Theoretical Last Day Situation

[Vacamion]

43 minutes ago, Horibbly Wrong said:

I wouldn't trust our defence to pass the ball around without scoring an own goal 

 

Or two... both by Armartey.

 

 

 

 

[ARM1968]

Theoretically we win our next two, all other relegation candidates keep

losing. We’re safe by the last game and go on to batter West Ham 4-0. In theory this could happen. 

[ARTY_FOX]

5 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

Or two... both by Armartey.

 

 

 

 

More likely to be faes tbf. Considering he's actually done it. 

[whetstonefox]

Giving all the stuff the Forest owner has been involved in it would be quite sweet if that did happen! Leicester not conceding might raise a few eyebrows though , 1-1 would be more of

a score line to aim for !

 

[TJQuik]

It was a similar situation when Wolves were down 2-3 to Blackburn but were safe on goal difference wasn't it? At the end of the match neither team were bothered to score another because they knew both were safe.

[KFS]

Tbf strategically long term you want the other relegated so I doubt this would happen. Contrary to what they’re singing on their European tour, WHU and us are similar size and fishing in the same transfer pond. It benefits us if they go down and vice versa. 

[KFS]

Plus if Everton are involved I reckon Moyes wants to do them a favour 

[Mark_w]

18 minutes ago, KFS said:

Tbf strategically long term you want the other relegated so I doubt this would happen. Contrary to what they’re singing on their European tour, WHU and us are similar size and fishing in the same transfer pond. It benefits us if they go down and vice versa. 

Ummm no I think we'd definitely want safety and a regional competitor for youth relegated in this scenario thanks.

[Fox92]

I would imagine, with all the money involved in the league, then some sort of action would be taken by the club that goes down. Look at how Sheffield United went about taking West Ham to court.

[Number 6]

Wouldn't be the first game this season where we've shown up with no intention of winning.

[Scotch]

In this scenario, I imagine that both trams would make a game of it for an hour or so but after that, they would just play it out. 

[tinpot_fox]

Coventry vs Bristol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_City_2–2_Bristol_City_(1977)

 

I thought there was a premier league example as well?

[cruzFOX]

I really hope it doesn’t come to this of course but ‘IF’ it does I don’t think smiffy & moyes will set up to go gung Ho at each other. It will be a cagey affair or trying not to concede and keeping possession at all costs. Like others have said it’s a challenge in itself. it’s like trying to play football but not trying too hard which will just about pass as a viable game.

 

no one will begrudge either side except for  those teams below in jeopardy who will find a reason to complain regardless.

we see it every season when a team that has nothing to play for is accused of not trying hard enough because the team that’s in trouble need something from that game against their rival. Happens all the time!

 

to answer your question in short - no I don’t think the two teams should or would to collude in advance to not play a competitive game as they will get hammered publicly. 
legally very hard to prove collusion when it’s pretty obvious there’s nothing yo okay for and a draw benefits both teams.

[melvinmmelvin]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

An incredible piece of mathematical gymnastics.

 

But the same situation could arise with Leeds or Forest doing the same.

 

There may be a certain amount of game theory going on, yeah, as mentioned above.

 

Speaking personally I'd broadly agree with the general consensus that there would be an outcry but no sanction, but I wouldn't want to put money on it because I also think it possible that the outcry would get so big the PL could feel compelled to do something about it.

Since writing, I've had another look and was unpleasantly surprised by the matches where under-threat teams play each other, guaranteeing points for one or both in each pairing.

 

It's not like these fixtures have suddenly sprung up, but they seem to loom larger as each day of results passes.

 

Admittedly we have one such match, when it could well be 'all to play for', but I feel that the general atmos from now till then goes against us...

[Finnegan]

5 hours ago, Vacamion said:

 

If it isn't breaking any laws, there would be a LOT  of "this goes against the spirit of football" chat and we would be villified.

 

We might get away with passing it around for 5 minutes at the end, but a whole match? 

 

There would be an outcry.

 

 

 

Yeah but think how much it would trigger the Notts Forest fans. 

 

They wouldn't stop crying about it for decades it'd be glorious. 

[Beachyboy]

I don't remember it that clearly and it wasn't the last day of the season but even the 0-0 we got in 2015 against Sunderland after we'd been on a good winning run, an just needed a point to stay up, while Sunderland were nearly safe felt a bit like mutual interests achieved.

[Paninistickers]

5 hours ago, Scotch said:

In this scenario, I imagine that both trams would make a game of it for an hour or so but after that, they would just play it out. 

That's exactly what would happen. 

 

If one team were to go a goal ahead, I'd anticipate that they'd then lay off and eventually and equaliser would go in. 

[Jimothy]

8 hours ago, Vacamion said:

 

Or two... both by Armartey.

 

 

 

 

Don't think he's ever score an OG has he? Faes has though, twice in a game too.

[Dan]

It would complete football for me. I'd cherish that 90 minutes of passing the ball around more than the league win.

[Dan]

10 hours ago, Scotch said:

In this scenario, I imagine that both trams would make a game of it for an hour or so but after that, they would just play it out. 

In seriousness this is what would happen. If it was level after 70 minutes I'd be very surprised if there was another goal.

 

Oh wait it's us, no, we'd lose 1-4.