Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
canarydan23

Bournemouth Legal Action

Recommended Posts

The difference between “incompetence” and “negligence” if we’re using that terminology is reasonable care. There’s no degree of negligence - either you took reasonable care or not. 

Reasonable care is based on what the reasonable person in a similar circumstance/of similar experience/training etc would have provided. So would a reasonable premier league referee be so unfit they can’t keep up with play and therefore miss clear offside decisions? No. The reasonable premier league referee would maintain a high level of fitness. So the linesman in my example has breached his duty of care. 

As for causation and it needing to be a direct cause - I don’t see how my linesman is any different to your goal that wasn’t allowed despite being over the line. If a team scores a goal, wins the game 1-0 and the opponent gets relegated on goal difference, but we later find out the goal scorer was miles offside and the linesman just missed it because he breached his duty of care/was too unfit to keep up with the play, then what’s the difference between that and the goal line decision?

From a legal point of view, it’s irrelevant that the goal line decision might have been more negligent because it could be checked on screen. That doesn’t stop the linesman being negligent as well.

So if you can meet all the other elements (which are equally as difficult to prove now with technology as they were before - does a linesman/ref owe a duty of care? Is the loss foreseeable? Does it cause the loss etc.?)

I don’t think either of those succeeds in a negligence claim, predominantly for the causation point we mentioned earlier. But the suggestion there could never have been any negligent decision before technology was introduced is just plain wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Re suing Oliver or PGOML I suspect the issue is not negligence but contractual. When you get promoted you sign up to sky’s , sorry the Premier Leagues , contract which almost certainly will say our / the refs decision is final. The use of VAR and the protocols surrounding it will be included. Refeering decisions will contractually be accepted before they ever occur . I doubt that Bournemouth could successfully sue the ref 
 

Professional negligence against Hawkeye is however an interesting one. A claim against Hawkeye for not doing what it was meant to do is presumably possible but again there will be a level of acceptance implied . Does Hawkeye claim to be 100% accurate? Is this the basis of their employment by the EPL ? Unlikely . There will be caveats. 
 

VAR has been a disaster in that PGMOL haven’t allowed it to operate as it should . Only 4 -5 matters of law  are referred . Did the ball cross the line is not one of them . However if football allowed the process to run for the whole game looking for clear and obvious errors It would have awarded the goal. 

It's the PGMOL that I hate more than VAR. Technology in football could and should be a real improvement. They've managed to be given greater tools to improve the game and made it indisputably worse.

I think suing Hawkeye is more of a dead end than the VAR operators. You cannot sue a technology, only its operator. And to prove negligence on behalf of a human they would need to have done, or not done, something that led to that failure. I suspect at that match everything was done exactly the same as all the others, no one was individually negligent, the technology just failed at that given moment. I'm sure I read somewhere that the watch went off in the changing room at half time telling the ref it was a goal!

Unless an actual human did something that led to the failure, then Hawkeye are safe from any redress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.s. that’s where your same argument also falls down on the goal line technology. Would a reasonable premier league ref rely on the goal line technology? Well yes - it hasn’t as far as we know failed before, all the refs are told it is always right, so why would they not rely on it? If you asked every premier league ref whether they would rely on the goal line technology (before this incident ) then they would all have said yes. So where’s the negligence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Premier League has already stated it's view on this issue (that there was a decision not to get involved as the situation was unusual / "unique" and a choice was made not to intervene)...

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1685153

Yet, clearly it was unfair. Clattenburg gave his view....

https://www.givemesport.com/1575396-mark-clattenburg-says-var-should-have-intervened-and-awarded-sheff-united-goal-vs-aston-villa

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I don’t think either of those succeeds in a negligence claim, predominantly for the causation point we mentioned earlier. But the suggestion there could never have been any negligent decision before technology was introduced is just plain wrong.

