Secret Squirrel has noticed certain changes within the FA(Football Association),of Britain, with respect to rules, and regulations, laws as it were, self made governance laws,with respect to the game of football(soccer to you Americans), with respect to, specifically, the referees, and what may and may not be said to them, and when, and specifically even yet attempting to see to it that they are not referred to at all, in mostly any way shape nor form, with a rather strange and draconian set of rules. Most recently on football manager fell afoul,evidently, of said set of regulations,specifically, he,misfortunately, even
yet, unbelievably,complimented a referee in a discussion with press before a game,with respect to the coming game, which said referee was to regulate.Indeed also yet, so too did his opposite counterpart manager also make statements concerning the game and the referee,but he as yet, escaped scrutiny and review by the FA.Strange it all is, indeed, in comparison with the Americas, and indeed also, yet Europe, tho America is more voiciferous with respect to comments on and about the referees in the various
sports employing those. We'll consider that as well, but presently on to the FA and the questionable regulations it has, and is attempting to, initiate and enforce.So what has occurred........well........The Guardian expounds on the situation as it is developing,evolving.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/aug/04/fa-ban-managers-referee-comments
Here their epistle commences.......
Managers have been warned they are no longer allowed to comment on referee appointments before a match as part of a new batch of rule changes announced by the Football Association. Other changes include the punishment of clubs should three or more of their players surround a referee, as well as the fast-tracking of managerial misconduct charges.
The FA is seeking to prevent the influencing or undermining of referees prior to matches and the new regulations unambiguously prohibit managers, players or anyone involved with a club from saying anything – positive, negative or otherwise – about an appointed referee.
"Clubs are being advised that any media comments by managers, players or any other club officials relating to appointed match officials prior to a fixture will no longer be allowed," read an FA statement. "Such pre-match comments will be deemed improper and dealt with accordingly.
"Post-match comments in relation to match officials and incidents are still permitted provided they are not personal in their nature, imply bias or attack the integrity of the officials in charge of the match, or in any other respect bring the game into disrepute."
Here ends their epistle........
Here specifically we have the situation at hand, the game between Manchester United and Chelsea, with comments made by both Sir Alex Ferguson and his counter part for Chelsea,Carlo Ancellotti,and the results as they seem to be developing towards.It has noticed that Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson is in hot water with the Football Association yet again, but this time for 'flattering' comments about a referee, Howard Webb!
FA rules state that no manager should speak about a referee prior to a match. But two days before his side's 2-1 Premier League win over Chelsea on 8 May, a wily Ferguson spoke about Webb at a news conference.....here in the Daily Express is revealed...
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/246602/Sir-Alex-Ferguson-to-fight-referee-compliments-charge
Ferguson was left angered and dumbfounded after becoming the first manager to have been charged under new regulations that forbid managers to pass comment on referees before games – even if their remarks are complimentary......He praised Howard Webb “as the best man for the job” ahead of United’s title decider with Chelsea last Sunday and also said a controversial refereeing decision “is our big fear” adding “we just hope it is our turn for a bit of luck”.....The FA have interpreted those comments as ramping up the pressure on Webb in contravention of a rule brought in two years ago. They are also understood to be scrutinizing
comments made about Webb by Chelsea boss Carlo Ancelotti on the same day.
It goes on in other papers.......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/8512645/Manchester-United-manager-Sir-Alex-Ferguson-supported-
Carlo-Ancelotti-and-Arsene-Wenger-following-FA-charge.html
"I think he spoke positively about Howard Webb," said Ancelotti. "I don't think he tried to put pressure on the referee before the game ... I am surprised about this."Even Ferguson's long-time rival Wenger was bemused by the FA decision.
Here ends their comment.
But there was record made,of course, of exactly what was said........
He told the Daily Mirror: "It is not a lack of respect for me to have an opinion. Because he said Webb was a good referee and didn't use wording that could be interpreted as something else.What did Ancelotti say, I'm assuming on two sentences he wrote
“I don’t want to put pressure on the referee. I think Howard Webb is a fantastic referee because he has experience.
“If the referee he has no experience we can perhaps be a bit worried about this but with Howard Webb there is no problem.
“I have trust in the referees in England. Maybe they make a mistake but that is the same as anywhere in the world – this is normal.
"Either you accept the decision of the referee or you have to say that there is a conspiracy.”Ancelotti before game "If the referee has no experience, maybe I can be a little bit worried about this, but with Webb there is no problem."
If the rules say that talking about the referee is improper conduct, then the FA cannot be punishing only because the rules have been broken, if they were then Ancelotti would have been punished also - there must be some other reason outside of the rulebook that they allow Ancelotti to speak about referees, but no Ferguson. This doesn't surprise me, it's not the first time the FA have done that this season.
Fergie: "We must trust the referee will make the right decision"That could be interpreted as many things
Whereas the closest to that in what Ancelotti said"I have trust in the referees in England"In which he redeemed himself with"Maybe they make a mistake but that is the same as anywhere in the world – this is normal."
Unfair? Yes but that could have been because Ancelotti was genuinely unaware of the new rule, In Italy they talk much more freely than here.. Fergie probably was also unaware but it's easier to blame Fergie because of how controversial he's been before.Ferguson's side beat Chelsea 2-1 last Sunday to move within a point of securing a record 19th title with two games to spare.But two days before the game - which would have seen Chelsea top the table had they won - Ferguson spoke about Webb at a news conference.
