Michaela Tabb - GOOD OR BAD REFEREE ?

Self-explanatory this one

Neither, What is it called - reverse sexism (she got promoted due to her sex)

gender aside, she is a very good ref. treats the players nice, and gets on with her job no fuss

She's awesome. And she's a typical female which is why she's in the right job. The referee has to uphold the letter of the law and women do this better than men.

Sonny wrote:She's awesome. And she's a typical female which is why she's in the right job. The referee has to uphold the letter of the law and women do this better than men.

sonny are you secretly a woman

Men are more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt and use their judgement, women are more likely to uphold the rules exactly as written even if it means losing friends along the way. That's why Michaela makes such a good referee and why Jan Verhaas makes silly inconsistent errors.

I honestly think she is a very good referee quite the looker too, but that's beside the point.
Speaking of hot refs....Patricia Murphy

Looking at it objectively (ha!) she's probably very good


Looking at her subjectively, she's even better

She may be a good ref, but once a month her judgement is..........compromised

Lucky balls wrote:She may be a good ref, but once a month her judgement is..........compromised

ooooooooh thats gotta hurt

Sonny wrote:Men are more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt and use their judgement, women are more likely to uphold the rules exactly as written even if it means losing friends along the way.

who thinks sonny arriving home late drunk never has the benefit of the doubt from the other half

Is Michaela Tabb a good ref? I certainly think so
Is she a looker? Yeah, not bad in fairness
Is she as nice as Patricia Murphy? Nahhhhh

case_master wc wrote:Neither, What is it called - reverse sexism (she got promoted due to her sex)

Reverse sexism is a silly term. Sexism is sexism, no matter which gender it effects. We are just more used to the idea that it negatively affects females, as that has been more prevalent in society.

I voted yes, as the question asks whether she is a good referee. I believe she is. You can argue the fairness of it and discuss whether you think she deserves the opportunity she got. But, that wasn't what was being asked. I think regardless of anything else she is a very good referee.

Lucky balls wrote:She may be a good ref, but once a month her judgement is..........compromised

Well that's better than being compromised all the time

Monique wrote:

Lucky balls wrote:She may be a good ref, but once a month her judgement is..........compromised

Well that's better than being compromised all the time

Monique, I hate to bring up this conversation, as it is something us males will never understand, and it's obviously something extremely painful that women go through every month. But what would be your opinion, as a female, on how much of an effect that would have on Michaela's ability to make decisions in that sort of environment? As far as I can see, a lot of women work, and have stressful jobs, and it doesn't seem to impede their ability to do their job. Do you believe, as a woman, it's a disadvantage to Michaela's ability to do her job? Or is it just something you'd become so used to, that you'd work through? Or somewhere in between?

Tell me to mind my own business, as of course it is none of my business, but as it's come up as an issue, I just wonder what the female perspective is.

SnookerFan wrote:

Monique wrote:

Lucky balls wrote:She may be a good ref, but once a month her judgement is..........compromised

Well that's better than being compromised all the time

Monique, I hate to bring up this conversation, as it is something us males will never understand, and it's obviously something extremely painful that women go through every month. But what would be your opinion, as a female, on how much of an effect that would have on Michaela's ability to make decisions in that sort of environment? As far as I can see, a lot of women work, and have stressful jobs, and it doesn't seem to impede their ability to do their job. Do you believe, as a woman, it's a disadvantage to Michaela's ability to do her job? Or is it just something you'd become so used to, that you'd work through? Or somewhere in between?

Tell me to mind my own business, as of course it is none of my business, but as it's come up as an issue, I just wonder what the female perspective is.

No problem.

Well it might give us migraines, cramps, make us feel bloated and slightly depressed and/or nervous. Might. Not all of us suffer and certainly not all to the same extend. It could be a problem for some physically demanding activities. Strong migraine can be very invalidating (just like hangover BTW ).
But surely periods have never affected my judgement and I don't think it affects the others' neither.

Monique wrote:No problem.

Well it might give us migraines, cramps, make us feel bloated and slightly depressed and/or nervous. Might. Not all of us suffer and certainly not all to the same extend. It could be a problem for some physically demanding activities. Strong migraine can be very invalidating (just like hangover BTW ).
But surely periods have never affected my judgement and I don't think it affects the others' neither.

No, I realise it affects some women worse then it affects others, so a statement like; "Women shouldn't be allowed to referee because they get periods" is a farce statement. (This wasn't what was said, I appreciate.)

Maybe judgement was a bad term, and I have known women that I've known so badly that the last thing they'd want to do is walk around a table for hours refereeing a match. But I guess it doesn't affect Michaela to the extent anybody would notice it, because it's never been noticable.


Anyway, this is an unpleasant topic, getting back to the point, I feel she is an excellent referee. And gets some unfair criticism at times.