Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: bilsim on September 06, 2013, 05:55:17 PM
-
http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/sep/aston-villa-manager-paul-lambert-fined-chelsea.aspx (http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/sep/aston-villa-manager-paul-lambert-fined-chelsea.aspx)
"Following an Independent Regulatory Commission hearing, Aston Villa manager Paul Lambert has been fined £8,000 in relation to post-match media comments he made after his side’s game against Chelsea on 21 August 2013.
The misconduct charge, which Lambert admitted, was that the comments implied the match referee was motivated by bias; and/or brought the game into disrepute, in contravention of FA Rule E3(1)."
Got to say I'm sick of this happening. What's the point of having post match interviews if you're not allowed to speak your mind?
-
Pathetic - why punish managers for giving their opinion - also its about time referees came out and explained their decisions rather than hiding away in their rooms.
-
It's how the incompetent clowns at the FA have the neck to charge others with bringing the game into disrepute that gets me.
How was he supposed to describe a blatantly incompetent "refereeing performance" ? With a polite "bravo" ? I'd refuse to pay.
-
Publicly agree to pay the £8000 if The FA match it and give it all to Leukemia research.
-
Don't complain, just pay it. The FA are a joke, everyone knows that. But we are class and above all that
-
He broke the rules.
The rules are stupid, but he knows them.
-
He broke the rules.
The rules are stupid, but he knows them.
Millwall fans broke the rules by throwing bottles onto a pitch, narrowly missing a female steward and holding up an F.A Cup game for 5 minutes. I'm still waiting for their fine.
-
I would gladly contribute £500 if he had added that John Terry was an obnoxious, cheating (in every sense) tw*t
-
Did the ref get demoted?
-
He broke the rules.
The rules are stupid, but he knows them.
Millwall fans broke the rules by throwing bottles onto a pitch, narrowly missing a female steward and holding up an F.A Cup game for 5 minutes. I'm still waiting for their fine.
I agree with your sentiments about the FA. However, would it have been OK if it was a male steward?
-
As ever, the manager gets a fine for pointing out the obvious, the ref gets off scot free. There is bias. It stinks.
-
He broke the rules.
The rules are stupid, but he knows them.
Millwall fans broke the rules by throwing bottles onto a pitch, narrowly missing a female steward and holding up an F.A Cup game for 5 minutes. I'm still waiting for their fine.
I agree with your sentiments about the FA. However, would it have been OK if it was a male steward?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
-
He broke the rules.
The rules are stupid, but he knows them.
Millwall fans broke the rules by throwing bottles onto a pitch, narrowly missing a female steward and holding up an F.A Cup game for 5 minutes. I'm still waiting for their fine.
I agree with your sentiments about the FA. However, would it have been OK if it was a male steward?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
A person (acting as a steward) was in potential danger - why state it was a female, a male would have been in the same danger? That's all.
-
What a joke.
-
When I saw the thread title I thought PL had charged someone £8K for the benefit of receiving his thoughts! The FA are clowns, managers can't speak their minds without the risk of getting fined, referees are protected at all costs. It's the way it is. Filed under 'another reason to despise what modern football has become'.
Looking forward to non-league day...
-
Did the ref get demoted?
Too early to say, I think. He didn't have a game last weekend as he had ours which was due to be played then. Be interesting to see if he gets a game next weekend
-
Abromvitch should pay it on his behalf. He is very good at paying for things. He has bought a lot in his time.
-
What I find crap about this (and it's not just about Lambert, but every manager that falls foul of this) is that you can't give your opinion on the ref but you can say what you like about the other side and their players. What is acceptable to say about the ref these days? As far as I can recall, Lambert said he thought it was an obvious penalty that wasn't given. I don't recall suggestions of bias.
I am actually behind the FA with this because I think refs in general need to be supported, since the amateur ones get such a shitty deal. But if it falls within acceptable boundaries then debate should be encouraged. But what are these boundaries? It seems like total silence.
-
I wonder how much he'd have got fined if he actually said what he REALLY thought?
-
One of the Irish Villians has just made a good point. Did'nt Arsene Wenger have a lot to say about the ref after the Arsenal game?
-
One of the Irish Villians has just made a good point. Did'nt Arsene Wenger have a lot to say about the ref after the Arsenal game?
Why, I believe he did.
-
Whilst Lambert was obviously correct in his comments on this occasion, I fully agree with the rule being there in the first place.
