Standard of Referees (Sponsored by Steven Reid)

[Notcher]

The police force power trip circle can finally be completed. Bet that ref feels special. Wonder if he asked for handcuffs?

I'd be all for it if they also get to carry a taser just to see Fernandez get 50,000 volts pumped through him the next time he runs at a ref

 

[valspoodle]

We can't see the ref-cam footage until later in the year in a special programme. And even then I'll bet it's heavily edited to look good.

 

[adam09]

You are right that more cameras and tech won't change anything unless twinned with enforcement.

Where we have seen that is retrospective action on blatant dives and off the ball incidents - you see both far less now.



Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk

No instead you’ve got Dermot Gallagher saying on Sky that a player has “no obligation” to step over a goalkeeper’s leg even though it’s clearly simulatio.

That’s even worse than “mutual engagement”.

He’s basically advocated Havertz cheating and saying you don’t have to bother trying to actually play football, you can drag your leg into an opponent and that’s fine.

They’ve completely lost the plot.

 

[Robertson]

So just to be clear, as a defender you’re allowed to kick opponents from behind as long as you do it gently, but have to take evasive action if an opponent leaves a trailing leg dangling behind them, right? Sounds sensible.

 

[dr_horse]

No instead you’ve got Dermot Gallagher saying on Sky that a player has “no obligation” to step over a goalkeeper’s leg even though it’s clearly simulatio.

That’s even worse than “mutual engagement”.

He’s basically advocated Havertz cheating and saying you don’t have to bother trying to actually play football, you can drag your leg into an opponent and that’s fine.

They’ve completely lost the plot.

Yea that havertz one was incredibly silly.

Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk

 

[JonnoSnr]

Referee to wear camera for Palace v ManUre... are there not enough cameras at every bloody game?
Technology has failed so far, so why turn to more of the same?
Just trust the on-field officials backed up by goal-line tech, and make the rules simpler.

What I love about all this is that the PGMOL pot has well and truly been stirred now. Because of the sheer number of clear injustices against us this season we seem to have actually stood up against it and as a result the scrutiny on the refs and the organisation as a whole has never been higher.

Basically we have rattled the powers that be.

 

[Red Ray's Redlist]

No instead you’ve got Dermot Gallagher saying on Sky that a player has “no obligation” to step over a goalkeeper’s leg even though it’s clearly simulatio.

That’s even worse than “mutual engagement”.

He’s basically advocated Havertz cheating and saying you don’t have to bother trying to actually play football, you can drag your leg into an opponent and that’s fine.

They’ve completely lost the plot.

Dermot is proving himself a prize twat. He will literally twist himself into any shape to justify the referee being correct. OK to kick someone from behind just as they're controlling the ball, fine to initiate contact leading to a legitimate penalty.

WTF did he say about Taiwo being cleared out by Dubravka? Definite penalty if he drags his foot into the keeper but because he tried to get over his arm he enables the keeper to mutually tussle for the ball with him by grabbing his leg so no penalty.

Sky, their shabby expert analysts, and these insipid expert referees think we're all thick as mince. It makes you wonder what he was willing to justify when he was a ref.

 

[Erik]

So just to be clear, as a defender you’re allowed to kick opponents from behind as long as you do it gently, but have to take evasive action if an opponent leaves a trailing leg dangling behind them, right? Sounds sensible.

Refereeing and VAR in a nutshell.

 

[witneyred]

Dermot is proving himself a prize twat. He will literally twist himself into any shape to justify the referee being correct. OK to kick someone from behind just as they're controlling the ball, fine to initiate contact leading to a legitimate penalty.

WTF did he say about Taiwo being cleared out by Dubravka? Definite penalty if he drags his foot into the keeper but because he tried to get over his arm he enables the keeper to mutually tussle for the ball with him by grabbing his leg so no penalty.

Sky, their shabby expert analysts, and these insipid expert referees think we're all thick as mince. It makes you wonder what he was willing to justify when he was a ref.

Just don't get the point of Dermot and ref watch, same old over protection for PGMOL, even when it is really clear error lots of naval gazing and saying its a difficult one, why isn't king clown Phil Neville not calling for Dermots resignation.

 

[Red Ray's Redlist]

Just don't get the point of Dermot and ref watch, same old over protection for PGMOL, even when it is really clear error lots of naval gazing and saying its a difficult one, why isn't king clown Phil Neville not calling for Dermots resignation.

The crap they come out with is both embarrassing and disingenuous and they should be called out for it. That seeker of truth Gary N'evil-le will be on the case no doubt, fighting for the downtrodden as ever.

 

[valspoodle]

No instead you’ve got Dermot Gallagher saying on Sky that a player has “no obligation” to step over a goalkeeper’s leg even though it’s clearly simulatio.

