English refereeing's darkest day?

Will I Amnt

Melion wrote: »

How about you don't let pundits influence your decision?

What part of

I'm unsure myself

are you having trouble with???

Iang87

Drumpot wrote: »

Seriously ? You thought it was a mistaken standing on his foot ? Thats like saying cantona slipped into the stands and accidentaly Kung fu kicked a fan at selhurst park in 1995.

ok we'll have to agree to disagree phil neville who was ten yards from the incident wasn't too bothered and suarez instantly apologised.

Very unnatural looking foul but ya looks like agree to disagree I wont be changing my opinion and I think you wont be either

Leftist

Iang87 wrote: »

no Stop there. I didnt say there was a conspiracy. ok compare two incidents this year and then stop commenting.

Suarez v norwich, welbeck v wigan

I honestly didn't see either of those decisions properly. I wouldn't be shocked if welbeck went down, no excuse if he did. martinez was whinging after the game. United missed the peno and won 4-0.

but it's about consistancy isn't it?

so why take two defined occassion where you know the answer?

what about suarez vs stoke? that one doesnt' count because he was stamped on during another part of the game?

welbeck has nowhere near the same trackrecord as suarez.

as for united getting all the decisions... saha and owen brought down as last man through on goal at anfield. Nothing.
carrick handball at the bridge, similar to luis? peno.
ronaldo through on goal at the nou camp, taken down? nothing.
ben arfa at ot, wasn't touched, fell under the tackle. peno. 2 pts gone. Lost the league on gd.

These decisions go around. Laughable to suggest liverpool get hard done by like they are something special.

Drumpot

Iang87 wrote: »

ok we'll have to agree to disagree phil neville who was ten yards from the incident wasn't too bothered and suarez instantly apologised.

Very unnatural looking foul but ya looks like agree to disagree I wont be changing my opinion and I think you wont be either

There wasnt much chelsea complaints about Uniteds winner and it was offside. Incidents happen in the blink of an eye and its not always possible for players to react.

That said, we will agree to disagree.

Like everything in this thread/forum, its subjective and its fair to say that only the Uruguan knows if he intended it or not. Considering the erratic controversial actions of Suarez (even in the everton game) , he doesnt deserve the benefit of the doubt . . Im glad David Moyes took his diving gesture in such goodwill, I remember when Gary Neville ran towards Pool fans and kissed his badge after United scored against Liverpool at Old Trafford and some Liverpool fans were saying it was inciting riots . .

darced

This post has been deleted.

Hulk Hands

niallo27 wrote: »

What coates is not a foul, Torres did the exact same thing with a header in the first half and no one mentioned it.

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/108476/226165.jpg

Thats the attachment from earlier in the thread. Looks conclusive enough to me anyway. Granted it's not as cut and dry right/wrong as an offside call

The_Kew_Tour

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its all Man Utd fans fault. God knows we have taken the blame for enough of your stuff at this stage.

darced

This post has been deleted.

darced

This post has been deleted.

The_Kew_Tour

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Right minded person saying that its all a Conspiracy?

lol Yes I would find it strange.

darced

This post has been deleted.

The_Kew_Tour

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There been far more wild accusations on here then those you mentioned.

On your last point. I do agree that Suarez gets a bad time from MOTD and media, but so do other players. Rooney, Torres etc dont get away with much either.

Red Crow

Where can I blame Suarez and receive loads of thanks from people also sarcastically posting remarks about, yet another, tin-foil hat conspiracy?

Hulk Hands

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It looked a foul in real time too. If everyone being fair then you can say its very questionable. You can also say the free that led to that chance was questionable too. Taking both those into account I think its right that there was no goal. Had the goal stood I'm sure a lot of Everton fans would be up in arms

citytillidie

Hulk Hands wrote: »

It looked a foul in real time too. If everyone being fair then you can say its very questionable. You can also say the free that led to that chance was questionable too. Taking both those into account I think its right that there was no goal. Had the goal stood I'm sure a lot of Everton fans would be up in arms

You can also look at the 2nd goal for Everton and say that it should have been a thrown in to Liverpool which was also missed by that same linesman and ref

Hulk Hands

citytillidie wrote: »

You can also look at the 2nd goal for Everton and say that it should have been a thrown in to Liverpool which was also missed by that same linesman and ref

Fair enough thats true. It was a weekend of poor officiating

markesmith

Drumpot wrote: »

Seriously ? You thought it was a mistaken standing on his foot ? Thats like saying cantona slipped into the stands and accidentaly Kung fu kicked a fan at selhurst park in 1995.

Iang87

Leftist wrote: »

I honestly didn't see either of those decisions properly. I wouldn't be shocked if welbeck went down, no excuse if he did. martinez was whinging after the game. United missed the peno and won 4-0.

but it's about consistancy isn't it?

so why take two defined occassion where you know the answer?

what about suarez vs stoke? that one doesnt' count because he was stamped on during another part of the game?

welbeck has nowhere near the same trackrecord as suarez.

as for united getting all the decisions... saha and owen brought down as last man through on goal at anfield. Nothing.
carrick handball at the bridge, similar to luis? peno.
ronaldo through on goal at the nou camp, taken down? nothing.
ben arfa at ot, wasn't touched, fell under the tackle. peno. 2 pts gone. Lost the league on gd.

These decisions go around. Laughable to suggest liverpool get hard done by like they are something special.

right ok grand. I'm just not even going to bother because I already have a wall here I can be banging my head against

Iang87

Drumpot wrote: »

Seriously ? You thought it was a mistaken standing on his foot ? Thats like saying cantona slipped into the stands and accidentaly Kung fu kicked a fan at selhurst park in 1995.

Also to compare suarez standing on his foot to cantona attacking a fan is quite disturbing. To draw a comparison like that its amazing.

What do you compare Huth standing on suarez to? Hiroshima maybe

PRAF

I'm a LFC fan and some of the decisions given against us over the last 2 years have been hard to take. That said, I don't believe the conspiracy theories. In the long term, I think the decisions probably do even themselves out (I'm talking over 3-5 years here). Fans being fans, we'll remember the dodgy calls against us and we'll soon forget the dodgy calls given to us.

That said, I think fans need to rise above the usual tribalism for a minute and try to see the rampant injustice in the game. Some of the rules are practically impossible to get right in certain situations (offside is an obvious example but there are others). I'm convinced that half the time, linesmen are just guessing the calls. It is physically impossible to focus your eye on one player kicking a ball and simultaneously checking to see if an attacker has strayed beyond the defensive line.

Some of the rules are just a joke as well. IMO we've gone from a situation years ago where cynical defenders used to employ the 'professional foul' techniques and get away with it most of the time, to a situation now when genuine attempts to play the ball result in automatic red cards. It's ruining the game as a spectacle and is totally unjust.

We really need FIFA or UEFA to cop on and start using video technology. Goal line technology is a start but that's only addressing probably 5% of the unjust decisions fans are asked to put up with.

I'm love to see a video ref and a similar system to tennis where a manager could refer 3 calls per game to the video ref. Very quickly managers and fans would have very little to complain about.

I'd also like to see some tweaking of the rules so that the likes of Ivanovic doesn't get an automatic red for what was a clumsy rather than a cynical challenge.

Will I Amnt

PRAF wrote: »

I'd also like to see some tweaking of the rules so that the likes of Ivanovic doesn't get an automatic red for what was a clumsy rather than a cynical challenge.

Can't have it both ways in fairness. If you stop a goal scoring opportunity it's a red, end of story.
If you change that rule to sometimes it's a red and sometimes a yellow you're just going to add more indecision and more outrage from fans and managers.

Also it won't take players too long to perfect the art of taking down a player and making it look clumsy and accidental.

NIMAN

PHB wrote: »

Frankly, I think both him and Valencia got contact, but went over easily.

Is the very slightest contact now a foul, always?

I thought football was a contact sport.

This is what annoys me when the experts on TV analysis use super slo-mo to show a contentious issue after a game. They show a guy falling and say "but there was definite contact there" even if it was a slight graze on the tip of their boot.

