Ref Watch City Games - 2023/24

[cheekybids]

Fortunately ANPR has lessened that wrong.

But we never found out if his gut feeling was right….

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

But we never found out if his gut feeling was right….

Or wrong…

 

[Paladin]

He sent Keane off in that 6-3 grey shirt game at Southampton in 1996.

He refereed United a further 20 times before he retired in 2004, the majority of them in the Premier League.

Ok, my bad for not checking the facts. I was using a quote from Winter himself.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This thread is getting bogged down in back and forths a bit, so let me try to summarise some "truths".

Referees have a very difficult job. You wouldn't catch me wanting to do it. Personally, I don't buy that they are all hopeless, I think they are each capable of doing a good job. How many times have we seen a referee in a match, maybe in Europe, and say: he did well there, why can't he always referee like that?

They are under increasing and, possibly, more aggressive scrutiny each year (VAR hasn't helped at all with this in my view) and this leads to more pressure on the poor bastards.

They clearly have to make very complicated judgments very quickly with 22 grown men constantly trying to cheat them (something that should be cracked down more forcefully than it is, imho). They will always get some decisions wrong, and I personally don't have a problem with that, but it clearly will give rise to accusations of bias from any fan base when decisions go against their team. That's just human nature.

Anyone have any problems with any of that?

 

[cheekybids]

I think this. Fernandez ran straight to Cann pointing out that Rashford didn't touch the ball, as if this is the sole determining factor for whether or not he was offside. Cann replied "I know, I'm going to recommend the goal should stand". He did recommend this to Attwell. All this within 5 seconds of the goal being scored.

Attwell has no backbone or independent thought process. His experienced assistant, recently back from officiating the Workd Cup final says the goal was ok, so that's good enough for him. Goal!

Was there any proper discussion? No. Was Oliver asked his opinion? Probably not, or he might have declined to comment as it wasn't for him to intervene on a matter of opinion, only fact.

Should Oliver have intervened? A hundred times yes! He should have said "What the hell are you two playing at? This is the most obvious offside ever. Take your time, go look at the screen, and make the correct decision based on all the circumstances".

The result? Attwell makes a mistake, but only a slight one, and it is after all a matter of opinion whether or not Rashford interfered with play. Cann gets away scot-free for his failure to know the meaning of interference. Oliver says it's nothing to do with him, as he wasn't consulted, and it's an opinion based decision, not a factual one.

All three of them guilty of favouring the mighty Manchester United, not wishing to go against the establishment for fear of career repercussions. Webb equally as bad for not fully investigating and punishing them. It's all about protecting the brand though.

What are your thoughts? Brain farts all round?

The World Cup linesman flagged it offside.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

This thread is getting bogged down in back and forths a bit, so let me try to summarise some "truths".

Referees have a very difficult job. You wouldn't catch me wanting to do it. Personally, I don't buy that they are all hopeless, I think they are each capable of doing a good job. How many times have we seen a referee in a match, maybe in Europe, and say: he did well there, why can't he always referee like that?

They are under increasing and, possibly, more aggressive scrutiny each year (VAR hasn't helped at all with this in my view) and this leads to more pressure on the poor bastards.

They clearly have to make very complicated judgments very quickly with 22 grown men constantly trying to cheat them (something that should be cracked down more forcefully than it is, imho). They will always get some decisions wrong, and I personally don't have a problem with that, but it clearly will give rise to accusations of bias from any fan base when decisions go against their team. That's just human nature.

Anyone have any problems with any of that?

Thanks for typing out my argument. My challenge of this human nature seems to be the main bone of contention.

I would add that the rhetoric around bias/corruption is exponentially increasing and if it doesn’t calm down, there will be less referees leading to poorer ones rising to the top and exacerbating peoples’ ire at perceived corruption.

We will reap what we sow and fulfil a self-proclaimed prophecy.

 

[cheekybids]

Or wrong…

You think his gut feeling was wrong?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You think his gut feeling was wrong?

If it is only a gut feeling then it could be right or wrong. Perception isn’t the same as a fact when assumptions are part of the reasoning.

 

[Gordyola]

Players are booked for celebrating goals too.

McTom the rag wasn't booked on Sunday despite clear infringement

 

[ballbag]

McTom the rag wasn't booked on Sunday despite clear infringement

Like I said, they're more useless for some teams than others.

 

[cleavers]

Refs are human. They are susceptible to crowd and player influence. Unless robots are employed, that will never change. Fans of each team think they are swayed against their own side as they only remember the negative decisions and not the positive.

The mindset of having to moan about every refereeing performance regardless of result will always be alien to me. The result doesn’t seem to matter to some people. As long as they can shout corruption in the designated threads, they’re happy and anyone who doesn’t have the same need is contrarian, condescending [add other adjectives] etc.

