Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Aug 7, 2015 9:49:24 GMT
Sometimes a decision is overturned and then overturned again. Surely if it goes from 1 to 3 to 7, then next in sequence is 15, perhaps we could play the judges at rugby. No, that's the point. The system means that the initial decision made by one judge is now in the hands of the Appeals Court, presided over by 3 judges. If either party doesn't accept the decision of the Appeals Court, then it goes to the "final possible" court where a panel of 7 judges deliberate. Either Sainsbury's or Rovers would once again have to seek permission to take it to that level as Rovers had to do in order to take it to the Appeals Court. There are no other options thereafter.
Fair do and I appreciate the appeals system, but there have been cases where verdicts have been overthrown twice so that A wins it, then B wins and then A again. Skimming through the ruling there were comments similar to "I consider" or "I think" and the case hinged on personal interpretation. Obviously it's down to manpower and costs, but it may be better to use 3 judges in such cases at the start, even Shearer and Lineker can spot errors from a ref which is often the ref's opinion.
|
|