I'm sick to death of hearing virtually all managers blaming referees for their teams/their own shortcomings. It's all some managers want to talk about and on a lot of occasions I get the feeling that managers are grateful for the officials taking column inches away from themselves.
I do agree that officials should explain their interpretations of key decisions though
-
He broke the rules.
The rules are stupid, but he knows them.
Millwall fans broke the rules by throwing bottles onto a pitch, narrowly missing a female steward and holding up an F.A Cup game for 5 minutes. I'm still waiting for their fine.
I agree with your sentiments about the FA. However, would it have been OK if it was a male steward?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
A person (acting as a steward) was in potential danger - why state it was a female, a male would have been in the same danger? That's all.
So Clampy should have posted " Somebody threw something that nearly hit somebody ?
The details of the initial post seem relevant
-
What I find crap about this (and it's not just about Lambert, but every manager that falls foul of this) is that you can't give your opinion on the ref but you can say what you like about the other side and their players. What is acceptable to say about the ref these days? As far as I can recall, Lambert said he thought it was an obvious penalty that wasn't given. I don't recall suggestions of bias.
I am actually behind the FA with this because I think refs in general need to be supported, since the amateur ones get such a shitty deal. But if it falls within acceptable boundaries then debate should be encouraged. But what are these boundaries? It seems like total silence.
The amateur ref argument is an excellent one. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to ref at amateur level with all the ridiculous abuse they get.
-
Did Mourinhrio get fined for his comments post Bayern? Just curious as he openly accused UEFA of being on the take against his teams.
-
Don't care about the fine. Lambert spoke honest truth and I bet that hurts the FA. Anyone could see if not biased the ref was definitely useless. If Lambo gets a few more fines like so be it.
-
Eight grand for that. And they wonder why manager press conferences are dull.
-
One of the Irish Villians has just made a good point. Did'nt Arsene Wenger have a lot to say about the ref after the Arsenal game?
Why, I believe he did.
It was implying bias that he got fined for, saying that the penalty would have been given at the other end.
A perfectly valid, and true, point but it does breech the rules. If he hadn't said that I think he'd have been ok.
-
I would bill Kevin Friend if I was Lambert.
-
He broke the rules.
The rules are stupid, but he knows them.
Millwall fans broke the rules by throwing bottles onto a pitch, narrowly missing a female steward and holding up an F.A Cup game for 5 minutes. I'm still waiting for their fine.
I agree with your sentiments about the FA. However, would it have been OK if it was a male steward?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
A person (acting as a steward) was in potential danger - why state it was a female, a male would have been in the same danger? That's all.
So Clampy should have posted " Somebody threw something that nearly hit somebody ?
The details of the initial post seem relevant
Newtons balls is quite right to point out that it doesn't make it better or worse that it was thrown at a female rather than male, it was a horrid thing to do either way.
-
So the ref can be completely shit at his job an get away with it scot free?
-
What a fucking joke.
Lambert says what every body else would say and gets fined 8 grand. The ref should pay that fine because he was shite all game.
What a bloody travesty. Getting a bit boring , this top 4 shite now, their managers doing all the moaning and getting away with it.
Boils my piss it does.
Refuse to pay the fine until the wanking load of shite that is the FA watch the game and see exactly what happened.
Bunch of arseholes the FA.
-
Couldn't there be some kind of post match ref comment made on video, explaining his decisions. "I made this decision because of this...".
Not live and to be questioned but just to explain.
It's the consistent inconsistency that f**ks up everyone's understanding of the rules.
So, one game a ref sends a player off for using an elbow.
In the Chelsea game he books Ivanovic for using an elbow (sending off?) so must have made a reasoned decision as to why NOT to take stronger action.
Players, managers and supporters need to know what is a booking, sending off etc, so that we ALL know what's what.
A move towards the rugby union use of ref microphones, explaining on the spot, would be a step forward imho.
-
Couldn't there be some kind of post match ref comment made on video, explaining his decisions. "I made this decision because of this...".
Not live and to be questioned but just to explain.
It's the consistent inconsistency that f**ks up everyone's understanding of the rules.
So, one game a ref sends a player off for using an elbow.
In the Chelsea game he books Ivanovic for using an elbow (sending off?) so must have made a reasoned decision as to why NOT to take stronger action.
Players, managers and supporters need to know what is a booking, sending off etc, so that we ALL know what's what.
