To be honest I hadn’t even spotted this when I checked predictions yesterday. I should have questioned this before the game kicked off but I pulled a Nev and didn't check everyones’ predictions through before the game kicked off. As both Hazard’s were on the pitch when the goal was scored you have been awarded a retrospective 1.5 points.
Your case would be thrown out and your entries for the league treated as a spoilt ballot paper All your points should be distributed unevenly to those who are **** at predicting scores You should hang your head in shame, wear sackcloth and carry a bell There is no integrity left anywhere these days Disgraceful
Richard Masters is on the arbitration panel. The competition will be over and done with before you see those 1.5 points now. I will put an asterisk against your name on the league table though.
Unsurprisingly poor scoring last night with a few 1's only picked up. However another 3 players (@Ben 10 , @InBiscanWeTrust , @the #Cans Master ) lose their chance of a 40pt bonus with France going out. Based on the request of @the #Cans Master his score is now under arbitration by the ICAPL (International Committee for Arbitration in Prediction Leagues). An independent committee has been selected comprising the following: 1. @the #Cans Master - representing the plaintiff 2. @Roy Munson - guaranteed not to agree with any other member of the committee and to change his decision regularly while waiting for the ruling of the 3rd member of the panel 3. @Joelinton's Right Foot - an acknowledged expert on Prediction Leagues and thinking through complex issues without ever providing a solution The issue: Hazard selected as first scorer in Belgium-Portugal Game. Hazard T. scores but Hazard E. is also on the pitch. Organiser failed to recognise this issue prior to kick off and ask for clarification. The solution of PL organiser Award a half score (1.5pts) The options available: 1. Uphold the decision of the PL organiser to award 1.5pts 2. Award a full score of 3pts 3. Award a score of 3pts and further damages of 10pts for pain and suffering caused 4. Declare that the ICAPL has no jurisdiction in this matter. It should be adjudicated by an HSE committee as it is clearly a HAZID (Hazard Identification) Assessment
Option 3 if justice is to be served. Arbitration sorted. If only @the #Cans Master did all arbitrations.
Disgrace, you’ve now set a president Where was option 4? Poster was clearly chancing it and new exactly was he was doing? Instant disqualification