Clearing Up A Few Loose Ends: Celtic, Portsmouth And (Briefly) Wednesday

You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. Garreth says:

    Football’s Law 5 covers the Tannadice situation in two unequivocal statements. “The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play are final,” and “The referee acts on the advice of assistant referees regarding incidents that he has not seen.”

    You seem to conveniently ignore another part of Law 5 that even more unequivocally (if such a thing is possible) covers the Tannadice situation:

    “The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of the assistant referee or the fourth official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match”

  2. Mark Murphy says:

    Not ignored, conveniently or otherwise, just not what happened at Tannadice.

    McDonald wasn’t going to even talk to his assistant before the Dundee United players protested, and the assistant wasn’t about to give any advice, as he was already in position for the penalty kick.

    Your reasoning is the same as Hugh Dallas’s, that he changed his mind because the assistant referee advised him. This only happened because the players protested, which is the point I was making when I set out the events chronologically.

    He gave the penalty and “used his discretion/changed his decision” because the United players disagreed with it.

    The players’ protests caused the change of mind and that’s what I am saying was wrong. And it IS wrong.

  3. Adrian says:

    I think you will find that the majority of Portmsouth fans are very cautious of Chainrai’s motives. As fans, there is very little we can do to change what is happening at the club. I am sure that almost all Pompey fans would want a clean break from past and present owners but at present we have to be thankful that we have a club to support.

    If any wrong doings were to be made known then I am pretty certain Portsmouth fans would unite in demonstrating against the owners even if it resulted in them being forced out. As a result of the many previous regimes has severy tarnished our reputation and will take many years to put right, if we get it back at all.

    The comment regarding borrowing from elsewhere was not widely reported. It was almost a throw away comment. It certainly raised alarm bells with me. I am sure that Portsmouth FC’s credit rating is pretty low right now so one would hope that future borrowing would be secured against one of Chainrai’s companies.

  4. Garreth says:

    Forgive me as I’ve not seen the incident, and if they were ganging up on the ref a la the famous Keane/United image then that’s one thing, but players protest any and every decision anyway – apart from the most blatant fouls and handballs, pretty much every decision is contentious in the eyes of the players, and you see countless examples each weekend of players being waved away by the referee after giving free-kicks/penalties as they try to plead their case.

    Referees will 999 times out of 1000 ignore that and let their initial decision stand. The problem here is that the reversal was incorrect in your opinion (I’ve not seen the incident, but the description in the article seems to suggest the keeper played the man and then the ball, thus fouling him).

    If the Celtic players had protested the penalty decision given on Sunday (which I have seen and which 99.9% of people seem to agree was never a penalty) and the referee had changed his mind would the reversal have been a) right because it was an incorrect decision, or b) wrong because it was led by player protest?

    A referee is naturally unlikely to ever change his mind on a decision without some sort of outside input. It’s not like you see him give a freekick and then have a flash of inspiration and change it without anyone contesting it. Occasionally you see a referee not give a foul but then do so on the say-so of the linesman (Howard Webb wasn’t going to give Liverpool their penalty at Old Trafford this year, but the linesman flagged for it) and occasionally you see a linesman flag and a referee overrule them.

    If the referee in the Argentina-Mexico game had ruled out Tevez’s goal for the blatant offside, would that have been wrong too?

    Excessive hounding or intimidation of referees should not be tolerated, but if referees have made a mistake and there is a mechanism to get them to review it by running it over with their linesman I don’t see the problem with that. I’d like to see it more often. The number of times a foul happens in front of a linesman who is yards away and doesn’t give it only for the ref to do so from 50 yards away is equally annoying and baffling.

  5. Sj Maskell says:

    Thanks for keeping the Portsmouth issue live Mark.

    Fans would do well to not forget the history of the last eighteen months. Many of us with an in-depth knowledge of events are wary – not in the least because our ‘new’ executives seem to be joining in with the media games.

    Transparency is a word still not understood in the PFC boardroom.

    Keep your eye on over the next few days!!

  6. mecfc1 says:

    Great article, however the rumours in Scotland about Craven’s resignation are focussing on the supposed fact that he gave his notice because he didn’t advise the ref at all! Should be interesting to see what happens next…

  7. chris johnson says:

    With all the evidence thus far available, it continues to amaze me that the mainstream media refuse to acknowledge the real causes of Pompey’s plight – a plight which still exists by the way because the real causes are still in place. What is more it is impossible to air these issues in the media, journalistic articles are spiked, emails are blocked, letters are ignored. No wonder the majority of the football public think we cheated – they are badly informed by those who should and could do better and give us a chance of justice.

  8. SJ Maskell says:

    Here is a link to the above mentioned Pompeyonline article.

    A history lesson rearding events at Pompey over the last 5 years.

  9. Mark Murphy says:

    A quick thank you for the comments, some refreshingky honest debating points. And I would urge you to read the above Portsmouth “history lesson.” There are no “conspiracy theories” surrounding Portsmouth’s new owners. Just “conspiracies.” The above article explains how and why in a way I have yet to manage.

    Garreth, thank YOU for taking the time to comment in such depth. Although, as my name suggests, I do think it is a grand old team to play for, I was simply amazed at a referee changing his mind on a decision simply because of player protests. And this has now emerged as exactly what happened. (NB: My chronology in my original article was an attempt to show the penalty decision as contentious. Reading back, I have written that bit quite poorly and have made it look like I thought it was a penalty. I wasn’t actually certain either way).

    To answer your question about the Old Firm penalty, if Cullum had changed his decision from the “incorrect” to the “correct” one simply because Celtic players protested, that would be as wrong as what happened at Tannadice, for the same reasons.

    In the Argentina/Mexico game the ref didn’t change any decision SOLELY (the key word) on the basis of player protests, but because the stadium big screen showed Tevez to be offside – and, being Carlos Tevez, there was NO chance of him not interfering with play :-)

  10. Gavin says:

    “a decision simply because of player protests. And this has now emerged as exactly what happened”

    Hmm. I can’t say that’s my reading of anyone’s version of events. But you can already read my take on this elsewhere on the site so I won’t clog up your comments …

  1. October 27, 2010

    […] Clearing Up A few Loose Ends: Celtic, Portsmouth and (Briefly) Wednesday “It’s the football scandal of a generation. And it won’t go away. Colleen Rooney, photographed blatantly sipping a cool drink by a holiday swimming pool… while there’s a recession on!! I mean not one single British passport holder anywhere else in the world has done that in the last week. As to whether that shite really does sell newspapers, that’s a debate for someone else to start. I don’t know enough to offer an informed opinion, so I won’t offer any opinion. Something for Mail columnist Martin Samuel to ponder next time he writes about Uefa’s ‘financial fair play’ regulations.” (twohundredpercent) […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>