Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Houston Dynamo match this morning. Was 1-1, Houston score go 2-1, markets re-open and bets are placed, then VAR cancels the goal due to offside. According to their rules on VAR, these bets should be void.
RULES ARE: Where a Material Event is cancelled due to a determination made via a video assistant referee, Betfair will void all bets which are matched between the occurrence of the Material Event and the cancellation of it. The voiding of any such bets may take place during the event or retrospectively once a game is completed.
Seems clear.
However the exchange team said:
According to our Exchange Department, no bets will be voided as this considered as a cancelled goal. This is the term that applies: a. Goal scored then reversed (goal cancelled) We will be treating this as if it is a cancelled goal. If we certain the goal was fair, or believe the goal to be fair, we will process the goal as normal settling determined markets and cancelling unmatched bets on all markets. If the goal then comes into question, as soon as we find out that they may be using VAR we will suspend markets until there is confirmation of the outcome. We will then, undo the goal and put all undetermined markets back in-play, we will then rectify any incorrectly determined markets and put them back in-play as soon as possible
They're still looking into it some 8 hours later. It's not good when you have to chase them to implement their own rules, and they seem to be following a different set of rules.
RULES ARE: Where a Material Event is cancelled due to a determination made via a video assistant referee, Betfair will void all bets which are matched between the occurrence of the Material Event and the cancellation of it. The voiding of any such bets may take place during the event or retrospectively once a game is completed.
Seems clear.
However the exchange team said:
According to our Exchange Department, no bets will be voided as this considered as a cancelled goal. This is the term that applies: a. Goal scored then reversed (goal cancelled) We will be treating this as if it is a cancelled goal. If we certain the goal was fair, or believe the goal to be fair, we will process the goal as normal settling determined markets and cancelling unmatched bets on all markets. If the goal then comes into question, as soon as we find out that they may be using VAR we will suspend markets until there is confirmation of the outcome. We will then, undo the goal and put all undetermined markets back in-play, we will then rectify any incorrectly determined markets and put them back in-play as soon as possible
They're still looking into it some 8 hours later. It's not good when you have to chase them to implement their own rules, and they seem to be following a different set of rules.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 11
|
By:
Still looking into it 30 hours later, rules seem clear to me.
|
|
By:
Houston...we have a problem
|
|
By:
The rules are clear. Make sure you keep at them and get your money back. Get on to them on twitter about at @betfairCS, they are much better than the guys over the phone and you can put it to them in writing as well
|
|
By:
I think they need to be asked on which date was that rule changed and where did they post the amendment.
|
|
By:
They 100% need to void all bets. You have to ask why they pick and choose in certain scenarios. Another poster alleged they seed these markets and only void when it suits them.
|
|
By:
looking at the rules this isn't in any way a possible point of contention.
The rules state twice the para quoted by OP. In the general section where it also adds Definition of “Material Event” For the purpose of these Exchange Rules, a "Material Event" shall mean a goal being scored, a penalty being awarded or a player being sent off. and in the specific soccer section. They are simply talking complete nonsense |
|
By:
I don't use twitter lurka but thanks for the suggestion. It has finally been corrected and my bet void, but if I didn't make a fuss and I accepted their first answer there's no doubt it would have been left as it was. Rules shouldn't only be implemented when someone complains loud enough.
|
|
By:
Cynics would say if you hadn't complained bf would have been the beneficiaries of your losses...
|
|
By:
That might be true. If they don't seed the market directly I think they have favoured partners at arms length that do. They can't pick and choose when to implement the rules.
|
|
By:
Well chased up Blank, but it come to something when you have to do all the asking
|
|
By:
There was another thread on here recently about a match in the phillipines (JPV marikina v davao aguilas) where the match was abandoned after 54 mins due to heavy rain and they league ruled the result stood. It was 0-3 at the time. Not sure if the thread was deleted but they basically paid out on unders and overs backers were screwed. Their rules clearly state that all bets are void unless the match is finished within 3 days. I think they refused to reverse bets and came up with some other silly excuse or rule.
The result appears to have been wiped from the records, so maybe it will be replayed, but here is a report of what happened https://www.foxsports.ph/football/asian-football /philippine-football/pfl/867916/aguilas-defeat-jpv-shortened-match/ |