Post by another_ruined_saturday on Apr 27, 2014 20:00:57 GMT
not decided yet. like archie says, it's subject to the intricacies of the agm cup. apparently maidenhead may challenge it legally, as they finished on more points than oxford, albeit in the south, against completely different teams. there's been a long thread about it on the NLF over the past few weeks. here's a synopsis from one of the posters, which tends to point to oxford being safe (rule 5.4(1)).
"I agree, Ladders, that it is open to interpretation either way, as it is loosely worded. (See below). It allows different interpretation based on whether it refers to the timing at which a vacancy is 'announced', or the timing of when the vacancy 'becomes available'. They have given a clarification, rather than an explanation.
You can boil it down to a simple situation. Say VM were playing Staly in the last game of the season, and Staly were in 20th place (but had worse PPG than their CS counterparts). If VM announced they were quitting the league at 14.30 pm (or perhaps even up to 16.40 pm) on that day, then Staly would be reprieved. If they announced they were quitting after the final whistle at 16.55 (a couple of hours, or even a couple of minutes later than the previous situation) then Staly would be relegated.
The logic of that seems very hard to justify or explain. Doesn't it?
Most people would see relegation to be decided (by football related issues) between the two 20th placed Clubs as more justifiable, hence would 5.4(ii) in this case rather than the random timing of the announcement by a third party.
I understood 5.4(i) to apply to a Farsley type situation, where by going bust mid-season and not completing their fixtures, they would be treated as the bottom Club in that league - even if they had more points from their partial set of games than all of the bottom three. That seems more justifiable as there would not be opportunities for equal PPG to be compared.
Anyway, hey ho ... without explanation rather than clarification, I wouldn't rule out court wrangle by 20th in CS ...
5.4 Where a vacancy occurs within the NLS the following procedures will apply:-
(i) Where a vacancy occurs in a particular division prior to the end of a Playing Season,
the Club creating the vacancy is taken to be the Club in the bottom position in that
division.
(ii) Where a vacancy occurs at Steps 2 to 4 following the completion of a Playing
Season the best ranked Club in a relegation position across the particular Step is
reprieved. The ranking to be determined by the average points gained per game
played and comparable league position. The Club with the highest ratio shall be
reprieved first.
(iii) Where a vacancy occurs after the date of a League AGM then a League is not able
to replace the Club(s) concerned for the following Playing Season."
"I agree, Ladders, that it is open to interpretation either way, as it is loosely worded. (See below). It allows different interpretation based on whether it refers to the timing at which a vacancy is 'announced', or the timing of when the vacancy 'becomes available'. They have given a clarification, rather than an explanation.
You can boil it down to a simple situation. Say VM were playing Staly in the last game of the season, and Staly were in 20th place (but had worse PPG than their CS counterparts). If VM announced they were quitting the league at 14.30 pm (or perhaps even up to 16.40 pm) on that day, then Staly would be reprieved. If they announced they were quitting after the final whistle at 16.55 (a couple of hours, or even a couple of minutes later than the previous situation) then Staly would be relegated.
The logic of that seems very hard to justify or explain. Doesn't it?
Most people would see relegation to be decided (by football related issues) between the two 20th placed Clubs as more justifiable, hence would 5.4(ii) in this case rather than the random timing of the announcement by a third party.
I understood 5.4(i) to apply to a Farsley type situation, where by going bust mid-season and not completing their fixtures, they would be treated as the bottom Club in that league - even if they had more points from their partial set of games than all of the bottom three. That seems more justifiable as there would not be opportunities for equal PPG to be compared.
Anyway, hey ho ... without explanation rather than clarification, I wouldn't rule out court wrangle by 20th in CS ...
5.4 Where a vacancy occurs within the NLS the following procedures will apply:-
(i) Where a vacancy occurs in a particular division prior to the end of a Playing Season,
the Club creating the vacancy is taken to be the Club in the bottom position in that
division.
(ii) Where a vacancy occurs at Steps 2 to 4 following the completion of a Playing
Season the best ranked Club in a relegation position across the particular Step is
reprieved. The ranking to be determined by the average points gained per game
played and comparable league position. The Club with the highest ratio shall be
reprieved first.
(iii) Where a vacancy occurs after the date of a League AGM then a League is not able
to replace the Club(s) concerned for the following Playing Season."