10am this morning it was -5 in epping(essex)
I thought it can't be that much warmer in SE7 so this game imo was gonna be in doubt due to at least a part frozen pitch , no matter how many hair dryers we had blowing on it
my journey is 35-45 mins plus 10 minute walk from car and i had my 4 year old son coming with me so it was gonna take a little longer ...
so i turned on Sky and logged onto the OS to see what was happening
it said about 1130 inspection then said kick off delayed to 1315 which meant i didn't have to leave till 1215 giving enough time for the midday look by mr d'urso
Sky announced ten minutes before it appeared on the OS, just after midday, the game was OFF
so the family had the mispleasure of me around them for a few hours more
and i could delight at the footballing mastery of parker and murphy
What time does a ref normally get to the ground on a Saturday? He said he got there at 10:30 which is 2 1/2 hours before kick off, I cant see that as being a problem.
Len, I see your point, and probably the person you are criticising could have done things a bit better.
But you know, she's not the best paid person in the world, and probably hasn't been given so much training compared with e.g the person you might call at British Airways about your cancelled flight.
Andy D'Urso is an experienced professional referee, who chose his career in the full knowledge that he makes decisions that thousands of people will get very wound up about. Possibly it is the attraction of the job. And we are constantly asked to be understanding that sometimes these are split second decisions. This is not such a decision. Unlike the lady you spoke to, he had significant professional responsibilities and carried them out lamentably. Telling Sky and the BBC of his decision before telling the two managers? What the hell was that about?
[cite]Posted By: PragueAddick[/cite] Telling Sky and the BBC of his decision before telling the two managers? What the hell was that about?
as much as it was a shit decision to call the game off, i think telling sky and the bbc who could then relay the message onto some of the fans who were in transit or going to be in transit to the game that it was OFF was not a bad decision , the two managers were already there so it didn't make too much difference to them but to me finding out from Sky it was called off helped me
Perhaps next time Mr D'Urso and his assistants officiate at the Valley we should roll out the red carpet for them - and lay it along the touchline. Then they might feel not only safe but also that they have been afforded the respect they so clearly deserve.
Can't agree with that at all, oohaah. The two managers are fellow professional who collectively are paid to provide entertainment. The most basic rules of teamwork dictate that he should have told them first. An extra two minutes wouldn't have made any difference to most people.
Of course the reason why he didnt talk to the managers first was that they would have argued with him. He presented them with a fait accompli. That is the behaviour of an arrogant knob.
There is a big difference between an inspection the previous day and one earlier this morning, since there would be another night's frost.
As it happens, I drove in from the coast this morning and called to find out what was going on. I was told, accurately, there were no concerns, as were many other fans. I wouldn't defend the alleged tone of the person answering the phone, but bear in mind that person isn't employed as part of the communications team, to know about football matters or even to answer the phone. This approach has shortcomings but is realistic in terms of resources. We are reliant on people from other parts of the club helping out around the place on matchdays.
The club employs someone to advise on the state of the pitch. He's called the groundsman. We take our lead from him, rather than fans who haven't seen the pitch, don't have experience of managing it and dealing with referees, but happen to have looked out their window at home or seen the weather forecast. He has a pretty good record over the years.
D'Urso probably spoke to the TV because they were following him around the pitch at the time. Matt Wright was there too, but he had to walk back to his office to update the site.
My point about not pursuing the issue privately did indeed relate to the suggestion, however jokingly made, that fans should contact him. I think that would be a bad idea for all concerned, not least because that would then become the issue.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]There is a big difference between an inspection the previous day and one earlier this morning, since there would be another night's frost.
As it happens, I drove in from the coast this morning and called to find out what was going on. I was told, accurately, there were no concerns, as were many other fans. I wouldn't defend the alleged tone of the person answering the phone, but bear in mind that person isn't employed as part of the communications team, to know about football matters or even to answer the phone. This approach has shortcomings but is realistic in terms of resources. We are reliant on people from other parts of the club helping out around the place on matchdays.
The club employs someone to advise on the state of the pitch. He's called the groundsman. We take our lead from him, rather than fans who haven't seen the pitch, don't have experience of managing it and dealing with referees, but happen to have looked out their window at home or seen the weather forecast. He has a pretty good record over the years.
D'Urso probably spoke to the TV because they were following him around the pitch at the time. Matt Wright was there too, but he had to walk back to his office to update the site.
My point about not pursuing the issue privately did indeed relate to the suggestion, however jokingly made, that fans should contact him. I think that would be a bad idea for all concerned, not least because that would then become the issue.
