Quote: FearTheVee "He’s saying he thinks some of the decisions were wrong or highly questionable. He is correct that there were wrong or highly questionable decisions, some of them big.
He is not saying that Hicks showed bias. His whole point is that the situation opened up the opportunity for mistakes to be questioned in another way. That is the perception point.
EM is saying it was predictable and avoidable. Whether you like how he has said it (I certainly don’t) - he is correct. It was predictable and avoidable that some fans of either team on the wrong end of controversial decisions (particularly if big ones) would question why he was allowed to referee the game in light of the circumstances.
He is not saying Hicks is bias (the journalist’s incorrect take), he is saying that a competent governing body could and should have actively managed and avoided the situation.'"
I respect you as a poster, on this one though myself and most of the RL world hold a contrary opinion.
If this went to court I’ve no doubt EM would win for the reasons you are arguing however in my mind, and the minds of most we know what he meant and implied.
I’m sorry, his program notes were nothing more than a childish dummy spit (well worded & likely with the help of a lawyer) because a couple of decisions went against his team.