A move towards the rugby union use of ref microphones, explaining on the spot, would be a step forward imho.
Spot on mate. Refs should be made to do an interview after every game. Infact, with the money in football now make refs fully proffesional. Pay them a bloody good wage to do one thing, proffesional reffing and nothing else. Fucking Grammar school teachers are not up to the job, proven.
-
Couldn't there be some kind of post match ref comment made on video, explaining his decisions. "I made this decision because of this...".
Not live and to be questioned but just to explain.
It's the consistent inconsistency that f**ks up everyone's understanding of the rules.
So, one game a ref sends a player off for using an elbow.
In the Chelsea game he books Ivanovic for using an elbow (sending off?) so must have made a reasoned decision as to why NOT to take stronger action.
Players, managers and supporters need to know what is a booking, sending off etc, so that we ALL know what's what.
A move towards the rugby union use of ref microphones, explaining on the spot, would be a step forward imho.
Spot on mate. Refs should be made to do an interview after every game. Infact, with the money in football now make refs fully proffesional. Pay them a bloody good wage to do one thing, proffesional reffing and nothing else. Fucking Grammar school teachers are not up to the job, proven.
You mean like they have been since 2001?
-
No idea on this Dave, but how many are full-time?
Some are; others not?
In many ways they are the most important person on the pitch yet the perception of them is still an amateurish one because they are somewhat anonymous, ironically with almost no "voice".
Surely a brief non-confrontational explanation of a decision from a member of a professional body is reasonable.
It would be helpfully informative.
And that's not the Batham's talking dan!
-
No idea on this Dave, but how many are full-time?
Some are; others not?
In many ways they are the most important person on the pitch yet the perception of them is still an amateurish one because they are somewhat anonymous, ironically with almost no "voice".
Surely a brief non-confrontational explanation of a decision from a member of a professional body is reasonable.
It would be helpfully informative.
And that's not the Batham's talking dan!
The Select Group is made up of 18 refs who do Premier League and some Football League games. I agree that they should have to explain their decisions.
-
No idea on this Dave, but how many are full-time?
Some are; others not?
In many ways they are the most important person on the pitch yet the perception of them is still an amateurish one because they are somewhat anonymous, ironically with almost no "voice".
Surely a brief non-confrontational explanation of a decision from a member of a professional body is reasonable.
It would be helpfully informative.
And that's not the Batham's talking dan!
The Select Group is made up of 18 refs who do Premier League and some Football League games. I agree that they should have to explain their decisions.
Thanks DW.
Do they have to be full-time to be part of that Select group?
I assume they meet regularly to discuss issues in the game. It would be great if they could tell how/why on a regular basis to keep us abreast of "current thinking".
-
No idea on this Dave, but how many are full-time?
Some are; others not?
In many ways they are the most important person on the pitch yet the perception of them is still an amateurish one because they are somewhat anonymous, ironically with almost no "voice".
Surely a brief non-confrontational explanation of a decision from a member of a professional body is reasonable.
It would be helpfully informative.
And that's not the Batham's talking dan!
The Select Group is made up of 18 refs who do Premier League and some Football League games. I agree that they should have to explain their decisions.
Thanks DW.
Do they have to be full-time to be part of that Select group?
I assume they meet regularly to discuss issues in the game. It would be great if they could tell how/why on a regular basis to keep us abreast of "current thinking".
I think they're allowed to have other jobs but in reality most if not all are full-time.
-
Paul Lamberts comments were fully justified and not a rant after his team losing that evening. The referee had a mare, surely that cannot be disputed by anyone
-
I would imagine PL's comments were applauded by a large number of managers/players outside the Sky 4!
-
As the ghost of Pongo says, the fine was for one sentence. You are allowed to say he got things wrong or was rubbish, you can't say he was cheating.
-
Couldn't there be some kind of post match ref comment made on video, explaining his decisions. "I made this decision because of this...".
Not live and to be questioned but just to explain.
It's the consistent inconsistency that f**ks up everyone's understanding of the rules.
So, one game a ref sends a player off for using an elbow.
In the Chelsea game he books Ivanovic for using an elbow (sending off?) so must have made a reasoned decision as to why NOT to take stronger action.
Players, managers and supporters need to know what is a booking, sending off etc, so that we ALL know what's what.
