Ref Watch

es1 said:
It's not friend

You're also aware that fouls vary in severity and therefore sanction yeah?
Click to expand...
Meant Friend at Chelsea, not Arsenal tonight. Yep understand that but we seem to get a very high ratio of cards per fouls, one in every 2 on Saturday yet he only issued 1 in 29 ( so far) tonight.
 
hertsblue said:
Meant Friend at Chelsea, not Arsenal tonight. Yep understand that but we seem to get a very high ratio of cards per fouls, one in every 2 on Saturday yet he only issued 1 in 29 ( so far) tonight.
Click to expand...
Thanks for highlighting this. This is the sort of statistical evidence that cannot be argued against, and would help to prove a bias if it existed.

Another would be to add up the cumulative time taken from ball going out of play, to the goal kick being taken, then calculating the average delay for each goalkeeper. Take this statistical evidence to Mike Riley and ask why the goalkeeper with one of the lowest averages has two cautions for time wasting, when the goalkeepers with the highest delays don't have any cautions for time wasting.

It's one thing to say a City player would have definitely been sent off for a similar foul, but this is always subjective. Statistical evidence must carry a lot of weight.

When City presented a dossier of evidence to show Walton treated us unfairly, I'm pretty sure it would have contained hard statistical evidence, not mere speculation or opinion.

Taking the point made by someone that fouls are of different levels of severity, some of which deserve a caution for being reckless. Whilst this is true, is it really the case that City commit a high proportion of reckless fouls when compared to the Arsenal game today? Or could our referees be subconsciously refereeing us against a standard that City players are tactical foulers, as perpetrated by the British media? Not only this, but there is also the question of persistent fouling, which should be cautioned. Persistent fouling can be a number of fouls by one player, or it could be a number of different players targeting one opposition player. One caution for twenty nine fouls is remarkably lenient when considering persistent fouling.
 
Paladin said:
Thanks for highlighting this. This is the sort of statistical evidence that cannot be argued against, and would help to prove a bias if it existed.

Another would be to add up the cumulative time taken from ball going out of play, to the goal kick being taken, then calculating the average delay for each goalkeeper. Take this statistical evidence to Mike Riley and ask why the goalkeeper with one of the lowest averages has two cautions for time wasting, when the goalkeepers with the highest delays don't have any cautions for time wasting.

It's one thing to say a City player would have definitely been sent off for a similar foul, but this is always subjective. Statistical evidence must carry a lot of weight.

When City presented a dossier of evidence to show Walton treated us unfairly, I'm pretty sure it would have contained hard statistical evidence, not mere speculation or opinion.

Taking the point made by someone that fouls are of different levels of severity, some of which deserve a caution for being reckless. Whilst this is true, is it really the case that City commit a high proportion of reckless fouls when compared to the Arsenal game today? Or could our referees be subconsciously refereeing us against a standard that City players are tactical foulers, as perpetrated by the British media? Not only this, but there is also the question of persistent fouling, which should be cautioned. Persistent fouling can be a number of fouls by one player, or it could be a number of different players targeting one opposition player. One caution for twenty nine fouls is remarkably lenient when considering persistent fouling.
Click to expand...
Persistent fouling can only be by one player.

Otherwise v good.

I'd just count the number of times commentators use "baffling" for decisions against City (including VAR non-interventions like Saturday's offside).
 
Vic said:
Persistent fouling can only be by one player.

Otherwise v good.

I'd just count the number of times commentators use "baffling" for decisions against City (including VAR non-interventions like Saturday's offside).
Click to expand...
Shame a manager can't be booked for their team persistently fouling the same player.

I remember the infamous Rag's v Arse game when Riley allowed the Rag's to take it in turns to kick f*ck out of Reyes.
There should have been about 5 or 6 yellow cards before the Whistling Wanker eventually booked Phil Chuckle.
 
richardtheref said:
I have said this before but football must be the only sport where the fans of the sport are ignorant of the laws
Click to expand...
That's a bit spurious mate, most of us know the laws as they're written down (as City fans we've had plenty of practice reading up on them whenever we're perceived to have broken them), it's the hush-hush-in-the-know interpretations that most of us are unaware of.

My own personal bugbear are the annual totalitarian clamping down on "new laws" at the beginning of each season which then disappear into the ether by mid-October (by which time certain teams have benefited and certain teams have been shafted) that does my head in.
 
