I think you are still missing my point David. Responding to your comments:
"The only people at a club who should ever contact a referee are the Secretary and Match Secretary."
Is this set in stone or a personal opinion? If it is set in stone then there is no problem with the groundsman contacting the match ref through the Secretary.
"I don’t agree with you that referees should able to postpone matches on the evidence of photographs and, as I mentioned in the previous posting, unless there has been a major weather incident, they should be at the ground to see the state of the pitch for themselves."
As repeatedly stated, I have not said that should be based on photographic evidence. That's just one possible example - another example is just a factual statement, maybe supported by the Secretary. What prompted this thread is not knowing whether it is possible within the 'rules' for a ref to make a remote decision. Is this possible? You state that the ref should be at the ground to see the state of the pitch - is that just a personal opinion? Obviously doesn't apply if a local ref is called in as happened yesterday.
"Last night was very inconvenient for everyone concerned – I was one hour into my journey to Earlsmead and it took me almost two more to get home – but it was a combination of unfortunate circumstances that caused postponement. And, at 5.00pm, it is quite possible, even if there had been enough light, that a photograph might not have persuaded the referee to call off the game."
As I have repeatedly stated, any evidence given to a ref remotely may not be accepted and the ref insist on inspecting the pitch - this is fair enough. What I am promoting is that, if the 'rules' allow, then the ref should be given the opportunity of making a remote decision based upon the advice of the person who knows the pitch - the groundsman. If the rules don't allow, then I'm suggesting that they should be reviewed.
By the way, taking photo's after dark is not a problem - turn the floodlights on as has to happen for a pitch inspection anyway.
Next article in this thread: Re: Oh by Hendonboy13/1/2015 19:11Tue Jan 13 19:11:43 2015
- Met Police by John Fordham12/1/2015 16:45Mon Jan 12 16:45:43 2015view thread
- Re: Met Police by Jake Osborn 12/1/2015 17:07Mon Jan 12 17:07:20 2015
- No one to blame by David B12/1/2015 18:00Mon Jan 12 18:00:18 2015
- Re: No one to blame by John Fordham12/1/2015 18:20Mon Jan 12 18:20:12 2015
- Re: No one to blame by Anonymous12/1/2015 20:00Mon Jan 12 20:00:18 2015
- Re: No one to blame by John Fordham12/1/2015 20:08Mon Jan 12 20:08:54 2015
- Not pointing fingers by David B13/1/2015 00:38Tue Jan 13 00:38:44 2015
- Pitch inspections by John Fordham13/1/2015 10:13Tue Jan 13 10:13:51 2015
- Interesting idea, but here's why it is not possibl… by David B13/1/2015 13:05Tue Jan 13 13:05:11 2015
- Re: Interesting idea, but here's why it is not pos… by John Fordham13/1/2015 15:37Tue Jan 13 15:37:01 2015
- Oh by David B13/1/2015 16:39Tue Jan 13 16:39:47 2015
- Re: Oh by John Fordham13/1/2015 17:52Tue Jan 13 17:52:07 2015
- Re: Oh by Hendonboy13/1/2015 19:11Tue Jan 13 19:11:43 2015
- Re: Oh by John Fordham13/1/2015 19:51Tue Jan 13 19:51:40 2015