Jump to content

Jack Ross...Notice of Compliance


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Yeah I agree with your first sentence but this second sentence is a problem football needs to sort out ASAP.
Personally, I am sick of hearing "feelings running high" as an excuse for appalling behaviour. Football is one of thousands of sports worldwide. It has no monopoly on passion or "feelings running high" and yet almost every other sport manages to be operated on an almost exclusively respectful manner. The problem here isn't "passion". The problem is people within football thinking there are pretty much no consequences to their behaviour. That seems to be true whether the bad behaviour is on the pitch, in the dugout or in the stands.

IMO of course.

No argument from me. I was just stating a fact not advocating that this excused the behaviour. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


9 hours ago, Warwick Hunt said:

As I understand it, its at the ref's discretion whether the player stays on the park or not.

The ref possibly thought Saints were time wasting and IMO, we were!

The ref was correct and Jack Ross was wrong.

What is the fuss?

The referee supervisor spoke to the managers and apparently did not say that it was at the referees discretion. 

Jack apparantly reacted according to what he had been told by the referees supervisor.

You think that inappropriate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

The referee supervisor spoke to the managers and apparently did not say that it was at the referees discretion. 

Jack apparantly reacted according to what he had been told by the referees supervisor.

You think that inappropriate?

Maybe Jack Ross heard wrong? Maybe he wasn't listening properly?

Regardless, Jack Ross' reaction was completely over the top. I was in the main stand and Stelios was play acting.

Stelios came back on within seconds. It made no difference whatsoever. It certainly wasn't an issue worth abusing the ref and getting sent off for.

And even if Jack Ross' version of the ref' supervisor's meeting is correct, how was Craig Thomson supposed to know?

Craig Thomson called it correctly IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Warwick Hunt said:
Maybe Jack Ross heard wrong? Maybe he wasn't listening properly?
Regardless, Jack Ross' reaction was completely over the top. I was in the main stand and Stelios was play acting.
Stelios came back on within seconds. It made no difference whatsoever. It certainly wasn't an issue worth abusing the ref and getting sent off for.
And even if Jack Ross' version of the ref' supervisor's meeting is correct, how was Craig Thomson supposed to know?
Craig Thomson called it correctly IMO.
 

 


Jack isn't arguing that point and neither am I.

I was only giving the other side of the story for the sake of balance.

The punishment won't be appealed. That says all we need to know.

 

Edited by BuddieinEK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎27‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 3:06 AM, BuddieinEK said:

The referee supervisor spoke to the managers and apparently did not say that it was at the referees discretion. 

Jack apparantly reacted according to what he had been told by the referees supervisor.

You think that inappropriate?

An awful lack of facts here so impossible for anyone to agree if it's appropriate or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...