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

[Quintrell Green]

A few years back i visited the Northamptonshire FA to sit on a disciplinary procedure (i'm VC of Northamptonshire Cricket Disciplinary Committee) as a swap to see how both codes run, what an eye opener. It was exactly like the Mike Basset movie, 3 guys with an average of 75 barely able to comprehend what the player and match official was telling them.

I've seen 4 different County FAs and had exactly the same experience as this.

I know what you are saying from having attended a number of FA Dinners in the past. I would however throw up the fact there is a real shortage of sufficient younger people, including past players of a decent non-professional standard with executive ability, who want to devote their free time to football administration. I think this issue hits soccer the most, because of the number of players and clubs in the game, who need to be administered. I see guys doing their best at Club level to keep a team running despite local abuse at times, but there seems a reluctance to go further into county / metropolitan level.

 

[Voice of Reason]

I agree. The finances the FA has at their disposal is huge. Why not push the boat out, get rid of the dead wood and get the likes of Webb and Clattenburg out in to the counties, searching for new referee's and encouraging the grass roots.

They turn over something like £400 million you cant tell me that they cant run a scheme for ex players to get involved in refereeing at the end of their careers (i'm not talking premier league rich boys - but league 1/2, high end non league) - of course they can, but that would involve someone kicking out a few old ties and being proactive.

 

[davie nine]

Based on that video evidence, there is no doubt whatsoever that Kelly deliberately pushed the ballboy over. There is also no doubt that Sarginson was looking in that direction. However, he may not have been concentrating 100% on that incident as there were other things going on in the 6 yard box at the same time. Like Martyn, I think that he should be given the benefit of the doubt. For example, he may have thought, quite wrongly, that the ballboy was unnecessarily, and deliberately, holding on to the ball to waste time and that he stumbled rather than was pushed.

 

[Martyn]

I agree. The finances the FA has at their disposal is huge. Why not push the boat out, get rid of the dead wood and get the likes of Webb and Clattenburg out in to the counties, searching for new referee's and encouraging the grass roots.

They turn over something like £400 million you cant tell me that they cant run a scheme for ex players to get involved in refereeing at the end of their careers (i'm not talking premier league rich boys - but league 1/2, high end non league) - of course they can, but that would involve someone kicking out a few old ties and being proactive.

Keep up it is already happening, in my current county, the head of referee development is none other then a English official who officiated at a World Cup final.

There are plenty of current and ex professional referees at county level.

By the way disciplinary proceedings has got nothing to do with referees, they are only asked to attend, and confirm there report.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

Let's not forget that the referee was not the accused here. He was a witness. The player was the person facing the charge and the player was found guilty. The hearing has nothing to do with how the referee handled the game.

 

[IJN]

He said he didn't see the incident Paul, he very clearly did. He lied to avoid the issue of his handling of the situation.

Would YOU trust this man in a court of law? Of course you wouldn't, he's not a viable witness is he?

 

[Voice of Reason]

But if the referee is liberal with the truth or doesn't tell the truth at a hearing/report - then its very much down to the referee. He says he didn't see it - i suggest you watch it again, he sees it alright, he puts the whistles to his mouth the moment it happens, play devils advocate by all means, but dont try and tell anyone with eyesight and a brain that this guy missed the incident. He saw, didn't want the hassle (might blemish his record) and played the safety card.

 

[Martyn]

He said he didn't see the incident Paul, he very clearly did. He lied to avoid the issue of his handling of the situation.

Would YOU trust this man in a court of law? Of course you wouldn't, he's not a viable witness is he?

How do you know what he said at the commission.

I said all along, I thought he handled the situation at the time wrongly. He should have been more pro-active, I think he wanted to get the game re-started asap, with a corner. Then deal with the ballboy situation after the game. But I am only surmising, and have not spoken with him, unlike yourself !!!!.

 

[Martyn]

But if the referee is liberal with the truth or doesn't tell the truth at a hearing/report - then its very much down to the referee. He says he didn't see it - i suggest you watch it again, he sees it alright, he puts the whistles to his mouth the moment it happens, play devils advocate by all means, but dont try and tell anyone with eyesight and a brain that this guy missed the incident. He saw, didn't want the hassle (might blemish his record) and played the safety card.

So you agree he handled that particular situation wrongly. Also that particular situation, happens very rarely in your career as a ref, and it surprises you Shen it happens, and you wonder how to handle it at the time. So he handled it in the wrong manner, and suffered by it.

