For the sake of transparency.

#1 by Jonny , Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:57 pm

Several captains have asked for more transparency on the chairmen's decisions on the recent events. Here's how I voted and why:

1 - Working out the T9A ETC winner. I was still in Croatia when this happened, so I didn't take part in it. I would have voted to keep Spain as winner as this seemed like the best/fairest solution. In future the rulespack should be tightened up to avoid this sort of issue.

2 - Banning Konrad. I voted to ban. I realise that tempers can get frayed at these events, so I'm willing to overlook some verbal abuse. Once physical contact is made though, I think that something needs to be done. Based on what the refs described (which I haven't seen contradicted by anyone else), what Konrad did would be classed as assault, in my country anyway. The ref wasn't actually physically injured, so had Konrad profusely apologised and promised to behave in a more reasonably manner in future, I would have considered a lesser punishment. As this wasn't the case, I thought that banning him from Serbia 2019 would be a suitable punishment.

Note - I don't know any of the people involved and I didn't witness the incident, so I could only base my decision on what's posted here and the chairmen's group.

If you want to know anything else, just ask.


2009 Northern Ireland WFB Captain
2010 - 2012 Northern Ireland 40K Captain
2013 Northern Ireland FoW ETC Chairman
2014 - 2015 Northern Ireland FoW Captain
2016 Canada FoW (Merc)
2017 Northern Ireland FoW Captain
2018 Scotland FoW (Merc) ETC Chairman

Jonny  
Jonny
Posts: 61
Date registered 05.14.2018


RE: For the sake of transparency.

#2 by Spectator , Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:09 pm

It's amazing how you admit to have votede merely on what you belived was true without checking the facts...

1. "I would have voted to keep Spain as winner as this seemed like the best/fairest solution"
- despite rules stating otherwise
- despite Poland winning all games and Spain losing one of six (to Poland)
- despite judge publicly admitting here to being biased against team ("would have been an instant red card (...). Refs decide to give him a yellow card (because at this point in time yellow card is more harsh than red card). " he actually explicitly admitted that. He gave explanation: goal was to apply harshest possible punishment regardless of what rules say

2. no point in commenting this one. You did not know half of what you should have so you guessed most of it based on your mood probably...
I will just say this: physical contact between refs and captain happens (handshake?). The mere fact that there was one says nothing. The fact that police was not called means it was not an assault (Croatia is civilised country after all). And bear in mind it happened right after what I described in point 1.

Spectator  
Spectator
Posts: 11
Date registered 08.09.2018


RE: For the sake of transparency.

#3 by Carolus , Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:33 pm

In order to asses a violation police must be called?!
Croatia is a civilized country, this does not mean the people who walk its soil are apparently...
Are we all aware of the legal procedure and what implies to call the police? The months wasted, even years, or are we simple using this trick in order to smear the victim?

Carolus  
Carolus
Posts: 2
Date registered 07.21.2018


RE: For the sake of transparency.

#4 by Spectator , Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:45 pm

I was referring to that statement: what Konrad did would be classed as assault, in my country
Thought this one was obvious enough.

Assault = you call the police
Police was nat called = it was not an assault

"Are we all aware of the legal procedure and what implies to call the police? The months wasted, even years, or are we simple using this trick in order to smear the victim"

Of course not. Why would there be laws, judges and all that nonsense if you can simply jump to conclusion based on partial information and call for a whichhunt?

Spectator  
Spectator
Posts: 11
Date registered 08.09.2018


RE: For the sake of transparency.

#5 by Chris Legg , Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:49 pm

I wasn't aware that no crime is committed if the police were not called. News to me.


ETC England WFB / Ninth Age 2009 - 2019
ETC Chairman 2018-2019

Chris Legg  
Chris Legg
Posts: 28
Date registered 05.22.2018


RE: For the sake of transparency.

#6 by Spectator , Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:54 pm

I refer to this particular situation. A lot of witnesses, etc. If no police was called that is a strong indicator that there was no ground to do so. Which leaves an open question of how bad it actually was?

Spectator  
Spectator
Posts: 11
Date registered 08.09.2018


RE: For the sake of transparency.

#7 by Mo Ashraf , Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:11 am

Being aggressive in football games can get you a ban.

Police won't be called though.

Lot of witnesses there as well...


T9A England Coach 2017
T9A England Coach 2018

Mo Ashraf  
Mo Ashraf
Posts: 2
Date registered 08.13.2018


RE: For the sake of transparency.

