Suspicion of collusion between BETONLINE and SBR

[lonnie55]

I’m not even sure what is going on in this thread and who is right or wrong.

Just wanted to chime in on that video. That kick was not a shot on goal or a save in my opinion. I believe a shot has to be “on goal” to count as a shot or a save. Same in hockey. If a goalie stops the ball/puck outside of the goal area when the attempted shot had no chance of going in, then it’s not a shot on goal nor a save.

I could be totally wrong here but I kept stats for a hockey team for many years and this is how it’s graded in hockey. I think soccer does the same kind of stats?

We do not even know if this scene shows the shot on target which has been registered by the federation.

Anyway, there's no need to start the discussion all over again. There was an official decision. And BOL has to stick to that decision according to their own rules.

If anyone wants to question the official decision, fine, contact the federation and try to convince them that they made a mistake.

[semibluff]

Interesting. I have no problem with a sportsbook sticking with its reference source. At the end of the day, we as players have to recognize that what matters for our bets is what's documented, which may or may not be what actually happened.

The issue I have with this is that BOL isn't using the reference source that's in their own rules. Have to follow the documented rules, above all else.

That's 100% where I am on this issue as well. I understand using 1 universal source for information rather than hundreds of event-specific websites to settle bets. It saves time, language issues, and it reduces the risk of fraud by outside interference. I also understand not naming the 1 universal source in the rules. That would put the book in legal trouble for commercial use without express written consent. However, the book has to write its operating rules around such problems. Most importantly the book has to stick to its own rules, and be seen to be sticking to them. It isn't a difficult rule to write and this wager should have been an easy correction to make. For the life of me I don't understand why the World's books aren't collaborating to own and use a single record/stat source to avoid such problems. This is a black eye for the book in question.