Saints expelled from Play Offs by EFL
- Thread starter tomw24
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Using a Rule that quotes Bad Sportsmanship, that has no parameters or printed guidelines, no specified punishment, just the judgement of some of the Directors, some of whom have a vested interest, claiming to speak for everyone.
It would have had to have been voted in by a majority of clubs. The EFL can't just implement the rule on their own.
Surely the 72 hours is a parameter?
There has to be a clear set of Rules, but I am not convinced that the present ones are fit for purpose, there are plenty of new ways to gain intelligence from other Clubs that aren't mentioned anywhere, not all are legal.
Rule 127 was a cobbled up set of Rules about one single incident, it doesn't have any guidelines for any specific punishment, just make something up when it is breached. Didn't present a deterrent and should be a total ban on the behaviour, which is not acceptable at any time.
Last edited:
Was anybody saying this before we got caught though? It was a reactionary rule brought in for sure, as sentiment after the Biesla incident showed there was an appetite to prevent it happening again.
The new rule was then put to EFL clubs who voted it in.
My point is you said it was decided by 'a few directors' but that isn't true at all, as clubs at the time could have rejected it if they wanted to but were happy enough with the wording to implement it.
Well the deterrent exists now. Going forward EFL clubs will know the punishment is 3 point deduction for a league game or expulsion for a knockout one.
Agree about punishment not being defined beforehand though which is a big part of why this has been such a mess. Sadly that seems quite common with football rules though.
Rule 127 was produced in 2019, most people wouldn't know it existed. It would have been ratified at an EFL AGM or EGM, not by other Clubs as such but by their representatives.
The 3 point reduction applies to Rule 3.4 not 127 and applies to any example of bad sportsmanship to another Club and so it should. It should also apply to breaches of Rule 3.5 but at the moment they don't seem to be looking in to breaches of that Rule, Boro certainly broke it in their pursuit of our case
Ignorance is hardly a defence and I'd wager all clubs know of its existence anyway. If you're talking about individuals then that's the responsibility of the upper echelons of each club as employers to educate their employees.
Not sure what you mean by your last point. Club representatives are the club. In our case it would be Parsons as the CEO who attends these meetings and votes on such things (VAR recently as an example).
The EFL can't ratify a new rule without a majority of clubs voting it in, it's a member led organisation.
No our point deductions were given for breaches of 127 in the Oxford and Ipswich games.
Our "Spy team" would have known about it, but did their operative? I am not condoning it, it was just stupid, but its seriousness has been blown out of proportion in my opinion, (not that that, is of any importance). I don't know which individuals were responsible, or whether they have or will be punished, all I know is that I have been punished and I haven't done anything, other than support my Club. That is down to the EFL.
Even if their 'operative' didn't though, that's no defence and is irrelevant.
Re you feeling punished unfortunately that's the way of sport. Fans are punished for their clubs actions despite having no direct involvement.
An obvious example is Leicester fans had no involvement in them overspending but now have to watch their team in third tier for only the second time in the club's history.
So you're arguing that there should never be any sporting sanctions at all, for anything?
They specifically said in their judgement that the reason for setting 3 points is that it makes breaching rule 127 a 'zero sum game'.
Depends upon what you call Sporting Sanctions. The punishment should fit the crime, those responsible should be punished, not thousands that had no responsibility.
Sporting sanctions are sporting sanctions, it's pretty obvious. Any sporting sanction will impact thousands of fans who had no responsibility.
The original Rule 127
127.1 Without prejudice to the requirements of Regulation 3.4 (that each Club shall behave towards each
other Club with the utmost good faith), no Club shall directly or indirectly observe (or attempt to
observe) another Club’s training session in the period of 72 hours prior to any match scheduled to be
played between those respective Clubs
The -3 Point has been added in our case Using Rule 3.4 as a trigger.