A move towards the rugby union use of ref microphones, explaining on the spot, would be a step forward imho.
Spot on mate. Refs should be made to do an interview after every game. Infact, with the money in football now make refs fully proffesional. Pay them a bloody good wage to do one thing, proffesional reffing and nothing else. Fucking Grammar school teachers are not up to the job, proven.
You mean like they have been since 2001?
They are not paid enough to do the job properly. Do they go to Ref school ?
A proffesional ref would not buckle under pressure. Whilst we are on the subject of Refs, if the language that over paid tossers give to refs was fineable for every swear word they used then most Prem players would earn fuck all per week. Football needs to wake up and show the refs some respect, like Rugby refs get, as was posted earlier. Long bloody argument is going to start now no doubt.
Swear at a ref- Red card, simple.
-
Couldn't there be some kind of post match ref comment made on video, explaining his decisions. "I made this decision because of this...".
Not live and to be questioned but just to explain.
It's the consistent inconsistency that f**ks up everyone's understanding of the rules.
So, one game a ref sends a player off for using an elbow.
In the Chelsea game he books Ivanovic for using an elbow (sending off?) so must have made a reasoned decision as to why NOT to take stronger action.
Players, managers and supporters need to know what is a booking, sending off etc, so that we ALL know what's what.
A move towards the rugby union use of ref microphones, explaining on the spot, would be a step forward imho.
Spot on mate. Refs should be made to do an interview after every game. Infact, with the money in football now make refs fully proffesional. Pay them a bloody good wage to do one thing, proffesional reffing and nothing else. Fucking Grammar school teachers are not up to the job, proven.
You mean like they have been since 2001?
They are not paid enough to do the job properly. Do they go to Ref school ?
No, they get the job as a prize in an annual raffle.
-
Who in the FA with responsibility and an overview could be fined or otherwise sanctioned for failing to maintain the supply of the best standard of refereeing available to serve the PL?
It's got to be somebody's bailiwick.
If they are going to hand out fines for 'inappropriately worded criticism' from the folks on the ground (consumers) there also has to be a corporate responsibility for maintaining appropriate standards and sanctions for failing to meet them.
-
Couldn't there be some kind of post match ref comment made on video, explaining his decisions. "I made this decision because of this...".
Not live and to be questioned but just to explain.
It's the consistent inconsistency that f**ks up everyone's understanding of the rules.
So, one game a ref sends a player off for using an elbow.
In the Chelsea game he books Ivanovic for using an elbow (sending off?) so must have made a reasoned decision as to why NOT to take stronger action.
Players, managers and supporters need to know what is a booking, sending off etc, so that we ALL know what's what.
A move towards the rugby union use of ref microphones, explaining on the spot, would be a step forward imho.
Spot on mate. Refs should be made to do an interview after every game. Infact, with the money in football now make refs fully proffesional. Pay them a bloody good wage to do one thing, proffesional reffing and nothing else. Fucking Grammar school teachers are not up to the job, proven.
You mean like they have been since 2001?
They are not paid enough to do the job properly. Do they go to Ref school ?
No, they get the job as a prize in an annual raffle.
Read my amended post above.
-
They are not paid enough to do the job properly. Do they go to Ref school? A proffesional ref would not buckle under pressure. Whilst we are on the subject of Refs, if the language that over paid tossers give to refs was fineable for every swear word they used then most Prem players would earn fuck all per week. Football needs to wake up and show the refs some respect, like Rugby refs get, as was posted earlier. Long bloody argument is going to start now no doubt. Swear at a ref- Red card, simple.
The top PL refs clear £130k per year, or so I once read. I'd call that enough for 90minutes of concentration a week. Friend is a professional ref and he did buckle. Football is a man's game and there's swearing and there's disrespect. Two different things. They're not babies FFS!
When ref's first went professional it was to make them accountable, however it seems that they are only accountable to the FA, who in turn are accountable to their sponsored clubs of choice (we all know who they are!). The whole thing stinks. Until they are accountable to an independent body and made to explain their outrageous bias nothing will change, and that suits the FA.
If I were Lambert I'd refuse to pay and refer the FA to the ECHR, after all, does he not have the right to free speech? It's farcical.
-
Couldn't there be some kind of post match ref comment made on video, explaining his decisions. "I made this decision because of this...".
Not live and to be questioned but just to explain.
It's the consistent inconsistency that f**ks up everyone's understanding of the rules.
