Comment on Gilt-Edged Justice by Carl31 (@C4rl31).
Re goal line technology…
The interpretation, as I understand things, of whether its a goal when it crosses the line or not, might be a bit different to what has hitherto been the case.
If the ball is heading towards the goal line (between the goalposts and below the crossbar) the game is in a state of being “not-a-goal”.
When the ball crosses that goal line as described, the game status does not cease to be “not-a-goal” immediately, and immediately become “a-goal”, but instead it falls into a category of being ‘liable to have its “not-a-goal” status revoked.
However, full revocation of its “not-a-goal” status must be applied at the time and during the course of play, and cannot be retrospectively applied, i.e. after a bit and having asked Blind Pe….er , I mean …. the able linesman what he saw.
So, even though the ball may be nestling nicely in the back of the net, the game status retains its “not-a-goal” Registration and is eligible as a “not-a-goal” game, albeit in a state of being ‘liable to have its “not-a-goal” status revoked.
Once full revocation takes place, then, and only then, is it “a-goal”.
Even though its as plain as the nose on yer face that its a goal.
🙂 🙂 🙂
Carl31 (@C4rl31) Also Commented
… as if we’ve no got enough Rangerses already!!
“I would also have thought in that case that McKenzie would – if he hadn’t previously been aware of the SFA position – have called also for an adjournment to discuss the matter with his client. Given the vital importance of this section of the evidence I am sure LNS would have been amenable. However, this didn’t appear to happen because McKenzie accepted the SFA position.”
agreed … but I dont think he had ever considered such a perverse interpretation. Thats why it, in McKenzie’s view, needed no checking beforehand. And once Mr Bryson had given his interpretation Mr McKenzie was in no position to argue and neither were the SPL. In this regard, Mr Bryson/the SFA apply the rules. There may be subsequent scope for questioning the competence of this and the legal principles it may violate – but it definitely will not get a re-run of the SPLIC.
“LNS has been told the SFA position which has been confirmed by the SPL, who has brought the case, and it has basically destroyed a major piece of the case. And yet some posters on here seem to think this disaster for the SPL case could be ‘cured’ by LNS providing evidence to the contrary. I don’t know how many times it has to be stated but that is not what LNS is there to do.”
agreed again. LNS was there to have a case proved to him … on balance of probability … not to argue against the SFA Head of Registrations/the SPL/anyone else. The terms and scope were in the Notice of Commission and the rules that enabled it. LNS was to hear the case and judge if it had been proved.
“I am not here to defend LNS but it doesn’t help actually understand what has happened by merely throwing emotive jibes at LNS – that will do nothing for Scottish Football and neither will spurious Golden Principle false trails.”
agreed again except the ‘Golden Rule’ isn’t a false claim – it is worth pursuing. It won’t get a re-run, (or even a replay at home a week later! 🙂 ) but it should continually be pointed out – not dropped.
Neither should the issue of guilty of 3rd party payments.
If LNS judgement leads him to find the charge 3(f) on ‘third party payments’ as guilty, then where is the same ‘Alternate’ analysis that is used in assessing the ‘non-disclosure’ charges?
With this alternate, he claims that EBTs could have been fully declared (since he proceeds on the basis that these EBTs are allowable tax avoidance measures) and thus disclosure rules would not have been broken and thus no sporting advantage was gained by non-disclosure.
But surely it can be seen that ‘third party payments’ rules would have breached with full disclosure?
Hence, its difficult to see how ‘no unfair sporting advantage’ from non-disclosure can be concluded.
Its a glaring hole in the LNS final judgement.
Thats not to say that will get a replay at home a week later, but surely some acknowledgement of this hole in the logic should be given..
“On ‘Sporting Advantage’ I think the concentration should have been on the amount available to pay players through the EBT mechanism. Then there could be many witnesses brought to explain the simple fact that more cash and higher wages, in the main, lets you buy and field better players and also support a larger squad than your competitors.
There could be a counter-argument that results on the field didn’t necessarily reflect an advantage. But at least the argument I believe could be won if done correctly and at the end of the day even if there isn’t a proveable Sporting Advantage it should be enough if the intention was there.”
