Warnock feeling 'betrayed' as he accepts misconduct charge

[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.