A&H

Ipswich v Northampton

The Referee Store
the fact that they didn't ask Judge to attend or even give evidence and that they effectively immediately suspended Drysdale after the incident,

Happened to me once, and it didn't go down well! :D

Anyway, I have to say, why no red card for the OFFINABUS? Would have ended the entire fiasco right there. I think this incident would be held up by certain users who used to be on this forum as an example of failing to use the tools we have to deal with dissent/OFFINABUS.

Hopefully he's back in the game and moved on from the incident.
 
Wow - what Judge said (and I'm sorry, the quotation was far too specific for it to not be true) should have been an immediate red card and lengthy suspension.

I'd like to hope that bringing the specific quotes into the light of day will finally shine a very bright light on abusive language toward referees like this, but we all know that won't happen. All that would need to happen is a few red cards and suspensions whenever a referee is told to "f*** off" or is called anything close to what Judge said, and we will start to see this type of behavior decrease. However, it just won't happen.
 
Read both articles and the report. TBH I still can't decide if either of them is entirely truthful. They both have reasons to fabricate. As much as I would like to support a colleague on this I am not going take either side and not just accept what's in the report without evidence when there is a clear conflict of interest for the report writer.
 
Read both articles and the report. TBH I still can't decide if either of them is entirely truthful. They both have reasons to fabricate. As much as I would like to support a colleague on this I am not going take either side and not just accept what's in the report without evidence when there is a clear conflict of interest for the report writer.
Completely agree and to be honest I don't think it reflects well on Drysdale either way. If that is what Judge said he should have been dismissed (suggesting that the referee has failed to punish a clear red card offence) and if it isn't then he's lied to the FA.
 
Read both articles and the report. TBH I still can't decide if either of them is entirely truthful. They both have reasons to fabricate. As much as I would like to support a colleague on this I am not going take either side and not just accept what's in the report without evidence when there is a clear conflict of interest for the report writer.
I think, reading the article, the commission has done as such. They have worked with the facts they know to be true.
There was abuse from the player, dissent of offensive, is no matter he ran aggressively at the referee pointing at him.
The referee did respond inappropriately for a person in his position.
If what the referee said was true, did not apply the laws of the game.
Unfortunately only Darren, the player, and other players in the immediate vicinity know the full truth of what was said. But I don't think what was said is really the issue here, except Darren's mitigation, it was the response that was up for debate
 
Not sure if anyone has seen this, but the FA have published the reason behind Darren Drysdale being suspended following his altercation with Alan Judge. I can't copy into here as I'd have to ban myself, but read bullet point 12 in terms of what Drysdale alleges Judge said to him to provoke the reaction, it really is shocking. This just backs up my long held view that referees are conditioned not to send off for OFFINABUS at top levels, but this public revelation really should constitute time for change. In no other job would you be expected to accept being abused like this, and it was only a matter of time before a referee "flipped".


It is also interesting that the report appears to be critical of the FA, the fact that they didn't ask Judge to attend or even give evidence and that they effectively immediately suspended Drysdale after the incident, meaning he won't serve a suspension as they have backdated it to the date of the game.
I'd consider what Judge is alleged to have said, 'as within my scope of expectation'. That's the game. Maybe the Governing Bodies should address this rather than farting about with VAR and constant Law tweaks. Just keep the players on the FOP, is seemingly the only mandate
Regardless of what was actually said, the player will remain relatively unpunished, but it will likely cost Drysdale any realistic potential to progress further with his career
 
Last edited:
I think, reading the article, the commission has done as such. They have worked with the facts they know to be true.
There was abuse from the player, dissent of offensive, is no matter he ran aggressively at the referee pointing at him.
The referee did respond inappropriately for a person in his position.
If what the referee said was true, did not apply the laws of the game.
Unfortunately only Darren, the player, and other players in the immediate vicinity know the full truth of what was said. But I don't think what was said is really the issue here, except Darren's mitigation, it was the response that was up for debate
From what I read, they made the assumption that DD's version of events were true because they could not directly get AJ to provide a statement or appear in person.
 
Read both articles and the report. TBH I still can't decide if either of them is entirely truthful. They both have reasons to fabricate. As much as I would like to support a colleague on this I am not going take either side and not just accept what's in the report without evidence when there is a clear conflict of interest for the report writer.
If Judge was so adamant about wanting to clear his name, he would have appeared or provided a statement to the FA.

Generally when people “take the Fifth” as we say in the US, it’s because they would be implicating themselves for future punishment.
 
If Judge was so adamant about wanting to clear his name, he would have appeared or provided a statement to the FA.

Generally when people “take the Fifth” as we say in the US, it’s because they would be implicating themselves for future punishment.
Same here in the UK. Judge is essentially giving a "no comment" which in the legal world draws adverse inferences (i.e. an admission of guilt).
 
If Judge was so adamant about wanting to clear his name, he would have appeared or provided a statement to the FA.

Generally when people “take the Fifth” as we say in the US, it’s because they would be implicating themselves for future punishment.
'generally' is not the basis I would want to base a suspension on.
 
Last edited:
Same here in the UK. Judge is essentially giving a "no comment" which in the legal world draws adverse inferences (i.e. an admission of guilt).
Judge did it, and he knows he did it. All he's trying to do now is sway public opinion. If the tape is there to exonerate him, produce it.

The fact that the tape is not already out there means one thing - it doesn't exist.
 
Judge did it, and he knows he did it. All he's trying to do now is sway public opinion. If the tape is there to exonerate him, produce it.

The fact that the tape is not already out there means one thing - it doesn't exist.
I'd rather the chapter was just closed between these two but the powers that be take note of the opening statement and start to take action in the game.

Producing the tape achieves nothing at all.. It could be doctored to edit out the bits he says he didn't say and the bits he says he said (I am not suggesting that would happen just that it could)

The upshot. Of this is that the referee should have dismissed judge and he would have had to appeal and use that tape as evidence or accept it.

We really need to get a handle on abuse within the game. We have powers to deal with it. @santa sangria has it right.
 
I'd rather the chapter was just closed between these two but the powers that be take note of the opening statement and start to take action in the game.

Producing the tape achieves nothing at all.. It could be doctored to edit out the bits he says he didn't say and the bits he says he said (I am not suggesting that would happen just that it could)

The upshot. Of this is that the referee should have dismissed judge and he would have had to appeal and use that tape as evidence or accept it.

We really need to get a handle on abuse within the game. We have powers to deal with it. @santa sangria has it right.

If anything good comes out of this, maybe - just maybe - the FA and other major governing bodies will finally recognize this type of behavior is accepted at the top professional levels and that they need to get a handle on it. The best thing that could happen for referees like many of us farther down the food chain will be to have Premier League/La Liga/EFL/etc. referees consistently booking dissent and sending off for OFFINABUS. If that would ever happen, then the players in our matches won't be able to say, "Why are you sanctioning me for this? The pros get away with it!"
 
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
 
Disgusting how Judge has essentially got away with what he said. You have to assume that refs at the professional level of the game are essentially instructed to turn a blind eye to the laws of the game and not dismiss players for foul and abusive language. It's easy to see how this sort of behaviour then becomes commonplace in the grassroots game when it's allowed to happen at the very top. Disgraceful.
 
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
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?
 
Back
Top