The manure match thread - Home, 2nd Jan 2017
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.5K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 34 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 405 Fun & Games
- 107 BA Predictor Threads
- 33 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 294 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 113 Current West Ham
- 199 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 11 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 26 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 396 Match Threads
- 66 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 55 Internationals
- 48 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 118 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 268 Other Teams & Matches
- 25 Other Players & Staff
Comments
;wahoo
;whistle
;yercoat
I agree about the trial by media comment, but this is exactly why I think the referee should give a statement / interview after the game about the decisions made. Mike Dean doesn't get to come out and say anything, but Keith Hackett, Howard Webb, Gary Lineker, Gary Neville, and whoever else you want to add to the list all get to slate him with no come back? Surely that's exactly the reason for a referee to be able to state why?
If he came out and said "at the time it looked to me as though Feghouli had gone in with his studs up and caught Jones late, having seen the replay I can see that this was not the case and, with the benefit of hindsight, I would not make the same decision again", who would actually be mad about it? And, those people who would be mad about it are already mad anyway!
Part of the anger inducing feel of this is Mike Dean's look of arrogance about the whole thing, which he may not possess, but unless we hear his side then we are left with the opinion he gave us during his mishandling of the incident when it happened.
But still another body helps.
Having said that, wouldn't the statement always be along the lines you have described? So, really, what would be the point? Especially if it was just a statement, not an interview. Or are we just wanting them to publicly admit their mistake? For me, that's unnecessary.
If it was done in an interview/press conference type event, I think it would be a disaster: the journalists would hound the referee and keep asking the same question, would almost certainly ask questions that go beyond their remit as referee to answer or comment on (for example, questions about the whole regulatory process). Even worse if the interview was allowed to rehash ALL their decisions - they'd be there all day arguing and going back and forth. For what benefit?
At the very most, I'd say an explanation might be offered to the two clubs involved, privately. Maybe. ;hmm
Finally, on a matter of principle, I don't think it right that when an employee makes a mistake in the course of their job they are required to go in front of the public and account for it. I think that is a dangerous path to go down, in terms of the scrutiny employees are expected to undergo. ;hmm
Mrs Grey - how long before the private statement is in the public domain? Almost instantly - so we would, as you state, be left with a nondescript anodyne statement which would not satisfy anyone!
Cole v Everton (Gibsons rescinded as well)
Noble v Liverpool
Kouyate v Palace
Feghouli v Man Utd
Not to mention the retro action for Aguero v Man City.
tbh, while I do get how ;angry it makes us fans when we see a ref making (in our opinion - which isn't always right) a mistake, I don't think making the refs explain themselves after the event is really beneficial.
The anodyne factual statement will, as you say, not really enlighten anyone. We can all imagine what it will say - it's obvious. Nor will it satisfy those who think the refs are biased or cheating.
A referee explanation after the event won't turn the clock back, so it is of no practical use.
I juts can't see what the advantages would be, when measured against the very significant (imo) disadvantages.
Now, using technology ... that's a different matter. If a ref instead of announcing afterwards it looked to me as though Feghouli had gone in with his studs up and caught Jones late, having seen the replay I can see that this was not the case and, with the benefit of hindsight, I would not make the same decision again he could say to a monitoring referee: 'it looks to me as though Feghouli has gone in with his studs up and caught Jones late, can you have a look at the replay and tell me if this is indeed the case, so I can make a more informed and hopefully better decision' I'd be all for it.
(which by the way would deliver some of what people are asking for, in that it would provide an insight into the refs thinking, without having to subject him to the Spanish Inquisition. And at the same time, and much more important, for me, actually lead to better decision-making during the game. Which after all is what we all want, isn't it?)
Plus Cresswell couldn't appeal his two yellows, one of which (if not both) was wrong
Football is the world's richest sport yet we're relying on poor man's technology ie. solely the human view/opinion.
Rescinding a wrongly awarded red card in football is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, because the team has already unjustifiably suffered the consequences of the player's dismissal.
All the more reason to have the decision reviewed before a red card (and probably a 2nd. yellow) is issued.