Huddersfield 0-3 Man City - Sunday 20th January, 2019

[The Artful Dodger]

By what objective measurement are the standards of officiating poor, is there a league where tedious bores don't whinge and bleat about referees all the fucking time? 

[Stan]

2 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Maybe you should have a go at it then if you think it is so bad. Find out how hard it is. You say it is poor but compared to where? Similar mistakes happen all around Europe

Eh?

I didn't say I didn't realise how hard it is. I appreciate it can be difficult. But that also doesn't excuse some basic decisions being called wrongly...?

It's just poor considering these are meant to be some of the best referees in the game; for me, there are a few referees who 'bottle' a big decision because it may go against a big team or go against the grain.

The best referees, or the best refereeing performances, are the ones where you come away from the game and one of the things that doesn't get mentioned is the referee or the decision he makes. Too many referees in the Premier League really fancy making the game all about themselves, when it should be about the 2 teams on the pitch, not the man in the middle. Fair enough some referees need to assert their authority on the game (and perhaps this is where the difficulty herein lies) but it feels as if too often by doing so, they get the bigger decisions wrong under the pressure of the game.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Stan said:

Eh?

I didn't say I didn't realise how hard it is. I appreciate it can be difficult. But that also doesn't excuse some basic decisions being called wrongly...?

It's just poor considering these are meant to be some of the best referees in the game; for me, there are a few referees who 'bottle' a big decision because it may go against a big team or go against the grain.

The best referees, or the best refereeing performances, are the ones where you come away from the game and one of the things that doesn't get mentioned is the referee or the decision he makes. Too many referees in the Premier League really fancy making the game all about themselves, when it should be about the 2 teams on the pitch, not the man in the middle. Fair enough some referees need to assert their authority on the game (and perhaps this is where the difficulty herein lies) but it feels as if too often by doing so, they get the bigger decisions wrong under the pressure of the game.

I think you're taking bollocks to be honest. Mistakes are gonna be made. Footballer's make loads of mistakes I don't really know what fans like you expect to be honest. 

[Stan]

4 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I think you're taking bollocks to be honest. Mistakes are gonna be made. Footballer's make loads of mistakes I don't really know what fans like you expect to be honest. 

More consistent refereeing .

I admit mistakes will be made, but if they're made less frequently, people will moan less...

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Stan said:

More consistent refereeing .

I admit mistakes will be made, but if they're made less frequently, people will moan less...

Mistakes are made by referee's all over the world humans make mistakes. It doesn't matter how good it is some fans would still moan.

[Stan]

2 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Mistakes are made by referee's all over the world humans make mistakes. It doesn't matter how good it is some fans would still moan.

Some fans will still moan, they always will. But if there was less to moan about, it'd be more difficult for them.

Let me ask you this - even though we both appreciate it can be difficult to referee a match, would you still not want more consistent refereeing and games with less mistakes, games where controversial decisions are few and far between? 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Stan said:

Some fans will still moan, they always will. But if there was less to moan about, it'd be more difficult for them.

Let me ask you this - even though we both appreciate it can be difficult to referee a match, would you still not want more consistent refereeing and games with less mistakes, games where controversial decisions are few and far between? 

Of course I would. Thats why I heavily support VAR. But we have to look at the standard as a whole. If you complain about a referee you can't say he is shit if he is one of the best in the world. This is what a lot of fans do. They complain about a referee even if he is one of the best in the world.

What I'm trying to say(which I'm having a hard job explaining) is that you can't say all referees are bad because they get decisions wrong. That doesn't make sense. It would be like saying all footballer's are bad because they make bad passes sometimes. There has to be a point when you say yes the got that wrong but since he is human he will get some things wrong he is still very good. A lot of football fans don't look at what referees do right. 

[RandoEFC+]

I think, while referees do make glaring mistakes, there are far more decisions that get interpreted as mistakes because the huge grey areas in the rules mean that in some cases, the same thing could happen 10 times and the decision will go one way on 5 occasions and the other way on the other 5 occasions.