I'm talking about decisions that a court would consider negligent. And the suggestion that there has never been a decision by an official that a court would consider negligent is entirely right, if you ignore decisions influenced by bribery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aggy said:

P.s. that’s where your same argument also falls down on the goal line technology. Would a reasonable premier league ref rely on the goal line technology? Well yes - it hasn’t as far as we know failed before, all the refs are told it is always right, so why would they not rely on it? If you asked every premier league ref whether they would rely on the goal line technology (before this incident ) then they would all have said yes. So where’s the negligence?

Christ on a bike, anyone got a dead horse that needs some teeth extracting?

The referee on the field is entirely correct to rely on the goal line technology. I'm talking about the VAR official with the TV screens. You know, those things you can watch slowed down replays of incidents on?

And as sonyc has shown with his link, VAR made a conscious choice to not intervene, despite knowing it was a goal. There is your negligent act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t see how they’d be able to sue the ref as it wasn’t his fault, it was down to GLT. If they did decide to take any action I think the most they would be able to achieve is by getting that fixture replayed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aggy said:

P.s. that’s where your same argument also falls down on the goal line technology. Would a reasonable premier league ref rely on the goal line technology? Well yes - it hasn’t as far as we know failed before, all the refs are told it is always right, so why would they not rely on it? If you asked every premier league ref whether they would rely on the goal line technology (before this incident ) then they would all have said yes. So where’s the negligence?

again the argument would be, was the referee bound by Hawkeye, or was he free to decide

if he was free to choose, then it would have to be proved that he was made aware that the ball had crossed the line and decided to take no action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Aggy said:

The difference between “incompetence” and “negligence” if we’re using that terminology is reasonable care. There’s no degree of negligence - either you took reasonable care or not. 

Reasonable care is based on what the reasonable person in a similar circumstance/of similar experience/training etc would have provided. So would a reasonable premier league referee be so unfit they can’t keep up with play and therefore miss clear offside decisions? No. The reasonable premier league referee would maintain a high level of fitness. So the linesman in my example has breached his duty of care. 

As for causation and it needing to be a direct cause - I don’t see how my linesman is any different to your goal that wasn’t allowed despite being over the line. If a team scores a goal, wins the game 1-0 and the opponent gets relegated on goal difference, but we later find out the goal scorer was miles offside and the linesman just missed it because he breached his duty of care/was too unfit to keep up with the play, then what’s the difference between that and the goal line decision?

From a legal point of view, it’s irrelevant that the goal line decision might have been more negligent because it could be checked on screen. That doesn’t stop the linesman being negligent as well.

So if you can meet all the other elements (which are equally as difficult to prove now with technology as they were before - does a linesman/ref owe a duty of care? Is the loss foreseeable? Does it cause the loss etc.?)

I don’t think either of those succeeds in a negligence claim, predominantly for the causation point we mentioned earlier. But the suggestion there could never have been any negligent decision before technology was introduced is just plain wrong.

Negligence is disclaimed by “the onfield referees decision is final “ . You can’t disclaim out of injury or death but you can disclaim , by implied prior acceptance , in these circumstances to pure financial loss . 

Edited by Graham Paddons Beard
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

 

Villa could easily point out that the entire game would need to be replayed as had they gone a goal down their tactics could have been different, eg settling for a point rather than chasing the game for an equaliser.  It’s the same argument that just doesn’t wash if you get a blatant pen turned down at 0-0 and lose 2-0, people say ‘it didn’t make any difference’ whereas the opposite is true, the whole complexion of the game would be different.

I somehow get the feeling had that Hernandez goal stood yesterday we’d still have been mullered 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Christ on a bike, anyone got a dead horse that needs some teeth extracting?

The referee on the field is entirely correct to rely on the goal line technology. I'm talking about the VAR official with the TV screens. You know, those things you can watch slowed down replays of incidents on?

And as sonyc has shown with his link, VAR made a conscious choice to not intervene, despite knowing it was a goal. There is your negligent act.

