From: psgjf@gamgee.cc.flinders.edu.au (<G.J.Fraser>)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer
Subject: Re: 3rd game Leeds - Stuttgart
Date: 8 Oct 92 08:14:18 GMT
Organization: Flinders University

In article <1992Oct5.172849.13271@pony.Ingres.COM> cmorris@Ingres.COM (Colin Morris) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.130443.7753@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> schoof@dec5.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.dbp.de (Jochen "Joscho" Schoof) writes:
>>From article <1992Oct4.132634@uni-paderborn.de>, by laetta@uni-paderborn.de (Udo Koerber):
>>> Last night, after listening to both teams managements/trainers,
>>> UEFA decided:
>>> 
>>>  - the 2nd game Leeds _ Stuttgart will be counted as  3-0
>>> 
>>>  - i.e. a 3rd game must be played (agg. 3-3)
>>> 
>>>  - protests against the decision will be allowed 'til tuesday midnight
>>> 
>>>  - place (neutral, i think) and date will be announced after that.
>>> 
>>> My sense of justice says: Oh lucky, lucky Stuttgart - a hard decision
>>>                           against Leeds.
>>> 
>>
>>I can not agree this decision was hard against Leeds. It was the only
>>way to decide. UEFA-rules say if you have players on the field who are
>>not permitted, you lose the game with a score of 3-0. If the difference
>>was worse for the team, it would be kept (4-0 would remain 4-0 and not
>>become 3-0, AND 6-1 would remain 6-1). These are the regulations. So I
>>really wonder if they did not have to keep the 4-1. But this would have
>>been a clear advantage to Stuttgart, who made a fault. 
>>
>>I understand, that Leeds supporters are not very happy with the
>>decision, but I think there was nothing else the UEFA could do.
>>
>However, if Stuttgart had lost the game 3-0 at the end of 90 minutes,
>extra-time would have been played _at Leeds ground_, followed by a
>penalty-kick competition if the aggregate score was still tied. Thus,
>strictly speaking, by playing on a neutral ground, Leeds have been
>deprived of an advantage that normally would have fallen their way had
>they _won_ (as opposed to being awarded) the second leg by 3-0. Now I'm
>not suggesting that Stuttgart should travel to Elland Road for 1/2
>hour of extra-time, but given that it was they who broke the rule, I'm
>surprised that the 3rd game is not being played in Leeds.
>
>I'm also intrigued to know what would have happened if Stuttgart had
>won the first leg 4-0. If Leeds had been awarded the second leg 3-0,
>Stuttgart would have effectively received no penalty for breaking the
>rules as they would still have won on aggregate. Seems unfair...
>
>--
>Colin Morris       Ingres, an ASK company       cmorris@ws2s.ingres.com
>
>Wait! Come back! There's part of my face you haven't stepped on yet....

What if Leeds had been ahead 3:0 so it was 3:3 on aggregate and near the
end of extra time and Stuggart didn't fancy a penaly shootout.  They
could put an extra foreigner on the pitch and have a situation like it
is now with a third game on a neutral ground!!!!!

-- 
Geoff Fraser, School of Psychology| AARNet        : psgjf@cc.flinders.edu.au
Flinders University, GPO Box 2100,| Phone (Int.)  : 61-8-2012469
Adelaide, 5001, Australia         | Phone (Aust.) :   08-2012469
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer