|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 25, 2015 9:52:35 GMT
It's been interesting to watch this whole situation unfold and 2 things jump out at me; 1) there is now an offence known as "not so violent conduct" which will incur a 2 match ban. Basically, "not so violent conduct" is only applicable to the powerful clubs whose pansy, pampered superstars ate tackled by some criminal who plays for a not so powerful club. 2) the referees assessor/association maintain that Mr. Atkinson made the right decision on each of the 4 controversial incidents that were highlighted by Mr. mourinho. My conclusion on all this as that "you really couldn't make this shit up". Everything to do with premier league/fa officialdom absolutely stinks. (1) I don't think that's an accurate way of describing it. Rather I would say that a Commission has now been given limited flexibility a reduce a penalty for violent conduct. This was a change for this season (there are usually some changes at the start of every season). Onionman describes it as "unprecedented". That will be true if this is the first time a Commission has exercised this new power. I simply don't know if that is the case, but the first application of any new power is always going to be "unprecedented" by definition. Leaving aside the views of this particular case and Chelsea's approach to it, whilst I can see the value of simplicity in these processes, it has always struck me as being rather crude that all violent conduct cases are given the same punishment. Some violence is clearly much worse than others. (2) Which is it ? The referees assessor and the referees association are very different animals. The latter is the representative body for referees, just as the PFA is for players, the LMA is for managers, the FSF is for fans etc. The referees assessor is very different. He/she is the person, always a qualified former referee, present at the match, who assesses the referee's performance on that day. Their reports are confidential. If the assessor's view of the incidents in question has somehow entered the public domain, I would be surprised.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 25, 2015 9:57:51 GMT
Not that I'm aware of, but I might be wrong ( it wouldn't affect a Commission which just makes a decision on a case put before it). Phil Dowd ought to know.It may possibly be something to do with incidents which the referees "sees" but doesn't see the totality of. As we see on TV quite often, sometimes you can see something in an incident from one camera angle which you can't see from another, and of course the ref. only has one angle. But that's just speculation on my part. It's a fine line to tread as I, for one, wouldn't want games to be almost "re-refereed" after the game. I think we are almost at the point now of some kind of technological intervention to help refs. The problem of course is money......imagine a team being relegated last match of the season on the back of a wrong decision by the referee....there would be hell to pay, but I fear it will happen. That's exactly the debate, Lawrie. On the one hand there is the view that it should be left at goaline technology which is just looking at a matter of fact - did it cross the line, because we don't want to start re-refereeing games after the event. At the other end of the spectrum there is the view - if we've got the technology, we should use it as much as possible to help the referee and improve decisions both on and off the field. Personally, I'm somewhere between the two extremes.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 25, 2015 10:17:24 GMT
I look forward to a similar incident, being dealt with in a similar way, involving any 3 member panel., and look forward to a consistent approach and therefore a similar result. The same consistency that was applied to Gary nevilles challenges and Wayne Rooneys elbows at the Brit. Surely if there was greater consistency,of approach, of scrutiny and of treatment, then there would less questions of integrity ? I do not question your integrity or those of any other 3 "person" panel, but the perceptions of justice/injustice can be clouded when certain incidents are hyped/highlighted, certain individuals/clubs have greater access/ influence over the media that either adds focus or chooses to ignore an incident. Everybody loves a conspiracy theory, but they are easier to undermine if actions are deemed to be consistent, even if they are not deemed to be fair. Like Michael Oliver's, penalising Ryan, even when I didn't see it as fair, I have been reassured by the consistent approach by him and his colleagues to all similar incidents since and the same way that the Daily Mail and similar "organs" highlighted, continue to highlight the actions of similar serial offenders like John Terry. Sometimes it is hard not to be cynical when it appears that the tail of the media is wagging the dog of football. In such a climate, the good work you and others do, especially "getting your arse in gear" in supporting Stoke City fans, is not forgotten Malcom, but is compartmentalised in the face of cases such as the poor victims at Chelsea. I can honestly say, Robin, that on the Commissions on which I have sat, which is all I can comment on, I have never seen any evidence of bias. As I said above, consistency is a more difficult concept when you are talking about judgements by human beings and, obviously, no two on-field incidents are exactly the same. I think a bit like juries on high profile criminal cases, media coverage is something you just have to try your best to put completely out of your mind, and concentrate on two questions. What exactly happened ? What do the rules say and how are they properly applied to your conclusion about what happened ? Performance and consistency of decisions of referees is something I have nothing whatever to do with !
