A&H

Karl Henry

T

The Gump

Member
Some of you may have seen that the Karl Henry case has been concluded by the FA, with the charges found not proven.

He was on Twitter proclaiming victory:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1781237715477905836

However, the decision makes for very different reading:

https://thefa.com/-/media/files/the...4/the-fa-v-karl-henry---19-february-2024.ashx

E3 states "A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour."

On the surface, Henry's behaviour seems to fall foul of E3 but Rule 96 of the Disciplinary Regulations specifies three specific offences against officials, namely threatening, physical contact or assault. As Henry did none of those three things he was found not in breach.

The charge not being found proven is depressing, because the message it sends is as long as you don't threaten, contact or assault a young ref you can basically do what you like.

Did the FA **** this up by issuing the wrong charge (eg could they have charged him under another offence such as safeguarding given this was a youth official), or are the Rules not fit for purpose?
 
The Referee Store
The written reasons make for horrific reading and Karl is banking on no one looking them up because they make him out to be a horrid bully.

The rules clearly aren't fit for purpose if they can be interpreted like this but also the tribunal system is pretty poor. I had one where the fact a player one foot away from me said something "under his breath" meant the tribunal said I probably misheard him. Complete horseshit considering the player didn't say he'd said something else, he denied saying anything at all!
 
Not really surprised, he will have paid a fortune for a highly paid lawyer to represent him that the FA don't have.
 
Poor from the fa imo, it seems the fa ain’t there to support young referees at time, I recently experienced misconduct and reported it due to the manner of how the coach treated his own players and how they treated both me and the Lino and the case was dropped with no further action accept it being “noted” this was at (u13 Sunday mixed)
 
OnlyUseMeWhistle said:
The written reasons make for horrific reading and Karl is banking on no one looking them up because they make him out to be a horrid bully.

The rules clearly aren't fit for purpose if they can be interpreted like this but also the tribunal system is pretty poor. I had one where the fact a player one foot away from me said something "under his breath" meant the tribunal said I probably misheard him. Complete horseshit considering the player didn't say he'd said something else, he denied saying anything at all!
Click to expand...
your scenario sums up all that is wrong witn these hearings. the referee is often branded a liar.
 
Kent Ref said:
your scenario sums up all that is wrong witn these hearings. the referee is often branded a liar.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Currently a big thing the fa are trying to achieve is rentention (well a lot of county fa’s are) but by not dealing with these cases properly and never backing the ref makes many refs feel worthless and not backed/supported especially young ones and currently 1/2 refs I think I saw are under the age of 21, you can see why rentention is such a big problem and why many refs don’t bother reporting misconduct.
 
If this was a case presented by a local FA I would agree. If by the main FA, they’re staffed with qualified barristers and solicitors. Granted it doesn’t mean they’re any good (most governing body in house legal aren’t that good - if they were they’d be in practice not taking the easier life in a 9-5).

Sounds to me that they’ve either charged under the wrong rule, or the rule need rewriting.
 
Jed said:
Totally agree. Currently a big thing the fa are trying to achieve is rentention (well a lot of county fa’s are) but by not dealing with these cases properly and never backing the ref makes many refs feel worthless and not backed/supported especially young ones and currently 1/2 refs I think I saw are under the age of 21, you can see why rentention is such a big problem and why many refs don’t bother reporting misconduct.
Click to expand...
Not only do these incidents cause the referee that was targeted to quit the game, but they must also have a knock-on impact. For most people there’s only so long they’ll feel comfortable going on working under the name of an organisation that does not prioritise the concerns of the people they are supposed to protect.

I can imagine a fifteen year old referee, a season into their refereeing career, reading about these incidents, looking at the fact that such incidents could happen to them, and just deciding to pack it in because they don’t think it’s worth it. For more experienced referees there probably isn’t as much of an impact, but even now seeing the way stuff like this is dealt with and publicised makes me deeply uncomfortable.
 
