Super Posted September 3, 2016 Report Share Posted September 3, 2016 Quite interesting. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/former-premier-league-referee-mark-8760242 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negan Posted September 3, 2016 Report Share Posted September 3, 2016 Think we had refs doing that against us for most of last season didn't we! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat Fastard Posted September 3, 2016 Report Share Posted September 3, 2016 That explains why so many refs overlook fouls by the former Premier League teams when they play against us. Some of the decisions have been strange, to say the least! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted September 3, 2016 Report Share Posted September 3, 2016 Disgraceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityexile Posted September 3, 2016 Report Share Posted September 3, 2016 1 minute ago, CotswoldRed said: Disgraceful. It is an interesting one. If I am reading it right, it is not that refs are told to turn a blind eye to things happening on the pitch. It is, if the cameras have caught something bad happening that the ref does not deal with, by saying they did not see it, action can still be taken. At one level, it can be argued justice gets done this way. Equally, the root of the problem is the rule that says action cannot be taken if the ref did see it. With the speed at which things happen on the pitch in real time, I do not see that it undercuts the refs authority to say action can be taken after the game if videos show something outrageous happened, whether the ref saw it or not? Surely this just accepts they are human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted September 3, 2016 Report Share Posted September 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Bat Fastard said: That explains why so many refs overlook fouls by the former Premier League teams when they play against us. Some of the decisions have been strange, to say the least! With all due respect, I think you've misunderstood the article. Halsay saying that he was told to say he hadn't seen incidents after the match so that players could still be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted September 3, 2016 Report Share Posted September 3, 2016 55 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said: Disgraceful. I don't really see it as that bad. Storm in a tea cup will ensue soon though I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat Fastard Posted September 3, 2016 Report Share Posted September 3, 2016 1 minute ago, RedDave said: With all due respect, I think you've misunderstood the article. Halsay saying that he was told to say he hadn't seen incidents after the match so that players could still be banned. Well refs at Ashton Gate seldom see some of the fouls against us from ex Premier League teams - if more of our games were televised, then maybe more players would be banned. I understand that the game is very fast and that it is easy to miss incidents or to misread them - but it sometimes seems to me that decisions that should go in our favour do not - and that is what I was highlighting. I wonder if the refs are told to ignore some of the antics of the largest teams in the Championship because there is a financial advantage to football in helping these teams to do well. The problem with any hint of corruption is that you tend to think you see it everywhere once you know it exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat Fastard Posted September 3, 2016 Report Share Posted September 3, 2016 7 minutes ago, RedDave said: With all due respect, I think you've misunderstood the article. Halsay saying that he was told to say he hadn't seen incidents after the match so that players could still be banned. Should have said "I was told to say I hadn't seen it"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumRed Posted September 3, 2016 Report Share Posted September 3, 2016 Just end the stupid rule and allow retrospective action whether the ref's seen it or not. Fast game, lots of decisions and action all round mistakes will be made. Should only apply to violent conduct though. The law is an ass in this instance, deliberate violent conduct should be dealt with no matter what happened in the 90 mins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted September 3, 2016 Report Share Posted September 3, 2016 2 hours ago, cityexile said: It is an interesting one. If I am reading it right, it is not that refs are told to turn a blind eye to things happening on the pitch. It is, if the cameras have caught something bad happening that the ref does not deal with, by saying they did not see it, action can still be taken. At one level, it can be argued justice gets done this way. Equally, the root of the problem is the rule that says action cannot be taken if the ref did see it. With the speed at which things happen on the pitch in real time, I do not see that it undercuts the refs authority to say action can be taken after the game if videos show something outrageous happened, whether the ref saw it or not? Surely this just accepts they are human? 1 hour ago, RumRed said: Just end the stupid rule and allow retrospective action whether the ref's seen it or not. Fast game, lots of decisions and action all round mistakes will be made. Should only apply to violent conduct though. The law is an ass in this instance, deliberate violent conduct should be dealt with no matter what happened in the 90 mins. Absolutely, bloody stupid rule. No-one`s perfect and going to get 100% right - particularly at pitch level, it`s easy from up in the stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.