|
|
Post by dohnut on Oct 20, 2023 13:29:33 GMT
Exactly. The situation is very different. It highlights the value of not having rules set in stone and allowing the authorities the opportunity to look at each case individually before coming to a decision. In both cases in my opinion the regulatory bodies have got it 100% correct. I think your opinion is totally irrelevant. 😂😂😂😂😂 |
|
|
|
Post by eca on Oct 21, 2023 9:09:22 GMT
I have maintained it is more appropriate to have the rules set in place for different reasons rather than a reply subject to a committee who can make a change to whatever with no pre published guidelines for such a decision.
RW is appears has the same opinion best to have rules
|
|
|
|
Post by dohnut on Oct 21, 2023 13:23:17 GMT
The problem with set in stone rules is that games in the past, abandoned for very sad reasons reasons would need to be replayed. We saw against Lincoln the nonsense of the officials trying to continue with the game, something RW criticised let’s remember, because the rules said so. It took a pitch invasion to restore common sense. An example of rules that when followed are then criticised and rightly so.
And of course the recent international not being replayed, absolutely sensible. But if the rules were set in stone a complete waste of time would occur.
The rules say the game must go on, the officials followed the rules. Anybody think that was right? I don’t . But the rules say otherwise. Better to allow the officials to apply some common sense.
RW cannot in one breath criticise the officials for following the rules yet advocate more rules!
|
|
