They all suffer from myopia compounded by the stubborn refusal to admit the problem. From the OS:
'A bad day may get even worse for the Addicks after Izale McLeod collided with Michael Connor seconds into in the second half, leaving the home midfielder writhing in agony on the turf.
Asked about an elbow from the striker, Parkinson said: "I didn't see it and it's the first I've heard of it. We'll have a look at it.” '
I'm sure if we'd had a penalty turned down Parky at the very least would have asked to see a replay of the incident.
Come on Charlton - get an apology out to Northwich this morning and ban McLeod for 6 games at least. That way at least people will see that we can take defeat gracefully and that, even if we can't, we want to play football the right way.
0
Comments
But the ''first I've heard of it'' is an unfortunate Wenger-ism, if not Mr Magoo.
After the incident, McLeod was roundly booed every time he touched the ball. You could hear it loud and clear on tv and it must have been even more obvious from the touchline.
Did it not occur to Parky to enquire why? I can't really believe he thought the home fans were booing because they were terrified of McLeod's goal threat!
Len Glover reckoned last night that Parky said it because he needed some 'think time' before commenting. Fair enough and I think Parky is an honest man who wants to do the right thing. But 'we'll take a look at it' would have been a more appropriate response.
Hope to learn today that he has taken a look at it and then to see an announcement on the OS that McLeod has apologised and been disciplined.
I presume you saw it then. I know the 3 watching in this household didn't. We were quite shocked when they replayed and highlighted it.
I'm not talking about at the time. As Nigel says you don't see a player go down and hear the crowd's reaction without making some sort of enquiry as to what might have gone on. McLeod's action in itself would be enough to take him off but if the Manager doesn't want to know about it then he is not doing his job.
The OS have it down as a collision and you can't tell me that no one at the Club doesn't now know that it was outright assault.
There will be a 3 match ban from the FA without doubt. It would be nice though if the Club took the initiative here.
The elbow was something else and the sooner the club announce a suitable punishment, the sooner we can all hold our heads a little bit higher again. Don't leave it to the league authorities. Let's try to regain at least a little bit of the higher moral ground by the club pre-empting the official punishment.
By the way, I'm not as critical of McLeod's performance yesterday as some. He did nothing useful but was that entirely his fault? I recall one decent ball that our hapless, hopeless midfield managed to feed him in the whole game...
Firstly, I'm not sure how many people here have ever tried to report on a game, and secondly, I'm not sure how many ever tried it without the benefit of a replay.
Now, personally, having done this for a decade more, I'll put my hands up and admit that I would have missed the elbow. That's not to say it wasn't an elbow, because it clearly was, but I wouldn't have seen it. In keeping with the referee, the cameras and the rest of the players, my eyes would have been 30 yards downfield. I don't dispute that it was an elbow, because it obviously was. Indeed, it was the most accurate thing I've ever seen Mr McLeod do in his time at Charlton. I had previously, given his sense of direction, expected to find him outside the Superstore at 3pm on a Saturday, having taken a left out of the home dressing room, when everyone else took a right. He reminds me of Martin Pringle without the predator's instinct.
It was clearly a pre-meditated assault, arriving as it did less than a second after the start of the second half. It was a witless act from a frequently clueless striker, and he will get banned for it. Make no mistake though, he will get banned because of replays - a whole string of them, not because of anything anyone saw at the time. I have never been to the Northwich Victoria press box, but I almost guarantee that they won't have had replays. If you want to blame Gary Haines for missing the elbow, please also include the referee, both assistant referees, most of the players and the commentator. Some things simply happen too fast to be spotted. Unlike Izale McLeod's forward runs.
Gary couldn't possibly have seen it, and even if he thought he had, it's an impossible thing to report without having television confirmation, because it's quite a claim to make. Having seen the television, it's obvious, but without it, you couldn't say. Equally, you can't blame Phil Parkinson for his refusal to comment. You can blame him for a lot of things - the utter inability to motivate his players to compete against a side of part-timers, for instance, but not for missing the elbow. He has a right to expect his players not to show signs of complete and utter stupidity. He was let down.
It was a dreadful performance - insipid, immature and gutless. But don't blame Gary while you're in the process of finding things to be upset about, because, as rubbish as the performance might have been on the pitch, he doesn't deserve that.
Mick - I cannot argue with what you say about seeing the incident at the time. I will, however, continue to argue that, had Northwich scored a "Geoff Hurst" goal or we had been denied a legitimate penalty claim both Gary Haines and Parky would have made every attempt to see a replay of the incident and the ensuing comment by both of them would not have been quite so vague. The crowd's reaction combined with the player being prostrate on the ground holding his face should have lead them to find out what had gone on and given that this was live on TV it's not as if it would have been impossible to do so before the end of the game.
I'm sorry this whole affair is about being in denial and the fact that more than 36 hours (and no less than SEVEN news items later on the OS) after the incident the silence continues to deafen is an extremely poor reflection of the Club. Quite rightly we are at the forefront of campaigns such as "Keep Racism Out" and "Respect" but when it comes to thuggery by us on a football pitch we are happy to turn a blind eye - perhaps in the misguided hope that the FA do not take action against McLeod.
Notwithstanding all of that perhaps rather than include the OS in the Heading of this Thread (seeing as Gary is limited in what he can say) perhaps it should have read:
"What do the Club, Parky and Mr Magoo All have in common?"
If the club wanted to protect their 'investment', they''d have banned him for the rest of the season...
(I may not be taking this as seriously as I probably should. I think the argument, unlike the striker, stands up, though...)
Thanks but I'd prefer it if my six year old didn't see any more violence in the name of Charlton Athletic.
We have a page dedicated on the OS to raising money to fight street violence and yet, when it's within our power to pubicly announce that we have taken immediate action, we do nothing presumably until we really have to. I really did think we were better than that.