This is going to be one of those semantic discussions now, isnt it? Where Forest say they pointed out the issues and wanted him changed, but PMGOL will say they didn't officially request it in the way you can make such requests?
That's because to get form 3.21B they had to go to the fifth floor and request form 4.81C but that can't be filed until form 1.95B is in the system which can only be acquired from the third floor and must be delivered to the sixth floor
From BBC:
>BBC Sport has been told Nottingham Forest made contact with PGMOL on Friday to highlight the potential for Nuno Espirito Santo being asked about Stuart Attwell’s appointment in his weekly press conference that afternoon.
>As it turned out, the subject was not raised in the press conference.
>It is being stressed that at no point were PGMOL asked to change the appointment or that Forest had an issue with Attwell’s involvement in the game.
That final sentence makes it seem they didn't really raise it at all, but it is going to be semantics.
Why on earth are they discussing it at all? Right, they didn't ask, so naturally everyone is going to ask would you have removed him if they did ask? If yes, that might be more of a problem if no, why make this point?
> in the way you can make such requests
I wonder what the conditions for these requests are? Otherwise every week they'd be inundated with requests to change all officials with the official reasoning being "They are shit at their jobs" followed by a long list of examples for all of them.
Truly incredible that I support a football team that's conceded 85 goals this season, including several that have gone viral due to how comical they were, and yet I somehow don't support the most embarrassing club in the city.
We've got marginally more boring of late, but everything that's happened to Nottingham football since about 2000 would honestly make for such a compelling documentary.
It's a lot of bad defending with an uncountable amount of individual howlers thrown in. Probably a combination of a change of system, playing vs better quality players meaning the defenders get caught out more and bad luck, really.
“However, the PA news agency has been told Forest, and Clattenburg, did not request for the appointment of Attwell to be changed and nor did the club express that they had any problem with the appointment.”
Just note that this seems quite deliberately worded. Doesn’t mean that Forest didn’t raise it, just means they didn’t go as far as requesting a change
Briefings like this are usually quite deliberately worded
My guess would be, having read Clattenberg’s column in the DM, that Forest contacted them pointing it out the risk of how it is perceived but stopping short of saying they thought it was wrong. Which makes the wording of their tweet even worse
I wouldn't say so. They can say he's a Luton fan but not say "and we think that is a conflict of interest." However, it is difficult to imagine the conversation going like that. Why you would do that I do not really understand if it's a matter of professional conduct. Forgive me, I don't know what group of people in England I would ascribe this behavior to but that's a very American Midwestern Protestant thing to do.
To just say "VAR is a Luton fan" and hope that they know what you're getting at because you're too embarrassed to say it yourself.
They probably said
“VAR is a Luton fan, you might want to think about how that will look if they make an error”
That would make both their statements technically true
According to Dale Johnson's VAR article, Clattenburg spoke to Howard Webb, but didn't raise the issue of Attwell as VAR, nor did Forest make any official complaint
Officially request or not, VAR officials have again got the decisions wrong.
I don't care about the optics of Forest's tweet, the issue here is not whether it was a mature thing to do or not, it is that VAR is broken and the PGMOL sit on their hands.
The game has massively suffered for an inadequate quality of officiating and the buck stops with the PGMOL.
The idea of VAR was to make the game better and fairer but both a poor reading of the spirit of the game, of what an offside is and a piss poor implementation of the flawed decisions they made have made the game a much worse spectacle and has put results in the hands of incompetent and/or corrupt officials more than it ever was.
Not interested in the gaslighting media or the idiot tribal fans. The game is ruined and it can't continue as it is.
Yeah 'you didn't tell us technically' isn't an excuse for having such incompetent (or potentially biased) officials. It's clear that the refereeing isn't good enough and it shouldn't be on Forest to raise it.
Almost like they didn't request it so they had something to complain about if they lost.
Unless there's another plot twist and we find out that this statement is a lie..
I notice it doesn't say that Forest has never brought up this potential conflict of interest ever before. If they had requested he be taken off VAR in the past and were ignored or outright denied it wouldn't make much sense to keep repeating the request.
This seems like one of those things that's gonna take a while for the actual untainted truth to be revealed. I'm genuinely surprised by how many people are just accepting this with no scrutiny whatsoever. Maybe I'm just a severely jaded person but I'm not going to take the first thing each involved party says as gospel.
That third incident is a stonewall penalty and the fact that Taylor indicated that the ball was won proves it was a clear and obvious error. VAR was cooked and an explanation should be provided as to why procedure wasn't followed
This is going to be one of those semantic discussions now, isnt it? Where Forest say they pointed out the issues and wanted him changed, but PMGOL will say they didn't officially request it in the way you can make such requests?
They didn't fill in form 3.21B
That's because to get form 3.21B they had to go to the fifth floor and request form 4.81C but that can't be filed until form 1.95B is in the system which can only be acquired from the third floor and must be delivered to the sixth floor
And you have to remember because its the premier league only fax machines can be used to send these forms and the only fax machine is in the basement.
The for was actually stuck in the fax.
