Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off. If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.
The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in. I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.
For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin. I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin. That's a pressure I don't think referees need. Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round. If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked. There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.
In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias. The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility. I think this is something the association need to look at.
The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in. I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.
For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin. I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin. That's a pressure I don't think referees need. Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round. If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked. There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.
In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias. The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility. I think this is something the association need to look at.