The Ref Stop

Mark Clatternburg Overlap Interview

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

The Ref Stop
RustyRef said:
Hackett couldn't be any less honest with his opinion, he will always go the polar opposite to what the referee did. Even when doing so contradicts what he has previously said when criticising refereeing decisions.
Click to expand...
We will agree to differ on that.
 
RustyRef said:
It isn't an opinion, it is fact. He always says the decision was wrong.
Click to expand...
Not always wrong but sometimes sees it more balanced other times he’s wrong and some it’s down to interpretation just because you don’t like him you shouldn’t disrespect a highly decorated official I’m not a massive fan of Taylor but I’m not saying he’s always wrong am I.
 
HonestRef said:
Not always wrong but sometimes sees it more balanced other times he’s wrong and some it’s down to interpretation just because you don’t like him you shouldn’t disrespect a highly decorated official I’m not a massive fan of Taylor but I’m not saying he’s always wrong am I.
Click to expand...
Give me examples of where he has backed the decision and I will agree that it isn't always, I suspect you'll struggle to find any though. I listen to talksport throughout most days when I'm not on work calls, and they wheel him out to talk about decisions. I know exactly what his opinion is going to be before he utters a word, and in the past two years I haven't once been wrong.

The other issue I have is he repeatedly bangs on about how great it was when he was in charge of PGMOL. It really wasn't, he presided over a time of really poor refereeing and somehow allowed a situation where cliques were formed in the refereeing group. He just has zero credibility (and even less so when talking about the fitness of referees)
 
RustyRef said:
Give me examples of where he has backed the decision and I will agree that it isn't always, I suspect you'll struggle to find any though. I listen to talksport throughout most days when I'm not on work calls, and they wheel him out to talk about decisions. I know exactly what his opinion is going to be before he utters a word, and in the past two years I haven't once been wrong.

The other issue I have is he repeatedly bangs on about how great it was when he was in charge of PGMOL. It really wasn't, he presided over a time of really poor refereeing and somehow allowed a situation where cliques were formed in the refereeing group. He just has zero credibility (and even less so when talking about the fitness of referees)
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1902136956047290771

https://twitter.com/x/status/1900533937383842062
 
RustyRef said:
They are totally different, there hadn't been controversial decisions involved. I'm talking about when he writes in a column or discusses on radio when there has been a controversial decision, he always goes completely the opposite to what the decision actually was.
Click to expand...
Not seeing any difference especially the 2nd one you are letting bias cloud your judgement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top