Maybe I hark back to the days when players only fell over cos they couldn't stay on their feet. Are players justified to dive now if they feel the slightest touch or should they try to stay upright?

jacool

I'm amazed that no-one has mentioned when Leighton Baines shoved Suarez in the box. It was when a Liverpool player struck a shot wide from about 25 yards out. It was a penalty all day long but the "w****r" linesman din't see it. I couldn't understand why Baines did it though because there was no way the ball was going to rebound into play.
I'm calling him a "w****r" because he cost me a packet.
They talk about the Malaysians influencing/fixing games, when the refs and assistants can do it all the time and never fall under suspicion. I needed either team to score so I'm not pro Liverpool or anything. I was roaring for a spotter when Skrtel went through Baines after he had crossed the ball, but Marriner was busy brushing his hair at the time.

Gbear

The thread title is the most hyperbolic load of horse**** I think I've ever had the misfortune of reading.

That said the standard of officiating in football is awful.
I don't mean that officials are incompetent themselves; some are good some are bad, but the situation right now is like digging a hole with a plastic spoon when we've got a perfectly good JCB available.
The person digging the hole can give as much honest endeavour as he likes but if he's prevented from using the JCB he's always going to be limited.


We have the tools available. The real incompetence lies in the anachronistic dinosaurs in FIFA and UEFA digging their heels in because they're either too lazy to change things or too scared to try.

In anything in life you have a certain amount of human fallibility involved. There's limited gains involved in making humans less fallible. What you need is systematic work-arounds that completely avoid issues like linesman being able to see through players/goalposts or refs being able to see if there's contact between two players 30 yards away when they're turned away from him.

And yes, having senior personnel of any football club involved in a senior role in the body that governs their club is such a blatant conflict of interest that I'm astonished anyone would even try to defend it.
It doesn't matter who it is. It doesn't matter that there is literally no evidence that that position has positively influenced the FA's judgments regarding the club. Conflict of interest doesn't require that to be the case. It only requires that they could be undue influence, which there most certainly could be, even if it's not intentional.

I would think in any industry that would be frowned upon - a property developer being in charge of planning permission, for example.

PhlegmyMoses

Gbear wrote: »

And yes, having senior personnel of any football club involved in a senior role in the body that governs their club is such a blatant conflict of interest that I'm astonished anyone would even try to defend it.
It doesn't matter who it is. It doesn't matter that there is literally no evidence that that position has positively influenced the FA's judgments regarding the club. Conflict of interest doesn't require that to be the case. It only requires that they could be undue influence, which there most certainly could be, even if it's not intentional.

I would think in any industry that would be frowned upon - a property developer being in charge of planning permission, for example.

Agree with the rest of your post but just on this point. Is anyone actually defending this? It seems to me that people are merely trying to point out that nobody was really up in arms when the position was held by senior ranking officials of other clubs. It's clearly not an ideal situation but it wasn;t really an issue for most people until Gill took the job. Now it's under the spotlight.

Gbear

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Agree with the rest of your post but just on this point. Is anyone actually defending this? It seems to me that people are merely trying to point out that nobody was really up in arms when the position was held by senior ranking officials of other clubs. It's clearly not an ideal situation but it wasn;t really an issue for most people until Gill took the job. Now it's under the spotlight.

Fairy muff.

TheDoc

The main issue I think most people have is the FA's refusal to implement some midweek panels to review decisions.

A group that can review disputed red cards quickly, to either reverse a decision or note ( Stephen Pienaar for example).

A group that can review disputed diving or cheating. The Ref, when unsure, presses his PTT and tells the 4th official some info. " Think that was a dive, player X " and the 4th official takes a note of player and time. Its then reviewed during the week. If confirmed as a dive/cheating, a yellow card is retrospectively applied. There is no major penalty for getting more then one a game on review, but it all adds up to your 5 card suspension limit.

That is a start, properly retrospectively reviewing incidents and acting.

Their stance on " lets do it the British way" and their ignorance to the blatant advantages of technology, is a pretty similar comparison in my eyes ( and so well explained by my father) to when the British refused to change from their single loaded rifles, when the rest of the world moved onto repeater rifles.

