The Grand Bassa County Sub-Association of the Liberia Football Association (LFA) has suspended and fined seven 3rd Division players and a coach.According to a communication signed by Secretary Moses D. Hayes, Sr. and approved by Chairman Jeremiah B. Johnson, the players are from Gbehzohn PRO FC in Lower Harlandsville Township outside Buchanan City.The players have been suspended for one year for attacking center referee Emmanuel Gaye during a match between their team and Fairplay FC at the Doris Williams Sports Stadium recently.The players are Reuben B. Frank, Emmanuel Tarley, Philip Roberts, Junior Gibson and Leroy Simpson.The club is also fined $10,000LD for bringing the match to a standstill, and it is responsible to pay for missing and damaged items.The items included 2 fox forty whistles at the cost of $30 USD, a set of referee’s cards at the cost of $15 USD, Medical bills for Referee Gaye at the cost of $1,500LD and window glasses broken by Player Junior Gibson from the VIP which cost $40 USD. Gibson has denied the charge. Also two players of Western Lion F.C of Lower Harlandsville Township, Daniel Kpehe and Sequence Freeman were also suspended for one year. They attacked center referee Sylvester S. Sayon during a match between Fashion FC and Western Lion FC. In another development, Coach Abraham Harrington of Fashion F.C. was suspended for six months for insulting center referee Sylvester S. Sayon during a match between Fashion FC and Western Lion, recently.The action exhibited by the suspended players and the coach as well as their clubs contravenes LFA’s Rules and Regulations, chapter 18, Article 1, Section 1.5a and Section 1.7 respectively. Accordingly, section 1.5a states that any official who shall assault a match official or LFA Official before, during and after a match shall be suspended for one year for the first offense and pay all expenses incurred by the match official or LFA official and 18 months for the second offense.Section 1.7 also states that a club player, officials or member of a club who shall encourage or authorize the team to abandon a match or bring a match to a standstill shall be fined $10,00LD and be suspended for not less than one year and not exceeding two years.The suspension of the seven players and coach started September 28, 2015 and will expire September 28, 2016.Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
If you’re a social media platform updating the Recommended Friends algorithm, there’s not much risk involved in moving fast and breaking things. Even if there’s a high probability of users encountering issues, the impact to the business is extremely low. It’s probably equal to, or even less than, little baby crocodiles nipping at the wildebeests’ feet.On the other hand, now imagine that you’re responsible for the back-end systems that control business-critical operations such as financial transactions or energy delivery. You won’t have nearly as many users as the social media platform, but any failure that does occur would be extremely critical and damaging.Since the risk with the theoretical social media platform is low, they can get away with crossing the river without first “testing the waters,” so to speak. If they’re working on more critical functionality—for example, something that impacts their advertising revenue—they might want to be a little more cautious and creative. In that case, they might decide to perform an incremental user deployment. Essentially, this is like sending a small, low-priority group across the river first, then sending increasingly more (and more important) users over the river as long as no major “crocs” are surfacing.With an application that the business depends on, you simply can’t afford to send even a small group of users over untested waters. The risks—like the adult crocs—are huge and potentially devastating.If you can truly afford to send users across untested waters, then maybe you can declare testing dead. However, if you’re working on essential enterprise software and you try to survive by “testing in production” alone, it’s your business that might end up dead—killed by those crocs. Almost a decade ago, Albert Savoia walked on stage at the Google Test Automation Conference (GTAC) dressed as the Grim Reaper. With The Doors song ‘This is the End’ playing in the background, Savoia famously declared testing dead. Dead were the days of developers delivering crappy code, then waiting for QA to test it and decide when it was finally fit for release. Instead, he suggested, we should deliver immediately and test in production. See what issues arise, then roll back the deployment if something severe occurs.Are we there yet? Is the idea of testing a release before sending it out into the wild really dead? To answer that question, let’s consider another example that involves death and the wild: the annual wildebeest migration in Africa.Every year, over a million wildebeests migrate between Tanzania and Kenya. Along the way, they must cross the crocodile-infested Mara river. As you can imagine, this is a rather high-risk activity. Risk is the probability of a damaging event occurring, multiplied by the potential damage that could result from that event. In this case, the probability of facing one of the many huge crocodiles who are lurking in the river, anticipating the best feast of the entire year, is relatively high. The potential damage—death—is extremely high.The riskiness of this situation would dramatically decrease if the crocodiles in the river were cute little 7- to 10-inch baby crocs instead of monstrous 17- to 23-foot adults. Even if the probability of encountering a crocodile remains the same, the potential damage diminishes tremendously. At worst, the baby crocs might nip at the wildebeests’ feet or make their path across the river just a little bit bumpy.What does this have to do with the death of software testing? Quite a lot, actually. If you want to rapidly release untested software into production, you need to be aware of what level of risk this involves, then consider whether that level of risk is acceptable to your business. As you can see from the large crocs versus the baby ones, all risks are not created equal.