Interesting that the groundsman with all his experience of managing the pitch and dealing with referees thought the game would go ahead yet I managed, from a quick look outside my window, to accurately forecast that it would not.
But Kings Hill Addick, is it your suggestion that the club should have relied on you rather than the groundsman and if not what is your point - except perhaps that in your opinion based on one day's partial evidence that Paddy isn't up to the job?
The grass in my old man's garden this afternoon was rock solid. Don't know what Paddy was thinking of saying that the game will go ahead. I mean, ok, he's got years of experience and was actually there (and I haven't and wasn't) but any fool could've predicted that it would all go wrong because we're Charlton and that's what we do best. Shame on the club. Shame on the woman on the phones, shame on the hot dog sellers, shame on Jack Frost. Pathetic, ridiculous, disgusting.
Now, you watch England go and lose this test match, because they're England and that's what they do best - letting people down. Come to think of it, how comes the England match is on yet ours got called off? We're in England aren't we? Rubbish, crap, scandalous, that's what it is. Sack the groundsman, sack the board, sack the new board. Put me in charge and I'll put everything right. Haven't lost a game on my sons new FIFA 11 yet - and I used to be a dab hand at that old "Football Manager" game that you played on an Excel spreadsheet. Never had a game postponed once on my watch - not once.
If tv crews and Matt wright were following the ref round the pitch during the inspection why were neither manager? I assume the inspection on Friday was carried out by a referee who lived nearer, if that were the case would the club have been within their rights to ask him to also perform a much earlier inspection on the morning of the game as a precaution? By doing so it might have identified areas of concern that could have been worked on earlier?
It is no more than an explanation as to why some (me included) are frustrated that the game was called off at such short notice.
I suspect that on this occasion there were a set of circumstances that were beyond our control, but it is difficult to differentiate between the outcome of today and that of other situations (Walsall included) where it was most likely that the game would not go ahead from the outset but the club continued to try to get it on for financial reasons.
From the outcry from several members of the club it is clear that it was believed, beyond doubt, that the pitch was playable, but it doesn't actually reduce the disappointment of getting to the ground and discovering that the game has been called off.
I'm not suggesting that Paddy is not up to the job at all but, in my defence, on this occasion he got it wrong - managing the pitch and dealing with referees aside, even with a further 15 minutes to 'prepare' the referee said no. If the referee was incompetent (possible) or just downright difficult (unlikely) then fair enough, but if not, if his decision at 12pm was that the pitch was not playable then shouldn't someone at the club have indicated that possibility to fans (particularly those coming from Southampton) earlier in the morning.
I understand the fact that the club think the pitch was playable but one of two scenarios must exist. Either the referee was wrong to call it off or the club (groundsman, if you like) should have had some incline that this was a possibility, and communicated the fact to those travelling a long distance.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]Are you serious Large?
Maybe, just maybe, they were preparing their teams for a match that was due to take place within the hour.
And how much earlier would you have wanted any problem areas worked on - the night before the severe frost?
Off it, please get off your high horse. At no point am I blaming the club for today. All I am asking is would the club have been within their rights to have asked a more local ref to have looked at the pitch at say 8am. After all the previous 'official' inspection was 2 days previous. And whilst you have a point about the manager possibly dealing with team affairs we do have breaker or kinsella who could have either have done that or have been detailed to shadow d'urso on his inspection. After all it has been said that his decision was made specifically because neither manager was there to argue with him about it. Maybe he shouldn't have been afforded that opportunity.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]Are you serious Large?
Maybe, just maybe, they were preparing their teams for a match that was due to take place within the hour.
And how much earlier would you have wanted any problem areas worked on - the night before the severe frost?
Off it, please get off your high horse. At no point am I blaming the club for today. All I am asking is would the club have been within their rights to have asked a more local ref to have looked at the pitch at say 8am. After all the previous 'official' inspection was 2 days previous. And whilst you have a point about the manager possibly dealing with team affairs we do have breaker or kinsella who could have either have done that or have been detailed to shadow d'urso on his inspection. After all it has been said that his decision was made specifically because neither manager was there to argue with him about it. Maybe he shouldn't have been afforded that opportunity.
I dunno about a "high horse", but it needs to be a shire horse if I'm getting on it.
Airman, I think you are a credit to the club to come on here and explain what happened today.
That being said I don't think that the club should have been so openly critical of the ref's decision. He made the call and ultimately it should be respected regardless of how ridiculous, expensive and inconvenient the timing of the decision was.
I'm gutted for those that had their days ruined but I don't know how anyone can seriously blame the club or Paddy when the referees unique viewpoint was the only reason the match was postponed. My thanks go out to Paddy and his team (plus the fans who turned up in force on Thursday) for doing their best to get the game on.