A bull**** proud to do it British stance that ends up in a train wreck

Ordinary man

TheDoc wrote: »

The main issue I think most people have is the FA's refusal to implement some midweek panels to review decisions.

A group that can review disputed red cards quickly, to either reverse a decision or note ( Stephen Pienaar for example).

A group that can review disputed diving or cheating. The Ref, when unsure, presses his PTT and tells the 4th official some info. " Think that was a dive, player X " and the 4th official takes a note of player and time. Its then reviewed during the week. If confirmed as a dive/cheating, a yellow card is retrospectively applied. There is no major penalty for getting more then one a game on review, but it all adds up to your 5 card suspension limit.

That is a start, properly retrospectively reviewing incidents and acting.

Their stance on " lets do it the British way" and their ignorance to the blatant advantages of technology, is a pretty similar comparison in my eyes ( and so well explained by my father) to when the British refused to change from their single loaded rifles, when the rest of the world moved onto repeater rifles.

A bull**** proud to do it British stance that ends up in a train wreck

Are these panels set up in every country except britain already?

IvySlayer

Yeah, did Liverpool fans forget that Rodwell was sent off for no reason at Goodison? Lescott should of had a penalty a few seasons before? Kuyt wasn't sent off either in the same match. You get some luck in one match, none the next.

TheDoc

Ordinary man wrote: »

Are these panels set up in every country except britain already?

I know in Germany there is a restrospective panel that meets midweek to review dubious yellow and red cards, not sure about the diving part, I dont think anywhere does that to be honest.

I think most leagues have a PRO-active review panel for yellow and red cards. The FA require a written objection/dispute from clubs before it can be put before a review. A failure in which will result in an additional suspension, which is retarded.

Iang87

IvySlayer wrote: »

Yeah, did Liverpool fans forget that Rodwell was sent off for no reason at Goodison? Lescott should of had a penalty a few seasons before? Kuyt wasn't sent off either in the same match. You get some luck in one match, none the next.

Thats not luck thats bad refereeing.

Rodwell sending off was an awful decision as everyone said at the time and had a massive bearing on the rest of the game.
Lescott should have had a penalty in the same game kuyt should have been sent off. No person is arguing any of that.

Thats bad refereeing because all those decisions were so blatantly obvious. The issue that some of us have is that people call that luck.

Uniteds first goal was luck against chelsea, the second was quality the third was disgraceful.

See the difference

wellboy76

Prick! wrote: »

Wasn't David Dein the chairman of Arsenal and on the FA board at the same time?

Nobody on any clubs board should be on the FA board. Conflict of interest

osarusan

Iang87 wrote: »

Thats not luck thats bad refereeing.

Rodwell sending off was an awful decision as everyone said at the time and had a massive bearing on the rest of the game.
Lescott should have had a penalty in the same game kuyt should have been sent off. No person is arguing any of that.

Thats bad refereeing because all those decisions were so blatantly obvious. The issue that some of us have is that people call that luck.

Uniteds first goal was luck against chelsea, the second was quality the third was disgraceful.

See the difference

Bad refereeing is good luck surely for the team that benefits from the decision?

The_Kew_Tour

Iang87 wrote: »

Uniteds first goal was luck against chelsea, the second was quality the third was disgraceful.

See the difference

talk about OTT

Iang87

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

talk about OTT

Ya i suppose so the linesman must have been so confused to see hernandez as the man closest the goal he said he'd allow it

JimsAlterEgo

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

talk about OTT

Of all decisions that one is most forgivable, I would say 99% of people though he was onside.

Its an area of the offside law I would like to see changed, that if you are onside when you get the ball that its not offside as you haven't gained an advantage.

Your Airbag

Iang87 wrote: »

Ya i suppose so the linesman must have been so confused to see hernandez as the man closest the goal he said he'd allow it

Yeah especially since his X-ray vision allowed him to clearly see through Peter Cech who was blocking his view in a crowded penalty area in what was a split second incident.