That’s even worse than “mutual engagement”.

He’s basically advocated Havertz cheating and saying you don’t have to bother trying to actually play football, you can drag your leg into an opponent and that’s fine.

They’ve completely lost the plot.

I liked Dermot today on ref watch when talking about the Wolves non-penalty when the player (forget who) went down theatrically. Dermot said it was because the fall was too theatrical, but for the Reyna non-penalty, he didn't go down heavily enough. They just think of an excuse after the event.

 

[PynchonForest]

I think we have to take a few things into account when considering what Dermot Gallagher says. Do you actually think he is going to take the most negative angle when describing referee decisions? Do coaches throw players under the bus post match when they f*** up? The answer of course is coaches do not do this unless they want to lose the dressing room. Gallagher is trying to understand how the referee arrived at that decision in that particular moment, and he will continue to do so as often as he can. And he well should do this. If he goes on TV and assassinates the referee on live TV---where do you think this will lead? It's not constructive at all, and it will lead to worse situations almost certainly. I think Gallagher's function is to try and make people understand how they arrive at decisions, even if they are the incorrect ones. I try to do the same thing---understand what the ref saw in that split second and why he decided to do or not do this and that. What we cannot have, even with VAR, is second guessing too many decisions the referees make. This is why the use "clear and obvious error" as a defining mechanism and that, unfortunately, is proving a vague and very difficult definition to operate within. The implementation of VAR opened a huge can of worms, and the EPL, in particular, has had a difficult time maneuvering the dynamics created by VAR. And there has to be an acknowledgement that the majority of people involved in the sport--coaches, players, pundits, fans---hate referees and will try and blame as much shit on them as they possibly can. I know plenty of you will say this is not teh case but get real. The referee is the easiest scapegoat, and with video evidence so readily available these days it's increased the chasm between referees and everyone else. Sometimes the criticisms are fair and justifiable, as I have always said. I DO NOT always take the referee's side during incidents. I am, in a minority of cases, where the referee has clearly botched something, been hyper critical. But if there is a reasonable angle as to why a ref doesn't make a particular call, I can usually figure it out and will present it as a rationale for this or that decision. Because referees miss things for every single team. Yes, even the Liverpools and Man Citys get the short end of the stick at times. The top clubs tend to get more decisions because they are a) fouled more often and b) because that is a universal trend in all sports and it goes back decades (and there are studies that back this up by people who analyze large swaths of data and draw conclusions. Y'know, like scientists. It's just not quite as exacting because there is a level of subjectivity that goes into referee decisions, rather than just either/or scenarios. Anyhow..........

 

[Captain Sinister]

I think we have to take a few things into account when considering what Dermot Gallagher says. Do you actually think he is going to take the most negative angle when describing referee decisions? Do coaches throw players under the bus post match when they f*** up? The answer of course is coaches do not do this unless they want to lose the dressing room. Gallagher is trying to understand how the referee arrived at that decision in that particular moment, and he will continue to do so as often as he can. And he well should do this. If he goes on TV and assassinates the referee on live TV---where do you think this will lead? It's not constructive at all, and it will lead to worse situations almost certainly. I think Gallagher's function is to try and make people understand how they arrive at decisions, even if they are the incorrect ones. I try to do the same thing---understand what the ref saw in that split second and why he decided to do or not do this and that. What we cannot have, even with VAR, is second guessing too many decisions the referees make. This is why the use "clear and obvious error" as a defining mechanism and that, unfortunately, is proving a vague and very difficult definition to operate within. The implementation of VAR opened a huge can of worms, and the EPL, in particular, has had a difficult time maneuvering the dynamics created by VAR. And there has to be an acknowledgement that the majority of people involved in the sport--coaches, players, pundits, fans---hate referees and will try and blame as much shit on them as they possibly can. I know plenty of you will say this is not teh case but get real. The referee is the easiest scapegoat, and with video evidence so readily available these days it's increased the chasm between referees and everyone else. Sometimes the criticisms are fair and justifiable, as I have always said. I DO NOT always take the referee's side during incidents. I am, in a minority of cases, where the referee has clearly botched something, been hyper critical. But if there is a reasonable angle as to why a ref doesn't make a particular call, I can usually figure it out and will present it as a rationale for this or that decision. Because referees miss things for every single team. Yes, even the Liverpools and Man Citys get the short end of the stick at times. The top clubs tend to get more decisions because they are a) fouled more often and b) because that is a universal trend in all sports and it goes back decades (and there are studies that back this up by people who analyze large swaths of data and draw conclusions. Y'know, like scientists. It's just not quite as exacting because there is a level of subjectivity that goes into referee decisions, rather than just either/or scenarios. Anyhow..........

