Warnock feeling 'betrayed' as he accepts misconduct charge

[Cardiff City Mad]

The boss was sent to the stands 12 mins from the end of City's 2 - 2 draw at Reading on Monday

More...

Cardiff boss Neil Warnock said today that he feels "betrayed" but has no choice but to plead guilty to a Football Association charge of misconduct which will see him fined £2,000.

The 69-year-old said he had spoken with his governing body, the League Managers' Association (LMA), about the charge which he felt was a "travesty" but came out of that chat knowing he would not be able to fight the charge.

"I feel betrayed because I’ve said things during the game to the fourth Andy Woolmer, who I’ve known for many years. He must have written these things down which I find very unusual.

"I was disappointed that we had a referee who was the 4th official in our last game. I think that’s totally out of order in the modern day and not to our advantage. Andy’s written things down and it’s those comments I’ve made to him personally that has been used against me.

"The LMA have said I have no choice but to plead guilty and get fined £2,000. I feel really let down.”

Speaking straight after the game on Monday Warnock had said 

"It's disappointing really and I've been in to see the officials... I can't understand it. Usually I deserve to get sent-off, but not tonight.

"I don't know whether Woolmer was panicking a bit because he's very experienced.

"I called him over and I suppose the referee is going to enjoy that, isn't he? It's his big night.

"I'm 69, I've been in the game 37 years and I've never been sent off for anything as trivial as that."

[Michael Morris]

Found this from a Reading point of view

http://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/sp...e-ban-14036944

Monday night at Madejski Stadium proved so predictable.

Not for Reading FC’s lowest league crowd of the season of 11,307.

It was, after all, a freezing evening and you could alternatively watch the game live on television in the warmth of your living room or local pub.

And not for Royals’ late capitulation from 2-0 up against Cardiff City to 2-2 at the end.

Jaap Stam’s side have not coped comfortably when in front for much of the campaign and again sat too deep, too early to protect their advantage.

No, the most predictable event on Monday was the manic behaviour of Cardiff manager Neil Warnock and his subsequent dismissal in the 77th minute.

Of course, the much-mocked “Colin W” was not to blame for his early exit – as he was keen to tell the media in his post-match briefing.

Colin had simply asked Andy Woolmer, the fourth official, why Cardiff wing back Callum Paterson had been unfairly penalised for “arching his back” in a challenge with Royals defender Liam Moore.

In a quiet and polite manner, naturally.

That Warnock labelled that particular incident as “trivial” was perhaps not far short of the mark.

But he conveniently forgot to mention his increasingly agitated state in the Cardiff technical area during the second half and that, 19 minutes before he got the chop, he had been warned by referee Steve Martin to calm down.

Warnock, 69, persistently ignored both Woolmer and Martin, eventually paying the price for such puerile antics that would not have been out of place in a kindergarten.

Cardiff actually seemed to improve without the rantings of their manager from the sideline and went on to score twice to snatch a late draw.

That scenario is likely to be repeated in the not too distant future, with the FA having since charged Warnock with misconduct.

A touchline ban is certain … and thoroughly merited.

[jon1959]

Found this from a Reading point of view

http://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/sp...e-ban-14036944

Monday night at Madejski Stadium proved so predictable.

Not for Reading FC’s lowest league crowd of the season of 11,307.

It was, after all, a freezing evening and you could alternatively watch the game live on television in the warmth of your living room or local pub.

And not for Royals’ late capitulation from 2-0 up against Cardiff City to 2-2 at the end.

Jaap Stam’s side have not coped comfortably when in front for much of the campaign and again sat too deep, too early to protect their advantage.

No, the most predictable event on Monday was the manic behaviour of Cardiff manager Neil Warnock and his subsequent dismissal in the 77th minute.

Of course, the much-mocked “Colin W” was not to blame for his early exit – as he was keen to tell the media in his post-match briefing.

Colin had simply asked Andy Woolmer, the fourth official, why Cardiff wing back Callum Paterson had been unfairly penalised for “arching his back” in a challenge with Royals defender Liam Moore.

In a quiet and polite manner, naturally.

That Warnock labelled that particular incident as “trivial” was perhaps not far short of the mark.

But he conveniently forgot to mention his increasingly agitated state in the Cardiff technical area during the second half and that, 19 minutes before he got the chop, he had been warned by referee Steve Martin to calm down.

Warnock, 69, persistently ignored both Woolmer and Martin, eventually paying the price for such puerile antics that would not have been out of place in a kindergarten.

Cardiff actually seemed to improve without the rantings of their manager from the sideline and went on to score twice to snatch a late draw.

That scenario is likely to be repeated in the not too distant future, with the FA having since charged Warnock with misconduct.

A touchline ban is certain … and thoroughly merited.

I posted a link to that yesterday in the 'Misconduct' thread. It is one of the limpest pieces of partisan crap I have read for a long while - and that includes way too much from the Nottingham Post!