It must be great to label things a disgrace from your high horse captain hindsight. With the aid of numerous slow motion replays you are clearly than man qualified to label things a disgrace.

Offside decisions like that are seen week in week out but watch ppl turn the one in UTDs favour into the bloody Watergate scandal.

Iang87

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

Of all decisions that one is most forgivable, I would say 99% of people though he was onside.

Its an area of the offside law I would like to see changed, that if you are onside when you get the ball that its not offside as you haven't gained an advantage.

but you have.

Taking a ball in stride which can be tricky compared to standing still as the ball approaches you. You also have to take into account how unfair it will be that a defender has to keep an eye on someone offside and someone onside

J. Marston

It was offside and it was a hard one to call. Chicharito was right behind Cech when Rafael hit the ball so I doubt the linesman could actually see him. Wrong decision? Yeah. Disgraceful? Lol.

Iang87

Your Airbag wrote: »

Yeah especially since his X-ray vision allowed him to clearly see through Peter Cech who was blocking his view in a crowded penalty area in what was a split second incident.

It must be great to label things a disgrace from your high horse captain hindsight. With the aid of numerous slow motion replays you are clearly than man qualified to label things a disgrace.

Offside decisions like that are seen week in week out but watch ppl turn the one in UTDs favour into the bloody Watergate scandal.

x ray vision ..................... linesman was out of position then wasn't he. I immediately thought he was offside as did he given his reaction.

high horse ha brilliant high horse because I label someone who fails to do his main job correctly. Fair enough

ya not going down the united route to be honest its been done to death recently

Iang87

J. Marston wrote: »

It was offside and it was a hard one to call. Chicharito was right behind Cech when Rafael hit the ball so I doubt the linesman could actually see him. Wrong decision? Yeah. Disgraceful? Lol.

you realise if he's right behind cech he's onside right given how the linesman should be looking

The_Kew_Tour

Iang87 wrote: »

Ya i suppose so the linesman must have been so confused to see hernandez as the man closest the goal he said he'd allow it

to call it a "disgraceful" decision is ****ing ridiculous.

Bad call Yes it was. Nothing more.

Ares

It was a disgraceful decision. You have to be level or behind two players to be onside, Hernandez wasn't even level or behind with one player. Shocking decision.


It doesn't matter if the linesman can't see through Cech, it was the second last defender he should have been judging the line from.

Its as bad as this to be honest;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds2ALlHHCXI

Its particularly galling when contrasted with the perfectly legitimate goal Suarez scored the same day vs Everton. Its not the first time United have got the rub of the green this season.

The_Kew_Tour

Ares wrote: »

Its particularly galling when contrasted with the perfectly legitimate goal Suarez scored the same day vs Everton. Its not the first time United have got the rub of the green this season.

every team this season as got decisions in their favour including Liverpool even in the game itself.

SantryRed

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

Of all decisions that one is most forgivable, I would say 99% of people though he was onside.

Its an area of the offside law I would like to see changed, that if you are onside when you get the ball that its not offside as you haven't gained an advantage.

That view is completely stupid. So a player is offside only when he gets to the ball? Doesn't matter how far away he is from the player keeping him on

Sure some one could have known where Hernandez was if he wasn't blatantly offside for the 3rd goal!

Liam O

Lol, people saying it's as bad as that Tevez one need to get their heads examined. Much less space between the players and twice the amount of people the linesman has to look through to see it.

Iang87

linesmen dont have to look through players to see an offside, why do people say that?

They hold a line equal to that of the last defender/keeper. Any opposing player beyond that line when the ball is played is offside. No looking through players, no x ray machines, no magic just a plain oh look he's at the wrong side of the imaginary line i'm drawing between me and the last defender

Will I Amnt

They also don't have live pause or slow motion.
It's near impossible to see the exact moment of the pass and the exact position of the player at that exact moment.
Human error is inevitable.

To call it a disgrace is nonsense.

gerryo777

Iang87 wrote: »

Uniteds first goal was luck against chelsea, the second was quality the third was to be expected when your manager has influence over the officials.

See the difference

FYP

Winston Payne

This influence gerryo. Talk to me about it.