Come on Horse ... an explanation is required for your latest bit of drivel!!!Horse wrote:Based on what?taffytoon wrote:You either need to get yourself some help or get back on the tablets you effing idiot.
Howard Foster
-
Spud
- Heavyweight

Re: Howard Foster
Re: Howard Foster
Significantly strange behaviour from officials at sporting events which might suggest bias for one side/person over another should be investigated by police.Spud wrote:Come on Horse ... an explanation is required for your latest bit of drivel!!!
Re: Howard Foster
I don't know about the police, but some sort of performance related review needed to be held. Similar to what they have with premiership referee's.
Froch/Groves was the latest in a long list of bad refereeing/judging and yet the ref's/judges in question are back at it a week or two after.
I don't think it was good to see Howard Foster back in the ring. He f**ked up in a massive fight and ruined the outcome for pretty much everyone involved.
Froch/Groves was the latest in a long list of bad refereeing/judging and yet the ref's/judges in question are back at it a week or two after.
I don't think it was good to see Howard Foster back in the ring. He f**ked up in a massive fight and ruined the outcome for pretty much everyone involved.
Re: Howard Foster
Did the time keeper for Maccarinelli vs McPhilpin lose his job?
People can have a bad night at the office and thankfully it wasn't a bad night which resulted in an injury and while I don't share ArtOfWar's stance entirely.... I do think there should have been a more formal review process.... not saying a suspension.... but I think Robert Smith should have refused to be interviewed on Sky and reviewed the performance (and I do think Foster should have been more strict with the naughties also)... even if the review did eff all in the end - it would have given the BBBoC more credibility.
Only person I have said it was a good decision was James McDonnell - not seen a decision so universally criticized and the BBBoC just not even make any effort to review it.
Of course I am pleased Howard was back in the saddle... a good ref, bad night at the office but as the BBBoC called the decision fair - thats the end of it. Everybody in every field deserves a second chance.
He might be a damn good bloke, don't know him. It wouldn't bother me if he was a total nob as long as he was a good ref. I am sure IJL and Terry O Conner are good blokes - do they deserve the criticism??? Mmmm.... possibly not them, but maybe the BBBoC do for still giving those two the big assignments.
I cannot remember a single bad performance by Howard and one performance doesn't make you a bad ref.... so I am glad he is back in the saddle and hope he continues to get the big gigs. Although if the pattern continues (and I don't think it will) - he would deserve to be considered in the IJL and O Conner bracket, good bloke or not.
People can have a bad night at the office and thankfully it wasn't a bad night which resulted in an injury and while I don't share ArtOfWar's stance entirely.... I do think there should have been a more formal review process.... not saying a suspension.... but I think Robert Smith should have refused to be interviewed on Sky and reviewed the performance (and I do think Foster should have been more strict with the naughties also)... even if the review did eff all in the end - it would have given the BBBoC more credibility.
Only person I have said it was a good decision was James McDonnell - not seen a decision so universally criticized and the BBBoC just not even make any effort to review it.
Of course I am pleased Howard was back in the saddle... a good ref, bad night at the office but as the BBBoC called the decision fair - thats the end of it. Everybody in every field deserves a second chance.
He might be a damn good bloke, don't know him. It wouldn't bother me if he was a total nob as long as he was a good ref. I am sure IJL and Terry O Conner are good blokes - do they deserve the criticism??? Mmmm.... possibly not them, but maybe the BBBoC do for still giving those two the big assignments.
I cannot remember a single bad performance by Howard and one performance doesn't make you a bad ref.... so I am glad he is back in the saddle and hope he continues to get the big gigs. Although if the pattern continues (and I don't think it will) - he would deserve to be considered in the IJL and O Conner bracket, good bloke or not.
Re: Howard Foster
The Enzo-McPhilbin timekeeper was suspended for a period (a couple of months or so, if memory serves me) and returned to the sport.stujones wrote:Did the time keeper for Maccarinelli vs McPhilpin lose his job?
People can have a bad night at the office and thankfully it wasn't a bad night which resulted in an injury and while I don't share ArtOfWar's stance entirely.... I do think there should have been a more formal review process.... not saying a suspension.... but I think Robert Smith should have refused to be interviewed on Sky and reviewed the performance (and I do think Foster should have been more strict with the naughties also)... even if the review did eff all in the end - it would have given the BBBoC more credibility.
Only person I have said it was a good decision was James McDonnell - not seen a decision so universally criticized and the BBBoC just not even make any effort to review it.