1 Gallagher’s programme and analysis is more media exploitation and destruction of football. Like VAR it is for the TV addict and is of no interest to the spectators in the grounds;
2 it serves as one more ridiculous pressure on the poor old referees;
3 it is very cheap scheduling for the media companies, filling the broadcast time with low cost recycling of footage already paid for.

 

[Notcher]

Dermot is proving himself a prize twat. He will literally twist himself into any shape to justify the referee being correct. OK to kick someone from behind just as they're controlling the ball, fine to initiate contact leading to a legitimate penalty.

WTF did he say about Taiwo being cleared out by Dubravka? Definite penalty if he drags his foot into the keeper but because he tried to get over his arm he enables the keeper to mutually tussle for the ball with him by grabbing his leg so no penalty.

Sky, their shabby expert analysts, and these insipid expert referees think we're all thick as mince. It makes you wonder what he was willing to justify when he was a ref.

If they're applying those standards for the Taiwo one then the Montiel penalty incident at the weekend isn't a penalty either when but even us as Forest fans all agree that was a penalty. The application of the rules is just a case of making it up as they go along.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

If they're applying those standards for the Taiwo one then the Montiel penalty incident at the weekend isn't a penalty either when but even us as Forest fans all agree that was a penalty.

Yeah sorry I don't.

Brereton makes absolutely zero attempt to hurdle Montiel. He has the opportunity to try but chooses not to and instead chooses to initiate the contact with Montiel by planting his feet together and then trailing them into Montiel. Therefore a dive, therefore not a penalty.

That doesn't excuse Montiel for being f***ing stupid for giving Brereton the opportunity to do what he did, but none the less I don't think it's a penalty. If Brereton tried to hurdle Montiel and got caught then fair enough, but he didn't.

 

[Notcher]

Yeah sorry I don't.

Brereton makes absolutely zero attempt to hurdle Montiel. He has the opportunity to try but chooses not to and instead chooses to initiate the contact with Montiel by planting his feet together and then trailing them into Montiel. Therefore a dive, therefore not a penalty.

That doesn't excuse Montiel for being f***ing stupid for giving Brereton the opportunity to do what he did, but none the less I don't think it's a penalty. If Brereton tried to hurdle Montiel and got caught then fair enough, but he didn't.

I take your point on it Maxi and I'd probably go along with that but I was just so furious at Montiel's stupidity because he made it so easy for them to give one despite what you saying being correct.

 

[Dr Sheldon Cooper]

Just seen the Brighton penalty. f*** me, rob jones is a total clown. How is that a penalty?

I thought that Webb told us that clipping the heels of an attacker from behind wasn't grounds for a penalty these days?

 

[GOBIAS]

I thought that Webb told us that clipping the heels of an attacker from behind wasn't grounds for a penalty these days?

Literally everything they say one week is undermined by countless things they do the next weekend. It is such a mess. A lot of the pens given this weekend if it was Forest players being ‘fouled’ I would be calling for them but in a muted way knowing they probably weren’t. But here we are again…

 

[Robertson]

I’m kind of done with the mental gymnastics needed to make sense of it all. And done with people who continue to make excuses for the PGMOL and think everything is hunky dory.

 

[Strummer]

I thought that Webb told us that clipping the heels of an attacker from behind wasn't grounds for a penalty these days?

It was just a bit of mutual tussling.

 

[Scissorkick]

I think we have to take a few things into account when considering what Dermot Gallagher says. Do you actually think he is going to take the most negative angle when describing referee decisions? Do coaches throw players under the bus post match when they f*** up? The answer of course is coaches do not do this unless they want to lose the dressing room. Gallagher is trying to understand how the referee arrived at that decision in that particular moment, and he will continue to do so as often as he can. And he well should do this. If he goes on TV and assassinates the referee on live TV---where do you think this will lead? It's not constructive at all, and it will lead to worse situations almost certainly. I think Gallagher's function is to try and make people understand how they arrive at decisions, even if they are the incorrect ones. I try to do the same thing---understand what the ref saw in that split second and why he decided to do or not do this and that. What we cannot have, even with VAR, is second guessing too many decisions the referees make. This is why the use "clear and obvious error" as a defining mechanism and that, unfortunately, is proving a vague and very difficult definition to operate within. The implementation of VAR opened a huge can of worms, and the EPL, in particular, has had a difficult time maneuvering the dynamics created by VAR. And there has to be an acknowledgement that the majority of people involved in the sport--coaches, players, pundits, fans---hate referees and will try and blame as much shit on them as they possibly can. I know plenty of you will say this is not teh case but get real. The referee is the easiest scapegoat, and with video evidence so readily available these days it's increased the chasm between referees and everyone else. Sometimes the criticisms are fair and justifiable, as I have always said. I DO NOT always take the referee's side during incidents. I am, in a minority of cases, where the referee has clearly botched something, been hyper critical. But if there is a reasonable angle as to why a ref doesn't make a particular call, I can usually figure it out and will present it as a rationale for this or that decision. Because referees miss things for every single team. Yes, even the Liverpools and Man Citys get the short end of the stick at times. The top clubs tend to get more decisions because they are a) fouled more often and b) because that is a universal trend in all sports and it goes back decades (and there are studies that back this up by people who analyze large swaths of data and draw conclusions. Y'know, like scientists. It's just not quite as exacting because there is a level of subjectivity that goes into referee decisions, rather than just either/or scenarios. Anyhow..........

