Allardyce fumes over ref link-up

[Craig 6286]

Bolton boss Sam Allardyce says he should not have let his side play at Fulham as he was not told about referee Graham Poll using a listening device.

Allardyce is furious he only found out just before kick off that there would be a trial run for the link-up which lets refs talk to their assistants.

 

"I should've refused to play. He would have had to take it off," he said. "I am really sick I didn't do anything.

 

"You cannot introduce something without prior knowledge."

 

Allardyce added: "We had no communication regarding as to why and for what reason and what our responsibilites would be."

 

Poll went on to send off El-Hadji Diouf and book six Bolton players and Allardyce is convinced Poll handled the game differently because of the new technology.

 

"I had no time to prepare the players for the situation and clearly Graham Poll has had no time either," he told the club's in-house TV station.

 

"His performance - he was over-zealous - infuriated both parties and caused a lot of uneccesary indiscipline.

 

"He booked four of my players for dissent, which is quite amazing. It looks like my team are indisciplined and that me as a manager doesn't discipline his side correctly.

 

"Incidents in the game were caused by the referee being wired up. would still have complained though had there not been any incidents."

 

Referees' chief Keith Hackett admitted Allardyce should have been informed. He told the Daily Telegraph "I would like to have advised Sam a week in advance. But he should have no fear.

 

"What is said between player and referee is between player and referee.

 

"It's not communicated or saved on a disc to be used as further evidence, if you like, which I suppose might be his fear.

 

"We were going to use it at Manchester United versus Chelsea but in fact we had to cancel that."

 

Is it just me who sees this as purely and simply sour grapes on Allardyce's part? I bet he wouldn't have said a thing about it had his team won and he'd finished the game with 11 men!

 

I don't see his issue tbh, so the referee has an audio link-up with his assistants, what's the difference in the referee being called over by his one of his assistants which we all know happens??

 

He should be charged with bringing the game into disripute IMO

[zico martin 84]

Bolton boss Sam Allardyce says he should not have let his side play at Fulham as he was not told about referee Graham Poll using a listening device.

Allardyce is furious he only found out just before kick off that there would be a trial run for the link-up which lets refs talk to their assistants.

 

"I should've refused to play. He would have had to take it off," he said. "I am really sick I didn't do anything.

 

"You cannot introduce something without prior knowledge."

 

Allardyce added: "We had no communication regarding as to why and for what reason and what our responsibilites would be."

 

Poll went on to send off El-Hadji Diouf and book six Bolton players and Allardyce is convinced Poll handled the game differently because of the new technology.

 

"I had no time to prepare the players for the situation and clearly Graham Poll has had no time either," he told the club's in-house TV station.

 

"His performance - he was over-zealous - infuriated both parties and caused a lot of uneccesary indiscipline.

 

"He booked four of my players for dissent, which is quite amazing. It looks like my team are indisciplined and that me as a manager doesn't discipline his side correctly.

 

"Incidents in the game were caused by the referee being wired up. would still have complained though had there not been any incidents."

 

Referees' chief Keith Hackett admitted Allardyce should have been informed. He told the Daily Telegraph "I would like to have advised Sam a week in advance. But he should have no fear.

 

"What is said between player and referee is between player and referee.

 

"It's not communicated or saved on a disc to be used as further evidence, if you like, which I suppose might be his fear.

 

"We were going to use it at Manchester United versus Chelsea but in fact we had to cancel that."

 

Is it just me who sees this as purely and simply sour grapes on Allardyce's part? I bet he wouldn't have said a thing about it had his team won and he'd finished the game with 11 men!

 

I don't see his issue tbh, so the referee has an audio link-up with his assistants, what's the difference in the referee being called over by his one of his assistants which we all know happens??

 

He should be charged with bringing the game into disripute IMO

62600[/snapback]

 

 

allardyce and sour grapes? surely not! He's always been a whinger and this just gave him an excuse as far as I'm concerned.

[sammynb 2929]

Is it just me who sees this as purely and simply sour grapes on Allardyce's part? I bet he wouldn't have said a thing about it had his team won and he'd finished the game with 11 men!

 

I don't see his issue tbh, so the referee has an audio link-up with his assistants, what's the difference in the referee being called over by his one of his assistants which we all know happens??

 

He should be charged with bringing the game into disripute IMO

62600[/snapback]

 

What's the point of the link in the first place?

Assistant referees seem to be getting more and more decisions wrong and yet they are linked to the referee for what reason? To save time? To help them make the right decision?

If anything shouldn't the 4th (or 5th) official be given a video replay so he can check on some of the dubious decisions and he is the one with the word in the referee's ear to confirm/help with correct calls?

Play could go on while the 4th official reviews the situation, therefore there wouldn't be any standing around waiting like in cricket or league and yet we would see correct decisions which wouldn't give Souness another excuse.

There is no benefit giving those that don't see a louder voice.

[Rob W 0]

I think the idea is a good one - the ref and linesman can communicate directly (as in rugby) and thathas to be better - at leas tthe ref can't say "I never saw the liensman flag" if the bugger yells in his ear "penalty"

[Craig 6286]

I think the idea is a good one - the ref and linesman can communicate directly (as in rugby) and thathas to be better - at leas tthe ref can't say "I never saw the liensman flag" if the bugger yells in his ear "penalty"

62702[/snapback]

 

Lets take it one step further and have the referee's convo audible to the TV viewers as it is in Rugby then!

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

I think the idea is a good one - the ref and linesman can communicate directly (as in rugby) and thathas to be better - at leas tthe ref can't say "I never saw the liensman flag" if the bugger yells in his ear "penalty"

62702[/snapback]

 

Lets take it one step further and have the referee's convo audible to the TV viewers as it is in Rugby then!

62741[/snapback]

 

That would be class. The refs are miked-up in american sports too.

 

Sky would only be able to show live games after the watershed though.

[Craig 6286]

I think the idea is a good one - the ref and linesman can communicate directly (as in rugby) and thathas to be better - at leas tthe ref can't say "I never saw the liensman flag" if the bugger yells in his ear "penalty"

62702[/snapback]

 

Lets take it one step further and have the referee's convo audible to the TV viewers as it is in Rugby then!

62741[/snapback]

 

That would be class. The refs are miked-up in american sports too.

 

Sky would only be able to show live games after the watershed though.

62778[/snapback]

 

Actually I think it'd be a positive move in reducing the dissent as it could be used as evidence against players...

[Matty 0]

I hate that whiney fucker, and his little shitty plastic club.

[luckyluke 1]

I hate that whiney fucker, and his little shitty plastic club.

62834[/snapback]

 

 

Oh and Allardyce?