Snatchday 1: Nottingham Forest Vs the PGMOL

[HBB]

Two out of the three penalties are blatant, and the third is in the "it can certainly be given" category. A VAR not giving one of them would be normal; not giving any of them suggests bias (the announcement does not speak of corruption, so there's no danger of a libel case). If you had already asked for a replacement before the game, the VAR's performance enhances the assumption of bias. Whether the official announcement was the right reaction or not depends on several factors unknown to me. It's a power game and whether you, I, or Gary Neville like it or not is pretty much irrelevant.

I disagree GBG, a libel claimant must establish that the words complained of, are defamatory of them.

The test of whether the words are defamatory is whether the statement tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or is likely to affect a person adversely in the estimation of reasonable people generally. So a statement is defamatory if its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.

Given that Atwell's role is as a referee and as such a fair and impartial arbiter of the laws of the game - to suggest that he can be affected by his being a Luton fan is an attack on the very core part of his role, that he cannot be impartial. This would impact his personal and professional reputation and could conceivably lead to things like his being not picked for certain games etc and would absolutely impact his contract of employment. (It also opens the door to clubs "selecting" or vetoing which referees they want which would be chaos and is why the PGMOL will/should take action).

The test as to whether the post would qualify as defamatory is cast iron I think, interpretation of the meaning of the post/article is core and the court is required to find a single or “right” meaning of the words complained of. The natural and ordinary meaning of words is the meaning that the words would convey to the ordinary reasonable reader who reads the entire article or publication once. I think everyone who's read or commented on the post agrees that at its core it's clear we're saying Atwell was not impartial.

 

[Alan Akbah]

Wow. He was at least a yard and a half onside.

Outrageous, Coventry absolutely robbed

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

I disagree GBG, a libel claimant must establish that the words complained of, are defamatory of them.

The test of whether the words are defamatory is whether the statement tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or is likely to affect a person adversely in the estimation of reasonable people generally. So a statement is ot defamatory if its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.

Given that Atwell's role is as a referee and as such a fair and impartial arbiter of the laws of the game - to suggest that he can be affected by his being a Luton fan is an attack on the very core part of his role, that he cannot be impartial. This would impact his personal and professional reputation and could conceivably lead to things like his being not picked for certain games etc and would absolutely impact his contract of employment. (It also opens the door to clubs "selecting" or vetoing which referees they want which would be chaos and is why the PGMOL will/should take action).

The test as to whether the post would qualify as defamatory is cast iron I think, interpretation of the meaning of the post/article is core and the court is required to find a single or “right” meaning of the words complained of. The natural and ordinary meaning of words is the meaning that the words would convey to the ordinary reasonable reader who reads the entire article or publication once. I think everyone who's read or commented on the post agrees that at its core it's clear we're saying Atwell was not impartial.

What, like not getting selected for Forest Everton?

 

[Red Echo]

Gave me a chuckle

 

[Chappers85]

Reading the comments underneath this is another example of virtually every single one agreeing.

The funniest part though is Souness saying they aren't biased and then immediately in the next sentence confirming they are biased.

Do they even know what bias means? Souness basically saying: "They're not biased but they sway towards the bigger clubs". Stan Collymore - who I think usually speaks more sense than most pundits - was saying similar things on Twitter yesterday about how there is no conspiracy against Forest (or any other club), but then says in the next breath that Forest will now have their card marked by PGMOL making it unlikely to get decisions in their favour. That is LITERALLY being biased. Whether it is unconscious bias or deliberate, it favouring one group over another, unfairly. I think it was completely unreasonable to put Atwell in that situation. He can try to be as impartial as he can, but there is no way of knowing how he might be influenced by his own biases.

 

[YouReds43]

Well I think Forest got their point across, All Sky are talking about is the decisions.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Not necessarily. I'm sure one of the qualified eagles like @Mr. Blonde on here would confirm but for it to be defamatory all the person who is allegedly being defamed has to demonstrate that the comment has been defamatory (i.e. that in the eyes of a reasonable member of the public their reputation has been diminished or that they have lost money/work as a result of the comment) and then it's down to the person making the comment to prove it is true.

