Darlo Uncovered

Doesn’t sit well with me tbh, crazy decision!

that is a silly decision.

Correct decision. A match wasn’t completed and this follows precedent.

If anyone has any pangs of sympathy for Boston, don’t. Crush them under your heals like disused cigarette butts.

They didn’t stop play despite two obvious head injuries to Hunt and McMahon. They carried on and scored so I don’t want to hear anything about sportsmanship. They showed us none, so fuck them.

Bring it on and let’s get the three points.

It would be nice to see Nicky Hunt nod in a last minute winner.

Darlogramps wrote:Correct decision. A match wasn’t completed and this follows precedent.

If anyone has any pangs of sympathy for Boston, don’t. Crush them under your heals like disused cigarette butts.

They didn’t stop play despite two obvious head injuries to Hunt and McMahon. They carried on and scored so I don’t want to hear anything about sportsmanship. They showed us none, so fuck them.

Bring it on and let’s get the three points.

This 100%.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:25 pm

Correct decision. A match wasn’t completed and this follows precedent.

Correct as per the rules. Natural justice suggests otherwise . I have no sympathy for Boston but we were well beaten in that game and were heading ,with 2 minutes (?) left, for what we richly deserved out of it: Nowt.


We all know Boston won that game.

MKDarlo wrote:

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:25 pm

Correct decision. A match wasn’t completed and this follows precedent.

Correct as per the rules. Natural justice suggests otherwise . I have no sympathy for Boston but we were well beaten in that game and were heading ,with 2 minutes (?) left, for what we richly deserved out of it: Nowt.


We all know Boston won that game.

No they didn’t. The league has literally just ruled otherwise.

Natural justice? I’d say us smashing them out of sight after they prioritised scoring above the welfare of our players would be natural justice.

I’ve no time for sanctimony or do-gooders.

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:31 pm

MKDarlo wrote:

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:25 pm

Correct decision. A match wasn’t completed and this follows precedent.

Correct as per the rules. Natural justice suggests otherwise . I have no sympathy for Boston but we were well beaten in that game and were heading ,with 2 minutes (?) left, for what we richly deserved out of it: Nowt.


We all know Boston won that game.

No they didn’t. The league has literally just ruled otherwise.

Whatever. I know what the rules say. I also know this doesn't sit well with me. You are welcome to disagree.

MKDarlo wrote:

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:31 pm

MKDarlo wrote:

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:25 pm

Correct decision. A match wasn’t completed and this follows precedent.

Correct as per the rules. Natural justice suggests otherwise . I have no sympathy for Boston but we were well beaten in that game and were heading ,with 2 minutes (?) left, for what we richly deserved out of it: Nowt.


We all know Boston won that game.

No they didn’t. The league has literally just ruled otherwise.

Whatever. I know what the rules say. I also know this doesn't sit well with me. You are welcome to disagree.

You don’t need to invite me to disagree, everyone should know that by now.

We don’t conclude matches at 87 minutes. That’s all there is to it. Otherwise where do you draw the line?

Daft decision. There was no way in the time it took them to score that they would have realised how serious the injury was. Up to the ref to stop play anyway.

HarryCharltonsCat wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:55 pm

Daft decision. There was no way in the time it took them to score that they would have realised how serious the injury was. Up to the ref to stop play anyway.

Correct.
Looks like Gramps is having some kind of meltdown. Perhaps Christmas is bringing out the Scrooge in him !

That is hilarious.

We’d be furious the other way around. Nuts decision. I’ll take it like.

Old Git wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 1:08 pm

HarryCharltonsCat wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:55 pm

Daft decision. There was no way in the time it took them to score that they would have realised how serious the injury was. Up to the ref to stop play anyway.

Correct.
Looks like Gramps is having some kind of meltdown. Perhaps Christmas is bringing out the Scrooge in him !

True, but the referee should have stopped it.

Regardless, they deserved to win the game and I think it should have been awarded to them.

Old Git wrote:

HarryCharltonsCat wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:55 pm

Daft decision. There was no way in the time it took them to score that they would have realised how serious the injury was. Up to the ref to stop play anyway.

Correct.
Looks like Gramps is having some kind of meltdown. Perhaps Christmas is bringing out the Scrooge in him !

On the contrary Old Git. I’ve never been happier! I’m just daring to express an opinion strongly.

Compliments of the season to you and your family. Ho Ho Ho.

HarryCharltonsCat wrote:Daft decision. There was no way in the time it took them to score that they would have realised how serious the injury was. Up to the ref to stop play anyway.

That’s not the point. The point is the idea Boston should get the win because of sportsmanship is massively undermined by the fact they weren’t particularly sporting.

But by your same logic it’s up to the league to decide what happens after an abandoned match. The ref interprets the rules and makes a decision, and so do the league.

You can’t have it both ways.

Oh and they could easily have realised it was a head injury. It was obvious it was a head injury to two players. Plenty of players around and they could have called for their teammates to stop play, in the interests of welfare and sportsmanship. You’re plain wrong on that point.

Personally I didn't like the way Charman was taken out of this game. He'd got past his man and then got chopped down. The Boston player knew what he was doing (playing the man - not the ball) and it could have been a red card. Charman had to go off injured (in case anyone's forgotten) and this changed the game.

I'd have a little sympathy for Boston if they'd outplayed us fair and square but they're a dirty bunch, there's no getting away from it.

I don't see what the problem is here. Boston put forward a detailed case on their belief that they should be awarded the points because they were winning and would probably have won it had the game been played to a conclusion. They also felt it wasn't right to play it again because of the pandemic. Looks like we said results should be based on the score at 90 minutes after the game has been played to a proper conclusion as in the rules of the game. Not based on what most probably would have happened.

A committee independent of both clubs looked at everything said by both clubs and what the rules state and decided the game should be replayed because it hadn't been properly finished.. They were extremely unforunate and unusual circumstances and an independent panel looked at it and came to their conclusion. Seems fine by me. And hopefully we'll give a much better account of ourselves this time.

Happy with the decision, although the length of time taken to make the decision was ridiculous.

My problem with this judgment is that it could set a precedent that could be exploited by an unscrupulous player. What is to stop a player trying to feign a had injury in order to get a game abandoned if his team is losing? It may seem a bit extreme but when the stakes are high some may be tempted to try it. Referees could be put in a very difficult position as they are not doctors and can not determine when an injury is serious or not.

So this will mean we've played 6 games so far this season. We'll have to play at least twice a week until the end of the season.

I must say I'm surprised but will take it and hope we play a lot better next time around. It is absolutely bonkers we have played 7 league games coming into the Xmas break looks like it will end up like the Evostick league days, Saturday, Tuesday Thuursday Saturday games even Reid and Campbell will be shattered.

Old Git wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 4:15 pm

My problem with this judgment is that it could set a precedent that could be exploited by an unscrupulous player. What is to stop a player trying to feign a had injury in order to get a game abandoned if his team is losing? It may seem a bit extreme but when the stakes are high some may be tempted to try it. Referees could be put in a very difficult position as they are not doctors and can not determine when an injury is serious or not.

I don't think you can allow what some determined and extreme cheat might possibly do to affect a judgement like this. Such a cheat would also have to go to quite extraordinary lengths to get a game abandoned like feigning unconsciousness and allowing an ambulance to be called. Realistically it's a fairly remote possibility that someone would look at this National League committee ruling and at some late point in a game decide to give it a go. You have to have a bit more faith in player integrity than that otherwise we might as well all give up on the game.

Old Git wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 4:15 pm

My problem with this judgment is that it could set a precedent that could be exploited by an unscrupulous player. What is to stop a player trying to feign a had injury in order to get a game abandoned if his team is losing? It may seem a bit extreme but when the stakes are high some may be tempted to try it. Referees could be put in a very difficult position as they are not doctors and can not determine when an injury is serious or not.

Any player or team attempting this would seriously come unstuck. Something happened in Rugby, I think it was called “ bloodgate” or something, and huge punishments were doled out.

Darlogramps wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 2:04 pm

HarryCharltonsCat wrote:Daft decision. There was no way in the time it took them to score that they would have realised how serious the injury was. Up to the ref to stop play anyway.

That’s not the point. The point is the idea Boston should get the win because of sportsmanship is massively undermined by the fact they weren’t particularly sporting.

But by your same logic it’s up to the league to decide what happens after an abandoned match. The ref interprets the rules and makes a decision, and so do the league.

You can’t have it both ways.

Oh and they could easily have realised it was a head injury. It was obvious it was a head injury to two players. Plenty of players around and they could have called for their teammates to stop play, in the interests of welfare and sportsmanship. You’re plain wrong on that point.

For someone who previously quoted "The League will decide and I'll have no qualms either way" your views now seem very extreme. Wonder how you would have reacted had the result stood?

Darlo_Pete wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 4:26 pm

So this will mean we've played 6 games so far this season. We'll have to play at least twice a week until the end of the season.

7 Pete. The Boston game wasn't added on to the table.

Old Git wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 4:15 pm

My problem with this judgment is that it could set a precedent that could be exploited by an unscrupulous player. What is to stop a player trying to feign a had injury in order to get a game abandoned if his team is losing? It may seem a bit extreme but when the stakes are high some may be tempted to try it. Referees could be put in a very difficult position as they are not doctors and can not determine when an injury is serious or not.

Not for the first time, you talk a lot of sense.
This decision isn’t fair and sets an awful precedent!

Fuck them.

At first I would have had no problem with them being awarded the points.

But after the behaviour of their keeper, crying on twitter that it may have to be replayed, while driving his car, and just being a wanker in general, then fuck them.

Fuck them.

Would I be happy if it was the other way around? No, of course not. But it isn't the other way around, their keeper is a wanker, they are a dirty cynical team, so fuck them.

Fuck them.

It could also be argued, albeit tenuously, that on 86 minutes with the score being 0-1 that play should have been stopped for a serious injury and the 2nd goal would not have happened and therefore the game would not have been put to bed at that point.

0-1 rather than 0-2 with 4 minutes time and 4 or so minutes of injury time to play - that's not a certain away win.

comeondarlo wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 15, 2020 5:02 pm

This decision isn’t fair and sets an awful precedent!

I thought the precedent was that games last 90 minutes plus whatever the referee adds for stoppages.

The ruling doesn't surprise me given that the game hadn't finished and that no-one was to blame for the extremely rare incident that meant the game had to be abandoned. Would deciding the result of an unfinished game on the balance of probability really be the right thing to do?