When he called the match off all the CAFC focus was on the part of the pitch he'd said 15 minutes earlier would be decisive, that is the touchline in the south-west corner. No one expected him then to call it off because he wasn't happy with an area in the opposite corner he'd already agreed could be addressed satisfactorily.
It's my view he did this to protect the linesman from criticism, because that's the only explanation I can give. Some much stronger criticism was made by those more closely involved than me.
By the way, there is nothing wrong with the club trying to get the match on for financial reasons in the days before the game. But that would not have been a motivation for delaying a decision this morning because the effect of the delay was to cost us more money when it was eventually postponed.
Posted By: LargeAddick Off it, please get off your high horse. At no point am I blaming the club for today. All I am asking is would the club have been within their rights to have asked a more local ref to have looked at the pitch at say 8am. .
I suspect that if a more junior local Ref had said yes the pitch is playable, then D'urso would have derived almost orgasmic pleasure in calling it off just to put the junior ref in his place.
I wasn't suggesting a junior local ref. Steve Bennett, for example, lives in Orpington which is more local than billericay. Can't see d'urso undermining another league ref easily. Every club should be required to call in a local ref to do an early inspection to identify any problem areas as early as possible so that attention can be diverted there asap.
Fair play to the good Airman and others for explaining what happened. What I don't understand is how Palace got a ref who called their match off at 8.30am (yeah, yeah, shitty pitch, etc) but we had to wait until D'Urso sauntered in and held one at 11.30am, and then prevaricated some more? Are there any standards refs have to work to in this situation?
From what I have heard here it seems clear to me that the ref turned up in SE7 yesterday with the thought clearly in his mind that this game was not going to go ahead. He then did everything he could to ensure that happened. He may have wanted to get back home to the family, i suspect though that like everyone else he had to clear a load of ice off his car yesterday morning and that sowed the seed that the pitch would be frozen. He has then done his best to confirm that thought.
If nobody but him, and possibly an assistant ref thought the pitch was unplayable there is little the club can really do, apart from do everything in there power to make sure he is never allowed in the valley again.
"If tv crews and Matt wright were following the ref round the pitch during the inspection why were neither manager? I assume the inspection on Friday was carried out by a referee who lived nearer, if that were the case would the club have been within their rights to ask him to also perform a much earlier inspection on the morning of the game as a precaution? By doing so it might have identified areas of concern that could have been worked on earlier? "
.....................................................
Parky and Breacker, and I think (couldn't identify him), the Soton manager as well, were walking around with the inspection crew and spent a lot of time on the pitch.
The club could, and probably should have called the ref in for an early inspection. The ref should have allowed a bit more extra time to deal with problem areas. The pressure on the club was immense, showcasing for the new owners perhaps, loss of revenue, uneaten food etc. The pitch was always going to be touch and go after that very heavy frost and there were lines of ice where the lino had to run. A lot of people tried very hard to get the game on but it wasn't enough and there are some pretty upset fans. The groundsmen had to make a very tough call, a few years back, the pitch would have been accepted, but times change. I don't think anything sinster went on, it was really about different people with different jobs to do and their roles conflicted. Shit happens as they say.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]The pitch was always going to be touch and go after that very heavy frost and there were lines of ice where the lino had to run. A lot of people tried very hard to get the game on but it wasn't enough and there are some pretty upset fans. The groundsmen had to make a very tough call, a few years back, the pitch would have been accepted, but times change. I don't think anything sinster went on, it was really about different people with different jobs to do and their roles conflicted. Shit happens as they say.
Well said. And almost 24 hours on I still think it's a great shame the club cannot simply admit that ''the pitch was always going to be touch and go after that very heavy frost''.
Instead the club told everyone there was ''no problem'' - which clearly was not true. It seems that Paddy made a wrong call in failing to see that D'Urso would have a problem with the ice on the wings. (Which doesn't make D'Urso right, but is merely to recognise that our ground staff should have anticipated that the ref could possibly take that view). The club has since backed Paddy's judgement agasinst that of D'Urso. Which is loyal but possibly foolish, in the way we have gone so public with the criticisms which have come close to impugning the ref's integrity.
As Stlladdicted says, there was nothing sinister (on either side). Simply a failure to anticipate a problem by the club, which seems to have chosen to believe what it wanted to believe in insisting there was ''no problem''.
As Stilladdicted says, whether the game went ahead was always going to be ''touch and go'' when temperatures had hit minus 5 overnight. Regretably, the club is still refusing to recognise this very obvious truism.
