theoriginalhedge Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 1 hour ago, welshbairn said: Good statement 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 3 Author Share Posted March 3 (edited) 26 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said: Good statement Aye, in an ideal world it would prompt the SFA to clarify the rules for lower league football, especially in regards to flexibility when both teams agree. Edited March 3 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 You're only getting one side of the story here. If the pitch isn't playable for the proper kick-off time, that's ultimately on the club. The ref might not have been able to hang around for an extra hour and a half on a Saturday just in the hope that they can do the groundwork that they could presumably have been doing before he arrived instead. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 (edited) Be brave ref who made everybody wait 90mins beyond scheduled KO - as opposed to e.g. saying at 1:30pm "on this occasion I'll give you right up until 3pm" - on the promise applying sand would turn an unplayable park to playable: if it didn't they'd get slated. Struggle to think of such a case before tbh. Edited March 3 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 3 Author Share Posted March 3 It had been pissing down all morning and there was only a small patch that still needed work on. If both teams agreed it worth waiting I don't see why the ref couldn't go along with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Shaker Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 Experience tells me Keith’s pitch was dubby, a bit heavy in places, but essentially playable, and the referee has made a c**t of it. No side in this league played on a bowling green this weekend. When Lossie were at Keith last February the referee gave Keith more time to get it playable, but even in its untouched state it was better looking than it had been on our last visit, and in better shape than Huntly’s had been earlier in the month. Too much of this bullshit from officials this season. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 56 minutes ago, welshbairn said: It had been pissing down all morning and there was only a small patch that still needed work on. If both teams agreed it worth waiting I don't see why the ref couldn't go along with it. A: Because it's not actually the job of the referee (or indeed any other third parties involved in the event) to reschedule their time just because some committee men say so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 1 hour ago, welshbairn said: It had been pissing down all morning and there was only a small patch that still needed work on. If both teams agreed it worth waiting I don't see why the ref couldn't go along with it. Maybe he has kids he needs to get home to, maybe he had a dinner booked, maybe he had a shift at his work? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 3 Author Share Posted March 3 25 minutes ago, craigkillie said: Maybe he has kids he needs to get home to, maybe he had a dinner booked, maybe he had a shift at his work? Or maybe he could have just let the game go ahead as was. A ref at Grant Street had more sense recently, fine game. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edzellcityfan Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 2 hours ago, craigkillie said: Maybe he has kids he needs to get home to, maybe he had a dinner booked, maybe he had a shift at his work? Or he could have just played the game like the referee 10 miles down the road did on a worse park……and yes I seen both… 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 I would have thought that with the current situation of backlogged games to be played before the play off deadline , every effort would have been made to get this game on. All we are looking for is a bit of consistency. The Huntly game went ahead on a worse surface than Kynoch Park. The Wick game went ahead after a delayed kick off to work on a small area of concern. It appears that some refs are prepared to listen to reasonable suggestions and some are just not for whatever reason. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 On 03/03/2024 at 19:26, welshbairn said: Or maybe he could have just let the game go ahead as was. A ref at Grant Street had more sense recently, fine game. Why should the referee let a game go ahead on a surface that all parties agree is not suitable for playing on? You seem to be swapping out 'sense' for 'narrow convenience' and use it to describe multiple, completely different things on a weekly basis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 19 hours ago, theoriginalhedge said: I would have thought that with the current situation of backlogged games to be played before the play off deadline , every effort would have been made to get this game on. All we are looking for is a bit of consistency. No you're not. As the section of the post above quite clearly confirms, you're actually looking for an arbitrary adjustment of postponement decisions based on the existing number of games to catch up on. That's literally the opposite of 'consistency' in applying standards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 6 hours ago, virginton said: No you're not. As the section of the post above quite clearly confirms, you're actually looking for an arbitrary adjustment of postponement decisions based on the existing number of games to catch up on. That's literally the opposite of 'consistency' in applying standards. I probably could have worded it better but with decisions made elsewhere on Saturday as stated , it seems the consistency in determining playability varies considerably between referees . That is the frustrating factor here and the one which I feel should be addressed. Given the refereeing reaction to the events in premier games at the weekend , nothing will be resolved other than the unity and wagon circling from the refereeing community as per usual. 7 hours ago, virginton said: Why should the referee let a game go ahead on a surface that all parties agree is not suitable for playing on? You seem to be swapping out 'sense' for 'narrow convenience' and use it to describe multiple, completely different things on a weekly basis. All parties ? I think you will find that the only one not willing to find a solution to getting the game played was the referee. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edzellcityfan Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 8 hours ago, virginton said: Why should the referee let a game go ahead on a surface that all parties agree is not suitable for playing on? You seem to be swapping out 'sense' for 'narrow convenience' and use it to describe multiple, completely different things on a weekly basis. The point is , in contrary to what you said above, everyone apart from the referee thought the park was playable. Take fixture backlog etc out of it. Surely if everyone apart from 1 man thinks it playable, then questions need to be asked. I seen the park when we arrived and I can tell you for sure that it was in a better nick than 10 miles down the road where they did play and I watched a game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 (edited) 2 hours ago, theoriginalhedge said: I probably could have worded it better but with decisions made elsewhere on Saturday as stated , it seems the consistency in determining playability varies considerably between referees . That is the frustrating factor here and the one which I feel should be addressed. Given the refereeing reaction to the events in premier games at the weekend , nothing will be resolved other than the unity and wagon circling from the refereeing community as per usual. All parties ? I think you will find that the only one not willing to find a solution to getting the game played was the referee. I think you'll find that the joint statement from both clubs supports the referee's view that the pitch was unplayable at 3pm on Saturday. The bone of contention rests with the referee not agreeing to delay the game for their proposed 'solution' to take effect. Which it's not actually incumbent on the referee or indeed any other third party involved in holding the event to do so, just because it suits you. Edited March 5 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 37 minutes ago, Edzellcityfan said: The point is , in contrary to what you said above, everyone apart from the referee thought the park was playable. No they quite clearly didn't - otherwise they wouldn't have pushed for a 90 minute delay and putting sand down on affected - i.e. unplayable at 3pm - areas of the pitch. Read your own club statement for the sake of comprehension before peddling this nonsense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossco8326 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 21 minutes ago, virginton said: No they quite clearly didn't - otherwise they wouldn't have pushed for a 90 minute delay and putting sand down on affected - i.e. unplayable at 3pm - areas of the pitch. Read your own club statement for the sake of comprehension before peddling this nonsense. I think you may need to read it again what it says is to allow time to put sand down on the area giving the referee concern not the clubs the referee. They agreed to the delay to keep the ref happy in an attempt to get the game on both clubs were happy to play the game at 3 pm the ref was the one not happy with it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 3 hours ago, virginton said: I think you'll find that the joint statement from both clubs supports the referee's view that the pitch was unplayable at 3pm on Saturday. The bone of contention rests with the referee not agreeing to delay the game for their proposed 'solution' to take effect. Which it's not actually incumbent on the referee or indeed any other third party involved in holding the event to do so, just because it suits you. Had the ref at Wick on Saturday not set a precedent of common sense then we wouldn't be having this conversation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edzellcityfan Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 3 hours ago, virginton said: No they quite clearly didn't - otherwise they wouldn't have pushed for a 90 minute delay and putting sand down on affected - i.e. unplayable at 3pm - areas of the pitch. Read your own club statement for the sake of comprehension before peddling this nonsense. Did you see the pitch or the one 10 miles down the road that did have a game on it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.