Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: DRFC_DonnyRed50 on February 24, 2013, 09:43:24 pm
-
Having just seen the incident on sky sports, it's a stonewall penalty, the keeper just drags Syers down and I don't know how the Ref cannot give that! :headbang:
-
I sit to right of goal in south stand so was less than 20 yards away from it and I agree - everyone in the ground knew it, except for the ref and blind pugh, (sorry, west stand lino!), and they probably knew it but for some reason chose not to give it? Has been suggested it was to even out the Jones tackle that could have been a penalty, but, for whatever reason, he didn't give it!
Not the first time, won't be the last! We get our fair share of poor decisions but until refs become full time professionals they will continue to be sh*t amateurs! Interesting they all seem to be shortarses as well - small man syndrome??!!
-
Why would being professional change anything?! Shortarsed blind bas**rds will continue to be short arsed blind bas**rds....
BobG
-
Why would being professional change anything?! Shortarsed blind b*****ds will continue to be short arsed blind b*****ds....
BobG
True - very good point! :thumbsup:
But they obviously get bullied in their day jobs and take it out on the poor b*****ds paying to watch football - at least if they were pro's they could leave their sh*t day jobs and get trained properly!
-
I reckon some league refs are the best money can buy.
-
I see Kevin "noone will be my" Friend was up to his usual tricks today at Wembley - no idea how he got that gig! By the pedantic, letter of the law Matt Duke had to get sent off! 3-0 down, penalty against them would have been enough imo.
I guess I'll get shot down with people saying "by the letter of the law" etc.... but surely some common sense should be used!!!!!!
Sorry, I should know better!!!!!
:headbang:
-
Andre Mariner, wasn't it today? He didn't have a choice really though - DOGSO, arguably, and he was of course the last man. Not much leeway.
-
I too think the ref was trying to even up the Jones decision on Saturday. Only explanation I can think of why it was missed.
As for the Bradford decision today, sorry, but I would've sent him off too. The ref isn't there to show sentiment or favouritism just because it's Bradford's big day out. It was a clear red, the ref is paid to think clearly and without bias, and he did just that. Not doing so would probably hurt his career, too. Full marks to him from me in this case.
-
Had to be a red doesn't matter whether its 1st or last min,what sort of game it is or anything else it was a red card offence
-
It was definitely Kevin Friend! I'd recognise his smug ugly face anywhere - done us a time or two!!
Listened to 5 live on way down to Twickenham tonight (here for work all week, just 2 days too late for the big game!!) and both Laudrup & Parkinson thought sending off was harsh - I agree but that's probably me being a bit soft and strictly speaking, by the current rules, I appreciate it warranted a red - but bloody hell! Surely a penalty for 4-0 is enough! Should change the rules in my opinion in every game. A penalty is surely enough without sending off the goalie??!!
I'll get my coat!
:facepalm:
-
Ok put it on other foot brentford next to last match of season 4-0 up or 4-0 down last minute and there keeper does then same,you stil think the same so he can also play in our match week after.
-
LincsRover, the laws of the game are very clear and it was DOGSO and the ref had no choice. What would have happened if he stays on and then plays in the next Bradford fixture and has a blinder (when he should have been suspended).
-
Think it's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't really. I'm sure if he hadn't sent him off the media would have been a bit kinder to him but when asked to explain his decision in his report I don't think "well, I didn't want to spoil Bradford's big day out" would quite cut it. As it is he makes the right decision and gets buggered by the press and fans without so much as a sympathetic reach-around. I doubt he'd get a big game for a while if he'd shown that the occasion had swayed his decision-making in any way. I think it's a slippery slope when supposed "common sense" leads to you bending the rules to make for a better story or whatever, I think it would set a dodgy precedent - who's to say something like this won't happen in our play-off final if we get there? - but that's just my opinion.
-
I know, I get it and I agree to everything you have said - by the current law it was a red - no argument there. I just think it is a bit harsh to give a penalty and send off the goalie. I think the law should be changed. And yes, of course donnievic, as the law stands, I would welcome the Brentford goalie getting suspended in your example. However, it doesn't make it right.
-
Perhaps the ref at Wembley today should have done what the ref at the Keepmoat did on Saturday - Turned a blind eye and not give a penalty in the first place!
-
Just to add to this, and I'm not trying to be awkward - just watching MOTD and can you explain the difference between the Matt Duke incident and Joe Hart - Andre Mariner didn't even give Hart a yellow!! Surely they are both reds or neither?? Inconsistency??
-
What would you change the law to out of interest?
-
Just to add to this, and I'm not trying to be awkward - just watching MOTD and can you explain the difference between the Matt Duke incident and Joe Hart - Andre Mariner didn't even give Hart a yellow!! Surely they are both reds or neither?? Inconsistency??
Hart's wasn't DOGSO. Dyer I think it was Duke took down was dead cert to tuck his shot away whereas Ba was headed away from goal. Should have been booked though.