So if shatwell has been defamed by the comment then after he'd proved this the club would have to prove that the comment made was true and that shatwell deliberately made wrong decisions to bias the game because he is a Luton fan. If they couldn't prove this he would win.

Of course, you can't defame someone of bad reputation anyway so if someone took out a page in the mail saying Prince Andrew was a petty thief as he's already considered to be a ***** then even if it wasn't true he hadn't been defamed. Nor can you defame an alias or nickname.

Truth is the obvious defence - but you still have to prove it

By definition a defamatory statement is one that is

Calculated to injure the reputation of another, by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule and which tends to lower the Claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society

So Attwell would have to establish that the Tweet from Forest was defamatory as per the above. It's worth nothing that whilst the club didn't specifically allege that Atwell had intentionally made biased decisions there could be a case to be made that the statement taken as a whole implies as much, so it would come down to what a right-thinking person would take from the Tweet as a whole

I suppose the closest most recent case is the Lord McAlpine vs Sally Bercow case where she Tweeted about McAlpine trending on Twitter after a Newsnight report that falsely linked an unnamed Tory politician from the Thatcher years to child sex abuse claims.

It's worth a read if you're interested - McAlpine v Bercow

In that case "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*" was deemed enough by way of innuendo to be defamatory

However the Defamation Act 2013 introduced an element of "serious harm" to the above test which means that a defamatory statement is only now actionable if it causes, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the Claimant's reputation

So assuming what the club Tweeted is potentially defamatory in nature for it to be actionable it would need to be established that it caused or was likely to cause serious harm to Stuart Attwell's reputation

So it's far from cut-and-dry, and all of the above would need to be tested in court, however as with most libel actions I highly doubt it would ever get that far as it would be litigated but ultimately the club would most likely just settle with SA before ever reaching trial

I hope that helps!

 

[Canadian_red]

While I don't agree with the means and methods adopted, I can appreciate the complete chaos we appear to have created. If we go down (I'm leaning that way, I genuinely think burnley will leap over), we've done so swinging live grenades instead of punches.

I was thinking yesterday how nice it would be to support a normal team but to be honest, I'd say that at least a third of clubs are bonkers in some way.

 

[Robertson]

there is no conspiracy against Forest (or any other club), but then says in the next breath that Forest will now have their card marked by PGMOL making it unlikely to get decisions in their favour. That is LITERALLY being biased

This kind of reasoning is driving me mad.

“How dare Forest suggest officials might be biased! Now they won’t get any decisions go their way!”

How though, if the referees remain strictly unbiased?? Either the officials are capable of exhibiting bias or they aren’t. Staggering that people aren’t getting that they admitting to the possibility through their own reactions to this.

 

[Robertson]

Well I think Forest got their point across, All Sky are talking about is the decisions.

Hopefully with reference to all the other times similar incidents have been awarded penalties this season. Otherwise it’s kind of missing the point. We just want equal treatment.

 

[Notcher]

I disagree GBG, a libel claimant must establish that the words complained of, are defamatory of them.

The test of whether the words are defamatory is whether the statement tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or is likely to affect a person adversely in the estimation of reasonable people generally. So a statement is ot defamatory if its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.

Given that Atwell's role is as a referee and as such a fair and impartial arbiter of the laws of the game - to suggest that he can be affected by his being a Luton fan is an attack on the very core part of his role, that he cannot be impartial. This would impact his personal and professional reputation and could conceivably lead to things like his being not picked for certain games etc and would absolutely impact his contract of employment. (It also opens the door to clubs "selecting" or vetoing which referees they want which would be chaos and is why the PGMOL will/should take action).

The test as to whether the post would qualify as defamatory is cast iron I think, interpretation of the meaning of the post/article is core and the court is required to find a single or “right” meaning of the words complained of. The natural and ordinary meaning of words is the meaning that the words would convey to the ordinary reasonable reader who reads the entire article or publication once. I think everyone who's read or commented on the post agrees that at its core it's clear we're saying Atwell was not impartial.

There is very good defence here for forest though. As per the PGMOL's own rules, each referee has to declare who they support or if a family works at a club. This means the PGMOL themselves are implying that there could be bias and/or conflict in taking charge of matches with an associated club.