[elytillidie]

The boss was sent to the stands 12 mins from the end of City's 2 - 2 draw at Reading on Monday

More...

Cardiff boss Neil Warnock said today that he feels "betrayed" but has no choice but to plead guilty to a Football Association charge of misconduct which will see him fined £2,000.

The 69-year-old said he had spoken with his governing body, the League Managers' Association (LMA), about the charge which he felt was a "travesty" but came out of that chat knowing he would not be able to fight the charge.

"I feel betrayed because I’ve said things during the game to the fourth Andy Woolmer, who I’ve known for many years. He must have written these things down which I find very unusual.

"I was disappointed that we had a referee who was the 4th official in our last game. I think that’s totally out of order in the modern day and not to our advantage. Andy’s written things down and it’s those comments I’ve made to him personally that has been used against me.

"The LMA have said I have no choice but to plead guilty and get fined £2,000. I feel really let down.”

Speaking straight after the game on Monday Warnock had said*

"It's disappointing really and I've been in to see the officials... I can't understand it. Usually I deserve to get sent-off, but not tonight.

"I don't know whether Woolmer was panicking a bit because he's very experienced.

"I called him over and I suppose the referee is going to enjoy that, isn't he? It's his big night.

"I'm 69, I've been in the game 37 years and I've never been sent off for anything as trivial as that."

Warnock's not feeling too grand about it.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I like Warnock a lot but it's a poor defence for him to say that his comments were recorded.

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

I like Warnock a lot but it's a poor defence for him to say that his comments were recorded.

Precisely.

Does it make what he said less "criminal" if it wasn't written down?

Warnock had been warned a few minutes earlier, and it was obvious he would be sent off the next time he "spoke out of turn". And that happened after a crazy referee decision.

I don't know what Warnock said before getting sent off. His team were 2-1 down at the time, and the referee gave a free-kick against one of his players in ludicrous circumstances.

I would like to think that, although the referee's decision is always final, that a manager would have recourse (through the 4th official) to debate or query a decision. I imagine a manager may talk to the 4th official at various times in a game. Some will talk more than others, and I think we can put Warnock in that category. However, the 4th official can't really do much can he? If he calls the referee across, and the ref changes his decision, then the ref's judgment is up for question, as is his ability to control a game. And, maybe it is this "lack of action" from fourth officials that generally festers during a game (especially a game where you are fighting back from 0-2) and leads to stronger rants from the more vociferous of managers?

The issue the game has is that the referees are the scapegoats for teams losing titles, teams losing games, teams losing cups, teams losing players, teams losing managers for part of games, or for weeks of games.

When are the "professionals" going to start taking some blame? When you have players diving left right and centre at EVERY team - and a ref misses, or fails to give a penalty, then is it only the referee to blame? Especially when he has just waved away a number of penalty appeals because of diving, cheating players?

When are managers going to come out at the end of a defeat and blame their centre-half for poor marking, or the centre-forward for poor finishing, rather than pick up on one decision a referee has made in a game?

When are managers going to clamp down on their players and coaching staff trying to influence referees during games?

Going back to the Warnock sending-off. The referee made a very poor call, in a sequence of poor calls. However, I was watching the game as a "neutral", and he was poor for both teams. But, because Cardiff were in the ascendancy, then they were the ones getting the brunt of his awfulness. If the game wasn't blighted by cheats, ranting managers, ranting players, ranting coaches - then maybe it would be easier for someone like Warnock to question and query a decision like the one that was made. In such a grown-up environment, the referee could have a quiet chat with both managers (and maybe captains) and even admit "shit, you are right, I've got it wrong. I'm really sorry, but the angle I was at it looked like a foul by your boy - we'll have a drop ball and get the ball kicked back to your 'keeper"

The problem is, all referees are human, and humans are prone to make mistakes (unless they can review the incident in ultra slow-mo from six angles like the very clever pundits in the studio). But, it's this human element that makes football the great sport that it is. Look, it is a talking point. It happens to another club, and you will find it amusing. That's football.

I am not looking forward to the time when video refereeing becomes the norm - if you sanitise the game from errors, then you lose a lot of the debating, talking and points of controversy. You may as well watch Rugby League, Rugby Union or any of the other slower sports - because football will become just as silly. Who will managers talk about at the end of games in the sanitised world of football? Would they have to start blaming their own players publicly? Or, even blaming themselves? How will the sack race look then?

[BLUETIT]

Precisely.

Does it make what he said less "criminal" if it wasn't written down?

Warnock had been warned a few minutes earlier, and it was obvious he would be sent off the next time he "spoke out of turn". And that happened after a crazy referee decision.

I don't know what Warnock said before getting sent off. His team were 2-1 down at the time, and the referee gave a free-kick against one of his players in ludicrous circumstances.