It's impossible to actually know what falls into what category by the letter of the law because the rules are so vague and applied so inconsistently across the weekend. Even the experts on television, including former referees like Dermot Gallagher, make their mind up on some marginal calls based on which way the wind is blowing. The end result is that nobody knows the rules, nobody can prove whether a decision is right or wrong half the time, so we all end up drawing our own conclusions based on individual agendas and confirmation bias.

So many of the rules need amending, especially with these "high" tackles that are suddenly universal reds. It's not acceptable that we have to rely on commentators to tell us that you can't get away with tackles like that these days. It needs to say in the rule book, if this is indeed the rule, that "any player whose studs make contact with an opponent above their ankle following an out of control sliding challenge will receive a straight red card" rather than whatever it currently says, some non-specific stuff about endangering an opponent.

There's too many sudden swings in decisions. Like you get phases of a certain offence getting penalised more heavily than it was the month before because the referees have gotten together and decided to crack down on it, which is fine, but how hard is it to tell everyone? Sometimes they do share it to be fair but other times officials suddenly decide that a certain type of tackle is a red card offence from now on and the commentators and fans are just left to realise that's the case after it's been enforced several times.

I don't know, I think the grey area stuff is a bigger issue than the referees being individually poor, but you look at some decisions and just think how can a top flight referee make that decision. E.g. today Sterling got clearly decked and didn't get a penalty, then in the Spurs game Danny Rose was tripped by a Fulham player and was then booked for diving by the referee who didn't seem to have a clear view and looked like he totally guessed whether it was a dive, a foul or a legitimate tackle. It doesn't seem unreasonable to question why relatively straightforward calls such as those shouldn't be accurate.

The debate will rumble on, especially with VAR getting thrown into the mix next year as well.

[Stan]

5 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

you can't say all referees are bad because they get decisions wrong

I've never said that tbf.

There are many referees I like and there are also others who I dread to see that they will be officiating a game I'm watching. I've also said a couple of times in this thread that I appreciate they have a difficult job and that sometimes things will go wrong. I think you've (wrongly) assumed that when I say one referee is poor or the general standard is poor, that doesn't mean to say I think all referees are shit. It's perhaps the case that some referees (Pawson, Moss, Scott, Jones, Ward) bring the standard down against the likes of Oliver, Marriner, Atkinson, Dean and perhaps a few others. 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

I think, while referees do make glaring mistakes, there are far more decisions that get interpreted as mistakes because the huge grey areas in the rules mean that in some cases, the same thing could happen 10 times and the decision will go one way on 5 occasions and the other way on the other 5 occasions.

It's impossible to actually know what falls into what category by the letter of the law because the rules are so vague and applied so inconsistently across the weekend. Even the experts on television, including former referees like Dermot Gallagher, make their mind up on some marginal calls based on which way the wind is blowing. The end result is that nobody knows the rules, nobody can prove whether a decision is right or wrong half the time, so we all end up drawing our own conclusions based on individual agendas and confirmation bias.

So many of the rules need amending, especially with these "high" tackles that are suddenly universal reds. It's not acceptable that we have to rely on commentators to tell us that you can't get away with tackles like that these days. It needs to say in the rule book, if this is indeed the rule, that "any player whose studs make contact with an opponent above their ankle following an out of control sliding challenge will receive a straight red card" rather than whatever it currently says, some non-specific stuff about endangering an opponent.

There's too many sudden swings in decisions. Like you get phases of a certain offence getting penalised more heavily than it was the month before because the referees have gotten together and decided to crack down on it, which is fine, but how hard is it to tell everyone? Sometimes they do share it to be fair but other times officials suddenly decide that a certain type of tackle is a red card offence from now on and the commentators and fans are just left to realise that's the case after it's been enforced several times.