Therefore why is wrong for Forest to infere this but not for the PGMOL to do so?

 

[I'm Red Till Dead]

Back then the standard of penalties were different. Over the last couple of years to my dismay and touch in the area is considered a good shout and will often be given.

Initially a player trying to instigate the contact and going over was waved away. I remember Yates trying it on versus Liverpool in the QF and he put his foot on Alisons glove and went down. The Huddersfield ones were like that, certainly Toffolo’s was, O’Brien was a bit more clever.

With Brice's playoff semi-final performance I wouldn't have bet against him stopping at least one had they been given.

 

[Notcher]

This kind of reasoning is driving me mad.

“How dare Forest suggest officials might be biased! Now they won’t get any decisions go their way!”

How though, if the referees remain strictly unbiased?? Either the officials are capable of exhibiting bias or they aren’t. Staggering that people aren’t getting that they admitting to the possibility through their own reactions to this.

People that contradict themselves whilst making a point drive me mental. Equally as much are the people in the conversation that don't pull them up on it.

 

[Statto]

Back then the standard of penalties were different. Over the last couple of years to my dismay and touch in the area is considered a good shout and will often be given.

Initially a player trying to instigate the contact and going over was waved away. I remember Yates trying it on versus Liverpool in the QF and he put his foot on Alisons glove and went down. The Huddersfield ones were like that, certainly Toffolo’s was, O’Brien was a bit more clever.

None of those were pens.

In the case of the play off final both players clearly dived. Ironically I thought the O'Brien one was more of a pen than the Toffolo one but that was the one VAR didn't even really sniff at. Hudds fans might be bitter about it but Jon Moss refereed well in that game and got both big decisions spot on.

The one on Yates had contact but it was initiated by Yates and was more of a dive than a pen, but perhaps not dissimilar to some keeper-on-attacker ones which have been given this season.

 

[GOBIAS]

None of those were pens.

In the case of the play off final both players clearly dived. Ironically I thought the O'Brien one was more of a pen than the Toffolo one but that was the one VAR didn't even really sniff at. Hudds fans might be bitter about it but Jon Moss refereed well in that game and got both big decisions spot on.

The one on Yates had contact but it was initiated by Yates and was more of a dive than a pen, but perhaps not dissimilar to some keeper-on-attacker ones which have been given this season.

Just a bit

 

[MASE]

I think it's been said by many on this forum, but I'm just generally uncomfortable with where we are heading overall as a club. It's grubby, unprofessional, victim mentality and lacking class. We are better than this. Absolutely the decisions have been brutal against us, but let's not mask the fact that we have been literally atrocious on the field now since we got promoted. You can count the convincing wins we've had on one hand. Maybe a couple of fingers. We are running out of friends and sympathy by the day, and alienating ourselves.

I've realised over the last week that relegation is happening and goodness knows when we'll come back up, we'll lose most of the players we've got, and we've already forced out most of those who cared in the first place. I'm starting to get back to where I was when Hughton was in charge, which was trying not to care. We'll also end up with a manager who doesn't give a toss either. It's literally night and day to where we were this time two years ago.

Excellent post.

Every cloud though...

 

[Captain Sinister]

BBC now reporting that they have been told forest DID NOT ask for the VAR official to be removed.

Nottingham Forest did not ask for VAR official to be changed

Nottingham Forest did not ask for Stuart Attwell to be taken off video assistant referee duties for their match against Everton, BBC Sport has been told.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Notcher]

BBC now reporting that they have been told forest DID NOT ask for the VAR official to be removed.

Nottingham Forest did not ask for VAR official to be changed

Nottingham Forest did not ask for Stuart Attwell to be taken off video assistant referee duties for their match against Everton, BBC Sport has been told.

www.bbc.co.uk

It's been mentioned several times this morning captain. It's a complete red herring. We're not allowed to ask for a referee to be removed.

 

[magicwoand]

BBC now reporting that they have been told forest DID NOT ask for the VAR official to be removed.

Nottingham Forest did not ask for VAR official to be changed

Nottingham Forest did not ask for Stuart Attwell to be taken off video assistant referee duties for their match against Everton, BBC Sport has been told.

www.bbc.co.uk

Forest never even claimed to have asked them to have him removed. We're being gaslighted here folks.