"We are getting the best referee, there is no doubt about that," he said at the time.
"But [getting a bad decision] is definitely our big fear.
"We have the players to do it all right. We just hope it's our turn for a little bit of luck."
Really now!
In short, we cannot talk to nor about them, even yet in glowing terms.
what is at stake here,in any and all cases,quite simply,is free speech.When we allow institutions to undemocratically bring in draconian rules that have only one aim,in this case to curb free speech.Why not quiz the ref on what's been said in the past, pick the best, make a list ,give it a number, and then make paddles with those numbers on, let the managers select the suitable paddle, and hold it up in just the same fashion that the refs hold up yellow and red cards.'At'd be grand, the crowd could be provided with suitable lists so they could peruse what was being conveyed?That would quieten things and make things much more then socially acceptable, but we would have to fine players on the sidelines if they were making improper use of the card they'd not a right to hold up..............and certainly no American salutes either, only right proper British ones acceptable.
With respect to the FA it is not proper to have any opinion, nor give any opinion of, any referee....something that is most ridiculous in the extreme, which is what it's regulation is,extreme,draconian, indeed worthy only of say a ruling during the time of the Nazism of one certain Adolf Hitler and his lackies. Clearly it is all a violation of the human right of the freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations.Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or
ideas.The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Manchester City boss Mark Hughes has insisted managers have the right to question referees decisions.
According to Gordon Strachan,who himself,at a time a football manager, wrote,
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2004/oct/29/sport.comment)
"I understand why the FA doesn't want managers ranting and raving about referees. You don't want people using yobbish language, saying a referee is a cheat, clown or disgrace. But there should be greater freedom of speech.There are a lot of good referees but some have off days, like any player or manager, and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to say: "The referee had a bad game, the worst I've been involved in this year. He did this and that." As things stand I think I could be fined and it's not right.
I've gone in after defeats as a manager and told the press: "We played badly. I picked the wrong players, the wrong tactics, made the wrong substitutions. We weren't at our best." So why shouldn't I speak the truth about a referee as well?It seems to me that part of the problem is that it's not just what you say but where you say it. I think I could say certain words about a referee at Kidderminster. But I can't say them in the Premiership because it would generate a huge newspaper headline and the FA doesn't want that.I don't actually think the FA should look after these things at all. I'd like to see guidelines sorted out by the League
Managers Association, in consultation with the Professional Footballers' Association, which make it clear what you can and can't say about referees.....(Those comments deemed unfit, being investigated and internally legislated and ajudicated as necessary and in proportion.)......Then it should be down to the LMA to warn or fine us if we step out of line. I would be more concerned if my union said: "Get a grip, you're not doing yourself, your profession or the game any favours." I'd think they were right."
Angry managers must have the right to criticize referees.One must also consider now if there will be a slow incursive extension towards those of the press writing in criticisms of referees and missed or incorrect decisions made.There are no legal nor moral grounds for the removal of the right to free speech.In America press even yet has list published of their opinion of the best and worst umpires in their baseball.Umpires have attitude, for example one umpire,Joe West, isn't saying his critics are wrong, he's just saying that he is right.And so it goes.Baseball involves unpopular decisions, and so too does football(soccer), as we know it.In America,with respect to referees and umpires,everyone has the right to free speech, to criticize.You don't want to be a referee if you can't put up with the criticism.Criticism is part of anybody's game.However, in England things are strangely different, and have become so, transitioning, and getting yet worse,indeed the FA deem criticizing a referee worse than breaking a player's leg.
If the FA are wishing to be proactive in stamping out such incidents then what concrete steps they are taking to improve the standard of refereeing in this country.Of course this occurs in frequent games, to everyone at one time and another. Even the referee praised by Sir Alex Ferguson was open to criticism in having missed two penalties and a sending-off in the match concerned. All decisions which went against United.Thing is penalization for praising referee is an utter idiocy.The F A need taking apart and a new body put in place , they are just ridiculous , they make a mockery of the game , they should charge themselves with acting like schoolboys.Essentially, If the FA is right then no manager should ever make a comment about refs,but it IS preferred that if they do make comment, the more undesireable ones be investigated and legislated.But have the FA really nothing better to do than to include any and all comments including comments heaping praise on the referees? These guys ought to be investigated themselves for failing to protect the interests of English football and attempting to curb freedom of speech.
They are trying to make themselves appear relevant. They ought to be sacked for incompetence! What an embarrassment to the English game.As to curing that problem,which basically a rises out of certain missed calls,most definitely all leagues,and the FA and FIFA,etc etc etc et all, would benefit from a better quality of refereeing should the leagues employ a two referee system of adjudicating matches.Clearly the draconian ruling of the FA should be recanted,retracted,withdrawn,rightly and properly so, and comment should be allowed as it was.Everyone has right to opinion concerning the refereeing of any particular match. If there are problems with refereeing,as seems to be by the comments that the FA feels necessitated the ruling, there is a manner in which comments can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated with respect to refereeing and that is to have on the field not one, but two referee.Indeed, and have both be capable of initiating rulings on the field with respect to the match and teams in question in any particular match.Two heads will prove,as the proverb goes, that two heads are indeed better than one, and will prove to be better at regulating any particular match properly. This would resolve all problems, and peace would be restored to the football pitch,to the approval of all concerned.
No comments:
Post a Comment