Graham Poll's decision reveals his personality disorder

[cmonurz]

I'm sorry there is NO excuse for it and I'm quite frankly shocked that anyone can defend an agreement (especially such a serious one as this) between a ref and a manager in any way whatsoever. There needs tp be an inquiry into Pardew's antics. And Poll's.

Stop that knee-jerking. Your post is factually incorrect. Poll did not agree to warn Pardew instead of giving Song a second booking. Poll agreed, it seems, to warn Pardew when Song was on a 'final warning'.

There is a distinct difference here, and the agreement extends no further than when a referee directly gives a player, or his captain, the same information.

[papereyes]

There is a distinct difference here, and the agreement extends no further than when a referee directly gives a player, or his captain, the same information.

Happens quite often in the league I play in. Ref has a quiet word with the captain, and the substitution usually follows.

I actually think its quite good reffing.

[Wycombe Royal]

Surely part of being a manager is to spot when your players need substituting to avoid red cards? You should not need to rely on the ref to do that for you.

A referee is there to apply the laws of the game and not get involved with team tactics and management decisions.

[biscuitsrus]

It's TOTALLY disgraceful.

Refs should have no such communication with managers. Refs and managers should NOT be "striking agreements"!!!!!!! And besides, it basically gives a green light to players to be as thuggish as they like and then be safely substituted. NO-ONE should have the luxury of knowing when they're about to be sent off. IT'S CHEATING.

And what does "about to go off" indicate anyway?? That's an equally serious question.

It indicates Poll decides when a player should probably sent off, rather than judging each foul by its merit, because technically ANY player on a yellow is instantly "about to go off", if you go by merit. You only give an indication like that if you don't go by individual fouls but just decide to send someone off based on what you've generally seen.

It's an absolute disgrace. Poll is a disgrace to English refereeing, as we've long known anyway.

He should be banned from the Prem.

Agree totally except I would go further by saying why should this happen in any league, therefore the oxf*rd@ must be bannished.

I would have felt the same last year in the CCC, the guy is clearly disfunctional at best.

[BR2]

The inference in the Talksport discussion was that there was some sort of pact made at half-time.
Presumably Poll would have made BOTH managers aware of any such deal.
Anyway far from Pardew being clever wasn't he just plain stupid in revealing that this deal was made?
Now there will be a load of fuss from other managers around the relegation zone of some colusion and how unfair it might all be as Song could have been sent off for that last tackle on Sidwell (persistent fouling)leaving Charlton with 10 men for the last 25 minutes or so and Song banned for the next game etc.
This one I think will run and run.

[Scrappy]

To be fair to Poll I thought he had one of his better games last night. Not many refs would have given the penalty anyway so we can hardly blame him for that. Also, the Song incident where Pardew was "warned" about the next bad challenge, I don't know, but I would hazard a guess that it's standard practice. Sometimes you get the decisions, sometimes you don't.

[cmonurz]

Anyway far from Pardew being clever wasn't he just plain stupid in revealing that this deal was made?

It really doesn't matter what Pardew does with his career, you can never say a good word about him, can you? Success at Reading, promotion and Europe at West Ham, and he might yet save Charlton from the drop. Imho there is a very good chance Pardew will be the next England manager, IF McLaren turns it around and survives a few years.

[Hahnemann's Hairdresser]

If it was standard practice it would have been heard of before surely. A sending off can effect the outcome of a game so for a referee and a manager to make a deal during the course of the game is gaining an unfair advantage.

Anyway far from Pardew being clever wasn't he just plain stupid in revealing that this deal was made?

It really doesn't matter what Pardew does with his career, you can never say a good word about him, can you? Success at Reading, promotion and Europe at West Ham, and he might yet save Charlton from the drop. Imho there is a very good chance Pardew will be the next England manager, IF McLaren turns it around and survives a few years.

Pardew is a good manager, it doesn't mean that revealing a deal you made with a referee at half time isn't a naive and stupid thing to do.

[cmonurz]

I am not sure that it was. I think this has been blown out of all proportion. I don't see the issue with this 'arrangement' at all.

[Top Flight]

It was very clever psychology by Pardew. Song probably should have marched after he deliberately clipped Hunt as he was advancing towards the penalty area. But because Pards hadn't been given the nod, Poll may have felt that he would have been letting Pards down if he had pulled out the red.

Pards managed that situation very well and had a psychological hold over Graham Poll. Also we should have been awarded a pen when El Karkouri shoved Long off the pitch in the penalty area.

