That's a bit rude*.
Please don't take it personally Harry.
I don't think my (last) explanation is crap.
What was your last explanation? If you're referring to how they might defend themselves, then that's a separate subject - that's not actually an explanation of the decisions, that's playing devils advocate.
The decisions were wrong. Saying 'we made an honest judgement' (even if that is word for word what they say) is not an explanation.
Sure, but my post that you're saying is rude wasn't replying to what they might say. More what kinky gerbil and the like have said.I repeat I am not attempting to exonerate, merely explore how they might defend themselves
My conclusion was the ref and the Var man should be asked some very specific questions and put on the spot, so the bad practice can be revealed, understood, and hopefully precluded going forward, if appropriate changes are made.
I suggest that would be more useful than simply sacking the officials, burning down their changing room/VAR hut, and screaming and screaming until one is sick.
I agree, I didn't suggest people should be sacked without conversation. I imagine that after asking for explanations the explanations will be found wanting, and it's difficult for me to imagine that a suspension at minimum wouldn't be sensible. Salisbury completely failed at his job, more so than in our game at Selhurst, and he was fired.
Last edited: