Media You hate to see it - Las Vegas Bears screw up team sheet for prelim final

[JoshWoodenSpoon]

I, singularly, will be accepting this ban.

 

[ClarkeM]

I, singularly, will be accepting this ban.

Hope you're doing okay

 

[JoshWoodenSpoon]

LOL I’m doing great. Thank you.
This is the most Vegas thing ever. We’ll haphazardly scrape into the Grand Final and take it all home. My only sadness is that I’m not around to make the most of it.

Here we go!

 

[Sab22]

LOL I’m doing great. Thank you.
This is the most Vegas thing ever. We’ll haphazardly scrape into the Grand Final and take it all home. My only sadness is that I’m not around to make the most of it.

Here we go!

Unbelievable. Justice for JWS, Ban Cadaver

 

[CazC30]

Only one acceptable punishment for this crime.
Crucification sounds appropriate

So you want to martyr them? Jesus died on the cross.

 

[CazC30]

My poor LG - they are going to really regret this....

View attachment 696223

You wear the cone of shame well.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I can't wait for the next Bombers team sheet error. Have nine people ever been suspended for the same infraction before?

Probably not ...rules don't allow for it ....however if if they did, the Bombers would accept the ruling as a "team" and show the leadership you'd expect from the leagues most powerful club

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Literally the only person pointing fingers was me, at myself... but you take the good with the bad with WaynesWorld19

The leagues most fiercist supporter of rules has spent hours trying to mitigate & bend the rules ......has been a really poor reflection of a leader

 

[Test Tickle]

The leagues most fiercist supporter of rules has spent hours trying to mitigate & bend the rules ......has been a really poor reflection of a leader

He has our full support.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

He has our full support.

I'm trying to get you the captaincy here ......just go with me

 

[Sausages]

Hello ladies and gentlemen. I bring you some sad news.

Unfortunately, Cadaver has made a glaring error in his posting of the Las Vegas Bears team sheet for their Preliminary Final against the Mount Buller Demons.

In the absence of JoshWoodenSpoon, young leader and surely future captain Cadaver has cost his side a goal penalty heading into the big clash on Sunday.
Here is the team sheet he has posted:

Can you see the mistake?

You'll notice that instead of using the accepted "Ruck" for the ruckman position, Cadaver has simply used "R", which is generally designated to the Rover.
A very small mistake indeed, but a mistake nonetheless.

"But Loonerty" I hear the Las Vegas folk cry "That is so minor that surely it won't cost us anything and you're fishing for drama."

Oh ho ho my friends, I don't fish. I leave that to Yakker.

The "R" controversy is not the only issue you see.
Let's take a look at the team sheet the Bears posted for the semi final against the Gumbies:

You will notice here that hilly is named in the Back Pocket while Magruder is named on the bench.

Cast your eyes back above to this week's team sheet - the two have been swapped. Cadaver, however, failed to declare this change.


May this be a lesson to all and especially to those thinking they are ready to be captain - double. check. your. work.

I have sadly been absent for a few days and not on BF. Indeed, had I been involved we may have avoided this issue, as I usually made an effort to be another set of eyes on the Team Sheet.

That being said, I would submit the following points for the Moderators to address and will do so in SFA Legal terminology.

Regarding Charge #1, that being the use of R rather than Ruck to indicate a positional change for player Sausages.

I note that in the official Team Sheet Thread OP, which the SFA Rules advocate as taking precedent in regards to clarification of issues and process, that the word 'Recommended' is used in Article 4B. Given the accepted definition of "recommended" is "advised or suggested as suitable", it becomes arguable that whilst an error was made, that the only issue is that the subsequent action was merely not recommended as opposed to erroneous, and the failure is in fact that the word "recommended" in Article 4B should more accurately be "required", given the penalties that are applied.

The failure here seems to be that the incorrect terminology is in fact the fault of the SFA Article 4B and as such a suspended penalty would be more appropriate.

Regarding Charge #2, that being a positional change being made and not identified between the Semi Final and the Preliminary Final for players hilly and Magruder.

Regarding Article 4A, medium impact offences, it is noted in the Official Team Sheet thread OP, that "incorrect positional changes" activates an offence in this category. An argument can clearly be made that no such error has been made - it has simply not been advised, as opposed to being incorrect. Again, the failure of the SFA Article 4A is arguably a lack of clarity and as such a sentence imposed of lesser strength would be more appropriate.

 

[U2tigers]

I have sadly been absent for a few days and not on BF. Indeed, had I been involved we may have avoided this issue, as I usually made an effort to be another set of eyes on the Team Sheet.

That being said, I would submit the following points for the Moderators to address and will do so in SFA Legal terminology.

Regarding Charge #1, that being the use of R rather than Ruck to indicate a positional change for player Sausages.

I note that in the official Team Sheet Thread OP, which the SFA Rules advocate as taking precedent in regards to clarification of issues and process, that the word 'Recommended' is used in Article 4B. Given the accepted definition of "recommended" is "advised or suggested as suitable", if becomes arguable that whilst an error was made, that the only issue is that the subsequent action was merely not recommended as opposed to erroneous, and the failure is in fact that the word "recommended in Article 4B should more accurately be "required", given the penalties that are applied.

The failure here seems to be that the incorrect terminology is in fact the fault of the SFA Article 4B and as such a suspended penalty would be more appropriate.

Regarding Charge #2, that being a positional change being made and not identified between the Semi Final and the Preliminary Final for players hilly and Magruder.

Regarding Article 4A, medium impact offences, it is noted in the Official Team Sheet thread OP, that "incorrect positional changes" activates an offence in this category. An argument can clearly be made that no such error has been made - it has simply not been advised, as opposed to being incorrect. Again, the failure of the SFA Article 4A is arguably a lack of clarity and as such a sentence imposed of lesser strength would be more appropriate.

