deusex
RefChat Addict
You use the word "assumption" to downplay the evidence. We're not assuming anything - we've all see the videos and can all draw whatever conclusion we draw. Assumptions don't come into it.
And the AR will say of course he didn't - because apart from anything else, there's literally no benefit to saying he did it deliberately.
The point is, I don't really care what he decides to claim in any tribunal, and I don't really care what he tries to spin as reasons. I'd be happy with a red card and a suspension for a player who did that. So for me, the only question is what is the equivalent to that punishment for a match official - and I don't need his input for that.
Interesting how not one judicial system in the free world works like that.
In a football match, sure, a reason given by a player for SFP or VC is usually completely irrelevant. The laws allow the ref to be judge, jury and executioner for the sake of a game to finish in 90 mins.
But this is real life. This man has a mortgage. If you sack/suspend this man without even hearing his evidence, he'd be driving your car home from the employment tribunal.
There are a hundred reasons he could have reacted like this.