So, one game a ref sends a player off for using an elbow.
In the Chelsea game he books Ivanovic for using an elbow (sending off?) so must have made a reasoned decision as to why NOT to take stronger action.
Players, managers and supporters need to know what is a booking, sending off etc, so that we ALL know what's what.
A move towards the rugby union use of ref microphones, explaining on the spot, would be a step forward imho.
Spot on mate. Refs should be made to do an interview after every game. Infact, with the money in football now make refs fully proffesional. Pay them a bloody good wage to do one thing, proffesional reffing and nothing else. Fucking Grammar school teachers are not up to the job, proven.
You mean like they have been since 2001?
They are not paid enough to do the job properly. Do they go to Ref school ?
No, they get the job as a prize in an annual raffle.
Read my amended post above.
Dan, I think you've missed the point. The refs we see in the P'ship are all fully professional and well paid.
The issue is not that they sometimes make mistakes; it is that they seem to be above reproach. Yes, they will get assessed and demoted if found to be poor but for the paying public there is no opportunity to hear the logic of some decisions.
-
I thought the pro refs got £70k+ a year? I'm sure I read that figure in an article a while ago.
-
One day someone in the game will prosecute the FA under the freedom of speech article of the Human rights act. If someone libels an official then they have recourse to the law.Anything else is simple opinion. The FA in my opinion would lose any such action.
-
What a load of tommy tank.
-
Couldn't there be some kind of post match ref comment made on video, explaining his decisions. "I made this decision because of this...".
Not live and to be questioned but just to explain.
It's the consistent inconsistency that f**ks up everyone's understanding of the rules.
So, one game a ref sends a player off for using an elbow.
In the Chelsea game he books Ivanovic for using an elbow (sending off?) so must have made a reasoned decision as to why NOT to take stronger action.
Players, managers and supporters need to know what is a booking, sending off etc, so that we ALL know what's what.
A move towards the rugby union use of ref microphones, explaining on the spot, would be a step forward imho.
Spot on mate. Refs should be made to do an interview after every game. Infact, with the money in football now make refs fully proffesional. Pay them a bloody good wage to do one thing, proffesional reffing and nothing else. Fucking Grammar school teachers are not up to the job, proven.
You mean like they have been since 2001?
They are not paid enough to do the job properly. Do they go to Ref school ?
No, they get the job as a prize in an annual raffle.
Read my amended post above.
Dan, I would argue that turning the refs 'professional' has actually played right into the hands of the big clubs.
The ref's livelehood now depends upon their performance, and it's clear as day that if you upset one of the high profile clubs your arse is on the line.
David Ellerary, for example, didn't give a toss who he upset as come Monday he just went back to his day job.
-
Head teacher in Harrow or something.
-
And what about the ref? He broke the rules during the game. What punishment does he get?
-
And what about the ref? He broke the rules during the game. What punishment does he get?
I imagine he'll be manacled in a brand new Rolex.
-
And what about the ref? He broke the rules during the game. What punishment does he get?
I imagine he'll be manacled in a brand new Rolex.
...and didn't our mate the Arrogant One (or whatever he refers to himself as these days) jump to his defence ever so quickly.
Friend and Chelsea's manager - tossers the pair of them and in cahoots.
-
Refs get paid a salary that I imagine most of us would be happy to accept:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_salary_of_an_English_Premier_League_referee
-
Part of the problem with refs now IS the fact that they are professional, paid a lot of money and see the job as a career. If you are an elite panel ref you will want to referee the top games i.e. Man Ure, Chelski, Citeh etc. and cup finals etc. which usually involve at least one of these teams. If you upset their managers too much they moan to the F.A. who then take them off their games for a time. Fergie was a master at it. Therefore if you want to get on as a ref, the moral of the story is don't upset the top teams.
-
"We've been done by two decisions that were wrong.
"Decisions like that, I don't think you can miss them, I really don't. They're big game-changers. My team never deserved that."
Bit confused he admitted to the charge as I'm not sure I see those comments as questioning the integrity of the ref or accusing him of cheating.
-
cheating fricking ref
-
He also said something about the decision being different if it was down the other end.
Factually correct but its that which copped him for a fine.
-
He also said something about the decision being different if it was down the other end.
Factually correct but its that which copped him for a fine.
Most likely the case.
-
That said, would a fine have applied in the same circumstances to Sralex?