 

[Schnack]

When the FA charge is for bringing the game into disrepute, can we just send an "Apology Letter", we have enough to use as a template.

 

[cleggy621]

By definition a defamatory statement is one that is

Calculated to injure the reputation of another, by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule and which tends to lower the Claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society

So Attwell would have to establish that the Tweet from Forest was defamatory as per the above. It's worth nothing that whilst the club didn't specifically allege that Atwell had intentionally made biased decisions there could be a case to be made that the statement taken as a whole implies as much, so it would come down to what a right-thinking person would take from the Tweet as a whole

I suppose the closest most recent case is the Lord McAlpine vs Sally Bercow case where she Tweeted about McAlpine trending on Twitter after a Newsnight report that falsely linked an unnamed Tory politician from the Thatcher years to child sex abuse claims.

It's worth a read if you're interested - McAlpine v Bercow

In that case "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*" was deemed enough by way of innuendo to be defamatory

However the Defamation Act 2013 introduced an element of "serious harm" to the above test which means that a defamatory statement is only now actionable if it causes, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the Claimant's reputation

So assuming what the club Tweeted is potentially defamatory in nature for it to be actionable it would need to be established that it caused or was likely to cause serious harm to Stuart Attwell's reputation

So it's far from cut-and-dry, and all of the above would need to be tested in court, however as with most libel actions I highly doubt it would ever get that far as it would be litigated but ultimately the club would most likely just settle with SA before ever reaching trial

I hope that helps!

Thanks for the explanation Mr Blonde.

So as it doesn't explicitly name or accuse Stuart Atwell, are Forest just trying to highlight that PGMOL haven't followed their own guidance (See Michael Oliver tweet about who he would expect to ref which is on this thread or the ref thread somewhere), would this have any bearing on the defamation claim if Stuart Atwell shouldn't have been selected for VAR duty by the PGMOL/could have been expected to recuse himself from the game. Or is that a completely different matter.

It's probably irrelevant anyway as I can't see PGMOL or Stuart Atwell wanting to go anywhere near a courtroom.
Mr Marinakis on the other hand

 

[magicwoand]

When the FA charge is for bringing the game into disrepute, can we just send an "Apology Letter", we have enough to use as a template.

"We made an incorrect Twitter decision, sorry lads, lol"

 

[Otis Redding]

There is very good defence here for forest though. As per the PGMOL's own rules, each referee has to declare who they support or if a family works at a club. This means the PGMOL themselves are implying that there could be bias and/or conflict in taking charge of matches with an associated club.

Therefore why is wrong for Forest to infere this but not for the PGMOL to do so?

Indeed. Earlier on TalkSport, a caller quoted the particular clause from the PGMOL rule you refer to that officials are obliged to inform if they potentially have a vested interest in the result of a match they've been selected to be involved in. It's on public record as to which club Attwell favours, which can only mean he should have questions to answer - not, of course, that such questions will be raised.

 

[Captain Sinister]

It's been mentioned several times this morning captain. It's a complete red herring. We're not allowed to ask for a referee to be removed.

Apologies - been in a meeting and missed this until I returned home.

 

[HBB]

There is very good defence here for forest though. As per the PGMOL's own rules, each referee has to declare who they support or if a family works at a club. This means the PGMOL themselves are implying that there could be bias and/or conflict in taking charge of matches with an associated club.

Therefore why is wrong for Forest to infere this but not for the PGMOL to do so?

I think the situation is that the referee's declare their club loyalty whilst also maintaining that they are professional and can/are/would be impartial but that the PGMOL can take a referee out of a game to avoid the perception of bias, so it's not an acceptance that bias can/will happen but to avoid any accusations arising from their club loyalty.

Usually, I understand, this is done regarding whether the referee is a fan of club A or B in the match they are officiating and more rarely with regard to a club C, and that's usually todo with something like a Man Utd supporting ref at a game involving Liverpool or Man City where rivalries are well known and long standing.

I would imagine that if Forest raised their concern pre-game the PGMOL might have looked and said as Atwell doesn't support A or B and this is not a case involving long term rivalry etc then the default is that he is an impartial referee and can go ahead.