referee tonight

[watto-drfc]

why oh why do we never get a homer... yet againanother shocking performance from him tonight.

[Superspy]

i was thinking earlier, (i think someone mentioned this on another forum i go on), but this year, the level of officiating in this division has been absolutely shocking.

its not like the majority of the time its good and we just get a crap one every now and again, to me it seems the other way around, most of the time its crap and a good one is a nice surprise.

[Donnywolf]

....started with the first 50 50 challenge by 6JC which was given as a foul

... should have red carded their CB for bringing down 5BS and if not then certainly deserved a second yellow for chopping down 22DS

...and he ended it with a shocking + 3 minutes at the end . If EVER there was a game that should have been + 5 surely it was this one

Another total knobhead IMO

[watto-drfc]

he gave us nothing i thought that tackle on King Billy deserved a red card, he was last man and the tackle was just below the knee

[Filo]

We definitely should have had a penalty when Much was brought down in the box by a late tackle but the ref gave a goal kick!

[VikingJames]

Rigoglioso wrote:

I didn't think the challenge on Billy Sharp was a red card offence. Billy was taking the ball out wide and it looked as if a couple of Leicester players were covering the guy who made the mis-timed challenge. The referee, to his credit, got that decision correct.

I think the ref's explanation for that incident would be that it was not the denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity. And you are right, it was the correct decision.

[I-was-there1976]

i seem to remember a very favourable decision against Forest when it was 0-0. A nailed on penno that wasnt given for them.

\"homer\" maybe

[Ladyrover]

Not a homer, just a poor referee to both sides.

[Dagenham Rover]

No, he had it down for an away win on his pools coupon

[Ryan B]

The fact that the referee instructed the 4th official/rovers dug out to have a word with the ball boy who fantastically threw the ball at the leicester player, just showed that the referee did not have a clue.

the billy sharp incident was a straight red, nevermind the fact that billy took the ball wide, at that given moment there was only one man between billy and the keeper - at that man had no intention of playing the ball, just bringing billy down. That is a 'professional foul' and therefore a straight red.

[bobjimwilly]

Ryan B wrote:

The fact that the referee instructed the 4th official/rovers dug out to have a word with the ball boy who fantastically threw the ball at the leicester player, just showed that the referee did not have a clue.

the billy sharp incident was a straight red, nevermind the fact that billy took the ball wide, at that given moment there was only one man between billy and the keeper - at that man had no intention of playing the ball, just bringing billy down. That is a 'professional foul' and therefore a straight red.

That's what I said in another post; 100% agree. People may say he was too wide or too far from the goal, but that is tosh. It was a goal scoring opportunity. Simples.

And the stupid center back got away with another horrible foul 5 mins later which was easily a yellow every day of the week! Once again a couple of stupid refereeing decisions by a useless offical helps determine the outcome of an important game.  :angry:

[DRNaith]

It was the worse Ref's performance I've seen.

Billy was progressing towards the goal and taken down by the last man.

Leicester very quickly cottoned-on to the fact that the Ref would blow-up if they fell on the floor and used that to their advantage.  I know it may be considered cheating but basing your style of play by how the Ref reacts is something that some clubs are doing successfully and becoming part of the modern game.

[DonnyNoel]

bobjimwilly wrote:

Ryan B wrote:

The fact that the referee instructed the 4th official/rovers dug out to have a word with the ball boy who fantastically threw the ball at the leicester player, just showed that the referee did not have a clue.

the billy sharp incident was a straight red, nevermind the fact that billy took the ball wide, at that given moment there was only one man between billy and the keeper - at that man had no intention of playing the ball, just bringing billy down. That is a 'professional foul' and therefore a straight red.

That's what I said in another post; 100% agree. People may say he was too wide or too far from the goal, but that is tosh. It was a goal scoring opportunity. Simples.

Er, no.

10 yards further on and it would have been a closer call. 40 yards out, heading diagonally away from goal with their rapid number 11 (amongst others) hot on his heels. The \"last man\" statement is, and has always been, a common misunderstanding of the laws. Think we'd all have been livid had a Rovers player gone for a similar challenge. It has to be something pretty clear cut to get sent off for DOGSO anything more than 20 yards out. By the time Billy had hit the ground there were players from both sides around the ball. Practically the only thing he got right all game - especially given how poor he was at judging aerial challenges.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Disagree Noel.

Sharp was running straight at goal. Had the challenge not been made, the chasing defenders would have got nowhere near him. A blatant clear DOSGO case, regardless of it being 40 yards out. The defender knew precisely what he was doing, and precisely what the consequence would have been had he not deliberately brought Sharp down - a clear one on one with the keeper. Straight red, no question.

[DonnyNoel]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Disagree Noel.

Sharp was running straight at goal. Had the challenge not been made, the chasing defenders would have got nowhere near him. A blatant clear DOSGO case, regardless of it being 40 yards out. The defender knew precisely what he was doing, and precisely what the consequence would have been had he not deliberately brought Sharp down - a clear one on one with the keeper. Straight red, no question.

Obviously ignoring your last 4 words, (unless we get to see a replay on the bbc highlights?) we're going to have agree to disagree as my memory of the incident is different.

[danum]

Not quite how I remember it either \"40 yards from goal\" \"running diagonally away from goal\"

O'Driscoll said \"
Bruno Berner's foul on Billy Sharp was intelligent defending. If we'd done that we might not have been 1-0 down.\"

Cynical professional foul

I appreciate our bias - however we \"rarely\" get the rub of the green with dubious incidents

[DonnyNoel]

danum wrote:

Not quite how I remember it either \"40 yards from goal\" \"running diagonally away from goal\"

O'Driscoll said \"
Bruno Berner's foul on Billy Sharp was intelligent defending. If we'd done that we might not have been 1-0 down.\"

Cynical professional foul

I appreciate our bias - however we \"rarely\" get the rub of the green with dubious incidents

For me a red card to Roberts to prevent their goal would have been much clearer cut - 25 yards, heading in towards goal with the nearest Rovers players only just breaking into the half.