Read the new H+V to find out...
DW - Check your emails. Can you run all that?
-
That said, would a fine have applied in the same circumstances to Sralex?
Read the new H+V to find out...
DW - Check your emails. Can you run all that?
Probably not.
-
Leave the bit about his iffy son out...
-
That said, would a fine have applied in the same circumstances to Sralex?
Read the new H+V to find out...
DW - Check your emails. Can you run all that?
Probably not.
Thank fuck for that.
-
Nice!
-
He also said something about the decision being different if it was down the other end.
Factually correct but its that which copped him for a fine.
To be fair, it's not factually correct because it is a hypothetical statement.
-
I dont mind putting some cash in to help out Lambert. I think he has been unfairly fined and as a few posters have put, this will only stop when the FA man up and start making comments like officials do in Cricket, Rugby etc. And he did fuck up (Friend) on two potential match result changing incidents.
"Thems the rules" holds no water for me, the rules are wrong
-
He had better refuse to do a post-match interview after Saturday's game - the ref is Mike Dean!
-
I understand the FA's stance here. They have to uphold the authority of referees, otherwise the game will just become a free-for-all and nobody will have any respect for the man in the middle. You might well argue that's already the case, but I think allowing people to slag off refs willy nilly would only make things worse.
I also don't see the point in making them explain their decisions. Most referees make so many mistakes - even during a single game - that every account of themselves they gave afterward would basically be an abject and humiliating mea culpa. Remember, these guys aren't competing, they're just trying to enforce the rules and they don't get paid 20 grand a month or more to do it.
Their job is made incredibly difficult by the cheating wankers they have to officiate. Maybe they could be made to explain themselves after the game, but far better to start by introducing draconian retroactive punishment for players who try to hoodwink them.
-
Sam, fair points, but what if the refs have made mistakes. Peoples jobs/careers depend on some of the decisions, and you cant expect people in (last time I looked) a country where we have freedom of speech to just sit there and take it. If the Ref has made a mistake, which to anyone out there that understands right from wrong knows happened in the Chelsea game, it looks pretty fucking terrible to fine a man with the current philosophy
"Mr Lambert, you spoke out against the refereeing decisions correctly, but we dont allow you to do that, so we are going to fine you £8k"
Fucking shambles. Plus it isnt even transparent, take a look at some of the comments managers have made over the last year and prove to me that they have all being fined the same, and consistently pulled up on the same things.
If the manager refuses to give an after match interview he is in trouble, if he refuses to comment on a decision because he doesnt agree with it, its just as bad as speaking out.
And if the ref comes out and says "Listen, when I was officiating I saw this and that happen" then at least you take it on the chin, better that than sitting there (like I am) boiling away with anger because I think he is a Sky4 loving official
-
I understand the FA's stance here. They have to uphold the authority of referees, otherwise the game will just become a free-for-all and nobody will have any respect for the man in the middle. You might well argue that's already the case, but I think allowing people to slag off refs willy nilly would only make things worse.
I also don't see the point in making them explain their decisions. Most referees make so many mistakes - even during a single game - that every account of themselves they gave afterward would basically be an abject and humiliating mea culpa. Remember, these guys aren't competing, they're just trying to enforce the rules and they don't get paid 20 grand a month or more to do it.
Their job is made incredibly difficult by the cheating wankers they have to officiate. Maybe they could be made to explain themselves after the game, but far better to start by introducing draconian retroactive punishment for players who try to hoodwink them.
The thing is respect needs to be earned rather than given. A ref coming out and fronting things up after a game would help this. As it stands, they make wrong decisions and just walk away, which winds everyone up. I don't think they'd be asked about every decision, just the major ones.
I do believe they have leanings, subconsious though they may be, towards the 'bigger' clubs. Perhaps having them explain decisions afterwards would help even this out after a while?
-
The thing is, when they came to explain their decisions afterward, we know they'd say one of two things:
- either "this is what I saw and I stand by it"
- or "this is what I saw and I was wrong".
If they say the former, it's not going to placate those of us who disagreed with the original decision, and if they say the latter, they're inviting yet more opprobrium. So you're effectively asking them to say that a) they're biased or b) they're incompetent.
I suppose there is a possibility that they could say c) "I got it wrong but it was because Suarez dived, the little twat", in which case it might have the welcome effect of concentrating everyone's attention on the offending cheat. But I doubt it.