I'm a big fan of paragraphs.

 

[Red Ray's Redlist]

I think we have to take a few things into account when considering what Dermot Gallagher says. Do you actually think he is going to take the most negative angle when describing referee decisions? Do coaches throw players under the bus post match when they f*** up? The answer of course is coaches do not do this unless they want to lose the dressing room. Gallagher is trying to understand how the referee arrived at that decision in that particular moment, and he will continue to do so as often as he can. And he well should do this. If he goes on TV and assassinates the referee on live TV---where do you think this will lead? It's not constructive at all, and it will lead to worse situations almost certainly. I think Gallagher's function is to try and make people understand how they arrive at decisions, even if they are the incorrect ones. I try to do the same thing---understand what the ref saw in that split second and why he decided to do or not do this and that. What we cannot have, even with VAR, is second guessing too many decisions the referees make. This is why the use "clear and obvious error" as a defining mechanism and that, unfortunately, is proving a vague and very difficult definition to operate within. The implementation of VAR opened a huge can of worms, and the EPL, in particular, has had a difficult time maneuvering the dynamics created by VAR. And there has to be an acknowledgement that the majority of people involved in the sport--coaches, players, pundits, fans---hate referees and will try and blame as much shit on them as they possibly can. I know plenty of you will say this is not teh case but get real. The referee is the easiest scapegoat, and with video evidence so readily available these days it's increased the chasm between referees and everyone else. Sometimes the criticisms are fair and justifiable, as I have always said. I DO NOT always take the referee's side during incidents. I am, in a minority of cases, where the referee has clearly botched something, been hyper critical. But if there is a reasonable angle as to why a ref doesn't make a particular call, I can usually figure it out and will present it as a rationale for this or that decision. Because referees miss things for every single team. Yes, even the Liverpools and Man Citys get the short end of the stick at times. The top clubs tend to get more decisions because they are a) fouled more often and b) because that is a universal trend in all sports and it goes back decades (and there are studies that back this up by people who analyze large swaths of data and draw conclusions. Y'know, like scientists. It's just not quite as exacting because there is a level of subjectivity that goes into referee decisions, rather than just either/or scenarios. Anyhow..........

Always enjoy your posts, good stuff.

On Gallagher, I can see why you relate what he says back to how a coach doesn't throw his players under the bus (though not applicable in all cases) but he isn't a coach. His role is to analyse the decisions. I'm fine if he paints decisions as open to interpretation but he doesn't. He just backs the ref up. It really isn't doing him any favours because it calls his honesty into question.

By all means explain what he thinks the ref has done and why, but then contrast with what he thinks the laws are designed to be interpreted in each circumstance. It's the last bit which is sadly lacking.

 

[valspoodle]

I want Dermot as a ref to say what he would do as a ref, not make excuses for the referee's decision or try to fit into the refs skin and guess how he was thinking at the time. The waffle is excruciating at time as it weaves back and forth, skating over the point. I listen to the Ref Chat segment on SSN mainly to hear the two ex-players opinions because they often markedly differ with the referees and simply can't understand why a team of refs come to such decisions.

I want him honestly and without fear or favour to tell me why the decision was made, not to think of a reason why it wasn't made. Refereees who have retired from the game have no longer to pander to the powers that be or to suck up to their mates, the whole point of using old has-beens is that they no longer have affinity to the PGMOL.

We need reasons not excuses. It's a club and they don't want to rock the boat. Listening to the chat about the Haaland penalty and the identical CHO penalty was a classic.

 

[MK Redun]

Hope Webb is watching how these CL semi-finals 2nd legs have been ref'd and VAR'd...... absolute chalk and cheese to our lot. No comparison.

 

[Apollo11]

Hope Webb is watching how these CL semi-finals 2nd legs have been ref'd and VAR'd...... absolute chalk and cheese to our lot. No comparison.

This is a guy who allowed this tackle,do you really think he gives a shit how they are reffed?