I'm not really a fan of Halsey, he was a crap referee and likes to be Speak out to get some publicity.
I am not a fan of dishonesty, but if you looked back after a game and saw you'd made an absolute howler by not punishing a two footed leg breaker, wouldn't it be tempting to say you never saw it so they could be punished? This is why that rule is ludicrous.
Even if what he is saying is correct, I'm not actually against it. If a little white lie resulted in a player being punished for a wrong they committed on the pitch, then I am all for that - as opposed to that player getting away with it, on a stupid technicality that because the referee saw it and made the wrong decision, the player can't be retrospectively punished.
I'm actually surprised that some people think refs are capable of "turning a blind eye" when it suits them to do so. Now before I get jumped on by certain posters, I am not suggesting there is widespread corruption amongst the referees fraternity, with regards to deliberate match fixing, but I no longer believe that the referee is the only person on the pitch, who is not prepared to bend the rules when it suits. We regularly see referees make poor decisions, then attempt to "right the wrong" later in the game, in an attempt to "put things right". Last season's game at SMS, against Liverpool, springs immediately to mind, where the ref ignored Long being taken out by Lovren, then gave us a soft penalty in the second half, when both Pelle and the defender had a handful of shirt. I think it is human nature to try and right a wrong, so I can understand why it happens. Not looking for an argument, just putting forward my opinion.
I believe N'Zonzi on Shawcross is one from Stoke v Blackburn around 2011. Don't know if that's one he mentioned in book though. I agree now that now they've come out to deny we will see how much truth is in it. If he comes out with multiple examples including specifics then I'd be inclined to believe him. If not then it's probably bollocks. Or he's been silenced.
Well yes. It's just correctly interpreting a badly written rule. If this even happened the way he is suggesting, which it didn't.
Just to add my own experience from a few years ago. The gossip, factions and jealousy in referee world make your office politics look like primary school. The promotion system is surprisingly meritocratic but depended on getting the right assessments at the right time, meaning newer/younger refs had the opportunity to go further if they were good (and got their timings right). This is not popular. But the sexism was worse than the ageism. I heard unrepeatable gossip about what certain younger and/or female refs had done or who they knew. In short everything was a conspiracy theory.
Clive Thomas was doing the same thing in the 1980's. It resulted in improvements to refereeing methods. I'm glad someone broke ranks. If it gets a debate going over the fallibility of referees, and what professional football will put up with, and decide what it is responsible for itself to invest in to help referees, then I'm all for it.