I would like to think that, although the referee's decision is always final, that a manager would have recourse (through the 4th official) to debate or query a decision. I imagine a manager may talk to the 4th official at various times in a game. Some will talk more than others, and I think we can put Warnock in that category. However, the 4th official can't really do much can he? If he calls the referee across, and the ref changes his decision, then the ref's judgment is up for question, as is his ability to control a game. And, maybe it is this "lack of action" from fourth officials that generally festers during a game (especially a game where you are fighting back from 0-2) and leads to stronger rants from the more vociferous of managers?

The issue the game has is that the referees are the scapegoats for teams losing titles, teams losing games, teams losing cups, teams losing players, teams losing managers for part of games, or for weeks of games.

When are the "professionals" going to start taking some blame? When you have players diving left right and centre at EVERY team - and a ref misses, or fails to give a penalty, then is it only the referee to blame? Especially when he has just waved away a number of penalty appeals because of diving, cheating players?

When are managers going to come out at the end of a defeat and blame their centre-half for poor marking, or the centre-forward for poor finishing, rather than pick up on one decision a referee has made in a game?

When are managers going to clamp down on their players and coaching staff trying to influence referees during games?

Going back to the Warnock sending-off. The referee made a very poor call, in a sequence of poor calls. However, I was watching the game as a "neutral", and he was poor for both teams. But, because Cardiff were in the ascendancy, then they were the ones getting the brunt of his awfulness. If the game wasn't blighted by cheats, ranting managers, ranting players, ranting coaches - then maybe it would be easier for someone like Warnock to question and query a decision like the one that was made. In such a grown-up environment, the referee could have a quiet chat with both managers (and maybe captains) and even admit "shit, you are right, I've got it wrong. I'm really sorry, but the angle I was at it looked like a foul by your boy - we'll have a drop ball and get the ball kicked back to your 'keeper"

The problem is, all referees are human, and humans are prone to make mistakes (unless they can review the incident in ultra slow-mo from six angles like the very clever pundits in the studio). But, it's this human element that makes football the great sport that it is. Look, it is a talking point. It happens to another club, and you will find it amusing. That's football.

I am not looking forward to the time when video refereeing becomes the norm - if you sanitise the game from errors, then you lose a lot of the debating, talking and points of controversy. You may as well watch Rugby League, Rugby Union or any of the other slower sports - because football will become just as silly. Who will managers talk about at the end of games in the sanitised world of football? Would they have to start blaming their own players publicly? Or, even blaming themselves? How will the sack race look then?

Were we not 2-0 down when "OUR NEIL" got sent off.

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

Were we not 2-0 down when "OUR NEIL" got sent off.

2-0, 2-1 doesn't alter any of the points I made.

[BLUETIT]

2-0, 2-1 doesn't alter any of the points I made.

I've read it twice now and you don't really make any points apart from "don't question the refs decisions".

What "OUR NEIL", is saying is "It was not just the questioning of their defender jumping all over Paterson (twice), BUT, the fact that the 4th official (who he thought of as a friend), had noted everything he had said from the KO.

What "OUR NEIL" is saying is, he thought he was having a chat, not being noted"

It's like you or me, telling a mate a secret and asking him not to tell anyone, only for him to walk across the bar and tell everyone.

That's the point "OUR NEIL" is making.

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

I've read it twice now and you don't really make any points apart from "don't question the refs decisions".

What "OUR NEIL", is saying is "It was not just the questioning of their defender jumping all over Paterson (twice), BUT, the fact that the 4th official (who he thought of as a friend), had noted everything he had said from the KO.

What "OUR NEIL" is saying is, he thought he was having a chat, not being noted"

It's like you or me, telling a mate a secret and asking him not to tell anyone, only for him to walk across the bar and tell everyone.

That's the point "OUR NEIL" is making.

Well, it's plainly not just a "chat" then is it? Warnock must have been using language that implicated him. Your Neil seems to be crying foul because what he said can, and was, taken in evidence. If he thinks a ref is a mate, then he is showing incredible naivety for a 69 year old.

I suspect that we are not hearing the full truth from your Neil. Like I said, the decision was a poor one from the ref. But, in an era where refs are open to more scrutiny than managers earning millions, and players earning millions, by pundits earning millions - the FA have made it impossible to talk to referees during games because, quite frankly, the referees do need extra protection. That isn't Warnock's problem, per se, although he is one of many contibuting factors. His other defense appears to be that he is a qualified referee. That's all well and good, but he comes from a position of bias when he complains about referees after defeats.

The point I am making is that professionals moan about referees, and they moan about the fact that they can't speak to referees during games, or for a certain period after games. The reason for that is the poor behaviour of players and managers - especially those in the top division. I am not saying a referee shouldn't be questioned, I am saying that the reason that referees are not being questioned is because of the malaise in the game caused by cheating players, and by people like Alex Ferguson, Arsene Wenger, and Jose Mourinho.

[uncle bob]

On the plus side. His Mrs and kids have got a nice Brucey Bonus coming in the form of £2000

[elytillidie]

Lazio fans know how to deal with officials that dish out red cards to their team...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42342987
...they give his cafe negative reviews on Trip Advisor.