You can “christ on a bike” all you like, but that’s not how it works. As I’ve just said in the previous post, what would the reasonable body of VAR-trained professional refs do? You’ve got goalline technology that has never failed previously, that refs are told to rely on. Was it negligent to rely on that technology? No. You’re now falling foul of your own argument - incompetence vs negligence. Regardless of what one or two refs and VAR officials might have said, many have said that they would have relied on the goalline technology. So how can a court find that negligent?

27 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I'm talking about decisions that a court would consider negligent. And the suggestion that there has never been a decision by an official that a court would consider negligent is entirely right, if you ignore decisions influenced by bribery.

There has never been a previous incident where a genuine case of the legal definition of negligence could possibly be met.” The two statements don’t match do they.

And my point all along hasn’t been that there could have been a successful negligence claim in the past. My point is merely that the introduction of technology alone doesn’t suddenly mean a negligence claim will succeed now and one never could have done in the past. If someone can be found negligent now, they could have been found negligent in the past. That’s the point being made.

The fact they haven’t been found negligent in the past doesn’t mean the only reason they haven’t been found negligent in the past is because there was no technology. The reason they haven’t been found negligent in the past is that multiple other limbs of succeeding in a negligence claim just don’t work.

In any event , I’ll leave this here as you seem to agree a claim isn’t going to succeed.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Aggy said:

P.s. that’s where your same argument also falls down on the goal line technology. Would a reasonable premier league ref rely on the goal line technology? Well yes - it hasn’t as far as we know failed before, all the refs are told it is always right, so why would they not rely on it? If you asked every premier league ref whether they would rely on the goal line technology (before this incident ) then they would all have said yes. So where’s the negligence?

The problem with that incident was not the hawkeye failure (failures sometimes happen) but that failure being coupled by VAR not intervening. It was perfectly reasonable, in my view, for Oliver to rely on hawkeye and the fact his watch had not buzzed (although you would like to think that a ref applying common sense might have asked for a check). However, it is my understanding that VAR is supposed to check all goal related incidents and one look at a replay coupled with the on-pitch should have alerted the VAR official to the fact something was wrong and that it needed to be looked at. I still have not seen an adequate explanation as to why that did not happen and if the explanation is that VAR has not jurisdiction over Hawkeye decisions then that needs to be changed. In combination the two technologies should be stopping that outcome which has now been seen to have very significant indirect consequences for both Bournemouth and Villa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

The problem with that incident was not the hawkeye failure (failures sometimes happen) but that failure being coupled by VAR not intervening. It was perfectly reasonable, in my view, for Oliver to rely on hawkeye and the fact his watch had not buzzed (although you would like to think that a ref applying common sense might have asked for a check). However, it is my understanding that VAR is supposed to check all goal related incidents and one look at a replay coupled with the on-pitch should have alerted the VAR official to the fact something was wrong and that it needed to be looked at. I still have not seen an adequate explanation as to why that did not happen and if the explanation is that VAR has not jurisdiction over Hawkeye decisions then that needs to be changed. In combination the two technologies should be stopping that outcome which has now been seen to have very significant indirect consequences for both Bournemouth and Villa. 

Agreed but there have been refs come out and said they would have relied on the technology if they were in the VAR seat (and even the link I think Sonyc posted above talks about the “unique circumstances” because they were - as they’ve been told to do - relying on the goalline technology, despite what the replays seemed to show).

That doesn’t mean the right decision was made, and the VaR official should have stepped in imo. But that isn’t the same as meeting the necessary standard to prove negligence.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

The problem with that incident was not the hawkeye failure (failures sometimes happen) but that failure being coupled by VAR not intervening. It was perfectly reasonable, in my view, for Oliver to rely on hawkeye and the fact his watch had not buzzed (although you would like to think that a ref applying common sense might have asked for a check). However, it is my understanding that VAR is supposed to check all goal related incidents and one look at a replay coupled with the on-pitch should have alerted the VAR official to the fact something was wrong and that it needed to be looked at. I still have not seen an adequate explanation as to why that did not happen and if the explanation is that VAR has not jurisdiction over Hawkeye decisions then that needs to be changed. In combination the two technologies should be stopping that outcome which has now been seen to have very significant indirect consequences for both Bournemouth and Villa. 

