I have just watched the incident on the telly. Immediately before there was some jostling between Wilbraham and Branco when one of our players (Bryan I think) came in and wiped Branco out and onto the floor, a blatant body check, Then Branco/Flint and the referee were in a straight line with the 6 yard box and the ball was being contested on the other 6 yd box line (say 15yds away) and the ref was looking at the ball. I can therefore absolutely see why the referee did not see the incident. I am not saying that he should have received possible support from his other officials but he didn't. Other channels have however seen that justice has been done
Sorry but the above incidents were the other way round (I watched being played back) i.e. Branco elbowed Flint and this was followed by the Wilbraham incident
A Swindon fans viewpoint.. Well I call it twisted logic Is there injustice here? If the ref or any other of his 3 officials had seen it, Branco would have been sent off and served an immediate 3 Match ban. On his return, the 9 yellows collected would have been wiped clean. So, because none of the officials seen it and the fact he was later booked in the same game means he serves a 5 match ban. Something don't seem right. Also what do the officials get for missing it in the first place. We pay because of sky sports
Maybe if he hadn't elbowed Flint at all, he would still be able to play. Simple solution to that one.
He was getting paid to see it! not miss it.. the amount he was paid is irrelevant, he accepted the money he should do the basic part of his job correctly. He has the help of 3 other people but as well all know they are just window dressing, you only have to watch a linesman try to make a throw in decision to see theres no point in them being there!
So I guess you have never made a mistake whilst at work then? And if you had would you be happy if someone said you were being paid not to make the mistake. Why people cant say that he was human and missed it is beyond me. Unless of course you believe it was deliberate!!
I'm a gas engineer of course I don't make ****in mistakes in work. mistakes are carelessness.. like surgeons and nurses who can't afford to make mistakes! they do happen but professionals manage them as they happen and their training levels them out! The ones that referee made were incompetence not mistakes. As I said its the basic part of his job to see with help of 3 others what 13k others could clearly see! Its beyond me why you can't understand that.
Yes it was a mistake but not a deliberate one. I must be honest I did not actually see the blow as I was following the ball. If the missing of one incident is that important then the answer is that the sport must introduce technology to support the shortfall. I do not subscribe to the blame the referee for everything mentality. That is down to the mentality of football fans in general. You would never have such a fuss in Rugby. Football has a lot to learn from other sports
There was me thinking I said it was not a deliberate one. Incidentally I had my gas boiler recently serviced and the engineer asked who last serviced my boiler. When I asked why he said the firebox had not been correctly replaced. I guess we all make mistakes
This says it all "missed by the referee but caught on camera". Look at the other City players ie following the ball http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/sport/12881242.Branco_charged_for_Flint_incident/
Yeah I know, I was questioning why he would want to make a deliberate mistake, as that would not be a mistake it would be dishonesty! With regards your boiler, if the engineer was correct, (and thats a big if!) I wonder, if one of your family had been badly hurt would you have been so keen to write it off as only 'a human error"? No thought not!
I therefore cannot understand why in your world anyone would want to be a referee. I say he didn't see it, so he didn't give it. You say because he didn't see it he is incompetent and not fit to be a referee. There are no negligence clauses in a referee's contract, everything is down to his interpretation and long may it continue until he is given definitive independent support.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. While we both agree that some form of independent help is needed, the difference between you and me is that I accept that circumstances can arise in which the referee's claim that he did not see any given incident can be valid and genuine. You on the other hand, say that such claims are not valid or genuine and any failure to see any contentious incident is down to pure incompetence.