 

[ClarkeM]

I have sadly been absent for a few days and not on BF. Indeed, had I been involved we may have avoided this issue, as I usually made an effort to be another set of eyes on the Team Sheet.

That being said, I would submit the following points for the Moderators to address and will do so in SFA Legal terminology.

Regarding Charge #1, that being the use of R rather than Ruck to indicate a positional change for player Sausages.

I note that in the official Team Sheet Thread OP, which the SFA Rules advocate as taking precedent in regards to clarification of issues and process, that the word 'Recommended' is used in Article 4B. Given the accepted definition of "recommended" is "advised or suggested as suitable", it becomes arguable that whilst an error was made, that the only issue is that the subsequent action was merely not recommended as opposed to erroneous, and the failure is in fact that the word "recommended" in Article 4B should more accurately be "required", given the penalties that are applied.

The failure here seems to be that the incorrect terminology is in fact the fault of the SFA Article 4B and as such a suspended penalty would be more appropriate.

Regarding Charge #2, that being a positional change being made and not identified between the Semi Final and the Preliminary Final for players hilly and Magruder.

Regarding Article 4A, medium impact offences, it is noted in the Official Team Sheet thread OP, that "incorrect positional changes" activates an offence in this category. An argument can clearly be made that no such error has been made - it has simply not been advised, as opposed to being incorrect. Again, the failure of the SFA Article 4A is arguably a lack of clarity and as such a sentence imposed of lesser strength would be more appropriate.

That was a waste of your time

 

[Sausages]

View attachment 696547

Indeed, that may well be the case.

Nonetheless, being a PF and with a penalty being a Captain missing a possible GF appearance, one leaves no stone unturned.

I consider the points raised valid and defensible in light of the circumstances and particulars.

 

[Sausages]

That was a waste of your time

Your concern is noted.

 

[Test Tickle]

That was a waste of your time

You'll never be a Bear with that sort of attitude.

 

[RelaxMax]

Great thread

Will read again

Thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys

 

[RelaxMax]

Cup of tea, bex and a lie down.

A cup of tea, bex and a good lie down

You're welcome

 

[Art Vandelay_]

That was a waste of your time

As opposed to every other aspect of this league lol

 

[Tigerturbulance]

I have sadly been absent for a few days and not on BF. Indeed, had I been involved we may have avoided this issue, as I usually made an effort to be another set of eyes on the Team Sheet.

That being said, I would submit the following points for the Moderators to address and will do so in SFA Legal terminology.

Regarding Charge #1, that being the use of R rather than Ruck to indicate a positional change for player Sausages.

I note that in the official Team Sheet Thread OP, which the SFA Rules advocate as taking precedent in regards to clarification of issues and process, that the word 'Recommended' is used in Article 4B. Given the accepted definition of "recommended" is "advised or suggested as suitable", it becomes arguable that whilst an error was made, that the only issue is that the subsequent action was merely not recommended as opposed to erroneous, and the failure is in fact that the word "recommended" in Article 4B should more accurately be "required", given the penalties that are applied.

The failure here seems to be that the incorrect terminology is in fact the fault of the SFA Article 4B and as such a suspended penalty would be more appropriate.

Regarding Charge #2, that being a positional change being made and not identified between the Semi Final and the Preliminary Final for players hilly and Magruder.

Regarding Article 4A, medium impact offences, it is noted in the Official Team Sheet thread OP, that "incorrect positional changes" activates an offence in this category. An argument can clearly be made that no such error has been made - it has simply not been advised, as opposed to being incorrect. Again, the failure of the SFA Article 4A is arguably a lack of clarity and as such a sentence imposed of lesser strength would be more appropriate.

Barely Legal is delighted to be able to announce we have accepted Sausages application to be our new Law Clerk. With the skills he has demonstrated so far, pantskyle and myself are confident this fine young man has all the attributes to progress all the way to junior partner. Congratulations and welcome to the greatest legal firm in the SFA.

 

[Loonerty]

Indeed, that may well be the case.

Nonetheless, being a PF and with a penalty being a Captain missing a possible GF appearance, one leaves no stone unturned.

I consider the points raised valid and defensible in light of the circumstances and particulars.

Here's what goes against your pedantism:

Precedent

 

[Sausages]

Here's what goes against your pedantism:

Precedent

If precedent is established by erroneous application of the Law, then it is correct to discard precedent in pursuit of appropriate judgment.

Pedantic it may be, but that in and of itself is not a rebuttal.

Equally, I am satisfied if the ruling of the Mods is to maintain the current penalties. I am merely presenting a counter argument.

 

[Tandy]

Barely Legal is delighted to be able to announce we have accepted Sausages application to be our new Law Clerk. With the skills he has demonstrated so far, pantskyle and myself are confident this fine young man has all the attributes to progress all the way to junior partner. Congratulations and welcome to the greatest legal firm in the SFA.

I was told yesterday barely legal generally don't win their cases. But it's nice we have some representation all the same

 

[Tigerturbulance]

I was told yesterday barely legal generally don't win their cases. But it's nice we have some representation all the same

Thankyou for choosing Barely Legal.










Sausages ensure Tandy is registered under our Gold Club Members payment scheme and start deducting monthly payments from his visa immediately.
Put the item description down as pr0n Hub so Tandy wont challenge it.

 

[Tandy]

Thankyou for choosing Barely Legal.










Sausages ensure Tandy is registered under our Gold Club Members payment scheme and start deducting monthly payments from his visa immediately.
Put the item description down as pr0n Hub so Tandy wont challenge it.

It may look a bit odd on the bank statement, two separate deductions for pornhub but I can deal with that.
I'm looking to sue anyone who has ever disagreed with me within the league.
Hoping to win 300,000 positive reactions