I would just say well done Pards, that was very clever psychology. I'm certainly not gonna engage in Pardew bashing. I will just respect his fox like cleverness. You gotta use every trick and technique at your disposal when you are in the middle of a relegation scrap and you gotta think outside the box and Pards certainly did that. He showed that he is streetwise. Well done Pards! Charlton are lucky to have him!

I think Poll is the best referee in the country. I couldn't find any fault in his reffing performance last night!

Do I spot a contradiction here?

Yeah you did...................

Apart from those couple of incidents, I couldn't find any further fault with Polls performance. I thought his judgement was good. If we had been given the pen it would have been slighty harsh on Charlton and if Song had been sent off that would have been slightly harsh as well because they weren't horrible challenges. They were just silly.

Poll used good common sense. Whereas the ref at the Spurs game should have used common sense by not awarding the pen against halford. That was also harsh and lacked common sense.

A ref will always be criticised. If they show common sense they are attacked and if they go by the letter they are attacked. I prefer common sense refereering and Poll showed that last night. The decisions didn't go in our favour but sending song off and giving the pen would have been harsh.

If only the Spurs ref showed common sense. I would have poll reffing us every week.

[Wycombe Royal]

I am not sure that it was. I think this has been blown out of all proportion. I don't see the issue with this 'arrangement' at all.

Because tactics and team management are down to the manager not the referee.

[cmonurz]

I am not sure that it was. I think this has been blown out of all proportion. I don't see the issue with this 'arrangement' at all.

Because tactics and team management are down to the manager not the referee.

So why does the referee 'warn' players and captains then? And what's the difference?

[Stranded]

I am not sure that it was. I think this has been blown out of all proportion. I don't see the issue with this 'arrangement' at all.

Because tactics and team management are down to the manager not the referee.

So why does the referee 'warn' players and captains then? And what's the difference?

There really is none as far as I can see. The final warning would have got back to the manager anyway so why not cut out the middle man.

[Wycombe Royal]

I am not sure that it was. I think this has been blown out of all proportion. I don't see the issue with this 'arrangement' at all.

Because tactics and team management are down to the manager not the referee.

So why does the referee 'warn' players and captains then? And what's the difference?

Giving a signal to a manager after he has requested assistance crosses the line and put doubt in to the mind as to impartiality. Talking to players on the pitch as the game is going on is part of refereeing. Giving managers "a look" to signal something is not.

[Hahnemann's Hairdresser]

I am not sure that it was. I think this has been blown out of all proportion. I don't see the issue with this 'arrangement' at all.

Because tactics and team management are down to the manager not the referee.

So why does the referee 'warn' players and captains then? And what's the difference?

Song (or the Charlton captain) could quite easily have turned to Pardew himself and said i'm on my last warning, its down to Pardew whether he brings Song off or not as he doesn't know for sure how much more Song will get away with. The fact that this signal came from the man responsible to impartially referee the game is why there's a difference. It means Pardew could tell Song to keep up the nigling tackles as Poll would let him know when he's one away from being sent off.

As far as i'm aware Coppell had no such agreement, so had a Reading player been booked that player would have to pull out of tackles that Song was still able to make. For example a booked Sidwell pulls out of a tackle 25 yards out and Charlton go on to score from that attack. 5 minutes later Reading attack and Song makes a nigling tackle 25 yards out, it's a foul but Pardew and the player both know he wont be sent off, despite already being booked, as Graham hasn't given the signal yet. Thats where there's an advantage being gained from the supposedly impartial referee.

[cmonurz]

I am not sure that it was. I think this has been blown out of all proportion. I don't see the issue with this 'arrangement' at all.

Because tactics and team management are down to the manager not the referee.

So why does the referee 'warn' players and captains then? And what's the difference?

Song (or the Charlton captain) could quite easily have turned to Pardew himself and said i'm on my last warning, its down to Pardew whether he brings Song off or not as he doesn't know for sure how much more Song will get away with. The fact that this signal came from the man responsible to impartially referee the game is why there's a difference. It means Pardew could tell Song to keep up the nigling tackles as Poll would let him know when he's one away from being sent off.

As far as i'm aware Coppell had no such agreement, so had a Reading player been booked that player would have to pull out of tackles that Song was still able to make. For example a booked Sidwell pulls out of a tackle 25 yards out and Charlton go on to score from that attack. 5 minutes later Reading attack and Song makes a nigling tackle 25 yards out, it's a foul but Pardew and the player both know he wont be sent off, despite already being booked, as Graham hasn't given the signal yet. Thats where there's an advantage being gained from the supposedly impartial referee.

