They don’t need to require it. They’ve already recommended it, so any team that doesn’t follow through is choosing to be super-fucked in court the next time a spectator gets drilled.

Short explanation - you aren’t allowed to interfere with play when you’re in an offside position.

Nostradamus should move over for Frank Gore.

Important clarification... this is one of the media organizations at the heart of FIFA’s corruption. Here’s a story about another.

One of these teams is going to make the playoffs, which is bad.

“Has anyone noticed the more Bills fans put their hands in each other pants, the more we win?”

Took a shit in our swimming pool (a friend dared me). Didn’t clean it up. Unsuccessfully blamed the dog.

Don’t say that to BC fans.

Counterpoint:

To be fair, I’m not sure many Fifa officials sleep well at night. So they grab a few winks when they can.

No. The case went to trial, a judge reached a verdict. The verdict was appealed by the prosecution on a point of law (i.e. there was no re-trial). They won that appeal.

Add “due process” and “fiat justice” to the list of terms you don’t understand.

That’s not the issue here. It’s that “a reasonable person” should have known that firing his weapon how he did - none of which is in dispute - he was probably going to end up killing whoever was in the toilet.

Double jeopardy is forbidden in SA. That means Pistorius can’t be re-tried. But this wasn’t a re-trial, it was an examination of the original judge’s application of the law.

Double jeopardy typically involves a re-trial. This case was not a re-trial.

Double jeopardy is forbidden under the SA Constitution.

I don’t agree at all with regarding this as “re-prosecuting” the case. The facts were not challenged, the focus of the case was entirely on the correct application of the law.

It’s not a do-over to appeal on the basis that the law was misapplied.

The original trial was not a jury trial.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.