*edit* If the ref calls the game off within a few hours of the game against both clubs wishes then he stay at the ground until when the game was due to end - gives encouragement to support the clubs and takes away the incentive for a cushy afternoon.
[cite]Posted By: Salad[/cite]If they call the game off, the ref should have to stay at the ground until the same time they would've left had they the game had been on.
Why - as a punishment for the weather? That's a daft thing to say - irrespective of whether D'Urso was wrong to call the game off or not.
[cite]Posted By: Salad[/cite]If they call the game off, the ref should have to stay at the ground until the same time they would've left had they the game had been on.
Why - as a punishment for the weather? That's a daft thing to say - irrespective of whether D'Urso was wrong to call the game off or not.
he should also be forced to eat all the pies & burgers that would otherwise go to waste from the catering outlets.....
[cite]Posted By: Saga Lout[/cite]Just a comment on the order in which people were informed of the decison - reading an earlier post, the BBC were told asap (even before the managers!), yet they didn't bother to broadcast the news on BBC Radio London AT ALL. As a result, we drove all the way to the ground. Where did they broadcast it? I will be putting in a complaint to the BBC about this.
I was on my way to the game and I heard the announcement on BBC London at just after 12noon
Like Valley McMoist, I heard it on BBC London just after midday and apparently it was mentioned on Five Live at about the same time. The BBC Website was updated pretty quickly after that time too.
[cite]Posted By: Saga Lout[/cite]Just a comment on the order in which people were informed of the decison - reading an earlier post, the BBC were told asap (even before the managers!), yet they didn't bother to broadcast the news on BBC Radio London AT ALL. As a result, we drove all the way to the ground. Where did they broadcast it? I will be putting in a complaint to the BBC about this.
I was on my way to the game and I heard the announcement on BBC London at just after 12noon
Well I didn't hear it, unless it was when I was leaning out of the window asking some supporters I saw walking in the wrong direction if the game was off.
The only thing I would add, is that most people keep banging on about the fact that the pitch was playable.
Nobody, disputed that.
It was the 2 areas where the linesmen run that appeared to be very icy. Perhaps next time when we prepare the pitch we can also remember to clear those areas as well. That ice didn't look like it was to do with the overnight frost, it must have been solid ice all along, so how come this was not picked up by the original ref inspection and by the groundsman, or was it ? :-)
[quote][cite]Posted By: Covered End[/cite]The only thing I would add, is that most people keep banging on about the fact that the pitch was playable.
Nobody, disputed that.
It was the 2 areas where the linesmen run that appeared to be very icy. Perhaps next time when we prepare the pitch we can also remember to clear those areas as well. That ice didn't look like it was to do with the overnight frost, it must have been solid ice all along, so how come this was not picked up by the original ref inspection and by the groundsman, or was it ? :-)[/quote]
They had heaters on it maybe they should man up abit run the line a few times it would have soon softened
On the kick-off time, it was made clear to the ref that because there were no public transport issues - in fact not much public transport - the safety officer was happy to delay the kick-off as long as he required. It was put up back to 1.15 and a further delay was available to the ref as an option.
D'Urso did not inspect the touchline area he had asked to be treated when he came out for the final time. He went nowhere near it. So it's difficult to accept that this area was why he called it off - and if it was he could have made the decision during his 11.30 inspection, because that was the last time he looked at it. That's one reason why the club was so angry with him.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]D'Urso did not inspect the touchline area he had asked to be treated when he came out for the final time. He went nowhere near it. So it's difficult to accept that this area was why he called it off - and if it was he could have made the decision during his 11.30 inspection, because that was the last time he looked at it.
And can the club make an official complaint - that the referee was negligent in not making full inspection of the pitch at the later time....... especially regarding the fact that the safety officer was prepared to sanction further delays to kick off time?
It does seem apparent that the only man who didn't want the game to be played ........was the referee himself.
Unprofessional.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]D'Urso did not inspect the touchline area he had asked to be treated when he came out for the final time. He went nowhere near it. So it's difficult to accept that this area was why he called it off - and if it was he could have made the decision during his 11.30 inspection, because that was the last time he looked at it.
And can the club make an official complaint - that the referee was negligent in not making full inspection of the pitch at the later time....... especially regarding the fact that the safety officer was prepared to sanction further delays to kick off time?
It does seem apparent that the only man who didn't want the game to be played ........was the referee himself.
Unprofessional.
I don't think the club is going to run the risk of being accused of raising unneccesary and time-consuming complaints ... or potentially worse of a disrepute charge.
