court case

[crossref]

You are saying the tackle was legitimate?
Despite EM and (eventually) TS and most importantly the court all finding that it was reckless?

But now you mention them again, those two unnamed RFU officials who reviewed the tackle video and pronounced it OK can be added to the list of people who have not come out of this well. I bet they are glad they weren't names

(Bur for the referee himself his live reaction on the day is not really important.. he got one look at it,and maybe didn't even see it properly. I don't think his failure to instantly sanction it has any real significance. We don't know what his retrospective view of it was, having seen the video)

 

[SimonSmith]

Ed Morrison .. and to a lesser extent TS .. evidently testified that he would have refereed the game differently .
The judge evidently reminded them that the referee wasn't on trial here .

All that was mentioned in the judgement
Do you think the ref read that and thought " I came out of that well"

I suspect I'd be thinking "I wasn't a factor under consideration at all" - but then I can read judgments and interpret them accurately and at face value rather than trying to insert my own subtext.

 

[crossref]

You need to read them more carefully then!

In para 20 the judge tells us that EM (principally) and TS (to a lesser extent) were critical of the ref.

But, as you observe, the performance of the referee was not a factor under consideration at all in the case. So why is paragraph 20 even there?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

You are saying the tackle was legitimate?
Despite EM and (eventually) TS and most importantly the court all finding that it was reckless?

But now you mention them again, those two unnamed RFU officials who reviewed the tackle video and pronounced it OK can be added to the list of people who have not come out of this well. I bet they are glad they weren't names

(Bur for the referee himself his live reaction on the day is not really important.. he got one look at it,and maybe didn't even see it properly. I don't think his failure to instantly sanction it has any real significance. We don't know what his retrospective view of it was, having seen the video)

I have no idea as to the legal state of the taackle. I have not seen it. Pleae try to understand! You really have aa problem understanding things or are you just need interpret people coments to suit your stance.

Frpom the Referee's angle that tackle may have appeared fair. That is did not look fair from a (possibly) better angle is a separate point. We can't see everything. As a referee, you SHOULD understand that. The ref reacted to what he saw. WIthout knowing what that was it is best that people do not take the view that you are promulgating.

I'm referencing the quote that YOU chose to introduce. Are you saying the quote is not real or that the Lawyer lied?

Atlas the your final paragraph adds something. The referee 's live reaction is just that EM should know that a fellow referee does not see everything and does not always have ARs and TMOs to "help". He should have chosen his words more carefully. Sadly TS , well what can I say. His contribution to the whole process is best consigned to the bin.


Ahwell I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. But is it back on ignore for you. Bye!

 

[crossref]

You are focused on the tackle itself. I have not seen anywhere , or made any criticism of the referees handling of the tackle. (From the judgement it seems he blew for no side)

Your quote (which is from the Daily Mail not from the judgement) is

The tackle was a legitimate one in the eyes of the match official and both RFU officials charged with reviewing such matters

Now, the match official saw it once in real time so his opinion on the day is not really important, maybe he didn't see it.
But the RFU officials who reviewed the video and said it was ok ? They have not come out of this well

(If indeed they exist .. this is the daily mail)

 

[Phil E]

In para 20 the judge tells us that EM (principally) and TS (to a lesser extent) were critical of the ref.

Paragraph 20 says nothing of the kind.

20. A further aspect of the expert evidence, again principally arising from Mr Morrison’s evidence, was that it was necessary always to bear in mind that the referee was not a Defendant and the court was not concerned with whether the game was refereed well or not. It was therefore not pertinent to know whether either of the experts would have refereed the match differently.

 

[Harry]

IMHO paragraph 20 is Judge code for "I'm ignoring the comments on the match referee."
Probably he is keeping clear of it in case of further legal action.

 

[Volun-selected]

Now, the match official saw it once in real time so his opinion on the day is not really important, maybe he didn't see it.
But the RFU officials who reviewed the video and said it was ok ? They have not come out of this well

Did the ref even see the tackle in its entirety? Did he glance away to check an offside just as the hit landed? The video is continuous so the trial can see exactly what happened from that viewpoint, but what the ref saw on the day, who knows for certain. Consider how many times a TMO, or even an AR, has seen something missed by the ref.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Did the ref even see the tackle in its entirety? Did he glance away to check an offside just as the hit landed? The video is continuous so the trial can see exactly what happened from that viewpoint, but what the ref saw on the day, who knows for certain. Consider how many times a TMO, or even an AR, has seen something missed by the ref.

Spot on!

 

[SimonSmith]

IMHO paragraph 20 is Judge code for "I'm ignoring the comments on the match referee."
Probably he is keeping clear of it in case of further legal action.

Referencing that way means it will be difficult for any appeal to be grounded in the actions of the referee, unless Appellant wants to make the case that the Judge SHOULD have included the referee in his decision making.

 

[SimonSmith]

obvious spam in #171.

Reported

In a cruel irony, that post was deleted, making yours #171...

 

[Dickie E]

In a cruel irony, that post was deleted, making yours #171...

in an even crueler irony ...

 

[SimonSmith]

in an even crueler irony ...

Is that a dare?

 

[Dickie E]

Is that a dare?

Go on, do it ... you know you want to