Spurs request replay of West Ham game

TheMonster · 12-05-2006 8:31am

Cue the hotel suing spurs for alleging "food poisoning" without proof

GuanYin · 12-05-2006 9:17am

TheMonster wrote:

Cue the hotel suing spurs for alleging "food poisoning" without proof

Now *THAT* would be justice!

therecklessone · 12-05-2006 2:35pm

el rabitos wrote:

has anyone taken into consideration the idea that maybe spurs would have been beaten by west ham anyway?

Why should they? For the second time on this thread I find myself saying to you:

therecklessone wrote:

The case for/against a replay should be judged on its own merits

The possible outcome of a replay shouldn't have had any bearing on the decision made by the PL. Seems that degree ain't worth the paper its written on.

KdjaC wrote:

but every Spurs fan knew they lost the 4th place weeks ago by failing to beat teams lower then them.

Yet the consensus on 22 April at roughly 3pm was that following the 1-1 draw at Highbury, Spurs had their own destiny in their hands, and that two wins would suffice. Hindsight's a great thing, but I do wonder who foresaw a bout of the s*its disrupting our final fixture and effectively handing 4th place to Arsenal?

el rabitos · 12-05-2006 2:47pm

the case cant be judged on its own merits because it affects 2 other teams! arsenal and/or west ham.

ghost26ie · 12-05-2006 2:49pm

the arsenal game was only one where they stumbled, they also drew with sunderland. that was a game where they should have got 3 points.

therecklessone · 12-05-2006 2:58pm

el rabitos wrote:

the case cant be judged on its own merits because it affects 2 other teams! arsenal and/or west ham.

Yes it can.

If West Ham had bribed the officials for Sunday's game and were caught, the result would have been nullified and Spurs more than likely awarded the 3 points. That would affect Arsenal, but that aspect could not be considered in deciding the outcome of an investigation into possible match fixing.

Likewise with this. Spurs requested a postponment, didn't get it so post-match requested a replay on the grounds that the PL's decision not to postpone the game was flawed. The judgement to be made is/was whether the decision to refuse a postponment was correct, followed by should we allow a replay based on the answer to the first part, not "what if we allow the replay what effect does it have on Arsenal/West Ham".

therecklessone · 12-05-2006 3:03pm

ghost26ie wrote:

the arsenal game was only one where they stumbled

Anyone who saw a 1-1 draw at Highbury as a stumble needs their head examined. If anything, that result was more than we could have expected.

Stumbles were:

Last minute equaliser conceeded at home to West Ham in Nov.
Late equaliser conceeded at Sunderland in Feb.
Home draw to Villa in Jan.
Late winner conceeded at Stamford Bridge in March.
Defeat at Craven Cottage to a poor Fulham side in Feb.
Shambolic 3-1 away defeat at St.James' Park in April.

ghost26ie · 12-05-2006 3:04pm

therecklessone wrote:

Yes it can.

If West Ham had bribed the officials for Sunday's game and were caught, the result would have been nullified and Spurs more than likely awarded the 3 points. That would affect Arsenal, but that aspect could not be considered in deciding the outcome of an investigation into possible match fixing.

Likewise with this. Spurs requested a postponment, didn't get it so post-match requested a replay on the grounds that the PL's decision not to postpone the game was flawed. The judgement to be made is/was whether the decision to refuse a postponment was correct, followed by should we allow a replay based on the answer to the first part, not "what if we allow the replay what effect does it have on Arsenal/West Ham".

match fixing is no longer in the equation "if" this noro virus story is the true cause of the illnesses.

therecklessone · 12-05-2006 3:07pm

ghost26ie wrote:

match fixing is no longer in the equation "if" this noro virus story is the true cause of the illnesses.

I didn't say it was. I used that as an example of a case that would be examined on its merits rather than on the possible impact on other teams.

ghost26ie · 12-05-2006 3:09pm

therecklessone wrote:

Anyone who saw a 1-1 draw at Highbury as a stumble needs their head examined. If anything, that result was more than we could have expected.

Stumbles were:

Last minute equaliser conceeded at home to West Ham in Nov.
Late equaliser conceeded at Sunderland in Feb.
Home draw to Villa in Jan.
Late winner conceeded at Stamford Bridge in March.
Defeat at Craven Cottage to a poor Fulham side in Feb.
Shambolic 3-1 away defeat at St.James' Park in April.

it was a stumble because like the first game at white hart lane, you controled the first half, and didnt take advantage.

Blackjack · 13-05-2006 1:12pm

KdjaC wrote:

Only if they failed to do the necessary before this game took place, but Spurs had 4 oppurtunities to "cement" 4th place 1 being vs Arse, they failed and thus are a UEFA cup team rather than a CL team. Spurs fans knew this before the last game as they watch them every week.

Granted the food **** may have provided sour grapes but every Spurs fan knew they lost the 4th place weeks ago by failing to beat teams lower then them.

kdjac

No, Spurs fans knew they had lost 4th place when Arsenal beat Wigan, and Spurs lost to West ham, and not before.
Same could be said for Arsenal not "Cementing" 4th place until the last game of the season.

