Post from someone over at another forum regarding this subject that I think is worth sharing....
A hypothetical scenario for you. What if every team in the bottom half of the table decide not to pick a strong team at Old Trafford, specifically Old Trafford, and only Old Trafford?
Then what?
I’ll tell you what – there would be no more Premier League. I see McCarthy’s point about asking what the rules are for how many players you are allowed to rest, but in fairness he is a deeply simple man. If he can’t see the difference between Liverpool resting players at Fulham and Wolves resting players at Old Toilet, then he needs a figurative slap.
The Premier League should come down like a ton of bricks on McCarthy, otherwise the integrity of their already hopelessly uncompetitive league will be diminished even further, if that’s possible. Incidentally, I think it has nothing to do with whether a team’s second string is capable of winning. That isn’t the point.
Liverpool resting players at Fulham has no long term bearing on the integrity of the league, since Fulham benefited entirely at random by virtue of the arbitrary order of the fixture list. If everyone did what Liverpool did at Fulham in 07, it STILL would have no long term effect on the integrity of the league, since in each case the team gaining an advantage does so at random, exactly as it would because of weather, injuries, refereeing decisions etc.
Man United did not benefit at random. They benefited because on paper a game at Old Trafford is the hardest in the league. That means that if other small teams adopt the same principle – it means the same team, or teams will benefit over and over and over again – and that screws up the league. The key point, is that the more they benefit, the better team they become, which in turn makes playing them harder, which means more teams will rest players against them, which means the more they benefit, and so on. It is an exponential snowball effect.
It is difficult to know what to do – but McCarthy’s question about what is the specific number of players you are allowed to rest is taking the ****. There is such a thing as a grey area, and of reasonable interpretation. A rule can’t be enforced saying – rest no more than six players – or something like that. It is impractical for obvious reasons. Players and managers can be fined for bringing the game into disrepute. What constitutes that is always a matter of interpretation, to varying degrees. Therefore, I see no problem with the league setting a precedent and saying something like the following.
Based on all the evidence available, it is a reasonable interpretation that the reason Wolves rested 10 outfield players against United at Old Trafford was BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THE GAME WAS TOO HARD to bother risking players. (In effect this is what the league have done – just with a nothing punishment). Therefore – three point deduction. Won’t happen again.