I don't know, I think the grey area stuff is a bigger issue than the referees being individually poor, but you look at some decisions and just think how can a top flight referee make that decision. E.g. today Sterling got clearly decked and didn't get a penalty, then in the Spurs game Danny Rose was tripped by a Fulham player and was then booked for diving by the referee who didn't seem to have a clear view and looked like he totally guessed whether it was a dive, a foul or a legitimate tackle. It doesn't seem unreasonable to question why relatively straightforward calls such as those shouldn't be accurate.

The debate will rumble on, especially with VAR getting thrown into the mix next year as well.

I haven't seen these incidents yet so I can't say. One thing I would point out is that say for example 2 players are running to get the ball and one clocks the other guy. The referee has to be certain who's fault it was to send a player of or give a penalty ect. In real time with only one look that is quite hard to do if they are both going for the ball. The referee has to be sure one was going faster more aggressively ect. It's very rare that pundits and fans get it right first time they normally have at least one replay. 

VAR will hopefully help. I agree with you about the grey areas. However I also think that referees do understand the rules better. Whenever I watch ref watch I normally agree with Gallagher. He has more of an understanding of the rules for example the other week I was certain Burnley should have had a penalty against us. However he pointed out that their player backs into our defender and he has to put his hands out to stop himself from getting knocked over.

 

 

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Stan said:

I've never said that tbf.

There are many referees I like and there are also others who I dread to see that they will be officiating a game I'm watching. I've also said a couple of times in this thread that I appreciate they have a difficult job and that sometimes things will go wrong. I think you've (wrongly) assumed that when I say one referee is poor or the general standard is poor, that doesn't mean to say I think all referees are shit. It's perhaps the case that some referees (Pawson, Moss, Scott, Jones, Ward) bring the standard down against the likes of Oliver, Marriner, Atkinson, Dean and perhaps a few others. 

Well perhaps that was misentepreted by me. I just think some fans need to be a bit more realistic in their expectations. Then again football fans aren't known for being the most rational people 

Out of interest @Stan and @RandoEFC do you support VAR being bought in?

[Stan]

14 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Well perhaps that was misentepreted by me. I just think some fans need to be a bit more realistic in their expectations. Then again football fans aren't known for being the most rational people 

Out of interest @Stan and @RandoEFC do you support VAR being bought in?

Definitely. I'm all for giving referees as much help as possible and think VAR is a good way of ensuring that. Too many times teams have been let down in games and the decision has been unable to be reversed. 

I can only hope for the benefit of VAR and the benefit of the game itself that it becomes more fine-tuned and quicker to be actioned upon (things taking up to 2 minutes or longer is unacceptable for me so can understand the frustration on that part). I think over time that it'll be improved, especially as more technology comes in to play. As Rando said though, the grey areas need to be clarified for the game to succeed even more, regardless off VAR. The best benefit for VAR, for me, is that it can rectify possible errors instead of looking back on hindsight after a game about what could have been...

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Stan said:

Definitely. I'm all for giving referees as much help as possible and think VAR is a good way of ensuring that. Too many times teams have been let down in games and the decision has been unable to be reversed. 

I can only hope for the benefit of VAR and the benefit of the game itself that it becomes more fine-tuned and quicker to be actioned upon (things taking up to 2 minutes or longer is unacceptable for me so can understand the frustration on that part). I think over time that it'll be improved, especially as more technology comes in to play. As Rando said though, the grey areas need to be clarified for the game to succeed even more, regardless off VAR. The best benefit for VAR, for me, is that it can rectify possible errors instead of looking back on hindsight after a game about what could have been...

It definitely needs fine tuning but it will help. I think sometimes pundits over exaggerate the problems a bit. I mean the most important thing is that goal celebrations aren't delayed but  it's very rare that a goal is given checked for 2 minutes then still given. A lot of the time the goal is dissalowed or a goal that wasn't given was given. 

 

[RandoEFC+]

1 hour ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Well perhaps that was misentepreted by me. I just think some fans need to be a bit more realistic in their expectations. Then again football fans aren't known for being the most rational people 

Out of interest @Stan and @RandoEFC do you support VAR being bought in?

110% yes, on that much we agree!