-
Penalty, no sending off, even if it denies a goal scoring opportunity - too harsh and open to abuse. A ref can influence a result too much with one decision - in these days of corruption and foreign gambling influences a penalty is bad and can influence a result, but to put the power of penalty and a sending off into the hands of someone who, let's face it, get things badly wrong at times, is just asking for trouble. Send someone off for violent conduct, by all means, but for clumsily catching someone who might score? Harsh in my opinion.
-
Bradford were winning at Wimbledon last week until the 85th minute. They then conceded 2 goals and after the game the ref went into the dressing room and apologised for incorrectly giving the corner that Wimbledon scored from.
Nobody in the City dressing room were impressed.
-
I think the referee on Saturday was in a terrible position and therefore didn't even see Syers get brought down. I've noticed referees standing further away from the action even when they know the ball is about to be launched into the box and as a result they miss things like this. There's probably a reason but given how crowded penalty areas are I don't think it does them any favours.
Re the Bradford keeper, sorry but he's got to send him off. I'm possibly in favour of a rule change as yes a penalty AND a red is harsh but based on the laws as they are now the ref got it spot on yesterday.
-
For me, the officials were unbelievably inconsistent, if the free kick for their goal was a free kick, then play should have been stopped for pretty much every bit of contact!
-
What about just accepting that referees, like players, managers and fans, make incorrect judgements?
It's part of the game. It always has been and hopefully it always will be. God save us from a homogenised game where every decision is flawless.
-
The problem is officials have an impossible task. The main arguments seem to stem from offside decisions.
In order for a linesman to judge an offside situation correctly, he would have to have eyes like Marty Feldman. One eye would need to be on the suspect offside player whilst simultaneously the other eye on the player making the pass.
It is expected of them to perform a task that is humanly impossible!
-
The problem is officials have an impossible task. The main arguments seem to stem from offside decisions.
In order for a linesman to judge an offside situation correctly, he would have to have eyes like Marty Feldman. One eye would need to be on the suspect offside player whilst simultaneously the other eye on the player making the pass.
It is expected of them to perform a task that is humanly impossible!
And thats been proved on numerous occasions too, the lino needs to see the moment the ball is played and at the same moment know where the two players in question are. If the through ball is being played from deep then he will have to move his line of sight away from the attacker/defender and then back to them to judge the offside. In this time a player can run 5 yards meaning if a striker runs towards the goal and a defender towards the the ball it can appear to the lino that the attacker is 10 yards offside but was actually level.
It's why I joke the best way to police the offside rule is from an airship above the ground - you can take in the full view of the pitch and also get a better view of the direction the ball is travelling regarding active/inactive attackers. As well as it being a great sponsorship opportunity - "and the offside decision from the assistant in the Budweiser blimp is....ONSIDE!".
That said, I'm pretty sure Opta's research showed that lino's were getting over 90% of offside decisions correct in the Prem last year.
-
Agree, it must be a nightmare being a linesman, remembering which players were on and off when the ball was played. Anyone see motd2 last night? Papa Cisse's wonderful strike, technically offside. He was off when the ball was played over the top but came back on and it appeared the ball was then flicked on (it never touched anyone), Cisse then ran onto it and hammered it home.
I can see why the laws are as they are to try and be as fair as possible but what a call to try and get most of em right. Can't wait till i have to run the line for my under 10'snext season, in front of a load of angry parents :-/
-
The problem nowadays is since Mike Riley took over from Keith Hackett as manager of the Professional Game Match Officials Board (PGMO) too many refs are being fast-tracked into the league that aren't good enough as all he is bothered about are numbers and meeting targets over quality.
-
The problem nowadays is since Mike Riley took over from Keith Hackett as manager of the Professional Game Match Officials Board (PGMO) too many refs are being fast-tracked into the league that aren't good enough as all he is bothered about are numbers and meeting targets over quality.
Thats a balancing act though as if it takes too long good young referees will walk out of the game and the length of time it used to take to get to the top in refereeing was a big reason why so few ex pros took it up. By the time you work your way up through the leagues its retirement time.
-
The problem nowadays is since Mike Riley took over from Keith Hackett as manager of the Professional Game Match Officials Board (PGMO) too many refs are being fast-tracked into the league that aren't good enough as all he is bothered about are numbers and meeting targets over quality.
Thats a balancing act though as if it takes too long good young referees will walk out of the game and the length of time it used to take to get to the top in refereeing was a big reason why so few ex pros took it up. By the time you work your way up through the leagues its retirement time.
A balancing act that Mike Riley hasn't a clue what to do with. Keith Hackett and Philip Don before him got it spot on but since Mike Riley got the job in 2009 the standard of refereeing has become the worst i have seen in in 35+ years of watching football.
Also from wiki...
Since 2010 the neutrality and competence of PGMOL has been consistently challenged by a group of referees from outside PGMOL who have challenged the statistics that PGMOL have provided about their own work, and the reliability of the referees themselves. This led to the group of referees themselves reviewing 40% of all Premier League matches during the 2011/12 season and assessing the referees.