Does it make him a bad ref, a liar, a git, an incompetent ref NO.

 

[Voice of Reason]

Not sending the player off was poor. Heat of the moment, slightly flustered - easy to get wrong
To say he didn't see it - an outright lie. Calculated and deceitful.

Do either of those things make him a poor official day in/day out - probably not. But the whole incident would have sent alarm bells ringing that the guy need monitoring further and not rewarded with a Wembley final.

If you are involved in local FA Martyn you no better than most on here the minefield that is child protection, any incident involving a child comes under huge scrutiny, i know from cricket that we have welfare officers when any reported incident involves anyone under the age of 16 - even if they are just a witness.

Dress it up all you like he seriously failed his duty on the day and had the chance to rectify it, he chose not to, we will never know the full in's/out's but the smart money is on he knew he had a Wembley gig and played the i didn't see it card to avoid getting involved himself - to me that makes him someone i'd prefer not to see in a game at Argyle.

 

[IJN]

How do you know what he said at the commission.

It was well reported at the time Martyn.

 

[Martyn]

Not sending the player off was poor. Heat of the moment, slightly flustered - easy to get wrong
To say he didn't see it - an outright lie. Calculated and deceitful.

Do either of those things make him a poor official day in/day out - probably not. But the whole incident would have sent alarm bells ringing that the guy need monitoring further and not rewarded with a Wembley final.

If you are involved in local FA Martyn you no better than most on here the minefield that is child protection, any incident involving a child comes under huge scrutiny, i know from cricket that we have welfare officers when any reported incident involves anyone under the age of 16 - even if they are just a witness.

Dress it up all you like he seriously failed his duty on the day and had the chance to rectify it, he chose not to, we will never know the full in's/out's but the smart money is on he knew he had a Wembley gig and played the i didn't see it card to avoid getting involved himself - to me that makes him someone i'd prefer not to see in a game at Argyle.

Sorry, in a way we both agree. At the time when you have to make a quick decision, you do not think at the time I better not rock the boat, as I have a Wembley final coming up, Thank does not happen, you are thinking how to handle that situation. That incident happens extremely rarely, thankfully, ithe game was nearing its end, so I think he just wanted to restart asap, (wrongly), and deal with the incident after the game, (wrongly), and report the orient player, he made an incorrect decision at the time, in my opinion,

As to what he said or lied at the commission, I don't know, as I am sure the minutes of any commission are not published, unless IJN was there !

 

[jimsing]

Not sending the player off was poor. Heat of the moment, slightly flustered - easy to get wrong
To say he didn't see it - an outright lie. Calculated and deceitful.

Do either of those things make him a poor official day in/day out - probably not. But the whole incident would have sent alarm bells ringing that the guy need monitoring further and not rewarded with a Wembley final.

If you are involved in local FA Martyn you no better than most on here the minefield that is child protection, any incident involving a child comes under huge scrutiny, i know from cricket that we have welfare officers when any reported incident involves anyone under the age of 16 - even if they are just a witness.

Dress it up all you like he seriously failed his duty on the day and had the chance to rectify it, he chose not to, we will never know the full in's/out's but the smart money is on he knew he had a Wembley gig and played the i didn't see it card to avoid getting involved himself - to me that makes him someone i'd prefer not to see in a game at Argyle.

What a rash statement that is.

I have to say that you must have superb intuition to make that kind of statement. The referee may well have been facing in that direction, but how on earth do you know where he was looking? He could have been looking at a totally different situation in the box, saw the ballboy fall over out of the corner of his eye, but did not see the build up to the incident.

I sometimes wonder how people can make such rash statements, without knowing the full facts of the case.

Things are not always black and white, as some on here seem to demand.

 

[Voice of Reason]

You do not need to be a professor in body language to spot the referee saw it. All camera angles show him looking directly at the incident with an unobstructed view. He reacted to it before anyone else in view.
He steps towards the incident and was about to blow his whistle when he then appears to re-think.
The easiest thing in this world is to say i didn't see it, take the easy route, watch this again and tell me that is not the case here.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

You do not need to be a professor in body language to spot the referee saw it. All camera angles show him looking directly at the incident with an unobstructed view. He reacted to it before anyone else in view.
He steps towards the incident and was about to blow his whistle when he then appears to re-think.
The easiest thing in this world is to say i didn't see it, take the easy route, watch this again and tell me that is not the case here.

The player still received an extended ban. He wouldn't have got more if the referee had said he saw it.