This shows up some of the real issues with football. From what I understand the pitch was fine and the game was called off due to the lino track on one side being a bit slippery. Now Paddy was confident that he could have fixed this with the blower in 20 minutes but even assuming he couldn't why can't the linos take a side on the same side of the pitch - thats what would have happened in a park game -football can't be flexible though can it?. But the biggest scandal is that the idiot ref couldn't wait until 1pm for his final decision - understandable to make the decision at 9 or 10 but as it was so close to kick off -no point in not giving the game every chance -he didn't save anybody a journey - I was parking as I found out. I never have a good word for refs because whilst I accept the game needs them, the sort of small minded , pedantic wallys who aspire to be refs are the least suitable. It's time to fast track ex players.
One of the saddest sights for me in football is seeing a teenage or 20 year old ref -pathetic- play the game you plonkers -they end up growing into Polls and D'Ursos!!!!
Comments
I thought it can't be that much warmer in SE7 so this game imo was gonna be in doubt due to at least a part frozen pitch , no matter how many hair dryers we had blowing on it
my journey is 35-45 mins plus 10 minute walk from car and i had my 4 year old son coming with me so it was gonna take a little longer ...
so i turned on Sky and logged onto the OS to see what was happening
it said about 1130 inspection then said kick off delayed to 1315 which meant i didn't have to leave till 1215 giving enough time for the midday look by mr d'urso
Sky announced ten minutes before it appeared on the OS, just after midday, the game was OFF
so the family had the mispleasure of me around them for a few hours more
and i could delight at the footballing mastery of parker and murphy
fail to prepare and prepare to fail
But you know, she's not the best paid person in the world, and probably hasn't been given so much training compared with e.g the person you might call at British Airways about your cancelled flight.
Andy D'Urso is an experienced professional referee, who chose his career in the full knowledge that he makes decisions that thousands of people will get very wound up about. Possibly it is the attraction of the job. And we are constantly asked to be understanding that sometimes these are split second decisions. This is not such a decision. Unlike the lady you spoke to, he had significant professional responsibilities and carried them out lamentably. Telling Sky and the BBC of his decision before telling the two managers? What the hell was that about?
as much as it was a shit decision to call the game off, i think telling sky and the bbc who could then relay the message onto some of the fans who were in transit or going to be in transit to the game that it was OFF was not a bad decision , the two managers were already there so it didn't make too much difference to them but to me finding out from Sky it was called off helped me
Of course the reason why he didnt talk to the managers first was that they would have argued with him. He presented them with a fait accompli. That is the behaviour of an arrogant knob.
As it happens, I drove in from the coast this morning and called to find out what was going on. I was told, accurately, there were no concerns, as were many other fans. I wouldn't defend the alleged tone of the person answering the phone, but bear in mind that person isn't employed as part of the communications team, to know about football matters or even to answer the phone. This approach has shortcomings but is realistic in terms of resources. We are reliant on people from other parts of the club helping out around the place on matchdays.
The club employs someone to advise on the state of the pitch. He's called the groundsman. We take our lead from him, rather than fans who haven't seen the pitch, don't have experience of managing it and dealing with referees, but happen to have looked out their window at home or seen the weather forecast. He has a pretty good record over the years.
D'Urso probably spoke to the TV because they were following him around the pitch at the time. Matt Wright was there too, but he had to walk back to his office to update the site.
My point about not pursuing the issue privately did indeed relate to the suggestion, however jokingly made, that fans should contact him. I think that would be a bad idea for all concerned, not least because that would then become the issue.
New one for Christmas was it?
I have just found out from reliable sources that today’s postponement was a joint decision by Alan Curbishley and Radostan Kishichev.
Hope that makes you feel better.
Interesting that the groundsman with all his experience of managing the pitch and dealing with referees thought the game would go ahead yet I managed, from a quick look outside my window, to accurately forecast that it would not.
;-)
Did you twitters see Bensons reply to my question about the pitch? He said it was playable.
Now, you watch England go and lose this test match, because they're England and that's what they do best - letting people down. Come to think of it, how comes the England match is on yet ours got called off? We're in England aren't we? Rubbish, crap, scandalous, that's what it is. Sack the groundsman, sack the board, sack the new board. Put me in charge and I'll put everything right. Haven't lost a game on my sons new FIFA 11 yet - and I used to be a dab hand at that old "Football Manager" game that you played on an Excel spreadsheet. Never had a game postponed once on my watch - not once.
Clunk click, every trip.
Maybe, just maybe, they were preparing their teams for a match that was due to take place within the hour.
And how much earlier would you have wanted any problem areas worked on - the night before the severe frost?