-
Possible, but personally I'd have more respect for them if they had the guts to say something rather than hiding after a game.
-
Anyone know if Wenger was fined/charged for his post-match comments? I can't see anything on the internet so assumed he wasn't. Managers of a few teams use their interviews to get sympathy/put pressure on refs and it goes unnoticed/unpunished - that's why this is unfair.
-
Anyone know if Wenger was fined/charged for his post-match comments? I can't see anything on the internet so assumed he wasn't. Managers of a few teams use their interviews to get sympathy/put pressure on refs and it goes unnoticed/unpunished - that's why this is unfair.
Absolutely on the nail. Wenger's comments were far worse than Lambert's.
-
I also mentioned bullying of officials in the character assassination I wrote far too much about in relation to Sralex for Dave the other day.
-
I understand the FA's stance here. They have to uphold the authority of referees, otherwise the game will just become a free-for-all and nobody will have any respect for the man in the middle. You might well argue that's already the case, but I think allowing people to slag off refs willy nilly would only make things worse.
I also don't see the point in making them explain their decisions. Most referees make so many mistakes - even during a single game - that every account of themselves they gave afterward would basically be an abject and humiliating mea culpa. Remember, these guys aren't competing, they're just trying to enforce the rules and they don't get paid 20 grand a month or more to do it.
Their job is made incredibly difficult by the cheating wankers they have to officiate. Maybe they could be made to explain themselves after the game, but far better to start by introducing draconian retroactive punishment for players who try to hoodwink them.
Is in not just as humiliating for their error to be shown on the hour for a day or 2 on SSN? Is it not just as bad for them to heckled for 90minutes from the crowd next time they ref the slighted team? Asking for an account from the ref humanises them more than the current situation and would help highlight that they're making the decisions they think are right at the time. That this also makes them think the decision over for an extra second or 2 and hopefully stops some of the truly terrible decisions you see every now and then even better.
Think of the arsenal game a few weeks ago, the ref coming out and saying he thought Koscielney went through Gabby in playing the ball so he gave the penalty and this being proven correct would've shut up the arsenal fans who are convinced that even though he may have got it right he lucked out and shouldn't have given it (which I've seen a lot of, despite evidence that the decision was spot on).
-
Is in not just as humiliating for their error to be shown on the hour for a day or 2 on SSN? Is it not just as bad for them to heckled for 90minutes from the crowd next time they ref the slighted team? Asking for an account from the ref humanises them more than the current situation and would help highlight that they're making the decisions they think are right at the time. That this also makes them think the decision over for an extra second or 2 and hopefully stops some of the truly terrible decisions you see every now and then even better.
Think of the arsenal game a few weeks ago, the ref coming out and saying he thought Koscielney went through Gabby in playing the ball so he gave the penalty and this being proven correct would've shut up the arsenal fans who are convinced that even though he may have got it right he lucked out and shouldn't have given it (which I've seen a lot of, despite evidence that the decision was spot on).
On your first point, yes I can see there's an argument that it might 'humanise' the refs a bit more. Some might even have sympathy for them, I guess if they owned up to genuine mistakes. Although they would be apologising so often nobody would have any faith in officials at all. Also, I can't see how it would make any difference to the actual decisions they make. They might bottle out of some difficult calls, but on average, ultimately they will still get as many decisions right and as many decisions wrong.
In your Arsenal example, I'm not clear why the Arsenal fans would shut up just because the ref says yes, I though Koscielny went though Gabby and so I got the decision correct. Their response would surely just be: well he would say that, wouldn't he?
-
I still think they should try what the refs in American Football do, where they explain the decisions on the pitch. It could be just a series of hand gestures (!) that explains to the crowd what's happening and why they have made the decision. You might not agree, but at least you'll know.
-
he just needs to be a bit more savvy in how he conveys his message.
Personally I'd have asked the interviewer what he thought of the ref's performance and fed off that.
-
I think he should have been even more blunt. £8K is worth calling a cheat a cheat in public.
-
he just needs to be a bit more savvy in how he conveys his message.
Personally I'd have asked the interviewer what he thought of the ref's performance and fed off that.
That's what Ron Saunders used to do.
-
I think he should have been even more blunt. £8K is worth calling a cheat a cheat in public.
"I was once fined £5000 for calling Coventry fans “wankers”. Best £5k I’ve ever spent."
Ian Wright