It's the strange decision by Tierney the VAR official not to act that is the nub in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, sonyc said:

The Premier League has already stated it's view on this issue (that there was a decision not to get involved as the situation was unusual / "unique" and a choice was made not to intervene)...

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1685153

Yet, clearly it was unfair. Clattenburg gave his view....

https://www.givemesport.com/1575396-mark-clattenburg-says-var-should-have-intervened-and-awarded-sheff-united-goal-vs-aston-villa

 

The explanation in the premier league statement is a nonsense because clearly its when the technology fails that it needs to be checked and that can either happen if it goes off wrongly or it wrongly fails to go off. under their explanation any incident of hawkeye failing would never be picked up. The people running this are f**king idiots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jim Smith said:

The explanation in the premier league statement is a nonsense because clearly its when the technology fails that it needs to be checked and that can either happen if it goes off wrongly or it wrongly fails to go off. under their explanation any incident of hawkeye failing would never be picked up. The people running this are f**king idiots. 

I agree with you Jim. I felt that statement was very weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This season has caused referees to lean more on technology and they have managed to get even more incompetent and when they get things wrong... whoops, technology, out of our hands lads never mind though eh?

absolutely abject. The referees in the premier league are the worst ever. Fat, stupid, unfit, old, borderline personality disorders, wannabe celebrities and, lets face it, corrupt and on the take in some respect.

Edited by The Real Buh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aggy said:

Agreed but there have been refs come out and said they would have relied on the technology if they were in the VAR seat (and even the link I think Sonyc posted above talks about the “unique circumstances” because they were - as they’ve been told to do - relying on the goalline technology, despite what the replays seemed to show).

That doesn’t mean the right decision was made, and the VaR official should have stepped in imo. But that isn’t the same as meeting the necessary standard to prove negligence.

Not saying it is enough to be negligence although theoretically you could argue that the referees assocition own each club a duty of care and have failed to comply with that duty of care so far as Shef U (and maybe Villa's relegation rivals in this instance) are concerned.

My point was more that its (another) blatant and completely avoidable failing in the the way VAR is being used which has distorted competition in the premier league, not so much that Bournemouth have a legal claim given how many games there were left and indeed the uncertainty as to how that game might have panned out had Shef U gone one up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jim Smith said:

Not saying it is enough to be negligence although theoretically you could argue that the referees assocition own each club a duty of care and have failed to comply with that duty of care so far as Shef U (and maybe Villa's relegation rivals in this instance) are concerned.

My point was more that its (another) blatant and completely avoidable failing in the the way VAR is being used which has distorted competition in the premier league, not so much that Bournemouth have a legal claim given how many games there were left and indeed the uncertainty as to how that game might have panned out had Shef U gone one up.  

Agree re how it is being used. I suppose the one tiny thing in their defence here (not that it’s really defensible) is that play was carrying on. If the technology error had been the other way round (technology says goal when ball hasn’t crossed the line), I guess they would have picked up the error at the same time they checked  to see if there had been a handball in the however long beforehand etc.

The obvious thing to do would be to go back almost to how it was in the World Cup - VAR reviews that sort of controversial incident while play carries on, has a word in the ref’s ear, then go and look at the screen in the next break in play. Would still have been a big ref to overrule the goalline technology in that situation imo (when we had never had any controversy about it before), but that’s how the process should work surely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, in a true sporting sense, Dean Smith would have looked at the footage at half time like everyone did. He would then have instructed his team to give Sheff Utd a goal like Bielsa famously did last year. Dean Smith benefitted from that incident. It's interesting that in such a clear miscarriage of justice, Smith has nicely forgotten.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Really, in a true sporting sense, Dean Smith would have looked at the footage at half time like everyone did. He would then have instructed his team to give Sheff Utd a goal like Bielsa famously did last year. Dean Smith benefitted from that incident. It's interesting that in such a clear miscarriage of justice, Smith has nicely forgotten.