No. If thats the only criteria, it fails as a criticism. A club cannot be charged with being able to get more funds together, by allowable means, than other clubs. Thats whats been happening across the board. LNS states that EBTs are allowed due to the current status of the FTT. Thats not, nor can it sensible be argued, as any kind of charge against a club.
The issue is if an allowable cash generating scheme breached rules. Theoretically, raising an extra tenner by avoiding tax in an allowable way could still breach the rules. Its not the amount of money that is the problem – it is gaining an unfair advantage by breaking the rules or concealment of the fact a club is breaking the rules.
Recent Comments by Carl31 (@C4rl31)
The Existence of Laws
Ive called for a simple thing, along with many others here…
… for the application of the rules as they stand, in a fair manner.
I dont have much issue with the way Rangers will get round the ‘transfer embargo’, as it seems the same options are open to all clubs, and have been loopholed in the past by Dundee, for instance.
Its when the rules are perversely interpreted, or sidestepped or made up anew to seemingly assist only one club, that seems particularly unfair.
The Existence of Laws
I was under the impression that when HMFC were paying players late, they only managed to pay the players at all by some form of cash injection from the company who own them, UBIG?
I ask because it doesnt align with HMFC operating independently of UBIG for the last 18 months.
Happy to be put right on this one.
The Existence of Laws
On the diving issue, I once had a lengthy discussion with a footy coach at a low level in the game – I found it insightful. A few points to share…
Its a contact sport – sometimes there is very little contact on an attacker and its enough for him to go down but the same kind of or impact contact takes place on another player, or the same player, in different circumstance and they dont go down.
Players go past each other at different speeds, thay have different balance, control etc.
The same player can have different speed and balance when running at different times of the game, especially if tired or playing with injury thats been picked up.
Each time a defending player makes a challenge that doesn’t get the ball or is quite physical, they take the chance that they’ve committed a foul, but that doesnt mean a coach wants shrinking violets on the pitch. They want their players to be physical and use physicality up to the point where its at the edge of being a foul. The top players are best at judging the limit. But this physicality also leads to examples of physical but legal challenges ending with the ‘challenged’ player flopping to the floor – ahem – ‘theatrically’.
There is such a thing as anticipating a challenge – if, through a game and in other areas of the pitch, or in previous games a player has been challenged in a certain way its not unreasonable to anticipate a similar challenge – this lends itself to sometimes some players seeming to go down easy.
Its no coincidence that the guys who get a rep for going down easy are the guys who have a lot of the ball, are fleet of foot and receive more than their fair share of physical challenges and fouls.
The Existence of Laws
Re the Hearts situation:
“It’s a terrible situation and a situation that was always going to develop, the way the club was being run,” the East Fife boss told BBC 5 live.
“But surely today the SPL board can’t relegate Hearts. We’ve already had one of the biggest teams in the world [Rangers] relegated to the lowest division and now we’re going to potentially relegate one of the biggest teams in Scotland as well.
“It’s crazy. We’ve got to keep the top teams in the top league or else there’ll be no competition at all.
“The way the owner of the club was spending money and paying money to players that really wasn’t sustainable.
“It was a crazy situation for the size of club we are, but Hearts can run perfectly well on their own and surely they can’t put them down, they are too big a club. We need all the big clubs in the top league in Scotland as far as I am concerned.”
from bbc story at http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22593734
Is it just me, or are we about to revisit the whole commercial interest v sporting integrity issue again this summer?
With respect to Billy Brown, its not crazy that a club that liquidates starts again from the bottom. The opposite is actually the case, that Scottish Football turns into some kind of WWE type freakshow with choreographed matches should it go down the road of propping up clubs that fail.
The Existence of Laws
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 22:42
“My interpretation would be that the rule was established to capture the “Holding Companies” set-up with their primary business as operating a football club, e.g. RIFC, or Celtic PLC. Additionally I would expect parent companies who provide payments, loans, capital injections, debt forgiveness, DFE swaps etc., to also be targeted.”
it does not seem straightforward, if at all possible, to differentiate for the purposes of these rules, between the owner and operator company that is of the RIFC type, and the others.