Mark Halsey spills the beans

Skoorb

Skoorb

Alert Team
Always had a soft spot for Mr Halsey after the play off final in 1999.

Posting this in City Chat because of the relevance to the Aguero incident. Andre Marriner, whilst having a clear and unobstructed view of the clash between Reid and Aguero, and having taken no action, subsequently claimed not to have seen anything. Halsey effectively confirms what I have always believed - the PGMOL looking after their members because had he said he had seen the incident and thought it merited no action, then he would have been subject to criticism and sanction. Much easier to say you haven't seen it - gets you off the hook and passes the buck to others.

Mark Halsey claims Premier League referees' governing body told him to say he hadn't seen controversial incidents during matches

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3772116/Mark-Halsey-claims-Premier-League-referees-governing-body-told-claim-hadn-t-seen-controversial-incidents-matches.html#ixzz4JBtHCMSP
 
These decisions have affected quite a few clubs now so why aren't the clubs together on this and presenting some kind of submission to the FA?
If a club hasn't been affected as yet, then their time is surely coming.
 
The referees body have issued a statement denying Mark Halseys's assertion thereby inferring he's a liar.
Gary Neville has said there should be a full enquiry.
But as CZ says: don't hold your breath.

 
Indeed not. There will be nothing written down (unless they are totally stupid) but then again, as we have seen before........people can tend to forget about emails being stored on servers and then coming back to bite them later.

However I will be surprised if this gets any traction.....unless Gary Neville continues to worry away at it. He seems to have gotten his teeth into the matter & I wonder what might be said on Sky's Sunday Supplement.
 
The problem with this, is that if true, they're basically telling porkies to try to get the right decision. And whilst i get the supposed stance that they don't want to re-referee matches, the reality is that i think we all want them to have the ability to punish offences retrospectively, either because the ref has missed or misinterpreted a situation.
At the moment they're trying to protect their refs by getting them to 'lie' to cover their own backs. (You got it wrong, so say you didn't see it and we can right the wrong).
If only we could all be adults about this, and admit that referees are human (I know, stretching a bit here) and will miss things in games.
 
I don't want anything re-reffed, he made his decision based on what he saw, that should be the end of it really.

I don't get how certain moments can be picked and chosen to re-ref and others can't.
 
Pretty good summation that.

They discussed the matter on Sky's Sunday Supplement and it was actually quite fair - essentially they were saying that the little lie allows the correction of mistakes (which everyone is prone to) and that the problem with extending retrospective action to other things the referee gets wrong would raise the difficulty of where do you stop? Kolarov had a handful of a WHU player's shirt last weekend, not spotted by the referee....could he subsequently get a retrospective yellow? for example. Which mistakes would be covered? Huge can of worms they really don't want to open.

Had Marriner acted in the Reid-Aguero incident last weekend then it probably would have been to send him off. This 'system' allows them to 'right that wrong' but still fails to acknowledge that referees can make mistakes.
 
<p>
Bluedub - 4/9/2016 13:45<br /><br />I don't want anything re-reffed, he made his decision based on what he saw, that should be the end of it really. <br /><br />I don't get how certain moments can be picked and chosen to re-ref and others can't.
Click to expand...
<br /><br />Yeah, I think it's the 'half way house' situation we have at the moment that's causing the problem.<br />They should either decide</p><ol><li>The ref makes the decision, and if he misses something, tough</li><li>If the ref misses something, it can be looked at retrospectively, without his integrity being called into question <br /></li></ol>
 
citizhun - 4/9/2016 14:04

<p>
Bluedub - 4/9/2016 13:45<br /><br />I don't want anything re-reffed, he made his decision based on what he saw, that should be the end of it really. <br /><br />I don't get how certain moments can be picked and chosen to re-ref and others can't.
Click to expand...
<br /><br />Yeah, I think it's the 'half way house' situation we have at the moment that's causing the problem.<br />They should either decide</p><ol><li>The ref makes the decision, and if he misses something, tough</li><li>If the ref misses something, it can be looked at retrospectively, without his integrity being called into question <br /></li></ol>
Click to expand...

I've no issue with unseen off the ball incidents getting the retrospective treatment as they haven't been reffed but when a ref is clearly looking at a challenge and misses something that shouldn't be subject to retro action, that has been reffed.

 
Bluedub - 4/9/2016 14:18<br /><br />
citizhun - 4/9/2016 14:04<br /><br /><p>
Bluedub - 4/9/2016 13:45<br /><br />I don't want anything re-reffed, he made his decision based on what he saw, that should be the end of it really. <br /><br />I don't get how certain moments can be picked and chosen to re-ref and others can't.
Click to expand...
<br /><br />Yeah, I think it's the 'half way house' situation we have at the moment that's causing the problem.<br />They should either decide</p><ol><li>The ref makes the decision, and if he misses something, tough</li><li>If the ref misses something, it can be looked at retrospectively, without his integrity being called into question <br /></li></ol><p>
Click to expand...
<br /><br />I've no issue with unseen off the ball incidents getting the retrospective treatment as they haven't been reffed but when a ref is clearly looking at a challenge and misses something that shouldn't be subject to retro action, that has been reffed. <br /><br />
Click to expand...
</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Depends what he was looking at though. He could for instance, be looking at heads/arms and miss studs down the achilles, or be looking at feet/legs and miss an elbow<br /></p>
 
citizhun - 4/9/2016 14:45

Bluedub - 4/9/2016 14:18<br /><br />
citizhun - 4/9/2016 14:04<br /><br /><p>
Bluedub - 4/9/2016 13:45<br /><br />I don't want anything re-reffed, he made his decision based on what he saw, that should be the end of it really. <br /><br />I don't get how certain moments can be picked and chosen to re-ref and others can't.
Click to expand...
<br /><br />Yeah, I think it's the 'half way house' situation we have at the moment that's causing the problem.<br />They should either decide</p><ol><li>The ref makes the decision, and if he misses something, tough</li><li>If the ref misses something, it can be looked at retrospectively, without his integrity being called into question <br /></li></ol><p>
Click to expand...
<br /><br />I've no issue with unseen off the ball incidents getting the retrospective treatment as they haven't been reffed but when a ref is clearly looking at a challenge and misses something that shouldn't be subject to retro action, that has been reffed. <br /><br />
Click to expand...
</p><p> </p><p>Depends what he was looking at though. He could for instance, be looking at heads/arms and miss studs down the achilles, or be looking at feet/legs and miss an elbow<br /></p>
Click to expand...

Yep but he's looking at the challenge and ruling on it to the best of his ability, it shouldn't go any further regardless of what he may have missed or how he interpreted it.
 
He was Buzz but so was Marriner, yet he's not held accountable for his incompetence, he gets to lie and carry on as normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.