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Feb 25, 2015 16:37:07 GMT
It's been interesting to watch this whole situation unfold and 2 things jump out at me; 1) there is now an offence known as "not so violent conduct" which will incur a 2 match ban. Basically, "not so violent conduct" is only applicable to the powerful clubs whose pansy, pampered superstars ate tackled by some criminal who plays for a not so powerful club. 2) the referees assessor/association maintain that Mr. Atkinson made the right decision on each of the 4 controversial incidents that were highlighted by Mr. mourinho. My conclusion on all this as that "you really couldn't make this shit up". Everything to do with premier league/fa officialdom absolutely stinks. (1) I don't think that's an accurate way of describing it. Rather I would say that a Commission has now been given limited flexibility a reduce a penalty for violent conduct. This was a change for this season (there are usually some changes at the start of every season). Onionman describes it as "unprecedented". That will be true if this is the first time a Commission has exercised this new power. I simply don't know if that is the case, but the first application of any new power is always going to be "unprecedented" by definition. Leaving aside the views of this particular case and Chelsea's approach to it, whilst I can see the value of simplicity in these processes, it has always struck me as being rather crude that all violent conduct cases are given the same punishment. Some violence is clearly much worse than others. (2) Which is it ? The referees assessor and the referees association are very different animals. The latter is the representative body for referees, just as the PFA is for players, the LMA is for managers, the FSF is for fans etc. The referees assessor is very different. He/she is the person, always a qualified former referee, present at the match, who assesses the referee's performance on that day. Their reports are confidential. If the assessor's view of the incidents in question has somehow entered the public domain, I would be surprised. I will watch with interest how point 1 pans out but I fail to see how chasing 10 yards to violently push an opposition player to the ground and attempt to kick him on the way down can be construed as "not so violent conduct", thereby meriting a 2 rather than 3 game ban. Surely it was a frivolous appeal that should have seen the ban increased? Reference point 2 the fact that the assessor on the day confirmed that Atkinson adjudged all incidents to have been judged correctly has been on tv, radio and written media outlet I've seen. Talksport had 2 ex referees on yesterday discussing this very fact.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Feb 25, 2015 16:58:02 GMT
Any which way anyone chooses to try and present this just proves that the FA are not only corrupt but fucking incompetent along with 98% of their so called 'Professional' referees. The media just exacerbates the problems with biased and myopic reporting. Until football in this country is run by footballers and footballing people not business men and suits like the woeful Gregg Dyke then as amazing as it may seem this problem will only get worse. It's a fucking disgrace on every level and I'm surprised anyone would try and defend it!
H
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 25, 2015 17:32:01 GMT
(1) I don't think that's an accurate way of describing it. Rather I would say that a Commission has now been given limited flexibility a reduce a penalty for violent conduct. This was a change for this season (there are usually some changes at the start of every season). Onionman describes it as "unprecedented". That will be true if this is the first time a Commission has exercised this new power. I simply don't know if that is the case, but the first application of any new power is always going to be "unprecedented" by definition. Leaving aside the views of this particular case and Chelsea's approach to it, whilst I can see the value of simplicity in these processes, it has always struck me as being rather crude that all violent conduct cases are given the same punishment. Some violence is clearly much worse than others. (2) Which is it ? The referees assessor and the referees association are very different animals. The latter is the representative body for referees, just as the PFA is for players, the LMA is for managers, the FSF is for fans etc. The referees assessor is very different. He/she is the person, always a qualified former referee, present at the match, who assesses the referee's performance on that day. Their reports are confidential. If the assessor's view of the incidents in question has somehow entered the public domain, I would be surprised. I will watch with interest how point 1 pans out but I fail to see how chasing 10 yards to violently push an opposition player to the ground and attempt to kick him on the way down can be construed as "not so violent conduct", thereby meriting a 2 rather than 3 game ban. Surely it was a frivolous appeal that should have seen the ban increased? Reference point 2 the fact that the assessor on the day confirmed that Atkinson adjudged all incidents to have been judged correctly has been on tv, radio and written media outlet I've seen. Talksport had 2 ex referees on yesterday discussing this very fact. I would hazard a guess that it's true that more people expected an increased sanction than a reduced one. You don't get full written reasons for fast track cases like this, so all we have to go on for an explanation of the Commission's thinking is the statement issued by the Chairman of the Commission, Roger Burden ( who in my experience is neither corrupt nor incompetent). www.thefa.com/news/governance/2015/feb/nemanja-matic-chelsea-burnley-red-card-suspension-reduced-two-matchesIf the assessor's views have been made public, it's both highly unusual and against the protocol. I personally think there is case for at least debating whether assessor's reports should routinely be made public, but that's a separate debate and I would expect that the Referees Association would be opposed to that.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Feb 25, 2015 17:38:08 GMT
The F.A. can act on an incident if the referee has not seen it, but if he has seen it and taken no action then the F.A. can't act ( I think ), I'm not sure what the referee in this case Squeekster has actually said. Well the only option is that he didn't see it as if he did and deemed both acts not worthy of at least a booking then he should be struck off!