Of course I am pleased Howard was back in the saddle... a good ref, bad night at the office but as the BBBoC called the decision fair - thats the end of it. Everybody in every field deserves a second chance.
He might be a damn good bloke, don't know him. It wouldn't bother me if he was a total nob as long as he was a good ref. I am sure IJL and Terry O Conner are good blokes - do they deserve the criticism??? Mmmm.... possibly not them, but maybe the BBBoC do for still giving those two the big assignments.
I cannot remember a single bad performance by Howard and one performance doesn't make you a bad ref.... so I am glad he is back in the saddle and hope he continues to get the big gigs. Although if the pattern continues (and I don't think it will) - he would deserve to be considered in the IJL and O Conner bracket, good bloke or not.
Re: Howard Foster
He was suspended and then fully re-trained over a few months (including monitoring/shadowing other experienced timekeepers). Then he eventually returned after successfully completing the training period.Ben Carey wrote:The Enzo-McPhilbin timekeeper was suspended for a period (a couple of months or so, if memory serves me) and returned to the sport.stujones wrote:Did the time keeper for Maccarinelli vs McPhilpin lose his job?
People can have a bad night at the office and thankfully it wasn't a bad night which resulted in an injury and while I don't share ArtOfWar's stance entirely.... I do think there should have been a more formal review process.... not saying a suspension.... but I think Robert Smith should have refused to be interviewed on Sky and reviewed the performance (and I do think Foster should have been more strict with the naughties also)... even if the review did eff all in the end - it would have given the BBBoC more credibility.
Only person I have said it was a good decision was James McDonnell - not seen a decision so universally criticized and the BBBoC just not even make any effort to review it.
Of course I am pleased Howard was back in the saddle... a good ref, bad night at the office but as the BBBoC called the decision fair - thats the end of it. Everybody in every field deserves a second chance.
He might be a damn good bloke, don't know him. It wouldn't bother me if he was a total nob as long as he was a good ref. I am sure IJL and Terry O Conner are good blokes - do they deserve the criticism??? Mmmm.... possibly not them, but maybe the BBBoC do for still giving those two the big assignments.
I cannot remember a single bad performance by Howard and one performance doesn't make you a bad ref.... so I am glad he is back in the saddle and hope he continues to get the big gigs. Although if the pattern continues (and I don't think it will) - he would deserve to be considered in the IJL and O Conner bracket, good bloke or not.
Anyone can make a mistake or a serious error of judgment.
Re: Howard Foster
Apparently he was banned for 3 weeks but mistakenly returned after 2.
Ber-dum-tish !
Ber-dum-tish !
-
DougieCampbell
- Middleweight
- Posts: 82
- Joined: 13 Sep 2013, 14:06
Re: Howard Foster
Howard has been a nice guy every time he's been up for shows here and when I went to Cardiff. He is still a world class referee.
Re: Howard Foster
The Law wrote:He was suspended and then fully re-trained over a few months (including monitoring/shadowing other experienced timekeepers). Then he eventually returned after successfully completing the training period.Ben Carey wrote:The Enzo-McPhilbin timekeeper was suspended for a period (a couple of months or so, if memory serves me) and returned to the sport.stujones wrote:Did the time keeper for Maccarinelli vs McPhilpin lose his job?
People can have a bad night at the office and thankfully it wasn't a bad night which resulted in an injury and while I don't share ArtOfWar's stance entirely.... I do think there should have been a more formal review process.... not saying a suspension.... but I think Robert Smith should have refused to be interviewed on Sky and reviewed the performance (and I do think Foster should have been more strict with the naughties also)... even if the review did eff all in the end - it would have given the BBBoC more credibility.
Only person I have said it was a good decision was James McDonnell - not seen a decision so universally criticized and the BBBoC just not even make any effort to review it.
Of course I am pleased Howard was back in the saddle... a good ref, bad night at the office but as the BBBoC called the decision fair - thats the end of it. Everybody in every field deserves a second chance.
He might be a damn good bloke, don't know him. It wouldn't bother me if he was a total nob as long as he was a good ref. I am sure IJL and Terry O Conner are good blokes - do they deserve the criticism??? Mmmm.... possibly not them, but maybe the BBBoC do for still giving those two the big assignments.
I cannot remember a single bad performance by Howard and one performance doesn't make you a bad ref.... so I am glad he is back in the saddle and hope he continues to get the big gigs. Although if the pattern continues (and I don't think it will) - he would deserve to be considered in the IJL and O Conner bracket, good bloke or not.
Anyone can make a mistake or a serious error of judgment.
Seriously how tough can it be to start a stop watch and when it gets to 3, ring a bell?