Day Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 What's up with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 Makes me wonder if he's fed up with life at Chelsea and he's hoping to cheese Abramovitch off and walk away with a nice pay off.Could be nothing of the kind of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 What's up with him? He's just a small child.And he's not getting his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 He's just a small child.And he's not getting his way.This. Mourinho isn't acting any different to how he normally does. The only difference is that the results aren't going for him and the FA seem to be sick of his nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 He is acting like a spoilt brat but I do have a bit of sympathy for him.When did The FA and officials both become bodies that were beyond question?Neither take responsibility for their actions so why should managers?I am assuming Mourinho must have done something horrendous at half time to get sent off? Oh that's right we don't know because officials don't have to explain anything to anyone.And what was the £50000 fine about? Was he not saying what Ferguson used to on a weekly basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 25, 2015 Author Share Posted October 25, 2015 Refs are available for half an hour after the game for managers to get explanations on decisions, makes you wonder if they bother or not, can't change the outcome of a match and only frustrate you even more hearing I didn't see it when the ref was 2 yards away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 He is acting like a spoilt brat but I do have a bit of sympathy for him.When did The FA and officials both become bodies that were beyond question?Neither take responsibility for their actions so why should managers?I am assuming Mourinho must have done something horrendous at half time to get sent off? Oh that's right we don't know because officials don't have to explain anything to anyone.And what was the £50000 fine about? Was he not saying what Ferguson used to on a weekly basis?The referee's explanation for anything on the field is going to be along the lines of, 'In my opinion, it wasn't a foul / deliberate handball,' etc or, 'I didn't see it, neither did the assistant, therefore, I can't take any action.' The referee submits a report for every game, which would contain their reasoning for actions on and off the field. The FA takes action based on the report. I am not sure what explanation you want. At best, all you are going to get is, 'In my opinion...'I suppose you could try to make the report public with a freedom of information application. Or actively seek to make reports public as a matter of course. Asking a referee straight after the match isn't ever going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 The referee's explanation for anything on the field is going to be along the lines of, 'In my opinion, it wasn't a foul / deliberate handball,' etc or, 'I didn't see it, neither did the assistant, therefore, I can't take any action.' The referee submits a report for every game, which would contain their reasoning for actions on and off the field. The FA takes action based on the report. I am not sure what explanation you want. At best, all you are going to get is, 'In my opinion...'I suppose you could try to make the report public with a freedom of information application. Or actively seek to make reports public as a matter of course. Asking a referee straight after the match isn't ever going to work.Why not get them to review major incidents after matches? Make them face the media straight after, the way they make managers do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 I think it's a conspiracy devised by sinister powers within the FA and rival "top clubs which begin with A and are not Villa" to ruin Chelsky because they are envious of Jose.The plot has several sinister strands including:Making John Terry old and rubbish, not being given refs with an aversion to Po-210 in their sushi, forcing the players to not love Jose as much as Jose loves Jose, his medical staff betraying him by treating his players where they need to be time wasting....when you add it up, the evidence is there. It's probably CIA, maybe KGB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 In the circumstances it is reasonable for him not to show up for the media.the idea that it is compulsory is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Why not get them to review major incidents after matches? Make them face the media straight after, the way they make managers do?Because they will say exactly what I outlined above. Then, once shown 20 slow motion replays form 10 different angles, they will say, rightly, 'I didn't see it from any of those angles.The (frankly stupid) arrangement of asking managers inane and uninsightful questions straight after the match is part of the TV agreement between the Premier league and the broadcasters. Not the FA, who supply the referees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Because they will say exactly what I outlined above. Then, once shown 20 slow motion replays form 10 different angles, they will say, rightly, 'I didn't see it from any of those angles.The (frankly stupid) arrangement of asking managers inane and uninsightful questions straight after the match is part of the TV agreement between the Premier league and the broadcasters. Not the FA, who supply the referees.Fair comment but how many times have we heard referees come out and explain bad decisions. Just as an example Derby v Wolves last season, goal disallowed and no red card, does anyone know why still?On the second point the FA need to apply some common sense as opposed to just seeing it as a way of topping up their coffers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Fair comment but how many times have we heard referees come out and explain bad decisions. Just as an example Derby v Wolves last season, goal disallowed and no red card, does anyone know why still?On the second point the FA need to apply some common sense as opposed to just seeing it as a way of topping up their coffers.it's not a bad decision from the referee's view point. Your wording hints at the reason refs are not interviewed. It would be the modern equivalent of the stocks. The media aren't interested in the view of the ref - how often do they have an ex ref on match of the day? - they simply want to scapegoat. On your point about the Wolves game, the ref would say, 'I saw it as a foul but not a cautionable offence.' End of explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 it's not a bad decision from the referee's view point. Your wording hints at the reason refs are not interviewed. It would be the modern equivalent of the stocks. The media aren't interested in the view of the ref - how often do they have an ex ref on match of the day? - they simply want to scapegoat. On your point about the Wolves game, the ref would say, 'I saw it as a foul but not a cautionable offence.' End of explanation.In which case he should have been asked why did you pull it back for a free kick when Derby scored? And why was the denial of a goal scoring opportunity only a cautionable offence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 In which case he should have been asked why did you pull it back for a free kick when Derby scored? And why was the denial of a goal scoring opportunity only a cautionable offence?he'll say that he didn't think it was a goal scoring opportunity. Please stop pretending not to understand. Anyone who makes a judgement in anything does so on the available evidence. The evidence available to a ref is the evidence of his own eyes and those of the assistants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 he'll say that he didn't think it was a goal scoring opportunity. Please stop pretending not to understand. Anyone who makes a judgement in anything does so on the available evidence. The evidence available to a ref is the evidence of his own eyes and those of the assistants. When the ball ended up in the back of the net within 3 seconds? Bizarre!I do understand, people make mistakes. Would be nice to know that they admit to their mistakes rather than being left to guess if it is because they interpret rules differently to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovis aries Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 When José' got sent off he went into the West Ham directors box , my son in law ( also a Chelsea supporter) was in there with his mate. My son in law is the one in front of José'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 When José' got sent off he went into the West Ham directors box , my son in law ( also a Chelsea supporter) was in there with his mate. My son in law is the one in front of José'. Is his mate Ossie Ardiles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisse Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Jose is an a**hole who believes he is better than he is. Send him to Villa and see if he has anything to offer there without all that spending money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WharfedaleRam Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Jose is an a**hole who believes he is better than he is. Send him to Villa and see if he has anything to offer there without all that spending money. This. He's a spoil brat who's been used to having every sweetie in the shop and now, when things aren't going his way, he has a massive sulk. Mind you, you'd have a face on you like Jose if the media had their heads up your ar*e! He's no longer funny. if only Bournemouth could get a few goals today against Spurs, his dreary Chelski team would drop another place in the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.