agreed. I donl't like Dean Smith. He comes across as a jumped up pr**k. I thought as much when he made some really graceless comments after we beat them at Carrow Road in the championship. For me, us losing twice to that sh*t Villa side is up there with the biggest embarrassments of our season. They really were not very good and at Carrow Road we made them look like Barca for a spell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Aggy said:

 

The obvious thing to do would be to go back almost to how it was in the World Cup - VAR reviews that sort of controversial incident while play carries on, has a word in the ref’s ear, then go and look at the screen in the next break in play. Would still have been a big ref to overrule the goalline technology in that situation imo (when we had never had any controversy about it before), but that’s how the process should work surely.

This is how it works, VAR is 'always on'.  Theres been plenty of time the referee has called the play to a halt because Stockley Park have noticed something- ref can pretty much stop play whenever for this.

As I said, the whole thing stinks IMO. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aggy said:

You can “christ on a bike” all you like, but that’s not how it works. As I’ve just said in the previous post, what would the reasonable body of VAR-trained professional refs do? You’ve got goalline technology that has never failed previously, that refs are told to rely on. Was it negligent to rely on that technology? No. You’re now falling foul of your own argument - incompetence vs negligence. Regardless of what one or two refs and VAR officials might have said, many have said that they would have relied on the goalline technology. So how can a court find that negligent?

There has never been a previous incident where a genuine case of the legal definition of negligence could possibly be met.” The two statements don’t match do they.

And my point all along hasn’t been that there could have been a successful negligence claim in the past. My point is merely that the introduction of technology alone doesn’t suddenly mean a negligence claim will succeed now and one never could have done in the past. If someone can be found negligent now, they could have been found negligent in the past. That’s the point being made.

The fact they haven’t been found negligent in the past doesn’t mean the only reason they haven’t been found negligent in the past is because there was no technology. The reason they haven’t been found negligent in the past is that multiple other limbs of succeeding in a negligence claim just don’t work.

In any event , I’ll leave this here as you seem to agree a claim isn’t going to succeed.

I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately obtuse or not.

PGMOL acknowledged that the VAR official was aware that goal line technology had failed and that they could have intervened but didn't. There's your negligent act.

If Bournemouth choose to litigate, it wouldn't fail due to a lack of negligence but whether or not a judge decreed that the VAR official negligently failing to intervene to award a goal was conditio sine qua non, or the proximate cause, of Bournemouth's relegation and subsequent loss.

The negligence results entirely from the existence of a post-event review system with the authority to intervene, which did not exist prior to August 2019, so your made up straw-men about fat linesmen being 20 yards out of position in the Premier League or even your real-life examples of referees giving three yellow cards or awarding non-existent goals have no relevance in this context as it would be impossible to prove negligence on the balance of probabilities. And I can't accept you don't grasp this, hence wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately obtuse or not.

PGMOL acknowledged that the VAR official was aware that goal line technology had failed and that they could have intervened but didn't. There's your negligent act.

If Bournemouth choose to litigate, it wouldn't fail due to a lack of negligence but whether or not a judge decreed that the VAR official negligently failing to intervene to award a goal was conditio sine qua non, or the proximate cause, of Bournemouth's relegation and subsequent loss.

The negligence results entirely from the existence of a post-event review system with the authority to intervene, which did not exist prior to August 2019, so your made up straw-men about fat linesmen being 20 yards out of position in the Premier League or even your real-life examples of referees giving three yellow cards or awarding non-existent goals have no relevance in this context as it would be impossible to prove negligence on the balance of probabilities. And I can't accept you don't grasp this, hence wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse.

Why the need to get offensive? Just because you think the wrong decision was made (and I would agree) doesn’t mean it’s negligence. Lots of wrong things happen but they’re not always negligent. 

