(a) Yes, I do have a copy.
(b) It's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that this is not the first time a replay has been ordered. The previous time, the decision to do so was declared void by the civil court. It's disgraceful that Ollie has managed to bully the FAI into making this same decision, which has been proven illegal in the past. That also answers your question ...
I don't know why, to be honest; however, the fact of the matter is that they have. Maybe the civil court is like an arbitration court to decide queries over the rulebook - I don't know. But the fact is that it has declared a replay void before, a decision the league abided by, and that's part of the reason there's uproar in this situation and why the FAI's decision is simply indefensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelsman
It's been Ollie's mantra for years; I don't see how you can suddenly oppose it and back Ollie's decision to whine for a replay. I don't see any problems with wanting the rules to be applied fairly - i.e. consistent with established rulings - especially when the ruling is in favour of someone who has shown a predeliction for getting rules bent in his favour before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelsman
[QUOTE=Shelsman]At the very least, if there is something not covered by the rulebook that causes a problem they should amend the rulebook each time with an exact penalty before the start of the next season -is this stupidly impractical???
But that's completely different to saying that every possible case should be covered in the rulebook. Which do you want?