Ref Watch

Prestwich_Blue said:
It's what I call the Garry Richardson style of interviewing, which he used to practice regularly on his Sunsay morning Sportsweek R5 Live programme.

He did it with the FA Chairman, Ian Watmore, after the Adebayor incident. Watmore is an Arsenal fan but Richardson tried to get him to be judge and jury before the FA had even received the referee's report. Watmore handled it very poorly in my opinion and instead of saying he wouldn't discuss it, effectively said Adebayor would be punished. Then on the next news & sport bulletin,the headline was "FA Chairman calls for Adebayor ban". Richardson would regularly ask provocative questions, looking to get a controversial opinion, even when his interviewee made it clear they wouldn't answer.

It's one of the firm, unwritten rules in Rugby Union that you don't criticise referees. She was just trying to stoke up a controversy and Farrell rightly refused to be drawn, when he could have landed himself in serious trouble with the RFU if he had spoken out of turn.

It's symptomatic of the decline of the BBC from an organisation that has quality and integrity at its core, to one that's little better than TalkShite. She deserved severe criticism (although not vile abuse) and if she cant deal with it she should perhaps find another career.
Click to expand...
Maybe she could do a better political interview than the dreadful Laura Kuensberg
 
lefty goldblatt said:
Maybe she could do a better political interview than the dreadful Laura Kuensberg
Click to expand...
There's no in-between with the BBC.

Emma Barnett was one of the best, as she held people firmly to account without being deliberately controversial or confrontational. But even she succumbed to BBC-itis recently, when she insisted on grilling the female chair of the Muslim Council of Britain on a matter that was outside her domain and she (Barnett) was told that.
 
richardtheref said:
MOTD might have explained it that way but in law that is wrong. The free kick is supposed to be an advantage to the fouled team. If the whistle goes it does not really matter if the keeper is ready or not. Before ko the ref will normally tell the players that if they want to take a quick free kick, then do so, as long as the ref hasn't asked them to wait for the whistle. Dunk has said that Mason told him he blew the 2nd time as there was pushing in the wall. Now under the new rules none of the attackers should be close enough to push anyone in the wall. If they had then surely it would have been a free kick to WBA as the ball is in play from the 1st whistle, but he gave a re take.

The likes of Lee Mason give all refs a bad name.
Click to expand...
There are 2 possibilities here:

Either Dunk is lying, or Mason is lying. Now I genuinely can't see any reason why Dunk would lie; there is certainly no advantage in him doing so.

Mason in the other hand had EVERY reason to lie, and the fact it was such an easily disprovable lie sets alarm bells ringing.

How many times has he lied before?

How many times has he lied on his match reports, or been asked to alter his match reports?

Mason and the PiGMOL have serious questions to answer.
 
Anyone defending mason needs to give their heads a wobble
 
richardtheref said:
MOTD might have explained it that way but in law that is wrong. The free kick is supposed to be an advantage to the fouled team. If the whistle goes it does not really matter if the keeper is ready or not. Before ko the ref will normally tell the players that if they want to take a quick free kick, then do so, as long as the ref hasn't asked them to wait for the whistle. Dunk has said that Mason told him he blew the 2nd time as there was pushing in the wall. Now under the new rules none of the attackers should be close enough to push anyone in the wall. If they had then surely it would have been a free kick to WBA as the ball is in play from the 1st whistle, but he gave a re take.

The likes of Lee Mason give all refs a bad name.
Click to expand...
Very simple. Dunk asks Mason, Mason obliges, not understanding that the keeper isn’t set. Mason then sees the keeper still on the post and panicking so tries to counter his fuck up. He then has to go with his decision that it’s a goal until VAR confirms that the second whistle went off prior to the ball going over the land. Goal disallowed.

The fuck up was Mason blowing to let the free kick happen when the keeper was on the post still setting the wall. Nobody would be happy with that under the current practices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top