Referees/Officials

  • Thread starter Thread starter blueinsa
  • Start date Start date
aguero93:20 said:
He was shite today but helped us more than Leicester tbh. Only ref I've seen to apply that two touch rule, let Dinho away with a lot of fouling, gave the blatant penalty and I'm pretty sure the linesman is responsible for the Mahrez penalty being given. As for our first, he wasn't looking for a reason to disallow it, he was telling the Leicester players that Sterling had no effect on play imo and the goal should stand, a very dubious interpretation of the active rule in our favour.
Click to expand...

the two touch rule was the correct decision and moot anyway since the foul was outside the box. Fernandinho was also brought down in the box - no penalty. Kompany booked when Chilwell ran out of steam and dived. Clichy penalized when Vardy initiated the contact. A quick free kick of ours stopped for no reason. I dont believe he was cheating - he is just fucking incompetent, but claiming we got the better of it is laughable.
 
Heart.net said:
The outcome of this game would be different if that were against a top 6 side. I have no doubt that Sterling would've been called for offside, Fernandinho possibly given a red card, and Mahrez' penalty would've stood.
Click to expand...
And Dinho would be getting a retrospective ban.
 
Heart.net said:
The outcome of this game would be different if that were against a top 6 side. I have no doubt that Sterling would've been called for offside, Fernandinho possibly given a red card, and Mahrez' penalty would've stood.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that's purely hypothetical. If we're complaining when marginal calls have gone in our favour then I almost give up. I've said this before, but it feels like, as a fan base, we're taking on a victim mentality. We're not always wronged by the refs.

I still feel like a disproportionate amount of decisions have gone against us this season, but today was not one of those days. He was largely incompetent, but not biased or corrupt.
 
I've posted this in the post match thread but I'll repeat it here. Madely knows refereeing decisions for and against us are under scrutiny. I'm sure the Club will have had meetings with the Premier League/PGMOL/FA to discuss the large quantity of highly suspicious decisions against us this season. If he'd have allowed that penalty to stand when it was blatantly obvious it shouldn't have stood the Club would have been straight on the blower to Scudamore and Old Mother Rieley demanding an explanation. Most of the other dodgy decisions could easily be passed off as incompetent or open to interpretation. He only has to let a couple of incidents go in our favour to (such as the elbow in the face) to make the whole thing plausible. It's a subtle art, and if done properly changes the outcome of the game; at worse making the referee seem incompetent. All that may happen is the referee in question does a couple of lower league games as punishment, and then back to the PL in a week or so.

In todays game, he failed to get the desired outcome, but it could so easily have gone against us. The FA and PL are desperate to make the Rags relevant, as there a whole load of r£asons why them being relevant makes a lot of people very happy. Them beating us to a CL place would be a huge story.
 
lasereyes said:
yup correct - i was screaming for the final whistle, but the injury time was justified
Click to expand...

The additional two minutes was correct, although I'm sceptical about where the original seven minutes came from in a half that had no goals and "only" five subs. Even with the Albrighton injury, that seemed a lot.
 
Ric said:
The additional two minutes was correct, although I'm sceptical about where the original seven minutes came from in a half that had no goals and "only" five subs. Even with the Albrighton injury, that seemed a lot.
Click to expand...
When it was announced I automatically thought back to Rags v Wednesday game and expecting the sting. But that could be down to just being a city rather than anything else.
 
lasereyes said:
the two touch rule was the correct decision and moot anyway since the foul was outside the box. Fernandinho was also brought down in the box - no penalty. Kompany booked when Chilwell ran out of steam and dived. Clichy penalized when Vardy initiated the contact. A quick free kick of ours stopped for no reason. I dont believe he was cheating - he is just fucking incompetent, but claiming we got the better of it is laughable.
Click to expand...
We got the better of it. The game was won by a goal and we were wrongly awarded one. Claiming anything else based on the odd free kick or a random booking is laughable.
 
