Standard of Referees

ubik said:
It's not just that - he drew the reaction he wanted, then collapsed dramatically as if Foden had kicked him much harder. Straight red for his kick and the simulation combined.
Click to expand...
I just think you can’t kick out. The ball was well gone and he carried on and kicked him off the ball. He intended to kick him, he also threw a bit of an elbow at the start of it as well, committed a foul, then as you say he feigned injury. It was the petulance as well. It was probably 2 yellow cards at least but the kick up the arse is a red now, I don’t really see how it can’t be.
 
Someone mentioned the Liverpool game last season when macalister scored.


It is about 2:50 in. For me the city goal shouldn’t stand, the pundits are all arguing that the defender is occupied and the keeper guessing. But what is the difference with this one? There is a player in the exact area of the pitch and is making defenders choose to cover and is interfering with play. How can he not be? I and many others have argued this for years and it happens loads, sometimes in our favour. It is funny how now it is an absolute 100% mistake according to the pundits but they haven’t been raising it before so vociferously.
 
ubik said:
It's not just that - he drew the reaction he wanted, then collapsed dramatically as if Foden had kicked him much harder. Straight red for his kick and the simulation combined.
Click to expand...
Can't do that. Write Collina a letter, and he just might implement it.
 
king_congo_red said:
Different season. Different rules.
Doesn't make sense, but then nothing does anymore with the constant fiddling with rules, tolerances and whatever other bollocks they come up with.
Click to expand...
This has been going on for years now, yet now suddenly everyone admits a player running in the box can change the way a defender / keeper act therefore are interfering in the play.
 
PynchonForest said:
Btw, I am about to become a European typa guy. What are the benefits?
Click to expand...
You get free access to hardcore Danish Porn, and you will get preferential prices for decent European food, rather than that steroid- and chemically-enhanced shite you import (currently) from the yanks.
 
Strummer said:
You get free access to hardcore Danish Porn, and you will get preferential prices for decent European food, rather than that steroid- and chemically-enhanced shite you import (currently) from the yanks.
Click to expand...
We actually try and avoid their junk---see our policy on "milk". But when your neighbor is that big and farts alot, it's hard to avoid the downwind negativity. Now, this Danish porn thing---I've eaten many a danish in my life, but have not f**ked one yet. I guess I know what the glaze is now. Dammit.
 
Knew this would be an absolute clown show after about ten minutes when I looked up who the ref was after he literally got the first four decisions of the game wrong.

Two refs and an assistant look at about 40 replays of a bloke taking 7 or 8 steps and two further touches of the ball after “minimal contact” (to use the technical term we always hear) and decide it’s a “clear and obvious error”. In a game where the on field ref has actively let numerous fouls go by all game, including about ten from the f***ing idiot that fell over in his own box (without a booking or so much as a warning).

I usually stick up for Gillett but that was f***ing diabolical. Almost as bad as Munoz’s defending for the goal.
 
The issue for me here is that VAR doesn't take any account of the ref on the pitch. I personally quite like Gillett as an official, I like the fact he lets games flow and doesn't give soft free kicks. He's reffed this game in the same way he always does and it's allowed for some seriously robust challenges. For a VAR to then tell him to disallow the goal for that challenge, which is not a foul in a million years in a game refereed by Jarred Gillett, is absolutely inexplicable. Even more so that Gillett watches it, thinks how he refs games, and still disallows it.

Don't get me wrong, if it was at the other end I would want that disallowed based on how football acts now in the VAR age, but in the context of the game and the referee it's an outrageous decision.
 
andyd said:
The issue for me here is that VAR doesn't take any account of the ref on the pitch. I personally quite like Gillett as an official, I like the fact he lets games flow and doesn't give soft free kicks. He's reffed this game in the same way he always does and it's allowed for some seriously robust challenges. For a VAR to then tell him to disallow the goal for that challenge, which is not a foul in a million years in a game refereed by Jarred Gillett, is absolutely inexplicable. Even more so that Gillett watches it, thinks how he refs games, and still disallows it.

Don't get me wrong, if it was at the other end I would want that disallowed based on how football acts now in the VAR age, but in the context of the game and the referee it's an outrageous decision.
Click to expand...
This is spot on for me. Disallowing a goal for far less than the standard of foul allowed in the whole game. I’m not for giving soft penalties but Neco was shoved over in the box and it is the sort of soft shit given all over the pitch week in week out. But the commentators say it was t enough for a penalty, yet they are licking their lips for the goal to be disallowed for far less contact. But again why was that not looked at by VAR, so not only is there inconsistency in the way the refs give fouls, the way they book players but there is also inconsistency in what they VAR decide to look at.
 
Rzar said:
It wasn't a mistake from the referee, he saw it & thought it wasn't a foul which was his standard all game, then he watched it for another 5 minutes before being told it should be disallowed
Click to expand...
It’s a shame we don’t get the ref at old Trafford who doubles down 😂
 
I don’t want to get carried away.

But Aussie prick. Can’t trust them.

Send him back to the prisons - convict.
 
Rzar said:
It wasn't a mistake from the referee, he saw it & thought it wasn't a foul which was his standard all game, then he watched it for another 5 minutes before being told it should be disallowed
Click to expand...
Correction -

He watched it for another 5 minutes with a voice in his earpiece saying 'That's a foul that is. You can see it can't you? You'll be in the Championship next time around if you let that go. It's a foul isn't it. Watch it again.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom