Great game spoiled by last 2 minutes

[winchesterref]

upnunder have your society said anything about this yet?

 

[Dickie E]

nothing is really ever private on the internet.

that'd be scary if it was true

 

[The Fat]

which is a perfectly valid aim, and should be applauded. indeed my club blazers often talk about the same thing. the question is how they are going to assist with this.

Except that the next line says, "One of them asked if there are channels to report bad refs so "he can't do that to anyone else this season"
Therefore, not a perfectly valid aim. It is a cheap shot.

 

[The Fat]

why - what do they say?

If I told you, it wouldn't be a PM Dickie.
Curiosity.....etc, etc, etc, Dickie

 

[dave_clark]

Except that the next line says, "One of them asked if there are channels to report bad refs so "he can't do that to anyone else this season"
Therefore, not a perfectly valid aim. It is a cheap shot.

ah. didn't read that bit.

 

[Dickie E]

If I told you, it wouldn't be a PM Dickie.
Curiosity.....etc, etc, etc, Dickie

the only secrets I like are the ones I know

 

[menace]

Both have posted on twitter about the standard of officiating needing improving.
One of them asked if there are channels to report bad refs so "he can't do that to anyone else this season"
I have screenshots of all of them

And that would probably be enough for me to tweet the appointments guy and tell him that I will never referee that team or club again. They can jam it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

NOTE:

I have removed four posts from this thread at the request of some members.

Mods/Admins can still see them so that they can be reinstated should the rest of the forum staff overrule me.

 

[upnunder]

The match report has been amended now. The bit about me in the bar after the game has been removed.

The player has pleaded not guilty to the red card so the tribunal is on thursday night.
I have been asked to join by telephone as I cannot attend

 

[TheBFG]

will the hearing be just dealing with the RC or are they looking at "other issues" too?

I assume you have print offs of all the "evidence"?

 

[Nigib]

that'd be scary if it was true

off topic, but we should all be very aware that anything we say on the internet is never in any way private, and equivalent to posting what we say on lampposts globally - treat it like that and you should never be surprised...

 

[upnunder]

I'm not sure whether they will be looking at anything else in the hearing other than the red card.
Never had to be involved in a hearing so far. What can I expect?
Will it feel like I'm being put on trial?

 

[Simon Thomas]

The red carded player is on trial, you are like a policeman witness.

I have sat on a Disc Comittee, observed for the Society, and been a red carding referee a few times.

They are on your side !

 

[4eyesbetter]

Stick to your report, it's your best friend. Have a copy ready to refer to. Refer to it wherever possible. "As I said in my report..." Emphasise the captain's actions - taken out of context his words are quite mild, but put into context of running however far he ran to shout them right into your face, completely different.

Now, I've been in a situation not entirely dissimilar to yours. Just remember what the hearing's for - to determine whether or not the captain abused you after you gave the penalty try in the 78th minute. The club may well come armed with ten witnesses who'll all swear blind that you're the worst referee they've ever seen and the first 77 minutes were absolutely ridiculous and so on and so forth droning on and on while the panel falls asleep. The panel doesn't care about any that. At best, those are mitigating factors. They have nothing to do with the event in question. All the panel wants to know is this: did the captain abuse you after you gave the penalty try in the 78th minute?

So there are two likely actual defences to the charge, neither of them particularly convincing.

1. "Yes, he went to talk to the referee, but the referee completely over-reacted." If they start saying this, take the phone away from your mouth and breathe a big sigh of relief. They've now admitted that 95% of your report is accurate, and it doesn't matter that there's ten of them contradicting you on the last 5%. They all have a very compelling motive to be lying about the last 5%. You don't.

2. "No, he didn't say anything to the referee at all." A bolder move. If they have video that backs up their story, they win, you're a naughty boy for fooling people on the internet. They won't, though. They think that because there's ten of them and one of you, that makes their account more believable, so if everyone tells the same consistent lie, it wins. Doesn't work that way! From the panel's perspective, of course they're all going to cook up a story to get their captain off the hook. They see a lot of teams trying to do that. It's a far more likely explanation than a referee in good standing suddenly deciding "I'm going to screw you lot over and then send your captain off". Bottom line, it's still your word against theirs and the panel needs a very good reason to take theirs.

Keep it simple, stick to your report, emphasise the captain running over and shouting in your face.

(The one time when it's acceptable to worry is when half the witnesses they bring out are from the other club; that starts to negate the previously-overpowering "well, you would say that, wouldn't you?" position that the panel starts from. Happily, I find that the clubs most likely to be in this situation are also the clubs that nobody else likes enough to go to bat for at a disciplinary.)

 

[TheBFG]

I assume under the new "rules" the hearing is very soon?

As has already been said, stick to your report. In my experiance (which isn't vast althoguh some my question that :wink: ) The panel will ask you if you have anything to add to what you have submitted in your report, if you answer no, that'll be it. You aren't there to be cross examined.

It'll be fine.

Might be worth checking before the hearing (via your society) if they are going to deal with anything else, just in case you need to go armed with anything else?

 

[OB..]

You are entitled to be informed in advance of documentation that might be used. They are not allowed to spring surprises on you.

 

[tim White]

Unfortunately 'Surprises' at disciplinary DO happen, and have been upheld in this area. The referee concerned declined to attend that club again.

 

[Toby Warren]

Up and under how did it go?

Hope it wasn't unpleasant.

 

[crossref]

the match report has been further sanitised.
http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/huntingdonrugbyclub/s/match-centre-92849/1-758521

I wonder if they have changed any of the earlier ones.

 

[Phil E]

Doug did indeed question the decision but in no way abused the official

Contradiction alert. They clearly have no idea what match official abuse consists of?