Darlington FC V Warrington Town

[theoriginalfatcat]

What do they know that Warrington don't.

Health and Safety

If I was a Town fan I would be embarrassed.

[LoidLucan]

I've sent off a protest to the league, asking them to take action. Probably won't make much difference but I felt better for it. I did point out as well that if their manager was so worried about health and safety and risks to players he would have brought off their very clearly injured keeper instead of forcing him to carry on hobbling around. He was very much put at risk by Reid making him stay on the pitch because he had cocked up in not having a sub keeper.

[AIDO]

The majority of their small band of fans in the "tin shed" were shouting to their players to go off .... and get the game abandoned. They cheered the decision and got plenty of abuse for doing so. Rightly so. They were as bad as their manager. Disgraceful. It's obviously something that they have come to expect. If the boot was on the other foot with us in a similar situation away at their place, I would be bloody furious with what the manager did! Not even cynically would I want the game off after putting so much effort in to getting there. Their whole set up stinks but I fear nothing will be done about it .... Sadly!

[CrazyDarlo]

any update on the decision by the fa yet?

[quakerste]

By coincidence exactly the same scenario occurred at Blyth yesterday with the referee getting an injury with no fourth official present. Only difference being they managed to complete the game with a spectator from the crowd who was probably a home supporter.

Surely the league will take this into account when they look at this incident, as long as the volunteers yesterday had the correct credentials to run the line.

[CrazyDarlo]

If it's true that the game can continue with 2 officials then surely we would be handed the 3 points.

[Fibonacci0112358]

By coincidence exactly the same scenario occurred at Blyth yesterday with the referee getting an injury with no fourth official present. Only difference being they managed to complete the game with a spectator from the crowd who was probably a home supporter.

Surely the league will take this into account when they look at this incident, as long as the volunteers yesterday had the correct credentials to run the line.

You are incorrect. So not the same scenario. You have purely made an assumption without any evidence at all.

There was actually another referee at that match from The Northumberland FA.

[quakerste]

He may well have been however he was only at the game as a spectator.

[lo36789]

More often than not there is a qualified referee in the crowd. They will take over, very rarely will it just be a random supporter who isn't qualified.

The supporter will have been replacing the AR not the referee. The senior AR will have been going into the middle. They won't be the level needed to be appointed in the middle (otherwise they would have been in the middle from the start) but they are suitably qualified etc. to stand in in case of injury - that is part of their role profile! The person coming on doesn't have to be affiliated to the level expected. I did a game in the FA Trophy 2 years ago and a bloke who had been retired from refereeing for 15 years came on as the replacement official!

I do find it amazing how precious people are and how sanitized they think football needs to be. There seems to be a lot of Darlo fans in uproar about how amateurish it is not to have a 4th man. I don't think I even remember 4th officials being on the football league until about 99/00ish?

Football managed to get by without them for a long, long time.

[DarloDean]

Ignoring the frustration of the situation that has been crapped onto our lap, i am confident if we play with as much promise on tuesday, we can get the win.

We need however an official say on Thommo....but doubt it will happen in time.

[lo36789]

Thommo has tweeted that he misses Tuesday.

[DarloDean]

Thommo has tweeted that he misses Tuesday.

fuck.

[MikeinBlack2]

I really can't see the Evo-Stik League having all the information they need to make an informed decision by Tuesday's game against Spenny. Looks like the suspensions will stand for that match....however, on the plus side, we played quite well on Saturday and will be able to give Spenny a decent game.

[divas]

Isn't it usual protocol that if you launch an appeal then the scenario is you suspended players are eligible?

[loan_star]

If the result is allowed to stand then that means we have two players suspended for longer than they should have been. IMO they should be eligible pending the outcome of the inquiry into saturdays farce.

[al_quaker]

I agree loan_star.

