A&H

Ipswich v Northampton

I think as alluded too by others, the sad thing in all this is that Judge comments seems to be put on the back burner and it's actually Drysdale that looks the bad guy in all this.

As a supporter though, yes the referee did square up to him but no significant contact was made so do we really need all this palarva with hearings which the player did not even attended too. In all honesty, there is only one loser here and that is Darren Drysdale despite seemingly not being totally at fault and just lost his head for a brief moment.

Judge(alledgely) made the abusive comments but don't get banned, ref gives some back and heads slightly touch and he has been banned from his job for 4 games or so. Does not seem right too me.
 
The Referee Store
JamesL said:
I get the keeping players on the pitch argument at PL level, even championship due to the money men (I don't agree with it, it should be dealt with but it appears there is a reluctance to for reasons unknown cough money cough). For years we have seen Wayne Rooney abuse referees and the general consensus is that the sponsors don't want him missing games etc.
However, L1/L2 and below what is the incentive not to deal with dissent and offinabus? Why would there be a need to keep 22 players on? I mean, no disrespect to the bloke, he is a very good player, was goos at Brentford until his leg break. But who misses Alan Judge if he doesn't play for having a potty mouth?
Click to expand...
I think there are circumstances (particularly verbal offences) in which Referees feel they are losing (or have lost) control by sending players off. However, it's insane that the words (C'C') came to pass without a Cherry (especially when combined with reference to 'follicle misfortune'). Anyway, DD has visually demonstrated the irritation we all experience on occasion. Only takes one moment to weakness to come a cropper
 
JamesL said:
I get the keeping players on the pitch argument at PL level, even championship due to the money men (I don't agree with it, it should be dealt with but it appears there is a reluctance to for reasons unknown cough money cough). For years we have seen Wayne Rooney abuse referees and the general consensus is that the sponsors don't want him missing games etc.
However, L1/L2 and below what is the incentive not to deal with dissent and offinabus? Why would there be a need to keep 22 players on? I mean, no disrespect to the bloke, he is a very good player, was goos at Brentford until his leg break. But who misses Alan Judge if he doesn't play for having a potty mouth?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that clubs still mark referees even at FL level. There are hardly any red cards for OFFINABUS at that level, but we've all heard players screaming abuse at referees. I wouldn't go as far as saying there is a directive not to send off, rather referees are effectively conditioned as they move through the levels that upsetting clubs will stop them progressing. It would need FL, SG1 and SG2 referees to act together to fix this, as one or two referees acting on their own are just going to affect their progression and quite possible find themselves demoted.
 
the expectation is currently that once a certain level is reached, players don’t get sent off for abuse. The ”finish with 11” is a cop out--if the expectations were changed, the behavior would change. The leagues/FIFA are just too chicken to deal with the pain of the transition. Talk is not going to change the expectation. Either red needs to come out, or the leagues need to start issuing post+match bans for the behavior. Players will adjust.

on a much smaller scale, our local AYSO u16/u19 program had an ongoing problem with coach misbehavio. The league administration finally told both coaches and refs at a preseason meeting, “we’re tired of the complaints about coach behavior. Coaches, we expect you to behave, refs, we expect you to toss the coaches who don’t, and we will back you up.” Some coaches listened, but the real problems didn’t. So they got tossed. And coaches learned. The culture changed and we dont see that behavior anymore. Changing expectations works—but only if it is actually enforced. Platitudes and rhetoric don’t do it.
 
Big Cat said:
I thought there'd be more to it than straight-forward OFFINABUS
No surprise that the player wasn't dismissed for it. Therein lies the problem. If the expectation is to keep players on the FOP at all costs, is this incident any surprise? I had the same comments levelled at me in just my second season and I've seen opponents dismissed for the same thing when playing, so I don't see it as a rare occurrence to provoke such a reaction
Hopefully it won't present a barrier to DD's progression. He's a good Referee from what I've seen of him. Either he'll learn from the mistake and improve further, or his development will blocked, or he'll decide to do something else with his time
Click to expand...
Not being funny, but DD is 50 - I'd be a little surprised if he progresses any further!
 
socal lurker said:
the expectation is currently that once a certain level is reached, players don’t get sent off for abuse. The ”finish with 11” is a cop out--if the expectations were changed, the behavior would change. The leagues/FIFA are just too chicken to deal with the pain of the transition. Talk is not going to change the expectation. Either red needs to come out, or the leagues need to start issuing post+match bans for the behavior. Players will adjust.

on a much smaller scale, our local AYSO u16/u19 program had an ongoing problem with coach misbehavio. The league administration finally told both coaches and refs at a preseason meeting, “we’re tired of the complaints about coach behavior. Coaches, we expect you to behave, refs, we expect you to toss the coaches who don’t, and we will back you up.” Some coaches listened, but the real problems didn’t. So they got tossed. And coaches learned. The culture changed and we dont see that behavior anymore. Changing expectations works—but only if it is actually enforced. Platitudes and rhetoric don’t do it.
Click to expand...

