Graham Poll's decision reveals his personality disorder

[Handsome Man]

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.

What you are missing is the conflict of loyalties that happened when Song, already booked, tripped our man. The only thing in his mind should have been justice and fair play. But, becuase of what Pardew has revealed, we can now speculate that he was thinking about being mates with Alan Pardew as well.

[Wycombe Royal]

Song could get away with nothing more than any other player.

Even though he did. He could have received a straight red for the hack at Sidwell, he then goes on to commit a few more fouls before being talked to by Poll, and then he does another foul before Pardew is "advised" to substitute him.

It makes little difference to us, but look at it from the point of view of Warnock, Jewell, Coleman and Curbishley. And there there was the blatant shove on Shane Long in the penalty area which would have resulted in a free kick, and maybe even a booking for El Kharkouri, if it had occurred elsewhere on the pitch.

[RoyalBlue]

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.

The more I think about the issue, the more I disagree with that statement.

Pardew and Charlton are in desperate trouble. They needed to keep Song on the pitch for as long as possible but at the same time couldn't afford to have him sent off, go down to 10 men and miss him for a game through suspension.

In normal circumstances, the manager has to make his own judgment as to how close a player is to picking up a second yellow for persistent fouling. They therefore have to take a bit of a gamble. At best the ref might warn the player, who could then tell the bench if he had any sense, but other than that the manager is to a large extent flying blind.

Pardew's 'arrangement' with Poll largely removed the element of risk from the gamble and may well have allowed Pardew to keep Song on the pitch longer than otherwise might have been the case. Alternatively Pardew might have gone for broke, left Song on the the pitch and found his team down to 10 men.

As far as I'm concerned, the 'arrangement' gave Charlton an unfair advantage and for once I would support Warnock if he moaned about it.

The FA should look into this matter and take proper action against Poll.

[Hahnemann's Hairdresser]

Pardew knew exactly when to take Song off as Poll had given him the signal. Coppell would have had to use his own judgement and had he got it wrong one of his players could have been sent off.

Poll told Song how much persistant fouling he could get away with, whereas Reading players had to think twice about making the same type of tackle. Unless Poll told Coppell this was going on and he would grant Coppell the same luxury he isn't being impartial.

[Adrian's Fool]

Pardew knew exactly when to take Song off as Poll had given him the signal. Coppell would have had to use his own judgement and had he got it wrong one of his players could have been sent off.

Poll told Song how much persistant fouling he could get away with, whereas Reading players had to think twice about making the same type of tackle. Unless Poll told Coppell this was going on and he would grant Coppell the same luxury he isn't being impartial.

Oh come on, be serious. Refs often tell players "one more foul like that and you're off" - what's the difference exactly? The only favour I can see is that Poll shortcut the communication between player and manager. BIG DEAL.

[biscuitsrus]

[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.

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.[/quote]

Are you joking BQ? PM the alleged rumours please.

[Royal Lady]

I'd say it was a big deal when it could mean the difference between that team staying up and Sheff Utd or someone else going down. Still, if Poll or another ref does the same thing in another game we're playing next season and we're not in such a secure position, I'm sure you won't think it's a big deal.

[Adrian's Fool]

I'd say it was a big deal when it could mean the difference between that team staying up and Sheff Utd or someone else going down. Still, if Poll or another ref does the same thing in another game we're playing next season and we're not in such a secure position, I'm sure you won't think it's a big deal.

No, honestly, I don't think I'd be bozzed. Provided that he doesn't REFUSE to do the same for Reading, I don't see the issue.

[Hahnemann's Hairdresser]

Pardew knew exactly when to take Song off as Poll had given him the signal. Coppell would have had to use his own judgement and had he got it wrong one of his players could have been sent off.

Poll told Song how much persistant fouling he could get away with, whereas Reading players had to think twice about making the same type of tackle. Unless Poll told Coppell this was going on and he would grant Coppell the same luxury he isn't being impartial.

Oh come on, be serious. Refs often tell players "one more foul like that and you're off" - what's the difference exactly? The only favour I can see is that Poll shortcut the communication between player and manager. BIG DEAL.

So Poll is making up for a breakdown in communications between player and manager. Is that his job? No it isn't. Therefore he can tell the player he's on his last warning, but to make a deal with a manager at half time presents a conflict of interests when a tackle comes in that could be considered on the borderline between a second booking and very last warning. Poll may well have had it on his mind that he couln't send Song off as he had made a deal with Pardew.

Also what if Song wasn't going to tell Pardew that he was on his last warning? Poll is there to do his job, not the players or the managers.

[RoyalBlue]

Pardew knew exactly when to take Song off as Poll had given him the signal. Coppell would have had to use his own judgement and had he got it wrong one of his players could have been sent off.

Poll told Song how much persistant fouling he could get away with, whereas Reading players had to think twice about making the same type of tackle. Unless Poll told Coppell this was going on and he would grant Coppell the same luxury he isn't being impartial.

Oh come on, be serious. Refs often tell players "one more foul like that and you're off" - what's the difference exactly? The only favour I can see is that Poll shortcut the communication between player and manager. BIG DEAL.

You've shot your own argument to pieces with the use of the word 'often'. In other words players can't be sure that they will get that extra warning. Even if they do, many are not bright or sensible enough to let their manager know.

The exact difference in this situation is that, thanks to his 'arrangement' with Poll, Pardew could be sure that (unless Song did something really silly) Poll would advise him when it would be sensible to remove Song rather than have him sent off.