You have missed the point. Had Song committed an individual foul itself worthy of a second bookable offence, he would have been sent off. However, another bookable offence is persistent fouling, and this is what the agreement was around. There is no reason at all to suggest that Song might have been subject to lenient treatment.

[Wycombe Royal]

I am not sure that it was. I think this has been blown out of all proportion. I don't see the issue with this 'arrangement' at all.

Because tactics and team management are down to the manager not the referee.

So why does the referee 'warn' players and captains then? And what's the difference?

Song (or the Charlton captain) could quite easily have turned to Pardew himself and said i'm on my last warning, its down to Pardew whether he brings Song off or not as he doesn't know for sure how much more Song will get away with. The fact that this signal came from the man responsible to impartially referee the game is why there's a difference. It means Pardew could tell Song to keep up the nigling tackles as Poll would let him know when he's one away from being sent off.

As far as i'm aware Coppell had no such agreement, so had a Reading player been booked that player would have to pull out of tackles that Song was still able to make. For example a booked Sidwell pulls out of a tackle 25 yards out and Charlton go on to score from that attack. 5 minutes later Reading attack and Song makes a nigling tackle 25 yards out, it's a foul but Pardew and the player both know he wont be sent off, despite already being booked, as Graham hasn't given the signal yet. Thats where there's an advantage being gained from the supposedly impartial referee.

You have missed the point. Had Song committed an individual foul itself worthy of a second bookable offence, he would have been sent off. However, another bookable offence is persistent fouling, and this is what the agreement was around. There is no reason at all to suggest that Song might have been subject to lenient treatment.

I also remember Song being talked to by Poll (quite a long time before he was subbed) where it seemed Poll was giving him his final warning. Then, after another foul, he gives Pardew the "look".

That IS lenient and he should have gone. Pardew, if he was doing his job correctly, should have seen this final warning and taken his decision based on that, and not be relient on a referee giving him the "look". Poll, as an impartial referee, should have told him to get stuffed when the request was made and to perform his management duties on his own.

[Hahnemann's Hairdresser]

I am not sure that it was. I think this has been blown out of all proportion. I don't see the issue with this 'arrangement' at all.

Because tactics and team management are down to the manager not the referee.

So why does the referee 'warn' players and captains then? And what's the difference?

Song (or the Charlton captain) could quite easily have turned to Pardew himself and said i'm on my last warning, its down to Pardew whether he brings Song off or not as he doesn't know for sure how much more Song will get away with. The fact that this signal came from the man responsible to impartially referee the game is why there's a difference. It means Pardew could tell Song to keep up the nigling tackles as Poll would let him know when he's one away from being sent off.

As far as i'm aware Coppell had no such agreement, so had a Reading player been booked that player would have to pull out of tackles that Song was still able to make. For example a booked Sidwell pulls out of a tackle 25 yards out and Charlton go on to score from that attack. 5 minutes later Reading attack and Song makes a nigling tackle 25 yards out, it's a foul but Pardew and the player both know he wont be sent off, despite already being booked, as Graham hasn't given the signal yet. Thats where there's an advantage being gained from the supposedly impartial referee.

You have missed the point. Had Song committed an individual foul itself worthy of a second bookable offence, he would have been sent off. However, another bookable offence is persistent fouling, and this is what the agreement was around. There is no reason at all to suggest that Song might have been subject to lenient treatment.

He knew he could get away with persistant fouling whereas Reading players had no such safety net for the same offences, that's an unfair advantage isn't it? If he had swiped at another player like he did Sidwell then obviously he'd be booked again, i'm not saying that he was exempt from being sent off, but he could get away with the little nigling tackles as Poll would basically say take him off before he would send him off. This is a big deal as the referee has to be impartial, so unless Poll went to see Coppell and told him that he could do the same, he isn't being impartial.

[Bowman's Quiver]

[quote="cmonurzImho there is a very good chance Pardew will be the next England manager, IF McLaren turns it around and survives a few years.[/quote]

I think that depends on the extent of his off-the-field shenanigins that are still apparently subject to reporting restrictions.

If they are only half as saucy as the Chinese whisper grapevine suggests then I think he's queered his pitch personally.

[cmonurz]

No, you are wrong. Song could get away with nothing more than any other player. Why can't anyone see that the only extension here on what normally goes on is the interaction between manager and referee? I don't see the harm in the referee sharing information with a manager that he does with the player and captain anyway.