+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 753
Latest: Terry Colclough
New This Month: 15
New This Week: 2
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 62892
Total Topics: 4708
Most Online Today: 83
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 6
Guests: 35
Total: 41

Author Topic: Oxford Utd v Ipswich Town - Bobby Madden  (Read 1470 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

charlieboy

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,142
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Ex level 4
Apparently the refereesí body, the PGMOL, has now investigated the matter and found that Madden did nothing wrong and that neither he nor any member of his team of officials made the 75-minute claim to the managers.

So either both managers are lying or the referee is lying. Well I know who I believe, although a heavy Scottish accent can be difficult at times.

The referees investigating themselves reminds me of what's happening in Government these days, as has the outcome.

I suppose if they had admitted it, they'd have a problem.

I don't have enough fingers to count the number of times that managers after games have claimed that I said something that I simply didn't.  They either made it up completely, or took something that I had said completely out of context.

Really. The managers, a happy winner and a disappointed loser, both made up the same detailed story in separate interviews about something you didn't mention at all?

Good try, but it looks like a cover up to me.

Managers collude to discredit the referee.  Trust me, it happens.
I agree , here we have one manager who was upset at losing a game he expected to win and a home manager who has lots of history with referees , a quick internet search shows he has had touchline bans in each of the past 3 years and I havenít looked further , so in the circumstances I think it right to back the referee unless there was evidence to the contrary.
My views are my own and not that of rate the ref .

Whistleblower

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,111
    • View Profile
Unless one was present and heard the exchange between the referee and the managers then any conclusion we might draw is speculation. That speculation may be informed by circumstantial evidence or it may be informed by our existing predispositions whether to believe or not believe referees and managers. Unless it was proved that there had been no collusion between the managers and their accounts of what the referee said were entirely independent, I personally wouldn't give too much credence to the fact they they both took the same line. If I was pressed to judgement then, Mr Madden being a Scottish gentleman, I think I would resort to the peculiarly Scottish verdict of Not Proven.
Like Like x 1 View List

nemesis

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,057
    • View Profile
Unless one was present and heard the exchange between the referee and the managers then any conclusion we might draw is speculation. That speculation may be informed by circumstantial evidence or it may be informed by our existing predispositions whether to believe or not believe referees and managers. Unless it was proved that there had been no collusion between the managers and their accounts of what the referee said were entirely independent, I personally wouldn't give too much credence to the fact they they both took the same line. If I was pressed to judgement then, Mr Madden being a Scottish gentleman, I think I would resort to the peculiarly Scottish verdict of Not Proven.

Yes, I'd take that verdict, whilst it's still around. It does mean guilty as hell but we can't prove it, doesn't it?  ;)

Regardless of the wishes of the managers, Madden was clearly remiss in allowing the game to continue practically invisible to the paying customers and the thousands who paid iFollow for the privilege. He should at the very least be taken to task at that.


nemesis

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,057
    • View Profile
Apparently the refereesí body, the PGMOL, has now investigated the matter and found that Madden did nothing wrong and that neither he nor any member of his team of officials made the 75-minute claim to the managers.

So either both managers are lying or the referee is lying. Well I know who I believe, although a heavy Scottish accent can be difficult at times.

The referees investigating themselves reminds me of what's happening in Government these days, as has the outcome.

I suppose if they had admitted it, they'd have a problem.

I don't have enough fingers to count the number of times that managers after games have claimed that I said something that I simply didn't.  They either made it up completely, or took something that I had said completely out of context.

Really. The managers, a happy winner and a disappointed loser, both made up the same detailed story in separate interviews about something you didn't mention at all?

Good try, but it looks like a cover up to me.

Managers collude to discredit the referee.  Trust me, it happens.
I agree , here we have one manager who was upset at losing a game he expected to win and a home manager who has lots of history with referees , a quick internet search shows he has had touchline bans in each of the past 3 years and I havenít looked further , so in the circumstances I think it right to back the referee unless there was evidence to the contrary.

His touchline bans relate to outspoken criticism of decisions and poor choice of language, not dishonesty. McKenna is the most respectful manager I have come across since Bobby Robson and however disappointed he might have been he would not have fabricated such a story.

Whistleblower

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,111
    • View Profile
Unless one was present and heard the exchange between the referee and the managers then any conclusion we might draw is speculation. That speculation may be informed by circumstantial evidence or it may be informed by our existing predispositions whether to believe or not believe referees and managers. Unless it was proved that there had been no collusion between the managers and their accounts of what the referee said were entirely independent, I personally wouldn't give too much credence to the fact they they both took the same line. If I was pressed to judgement then, Mr Madden being a Scottish gentleman, I think I would resort to the peculiarly Scottish verdict of Not Proven.

Yes, I'd take that verdict, whilst it's still around. It does mean guilty as hell but we can't prove it, doesn't it?  ;)

Regardless of the wishes of the managers, Madden was clearly remiss in allowing the game to continue practically invisible to the paying customers and the thousands who paid iFollow for the privilege. He should at the very least be taken to task at that.


I'm not sure the Faculty of Advocates would quite put it like that. Not Proven implies that there is quite possibly guilt but it has not been established to a point beyond reasonable doubt. A Not Proven verdict counts as an acquittal. Indeed, the First Minister has indicated her intention to remove this 'third' verdict from the Scottish legal system.

As regards fog, I am in entire agreement. It is quite wrong to take admittance money from people who then are unable to see the spectacle for which they have paid. It's back to the thorny old issue of are you paying money for admittance to a ground ( where there is a reasonable expectation of sport being played ). I remember over forty five years ago being at Stamford Bridge and a thick fog descending so that much of the pitch was invisible to the spectators and I suspect the linesmen could not see to the far side of the pitch so as to correctly call offsides. However, the match went ahead and concluded. It was farcical. My less than perfect recollection is that the referee was possibly Trevor Spencer.

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,197
    • View Profile
Is the audio from the referee recorded at League 1 level? I think it is at Premier League level.

I think Nemesis is probably right that the PGMOL shouldn't investigate such matters themselves. That said, I've not been able to find out much information on if any complaints were made and what exactly the process was to establish the details of what happened.