The thing is, he isn't asking for them to be pro saints, all he is asking for is a fair crack and an explanation when they get it so badly wrong
Back to standard use of video ref tonight I see
Instead of putting his displeasure in the program, Perhaps he should have hired a plane from Barton Airport on Thursday night,and circled The AJ Bell.
From memory, the principal pie-eater on here was banned last time for continually trolling and seek to wind people up with pathetic, inflammatory comments.
He's at it again, for heaven's sake can't he be banished again - this time permanently??
"The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is nothing of the kind. The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom." Danny Blanchflower.
Might have been written by a footballer about football - but never a truer word............
Can't stop the spirits when they need you.
This life is more than just a read through.
I know that death threats, particularly from Warrington where right wing extremists were plotting to kill a Labour MP, have to be taken seriously. Making such threats is despicable and it’s difficult, on first analysis, to assess whether they’re serious or not. It seems that Mr Hicks or the RFL initially did the right thing by reporting the threat or threats to the police.
There are no doubts about the initial report to the police but the meeting between Hicks, the Warrington CEO and the individual who made the threats can’t be described as anything but a publicity stunt. It isn’t uncommon for criminals to be encouraged to meet their victims but why did the Warrington CEO need to be involved and why did the RFL issue a press release? I presume that they, Hicks (unlikely) or Warrington issued a press release because how otherwise did the BBC get it’s story of 14 August? If everything had been dealt with privately, the claim that it was a publicity stunt could be viewed as misplaced. It is the unnecessary presence of the Warrington CEO at the meeting together with the press release that render the claim that it was a publicity stunt tenable. Add to those two facts the further fact that the threat(s) was/were made in May (the BBC story says May but the RFL statement, for the first time, seems to dispute this) and yet the story was only released about 10 days before the Cup Final and what else could the story be for other than to give publicity to the sort of abuse/threats that referees face? The story was, therefore, released for laudable reasons but a desire for publicity was at its heart.
The story should not have been promoted immediately before the Cup Final. Having been promoted, Hicks should have been withdrawn from the game. In fact, if he was seriously worried about the threat or threats, he should have been relieved of his duties until the apparent resolution in order to ensure that his judgement wasn’t affected by concerns about his own and his family’s safety. I’m surprised that the RFL doesn’t have protocols in place to deal with circumstances when a referee is threatened.
For the above reasons, I think that the RFL has got the whole tone of its statement of 31 August wrong. Instead of conceding that it got its approach to publicising difficulties faced by referees wrong, it has gone onto the attack by threatening a justifiably annoyed Eamon McManus (perhaps the club) with a reference to its “Compliance Team”. Instead of that, they may have been more sensible to say that they were hoping to meet with Mr McManus to discuss genuine concerns about refereeing procedures.
I’m also surprised that they’ve accused Mr McManus of getting the timeline wrong. It is the BBC that said that the threat(s) was/were made in May. Where did the BBC get it’s facts from?
Suttoner the tweet that constituted the death threat was made on the 31st of May. RFL seem to have got their dates mixed up too which is ironic.