With respect, none of these are about in-game decisions. You know this fine well. So they’re not relevant to the discussion we’re having.
I've clearly stated (but you ignore it and keep making up that I'm scared of what it will lead to) that referees if asked would be more than happy to answer questions.
This is anecdotal and again I can’t accept it. I’d like to think it’s true. However, if it were true then it would happen more often. More likely is some referees would have no issue, while some would reject every request out of hand.
- How do you do it consistently. Fair questions and not just when clubs are aggrieved as that is just a recipe for a interview which is an "explain yourself" interview with asymmetry of information (to support integrity of post match debriefs at the levels where it is mandated officials cannot see footage until it is posted online)
- How do you do it fairly. Where some teams have the media capability and others don't are only those that can able to get that. How do you ensure that it is edited fairly once created as this will at levels below Championship inevitably be club media teams.
- Does it actually get the results you want. I don't believe it makes people accountable, I don't believe it will make fans more understanding. I think it will just become a tool to attempt to trip people up and because people for some reason would take joy in seeing an official looking beaten and dismayed because the decision has probably cost then their season of effort. Even worse it could lead to players getting off red cards because an official makes an inaccuracy (like which player was tackled, or the precise location of the incident) which contradicts their report and then the discipline is thrown out. This has happened a referee putting in a report that they were stood inside the centre circle. It transpires on the footage they were 1 yard outside and as a result the players red card was overturned as the referees report was thrown out as being inaccurate. Or the challenge was on number 5 away actually it was number 6 - report thrown out.
You've answered none of these. Unsurprisingly you don't even acknowledge them. You twist and make up ridiculous perspectives or a defensive attitude on my part.
I’m sorry, but you’re being disingenuous. In fact, you’re out and out lying here. I’ve answered all of these points, just with answers you don’t like. The only way you’d be happy is if I conceded every single point. But I believe your opinions to be wrong so I’m not going to do that. This is what I mean by you arguing in bad faith.
I have made up no ridiculous perspective, merely that I believe greater communication and less secrecy would be beneficial for referees, fans’ understanding and therefore the game generally.
1. This is not an issue. You could say the same for media interviewing managers or indeed any interview ever. Fair questions and tone are issues for the interviewers, and if the referees are unhappy, they’re perfectly entitled to not answer the question or call out the interviewer. I said this earlier in the thread.
2. Again, I don’t see how this is an issue. You’re wrong to see it is solely club media teams below the Championship, that’s simply not true. As for editing fairly, again this is an issue not specific to referees. It’d be dealt in the same way it currently is. It feels like you’re trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
3. I believe it would, you believe it wouldn’t. However the point about it being to undermine referees is
absurd and is paranoia on your part. To me, it’s indicative of an attitude that fears greater accountability.
To repeat an earlier point, look at organisations that actively engage with the media, rather than treating them as an enemy (recent examples - the English cricket team, or England at the 2018 Russia World Cup). More open, more accessible, less secrecy and with much better relations not just with the media but with fans as a result.
We feel different. I've made all the points that are relevant it's boring most people as well. You will never concede, or acknowledge the merit of alternative points on anything anyway. You never have done and I doubt this will change anything. It's boring me now as a result.
I’m sorry but this is just lazy. You’ve not been able to persuade me otherwise so blame me for being obstinate. You’re attacking me personally now which suggests you’ve totally run out of road.
The reality is I just have a different perspective and opinion. I’ve explained why I think that, but you’ve repeatedly misquoted and misrepresented. As for never conceding, the same could be said of you.
Not once have you tried to engage with what I’ve said. Every point I’ve made you’ve tried to reject out of hand, coming up with increasingly hysterical justifications. You never acknowledge the merit of alternative opinions, instead insisting everyone else is ignorant and looking down your nose at people.
Referees and club officials, two of the shortest lived positions in football. More than often due to clueless outside observers who have absolutely no concept of gratitude or the capacity to see balanced perspectives.
Or because of their own mistakes, fear of acknowledging those mistakes, and insistence on treating outsiders as a threat, rather than looking at ways they can improve.