spot on jose

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
I agree with Steve Clarke, he wasn't just after justice for WBA, he acknowledged anything done by the FA wouldn't gain them any league points. He wants the whole system looked at and not for the FA to muddle through, he wants a discussion on how to improve the adjudication of the game. There may not be a perfect way or system, but that doesn't mean the body in charge of the game shouldn't constantly strive for it.

Most people's complaint about the FA is that the are reactive and not proactive, and when they do take action it tends to be patchwork and muddled and often extreme with no compromise. The professional game is big business and riddled with cheating often renamed as having 'a professional attitude', and that is just the tip of the iceberg. The game is under enormous pressure from organised crime, which is half the reason I believe the various FAs around the world are scared to act. Gambling is going to kill soccer as things stand now.
 
"Cry baby WBA" is a little bit rich after some of the stuff your lot have done after bad (or perceived bad) refereeing.
 
DferPolarBear said:
I agree with Steve Clarke, he wasn't just after justice for WBA, he acknowledged anything done by the FA wouldn't gain them any league points. He wants the whole system looked at and not for the FA to muddle through, he wants a discussion on how to improve the adjudication of the game. There may not be a perfect way or system, but that doesn't mean the body in charge of the game shouldn't constantly strive for it.

Most people's complaint about the FA is that the are reactive and not proactive, and when they do take action it tends to be patchwork and muddled and often extreme with no compromise. The professional game is big business and riddled with cheating often renamed as having 'a professional attitude', and that is just the tip of the iceberg. The game is under enormous pressure from organised crime, which is half the reason I believe the various FAs around the world are scared to act. Gambling is going to kill soccer as things stand now.
Click to expand...
Have another 2 baby seals D Fer. Gambling is the reason the rotten to the core FIFA are so reluctant to bring in video technology, it would make it more difficult to fix matches.
As for Riley, not the smartest thing he has done, whatever the merits of WBAs' case. Refs now have more pressure they could well do without. Riley was a showy clown on the pitch, he's the same off it.
 
Whether or not it was a penalty,( I happen to think it was) the whole business of the apology by Riley is wrong. At least 50% of penalties awarded in the Prem are "disputed" by those on the recieving end. Never before has such an apology been made by the head of the referee's association. Why choose this one to comment!
 
bluemoon2 said:
Whether or not it was a penalty,( I happen to think it was) the whole business of the apology by Riley is wrong. At least 50% of penalties awarded in the Prem are "disputed" by those on the recieving end. Never before has such an apology been made by the head of the referee's association. Why choose this one to comment!
Click to expand...

Because it was SO obviously not a penalty and cheated WBA of 3 well deserved points? <whistle>
 
He's not far from being right but as usual Mourinho says it in a ridiculous way. He was tip-toeing around the fact that he'd already said it was a definite penalty, which is plainly wrong, by talking about a "hypothetical debatable decision" all the time and then bleating on about some other non-decision that offended him so. He also claimed it was a public apology from Riley when it wasn't as Clarke was the one that talked about it. Fact is we don't actually know what Riley was apologising for as we've only got Clarke's version and he's used it to try and pressure the referee for his next match making it hardly a reliable version of events. He also seems to think that Riley went behind Marriner's back which is just guessing again. Oh and he's unsurprisingly made it all about Chelsea.

Nothing less than you'd expect but come on lets not pretend what he's doing isn't transparent.
 
Yid Vicious said:
He's not far from being right but as usual Mourinho says it in a ridiculous way. He was tip-toeing around the fact that he'd already said it was a definite penalty, which is plainly wrong, by talking about a "hypothetical debatable decision" all the time and then bleating on about some other non-decision that offended him so. He also claimed it was a public apology from Riley when it wasn't as Clarke was the one that talked about it. Fact is we don't actually know what Riley was apologising for as we've only got Clarke's version and he's used it to try and pressure the referee for his next match making it hardly a reliable version of events. He also seems to think that Riley went behind Marriner's back which is just guessing again. Oh and he's unsurprisingly made it all about Chelsea.

Nothing less than you'd expect but come on lets not pretend what he's doing isn't transparent.
Click to expand...

IMO that's bollocks, but also disagree with criticism of Steve Clarke who had every right to feel aggrieved.

Bottom line is Mike Riley has set a (dangerous) precedent now and Mourinho is spot on no matter how, where and when he said it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back