The argument of the FEU Athletic Director is Rule 5.1 Section 11. Sorry. I amended this statement of mine just this morning. Kinda woozy from watching the PBA last night. I put the shot of the League Competition above to establish that they would go to the tie-breaking rules to settle things. Even if you say first round, they resorted to the tie-breaker. It doesn't make sense to follow it for one round and not the other. Again the terms "points" means what is accumulated from wins and draws. Goals is not included among the points. That is needed later for aggregate and differentials.
Using his argument, two years ago, in Season 70, Ateneo and FEU were tied at the end of the elims with 19 points each. FEU was awarded the twice to beat advantage because they scored more goals. Eh, di bakit doon hindi Best of Three? Did we protest? I think there are double standards present.
Then take a look at these rules on tie-breakers. It is also patterned after FIFA's Rules. So is this a matter of interpretation? Well two of the rules are in favor of what the tournament officials decided. Is this a case of one is greater than two? Hell, I don't know. Whatever it is, it sure is confusing. The point I am trying to make is -- the Board was wrong. They have decided already and there's nothing Ateneo can do about it. But it still has to be pointed out. And at this rate, teams will keep an eye out for rule violations and what they can do to circumvent or bend them. Whew!I hope we kick their butts on the field this Sunday. Go Blue!