[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-June-24, 17:10, said:

Well, I can certainly accept that your view is reasonable, but let us look at the English. During the last season, Liverpool FC replaced Roy Hodgson with Kenny Dalglish. The position of Liverpool in the table after Dalglish returned was, almost invariably, much higher. Would you interpret "the position after Dalglish returned" as "the position immediately after Dalglish returned"? I wouldn't.

Fair enough -- that's a good example.

[jallerton]

I agree with the AC in one respect: the wording of the WBLC minute is potentally ambiguous.

When I first read: "If there are two revokes on the same board by the same side the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke." I did wonder what it was intended to mean and why a few more words (and even, dare I suggest, an example) could not have been added to the text.

Fortunately it is not vital to know what the WBFLC meant in this case as a careful application of Laws 64A, 64B and 64C will lead to the conclusion agreed to be correct by most posters to this thread.

However, I am less keen on the idea of using Law 23 here. Is it really true to say that East "could have known" that the TD in a European event might not apply the revoke Laws properly?

Even if the answer if yes, could East have known that the TD would refer an appeal of his decision to the AC, despite the fact that Law 93B1 requires that "the Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations."?