• All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.

Snatchday 1: Nottingham Forest Vs the PGMOL

Otis Redding

Otis Redding

Try A Little Tenderness
Notcher

Notcher

Stuart Pearce
Otis Redding said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'll post it up again as it's worthwhile considering again. As I said the PGMOL themselves are inferring there's a potential conflict of interest/bias by having this process which I agree with btw. Forest are doing no more than reiterating that. I can't be ok for one side of the argument to infer it and not the other.
4a199f26ecfc1b5ec09e2edc62285096.jpg
 
HBB

HBB

Jack Burkitt
cleggy621 said:
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 🤔
Click to expand...
For someone to claim they have been libelled they must show that they believe they, and they specifically, have been referenced in the libelous statement, it doesn't have to be their name - there is something called the jigsaw effect that is used as a test that basically says if you piece all the bits together (in an article for instance) it is clearly they that have been referenced - I think this case easily falls in to that category
 
Mr. Blonde

Mr. Blonde

Jack Burkitt
cleggy621 said:
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 🤔
Click to expand...
Whether the Tweet is defamatory against Stuart Attwell is a separate issue to whether the PGMOL followed their own guidance in appointing him as VAR or not

Also a defamatory statement doesn't have to specifically mention an individual as long as a reasonable person reading the statement would conclude that it referred to the individual in question

So clearly in this case anyone reading that statement would know that it is referring to SA
 
Notcher

Notcher

Stuart Pearce
HBB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep, I completely take your point about the perception/optics of it. I do however believe that it can be argued by Forest that that defacto point is it also implies that is it's there as limitation for the potential of conflict/bias and the club are taking the same position with their response.

Possibly a grey area but as we've mentioned before the grey areas are where barristers operate and earn their corn.
 
sammy the snake

sammy the snake

Jack Armstrong
Fair play to the club. What we want of course is transparency, and at least some positive action from the refs association. Their rules are not fit and clearly there’s a huge conflict of interests that has been highlighted by Forest. It can’t be allowed to continue. The arrogance is astounding from the association.

For those that don’t like the dirty clothes on the line… it’s not Forest that’s been hiding here. Every communication has been clear.
 
PlayedOnGrass

PlayedOnGrass

First Team Squad
Otis Redding said:
That is a perfectly reasonable request, for which there is a well publicised precedent.
Click to expand...
This is what any statement should have said yesterday - not the embarrassing statement that we released.
I normally defend the club - but that yesterday was just wrong - it shows us in a really poor light and the rest of the EPL will be glad to see the back of us on top of the P&R ruling - no chance we get any points back now.

We have to beat Sheff Utd and probably pick something up against Chelsea or Burnley to stay up - with everyone else hoping we lose
It just should not have come to this
 
B

beast85

A. Trialist
If released all we will hear from the first 2 penalties is not enough contact and natural position.
It's only the 3rd one where there is zero doubt so be interesting to hear what was said about that. Wouldn't surprise me if the audio gets lost in the post.
 
M

MaxiRobriguez

Bob McKinlay
The Daily Mail reporting that we did ask/suggest for a change of ref and that Howard Webb was "annoyed" by our request.

So someone is lying...
 
M

MaxiRobriguez

Bob McKinlay
Notcher said:
Would not surprise me in the slightest if the audio is "unavailable"
"Technical error"
"Lost"
"Human error, forgot to records"
Click to expand...

They can't, surely? That would really make those who want to stick fingers in ears currently actually consider the "impossible."

Far more likely they get Atwell to record some spiel now and pass it off as legit.
 
M

MaxiRobriguez

Bob McKinlay
Notcher

Notcher

Stuart Pearce
PlayedOnGrass said:
This is what any statement should have said yesterday - not the embarrassing statement that we released.
I normally defend the club - but that yesterday was just wrong - it shows us in a really poor light and the rest of the EPL will be glad to see the back of us on top of the P&R ruling - no chance we get any points back now.

We have to beat Sheff Utd and probably pick something up against Chelsea or Burnley to stay up - with everyone else hoping we lose
It just should not have come to this
Click to expand...
I wasn't embarrassed by it in the slightest. It was completely factual and they gave a robust position.
 
Notcher

Notcher

Stuart Pearce
MaxiRobriguez said:
They can't, surely? That would really make those who want to stick fingers in ears currently actually consider the "impossible."

Far more likely they get Atwell to record some spiel now and pass it off as legit.
Click to expand...
At this point Maxi, f**k knows mate. I've got to the point where I wouldn't rule anything out at all.
 
Haych

Haych

John Robertson
I bet the audio will have been misplaced and therefore our request will be cancelled.

f*** the lot of em, the other 14 teams should stick together to push for change but they won’t do.

You already saw palace sticking the boot in on Twitter, it’s almost like they’re happy finishing 15th every year if they can pretend the likes of Chelsea and Arsenal like them.
 
B

beast85

A. Trialist
Notcher said:
I wasn't embarrassed by it in the slightest. It was completely factual and they gave a robust position.
Click to expand...
Factual or not it looks pathetic coming from an official club account on social media and surprised anyone defends it. It stinks of amateurism and sour grapes.

Should have let Nuno and neco call it out at post match interviews then the club could then still publicly request the audio
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom