|
|
Post by stumpy on Feb 9, 2024 23:25:07 GMT
If Anthony hadn't deleted his forum account, I'd have PM'ed this, but since he has, this will have to do. I hoping he still reads stuff on here from time to time.
I reckon that, in the interests of the club, the Cray Wanderers Match report on the official site needs to be taken down and edited before being re-posted.
Yes, the ref was awful and we were all pissed off with him. But it's one thing to have a moan here, on an unofficial forum, and another to make what is basically a public accusation of incompetence on the club's official website. I think this report strays into that territory, and it's over the top.
The F.A. will always back their referees and if they read it and take umbrage at it, there could be some consequences for the club.
That's my view, and this is well-intentioned advice.
|
|
|
|
Post by colash on Feb 10, 2024 8:06:44 GMT
You are right Stumps. I was never allowed to post anything like this. Maybe the new owners think it’s ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ads on Feb 10, 2024 8:13:18 GMT
I’d imagine he will be at the game today , have a word with him ?
|
|
andyb
Junior Member
Posts: 400
|
Post by andyb on Feb 10, 2024 8:48:08 GMT
I have to say, it's a very poor and unprofessional article on various levels, which I can only assume represents the clubs opinions' as it is on the main website.
Whilst all non league club website's are undoubtedly managed by fans who have an interest in the media side, they should be (as much as possible) providing a balanced view of events. Richard Murrill used to do this excellently and received acclaim for this. Anthony's article is completely the opposite and could bring the club into disrepute with the "higher powers". Josh etc really need to have a word with him as the site isn't an one man blog. If they see this article as acceptable then I really would question their running of the club.
I'm sure Anthony is reading this enjoying the attention, such is the warped mind of this weird man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ads on Feb 10, 2024 8:57:45 GMT
Oh here’s another one who wouldn’t say it to his face 😂
|
|
|
|
Post by kentjambo on Feb 10, 2024 9:27:17 GMT
Be very difficult for the FA to challenge a factually correct report. I, like many others tried to point out to the referee his errors in the laws of the game. Besides that he had a stinker. Only my opinion of course and I was only ever a Sunday morning league player so my footballing nouse is very limited.
|
|
|
|
Post by invictasaint on Feb 10, 2024 10:03:47 GMT
Emotional rather than professional, should maybe have reflected a little longer before putting pen to paper. All the same, he is only voicing what the majority of us felt as we left the ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by stumpy on Feb 10, 2024 12:22:36 GMT
Be very difficult for the FA to challenge a factually correct report. I, like many others tried to point out to the referee his errors in the laws of the game. Besides that he had a stinker. Only my opinion of course and I was only ever a Sunday morning league player so my footballing nouse is very limited. I think a lot of us, me included, made our feelings clear to the ref as he was leaving the pitch. Yes, he did have a stinker. I was only a Sunday morning player too, so my nous is as limited as yours. That's not the point. The point is that if a football club publicly criticises a referee it leaves itself open to the possibility of an FA fine; admittedly, that is more likely to happen at a higher level, where the "public" is bigger. If the club is unhappy with a referee's performance then the correct way to inform the F.A. of this is by giving the ref a suitably low mark on the match assessment form together with a written explanation of that low mark; not to post an extremely critical match report on the club's official web-site. I wouldn't imagine for a moment that Anthony cleared his match report with anybody else. As for "factually correct", you need to be careful about quoting parts of the IFAB laws to back what you are saying - which is the part of the article that I think is particularly over the top, and basically futile. The most relevant part of the laws is probably this: "Decisions will be made to the best of the referee’s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game. The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The decisions of the referee, and all other match officials, must always be respected." On the specifics: The stoppage time is a non-issue. Yes, the ref allowed more stoppage time than is usual at our level, and it annoyed all of us, but it was completely within the laws of the game. The fact that their equaliser was scored after 8 minutes 15 seconds when the board showed 8 means diddly-squat, as this is what the laws say: "The fourth official indicates the minimum additional time decided by the referee at the end of the final minute of each half. The additional time may be increased by the referee but not reduced." The bit about Tom Derry having to leave the field is an incorrect interpretation of the FA rules (not the IFAB ones, which don't say anything about it): it doesn't matter that he wasn't treated, the fact that Abi came on to assess him means that he has to leave the field; the bit about 2 players from the same team colliding only applies if BOTH players are injured; they can't both be required to leave the pitch. As for the Sanogo sending off, Anthony is cherry picking from different versions of the rules. The FA rules, which are the ones that apply to our league, say only this with respect to advantage. "If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play." - which is what the ref did. So, basically, the three main criticisms of the ref that Anthony has made in his report are all invalid. And, Geoff, the "emotional response" defence might have applied if the report was written/posted soon after the game: it was posted yesterday evening - plenty of time for reflection and for common sense to kick in. I really think it needs to be edited. |
|
|
|
Post by finbarr_in_z on Feb 10, 2024 12:37:45 GMT
A quick rummage round the Cray social media hints that they haven't spotted it yet (or at least it isn't being discussed) - only the Twitter comments being reacted to.
So likely it hasn't been spotted by anyone other than FIFC fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by stumpy on Feb 10, 2024 13:12:58 GMT
likely it hasn't been spotted by anyone other than FIFC fans. Let's hope not - and all the more reason to change it quickly. It will give Anthony something to do this afternoon if we're rained off.  |
|
|
|
Post by stumpy on Feb 10, 2024 13:44:49 GMT
I’d imagine he will be at the game today , have a word with him ? He's much too busy and important to talk to the likes of me |
|
|
|
Post by kentjambo on Feb 10, 2024 14:54:33 GMT
I’d imagine he will be at the game today , have a word with him ? He's much too busy and important to talk to the likes of me Or...you are just a twat?🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by stumpy on Feb 10, 2024 15:15:35 GMT
He's much too busy and important to talk to the likes of me Or...you are just a twat?🤣 Sometimes - not on this occasion. |
|