[Adrian's Fool]

Pardew knew exactly when to take Song off as Poll had given him the signal. Coppell would have had to use his own judgement and had he got it wrong one of his players could have been sent off.

Poll told Song how much persistant fouling he could get away with, whereas Reading players had to think twice about making the same type of tackle. Unless Poll told Coppell this was going on and he would grant Coppell the same luxury he isn't being impartial.

Oh come on, be serious. Refs often tell players "one more foul like that and you're off" - what's the difference exactly? The only favour I can see is that Poll shortcut the communication between player and manager. BIG DEAL.

You've shot your own argument to pieces with the use of the word 'often'. In other words players can't be sure that they will get that extra warning. Even if they do, many are not bright or sensible enough to let their manager know.

The exact difference in this situation is that, thanks to his 'arrangement' with Poll, Pardew could be sure that (unless Song did something really silly) Poll would advise him when it would be sensible to remove Song rather than have him sent off.

Right, fair point, but maybe players would always get told if they specifically asked to be? Isn't that just part and parcel of what should be open and fair communication between the ref, players and managers?

I'm still struggling to see the issue here - surely it is only unfair if a) the ref lets this influence his decision about whether a player should be sent off (no suggestion of that here), or b) refuses to treat other teams in the same way?

[Malx]

By engaging in such an agreement with a manager Poll then had some sort of duty to inform Pardew before sending Song therefore Poll's judgement is conciously or unconciously clouded by those circumstances which means that a fair decision is in jeopardy.

[lozz2601]

Premier League has defended Poll - according to them it was beneficial for the game in general.
SSN

[ScottishRoyal]

Now I know it was only a minor moment in the match although it did almost lead to a Charlton goal but Poll in the first 20 minutes today showed the kind of egomaniac referee that he is. You would have thought his self-esteem would have been dented after the World Cup but clearly not.

He was around 25 yards from Hunt while Hunty was about five yards from the linesman. Poll had no vision of what was happening. The linesman correctly called for a throw in but of course Poll in his wisdom and moronic macho - look at me - fashion overules his linesman and awards a free kick.

There is quite simply only one reason why someone behaves like this and it is a means of asserting one's authority against the face of all rational logic. It is a fundamental aspect of personality disorders relating to socio and psychopaths.

FWIW if you see a replay it was a free-kick and Poll was correct to overule his linesman. Other than the possible pen at the end for a push on Long I thought that he refereed very well and very fairly.

Some people on here really to appear to have some very irrational dislike of certain referees.

[1960]

Surely the major point, which seems to have got lost here, is that Pardew actually sought out Poll at half-time and asked him to give him the nod. He should have been told to bog off.

With two substitutes already used Pardew would not want to use another one too early in the game in case of a late injury. With that in mind he would have had to agonise whether to risk Song for longer or replace him soon. Poll took away that problem, which totally skewed the game. If I were Jewll or Warnock etc I would be hopping mad about this.

Just another small point: last year a Nobber was complaining about a linesman letting a dead ball run straight past him instead of stopping it. The official answer was that the linesman might be seen to be favouring one team, by allowing them to throw in quickly, so is not allowed to interfere. "...seen to be favouring one team..."? Parallels here I would say.

[TWRoyal]

Premier League has defended Poll - according to them it was beneficial for the game in general.
SSN

Wasn't particularly beneficial for us. Surely a ruling that favours one team over another during a game cannot be beneficial for the game in general.

I think the game needs more flexibility - let's get an orange card for a final warning, a pink one for over ellaborate rolling about, one with T W A T written on it for players that try to headbutt other coz they can't act older than their WAG's shoe size and big black one to put in front of a hanky-waving, handbags at dawn melley involving 8 players.

[Bowman's Quiver]

Premier League has defended Poll - according to them it was beneficial for the game in general.
SSN

The Lady doth protest too much, methinks

[brendywendy]

Pardew knew exactly when to take Song off as Poll had given him the signal. Coppell would have had to use his own judgement and had he got it wrong one of his players could have been sent off.

Poll told Song how much persistant fouling he could get away with, whereas Reading players had to think twice about making the same type of tackle. Unless Poll told Coppell this was going on and he would grant Coppell the same luxury he isn't being impartial.

Oh come on, be serious. Refs often tell players "one more foul like that and you're off" - what's the difference exactly? The only favour I can see is that Poll shortcut the communication between player and manager. BIG DEAL.

but song received a warning(yellow card)for the sidwell foul
there is no need to add another warning before sending him off
if the boy got a yellow, then proceeds to make a further series of rash challenges he should be sent off, not warned again about his conduct, and his manager advised to remove him from the field

and there is a big difference between that and what happened AF,
one is a warning given to a player, on the pitch, during the game, by the man in charge
the other is a cosy agreement between manager and ref, agreed behind the scenes at half time, resulting in a man who should have been sent off, not being sent off.

[cmonurz]

but song received a warning(yellow card)for the sidwell foul
there is no need to add another warning before sending him off
if the boy got a yellow, then proceeds to make a further series of rash challenges he should be sent off, not warned again about his conduct, and his manager advised to remove him from the field.

But that's what happens in football?

[Adrian's Fool]

but song received a warning(yellow card)for the sidwell foul
there is no need to add another warning before sending him off
if the boy got a yellow, then proceeds to make a further series of rash challenges he should be sent off, not warned again about his conduct, and his manager advised to remove him from the field.

But that's what happens in football?

Exactly. Think of the two yellow cards separately - players are warned for persistent fouling before they receive a first yellow, not sure why it should be any different for the second yellow.