Aside from the argument I've already used that Karl Henry will have had a much better lawyer than the FA did, I've now read it in full and I can see how they reached the conclusion they did. There seems no doubt that Henry's behaviour was poor and shouldn't be seen anywhere near a youth football game, but he was charged with threatening behaviour towards a match official, not poor behaviour. From all of the evidence I can't see anything that suggests he threatened the referee, as the commission says, his behaviour was inappropriate but not threatening.

This isn't a criticism of the referee, but it seems there were multiple occasions to show a yellow or even red card to Henry, but he didn't do it. I totally understand why as it must be very intimidating for a referee of that age to be up against that kind of adult behaviour, but the failure to show cards does limit what action can be taken. For example, coming onto the pitch to confront a referee is a mandatory red card, but if the referee doesn't deal with it the CFA can't deal with it afterwards.

The answer to all of this is for the league to send their older referees to do his team's games. The ones that aren't on promotion, don't care about their club marks, get them to deal with him (assuming he hasn't seen the error of his ways, which I doubt). They certainly can't be putting under 16 year old referees on that team's games
 
RustyRef said:
Aside from the argument I've already used that Karl Henry will have had a much better lawyer than the FA did, I've now read it in full and I can see how they reached the conclusion they did. There seems no doubt that Henry's behaviour was poor and shouldn't be seen anywhere near a youth football game, but he was charged with threatening behaviour towards a match official, not poor behaviour. From all of the evidence I can't see anything that suggests he threatened the referee, as the commission says, his behaviour was inappropriate but not threatening.

This isn't a criticism of the referee, but it seems there were multiple occasions to show a yellow or even red card to Henry, but he didn't do it. I totally understand why as it must be very intimidating for a referee of that age to be up against that kind of adult behaviour, but the failure to show cards does limit what action can be taken. For example, coming onto the pitch to confront a referee is a mandatory red card, but if the referee doesn't deal with it the CFA can't deal with it afterwards.

The answer to all of this is for the league to send their older referees to do his team's games. The ones that aren't on promotion, don't care about their club marks, get them to deal with him (assuming he hasn't seen the error of his ways, which I doubt). They certainly can't be putting under 16 year old referees on that team's games
Click to expand...
Did the referee say it was that charge? Or did the county fa come up with the charge? If it’s the county fa that came up with the charge, it was a unfair hearing but if the referee said it was that charge there’s not much you can do. It’s like calling murder, assault it leads to the wrong justice for the person in the wrong and promotes that behaviour
 
Jed said:
Did the referee say it was that charge? Or did the county fa come up with the charge? If it’s the county fa that came up with the charge, it was a unfair hearing but if the referee said it was that charge there’s not much you can do. It’s like calling murder, assault it leads to the wrong justice for the person in the wrong and promotes that behaviour
Click to expand...
I believe referees submit the report and CFA decide which charges to bring.

I also believe that CFAs look at the likelihood of a charge being proved before deciding whether to charge a player / club etc.

Last season a player threw mud at me after a game. I was hit on the head but there were no witnesses. End result? No charges made.

I think the club should have been told to name the player but it didn't even leave the CFAs office. Disgraceful.

I believe that if the club was written to and told to name the player charges would have been made.

The current system favours the clubs / players and leaves the referee exposed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jed
RustyRef said:
This isn't a criticism of the referee, but it seems there were multiple occasions to show a yellow or even red card to Henry, but he didn't do it. I totally understand why as it must be very intimidating for a referee of that age to be up against that kind of adult behaviour, but the failure to show cards does limit what action can be taken. For example, coming onto the pitch to confront a referee is a mandatory red card, but if the referee doesn't deal with it the CFA can't deal with it afterwards.
Click to expand...
I do think the context of the victim being 15 should lower the bar for intimidation. An adult man shouting at you, coming onto the pitch whilst doing so, is intimidating and it's probably the intention of Karl to do so in order to influence the referee.