The explanation ”just look how we are refereed” isn’t a reason. it’s a gut feeling based on tribalism. Refs will always have to make marginal calls. Some will go for your team and some will go against it. It’s the nature of the game.

Ultimately, people love a good moan.

I admire your support of referee's, but just like the corruption brigade do, you go over the top with it.

Of course they're "human", and like most "human's" in football, they will have a side they follow, and that will cause "bias", as will their geographical history (where born/brought up).

I don't (generally) subscribe to the corruption theory, but I definitely subscribe to the "under influence" of their leader(s). As an example, the City v chelsea women game at the start of the season, where we were much the better team, but denied a win, by several "dodgy" decisions, that was way beyond "human" error, and it has since come out that the referee concerned actually works in chelsea's academy. How that appointment can ever be made is beyond me, yet it was.

As for PL officials, we all can see that there is incompetence, some of it seems worse in the more experienced officials, than in the less experienced ones (which we seem to have quite a few at the moment).

Supposed "allegiencies" of certain referee's has been discussed at length, so there will be bias. I don't watch a lot of other teams these days, unless they play City, so I can only judge our games, what I see is a mix of bias, and trying to "level things up" in games (because we're so difficult to beat), but above all I see inconsistent decisions for us/the opposition (whoever we play).

Like I said, your support of the officials is admirable, but it sometimes comes over as being deliberately confrontational to other posters, who are entitled to have a different view to yours (and mine).

 

[Bozzie]

This thread is getting bogged down in back and forths a bit, so let me try to summarise some "truths".

Referees have a very difficult job. You wouldn't catch me wanting to do it. Personally, I don't buy that they are all hopeless, I think they are each capable of doing a good job. How many times have we seen a referee in a match, maybe in Europe, and say: he did well there, why can't he always referee like that?

They are under increasing and, possibly, more aggressive scrutiny each year (VAR hasn't helped at all with this in my view) and this leads to more pressure on the poor bastards.

They clearly have to make very complicated judgments very quickly with 22 grown men constantly trying to cheat them (something that should be cracked down more forcefully than it is, imho). They will always get some decisions wrong, and I personally don't have a problem with that, but it clearly will give rise to accusations of bias from any fan base when decisions go against their team. That's just human nature.

Anyone have any problems with any of that?

It clearly is a difficult job and not helped by the players actions and attitudes but it is the job they signed up for and the job they are reasonably well paid for. In general my frustration is that they seem determined not to help themselves. The Everton match was plagued with timewasting, feigning injury and general shithousery. It was only from one team and it was blindingly obvious to everyone in the stadium what was happening and why. So why did the referee just not deal with the problem from the off? Do they not see it, not hear the crowds frustration or just decide not to get involved and bang the time on at the end which, ironically, generally favours the team who've indulged in the above.
As a result, there was 13 minutes extra time in total (probably should have been nearer 20 in all honesty). Who the hell wants a football match to go on for over 2 hours including half time? Not too bad on a 12.30 kick off but had that been one of those stupid 8.15 Amazon matches that's 10.15 before people are even leaving the ground.
It's an entertainment business as well as a results business and for the life of me I don't understand why referees allow the players so much leeway to take the piss and spoil the flow of the game.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I admire your support of referee's, but just like the corruption brigade do, you go over the top with it.

Of course they're "human", and like most "human's" in football, they will have a side they follow, and that will cause "bias", as will their geographical history (where born/brought up).

I don't (generally) subscribe to the corruption theory, but I definitely subscribe to the "under influence" of their leader(s). As an example, the City v chelsea women game at the start of the season, where we were much the better team, but denied a win, by several "dodgy" decisions, that was way beyond "human" error, and it has since come out that the referee concerned actually works in chelsea's academy. How that appointment can ever be made is beyond me, yet it was.

As for PL officials, we all can see that there is incompetence, some of it seems worse in the more experienced officials, than in the less experienced ones (which we seem to have quite a few at the moment).

Supposed "allegiencies" of certain referee's has been discussed at length, so there will be bias. I don't watch a lot of other teams these days, unless they play City, so I can only judge our games, what I see is a mix of bias, and trying to "level things up" in games (because we're so difficult to beat), but above all I see inconsistent decisions for us/the opposition (whoever we play).

Like I said, your support of the officials is admirable, but it sometimes comes over as being deliberately confrontational to other posters, who are entitled to have a different view to yours (and mine).

I think some are mistaking my blowback of conspiracy theories for full support of referees. Of course they can be better and make less mistakes.

Quoting decisions that go against a team isn’t proof of corruption.

I think we’re on a slippery slope with refs and it’ll get worse the more they are hammered.

VAR should be used differently. I think we all agree in that. I think where we don’t is that referees go into games deliberately going to favour one side over the other.

 

[Paladin]

And explained why. You literally cannot take context out of decisions in football matches. To do so would mean you weren’t human.

People expect perfection from referees. That is impossible and the more they demand it, the less referees will step forward and the more frustrated fans will become.