I don't think we can make a case that he was either negligent or blatently unprofessional. There are however inconsistencies which led to an exceptionally poor piece of decision making. One example is that d'Urso, in his little 'Why I Did It' speech points to the temperature having been at - 5 and supposedly worse than the day before. That having been the case, I would have expected him, as a professional, to have therefore taken the decision to contact the club to suggest a much earlier inspection. The club has made note of his inconsistent behaviour with regard to which areas were actually troubling him. Why did he not allow extra time to further the improve the problem areas, especially as the sun was surprisingly warm and supporters had already arrived? Why did he announce his decision to Sky first rather than the managers? Why was Sky even allowed on the pitch following him around? There are quite a few areas relating to his judgements that do bear investigation. I really hope that the club does pursue some form of complaint, it may not help us but it certainly won't do d'Urso any favours 'behind the scenes'.
pre inspection; • Be positive & as proactive as your availability allows towards any requests to attend a ground slightly earlier than usual if asked to carry out a pitch inspection where there is a doubt about the safety of a playing surface due to the weather • When carrying out a pitch inspection, seek to wear suitable footwear so that you can make as accurate an assessment of the playing surface as it would be in a game… get your football boots on if you can. In addition, it is also great to get a football that you can take onto the pitch too… to see the effect any potential surface problem will have on a rolling/bouncing ball Post inspection: • Discuss the situation as you see it with the club(s) & explain your decision as to whether the game can go ahead or not. Refer to the evidence you have ie: weather forecasts/actual things you have seen whilst inspecting the pitch
This is for non league I would assume, but the essence of the instructions\guidance are relevent.
Firstly, the ref seemed to carry out the first pre inspection in casual shoes if the photograph posted on here is correct. Secondly, and the crux of the issue, how did he consult with the clubs as described above, except through sky, declaring the game off.
I feel that he acted unreasonably, and gave no regard to the club, and players. He has an overiding responsability to ensure that the players and officials have a safe playing enviroment for the 'whole game'. But it was above freezing, and the sun was out, and had been out, and was out till at lest 3.30 the chance of further 'freezing' was minimal. The weather forecast confirmed this.
The fact that we are upset by this 'nonsense' was the general overriding consensus that the game at such a late stage could not go ahead, in resonable conditions ( for the time of year), without regard to further discussion with the clubs. Opinion will always vary, my opinion is that he was guilty of 'unreasonable, and vexatious behaviour' and failed to carry out his duties with due regard to the situation, and his actions were inept.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]One example is that d'Urso, in his little 'Why I Did It' speech points to the temperature having been at - 5 and supposedly worse than the day before. That having been the case, I would have expected him, as a professional, to have therefore taken the decision to contact the club to suggest a much earlier inspection.
it's no excuse anyway. If it was minus 5 at the Valley then it was at Craven Cottage and Loftus Road too.
Probably forgotten by now, but for what it's worth, we wrote to the FA detailing our concerns over the actions of d'Urso. Here is what the FA wrote in response, in a letter that we received today.
Thank you for your letter.
Can (sic) we start by offering our sympathies for the inconvenience caused to you by the late cancellation of the match. (no question mark)
Clearly, it is always preferable if an earlier decision can be made about a postponenment if it is absolutely clear that the game is unlikely to go ahead.
In this case it seems clear that the match official deemed it unplayable at a late stage, and felt that areas of the pitch were unsafe.
Whilst I appreciate this may not alleviate your concerns, I trust this clarifies the position on this issue.
Please rest assured that your points have been noted, and we thank you again for taking the time and trouble to write.
Thank you again for getting in touch.
Amazing that somebody with such a poor grasp of the use of English is entrusted with responding to complaints.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]In this case it seems clear that the match official deemed it unplayable at a late stage
"It seems clear ....." Did she verify the fact or not?
She would need to access the referee's report - it does give the impression that she didn't bother.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Please rest assured that your points have been noted
Yep, filed in the waste paper bin, no doubt.
It would be interesting to see StillAddicted's original letter - and compare which points have actually been responded to.
Comments
he should also be forced to eat all the pies & burgers that would otherwise go to waste from the catering outlets.....
Like Valley McMoist, I heard it on BBC London just after midday and apparently it was mentioned on Five Live at about the same time. The BBC Website was updated pretty quickly after that time too.
Well I didn't hear it, unless it was when I was leaning out of the window asking some supporters I saw walking in the wrong direction if the game was off.
I reckon so.
We made fewer mistakes, too.
In fact, the only thing in common with other recent poor performances was that Parky still blamed the ref !
Airman, can you get me the blonde girl from the ticket office mobile phone number?
Why all she will tell you is that the game was postponed! ;-)
Airman, can you get me the blonde girl from the ticket office mobile phone number?[/quote]
Why all she will tell you is that the game was postponed! ;-)[/quote]
No, its still deffo on
The two-timing hussy. That's what she told me, too....
Nobody, disputed that.
It was the 2 areas where the linesmen run that appeared to be very icy. Perhaps next time when we prepare the pitch we can also remember to clear those areas as well. That ice didn't look like it was to do with the overnight frost, it must have been solid ice all along, so how come this was not picked up by the original ref inspection and by the groundsman, or was it ? :-)
:-)
Nobody, disputed that.