[lo36789]

Nice to see our favourite "'I'm not anti-darlo, I am a darlo fan' Spen666 is mouthing off on his own forum again.

http://www.spennymoortownfc.co.uk/forum ... f=2&t=3750

Seems to miss the concept that the rules were the season needed to be finished by a certain date, and the rules state game must continue with 2 officials. We just wanted the rules to be obliged by - apparantely we are hypocrits for being annoyed by both scenarios.

[loan_star]

Nice to see our favourite "'I'm not anti-darlo, I am a darlo fan' Spen666 is mouthing off on his own forum again.

http://www.spennymoortownfc.co.uk/forum ... f=2&t=3750

Seems to miss the concept that the rules were the season needed to be finished by a certain date, and the rules state game must continue with 2 officials. We just wanted the rules to be obliged by - apparantely we are hypocrits for being annoyed by both scenarios.

Just ban him from here, he's a two faced twat.

[theoriginalfatcat]

Just ban him from here, he's a two faced twat.

He'll turn up now. That's all we need.

[princes town]

There again having 2 officials running a game is a completely silly idea.

Why?

A linesman can run up and down the pitch perfectly fine, adjudging offsides at either end. The ONLY thing he can't do is give throw ins on the opposite side of the pitch because he can only be on one side.

But then the stand in referee - who would be a linesman anyway and would know that role - could keep an eye on the other touchline.

Yes that may mean the quality of his refereeing suffers, but nothing is ever going to be perfect anyway.

Put it this way, they could get by.

I'm advised from a qualified referee that a lineman wouldn't do this but would only cover one half. That leaves the referee to judge offsides at one end which from my experience of pub football is nigh on impossible. My own view is that a league rule should be in place that anybody in the crowd who is qualified should be allowed to be a 3rd official irrespective of residence. Somebody is better than nobody. Take the decision away from the managers Impartiality is part of the referee's code of practise.

As for the punishment Warrington should be deducted 3 points . We should be given the game and Shaun Reid should be banned. Awful preparation for Tuesday and a massive cost if a replay has to be organised (yellow tickets). Personally, I'll rip the yellow ticket up but I won't attend the Warrington away game like I did last year.

[princes town]

Nice to see our favourite "'I'm not anti-darlo, I am a darlo fan' Spen666 is mouthing off on his own forum again.

http://www.spennymoortownfc.co.uk/forum ... f=2&t=3750

Seems to miss the concept that the rules were the season needed to be finished by a certain date, and the rules state game must continue with 2 officials. We just wanted the rules to be obliged by - apparantely we are hypocrits for being annoyed by both scenarios.

For a supposedly clever legal person seems to have a chronic lack of understanding of rules. The rule is the game must be played with 2 officials. Similarly, there is a rule that games must be played by a certain date. Rules promote sportmanship but don't necessarily guarantee it. In fact, vague perceptions of sportsmanship are irrelevant - it's about regulation. The process is in black and white.

[Darlofan97]

Still angry at what happened on Saturday.

Reid has caused himself and Warrington Town a lot more problems than what he would if he just simply got on with the game.

[theoriginalfatcat]

For a supposedly clever legal person seems to have a chronic lack of understanding of rules. The rule is the game must be played with 2 officials.

Let's look back at a previous post by Divas, where he has copied up said rule

15.3 (Page 531 of the Handbook)

In the event of any of the Match Officials appointed for a match not being in attendance at the match or becoming unable to complete the match it shall be completed under the control of the remaining Match Officials unless the competing Clubs are able to agree upon a substitute who is acceptable to the Match Referee;


The word seems to be "shall" which to me means the same as "must"

Our learned friend Spen

[D_F_C]

Nice to see our favourite "'I'm not anti-darlo, I am a darlo fan' Spen666 is mouthing off on his own forum again.

http://www.spennymoortownfc.co.uk/forum ... f=2&t=3750

Seems to miss the concept that the rules were the season needed to be finished by a certain date, and the rules state game must continue with 2 officials. We just wanted the rules to be obliged by - apparantely we are hypocrits for being annoyed by both scenarios.

I've never had a massive problem with Spen, but that post is a bit too-faced. Very different tone to what he posts on here.

