This week's fixtures & results League II (winter 2009/2010)

In my opinion, if the conditions Mark posted are accepted, then it would open each game up to a torrent of post-polo debate, keep it on the court and accept the refs decision.

These are very strict conditions. There was unanimous agreement that the ball went in under the cone. There is nothing to debate here. This is a cut and dried case of a ref making an error that clearly contradicts the written rules. I tried to keep it on the court but not one of you fuckers stood up and did the right thing, which was to agree that Rik's call contradicted the rules.

All you haters are effectively arguing that the ref can override the rules. Anyone want to take this outside?

Also, for the record, I said 1-4 last night, and checked with all present before tweeting it. That was the score of the first game, not counting the goal that Rik annulled. I clearly remember that the game would have been 1-5 if the goal counted.

Malice got robbed of 2 goals last night and all you fuckers love it. You're a nice, honest bunch. Really fucking proud.

I'd rather have the odd bad call than have this kind of dispute after a game. Actually, I'd rather just play and have faith in the ref and the opposition, picture the scene:

ELKs beat Zombie 5-0 in 3 straight games (wishful thinking I know), Zombie point out that the goal posts are not cones, all goals are disallowed, fixture is a draw. (On paper this is as sound as your argument above.)

There is currently no-one to appeal to so in my opinion Rik has the final say. Empowering the forum with these kind of decisions just seems like a bad idea.

What Roxy said is well reasoned for sure. And a good point about when we were voting, we most likely weren't thinking about the tall posts which we have(had) at Mitch. Cone height in our minds at the time of the vote was the cones we use at downham/newington.

Also, a good point about not allowing goals higher than this, as it could be dangerous (like the shot that hit rik in the ear at BFF).

Again, a good point from Roxy and Jono that it should stay on court, otherwise we come on here and degrade the refs standing, and people will endlessly bitch until the community gets bored and gives in, which is what I see vidal trying to achieve here.

About moderators deleting posts, I think someone was dicking about with snoops, and deleted his post, which I then undeleted. I don't think moderators have been deleting posts maliciously.

oh COME ON PEOPLE!!!

does rik have his notes still?

more important than a robbed goal is a contradiction in results. was it 1-3 to malice in the first game or 1-4?

he's at work, i saw him online at lunch time briefly, he said he will post tonight after he finishes work.

Sorry Snoops.

PS: You suck at polo.

Also, for the record, I said 1-4 last night, and checked with all present before tweeting it. That was the score of the first game, not counting the goal that Rik annulled. I clearly remember that the game would have been 1-5 if the goal counted.

Malice got robbed of 2 goals last night and all you fuckers love it. You're a nice, honest bunch. Really fucking proud.

What was the 2nd goal robbed?

Actually Matt, the honesty of this bunch is in the fact that nobody is denying the ball was in the black of the post. What this is actually showing is that we want decisions to be made and stood by. Rik's decision as ref was the final decision according to our rules. The ref's duties include:

• Have the final word.
  
• Determine what is and is not a goal.
  
• Determine what is and is not a foul that can result in a penalty and what the penalty is for such foul.
  
• Correct the goal if it is moved.
  
• Keep track of score. Score must be called out after every goal.
  
• Keep track of time.
  
• Call injury time outs for major injuries.
  
• Provide an extra ball at point of exit if the ball is knocked out of play.
  
  

See that 2nd point there, right under the first?

This is absolutely nothing personal against Malice.

Twitter post from yesterday
chukker_norris #lbpl Black Rebel v. Malice 2-3, 2-1, 5-2

Also, for the record, I said 1-4 last night, and checked with all present before tweeting it. That was the score of the first game, not counting the goal that Rik annulled. I clearly remember that the game would have been 1-5 if the goal counted.

Malice got robbed of 2 goals last night and all you fuckers love it. You're a nice, honest bunch. Really fucking proud.

matt bro don't get het up, if apples or bad or zombie had been in the same position the underdog would still have had support. And as far as being robbed of two goals is concerned - ehbpc - semi finals ring any bells?

ELKs beat Zombie 5-0 in 3 straight games (wishful thinking I know), Zombie point out that the goal posts are not cones, all goals are disallowed, fixture is a draw. (On paper this is as sound as your argument above.)

This is a bullshit argument for many reasons. One is that by playing with the posts for three games, Zombie implicitly accepts they are cones. Another is that it is an attempt to get out of a failed match by gaming the rules.

I am clearly not trying to game the rules. My argument is that Rik invoked a previous agreement by two unrelated teams and erroneously used that as a rule for this game; this was an error, and it should be fixed.

Jono, your weak-ass attempt to create an example that would make this situation a pandora's box failed, because you are wrong. It is not a pandora's box. It is a simple case of a ref making a bad call, and everyone agreeing that it was a bad call.

Twitter post from yesterday
chukker_norris #lbpl Black Rebel v. Malice 2-3, 2-1, 5-2

woah, i had the scores muddled. ha!

Twitter post from yesterday
chukker_norris #lbpl Black Rebel v. Malice 2-3, 2-1, 5-2

oops. i had them all written backwards and must have fucked them up again when I tried to fix them. it's possible actually that it was 2-4. but i remember clearly that it would have been 5 if the goal was counted.

matt bro don't get het up, if apples or bad or zombie had been in the same position the underdog would still have had support. And as far as being robbed of two goals is concerned - ehbpc - semi finals ring any bells?

exactly, did apples tell Marc and Luis that the netto vs. apples result should have been different? no, we just accepted the call, carried on playing, and lost. shame we lost, but we lost. end of.

.

yeh, apples lost.

Matt, whatever, get over it, my point is that you and/or anyone else should not be able to influence the ref's decision or the result of a game after it has been played. In the absence of someone to appeal to, Rik has the final call.

;1032398']What was the 2nd goal robbed?

Actually Matt, the honesty of this bunch is in the fact that nobody is denying the ball was in the black of the post. What this is actually showing is that we want decisions to be made and stood by. Rik's decision as ref was the final decision according to our rules. The ref's duties include:

[]Have the final word.
[]Determine what is and is not a goal.
[]Determine what is and is not a foul that can result in a penalty and what the penalty is for such foul.
[]Correct the goal if it is moved.
[]Keep track of score. Score must be called out after every goal.
[]Keep track of time.
[]Call injury time outs for major injuries.
[]Provide an extra ball at point of exit if the ball is knocked out of play.

See that 2nd point there, right under the first?

This is absolutely nothing personal against Malice.

2nd point refers to cases where there is a dispute about whether a ball went into the goal (i.e., across the line within the cones). This was not under dispute. Goal ref clearly agreed with me that the ball was under the cones.

The only interpretation that is consistent with allowing the goal to stand is to say that the ref can over-ride the existing rules. Is this what you want to say, Mike?

You all are confusing (a) a case where there is a dispute about what happened and a ref has to make a call in the heat of a game, with (b) a case where there is no dispute about what happened and the ref clearly invokes an erroneous rule. Every example that has been brought up is a case of (a), whereas I am arguing about case (b).

I will not get over it. Fuck off.

"If there is no struggle, there is no progress" - Frederik Douglass

however

"If you go on and on about something, you sound stupid" - snoops

vidal------------------------------polo forum