Cabbie none of the jury see the murderer commit the crime they are sentencing them for, but consider evidence and probability. In this case you can play devils advocate all you like - but he was a guilty as can be.
-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Guess who's back? (Saturday's ref)
- Thread starter Leon Horn
- Start date
Voice_of_Reason":l8sthszu said:
He wasn't the accused though. He was a witness. If your jury were to dismiss his evidence, the one thing they couldn't do would be to find him guilty.
He's accused of failing his duty by the supporters (which is what this thread is about) and of that he very guilty.
Sadly the FA failed in their duty to by letting him blag his way out of serious issue and then reward him by giving him a Wembley final. Spotting the assault of a minor and ignoring it is pretty low on any moral compass you want to examine.
Sadly the FA failed in their duty to by letting him blag his way out of serious issue and then reward him by giving him a Wembley final. Spotting the assault of a minor and ignoring it is pretty low on any moral compass you want to examine.
Lundan Cabbie":3pr4vrfk said:
But he could be prosecuted for perjury? :think:
Perverting the course of justice? :think:
Being a blind man in charge of an out-of-control football match? :think:
Voice_of_Reason":3vt34c5b said:
VOR what you are failing to understand, and what cabbie is trying to tell you, the commission was set up in order to charge the orient player. The referee is solely there as a witness. (As all commissions).
The referee is NOT on trial, he is not the one accused. The referees performance will have been decided by the Assessors report, and if anything in that report is required, then it would have been discussed at the next meeting of the referees governing body, as normal.
Everyone seems to be thinking that he should have told the disciplinary hearing that he did see the incident despite having not sent off the Orient skipper. Think what the consequences of that would have been. In football law, the referee's decision is final and by giving evidence that he saw what happened and took no further action, ties the hands of the commission. Ian says he lied. What is probably more likely to have happened, is that he was given a wink to say he never saw it and that allowed them to issue a five match ban.
As for not sending him off, the only explanation is that he couldn't have seen the incident exactly as it was. Why else would he not have reached for a red card?
As for not sending him off, the only explanation is that he couldn't have seen the incident exactly as it was. Why else would he not have reached for a red card?
Lundan Cabbie":57npwcwz said:
Aah the integrity of it all! Just gives you a warm glow that the game we love is in such professional, fair stewardship!! :facepalm:
'Giving a wink' to testify that you didn't see something is different from a lie?? How so? :think:
I understand totally well Martyn. Sadly the FA and referee both failed in their duty which is the WHOLE point.
The referee did see it, should have sent him off, but instead of hanging himself or as i would prefer to put it - do the right thing and admit he got it wrong - he decided to fudge it. The nature of the issue meant even if he had received a red card the FA would still have had to investigate as the club made an official complaint and the assault was against a minor - both things would trigger an additional hearing.
IMHO the referee ducked it to preserve himself, which if you want to applaude and forgive, that is your right, but i suspect the exceptionally large majority will not.
The referee did see it, should have sent him off, but instead of hanging himself or as i would prefer to put it - do the right thing and admit he got it wrong - he decided to fudge it. The nature of the issue meant even if he had received a red card the FA would still have had to investigate as the club made an official complaint and the assault was against a minor - both things would trigger an additional hearing.
IMHO the referee ducked it to preserve himself, which if you want to applaude and forgive, that is your right, but i suspect the exceptionally large majority will not.
Voice_of_Reason":10l96arv said:
Haven't said that at all. All along I have said I think he mishandled the situation. And should have dealt with the situation better.
I am sure the assessor picked up this, and the referee would have been made aware of it. Does not make him a liar or a bad referee.
He got a Wembley final, that is based on his performances throughout the season, so he is not a bad ref. He is not perfect and mistakes will happen, they are human, but they get a high majority absolutely spot on.
Martyn":2jzh9zrt said:
Does not make him a liar or a bad referee.
It doesn't?? :crazy: :think: :shock:
Hope the prat gets booed from the moment he steps on the pitch until the final whistle. Had he done his job properly during the Orient match and sent off at least 1, and quite possibly 2 Orient players then the extra point or 3 would have won us the league. Can't believe the FA are letting him ref down here again after that "performance"
Martyn":2qmpot5b said:
Absolutely ridiculous Martin ?, jog along and take your clueless trolling elsewhere pal because it is evident you are doing plenty of it on this thread. He was looking at the incident, he put the whistle to his mouth, he then stoppped, and to compound that he lied to the FA. The bloke will get everything he deserves on Saturday, and it will be thoroughly deserved. Had this been a criminal matter and video evidence was produced showing the person looking clearly at the incident when it happened then it would be deemed obstruction of justice, had they then lied in courft when giving evidence so why should someone on a football pitch be treated any differently.