You are pretty much saying the same as me. It will only be fixed if competitions order referees to crack down on it, we can't expect individual referees to make a name for themselves by starting to throw red cards for OFFINABUS about.
 
Ipswich have stated they have audio that backs up Judges story.
Referees audio is not recorded in the championship according to Sky News.
the apparently claim judge twice states “are you *effing* joking ref?”

It may just be me but to me that would explain the yellow and not a red but everyone considers the case closed now anyway
 
Degnann said:
Ipswich have stated they have audio that backs up Judges story.
Referees audio is not recorded in the championship according to Sky News.
the apparently claim judge twice states “are you *effing* joking ref?”

It may just be me but to me that would explain the yellow and not a red but everyone considers the case closed now anyway
Click to expand...
The yellow was for simulation.
 
one said:
Or so says the referee.

Both parties have reason to fabricate. My point has been we can't just accept either side's 'story'.
Click to expand...
We'd have to see how play was restarted to confirm. Throw in or idfk.
 
JamesL said:
We'd have to see how play was restarted to confirm. Throw in or idfk.
Click to expand...
It was an idfk. He blows the whistle before the ball goes out and uses spray to mark the fk in the defending box which Im still yet to understand.
 
Degnann said:
It was an idfk. He blows the whistle before the ball goes out and uses spray to mark the fk in the defending box which Im still yet to understand.
Click to expand...
Not sure why he uses the spray but corroborates his reason for cautioning.
Perhaps a slow it down technique after what had just taken place..
 
Degnann said:
It was an idfk. He blows the whistle before the ball goes out and uses spray to mark the fk in the defending box which Im still yet to understand.
Click to expand...

Was there a delay between the simulation and the whistle (in which time Judge could said those words)? The restart for dissent is also IFK. OP showed him walking towards the box which prob means he is walking to the location of the dive and not the decent but you can't tell much from the op video.
 
JamesL said:
Not sure why he uses the spray but corroborates his reason for cautioning.
Perhaps a slow it down technique after what had just taken place..
Click to expand...
I personally think he uses the spray as hes a bit flustered with what’s happened.
one said:
Was there a delay between the simulation and the whistle (in which time Judge could said those words)? The restart for dissent is also IFK. OP showed him walking towards the box which prob means he is walking to the location of the dive and not the decent but you can't tell much from the op video.
Click to expand...
There was and he potentially gives the foul for the dissent rather than the simulation. Judge clearly upset with not getting the penalty could have said something in the box so dissent may have happened there.
RefIADad said:
If Judge is as innocent as he claims, why didn’t he just talk to the FA?
Click to expand...
Using general law as an example here but its up to someone to prove you are guilty rather than proving you are innocent.
 
Degnann said:
Using general law as an example here but its up to someone to prove you are guilty rather than proving you are innocent.
Click to expand...
But if I have the conclusive proof that I'm innocent, why wouldn't I provide it?

Bottom line is that Judge clearly looks like he has something to hide.
 
RefIADad said:
But if I have the conclusive proof that I'm innocent, why wouldn't I provide it?

Bottom line is that Judge clearly looks like he has something to hide.
Click to expand...
Could be a club decision. Ipswich have stated the audio they have won’t be released unless the FA ask for it.

judge has also stated from day 1 he didn’t want the referee banned as and I paraphrase here something like it happened on the pitch it stays on the pitch.
 
Degnann said:
Could be a club decision. Ipswich have stated the audio they have won’t be released unless the FA ask for it.

judge has also stated from day 1 he didn’t want the referee banned as and I paraphrase here something like it happened on the pitch it stays on the pitch.
Click to expand...

And that how I felt it should of been done by the FA/authorities instead of getting involved in what let's face it, a minor altercation. If DD headbutted or attempt to headbutt, then totally different situation but it was nothing apart from a bit of a shock as you don't usually see a referee lose control of his emotions. And the only person who lost out here is Drysdale, Judge got away with whatever he said and the fact he may of dived.
 
RefIADad said:
If Judge is as innocent as he claims, why didn’t he just talk to the FA?
Click to expand...

RefIADad said:
Bottom line is that Judge clearly looks like he has something to hide.
Click to expand...
We went through this before. Yes the likelyhood is that JA siad what DD reported. But there is also a chance that he didn't. Believe it or not some players do believe what happens on the field stays on the field. He may think that he doesn't want to make this any worse for DD. He doesn't want to be a snitch, rat, a dubber or whatever name they put on it. There are some unwritten codes some follow.

I am not defending him. I am just not dismissing the chance that he may be right.

And from a judicial viewpoint, I don't think a decision should be made based on 'generally', 'looks like' etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top