That penalty

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

Darlogramps
Posts: 5411
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: That penalty

Post by Darlogramps » Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:10 pm

lo36789 wrote:
  • Referees, like managers and players must be made to do interviews after games. Managers and players aren't made to, they are asked to.
  • But anyway, I guess that means it will be every game. As you say it's like the managers. No, only when we think they got something wrong
  • That seems a bit different. And who would interview them / manage the content. Obviously for managers and players its their own media teams and their clubs control the content. It would be the clubs media teams who would do it and they would edit and publish the content.
.
Stop arguing in bad faith. You know fine well what I’m suggesting.

I haven’t argued for it to be mandatory for every match. Simply that media organisations can approach referees after each game if there was a contentious decision and ask for further explanation. This already happens between officials and clubs, so why not fans and the wider public?
lo36789 wrote: So actually the whole premise of any interview is interviewer disagrees with a decision that official has made, and is challenging them over that decision. .
Wrong. The whole premise is the interviewer wants more information about a decision. How did they come to that decision? It’s not always clear why they made a call. Simply saying “The Law” isn’t enough, evidently.?
lo36789 wrote: I can see you don't agree, and you can't see the difference between the two. That you think it's some weird conspiracy that exists and wall of silence orchestrated by people who don't take responsibility for their own decisions.
Not a conspiracy. Just that referees would benefit from greater transparency and communication. I don’t believe the current system of accountability helps referees or improved standards.
lo36789 wrote:
And despite that. I don't know a single referee who if asked by a clubs media team would give an answer to a quote on or off record. You will see examples where they have been asked and they have answered. On the most part though they are never asked. What you are actually asking for us a change in rules that club media teams should be made to allocate content time to interview match officials - see if the clubs vote for that one.
No I’m not. I’m not talking about club media teams being made to do anything. Just that they or any media organisation can ask a referee to explain a decision after the game on the record. If they want to, they’d make the request. No one would be obliged speak to a referee afterwards if they didn’t want to.

Again, further misrepresentation and bad faith.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

lo36789
Posts: 9223
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:27 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:10 pm
No I’m not. I’m not talking about club media teams being made to do anything. Just that they or any media organisation can ask a referee to explain a decision after the game on the record. If they want to, they’d make the request. No one would be obliged speak to a referee afterwards if they didn’t want to.
They can already. Nothing stops them at all but they don't. When they do they get an answer (https://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/sport/ ... se-2885194, https://www.nwemail.co.uk/sport/1908078 ... lier-time/, https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/spor ... te-3129665)

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. They are not going to go asking for it - first rule or refereeing is that you don't want anybody to even clock that you were there. Imagine the uproar if refs were asking to be put on camera.

I've then challenged the implications for it.

- 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.

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.

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.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5411
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

That penalty

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:29 am

lo36789 wrote: They can already. Nothing stops them at all but they don't. When they do they get an answer (https://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/sport/ ... se-2885194, https://www.nwemail.co.uk/sport/1908078 ... lier-time/, https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/spor ... te-3129665)
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.
lo36789 wrote: 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.
lo36789 wrote: - 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.

lo36789 wrote:
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.
lo36789 wrote: 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.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

lo36789
Posts: 9223
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:53 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:29 am
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.
With respect, they demonstrate that when asked a question referees give an answer. There isnt a media blackout going on to shy away and hide from saying what they think / their experience of a game.

The Hartlepool one was exactly that by the way. It was exactly about decision made in response to the racist abuse reported by a player.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/f ... e-19597761

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49205149

The initial point was around match officials being made to come out and explain themselves.

For starters, I don't believe anyone should be made to do anything. It intrinsically suggests that you are asking for something which would be against their will - and not sure I believe that is correct. Secondly, it indicates that right now they are being asked but because they are not "made to" they are not. Simply put there is no platform.

So that leaves me to the view that actually the issue is that the media are failing in their duties as they should be asking match officials their opinions / thoughts after games.

I still think that there are issues with that, especially if it were to become a common practice, particularly where it isn't independent media. Doesn't get away from the media own the platform, they choose what goes on it.

Lobby the media companies to give up some Mourinho screen time and column inches to Lee Mason.

It does remind me that referees took the brunt of the "why aren't referees checking the monitor" on VAR last season. Despite them doing it on FA competitions, but not in the PL. This was seen and reported by the media as the fault of the referees.