It was the 2 areas where the linesmen run that appeared to be very icy. Perhaps next time when we prepare the pitch we can also remember to clear those areas as well. That ice didn't look like it was to do with the overnight frost, it must have been solid ice all along, so how come this was not picked up by the original ref inspection and by the groundsman, or was it ? :-)[/quote]
They had heaters on it maybe they should man up abit run the line a few times it would have soon softened
D'Urso did not inspect the touchline area he had asked to be treated when he came out for the final time. He went nowhere near it. So it's difficult to accept that this area was why he called it off - and if it was he could have made the decision during his 11.30 inspection, because that was the last time he looked at it. That's one reason why the club was so angry with him.
And can the club make an official complaint - that the referee was negligent in not making full inspection of the pitch at the later time....... especially regarding the fact that the safety officer was prepared to sanction further delays to kick off time?
It does seem apparent that the only man who didn't want the game to be played ........was the referee himself.
Unprofessional.
I don't think the club is going to run the risk of being accused of raising unneccesary and time-consuming complaints ... or potentially worse of a disrepute charge.
D'Urso will get away with this.
And they won't even consider the financial loss caused by D'Urso's "I would rather be with my family than referee a match on Boxing Day" decision.
Worth a read.
I don't think we can make a case that he was either negligent or blatently unprofessional. There are however inconsistencies which led to an exceptionally poor piece of decision making. One example is that d'Urso, in his little 'Why I Did It' speech points to the temperature having been at - 5 and supposedly worse than the day before. That having been the case, I would have expected him, as a professional, to have therefore taken the decision to contact the club to suggest a much earlier inspection. The club has made note of his inconsistent behaviour with regard to which areas were actually troubling him. Why did he not allow extra time to further the improve the problem areas, especially as the sun was surprisingly warm and supporters had already arrived? Why did he announce his decision to Sky first rather than the managers? Why was Sky even allowed on the pitch following him around? There are quite a few areas relating to his judgements that do bear investigation. I really hope that the club does pursue some form of complaint, it may not help us but it certainly won't do d'Urso any favours 'behind the scenes'.
pre inspection;
• Be positive & as proactive as your availability allows towards any requests to attend a ground slightly earlier than usual if asked to carry out a pitch inspection where there is a doubt about the safety of a playing surface due to the weather
• When carrying out a pitch inspection, seek to wear suitable footwear so that you can make as accurate an assessment of the playing surface as it would be in a game… get your football boots on if you can. In addition, it is also great to get a football that you can take onto the pitch too… to see the effect any potential surface problem will have on a rolling/bouncing ball
Post inspection:
• Discuss the situation as you see it with the club(s) & explain your decision as to whether the game can go ahead or not. Refer to the evidence you have ie: weather forecasts/actual things you have seen whilst inspecting the pitch
This is for non league I would assume, but the essence of the instructions\guidance are relevent.
Firstly, the ref seemed to carry out the first pre inspection in casual shoes if the photograph posted on here is correct.
Secondly, and the crux of the issue, how did he consult with the clubs as described above, except through sky, declaring the game off.
I feel that he acted unreasonably, and gave no regard to the club, and players. He has an overiding responsability to ensure that the players and officials have a safe playing enviroment for the 'whole game'. But it was above freezing, and the sun was out, and had been out, and was out till at lest 3.30 the chance of further 'freezing' was minimal. The weather forecast confirmed this.
The fact that we are upset by this 'nonsense' was the general overriding consensus that the game at such a late stage could not go ahead, in resonable conditions ( for the time of year), without regard to further discussion with the clubs. Opinion will always vary, my opinion is that he was guilty of 'unreasonable, and vexatious behaviour' and failed to carry out his duties with due regard to the situation, and his actions were inept.
it's no excuse anyway. If it was minus 5 at the Valley then it was at Craven Cottage and Loftus Road too.
Thank you for your letter.
Can (sic) we start by offering our sympathies for the inconvenience caused to you by the late cancellation of the match. (no question mark)
Clearly, it is always preferable if an earlier decision can be made about a postponenment if it is absolutely clear that the game is unlikely to go ahead.
In this case it seems clear that the match official deemed it unplayable at a late stage, and felt that areas of the pitch were unsafe.
Whilst I appreciate this may not alleviate your concerns, I trust this clarifies the position on this issue.
Please rest assured that your points have been noted, and we thank you again for taking the time and trouble to write.
Thank you again for getting in touch.
Tracey Bates
Customer Relations
.................
There's exciting!
"It seems clear ....." Did she verify the fact or not?
She would need to access the referee's report - it does give the impression that she didn't bother.
Yep, filed in the waste paper bin, no doubt.
It would be interesting to see StillAddicted's original letter - and compare which points have actually been responded to.