#8 by Winter , Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:17 am

Or mayby there was no reason to call to police. I'd like to remind you that polish captain CrusaderPL has stated MULTIPLE times that there was no physical contact. Everyone saying otherwise is basically implying that polish captain is straight up lying. Therefore - according to majority of captains, polish captain is filthy lier because many of them are talking about physycial absue while he explicity stated that there that was not the case. How about we adress that elephant in the room?

Also we still yet to see NO votes in vote of confidence, because:

1. Almost everyone are contesting chairmans decision
2. Alegedlly 5 of team captains initate the idea of the vote itself
3. Not a single NO vote

Obviously something doesn't add up here. Where are those people? I bet they expected outright revolt and no YES vote, and when they realized that they will have to stick to their guns and show their official NO vote they didn't have the balls to do so. Some people should take a look into mirror before calling someone else weak and cowardly.

I feel sorry for this community if these are people that they chose to represent their countries.

Winter  
Winter
Posts: 5
Date registered 08.09.2018

Last edited 08.14.2018 | Top

RE: For the sake of transparency.

#9 by Orion , Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:39 am

Votes need to be held via PM. All it takes is one result to get the first 2 or 3 votes and then everyone else starts voting the same cause they dont want to be THAT team. Anyway, I thought the no confidence vote was a bit too much and irrelevant tbh, as the one that matters is the captain´s one on banning Konrad or not... and that one is via PM.

Orion  
Orion
Posts: 17
Date registered 06.06.2018


RE: For the sake of transparency.

#10 by Orion , Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:46 am

Quote: Spectator wrote in post #2
It's amazing how you admit to have votede merely on what you belived was true without checking the facts...

1. "I would have voted to keep Spain as winner as this seemed like the best/fairest solution"
- despite rules stating otherwise Rules which were a copy/paste mistake and not even team Poland wanted to use VPs as first tie-breaker.
- despite Poland winning all games and Spain losing one of six (to Poland) What on earth does this have to do with anything?? Head to Head results mean jack shit here buddy, learn the rules.
- despite judge publicly admitting here to being biased against team ("would have been an instant red card (...). Refs decide to give him a yellow card (because at this point in time yellow card is more harsh than red card). " he actually explicitly admitted that. He gave explanation: goal was to apply harshest possible punishment regardless of what rules say.
And here youre just talking out of your ass. Give it a break loser.

2. no point in commenting this one. You did not know half of what you should have so you guessed most of it based on your mood probably...
I will just say this: physical contact between refs and captain happens (handshake?). The mere fact that there was one says nothing. The fact that police was not called means it was not an assault (Croatia is civilised country after all). And bear in mind it happened right after what I described in point 1.


I personally saw the physical chest bumping and intimidation. Not enough to call the cops but certainly very threatning as if when a male alpha towers over another male waiting for a fight to start.

You starting to sound like a broken record. Btw, who are you again??

Orion  
Orion
Posts: 17
Date registered 06.06.2018


RE: For the sake of transparency.

#11 by Winter , Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:49 am

Quote: Orion wrote in post #9
Votes need to be held via PM. All it takes is one result to get the first 2 or 3 votes and then everyone else starts voting the same cause they dont want to be THAT team. Anyway, I thought the no confidence vote was a bit too much and irrelevant tbh, as the one that matters is the captain´s one on banning Konrad or not... and that one is via PM.


So people are votinf to overturn the decision made by "weak and cowardly" chairmans and they do that privately because they are so strong and brave that they have no guts to vote differently than 2 persons before them. And they also don't want to put their names next to their opinion. That's just greek tragedy at this point.

Winter  
Winter
Posts: 5
Date registered 08.09.2018

Last edited 08.14.2018 | Top

RE: For the sake of transparency.

#12 by Jonny , Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:00 am

Quote: Spectator wrote in post #2
It's amazing how you admit to have votede merely on what you belived was true without checking the facts...

How would I go about checking the facts? Is there video evidence? Are there witness statements I've missed? I pointed out that I made my decision based on the evidence that was available to me, what else could I have done?

Quote: Spectator wrote in post #2
1. "I would have voted to keep Spain as winner as this seemed like the best/fairest solution"
- despite rules stating otherwise
- despite Poland winning all games and Spain losing one of six (to Poland)
- despite judge publicly admitting here to being biased against team ("would have been an instant red card (...). Refs decide to give him a yellow card (because at this point in time yellow card is more harsh than red card). " he actually explicitly admitted that. He gave explanation: goal was to apply harshest possible punishment regardless of what rules say

As I said, I didn't take part in the discussion or vote on this matter. I think there was a rulespack failure here, and it was resolved in the best way possible. That's my opinion and I stand by it.

