Boro charged with breach of conduct

1 - "let down by poor officials" - he isn't wrong, 3 key calls, 3 clear calls, you can say the official got it wrong, that isn't against the rules., you can't accuse them of taking a bribe or cheating on purpose.

2 - "if they keep getting the right referees" - ie ones that give them free penalties, tenuous, but the FA may try to make it stick

3 - "they've got a cover now, stick up for each other" - that could be called misconduct against refs. He isn't accusing them of cheating, only of not being honest with managers after the game. I think we can all accept that happens.

4 - "to be let down by a team in black today" - again this is objectively true. They made big mistakes

5 - "they all want the celebrity status" - this might be deemed as undermining the refs. This is one that will need a bit more thought to defend.

6 - "my lads have been let down by a team of officials that weren't good enough on the day" -- again objectively true. He hasn't accused them of cheating, but he has accused them of failing, and they have.

7 - "I'll have to ask him for the number for his dad Keith Cooper, he must have influences somewhere" - it was clearly a joke, the joke be in he gets sympathetic refs, but again might be tough to defend against.

8 - "alan whiley has a job on his hands because they're not good enough" - bringing into question competency, isn't saying they are cheating, he mentioned stoke, which backs up this isn't personal about todays ref, it's about the standard of officiating

There are a few comments that will be tough to avoid, mainly 2, 5, and 7
 
BoroMart said:
1 - "let down by poor officials" - he isn't wrong, 3 key calls, 3 clear calls, you can say the official got it wrong, that isn't against the rules., you can't accuse them of taking a bribe or cheating on purpose.

2 - "if they keep getting the right referees" - ie ones that give them free penalties, tenuous, but the FA may try to make it stick

3 - "they've got a cover now, stick up for each other" - that could be called misconduct against refs. He isn't accusing them of cheating, only of not being honest with managers after the game. I think we can all accept that happens.

4 - "to be let down by a team in black today" - again this is objectively true. They made big mistakes

5 - "they all want the celebrity status" - this might be deemed as undermining the refs. This is one that will need a bit more thought to defend.

6 - "my lads have been let down by a team of officials that weren't good enough on the day" -- again objectively true. He hasn't accused them of cheating, but he has accused them of failing, and they have.

7 - "I'll have to ask him for the number for his dad Keith Cooper, he must have influences somewhere" - it was clearly a joke, the joke be in he gets sympathetic refs, but again might be tough to defend against.

8 - "alan whiley has a job on his hands because they're not good enough" - bringing into question competency, isn't saying they are cheating, he mentioned stoke, which backs up this isn't personal about todays ref, it's about the standard of officiating

There are a few comments that will be tough to avoid, mainly 2, 5, and 7
Click to expand...
I`de be tempted to ask whats the point and get the cheque book and pen out:
"Alright then. How much?"
 
part of the clubs statement today.

"We repeat that we will not tolerate abuse of any form" .


they will be 'Hoist by their own Petard'.

There’s letters sealed; and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fanged,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work,
For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard; and ’t shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon. O, ’tis most sweet
When in one line two crafts directly meet.

©️ Will Shakespeare
 
Whats the worst realistic outcome if we’re found guilty? We all know the ref was terrible bit surely this just gives us the chance to hilglight major concerns that the FA cant really challenge? Not just with the Swansea hame but like others have said the challenge on Fry that was missed
 
Alan_Breck said:
If Warnock gets a fine then I think all we FTMMers should each drop a few quid into a kitty and pay it to show solidarity. A fine will be one of the great injustices in football and that ref should be banned sine die

#UTB
Click to expand...
F02C4640-A7EE-48B4-8DDC-4C1C05408575.jpg
£20k fine, touchline ban, somesort of anger management course for what to do when you referee can’t do his job as d costs you the game.
 
Wilf said:
apparently they dont according to Neil - his on record saying "you cant speak to them, its not allowed"

and it wasnt just the manager and the captain, Leo was in there amongst others, and then there was the rounding on the ref when he disallowed Bola's goal.
Click to expand...
He said you are not allowed to speak to them after the match, only a few words on the pitch. This is a covid related change. He is right, but in this case the ref, agreed to talk to him after the game and said he would apologise if he got anything wrong, as fair as we are aware the guy hasn't apologised.
Wilf said:
and it wasnt just the manager and the captain, Leo was in there amongst others, and then there was the rounding on the ref when he disallowed Bola's goal.
Click to expand...
'rounding'? no one was in his face, this wasn't a Jaap Stam incident.
 
Wilf said:
improper, violent, threatening, abusive, indecent, insulting or provocative words or behaviour, (including, without limitation, where any such conduct, words or behaviour includes a reference, whether express or implied, to any one or more of ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion or belief, gender, gender reassignment, sexual orientation or disability)
Click to expand...
improper - questionable
violent - no
threatening - no
abusive - no
indecent - no
insulting - no
provocative - maybe

So was Neils language improper and provocative. That's teh charge right there.
 
Wilf said:
you may need to look again Marty, Neils actions and Leos could be interpetted as Violent, threatening, abusive, insulting and provocative. or any mixture thereof.
Click to expand...
there was no violence, no touching

threatening, they were not in his face, the management team have the right to ask questions of a referee and they did, they didn't make any explicit threats at all

abusive, there is no allegation that Neil or the team made any abusive comments. They questioned the refereeing teams competence, that isn't abusive though.

insulting, unless questioning the competence after incompetence is deemed insulting, then again this is a difficult one for them to get him with

provocative, not even sure what this means in this context. We didn't provoke the other manager or team
 
Wilf said:
Thats open to interpretation - you dont believe that it was, others particularly those on the panel may see and view it differently - who knows.
Click to expand...
We did nothing that other teams don't do and many are much worse. There were no hands on him, only two or three players near the ref asking the question
 
Wilf said:
Perhaps you should offer your representative services to Gibson and Co - tell em they have next to nowt to worry about.

its all a huge mistake and so on and so forth - perhaps with a little bit of persuasion and understanding, the FA will award us the goal and give us a point. You may even get a sorry out of em for the 3 points at Blackburn.
Click to expand...
thanks for your sarcasm Wilf. It's added a lot to this conversation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top