It conveniently ignored that that the media companies told the clubs that they weren't happy with the concept of delays for match officials on the pitch to be checking the monitor. If they were to keep the current level of spend then they must vote against that implementation of the system.

PL rules and their clubs determine what happens in PL, FA decide what happens in FA Cup (thus the difference).

This was forced through for this season as IFAB updated the law and said that competitions cannot operate VAR unless it is done with their protocols which includes on screen review.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5411
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

That penalty

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Feb 14, 2021 7:15 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:29 am
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.
With respect, they demonstrate that when asked a question referees give an answer. There isnt a media blackout going on to shy away and hide from saying what they think / their experience of a game.

The Hartlepool one was exactly that by the way. It was exactly about decision made in response to the racist abuse reported by a player.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/f ... e-19597761

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49205149
.
No they don’t. They have no relevance to the discussion we’ve been having. Generic feature pieces (which have to be agreed to and vetted by the PGMOL) are very different to explaining why an in-game decision was made. You know this.

And the Hartlepool game was very different. The referee didn’t make any decision on that, as it was the players who decided to carry on playing (both managers said so afterwards).
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport ... -sideshow/

Due to the three-step racism protocol, the referee had no decision to make. He just followed the steps as laid out. And before you start, this is very different to subjectively deciding to send off a player for a bad tackle.

In the same game, he sent off two Hartlepool players and the manager. Those decisions aren’t addressed in the interview. Once again you’re being dishonest and trying to deceive people.

lo36789 wrote: The initial point was around match officials being made to come out and explain themselves.

For starters, I don't believe anyone should be made to do anything. It intrinsically suggests that you are asking for something which would be against their will - and not sure I believe that is correct.
Depends if it becomes part of their job and the reasons for not doing it. It there’s a genuine reason then fair enough. But if it’s “I don’t really fancy it”, that’s not good enough. That’s not being forced against your will. It’s just laziness or reluctance on the referees’ part.

We all have to do things at work we can’t be bothered to do at times. That doesn’t mean we’re being forced against our will. If something is part of your job, you do it, even if you don’t want to.

Also, I thought you said referees were all happy to talk? So why would it be “forcing them against their will” to speak to the media, if requested?
lo36789 wrote:
Secondly, it indicates that right now they are being asked but because they are not "made to" they are not. Simply put there is no platform.

So that leaves me to the view that actually the issue is that the media are failing in their duties as they should be asking match officials their opinions / thoughts after games.
Oh wow. More lying. Full-time referees are contractually bound not to speak about decisions.

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/the-agony-and-the-ecstasy/2016/mar/04/referees-premier-league-silenced

The only interviews they can give have to be approved by the PGMOL. And if it’s about in-game decisions, the request will get rejected.

Fans, players, managers and now the media. You’ve blamed everyone else for bad refereeing standards, but the referees.

You seem very willing just to tell out and out lies. You know it’s false but you’re more intent on deceiving people. It’s quite funny how you’ve started using Trump-style debating tactics. You tell a blatant lie. We all know it’s a blatant lie but you double-down anyway.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

lo36789
Posts: 9223
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: That penalty

Post by lo36789 » Sun Feb 14, 2021 7:35 pm

Eurgh - calling someone a liar is sure to get them to bite back.

I've said my piece. Some may find it informative - others may still feel exactly how they did before. Others will fling insults to try and keep a debate going and will never be happy with the response.

Summary. If referees are to do interviews with media, there should be protocols in place like those which are in place for players and managers. It should be demand led and not supply led also.

I'm out.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5411
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: That penalty

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Feb 14, 2021 9:29 pm

lo36789 wrote:Eurgh - calling someone a liar is sure to get them to bite back.

I've said my piece. Some may find it informative - others may still feel exactly how they did before. Others will fling insults to try and keep a debate going and will never be happy with the response.

Summary. If referees are to do interviews with media, there should be protocols in place like those which are in place for players and managers. It should be demand led and not supply led also.

Mic drop.
To be fair, you said that yesterday and still kept prattling on. But you have been fundamentally dishonest, and have tried to deceive people. And given some of the conspiracy theory nonsense, deliberate misrepresentation and bad faith you’ve come out with, it’s pretty hilarious seeing you attempt to take the moral high ground.

Absolutely fine with protocols being in place, to bring it in line with player and manager interviews. No issue with that.

Glad you’ve finally come round to the principle of referees being more open though. Well done.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Post Reply