[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Mon, 29 September 08 15:54 GMT
|
Blackett was absolutely right. If refs are to retain their privileged status vis-a-vis players and club officials they must be subject to fair and public criticism from the authorities.
Like Blackett I have sympathy for Haskell, who only got involved to protect his team-mate when the ref was manifestly failing in his duty to do so. If you saw a mate being mugged while a policeman stood idly by, what would you do?
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Fri, 26 September 08 10:28 GMT
|
Ballsie, AIUI the essence of the criticism is that the referee allowed an unacceptable situation to develop through poor control and management of the situation. Had he acted appropriately (i.e. to the standards expected in a game at that level), Haskell would not have been given the opportunity to take the matter into his own hands. I have not seem the game or the incident, but it seems from the Blackett report that the illegal clearing-out occurred right in front of the ref, as did the five punches on the wasps player. Haskell apparently appealed to the ref to do something, and only got involved himself when the referee declined to do so.
In citing haskell, the Commissioner left outr a lot of the mitigating factors from his citation. This one-sidedness was criticised as well.
The retaliation was wrong. haskell was punished for it. But the punishment was ameliorated because Haskell had been left with very few legal options. When common assault takes place in front of a person, the law of the land allows that person to use reasonable force to quell it. Haskell and the other Wasps player (Vickery?) was entitled to protection from the ref, and took matters into their own hands only when the ref abdicated his responsibilities.
Mr Fox is a young promising referee. I am sure that he will learn a lot from this event, and come back much stronger for it. He screwed up, but I hope that will not hold back his career significantly - though he can surely expect the fall-out to go beyond this public dressing down
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
ob
|
Fri, 26 September 08 01:03 GMT
|
ballsie - I don't see where you get the idea that retaliation is allowed.
"Although Haskell's citing was correct the citing officer should also have cited Rawlinson for punching and Wood for illegal clearing out."
You can red card all three if appropriate.
|
|
|
ballsie
|
Thu, 25 September 08 19:40 GMT
|
Yes thats the one my IT skills dont go to posting links but was quite amazed to read the report. although the one in the press was a bit onsided. Would like to hear the refs version of events.
IMHO it appears that a player can if he feels the need take the law into their own hands
I question the message it sends to those at grass roots..
Those withouth the benefit of touch judges and video replays
Oh ref he was hitting my mate so I clouted him
oops
This message edited on Thu, 25 September 08 by ballsie
|
-------------------------
Ballsie |
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Thu, 25 September 08 15:17 GMT
|
No link to the article, Ballsie, but I assume it's the one where Referee Fox and the citing commissioner were castigated for the events that led to James Haskell being cited.
I am surprised that Judge Blackett felt it appriopriate to criticise the officials in public, but I think I agree with Ian McGeechan - such transparency in the face of multiple error is a good thing, even though the RFU takes serious steps to prevent coaches and others from mouthing off against refereeing decisions.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
ballsie
|
Thu, 25 September 08 13:12 GMT
|
I am suprised a thread has not started regarding the article on the bbc website or are you all amazed as I am at what you are reading. imho alot of mixed messages there....
have a look
This message edited on Thu, 25 September 08 by ballsie
|
-------------------------
Ballsie |
|
|
|
|
|