Do we expect a child referee to risk potential physical assault or further escalation to the abuse, by showing the card? It's quite clear Karl wasn't respecting the laws, so why would he take the card
 
RustyRef said:
Aside from the argument I've already used that Karl Henry will have had a much better lawyer than the FA did, I've now read it in full and I can see how they reached the conclusion they did. There seems no doubt that Henry's behaviour was poor and shouldn't be seen anywhere near a youth football game, but he was charged with threatening behaviour towards a match official, not poor behaviour. From all of the evidence I can't see anything that suggests he threatened the referee, as the commission says, his behaviour was inappropriate but not threatening.

This isn't a criticism of the referee, but it seems there were multiple occasions to show a yellow or even red card to Henry, but he didn't do it. I totally understand why as it must be very intimidating for a referee of that age to be up against that kind of adult behaviour, but the failure to show cards does limit what action can be taken. For example, coming onto the pitch to confront a referee is a mandatory red card, but if the referee doesn't deal with it the CFA can't deal with it afterwards.

The answer to all of this is for the league to send their older referees to do his team's games. The ones that aren't on promotion, don't care about their club marks, get them to deal with him (assuming he hasn't seen the error of his ways, which I doubt). They certainly can't be putting under 16 year old referees on that team's games
Click to expand...
That was my conclusion too, with complete sympathy for the lad as the reasons stated it was also one of his first games - "recently qualified" would suggest to me he's either completed the course during October half-term or just started at the beginning of the season. Buck stops with whoever issued charges.
 
'Not proven' is the right outcome having read the report
Poor behaviour in the game would take a generation to improve. There's not really any sign of traction in terms of improving behaviour on and off the field. I've noticed recently that PGMOL referees have (predictably) regressed in their tolerance of dissent/abuse. The players pay scant regard to C2 cards anyway as they know they're very unlikely to get a second. I've seen Antony (in particular) go unpunished for multiple public outbursts that involved abuse (lip reading) or severe dissent of late.

If Henry is involved with an U12's team, we can assume the standard of football is going to be quite 'competitive', even if it is U12s
Most Referees aged 14 or 15, would not have the ability for such a game. Let's not underestimate the competency potentially required by such appointments. One way or another (as has happened in this game), a Referee has been assigned to a game that he/she is not ready for. It's a harsh reality that's contributed to distress all round
 
Big Cat said:
If Henry is involved with an U12's team, we can assume the standard of football is going to be quite 'competitive', even if it is U12s
Most Referees aged 14 or 15, would not have the ability for such a game. Let's not underestimate the competency potentially required by such appointments. One way or another (as has happened in this game), a Referee has been assigned to a game that he/she is not ready for. It's a harsh reality that's contributed to distress all round
Click to expand...
Midlands JPL, so it will be a good standard for non-academy youth football.

Whilst I agree with you to a large degree, it's a sad indictment of football that an U12s game can't be refereed by a young ref at the start of their journey, with the learning curve and issues around confidence that always entails.

I've certainly found over the last two years that as an adult ref, it's in many ways easier to referee Sunday league/junior county cup level than youth games, due to the nuances of communicating with kids, parents, wide range of behaviour from coaches and players, petulance and what the game expects. There are obvious challenges that come with adult football but because they're adults and no debate/what the game expects issues around the LOTG there are elements that are easier.

I've seen plenty of young refs in my time as a coach/parent who are making poor decisions, lack confidence and knowledge of the LOTG, refuse to ever use cards etc but as an adult it's ON ME if I'm unable to keep my gob shut and be anything other than understanding, supportive and respectful and if I fail to ensure the behaviour of parents is the same.
 
Jed said:
Did the referee say it was that charge? Or did the county fa come up with the charge? If it’s the county fa that came up with the charge, it was a unfair hearing but if the referee said it was that charge there’s not much you can do. It’s like calling murder, assault it leads to the wrong justice for the person in the wrong and promotes that behaviour
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing to do with the referee, we just report exactly what happened and the CFA decide on what to charge him with.
 
RustyRef said:
Absolutely nothing to do with the referee, we just report exactly what happened and the CFA decide on what to charge him with.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is what happened when I reported misconduct, I was just unsure whether the ref labelled it as that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top