Ref Watch

[M12Blue]

The VAR 'Match Commander' instructed the referee not to give a penalty for a foul on Foden against Southampton.

VAR shambles as chiefs with NO football experience 'overruling Premier League referees at Stockley Park' (thesun.co.uk)

Thanks mate. That opens up a whole can of worms, match fixing a multibillion pound competition surely.

 

[M12Blue]

Likewise. It appears for all intents and purposes that VAR is being used to manipulate the outcome of certain events. The PiGMOL, the FA and the PL are doing NOTHING to address this

It's fraud

 

[M12Blue]

The VAR 'Match Commander' instructed the referee not to give a penalty for a foul on Foden against Southampton.

VAR shambles as chiefs with NO football experience 'overruling Premier League referees at Stockley Park' (thesun.co.uk)

Every Prem club and their fans (bar the obvious exceptions) should be all over this.
The use of VAR this weekend doesn't hide it.

Hard to keep my interest in football last fews years given the constant shit, despite winning, but suggestion of match fixing might just be the tipping point.

 

[Chi-town blues]

The VAR 'Match Commander' instructed the referee not to give a penalty for a foul on Foden against Southampton.

VAR shambles as chiefs with NO football experience 'overruling Premier League referees at Stockley Park' (thesun.co.uk)

Some here

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Likewise. It appears for all intents and purposes that VAR is being used to manipulate the outcome of certain events. The PiGMOL, the FA and the PL are doing NOTHING to address this

I thought this not long after VAR was introduced and we were seeing the 'outcomes' of such referrals both in the PL and the CL. Some decisions given, and greater infringements of the law compared to the given ones, not given. The PL and PiGMOL have not delivered a system that comes anywhere near 'squeaky clean', and the whole stinking operation just oozes suspicion week in and week out!

 

[Cassandra]

I did copy the Sun link to my friend to give some context to my query and that probably accounts for her final sentences. It is surprising that there doesn't seem to be any reference to it in any of the other National Newspapers. With City leading 3-1 it was also a bit of an odd time for a conspiratorial intervention.

Of course PGMOL are their own worst enemy by their secrecy which as Blue Mist says breeds suspicion.

Like bobbyowenquiff on the VAR thread I don't think there is an organised conspiracy or individual corruption in refereeing but I do think that there is some dislike of City within the refereeing community. This I think is fed by media, and especially "pundits", spreading their views as propaganda and at times other managers fanning the flames of this propaganda . So Fernandihno has a reputation for "smart" fouls but he and City are no worse than any of the leading clubs but because attitudes have become conditioned we get more cards. There may also be some, normally subconscious, racism against our ownership again seen more overtly in media, pundits and commentators.

I have a feeling that City would do well to engage a panel of some recently retired FIFA referees - with no connection to PGMOL - possibly from Scotland, USA, Scandinavia and each week submit a video of the game to one of them and ask for an unbiased detailed assessment of all the decisions and non-decisions, in each case highlighting where similar incidents seem to be judged differently - both for and against City. These reports should be sent to PGMOL. EFA, and EPL unedited and perhaps the MEN would publish them on their website. If nothing else referees in City games would know that their decisions (and VAR) would be scrutinised by respected sources and perhaps they would be more careful to be even handed. We had two or three games recently where I wondered whether City had done something like this as we seemed to be getting some fair refereeing but last Saturday's game seemed to be heading back to what we had seen earlier in the season. (Mind you having said that our defensive performance for 50 minutes could easily have left us three goals down but for a bit of luck on our part).

​

 

[mat]

I did copy the Sun link to my friend to give some context to my query and that probably accounts for her final sentences. It is surprising that there doesn't seem to be any reference to it in any of the other National Newspapers. With City leading 3-1 it was also a bit of an odd time for a conspiratorial intervention.

Of course PGMOL are their own worst enemy by their secrecy which as Blue Mist says breeds suspicion.

Like bobbyowenquiff on the VAR thread I don't think there is an organised conspiracy or individual corruption in refereeing but I do think that there is some dislike of City within the refereeing community. This I think is fed by media, and especially "pundits", spreading their views as propaganda and at times other managers fanning the flames of this propaganda . So Fernandihno has a reputation for "smart" fouls but he and City are no worse than any of the leading clubs but because attitudes have become conditioned we get more cards. There may also be some, normally subconscious, racism against our ownership again seen more overtly in media, pundits and commentators.