[spen666]

For a supposedly clever legal person seems to have a chronic lack of understanding of rules. The rule is the game must be played with 2 officials.

Let's look back at a previous post by Divas, where he has copied up said rule

15.3 (Page 531 of the Handbook)

In the event of any of the Match Officials appointed for a match not being in attendance at the match or becoming unable to complete the match it shall be completed under the control of the remaining Match Officials unless the competing Clubs are able to agree upon a substitute who is acceptable to the Match Referee;


The word seems to be "shall" which to me means the same as "must"

Our learned friend Spen

It may be if I was saying Warrington were correct in their actions.

I do not know what the real reason Warrington gave was so cannot comment on that.

The bigger point for me is there are all these calls for sanctions against Warrington before it has been established they are guilty of anything. Indeed, at present they have not been charged (yet) let alone found to have breached any rule.



The Rule quoted above is one of many rules. all of which have to be considered. If for example team A were down to 8 players when one of their players kicked the referee causing him to be unable to continue refereeing and there is no 4 th official. The game could not continue with the remaining 2 officials as team A would be down to 7 men as the player who kicked the referee would be sent off. In those circumstances the rule quoted does not hold sway as the rule about the number of players would take effect. An extreme example maybe.

In such circumstances, team A have a defence to a charge under the rule quoted.


In all cases, natural justice requires a team to be given an opportunity to explain or defend their actions before a decision is made as to whether they are guilty of an offence. Too many people are jumping to the punishment phase before the NPL have decided if Warrington are indeed guilty.

I do not know the reason why Warrington refused to play on. As I have asked elsewhere, if their objection was re warming up again, then why did the kick off not be delayed to allow this to happen? That would have ended and potential defence for Warrington? It seems an obvious course of action to cut off that line of defence

[Twintowers]

JUST FUCK OFF DICKHEAD.

[BlackandwhiteBOB]

For a supposedly clever legal person seems to have a chronic lack of understanding of rules. The rule is the game must be played with 2 officials.

Let's look back at a previous post by Divas, where he has copied up said rule

15.3 (Page 531 of the Handbook)

In the event of any of the Match Officials appointed for a match not being in attendance at the match or becoming unable to complete the match it shall be completed under the control of the remaining Match Officials unless the competing Clubs are able to agree upon a substitute who is acceptable to the Match Referee;


The word seems to be "shall" which to me means the same as "must"

Our learned friend Spen

It may be if I was saying Warrington were correct in their actions.

I do not know what the real reason Warrington gave was so cannot comment on that.

The bigger point for me is there are all these calls for sanctions against Warrington before it has been established they are guilty of anything. Indeed, at present they have not been charged (yet) let alone found to have breached any rule.



The Rule quoted above is one of many rules. all of which have to be considered. If for example team A were down to 8 players when one of their players kicked the referee causing him to be unable to continue refereeing and there is no 4 th official. The game could not continue with the remaining 2 officials as team A would be down to 7 men as the player who kicked the referee would be sent off. In those circumstances the rule quoted does not hold sway as the rule about the number of players would take effect. An extreme example maybe.

In such circumstances, team A have a defence to a charge under the rule quoted.


In all cases, natural justice requires a team to be given an opportunity to explain or defend their actions before a decision is made as to whether they are guilty of an offence. Too many people are jumping to the punishment phase before the NPL have decided if Warrington are indeed guilty.

I do not know the reason why Warrington refused to play on. As I have asked elsewhere, if their objection was re warming up again, then why did the kick off not be delayed to allow this to happen? That would have ended and potential defence for Warrington? It seems an obvious course of action to cut off that line of defence

Are you a total retard? Warrington bottled it, the non warm up is just a poor excuse. Of course both sides would have warmed up again prior to a re-start. Let me spell it out simply, Warrington didn't want to continue as they were being taught a footballing lesson, so they ran away with their tails between their legs. They chose, of their own free will to break league rules and not to fulfil a fixture despite the facilities being in place for then to do so. Is that simple and straightforward enough for you, or would you like to answer my question with another question?