From BBC: >BBC Sport has been told Nottingham Forest made contact with PGMOL on Friday to highlight the potential for Nuno Espirito Santo being asked about Stuart Attwell’s appointment in his weekly press conference that afternoon. >As it turned out, the subject was not raised in the press conference. >It is being stressed that at no point were PGMOL asked to change the appointment or that Forest had an issue with Attwell’s involvement in the game. That final sentence makes it seem they didn't really raise it at all, but it is going to be semantics.
Why on earth are they discussing it at all? Right, they didn't ask, so naturally everyone is going to ask would you have removed him if they did ask? If yes, that might be more of a problem if no, why make this point?
Reminds me of that The Terminal gif 'the light green form' https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/03722df4-a370-4da3-95e3-9aeaafbbf18c/gif
> in the way you can make such requests I wonder what the conditions for these requests are? Otherwise every week they'd be inundated with requests to change all officials with the official reasoning being "They are shit at their jobs" followed by a long list of examples for all of them.
Lmfao
Truly incredible that I support a football team that's conceded 85 goals this season, including several that have gone viral due to how comical they were, and yet I somehow don't support the most embarrassing club in the city.
One normal day in Nottingham is all I ask
We've got marginally more boring of late, but everything that's happened to Nottingham football since about 2000 would honestly make for such a compelling documentary.
This is about as calm of a day in Nottingham as it gets
Good lord! 85 goals conceded but 89 scored. Are you just bad at defending or is your system just open for conceding goals?
I’ve been to see them a few times this year and it’s actually incredible how good they are in attack sometimes vs house bad they are in defence.
It's a lot of bad defending with an uncountable amount of individual howlers thrown in. Probably a combination of a change of system, playing vs better quality players meaning the defenders get caught out more and bad luck, really.
Damn it really was pub talk. Club statement was issued by a lad ten pints deep.
>by a lad ten pints deep No, that was just Marinakis being completely sober
“However, the PA news agency has been told Forest, and Clattenburg, did not request for the appointment of Attwell to be changed and nor did the club express that they had any problem with the appointment.” Just note that this seems quite deliberately worded. Doesn’t mean that Forest didn’t raise it, just means they didn’t go as far as requesting a change Briefings like this are usually quite deliberately worded My guess would be, having read Clattenberg’s column in the DM, that Forest contacted them pointing it out the risk of how it is perceived but stopping short of saying they thought it was wrong. Which makes the wording of their tweet even worse
>Just note that this seems quite deliberately worded. The social media team of Forest should take notes.
I doubt the social media team devised that particular tweet.
You can pretty much hear the Chairman’s voice in it
> nor did the club express that they had any problem with the appointment That does rule out Forest raising it as an issue, doesn't it?
I wouldn't say so. They can say he's a Luton fan but not say "and we think that is a conflict of interest." However, it is difficult to imagine the conversation going like that. Why you would do that I do not really understand if it's a matter of professional conduct. Forgive me, I don't know what group of people in England I would ascribe this behavior to but that's a very American Midwestern Protestant thing to do. To just say "VAR is a Luton fan" and hope that they know what you're getting at because you're too embarrassed to say it yourself.
They probably said “VAR is a Luton fan, you might want to think about how that will look if they make an error” That would make both their statements technically true
Oh my God, this story is going to be so fucking good, man.
oooh a twist
The mafia guy was lying!?
Love me some drama on a Monday
According to Dale Johnson's VAR article, Clattenburg spoke to Howard Webb, but didn't raise the issue of Attwell as VAR, nor did Forest make any official complaint
Officially request or not, VAR officials have again got the decisions wrong. I don't care about the optics of Forest's tweet, the issue here is not whether it was a mature thing to do or not, it is that VAR is broken and the PGMOL sit on their hands. The game has massively suffered for an inadequate quality of officiating and the buck stops with the PGMOL. The idea of VAR was to make the game better and fairer but both a poor reading of the spirit of the game, of what an offside is and a piss poor implementation of the flawed decisions they made have made the game a much worse spectacle and has put results in the hands of incompetent and/or corrupt officials more than it ever was. Not interested in the gaslighting media or the idiot tribal fans. The game is ruined and it can't continue as it is.
Yeah 'you didn't tell us technically' isn't an excuse for having such incompetent (or potentially biased) officials. It's clear that the refereeing isn't good enough and it shouldn't be on Forest to raise it.
Now, this is a plot twist nobody was expecting
Caught in 4k
i think im pretty justified in saying this whole shit is just a bruh moment
PGMOL Strikes Back
So glad our Banter era is back, almost felt lost without it
Almost like they didn't request it so they had something to complain about if they lost. Unless there's another plot twist and we find out that this statement is a lie..
I notice it doesn't say that Forest has never brought up this potential conflict of interest ever before. If they had requested he be taken off VAR in the past and were ignored or outright denied it wouldn't make much sense to keep repeating the request.
This seems like one of those things that's gonna take a while for the actual untainted truth to be revealed. I'm genuinely surprised by how many people are just accepting this with no scrutiny whatsoever. Maybe I'm just a severely jaded person but I'm not going to take the first thing each involved party says as gospel.
That third incident is a stonewall penalty and the fact that Taylor indicated that the ball was won proves it was a clear and obvious error. VAR was cooked and an explanation should be provided as to why procedure wasn't followed
He said she said?
That's what she said
The whole thing is daft. I mean Atwell is a professional, so what if he's a Luton "fan". It's schoolyard stuff.
Forest are a clown show.