PHB · 13-05-2006 2:38pm

The possible outcome of a replay shouldn't have had any bearing on the decision made by the PL. Seems that degree ain't worth the paper its written on.

This is just flatly untrue.
If spurs had won, could West Ham call for a replay?

Rikand · 13-05-2006 2:49pm

PHB wrote:

This is just flatly untrue.
If spurs had won, could West Ham call for a replay?

Absolutely PHB, If the spurs hadnt have been sick, west ham would definately have won and been entitled to a reply!

therecklessone · 14-05-2006 8:42am

PHB wrote:

This is just flatly untrue.
If spurs had won, could West Ham call for a replay?

On what grounds would they be requesting the replay?

PHB · 14-05-2006 11:33am

On the exact same grounds that Spurs are.

Blackjack · 14-05-2006 11:38am

PHB wrote:

On the exact same grounds that Spurs are.

Amazing that West Ham had a number of players Ill for the game, did not request a postponement or indeed have any mention the event the press.

Spurs grounds for requesting a replay was due to 10 of their players falling Ill the night before the game.

Whether you agree with them having grounds for getting or not getting a replay is irrelevant, but saying that WH would have the same grounds is just plain Daft.

PHB · 14-05-2006 11:45am

No, the situation is apparently not about the result of the match, it's about the principle.

Surely West Ham could appeal on the grounds that 10 of Spurs players were ill?
Is that incorrect?

Since Spurs lost, they decided to appeal?
If Spurs won, and West Ham decided to appeal,

both would be on the grounds that the match shouldn't have been played anyway,

is there any difference between the two?

Blackjack · 14-05-2006 11:51am

PHB wrote:

No, the situation is apparently not about the result of the match, it's about the principle.

Surely West Ham could appeal on the grounds that 10 of Spurs players were ill?
Is that incorrect?

Since Spurs lost, they decided to appeal?
If Spurs won, and West Ham decided to appeal,

both would be on the grounds that the match shouldn't have been played anyway,

is there any difference between the two?

Well Given that West Ham clearly had the distinct advantage having their Fully Fit Players playing a team of unfit players, I fail to see their Grounds for an appeal.

PHB · 14-05-2006 11:59am

They aren't appealing about themselves for god sake, they are appealing about the spurs team.

Blackjack · 14-05-2006 12:02pm

PHB wrote:

They aren't appealing about themselves for god sake, they are appealing about the spurs team.

So what you're saying is if Spurs had won despite the fact that West Ham were fully fit and a number of the Spurs players were Ill, that West Ham could appeal for a replay??.

therecklessone · 14-05-2006 12:11pm

Blackjack wrote:

Whether you agree with them having grounds for getting or not getting a replay is irrelevant, but saying that WH would have the same grounds is just plain Daft.

Don't dismiss him so quickly.

Spurs' case for a replay was based on the fact that the game should have been postponed, and given that it wasn't then a replay should be ordered by the PL. Either club could argue that a replay was in order given that the original decision to play the game was flawed.

My original point still stands though, the judgement of the PL on a possible replay would be based solely on the merits of the case. Possible implications for other clubs would not be considered.

therecklessone · 14-05-2006 12:13pm

Blackjack wrote:

So what you're saying is if Spurs had won despite the fact that West Ham were fully fit and a number of the Spurs players were Ill, that West Ham could appeal for a replay??.

I see you two had a full blown conversation while I was composing my last post...:D

GuanYin · 17-05-2006 2:25pm

Just as a footnote.

UK Health services cleared the hotel and food of any contamination.

That means that the Spurs illness was most likely viral passed through the team (if it was bacterial passed through the team, alot of questions may be asked about what Spurs players get up to

).

With this in mind, its pretty much unbelievable that the first inkling Spurs had about this wa sthe morning of the game.

The incubation period of the virus is long enough that someone in the virus shedding phase of disease would have had to have come into contact with the infected players at least 12 hours before the fell ill (but given the superior health and fitness of the players this could be up to 48 hours).

All in all, it looks likely that somone at spurs acted dishonestly.

WhiteWashMan · 17-05-2006 5:37pm

psi wrote:

All in all, it looks likely that somone at spurs acted dishonestly.

was it paranormal senses that brought you to that conclusion?

GuanYin · 17-05-2006 11:33pm

WhiteWashMan wrote:

was it paranormal senses that brought you to that conclusion?

No, reasoning based on epidemiological knowledge of norovirus.

If they got it from a spurs player, the spurs doctors would have had to have known there was a recent previous infection (within 48 hours of the "10 sick players") yet said nothing and claimed they were hit suddenly without time to recall reserve players.

If they got in from a non-spurs player, it means that 10 spurs players were in contact with someone exhibiting signs of infection at least 12 hours before they got sick (but most likely over 24 hours) and yet nothing was done and the players said nothing.

Basically norovirus (or rotavirus, which is the other possible culprit) are both too severe a disease and the incubation time too long for so many spurs player to get it from an unknown source. I've rarely seen anyone come in with either disease and not have a good idea of their source of infection, nevermind ten people from the same vicinity.

Spurs request replay of West Ham game

Comments