Quote: Spectator wrote in post #2

2. no point in commenting this one. You did not know half of what you should have so you guessed most of it based on your mood probably...
I will just say this: physical contact between refs and captain happens (handshake?). The mere fact that there was one says nothing. The fact that police was not called means it was not an assault (Croatia is civilised country after all). And bear in mind it happened right after what I described in point 1.

Again, I can only make a decision based on the evidence available. In this case that was the statements on this forum by the 2 referees who witnessed it. Nobody refuted their statements, so they seem like reliable witnesses. My mood wasn't a factor, I have no dog in this fight so I can make a unbiased and impartial decision.

I agree that not all physical contact equals assault. A handshake, slap on the back, chest bump etc can of course be friendly and in no way an assault. Context is what matters.

Zitat von Fjugin
He steps up to me in a more threatening manner than to the others (physical contact, similar to what a drunk person would do when he wants to innate a fist fight), and verbally insults me (I don't recall the exact words, sorry).



Zitat von van der Loo
Im the Danish judge that was there with Erik when Konrad confronted him, to say it was a little offensive is an understatement.
He walked in to Erik with his chest and continued walking to push Erik back while he was saying something like "you are the most biased judge ever" it didn't end until Erik shoved him to the side. If it had just been the insult then i would not do much about it, because i understand his frustrations, but the attitude and the physical confrontation was way over the top. The only reason we didn't give him a red/yellow card on the spot was that none of us had expected anything even close to that so we were a bit stumbled.


These are quotes from the 2 referees, in this context, it's plainly assault. I showed these statements to a policeman here (Northern Ireland), and he said that it was assault. With no counterargument from Konrad I felt that voting to ban him was the proper thing to do.


2009 Northern Ireland WFB Captain
2010 - 2012 Northern Ireland 40K Captain
2013 Northern Ireland FoW ETC Chairman
2014 - 2015 Northern Ireland FoW Captain
2016 Canada FoW (Merc)
2017 Northern Ireland FoW Captain
2018 Scotland FoW (Merc) ETC Chairman

Jonny  
Jonny
Posts: 61
Date registered 05.14.2018


RE: For the sake of transparency.

#13 by 9thMD , Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:26 am

for someone who claimed that he had no idea how the game worked and stumbled upon this thread by accident, spectator seems very aggressive and persistent... Perhaps someone has an alt account?


2017 Team USA
2018 Team USA
2019 Team USA (c)

9thMD  
9thMD
Posts: 16
Date registered 08.08.2018


RE: For the sake of transparency.

#14 by Orion , Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:53 am

Quote: 9thMD wrote in post #13
for someone who claimed that he had no idea how the game worked and stumbled upon this thread by accident, spectator seems very aggressive and persistent... Perhaps someone has an alt account?


Was just thinking the same thing here...

Orion  
Orion
Posts: 17
Date registered 06.06.2018


RE: For the sake of transparency.

#15 by pk-ng , Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:17 am

Quote: Orion wrote in post #14
Quote: 9thMD wrote in post #13
for someone who claimed that he had no idea how the game worked and stumbled upon this thread by accident, spectator seems very aggressive and persistent... Perhaps someone has an alt account?


Was just thinking the same thing here...

Capped Crusader!

On something more serious
Quote: Winter wrote in post #8
Or mayby there was no reason to call to police. I'd like to remind you that polish captain CrusaderPL has stated MULTIPLE times that there was no physical contact. Everyone saying otherwise is basically implying that polish captain is straight up lying. Therefore - according to majority of captains, polish captain is filthy lier because many of them are talking about physycial absue while he explicity stated that there that was not the case. How about we adress that elephant in the room?


Do you see how your logic is flawed?
Fact 1) Primary source - Konrad still hasn't personally stated anything
Fact 2) Primary source - Erik has stated what has happened
Fact 3) Secondary source - Crusader has stated what he perceived as happened. He has only told us what has happened from Konrad's point of view.
Fact 4) Secondary source - There have multiple sources from referees and players that has corroborating Erik's story.

Is Konrad lying? I don't know but it could be just an issue of if the glass is half empty or half full.
And finally so what if CrusaderPL is the polish captain? Does that mean he is inflatable? What elevated status is he eligible for?

(PS @CrusaderPL I have nothing against you but just making a point)


Fantasy - Team Singapore
2015 - High Elves
2014 - Chaos Dwarvf

pk-ng  
pk-ng
Posts: 9
Date registered 05.16.2018

Last edited 08.14.2018 | Top

   

Personal Statement on the Post-ETC-T9A-2018 events by Frederick
Refs statement

Xobor Create your own Forum with Xobor