Ric said:
The additional two minutes was correct, although I'm sceptical about where the original seven minutes came from in a half that had no goals and "only" five subs. Even with the Albrighton injury, that seemed a lot.
Click to expand...
Albrighton, Jesus and Caballero all got treatment on the pitch so I don't think it was far off tbh.
 
lasereyes said:
the two touch rule was the correct decision and moot anyway since the foul was outside the box. Fernandinho was also brought down in the box - no penalty. Kompany booked when Chilwell ran out of steam and dived. Clichy penalized when Vardy initiated the contact. A quick free kick of ours stopped for no reason. I dont believe he was cheating - he is just fucking incompetent, but claiming we got the better of it is laughable.
Click to expand...
Oh and the one on Dinho would have been soft as fuck if it had been given.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I just think Madley is completely out of his depth at this level but alarm bells always ring when refs consistently give soft free-kicks to the opposition and ignore similar incidents in our favour. Plus he was absolutely doing his best to give Leicester every chance to score in injury time. I don't know how long he actually played but someone said it was over 9 minutes and they were still playing. Then late on we had the ball down in the corner with Sane and the ball clearly came off a Leicester defender for what should have been a corner to us but Madley, who was standing 2 yards away, gave a goal-kick. We all clearly saw it in 109/110.
Click to expand...


I mentioned this in the post match thread it was clear as day from half way up 315 which was roughly how far away from play he'd been all game. Deep in injury time he runs 50 yards for possibly the only time in the game to give a false decision and allow Leicester another chance to attack.

I don't buy he's a shit referee and certainly not the 'you don't know what you're doing' chant like a lot of the fuckers they know exactly what they're doing.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
Erm, no we weren't. There's no evidence Sterling touched the ball and he wasn't remotely in Schmeichel's line of sight
Click to expand...
A player has to be in an offside position, and commit an "offence".

Offside position

Sterling was inches offside, but you need video evidence to be convinced. It's so close I don't think in real time a linesman can give it after all a player is not in an offside position if level, and what is meant by level? Technically no player can ever be level. I am sure you could make an argument to say that a player is level if it is not possible for an observer standing 30 m away on the touchline to determine a difference. A players hands and arms do not come into it. It's the position of the torso.

Offside offence

The relevant part of the rule.....

  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
I think Sterling attempts to play the ball even though he claims he did not, but did it impact on an opponent? I would say yes to this aspect, but it's clearly open to interpretation.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
Erm, no we weren't. There's no evidence Sterling touched the ball and he wasn't remotely in Schmeichel's line of sight
Click to expand...
This was what pissed me off firstly in the Sky coverage then on MotD. They wouldn't shut up about it on Sky for the whole game ignoring the fact that Leicester showed no real ambition until the second half & on MotD they said he was directly affecting Fuchs & Schmeichel while the camera angle they were showing at that second blatantly showed otherwise.
 
Ric said:
The additional two minutes was correct, although I'm sceptical about where the original seven minutes came from in a half that had no goals and "only" five subs. Even with the Albrighton injury, that seemed a lot.
Click to expand...
The two extra were correct,but the 7 a joke and not surprising at all !
 
We've been getting crap decisions all season and then one marginal one goes our way and it leads to a media frenzy!
 
Thenumber1blue said:
The two extra were correct,but the 7 a joke and not surprising at all !
Click to expand...
It's the sort of added time there should be in nearly all our games but strangely if we're chasing the game its always 3 minutes and there's never anything extra added on for the times-wasting, injuries in injury time. Guess we must just be unlucky as fuck.....
 
blue b4 the moon said:
It's the sort of added time there should be in nearly all our games but strangely if we're chasing the game its always 3 minutes and there's never anything extra added on for the times-wasting, injuries in injury time. Guess we must just be unlucky as fuck.....
Click to expand...
And always finishes bang on fuckin time when we are behind !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top