Numerous errors were cited, and the common assumption that errors will even out in the end was challenged in a regular report published on the web site Untold Arsenal [www.blog.emiratesstadium.info] Although the site itself was started by Arsenal supporters the referees who undertake the reviews have persistently claimed that they are neutral in their reviewing. Since the 2012/2013 season, the referee review activities have been moved to a new website http://www.refereedecisions.co.uk/ to start the process of removing any suggested bias whilst Arsenal reports still continue to be published on the original site.
During the course of the 2011/12 season the PGMOL took down its previous public web site and replaced it with a website to which entry was restricted to those with PGMOL allocated passwords.
At the end of the 2011/12 season Untold Arsenal began to summarise its findings in "Ref Review"
An earlier attempt by the editorial team of the web site to examine how different football associations across Europe monitor referees and the standards of accuracy that are demanded was stopped when none of the associations would agree to complete the questionnaire that they were sent.
I know a number of 'retired' referees are currently pulling their hair out at the standard of officiating in the professional game at the moment and are all pointing the finger at Riley & his team.
-
If that's the truth of the matter Skellow then it's yet another reason why football is killing itself. If inconsistent decision making goes on long enough allied to to all the other crap that's so obvious, then some people at least are going to think 'Sod it' aren't they? Especially so if the perception that 'my team' is more often on the receiving end or 'that team' usually get the decision their way. It may or may not be true, but we've seen for a fair while now that plenty of people think Man Utd get an unfair advantage from referees. It doesn't have to be true. To undermine the game it simply needs to be taken seriously by 20% of those who watch.
Cheers
BobG
-
That is an excellent site Skellow - a real attempt to analyse and quantify which I applaud. It would seem to be objective as well, and in my eyes credible. I definitely will follow it in the coming weeks/months.
If I were from the PGMOB I would publicly distance myself from it..........and privately follow and use it, or better still use its structure and implement a parallel private version. Maybe they do but somehow I doubt it.
-
The problem is officials have an impossible task. The main arguments seem to stem from offside decisions.
In order for a linesman to judge an offside situation correctly, he would have to have eyes like Marty Feldman. One eye would need to be on the suspect offside player whilst simultaneously the other eye on the player making the pass.
It is expected of them to perform a task that is humanly impossible!
As a linesman you have a choice - focus either on the furthest attacker, or 2nd last defender (including the keeper). Given the speed of the play, it may be easier to track the 2nd last defender as any forward further up is in an offside position.
Another way of improving judgment is to listen for the ball being kicked forward. This works better for longer passes where the ball is kicked harder, where to look across and back would be more difficult. For closer passes the passer and last defender should be in eyesight.
The old system worked better, if you were in an offside position, you're offside. None of this being directly active etc.. As someone once said (was it Shankly?) if you're not interfering with play, you shouldn't be on the pitch....
-
I have also just seen the highlights on Sky's website. That is a stonewall penalty - the keeper knocks Syers over and the ball continues on it's original path.
Shocking decision, or lack of it...
-
The problem is officials have an impossible task. The main arguments seem to stem from offside decisions.
In order for a linesman to judge an offside situation correctly, he would have to have eyes like Marty Feldman. One eye would need to be on the suspect offside player whilst simultaneously the other eye on the player making the pass.
It is expected of them to perform a task that is humanly impossible!
As a linesman you have a choice - focus either on the furthest attacker, or 2nd last defender (including the keeper). Given the speed of the play, it may be easier to track the 2nd last defender as any forward further up is in an offside position.
Another way of improving judgment is to listen for the ball being kicked forward. This works better for longer passes where the ball is kicked harder, where to look across and back would be more difficult. For closer passes the passer and last defender should be in eyesight.
The old system worked better, if you were in an offside position, you're offside. None of this being directly active etc.. As someone once said (was it Shankly?) if you're not interfering with play, you shouldn't be on the pitch....
The ball being kicked on is a trick I've employed many a time at amateur level but I would think its hard to do with any significant crowd noise at a professional game, and this is where you're going to get more complex movement from players? I got to run the line in a friendly for Rovers at conference level and the movement and intelligence of the runs from players even at that level was scary when it came to judging offsides.
Re Saturdays decision, again I'll go back to my original point about the refs position, theres no way he could have seen it given how far back he was stood. We may have got lucky had it been on the other side of the pitch and the lino been able to see it.
-
It is probably something you don't notice if you're not listening for it, but next time, at the match, keep an ear out for the sound - especially with a long kick or a corner etc, it is a very distinctive sound in amongst the general noise.
-
Just watched the extended highlights on Rovers Player. It could have been 6-2 to Rovers on another day. The penalty - I'm hard pressed to see a clearer one that hasn't been given. Absolute stonewall penalty every time. Whether he was atoning for the possible pen against Jones is irrelevant, and two wrongs don't make a right, as my Mum always says.
Mind you, it was that eejit Ilderton, who did us at Brighton, and perhaps he wanted some retribution for JR's comments after that game.
And how Paynter missed that header....
On the up side - great performance by Rovers. HOPEFULLY we kick on from there. Exciting times.