I agree on the rub of the green thing, especially when you contrast it to the Mills red card at Palace last year. But then do fans have selective memories? Was last night the \"evener\" for the Forest penalty?

[RoversDave]

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf2yydcQBAI[/video]

[DonnyNoel]

RoversDave wrote:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf2yydcQBAI[/video]

Hmmm, Im not changing my view based on that. Maybe it wasn't as \"diagonal\" as I'd remembered but he's still got to veer left to get round the player then right to get back towards goal and I really think (though obviously it can't be proved) that the #11 would catch him.

Great footage btw, how quick did that bloke in front of you jump up!

[danum]

3 yards behind Billy - makes him the last man
I really can't see that they could have caught him with 3 yards start

As for the Forest \"penalty\" that never was, the linesman, West Stand side had a clear view and never gave it (poor decision) - however that was probably one mistake in 12 awful decisions in that game - Worst linesmans performance ever ??

[danum]

Yes great footage

Interesting discussion too

[DonnyNoel]

danum wrote:

3 yards behind Billy - makes him the last man
I really can't see that they could have caught him with 3 yards start

As for the Forest \"penalty\" that never was, the linesman, West Stand side had a clear view and never gave it (poor decision) - however that was probably one mistake in 12 awful decisions in that game - Worst linesmans performance ever ??

3 yards behind him when the foul was made, but 10 yards behind him when Billy got the ball - suggesting they were already catching him and by the time he hits the ground their lad is past him which I bet was a factor in the refs mind. Again though - the \"last man\" statement isn't a definitive decision maker. Its never detailed in the laws of the game that last man = DOGSO. On the flip side, you can get done for DOGSO if you're in a line of 4 defenders but the referee deems not one of them would have got back to catch him. That was why I made the point about how far out the incident was.

[i_ateallthepies]

You're talking ball ocks.  Where in the rule does it say 'last man but if there's a whippet three yards behind chasing him down then he isn't the last man'  ?

He was totally the last man I too saw it, he had knocked the ball past him and was heading straight for goal.

Watch the footage again without your sodding ego heads on FFS

[selby]

The tackle was two footed and over the top with no intension of playing the ball with intension to injure.Never mind the last man he should have gone for the tackle alone dangerous play.

[TheRev]

That footage should be sent to the Referees Society for use in training courses for future refs.

Definate Red Card for me........cheating tw at!!

[Dagenham Rover]

i_ateallthepies wrote:

You're talking ball ocks.  Where in the rule does it say 'last man but if there's a whippet three yards behind chasing him down then he isn't the last man'  ?

He was totally the last man I too saw it, he had knocked the ball past him and was heading straight for goal.

Watch the footage again without your sodding ego heads on FFS

So far as i'm aware its irrelevent whether in theory someone could have caught up.......at the time of the foul he was last man.

[BillyStubbsTears]

DonnyNoel wrote:

danum wrote:

3 yards behind Billy - makes him the last man
I really can't see that they could have caught him with 3 yards start

As for the Forest \"penalty\" that never was, the linesman, West Stand side had a clear view and never gave it (poor decision) - however that was probably one mistake in 12 awful decisions in that game - Worst linesmans performance ever ??

3 yards behind him when the foul was made, but 10 yards behind him when Billy got the ball - suggesting they were already catching him and by the time he hits the ground their lad is past him which I bet was a factor in the refs mind. Again though - the \"last man\" statement isn't a definitive decision maker. Its never detailed in the laws of the game that last man = DOGSO. On the flip side, you can get done for DOGSO if you're in a line of 4 defenders but the referee deems not one of them would have got back to catch him. That was why I made the point about how far out the incident was.

Noel. Of course the chasing player had pulled level with Sharp by the time he hit the ground. That's because Sharp slowed down in anticipation of the hit, and then was slowed down still further BY the hit. The defender clearly made a conscious decision to take Sharp out when he realised that he wouldn't be able to make the tackle. He had to take two paces in to make that foul challenge. Had he played by the rules, and shouldered arms when he realised that he couldn't possibly make a fair challenge, Sharp would not have had to decelerate. It was the very act of committing the professional foul that slowed Sharp down.

Anyway, I've run the video through some image tracking software at work. At the moment that Sharp nudged the ball away from the defender, he was moving at 8.7m/s. The faster of the two chasing defenders was running at 9.3m/s. Sharp had 21m to reach the edge of the box and take a shot. The cover defender was 3m behind him. Sharp would have therefore taken 2.41 seconds to get to shooting position, whereas the chasing defender would have taken 2.58seconds. Or, to put it another way, at the moment that Sharp would have shot, the chasing defender would still have been 1.6m behind him.

DOGSO.

[I-was-there1976]

Penno and sending off not given in the Chelsea game. It happens all the time. Sullivan was busier than their goalie. Leicester got their deserved 3 points.


Next up Crystal Palace who's got a manager who moans about everything. He should go down well with you lot

[Snods Shinpad 2]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Anyway, I've run the video through some image tracking software at work...

I can independently verify Mr Stubbs findings, as a screenshot from my military grade precision radar tracker clearly shows.

 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Plagiarism!

That was a direct and shameless copy of one of Danny Bergara's team-talks.