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 25, 2015 17:52:20 GMT
Any which way anyone chooses to try and present this just proves that the FA are not only corrupt but fucking incompetent along with 98% of their so called 'Professional' referees. The media just exacerbates the problems with biased and myopic reporting. Until football in this country is run by footballers and footballing people not business men and suits like the woeful Gregg Dyke then as amazing as it may seem this problem will only get worse. It's a fucking disgrace on every level and I'm surprised anyone would try and defend it! H Not sure if you are referring to me, but what I have done is to explain the process and the rules ( because there is a lot of understandable ignorance about both) not defend, or criticise, either, nor defend or criticise this particular decision. I'm not at all sure I want football to be "run by footballers" although it's entirely appropriate that they have a voice at the table. Neither am I sure what you mean by "football people not businessmen". As the supporters' rep on the FA Council who goes to every game played by my club, am I a "football person" ? Peter Coates, who was on the FA Council until last year is a businessman, but is he not also a "football person" ? Greg Dyke, has been on the Board of 2 professional football clubs, and the Chairman of one - is he not a "football person" ? Roger Burden, who chaired this Commission, is the chair of a County FA, of which he has been a voluntary Council member for many years - is he not a "football person". Don't get me wrong - on behalf of supporters I have called for major changes in the way the game is governed and the composition of the FA, both in the FA Council itself, to the Parliamentary Select Committee, and in the media. But I think we have to be wary of simplistic slogans and think through exactly what we mean and what we want.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Offside on Feb 25, 2015 18:08:17 GMT
It should be an increased ban but it won't. The decision to send Matic off and not the Burnley player was half right. The decision to ban Matic for two games and not charge the Burnley player retrospectively is also half right. Two half rights don't make it all right.
|
|
|
Post by HappyClapper on Feb 25, 2015 19:12:29 GMT
I think I would've reacted in the same if I was matic it was a shocking tackle. But I would've expected the punishment and taken it.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Feb 25, 2015 19:29:55 GMT
Any which way anyone chooses to try and present this just proves that the FA are not only corrupt but fucking incompetent along with 98% of their so called 'Professional' referees. The media just exacerbates the problems with biased and myopic reporting. Until football in this country is run by footballers and footballing people not business men and suits like the woeful Gregg Dyke then as amazing as it may seem this problem will only get worse. It's a fucking disgrace on every level and I'm surprised anyone would try and defend it! H Not sure if you are referring to me, but what I have done is to explain the process and the rules ( because there is a lot of understandable ignorance about both) not defend, or criticise, either, nor defend or criticise this particular decision. I'm not at all sure I want football to be "run by footballers" although it's entirely appropriate that they have a voice at the table. Neither am I sure what you mean by "football people not businessmen". As the supporters' rep on the FA Council who goes to every game played by my club, am I a "football person" ? Peter Coates, who was on the FA Council until last year is a businessman, but is he not also a "football person" ? Greg Dyke, has been on the Board of 2 professional football clubs, and the Chairman of one - is he not a "football person" ? Roger Burden, who chaired this Commission, is the chair of a County FA, of which he has been a voluntary Council member for many years - is he not a "football person". Don't get me wrong - on behalf of supporters I have called for major changes in the way the game is governed and the composition of the FA, both in the FA Council itself, to the Parliamentary Select Committee, and in the media. But I think we have to be wary of simplistic slogans and think through exactly what we mean and what we want. If I was referring to you I would refer to you directly. Gregg Dyke may well have been on the board of two professional clubs, he isn't a football person. He can't be. Someone who is so out of touch with the game and the supporters is not a football person, the same goes for Barry Bright, Michael Game and Roger Burden. They are all out of touch with footballing reality and have a touch of Bert Millichip about them. After what they can get for themselves. Please when you read my posts, when I refer to the FA I refer to these bumbling corrupt clowns nothing to do with your FA Council, I have no problem with that. I also have a problem with the so called professional game reps. What a joke. When I refer to businessmen, I refer to people who I see as in it for themselves and not for the good of the game. A bigger set of incompetent prattlers you won't see until you get to FIFA level. So by Football people , I refer to people who have the interests of our game at heart which I believe you do. I don't think the people I have mentioned do, and are only feathering their nest and don't understand a thing about grass roots. H
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 26, 2015 13:46:21 GMT
Am I wrong to say that Barnes challenge wasn't that bad? Play it at normal speed & it's clear that there wasn't really much force in it which makes a crucial difference to the whole thing for me. A foul yes,booking yes. To be fair that should have been his second yellow. I genuinly can't understand Matic's reaction. What would he do if he had REALLY been clobbered?
|
|