Match 38
http://www.olmec.org/sesl/matchreport.jsp?MatchId=437

Min 1
MOT 936
ARB 720

Min 46
MOT 936
ARB 642

Min 72 (when ARB went 3-0 up)
MOT 870
ARB 763

They are the chances out of 10,000 each minute of the team getting a shot. But it was ARB that got 10 shots to MOT's 5. I'm not saying MOT should have won, they had a weak attacking line and when playing Press there's a good chance a DF will get the shot.

But they don't deserve to be penalised 120k.

Thanks Steve
You Beat me to the Appeal !
How can anybody doubt that I was trying to win this?

Looks to me like a bit of a grudge match with both teams going for it.

Perhaps a bit of an odd choice of early tactics but without knowing the conditionals I wouldn't be in a rush to condem MOT.

Also MOT fielded most of the their best players so for me they should NOT be fined.

Adrian

Mmm. As someone who has suffered a blowout fine in the Cup after a 6-0 thrashing by Rangers and just accepting it 'cos its in the rules I'm tempted to say why bother having this rule at all then? I fielded the best team available at the time, stalled and hoped for the best (Gers had already qualified but didn't rest up at all) I didn't appeal because I got blown out 6-0 and the rules say that will cost me 120k! Harsh - but accepted.

In this match MOT played 10 players on aggressive with PRESS tactics for the whole match shows Dave certinly WAS trying to achieve a result.

But with only TWO defenders and a sweeper and employing a PRESS tactic is possibly very poor use of tactics? My change to opportunistic at 3-0 was probably meant as a "shut up shop" and avoid possible blow out scenarios. But this tactic just carved through MOT whilst they continued to PRESS in the last 15 minutes or so.

So depends what the intent of the rule is for me. Is it penalty enough for a relegation struggler to lose 6-0 against a fellow relegation struggler? Personally I think so. But rather than have the appeals panel is it not time just to scrap the rule?

Just to clarify I think Dave's appeal should be successful as the THRASHING should be sufficient penalty (but scrap the rule?)

Personally I think we look into these things too deeply. The rule is there to prevent teams fielding a side that is too weak. Dave definitely not do that. When I look at other previous appeals almost every aspect of the line-up has been scoured such as formations and conditionals to decide. CB's appeal is a prime example. To me that was a foregone conclusion looking at the CB side but it was looked at in some depth before a decision made.

Dave could definitely have prevented such a big defeat, of that I've no doubt. I don't think it was deliberately weak though so I say give him his money back.

As others have suggested we may have to look at getting rid of this rule or re-word it as I'm not sure it's meaning is clear cut and therefore is open to individual interpretation.

MOTs tactics in this game took a leaf from Mr Keegans book of we'll win by scoring more than we let in!...sadly though Olmec was not reading from the same page. Not having a conditional to change tactics from P to something more defensive was an error but the lineup fielded could definitely not be described as intentionally weak...so in my opinion MOTs appeal should be GRANTED.

Dan.

- Sounds like Les may want to add in a belated appeal himself!

MOT should definitely not be penalized because they did play aggressively and appeared to try to achieve a result. My answer is NO they should not be penalized.

I really think we have to have a good look at this rule at the end of the season, it seems that every set of games is now followed by an appeal of some kind. I think that if you look at any of the games teams lose by 6 goals hard enough you will find something to base an appeal on. I also think that managers effectively appealing on behalf of other managers is a very worrying development and shouldn't be encouraged. I myself feel sorry for the managers such as Les who just see it as part of the game and get on with it.

Having said all this it doesnt look to me as if MOT fielded a deliberately weak line up, which is what the rule is supposed to stop. Tactically maybe a little naive but then we all try something different every now and again so I have to say that MOT SHOULD be given the 120K back as a 6-0 hiding was probably harsh.

The rule is there to deter the players who play there top side for two games then put out a second (or third) string team in the third game to allow the stars to recover, rather than properly plan a squad rotation to ensure that there is a fair spread of squad use.

GMcD.

OLMEC has been in a funny mood these past couple of months or there's Gremlins at work.
This blowout rule was put to the -*test*-('") in the final match of the season in another PBEM league about a year ago.
One team definately 'threw' the match and the Commish stepped in to severley punish the offending Manager as the 2CP blowout penalty was clearly not enough.
I also feel that 6-0 is enough of a penalty for teams who choose a match to rest star players.

This match however, is not of the resting players category or intentionaly weak selection, and veiwing the match itself along with the stats posted above feel that MOT's 120k should be reimbursed.

3 appeals on this forum, out of nearly 1,000 matches so far this season.

Current system of appealling works perfectly.

Can you appeal RED CARDS ???

I think that the fine given to MOT should be up-held, he got beat 6-0 by ARB who despite having a very good manager arent the strongest team in the league by a long shot. Its quite ironic this happened against ARB as they themselves have been fined recently for a 6-0 drubbing. Im sure ARB played the strongest team possible that day but even their top-11 would have struggled to contain Rangers, however he took the punishment like a man and did not appeal.

Furthurmore playing PRESS when only have 2 defenders and a sweeper at the back is asking for trouble especially when playing them aggresive. Also by playing Stuart McCall 1/7(at the time) on aggresive he gained 1 maybe 2 extra sl but this increased his chances of conceding penalties and getting sent off enourmous amounts. Indeed McCall did happen to concede a penalty for the 2nd goal.

From the tactics you could say that MOT tried to win the game however by playing press with 3 defenders on the park with a 1/7 on aggresive he was never really going to have a chance.

Uphold fine!

Sorry i guess i should have added "recently" in there. My point being you can now be pretty certain a blowout will be followed by an appeal.

APPEAL SUCCESSFUL.

120k to be returned to MOT team bank,
plus small monetary award to the Appeals Panel for their opinions.


--
Mark
Commish

Not neccessarily So Paul If it is blatantly obvious that you put out a weak side deliberately ,would you automatically appeal ? I dont think so! You certainly would not automatically get the appeal upheld anyway !
But this is good stuff & we maybe need a Vote on the Blow out rule Mark?