All,

COW are formally appealing against the blowout rule for the reason stated below.

The decision to play 2 MF in midfield was made so that we still had some hope, albeit slight, of creating a goal scoring opportunity. If we had not done so then we were never going to score. The easy option would have been shutting up shop and accepting a 2 or 3 goal defeat.

The defence had a combined SL of 55 with the midfield 66. The 2:1 rule was nowhere near being broken.

Scoring 6 goals from 9 shots is lucky in any game.

We used all the top SL players we could have whilst still preserving their high SL for upcoming cup campaign.

We had a SL 19 defender injured in that crucial first half period

Second half COW went to OPP and brought on our Top MF and a SW to attempt to claw back something but early in second half HEA quite correctly went to Stall. At this stage we'd have been as well blowing the final whistle, we were never going to grab a goal.


To summarise I believe COW could have went safe and accepted a 2 or 3 goal defeat by playing an SL20 midfielder in defence. With hindsight maybe its something Ill do in the future however we attempted to give ourselves a chance of clawing something from the game and played them in midfield. Unfortunately HEA played a much better team than I expected and they got lucky in the first half scoring 6 from 9. This mean that they went Stall in the second half giving COW no hope. I do not believe we should be punished to the extent of 120k for trying to save COW EL for the cup and with the resultant team attempt to sneak some points. The easy COWards option would have been to shut up shop and deliver the 3 points straight to HEA via a 2 or 3 nil win. We went and gave it a go and got unlucky.

Give us our dosh back please

6 goals lost

6 key players rested

Calum McMath GK 1 24
Danny McGrain DF 2 28
Gary Brown MA 2 30
Stan Coulter FW 4 25
Dado Prso © FW 5 24
Daryl Dunnigan FW 0 17

I can't see how you can be allowed to rest more than half your first team, and expect to get a blowout refund.

I think COW were unlucky to lose 6 and effort was made to put a few on aggresive (although 1 or 2 extra SL only increased chance of penalties and did little to help extremely low area stats)

For me, COW made a team tactic mistake. Why was Long Ball not tried when 2 very low SL MF (2 low SL DF's out of position even) would have allowed a pair of SL20 MF to have played as DF.
Someone could do the arithmetic, but I bet COW would have at least got a single shot on goal.

Unfortunately COW played a much more pathetic team than I expected and they got lucky in the first half to limit HEA to scoring 6 from 9 shots.

Therefore HEA would like to appeal on grounds we should have bashed the Bishop by far more than 6 goals! :-)

No seriously, for going to hassle of writing all that text above in defence of his actions, Bishop COWs deserve some credit. I offer to add 60k to any trade we agree at any point in next season - fair enough?

I think you are on to plumbs, my fishing friend, if you think you deserve a blowout refund.

Consider this fact:-
on blog you said "we'd hope to sneak a goal in the second half and possibly sneak the point" when COW high SL FW came on at half time.
However, this FW never even took your OFF into triple figures! HEA OFF was 43 more and we were Stalling when you "planned" to sneak a goal!
Hardly a half time masterstroke, now was it Mr Sven COW ?

Slaughter the OLD COW !!!!

It seems that the basis of the case against COW is that the route I should have took was to just shut up shop and meekly took a 2 or 3 nil humbling. No one would have noticed and I would have avoided blowout and saved myself 120k.

Instead I attempted, possibly insanely, to snatch something from the game. If that makes me guilty of breaking the blowout rule then guilty I am.

I'm also not the kind of manager that sits down and works out the numbers that the software crunches. If I wanted to do that kinda nonsense I'd join some sort of maths club.

I broke no 2:1 rules and played a tactic that had worked earlier in the season.

A Blow out is a Blow out and as Nathan rested players so did you
6 of your top 11

So i dont see how your going to get your 120k back

You don't agree 6 goals in the first half meant a freak result?????

I agree that the appeal should be denied.

I'm not a fan of overturning blowouts in any instance, but if there ever was a case, it should be when the losing team did everything possible to avoid defeat. Even if we think six goals from nine shots is a "freak" act of OLMEC (I do not), then COW shouldn't be entitled to a refund when they rested six key players.

No deliberate attempt to lose match.

If the blowout is refunded in this case, then rewrite the rules to eliminate the blowout penalty altogether. It's worthless.

I agree fine must stay unless rule isdumped - I would prefer to see if dumped anyway

I dont like the rule, I understand why its there but it does not function like it should
its meant to stop teams resting all there top players one week and playing there top 11 the next week, but week teams who dont have a great backup get hurt for rotating ! as they have to rest players some times and if they happen to come up against a top team there could be a blowout