What can we say on here?

[Smudge]

What he made a mistake and everyone thought it was open season ?

 

Anybody slate any player constantly for making amistake on the game today ?

 

YEAH ME,Spencer9 and blueand whitearmy were absolute crap and I told them so,they were both substituted of course.

[Krooner]

But did you keep banging on about it and then post it on a forum on the web ?

[Beano]

I have to step in to this debate, because at least part of it is down to me.

 

I am, like my friend and colleague Whitelaw, a volunteer official at Ashford Town (Middlesex) FC. However, I am also an officer of the Middlesex County FA - this is what pays my rent.

 

The statement about social networking was issued by the FA about six weeks ago, after a number of incidents involving Premier League players on Twitter. However, the paragraph that has so excited Smudge - the bit that defines what a "participant" is - was written by me. The logic behind it was that I was trying to help grassroots clubs to AVOID trouble by flagging up that the same rules apply to the as to the people at the top level. The reason "supporters" were excluded was because it is difficult to prove a supporter's link to any given club (if needs be, the FA have another rule for that).

 

Once I had amended the statement, I published it on MiddlesexFA.com and emailed it to leagues for their information - including the CCL. There is NO desire, at either national or local FA level to supress debate about the game, although there are issues around Facebook and Twitter in particular, as well as with blogs and forums, which is why the statement was issued in the first place. The same rules apply online as they do in the "real world" - if a manger spouts off about a referee in the local press, they are as likely to be charged under Rule E3 for that as they are for going potty on Facebook. Essentially, you can say what you like on here - as long as you don't break the law or the house rules and have the cojones to say it again under your real name and in public if you have to.

 

There is no cost to clubs when they mark a referee at less than 60, other than the time spent compiling a report. There is a cost if clubs request a disciplinary hearing, but this is designed to cover the costs incurred by the County FA in holding that hearing - NOT to make money from the clubs. That cost is made clear in advance.

 

While I'm here, I'd like to point out that the Guernsey FA is classed as a County Football Association within the FA in the same way that Surrey or Middlesex are. That means that, in footballing terms, Guernsey is as much a part of England as Surrey, so no rule change is required by this league (or any other).

[Smudge]

Beano,thanks for your clear and concise reply,can I ask a question though,if a Club marks a Ref under 60,and supplies a concise report to the League,County F.A.,Is a hearing not needed to rectify the dispute,is this done free of charge?I except that I was wrong,that a fee was payable,but that was the reason given to me by many Clubs that moaned about Officials.Another point you could clarify,what is the other rule,that the f.a. can use re Supporters.

 

Peter Eaton,and proud of it.

[Beano]

I've never been asked to attend any sort of hearing after marking a referee at below the expected minimum mark. In fact, I've only ever had feedback once - some years ago, I sent a three page letter to the Surrey FA about a referee who I felt was out of his depth after a Surrey Premier Cup tie. I got a two-page response from the County FA that compared my remarks with those of the assessor and answered my points in detail while stopping just short of calling me an idiot! That referee has subsequently gone up through the levels and I have been impressed with his handling of potentially difficult games, so I must have got that one wrong!

 

Usually, the League / County FA will simply use the report supplied to assist the referee with their development (feedback can be given to the ref without them knowing which club submitted the report), or as a tool to help them monitor referee performance - for instance, if a ref gets a report from a club that usually mark quite high, the League might then arrange for an assessor to be present at that official's next game. I know of one example when I was involved at a club that isn't Ashford where the Suburban League sent the same referee to our next match (at Croydon Arena) after he had a difficult game at our home ground. Again, this was years ago. Said ref did not have a great game second time around either... The League had appointed him to our game because my club had not given him any trouble in the first match and they trusted us to mark him fairly.

RE: Supporters. I don't know the number of the rule you ask about, but in extreme cases (ie, someone going on the pitch, or confronting an official and swearing repeatedly at them) the home club could be charged with "failiure to control spectators". Where forums are concerned, if someone anonymous identifies themselves with a particular club and posts something over the top, the club itself could, in theory, be charged with misconduct although I think this would only happen if the club were asked to get the post removed and then made no effort to do so.

[VPCTFC]

Interesting stuff Beano.

 

One of the thing's that's become an issue recently in the courts is whether website owners are responsible for what comments are put on them. They can put as many disclaimers as they want saying the views are those of the individual writer but that may not wash with the courts.

With football I think it's particularly unwise to have a forum on the official club website.

Eg - at Camberley, our forum is on proboards.com whereas the website is camberleytownfc. There is a link to the forum and most people, including some at the club, think that means the forum is part of the website. It's not. Andy's disclaimer on the forum is flawed in two aspects in my view. Firstly, it's on a different website so no need to mention any official link with CTFC as a club, secondly, as I've already said, clubs may be able to be held legally responsible for what's written on their site so the disclaimer is a load of rubbish.

It amazes me that clubs like Farnborough have their forum as part of their website. That's potentially asking for trouble.

 

As for this site - nonleague.co.uk, it's clearly independant so I can't see how any club can be held accountable for what's on here, however the site owner could still possibly be prosecuted for what's written on it. This is why these sites need moderators / admins etc. although that opens up another current legal argument about whether comments the website owner is unaware of should lead to the owner being prosecuted or not. It's not big brother denying people free speech, although that does happen in some places, it's people making sure they're not setting themselves up to be sued. Who can blame them?

 

Please note this post is my opinion and not that of CTFC, nonleague.co.uk or any other entity. I have no legal training so all of the above may be complete BS.

Edited April 3, 2011 by VPCTFC

[Non League Nigel]

More freedom of speech in the Cobham

Match day programme yesterday. Someone called uncle pete wrote a column and absolutely slated certain people within the club (no names were metioned ) What's going on down there ?

[VPCTFC]

More freedom of speech in the Cobham

Match day programme yesterday. Someone called uncle pete wrote a column and absolutely slated certain people within the club (no names were metioned ) What's going on down there ?

 

Something in an official club programme slating people at the club is just amateurish, even if no names were mentioned. This sort of thing is what boardrooms were invented for - internal problems shouldn't be put published in public.

[Smudge]

Anyone got a copy would love to read it.Uncle Pete eh.

[Oi Oi Saveloy]

Like smudge if anyone could be botherd to scan or write up what was said in the column i would be very grateful as a cobham supporter myself who did not attend the game i would be very intrested and grateful thanks.

[Non League Nigel]

Ive got a copy but I'm not going to stick it up on here as even though it was in the programme I expect a lot of the people at the club were furious with it and would never have let it be printed if they knew. Theres obviously a few problems down there at the moment so I'll leave it to someone from the club to comment

[Smudge]

SPOILSPORT.

[Green_Fingers]

SPOILSPORT.

 

Don't suppose "Uncle Pete" was Uncle Pete & proud of it Smudge?????

[Smudge]

Like that Pakistan player ASIF.

 

 

[Green_Fingers]

Like that Pakistan player ASIF.

 

 

 

Spoilsport

[Oi Oi Saveloy]

I was really looking forward to that o well I will have to go ask an insider that or you could pm it to me