Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
canarydan23

Bournemouth Legal Action

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Aggy said:

Why the need to get offensive? Just because you think the wrong decision was made (and I would agree) doesn’t mean it’s negligence. Lots of wrong things happen but they’re not always negligent. 

You can quote Latin terms you’ve just googled all you want, but I’ve explained the basis for how an action could be negligent. It is entirely possible that a negligent decision could have happened before technology was introduced. It’s not guaranteed that it would apply in this case because I’m pretty sure lots of refs and VAR people would say it was reasonable to do the same in those circumstances, knowing they’ve got goal line technology which has previously never (that I’ve heard of anyway) failed vs a slightly blurry video/still screen - and I’m not sure that making a decision to rely on one bit of technology that has never failed before  would get you over your negligence threshold - but it might, yes.

As for straw men arguments, do you know what this means? You said it has never been possible for there to be a negligent decision in the prem before technology was introduced. I gave an example of one situation that could be. How is that a straw man argument?

Genuinely not sure why you’re getting so worked up. Did you remortgage your house and stick your last fifty quid on Bournemouth staying up or something? Let’s hope the prem don’t hire any lawyers if so cos you’re not on to a winner.

Offensive? Really? You're a funny old fellow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others say, there’s really no case to answer as the game is done. But questions certainly should be asked to why in our recent game the referee decided to take a look at Buendia for his action, but only shown Buendia’s elbow making contact and not the entire scenario where Buendia rides a pretty hefty challenge and then gets held before his arm came down so slowly the reaction was embarrassing..... yet something so clear cut, wasn’t even looked at! So not only did Hawkeye fail, VAR failed, the referee failed and the game failed......VAR needs a total revamp on how it’s used, clear cut instructions to referee’s or just remove it. I like the idea of taking it away from bellends at some room with agendas and give three challenges to each manager for each half of football. With the referee making the call pitch side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

This is exactly the point re VAR. 

in the World Cup , the first time it was introduced, play was continually reviewed by VAR. It was trialed in this way too - all over the world . Australia , Japan and all over Europe . It was designed to offer the onfield ref additional angles . This is what refs have moaned about for years. Only one angle . 
 

“Protocol” then took over . 1 for consistency ie when should it be used . And 2 - this is the important one folks - not to been seen to overrule the refs on too many occasions . 
 

So referral was stipulated for only certain instances . And that where it all goes wrong . 
 

Play is no longer continually reviewed as it was initially intended to be. It worked very well in the World Cup with numerous international refs. Give it to PGMOL and you get Simon Hooper reviewing Michael Oliver . I rest my case . 
 

The point about not wanting to be seen to overrule the refs too often is a fair one too imo. In the cricket - the recent test series, in the first test in particular every decision the umpires seemed to make was overruled. It was getting a bit ridiculous, but there’s not really any stigma attached to it. Everyone acknowledges it’s a tough job and you’ll make mistakes - they’d rather get the decision right and move on. I also like rugby where there’s a clear dialogue between the on field ref and the tv ref.

As for protocol -  I do wonder in respect of the goalline “goal” question whether actually under the Prem’s protocol VAR could/should have got involved. The link below says VAR can only be used in four four situations - relevant one here being “goals”. But the “goals” section only talks about goals that have been awarded being checked for infringements. It doesn’t mention goals that weren’t given but perhaps should have been. Even the “unseen incidents” page - that doesn’t say much, but then on the protocol link it says unseen incidents can only be referred if they relate to one of the four situations (goals, red cards, penalties and wrong identity). So if “goals” is only goals that have been awarded, can you even go back for missed incidents that relate to a goal that wasn’t awarded? I don’t know - on my reading of the links below, I’d say no arguably you can’t, which is ridiculous (although they will have had faith in the goalline technology). But it’s not clear - and it’s never great when a set of protocols raises as many questions as it answers...

Edit: link referred to https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297368

Edited by Aggy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic but with protocols in mind here are two scenarios to consider under the current review system. 
 