You can quote Latin terms you’ve just googled all you want, but I’ve explained the basis for how an action could be negligent. It is entirely possible that a negligent decision could have happened before technology was introduced. It’s not guaranteed that it would apply in this case because I’m pretty sure lots of refs and VAR people would say it was reasonable to do the same in those circumstances, knowing they’ve got goal line technology which has previously never (that I’ve heard of anyway) failed vs a slightly blurry video/still screen - and I’m not sure that making a decision to rely on one bit of technology that has never failed before  would get you over your negligence threshold - but it might, yes.

As for straw men arguments, do you know what this means? You said it has never been possible for there to be a negligent decision in the prem before technology was introduced. I gave an example of one situation that could be. How is that a straw man argument?

Genuinely not sure why you’re getting so worked up. Did you remortgage your house and stick your last fifty quid on Bournemouth staying up or something? Let’s hope the prem don’t hire any lawyers if so cos you’re not on to a winner.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

 

The negligence results entirely from the existence of a post-event review system with the authority to intervene, which did not exist prior to August 2019, so your made up straw-men about fat linesmen being 20 yards out of position in the Premier League or even your real-life examples of referees giving three yellow cards or awarding non-existent goals have no relevance in this context as it would be impossible to prove negligence on the balance of probabilities. And I can't accept you don't grasp this, hence wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse.

Ps as for grasping this, not one thing in your entire post actually refers to the test you’d have to apply to show whether someone was negligent. Perhaps google that instead of a fancy Latin quote that’s not particularly relevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sonyc said:

Really, in a true sporting sense, Dean Smith would have looked at the footage at half time like everyone did. He would then have instructed his team to give Sheff Utd a goal like Bielsa famously did last year. Dean Smith benefitted from that incident. It's interesting that in such a clear miscarriage of justice, Smith has nicely forgotten.

Very good point, I’d totally forgotten about that.

As for why VAR didn’t intervene, I think it’s quite simple-it wasn’t one of the 4 scenarios that VAR can intervene in-it automatically checks when a goal is given but presumably as the goal line technology had never failed before they had no reason to think that a situation would ever occur when a goal appeared to have been scored  but wasn’t given. Will they change it next year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no case to answer. The idea that there is is just a social media fantasy. No court would want to intrude into the integrity of the competition, there is a difference between incompetance and negligance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Var hates norwich. How many goals has it chalked off us this season when we where well in a game or even winning... man United on the other hand, got so many penalties and goals disallowed for the opposition they qualify for the champions league. No consistency and obvious favourites 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sonyc said:

Really, in a true sporting sense, Dean Smith would have looked at the footage at half time like everyone did. He would then have instructed his team to give Sheff Utd a goal like Bielsa famously did last year. Dean Smith benefitted from that incident. It's interesting that in such a clear miscarriage of justice, Smith has nicely forgotten.

This is because Dean Smith is a cu*t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Aggy said:

The obvious thing to do would be to go back almost to how it was in the World Cup - VAR reviews that sort of controversial incident while play carries on, has a word in the ref’s ear, then go and look at the screen in the next break in play. Would still have been a big ref to overrule the goalline technology in that situation imo (when we had never had any controversy about it before), but that’s how the process should work surely.

This is exactly the point re VAR. 

in the World Cup , the first time it was introduced, play was continually reviewed by VAR. It was trialed in this way too - all over the world . Australia , Japan and all over Europe . It was designed to offer the onfield ref additional angles . This is what refs have moaned about for years. Only one angle . 
 

“Protocol” then took over . 1 for consistency ie when should it be used . And 2 - this is the important one folks - not to been seen to overrule the refs on too many occasions . 
 

So referral was stipulated for only certain instances . And that where it all goes wrong . 
 

Play is no longer continually reviewed as it was initially intended to be. It worked very well in the World Cup with numerous international refs. Give it to PGMOL and you get Simon Hooper reviewing Michael Oliver . I rest my case . 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...