[quakerray]

i bet they would've carried on if they were 2-0 up

[charlie]

For a supposedly clever legal person seems to have a chronic lack of understanding of rules. The rule is the game must be played with 2 officials.

Let's look back at a previous post by Divas, where he has copied up said rule

15.3 (Page 531 of the Handbook)

In the event of any of the Match Officials appointed for a match not being in attendance at the match or becoming unable to complete the match it shall be completed under the control of the remaining Match Officials unless the competing Clubs are able to agree upon a substitute who is acceptable to the Match Referee;


The word seems to be "shall" which to me means the same as "must"

Our learned friend Spen

It may be if I was saying Warrington were correct in their actions.

I do not know what the real reason Warrington gave was so cannot comment on that.

The bigger point for me is there are all these calls for sanctions against Warrington before it has been established they are guilty of anything. Indeed, at present they have not been charged (yet) let alone found to have breached any rule.



The Rule quoted above is one of many rules. all of which have to be considered. If for example team A were down to 8 players when one of their players kicked the referee causing him to be unable to continue refereeing and there is no 4 th official. The game could not continue with the remaining 2 officials as team A would be down to 7 men as the player who kicked the referee would be sent off. In those circumstances the rule quoted does not hold sway as the rule about the number of players would take effect. An extreme example maybe.

In such circumstances, team A have a defence to a charge under the rule quoted.


In all cases, natural justice requires a team to be given an opportunity to explain or defend their actions before a decision is made as to whether they are guilty of an offence. Too many people are jumping to the punishment phase before the NPL have decided if Warrington are indeed guilty.

I do not know the reason why Warrington refused to play on. As I have asked elsewhere, if their objection was re warming up again, then why did the kick off not be delayed to allow this to happen? That would have ended and potential defence for Warrington? It seems an obvious course of action to cut off that line of defence

If it was your club that suffered the events of yesterday you would be singing from the rooftops. All Darlo supporters want is fair play. That's right fair play, what happened yesterday seriously wasn't fair play and you know it. You've just given another example of what a complete and utter moron you are

[fozzovmurton]

For a supposedly clever legal person seems to have a chronic lack of understanding of rules. The rule is the game must be played with 2 officials.

Let's look back at a previous post by Divas, where he has copied up said rule

15.3 (Page 531 of the Handbook)

In the event of any of the Match Officials appointed for a match not being in attendance at the match or becoming unable to complete the match it shall be completed under the control of the remaining Match Officials unless the competing Clubs are able to agree upon a substitute who is acceptable to the Match Referee;


The word seems to be "shall" which to me means the same as "must"

Our learned friend Spen

It may be if I was saying Warrington were correct in their actions.

I do not know what the real reason Warrington gave was so cannot comment on that.

The bigger point for me is there are all these calls for sanctions against Warrington before it has been established they are guilty of anything. Indeed, at present they have not been charged (yet) let alone found to have breached any rule.



The Rule quoted above is one of many rules. all of which have to be considered. If for example team A were down to 8 players when one of their players kicked the referee causing him to be unable to continue refereeing and there is no 4 th official. The game could not continue with the remaining 2 officials as team A would be down to 7 men as the player who kicked the referee would be sent off. In those circumstances the rule quoted does not hold sway as the rule about the number of players would take effect. An extreme example maybe.

In such circumstances, team A have a defence to a charge under the rule quoted.


In all cases, natural justice requires a team to be given an opportunity to explain or defend their actions before a decision is made as to whether they are guilty of an offence. Too many people are jumping to the punishment phase before the NPL have decided if Warrington are indeed guilty.

I do not know the reason why Warrington refused to play on. As I have asked elsewhere, if their objection was re warming up again, then why did the kick off not be delayed to allow this to happen? That would have ended and potential defence for Warrington? It seems an obvious course of action to cut off that line of defence

As far as I was aware a game can go on with a minimum of 7...Look at the Sheffield Utd v WBA game in 2002, was called off when Sheff Utd were down to 6

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk