Woodcote Royal
So anyone can say, more or less, what they like about Ferguson in the press but he gets fined for having the temerity to suggest that one of the officials running one of his matches appeared to be lacking in fitness.........................if that's not a one way street I don't know what is.
It's a laughable perversion of any kind of arguement.
In what way is the fact that Fergie gets a bit of stick of any relevance in allowing Fergie to make unwarranted attacks on the competance of a referee ?
Woodcote Royal I DO NOT expect every error to be punished but I DO expect fair AND OPEN accountability in the same way that any professional would expect of their performance and no amount of patronising drivel from apologists such as your self will change that.
I'm sorry if you think actually knowing a bit about the subject makes me an apologist ! If you can get away from cliches maybe you could come up with something more meaningful than 'fair and open accountability'. Are you looking for every match to be followed up with a public list of decisions that the managers disagree with ? Do you understand the nature of the laws of football and the basis on which decisions are made ?
Woodcote Royal I DO NOT expect Mats Mills to be serving a four match ban for an offence that was clearly no worse than a yellow card
He's not.
He's serving a three match ban for this offence. He's serving an additional match because he's been sent off twice this season.
You are of course entitled to your opinion about the offence. I've not seen it so have no opinion on whether it was a red or not. I've expressed my thoughts on other refereeing decisions this season.
Woodcote Royal and this shows, for the countless time, that not only do we have far too many poor officials in the game
We have the best available. Where do you think you would get better ones ? Especially ones prepared to put up with the ignorance shown by many within the game regarding standrds of behaviour (and indeed the laws....)
Woodcote Royal but that largely covert methods of assessing their ability and handling of appeals is either, incompetent, unfair, or biased in the favour of officials and possibly a case of all three.
Giving that almost all businesses use 'covert' assessment of ability why should referees be treated differently ? Most staff don;t have their appraisals made public, even disciplinary hearings in industry are usual held in private and the outcomes are not made public.
Given that managers have direct input into the assessment process I'm not sure what else you want. Fans to be able to hold up marks out of 10 at the end of every game ? Phone lines open for 24 hours to record votes ?
As for appeals being 'biased in favour' of officials that shows an utter lack of understanding of the process. The officials are not 'on trial' at an appeal. They are a witness. The tribunal looks at the official's report and any evidence presented by the club and judges on that basis. They can decide the referee made an error, the referee can change his decision. They can decide there is no evidence on which to change the decision. I have attended hearings at a county level and seen how the operate (and they are far from perfect but they are NOT judging the referee)
Woodcote Royal My research has been carried whilst watching hundreds of matches over several decades..
Perhaps it's been inadequate. it's not hard to take a bit more trouble and do more than just reinforce your mistaken ideas and misconceptions.
Woodcote Royal Officials will not enjoy the respect they crave until they are are prepared to offer the same in return.
Again, you display your ignorance.
I'd have a little respect for you if you were actually prepared to practice what you preach but to simply spout ill informed nonsense , refuse to consider any counter arguements and fail to show any appreciation of what really happens is daft.
There are lots of areas that the game as a whole needs to improve on but while we still have a refusal to see more than one side of the story we're not going to get anywhere.