In a vacuum, two identical challenges in the 3rd minute and 87th minute could be refereed differently. Bookings are far more likely in the final part of the game than the first.

Always was and always will be. They were called reducers back in the day.

Until fans expectations of perfection and uniformity are relaxed, this will be a perpetual bugbear for all fans that can’t see that referees are human.

Nobody has a problem with the foul in the later stages being treated differently to the foul in the early stages of a game. In fact the late fouls might also come under persistent misconduct if a caution is administered. It's the inconsistency that rankles with fans.

City fans think we are harshly treated whilst United and Liverpool get favourable treatment. Fans of lower placed clubs think big clubs, including City are favoured. United and Liverpool supporters think we get favourable treatment but they themselves get poor treatment. It's the tribal nature of football to an extent.

Yes, referees are only human, and they make mistakes. But they are trained in how to react in stressful circumstances. They should be well versed in the Laws, so mistakes in law should not happen. They should be capable of refereeing without fear or favour.

A poster summed it up a few pages up from here when he pointed out that the PL wants entertainment. They don't want a team to be ten points clear on the final day. They want final day jeopardy as it makes for good TV. This doesn't necessarily mean they want United or Liverpool or Arsenal to win the league and not City, but nevertheless, there is still in the back of the mind the quote from the CEO of the PL that they want different winners on the trophy. This could be the message being promoted quietly in the corridors of power, feeding in to PGMOL and down to referees.

In the video I watched this morning, Jeff Winters talks about his appointment to referee the FA Cup final. Before the game, FA officials came to him to remind him that this was a showpiece occasion, and he would do well to remember that, and not bring disrepute upon the FA. Basically putting pressure on him to put the product first. PL football smacks of this influence being applied to this day.

 

[Stephen230]

Ok, my bad for not checking the facts. I was using a quote from Winter himself.

It’s not my intention pushing this point just to prove you wrong.

It highlights a wider issue that people often throw up old quotes from ex referees as proof of some kind of skullduggery.

But just like ex players trying to make a few quid on the back of their careers, it should be considered that to get work in that field, you need to have something interesting to say.

And it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that a controversial quote here and there might have been misremembered, exaggerated or just plain made up, if there’s likely to be a drink in it.

 

[Kippax77]

I think some are mistaking my blowback of conspiracy theories for full support of referees. Of course they can be better and make less mistakes.

Quoting decisions that go against a team isn’t proof of corruption.

I think we’re on a slippery slope with refs and it’ll get worse the more they are hammered.

VAR should be used differently. I think we all agree in that. I think where we don’t is that referees go into games deliberately going to favour one side over the other.

I don't see how refs get hammered.
I've not seen 1 yet get interviewed after a game and answer any questions about their performance.
Unlike players and managers.

 

[cleavers]

A poster summed it up a few pages up from here when he pointed out that the PL wants entertainment. They don't want a team to be ten points clear on the final day. They want final day jeopardy as it makes for good TV. This doesn't necessarily mean they want United or Liverpool or Arsenal to win the league and not City, but nevertheless, there is still in the back of the mind the quote from the CEO of the PL that they want different winners on the trophy. This could be the message being promoted quietly in the corridors of power, feeding in to PGMOL and down to referees.

And at best "influencing" how some teams are refereed.

 

[Paladin]

The World Cup linesman flagged it offside.

As he should have done, which was correct. But Fernandez remonstrated with him, and Fernandez then turned with a big smile on his face as if Cann had confirmed the goal would stand.

Obviously, it's only speculation what was said between Fernandez and Cann, but Fernandez' reaction is telling, and this happens before Attwell speaks to Cann.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Thanks for typing out my argument. My challenge of this human nature seems to be the main bone of contention.

I would add that the rhetoric around bias/corruption is exponentially increasing and if it doesn’t calm dohiwn, there will be less referees leading to poorer ones rising to the top and exacerbating peoples’ ire at perceived corruption.

We will reap what we sow and fulfil a self-proclaimed prophecy.

I don't have any problem recognising the difficulties referees have. In my mind, if you would like to be in there for a few seconds, it would be stupid not to.

But, also in my mind, it is equally stupid to exclude the possibility that results can be manipulated, and are being manipulated, for one reason or another.

I can't reconcile that viewpoint with the scheming that goes on to introduce new rules to stop City growing between, before and during every PL meeting, for example. I really don't see why the same organisation can do one but not the other.

But I think everyone is a ****, so maybe my cynicism is higher than most.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

As he should have done, which was correct. But Fernandez remonstrated with him, and Fernandez then turned with a big smile on his face as if Cann had confirmed the goal would stand.

Obviously, it's only speculation what was said between Fernandez and Cann, but Fernandez' reaction is telling, and this happens before Attwell speaks to Cann.

The conversation between Atwell and Cann was likely Atwell telling Cann he'd caused no end of trouble for putting his flag up.