[blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Gampas at aol.com]

>In a message dated 07/09/2007 03:20:57 GMT Standard Time,  
>richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes:
>If a side has not infracted law,  they ipso facto
>cannot be an "offending side", but must instead  be
>a "non-offending side". So therefore they are not
>subject to  Law 90, which only permits a procedural
>penalty to be applied for an  "offence".
 
I totally agree that the committee in this 1994 case was badly mistaken in  
assessing a procedural penalty in order to try to compensate North-South for  
their bad luck, or to punish East-West for a bidding misunderstanding. It is  
human nature to bend the laws to try and get the result one wants, however  
wrongly. 
 
The fourth official advised the referee to send Zidane off in the last  World 
Cup final for a head butt (apologies to those who don't care about  soccer), 
even though his viewing of the video monitor did not allow him to do  that; 
he, of course claimed he was watching Zidane with his eyes at the time,  even 
though play was 40 yards away, and this entitled him to act (he was so  
empowered if he saw it first hand). Some doubted the veracity of the statement,  
although believing justice was done.
 
Here the laws appear clear that the misbid is not an infraction (assuming  
the AC believed the documentation). The PP was, IMHO, acting ultra vires and the 
 AC should be so advised by the governing body.
 
Paul