I have a feeling that City would do well to engage a panel of some recently retired FIFA referees - with no connection to PGMOL - possibly from Scotland, USA, Scandinavia and each week submit a video of the game to one of them and ask for an unbiased detailed assessment of all the decisions and non-decisions, in each case highlighting where similar incidents seem to be judged differently - both for and against City. These reports should be sent to PGMOL. EFA, and EPL unedited and perhaps the MEN would publish them on their website. If nothing else referees in City games would know that their decisions (and VAR) would be scrutinised by respected sources and perhaps they would be more careful to be even handed. We had two or three games recently where I wondered whether City had done something like this as we seemed to be getting some fair refereeing but last Saturday's game seemed to be heading back to what we had seen earlier in the season. (Mind you having said that our defensive performance for 50 minutes could easily have left us three goals down but for a bit of luck on our part).

​

I don't think it was a coincidence the officials for Vinnie's testimonial were all from the reffereeing agency Keith Hackett and Mark Halsey created.

It's documented by Pep in interviews himself he's tried talking to Reilly and been pretty much ignored.

 

[Cassandra]

Well Mark Halsey does have a special place in our hearts.

 

[Bluearmy]

The Ederson "foul" on Fraser is a complex one.
Basically the referee has three options:
A) It is a simple coming together;
B) It is a foul by Ederson;
C) It is a foul by Fraser.
If Cancello hadn't been involved then it would have been relatively easy to decide whichever of Ederson or Fraser was at fault - whoever played the ball first and before contacting the opponent would have "won" the challenge provided there was no malicious or reckless "afters". When Cancello took the ball away both Ederson and Fraser were committed to playing the ball and had little opportunity to alter course. Neither in my view made a deliberate attempt to cause the collision once the ball had gone, though you could argue that Fraser was better placed to take avoiding action, and in fairness he did avoid standing on Ederson. If you are going to choose options B) or C) then you have to be pretty certain who would have got to the ball first ..........

The ball not being there had no relevance according to the current law

 

[M12Blue]

I did copy the Sun link to my friend to give some context to my query and that probably accounts for her final sentences. It is surprising that there doesn't seem to be any reference to it in any of the other National Newspapers. With City leading 3-1 it was also a bit of an odd time for a conspiratorial intervention.

Of course PGMOL are their own worst enemy by their secrecy which as Blue Mist says breeds suspicion.

Like bobbyowenquiff on the VAR thread I don't think there is an organised conspiracy or individual corruption in refereeing but I do think that there is some dislike of City within the refereeing community. This I think is fed by media, and especially "pundits", spreading their views as propaganda and at times other managers fanning the flames of this propaganda . So Fernandihno has a reputation for "smart" fouls but he and City are no worse than any of the leading clubs but because attitudes have become conditioned we get more cards. There may also be some, normally subconscious, racism against our ownership again seen more overtly in media, pundits and commentators.

I have a feeling that City would do well to engage a panel of some recently retired FIFA referees - with no connection to PGMOL - possibly from Scotland, USA, Scandinavia and each week submit a video of the game to one of them and ask for an unbiased detailed assessment of all the decisions and non-decisions, in each case highlighting where similar incidents seem to be judged differently - both for and against City. These reports should be sent to PGMOL. EFA, and EPL unedited and perhaps the MEN would publish them on their website. If nothing else referees in City games would know that their decisions (and VAR) would be scrutinised by respected sources and perhaps they would be more careful to be even handed. We had two or three games recently where I wondered whether City had done something like this as we seemed to be getting some fair refereeing but last Saturday's game seemed to be heading back to what we had seen earlier in the season. (Mind you having said that our defensive performance for 50 minutes could easily have left us three goals down but for a bit of luck on our part).

​

Agree but The last sentence is fair competition, the refereeing/VAR is at best incompetent

 

[Bluearmy]

I take issue with you on the Wolves game, we had a clear cut penalty ignored in the first half. For me the contentious penalty made up for the officials balls-up in the first half, perhaps that was praying on his mind?

I dont disagree with you about the pen in the first half, i was however replying to a point about us getting no decisions in our favour.

 

[Bluearmy]

Unfortunately no. He was some way off the ball.

Agreed. Caught him around knee height. As others have said with the current laws Stones is probably a red, fair enough. But how then is a higher tackle which actually caused a deep gash to Laportes thigh not being dealt with the same way. Comical

 

[Cassandra]

The ball not being there had no relevance according to the current law

So, how do you decide who came late to the challenge? In this case I would say neither player engineered the contact, both had intended playing the ball and were committed to that course of action so did Fraser foul Ederson or did Ederson foul Fraser and what criteria do you use to determine that?

Fraser's spectacular fall made me think when I first saw it that it was a penalty but when I analysed it I couldn't give a concrete reason why it should be.

 

[Bluearmy]

So, how do you decide who came late to the challenge? In this case I would say neither player engineered the contact, both had intended playing the ball and were committed to that course of action so did Fraser foul Ederson or did Ederson foul Fraser and what criteria do you use to determine that?

Fraser's spectacular fall made me think when I first saw it that it was a penalty but when I analysed it I couldn't give a concrete reason why it should be.

Ederson sliding into Fraser the differentiator. He engineered the contact. Fraser did nothing other than be running in the vicinity of the ball.

Intent has zero bearing on anything according to the current laws. There was no spectacular fall, he got cleaned out. Granted, after Cancelo had got to the ball first (which again has no bearing on whether a foul occurred)

 

[swinton blue]

Agreed. Caught him around knee height. As others have said with the current laws Stones is probably a red, fair enough. But how then is a higher tackle which actually caused a deep gash to Laportes thigh not being dealt with the same way. Comical

I know it might sound daft but on the way back from Southampton I said to my mate the reason they didn't give it was because it was too high.
My thinking behind it. If it was on the shin or knee the ref defo gives a red card as you could easily break a leg. On the thigh you would probably never break a leg hence why refs probably think its not as bad as knee or shin high.
That's the only reason I can think why the ref wouldn't give a red

 

[Cassandra]

Ederson sliding into Fraser the differentiator. He engineered the contact. Fraser did nothing other than be running in the vicinity of the ball.

Intent has zero bearing on anything according to the current laws. There was no spectacular fall, he got cleaned out. Granted, after Cancelo had got to the ball first (which again has no bearing on whether a foul occurred)

Seems to me there is some inconsistency in your argument. "He (Ederson) engineered the contact" vs "Intent has zero bearing on anything according to the current laws."
When Cancello took the ball Ederson was already on the way down to intercept the ball; he couldn't reverse that movement - Fraser was on both feet and had more opportunity to avoid the collision - which would have taken him more in the direction of the ball - he was going nowhere.

 

[rabby]

I know it might sound daft but on the way back from Southampton I said to my mate the reason they didn't give it was because it was too high.
My thinking behind it. If it was on the shin or knee the ref defo gives a red card as you could easily break a leg. On the thigh you would probably never break a leg hence why refs probably think its not as bad as knee or shin high.
That's the only reason I can think why the ref wouldn't give a red

Maybe Mane shouldn't have been sent off against us after all then ; )

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Ederson sliding into Fraser the differentiator. He engineered the contact. Fraser did nothing other than be running in the vicinity of the ball.

Intent has zero bearing on anything according to the current laws. There was no spectacular fall, he got cleaned out. Granted, after Cancelo had got to the ball first (which again has no bearing on whether a foul occurred)

Off the ball contact happens in every game all the time and the ref ignores it, unless it is violent conduct or retaliation, Fraser had the option to jump over Ederson but gambled on Cancelo leaving the ball.

 

[Norbiton]

Ederson sliding into Fraser the differentiator. He engineered the contact. Fraser did nothing other than be running in the vicinity of the ball.

Intent has zero bearing on anything according to the current laws. There was no spectacular fall, he got cleaned out. Granted, after Cancelo had got to the ball first (which again has no bearing on whether a foul occurred)

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a free kick/penalty given when another player has run between the supposed offender and victim and come away with the ball. Unless there’s very obvious deliberate contact between the players after that I don’t see how it could possibly be a foul.

 

[Sheik Battle and Goal]

Agreed. Caught him around knee height. As others have said with the current laws Stones is probably a red, fair enough. But how then is a higher tackle which actually caused a deep gash to Laportes thigh not being dealt with the same way. Comical

I think Graeme Souness said that the officials just make it up as they go along which sums it up perfectly.