Referees

[RTID!!!]

Sum up the Carlisle referee and the Luton referee in one word. Mine is: incompetent.

[Donnywolf]

The one word i would use would get me a lengthy ban from the Forum

[ballysbackin]

The word I was going to use starts with a W and ends in a R if singular or S if plural so I do not know if that constitutes two words 

[Bentley Bullet]

The word I'm thinking of starts with a C and ends with an S.


Cheats

[RedJ]

Charlie
Uniform
November
Tango
Sierra

[Wiltshire Exile]

 BB, as an ex-referee, I was certainly not the best that crowds in the Southern League had witnessed.... far from it! I certainly experienced, on many occasions, the W and C words.......especially when officiating in a game between Maltby MW and Armthorpe Welfare in the 1960's! 
But a cheat? Never. Definition of a cheat is: "A person who acts dishonestly in order to gain an advantage". No matter how bad you may think a referee has performed, this does not make him a cheat........does it?

Just saying like.

[drfchound]

The word I'm thinking of starts with a C and ends with an S.


Cheats

BBthat reminds me of something:
What word starts with a C , ends with a T,  has a U and an N in it and is covered in short hairs?
Answer below:







Coconut of course.

[Bentley Bullet]

Wiltshire Exile

It was intended as a tongue in cheek throwaway comment, but your definition of a cheat has made me wonder if my post is a bit more relevant than intended. "A person who acts dishonestly in order to gain an advantage", could fit the description of a few officials I've seen in my time watching football.

Mick Russell acted dishonestly in order to gain an advantage for Portsmouth is the standout example. If Russell was just plain bad in that game he would have been plain bad for both teams, not just one. That sort of inconsistency is, in my opinion, blatant cheating.

Saturday's ref maybe wasn't as blatant with his favouring of Luton, but he did favour Luton, thus giving them an advantage, in my opinion.

[idler]

The booking of Butler seemed a little harsh at the time but then ignoring most of what followed made it look ridiculous.
Failing to penalise players jumping at the man just before or as the ball arrived was annoying to say the least.
Vessel jumped into the player clearing the ball leading with his studs all game.
Failing to book a player for deliberately kicking the ball down the tunnel when it was dead.
Failing to clamp down on blatant time wasting.
Missing the elbow on Marquis.
The list goes on.
He was inefficient and ineffective from start to finish.

[Wiltshire Exile]

Wiltshire Exile

It was intended as a tongue in cheek throwaway comment, but your definition of a cheat has made me wonder if my post is a bit more relevant than intended. "A person who acts dishonestly in order to gain an advantage", could fit the description of a few officials I've seen in my time watching football.

Mick Russell acted dishonestly in order to gain an advantage for Portsmouth is the standout example. If Russell was just plain bad in that game he would have been plain bad for both teams, not just one. That sort of inconsistency is, in my opinion, blatant cheating.

Saturday's ref maybe wasn't as blatant with his favouring of Luton, but he did favour Luton, thus giving them an advantage, in my opinion.

Fair enough, but if, as you suggest the referees in the Portsmouth and Luton games were cheating then questions have to be asked. For example, what would they have to gain? Are they somehow involved with these clubs? There is quite a lot wrong with football in this country, but cheating referees are not, (in my opinion), one of the problems.

To be honest, I believe that your choice of description was probably coloured by the fact that the two officials were worse than bl**dy awful! 

[drfchound]

So Wiltshire, are you inclined to believe that the referee got things right most of the time then?

[Wiltshire Exile]

So Wiltshire, are you inclined to believe that the referee got things right most of the time then?

Can't say drfch, as I wasn't there! But judging from what I have read and heard, it would appear that he did get most of the important decisions wrong. But then again, as always, it's a matter of opinion, isn't it? For instance some supporters say that so-and-so had a bad game, whilst other say that he had a blinder! Opinions, opinions! 

[Bentley Bullet]

True Wiltshire, the two officials were worse than bloody awful, but it goes to show how  biased Darren Deadman was in Luton's favour when their manager stated that he was outstanding! 

[Bentley Bullet]

Luton should have been down to 11 men after the elbowing incident.

[RedJ]

Mick Russell is the one and only time I genuinely believe the referee to have been an outright cheat. Usually it's just because they're f**king clueless.

[BobG]

Now that's a corking idea BB!!! Bloody brilliant mate. I'm smiling fit to bust

Cheers

BobG

[The Red Baron]

Mick Russell is the one and only time I genuinely believe the referee to have been an outright cheat. Usually it's just because they're f**king clueless.

After the Portsmouth game John Ryan seemed to suggest that Russell had some grudge against Rovers. He cited a number of examples of decisions he had given against us against a number of different opponents. One example was a FA Cup tie at Mansfield where he turned down a stonewall penalty. In another match (not sure the opposition) he gave a very soft penalty against us.

I thought it was rather significant that JR received only a token fine and that Russell was never appointed to referee another game involving Rovers.

Though you do wonder why a referee from Hertfordshire should have a grudge against a club from South Yorkshire.

In Deadman's case I think it was incompetence.

[drfchound]

So Wiltshire, are you inclined to believe that the referee got things right most of the time then?

Can't say drfch, as I wasn't there! But judging from what I have read and heard, it would appear that he did get most of the important decisions wrong. But then again, as always, it's a matter of opinion, isn't it? For instance some supporters say that so-and-so had a bad game, whilst other say that he had a blinder! Opinions, opinions! 

Fair enough, i can concur with that.

[idler]

So Wiltshire, are you inclined to believe that the referee got things right most of the time then?

Can't say drfch, as I wasn't there! But judging from what I have read and heard, it would appear that he did get most of the important decisions wrong. But then again, as always, it's a matter of opinion, isn't it? For instance some supporters say that so-and-so had a bad game, whilst other say that he had a blinder! Opinions, opinions! 

Wilts I have no problem with a ref making mistakes, we all do.
We have had some very poor refs this year but usually poor for both sides.
We are not a physical side so most robust challenges usually come from the opposition. At home we are also very unlikely to be time wasting, theses are two areas that we have criticised refs for this season.
The main point is that an incompetent ref will be bad for both sides, not give 90% of decisions to one side. Darren Deadman made many mistakes on Saturday mostly benefitting Luton. I was amazed when he didn't blow for the foul in the build up to our goal, it was about the only time that we benefitted form a mistake.
My grandson aged 15 has just completed a referees course and I think that he could have got more decisions right.