I suspect that on this occasion there were a set of circumstances that were beyond our control, but it is difficult to differentiate between the outcome of today and that of other situations (Walsall included) where it was most likely that the game would not go ahead from the outset but the club continued to try to get it on for financial reasons.
From the outcry from several members of the club it is clear that it was believed, beyond doubt, that the pitch was playable, but it doesn't actually reduce the disappointment of getting to the ground and discovering that the game has been called off.
I'm not suggesting that Paddy is not up to the job at all but, in my defence, on this occasion he got it wrong - managing the pitch and dealing with referees aside, even with a further 15 minutes to 'prepare' the referee said no. If the referee was incompetent (possible) or just downright difficult (unlikely) then fair enough, but if not, if his decision at 12pm was that the pitch was not playable then shouldn't someone at the club have indicated that possibility to fans (particularly those coming from Southampton) earlier in the morning.
I understand the fact that the club think the pitch was playable but one of two scenarios must exist. Either the referee was wrong to call it off or the club (groundsman, if you like) should have had some incline that this was a possibility, and communicated the fact to those travelling a long distance.
Off it, please get off your high horse. At no point am I blaming the club for today. All I am asking is would the club have been within their rights to have asked a more local ref to have looked at the pitch at say 8am. After all the previous 'official' inspection was 2 days previous. And whilst you have a point about the manager possibly dealing with team affairs we do have breaker or kinsella who could have either have done that or have been detailed to shadow d'urso on his inspection. After all it has been said that his decision was made specifically because neither manager was there to argue with him about it. Maybe he shouldn't have been afforded that opportunity.
I dunno about a "high horse", but it needs to be a shire horse if I'm getting on it.
That being said I don't think that the club should have been so openly critical of the ref's decision. He made the call and ultimately it should be respected regardless of how ridiculous, expensive and inconvenient the timing of the decision was.
I'm gutted for those that had their days ruined but I don't know how anyone can seriously blame the club or Paddy when the referees unique viewpoint was the only reason the match was postponed. My thanks go out to Paddy and his team (plus the fans who turned up in force on Thursday) for doing their best to get the game on.
It's my view he did this to protect the linesman from criticism, because that's the only explanation I can give. Some much stronger criticism was made by those more closely involved than me.
By the way, there is nothing wrong with the club trying to get the match on for financial reasons in the days before the game. But that would not have been a motivation for delaying a decision this morning because the effect of the delay was to cost us more money when it was eventually postponed.
I suspect that if a more junior local Ref had said yes the pitch is playable, then D'urso would have derived almost orgasmic pleasure in calling it off just to put the junior ref in his place.
If nobody but him, and possibly an assistant ref thought the pitch was unplayable there is little the club can really do, apart from do everything in there power to make sure he is never allowed in the valley again.
.....................................................
Parky and Breacker, and I think (couldn't identify him), the Soton manager as well, were walking around with the inspection crew and spent a lot of time on the pitch.
The club could, and probably should have called the ref in for an early inspection. The ref should have allowed a bit more extra time to deal with problem areas. The pressure on the club was immense, showcasing for the new owners perhaps, loss of revenue, uneaten food etc. The pitch was always going to be touch and go after that very heavy frost and there were lines of ice where the lino had to run. A lot of people tried very hard to get the game on but it wasn't enough and there are some pretty upset fans. The groundsmen had to make a very tough call, a few years back, the pitch would have been accepted, but times change. I don't think anything sinster went on, it was really about different people with different jobs to do and their roles conflicted. Shit happens as they say.
Well said. And almost 24 hours on I still think it's a great shame the club cannot simply admit that ''the pitch was always going to be touch and go after that very heavy frost''.
Instead the club told everyone there was ''no problem'' - which clearly was not true. It seems that Paddy made a wrong call in failing to see that D'Urso would have a problem with the ice on the wings. (Which doesn't make D'Urso right, but is merely to recognise that our ground staff should have anticipated that the ref could possibly take that view). The club has since backed Paddy's judgement agasinst that of D'Urso. Which is loyal but possibly foolish, in the way we have gone so public with the criticisms which have come close to impugning the ref's integrity.
As Stlladdicted says, there was nothing sinister (on either side). Simply a failure to anticipate a problem by the club, which seems to have chosen to believe what it wanted to believe in insisting there was ''no problem''.
As Stilladdicted says, whether the game went ahead was always going to be ''touch and go'' when temperatures had hit minus 5 overnight. Regretably, the club is still refusing to recognise this very obvious truism.
One of the saddest sights for me in football is seeing a teenage or 20 year old ref -pathetic- play the game you plonkers -they end up growing into Polls and D'Ursos!!!!