1 ball gets crossed in . Palace striker receives the ball. Lino raises flag. Striker puts ball into the net. Review occurs automatically and sees player is not offside . Goal stands

2 ball gets crossed in. Palace striker receives the ball. Lino raises flag. Palace striker sees the flag go up , stops and let’s the ball run through to the keeper . Doesn’t put ball in the net ( but could have done) and therefore no review of the offside decision .  
 

Under  the initial VAR application linos were told not to flag too early . “Football” couldn’t handle this and PGMOL certainly couldn’t get their heads around it .  Wait until the move is over and allow play to continue . No said PGMOL - we must flag immediately. 
 

Cricket has got used to being overruled In the interests of the decision being correct Football is far too arrogant . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ian said:

My understanding was that the reason our VAR implementation was so delayed is that other leagues' implementations would be used to determine what worked well and what didn't.

I think the implementation this season has been nothing short of a disaster, and absolutely incompetent. I don't believe that it's a case of "first-season syndrome", because it is so absolutely flawed that these are not simply teething errors but should probably amount to misconduct (particularly when IFAB themselves say it is being used against their guidance).

Don't get me wrong, I would like nothing more than to see someone sue over it, and watch the fireworks in the courts, but I just don't see it happening because it seems almost impossible to prove that a single decision can be directly responsible for a team's relegation.

I think what everyone is forgetting is that VAR is not a machine that makes a decision, a VAR decision is based on another referees interpretation of what actually happened as they see it.  VAR is manned by a referee, who quite obviously see matters in a different way to a match official,  who has to make an immediate decision, not one based on several cameras.

So who would you sue?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone needs to test it in a court of law.

I can foresee the PL not using VAR or Hawkeye next season if Bournemouth do pursue it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Bournemouth are taking legal advice regarding the possibility of action against Hawkeye, apparently.

I suppose the issue there is likely to be whether Hawkeye owes any duty of care to the clubs. If Hawkeye technology is basically farmed out to the prem to implement how it chooses, then what relationship is there between Hawkeye and the club? If the prem chooses to rely on the technology and say it’s infallible and all refs should ignore anything else other than the technology, it seems to me that the issue is between club and prem rather than club and Hawkeye.
 

If (which I think is extremely extremely unlikely for reasons mentioned yesterday) the club pursued the prem, I expect the prem would then try and recover from the technology provider. But csnt see it getting anywhere near that far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 27/07/2020 at 12:07, Midlands Yellow said:

They haven’t a prayer. 

This. Standard "sporting contest" defence. Ts & cs of agreeing to take part in the league. No negligence, just an error of judgement.

Lots of very credible defences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Bournemouth are taking legal advice regarding the possibility of action against Hawkeye, apparently.

Whilst I have pretty limited knowledge and understanding of this country's laws, this seems pretty ludicrous to me.

I suppose that if Hawkeye are contractually obliged to offer 100% accuracy and no failure of technology, and the contract is with the EPL (of which Bournemouth are presumably still a shareholder) there could be some grounds, but surely there is no way that a company would make those promises and leave themselves open to legal action??

Given that other cameras and VAR were also available to the refereeing team enabling them to make the correct decision my mind just boggles as to how the blame could be placed squarely on the shoulders of Hawkeye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawyer has just said that there is little scope for a claim as there would be a judgement that there is an acceptable risk that the technology isn't 100% reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bournmouth have got nothing to lose and everything to gain, the chances of winning are slim but like all law cases  the mood and interpretation changes. If they won, then the appeal no way it would all be sorted out until the season has kicked off. I bet at the end of the day the dont bother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Lawyer has just said that there is little scope for a claim as there would be a judgement that there is an acceptable risk that the technology isn't 100% reliable.

Blimey,  he must have read Lakey’s post 😃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I object to our relegation in '85 as Coventry were allowed to complete their final 3 fixtures after we had finished ours (even though our last fixture was after the end of the regular season)

Coventry played against 2 opponents that were on the beach, and one that were shot to bits playing games every other day at one point, and already had the title in the bag anyway 

As a 17 year old, I was traumatised by this unjust relegation, and have suffered depression ever since and can only find solace in the company of beer 🍺

High time I lawyered up 😀

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...