Guess who's back? (Saturday's ref)

[Positively Green]

You tell me he didn't see it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W073G0xjA-Y

What was he looking at when he blew and pointed then?

i would say that is overwhelming evidence wouldn't you lundan?

Ref walked straight towards the "incident". Grrrr.

 

[IJN]

As I say, the man blatantly lied.

He should have been sacked just for the lie, not for his mishandling of the situation that he saw.

 

[Steve Evans]

he also failed to take appropriate action against the orient player who knobbled sarcevic.

 

[Pogleswoody]

As I posted on the original thread: If he, his two 'assistants' and the fourth official weren't looking at the man getting the ball what were they doing? Checking Twitter? :facepalm:

(and no rowlocks about the fourth official doesn't have an input, cos I've seen 'em get players booked when the ref has missed it! :furious: )

Guy is a numpty.

 

[IJN]

A definite red card. However, he may not have seen that from his angle. The ball boy one he DID see.

 

[Lancastergreen]

Or did the ball boy slip?

 

[Quintrell Green]

If he failed to see the ball-boy incident whilst looking in that direction his lack of vision should preclude him from being a ref. IMHO he ducked the issue to avoid making a decision. You never know, perhaps on Saturday he he will want to compensate and we get a jammy penalty awarded to us. At least he will have the benefit of day light!

 

[Pogleswoody]

How's about:
'I can push a ballboy, push a ballboy, push a ballboy for you', to the tune of Sing A Rainbow?

Red and yellow have not been seen?

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

Sweet Baby Jesus! :facepalm:

Not only was he totally incompetent he was a liar.

How the hell is he still in a job?

I assume you mean when he said he never saw the incident? Unfortunately, we cannot prove he didn't.

The video clearly shows he did. He lied.

No, the video showed he was facing the incident but that's not the same as showing what he was looking at and seeing. You're entitled to not believe him of course but it's not evidence enough to have taken things any further.

lundan,can you explain how he and none of his three assistants didn't see the incident?

No I can't but the referee's eye witness account wasn't needed. The commission had the video evidence that Ian has kindly provided a link to and the Orient skipper was found guilty.

The officials were witnesses and not defendants. The commission cannot change evidence (the officials saying they didn't see the incident was, a submission of evidence) just to make the case stronger. Imagine if the police did that.

 

[Bermudian Green]

If you were driving a cab and didn't see an incident right in front of you, you would lose your licence, Why you defend him is interesting.

 

[davie nine]

Last year's incident is history and it would be counter-productive for our supporters to barrack Sarginson on Saturday. If his poor performance had cost us promotion, it would be difficult not to let him know about it.

I want to see a good game of football not spoilt by petty recriminations against the referee. There were several other poor refereeing performances last season but I think we should 'let sleeping dogs lie'.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

If you were driving a cab and didn't see an incident right in front of you, you would lose your licence, Why you defend him is interesting.

I'm not defending him. I'm just saying that his evidence was irrelevant. The commission had all they needed on video.

And as for your analogy, if an accident happened in front of me and I told police I didn't see what happened, that would be the end of it and no, they wouldn't take my licence away.

 

[Penlee]

Last year's incident is history and it would be counter-productive for our supporters to barrack Sarginson on Saturday. If his poor performance had cost us promotion, it would be difficult not to let him know about it.

I want to see a good game of football not spoilt by petty recriminations against the referee. There were several other poor refereeing performances last season but I think we should 'let sleeping dogs lie'.

Absolutely right Davie but passions might just take over I have to agree with IJN and other comments he is either

a) Cheat
b) Liar
c) No balls
d) all of the above

Can we run a poll? :twisted:

(by the way i don't beieve he is a cheat)

 

[Martyn]

Last year's incident is history and it would be counter-productive for our supporters to barrack Sarginson on Saturday. If his poor performance had cost us promotion, it would be difficult not to let him know about it.

I want to see a good game of football not spoilt by petty recriminations against the referee. There were several other poor refereeing performances last season but I think we should 'let sleeping dogs lie'.

Absolutely right Davie but passions might just take over I have to agree with IJN and other comments he is either

a) Cheat
b) Liar
c) No balls
d) all of the above

Can we run a poll? :twisted:

(by the way i don't beieve he is a cheat)

All this is a joke, we are we bearating a referee for a decision last season.

Okay, he made a mistake, and should have handled it differently, but we have benefited from some rf,s decisions. Let's move on, the referee's performance last season, did not cause us the league.

 

[IJN]

Agree with that (the league bit) but this bloke should have been booted out, that's my point.

Not fit for purpose.