part. It seems some clubs need to read the small print as well.
Click to expand...

Exacatly that and add to that all the other 'wrong' decisions in all the other 38 games every team played and there is no chance of legal action/compensation claim being successful.
 
I was pondering this further, and I think this is an example of a lawsuit that would be more likely to be filed in the US than in the UK. Generally speaking, in the US, the winner of a lawsuit still has to pay for their own legal costs, but in England the loser has to pay of the legal costs of the winner. While there are arguments in favor of both systems, it the British system is a clear disincentive to file expensive lawsuits with little chance of success.

I don't recall any US litigation over a professional game. There have been several cases of litigation over high school playoff games, which typically end up with a decision that there is not a legally protected interest in the call by a referee that is able to be litigated. (I believe where they have been successful in getting injunctive relief (and only a couple of times) is where a governing body has done something after the fact that is contrary to written rules of running the organization, such as permitting an appeal when appeals are expressly forbidden by the rules of competition. Some of these get further complicated when it is a school district making decisions, as the school district is a government entity that triggers additional legal considerations.)
 
socal lurker said:
I was pondering this further, and I think this is an example of a lawsuit that would be more likely to be filed in the US than in the UK. Generally speaking, in the US, the winner of a lawsuit still has to pay for their own legal costs, but in England the loser has to pay of the legal costs of the winner. While there are arguments in favor of both systems, it the British system is a clear disincentive to file expensive lawsuits with little chance of success.

I don't recall any US litigation over a professional game. There have been several cases of litigation over high school playoff games, which typically end up with a decision that there is not a legally protected interest in the call by a referee that is able to be litigated. (I believe where they have been successful in getting injunctive relief (and only a couple of times) is where a governing body has done something after the fact that is contrary to written rules of running the organization, such as permitting an appeal when appeals are expressly forbidden by the rules of competition. Some of these get further complicated when it is a school district making decisions, as the school district is a government entity that triggers additional legal considerations.)
Click to expand...

Blimey! 🤯
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top