Vic said:
Persistent fouling can only be by one player.

Otherwise v good.

I'd just count the number of times commentators use "baffling" for decisions against City (including VAR non-interventions like Saturday's offside).
Click to expand...
The Law is open to interpretation, or as @richardtheref pointed out, could be subject to additional explanation or clarification for referees only.

There is a thread on this topic in a referee forum, here: https://refchat.co.uk/threads/persistently-infringing-lotg.16065/

This is an extract that is fairly typical of the general approach being taken by referees.

73e73727bb6a4c7fa9d36bf8d35c1e3c.jpg
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
I've no idea how we always seem to give away more fouls than the opposition despite having more possession.
Click to expand...

Not wanting to defend refs here, but fouls that break up a quick counter attack are deemed more serious than someone knocking a guy over during two full minutes of possession. So that could be a reason. We don't foul much but, I hate to say it, maybe our fouls are more "tactical".

Also, time-wasting by goalkeepers only seems t
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
I've no idea how we always seem to give away more fouls than the opposition despite having more possession.
Click to expand...
That’s our tactic and a good one. When we lose the ball, we press to win it back, if we can’t win it back a foul is a good option because it’s usually deep in the opposition half so not a danger on our goal.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Shame a manager can't be booked for their team persistently fouling the same player.

I remember the infamous Rag's v Arse game when Riley allowed the Rag's to take it in turns to kick f*ck out of Reyes.
There should have been about 5 or 6 yellow cards before the Whistling Wanker eventually booked Phil Chuckle.
Click to expand...
Or the Derby when SWP was targeted...
 
Paladin said:
The Law is open to interpretation, or as @richardtheref pointed out, could be subject to additional explanation or clarification for referees only.

There is a thread on this topic in a referee forum, here: https://refchat.co.uk/threads/persistently-infringing-lotg.16065/

This is an extract that is fairly typical of the general approach being taken by referees.

73e73727bb6a4c7fa9d36bf8d35c1e3c.jpg
Click to expand...
Just because someone on refchat says something it doesn't make it right. The law says "a player" should be cautioned for "persistent offences". I've no doubt others on that thread corrected whoever posted that extract.
 
Vic said:
Just because someone on refchat says something it doesn't make it right. The law says "a player" should be cautioned for "persistent offences". I've no doubt others on that thread corrected whoever posted that extract.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's my thought too.

I think this is false memory from the Chelsea-Utd cup match from a few years ago with Oliver (I think) reffing. After about 25 minutes of rotational clogging of Hazard, the ref called the captain over and pretty much clearly said that the next one got a card, whether first foul or not. Less than 10 seconds later, Herrera clogged Hazard, got his second yellow card and was off.

There was a lot of discussion afterwards over whether the ref had applied the persistent infringement rule correctly, or interpreted something else, or just had enough!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic
Vic said:
Just because someone on refchat says something it doesn't make it right. The law says "a player" should be cautioned for "persistent offences". I've no doubt others on that thread corrected whoever posted that extract.
Click to expand...
You didn't read my post correctly. That reply was typical of the majority of replies. Go have a look for yourself, the link is there.

I repeat, it is common practice for referees to caution players for persistent fouling (targeting) against one player, even if the cautioned player has only made one foul.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Not wanting to defend refs here, but fouls that break up a quick counter attack are deemed more serious than someone knocking a guy over during two full minutes of possession. So that could be a reason. We don't foul much but, I hate to say it, maybe our fouls are more "tactical".

Also, time-wasting by goalkeepers only seems t
Click to expand...
Is that a fact, as in written down somewhere in the rules? If it is it’s wrong. We score many of our goals after periods of long possession so I don’t see how a foul at that point is a lesser offence than a foul to stop a counter attack. A foul is a foul.
 
The slaughtered lamb said:
Is that a fact, as in written down somewhere in the rules? If it is it’s wrong. We score many of our goals after periods of long possession so I don’t see how a foul at that point is a lesser offence than a foul to stop a counter attack. A foul is a foul.
Click to expand...
It's a caution for SPA (stopping a promising attack). That can be anywhere on the pitch.
 
Vic said:
Just because someone on refchat says something it doesn't make it right. The law says "a player" should be cautioned for "persistent offences". I've no doubt others on that thread corrected whoever posted that extract.
Click to expand...
So last year McTominey committed 87 fouls between bookings. Imagine Fernandinho getting away with that
 
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