Ref Watch City Games - 2023/24

cleavers said:
Not really if someone had a bet on 7-2, or 6-3, it's simply not his decision (unless he had a bet on 6-2 obviously).

Personally I couldn't care less, I don't bet, but there are rules to be obeyed.
Click to expand...
I made the point about betting more as a throwaway comment. My point is, it shows how aded time is manipulated by the referee. If he can ignore the rules last night, he can ignore them any time he wants and that is why fans think its corrupt. They really don't help themselves.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
He added nothing because the game was done. Goal difference didn’t matter and it minimised player injury.

Betting outcomes should never be part of a referee’s decision making.

I find it ludicrous that the main taking point has been this.

It’s only this because people want to undermine injury time numbers going forward.

It’s irrelevant to tonight’s game.
Click to expand...
I'm glad he didnt ref the FA Cup final against Watford. The game was done by half time, we'd have been well pissed off.
 
Blue Mist said:
I'm glad he didnt ref the FA Cup final against Watford. The game was done by half time, we'd have been well pissed off.
Click to expand...
You’re pissed off whatever happens, highlighted by the discussion following a 6-2 hammering last night.

The game must last 90 minutes, unless one team is down to 6 players.

Now, whilst I get your point that we could have played <insert whatever number you like> more minutes last night, Taylor decided that it was irrelevant and that we’d play none.

It affected nothing, bar your hypothetical bets from people. They’re as unlucky as the ones that had bet on Haaland scoring 6 when Pep took him off.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
You’re pissed off whatever happens, highlighted by the discussion following a 6-2 hammering last night.

The game must last 90 minutes, unless one team is down to 6 players.

Now, whilst I get your point that we could have played <insert whatever number you like> more minutes last night, Taylor decided that it was irrelevant and that we’d play none.

It affected nothing, bar your hypothetical bets from people. They’re as unlucky as the ones that had bet on Haaland scoring 6 when Pep took him off.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Within the context of a league, allowing a fair amount of additional amount of time at the end of 90 minutes is important, because otherwise it unfairly reduces the time for one team or the other to score a winner or equaliser, and because even if it doesn't goal differences can be affected which can be very important at the end of the season. AFAIK the only team that has ever won the premier league on goal difference is us.

These considerations do not apply in cup competitions. If it is clear the result will not be impacted within the sort of additional time that might be added on in a league game, I don't have a problem with the full time whistle coming at 90 minutes. It is important that the rules are followed - part of the wider problem is that different referees seem to pick and choose when they will apply which laws - but in the context of a knock-out cup game choosing not to add additional time that won't make a difference to the outcome of the tie seems to me to be right at the bottom end of the scale.

I don't think the betting point carries much weight, either. I see how if you had a bet on nine goals being scored last night you'd be pissed off at the full time whistle being blown at 90 minutes with no additional time, but equally if you had a bet on eight goals being scored last night, you were pleased that Taylor didn't add an additional four or five minutes on. So that particular point seems to me to be as broad as it is long.

The biggest take-away for me last night is that Taylor, in my view at least, refereed the game pretty well, and it makes me wonder why he is so cack-handed during league matches.
 
Blue Mist said:
I'm glad he didnt ref the FA Cup final against Watford. The game was done by half time, we'd have been well pissed off.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the bugger would probably blown sometime between the fiftieth and fifty-fifth minute.

I checked in last night at HT, having been glued to the MCFC notifications, so I knew it was 3-1, and then I saw the glistening dome of the Duke of Altrincham and thought HowTF have we got to 3-1. And I noticed this morning he hadn't booked anyone.
 
Chris in London said:
I agree with this.

Within the context of a league, allowing a fair amount of additional amount of time at the end of 90 minutes is important, because otherwise it unfairly reduces the time for one team or the other to score a winner or equaliser, and because even if it doesn't goal differences can be affected which can be very important at the end of the season. AFAIK the only team that has ever won the premier league on goal difference is us.

These considerations do not apply in cup competitions. If it is clear the result will not be impacted within the sort of additional time that might be added on in a league game, I don't have a problem with the full time whistle coming at 90 minutes. It is important that the rules are followed - part of the wider problem is that different referees seem to pick and choose when they will apply which laws - but in the context of a knock-out cup game choosing not to add additional time that won't make a difference to the outcome of the tie seems to me to be right at the bottom end of the scale.

I don't think the betting point carries much weight, either. I see how if you had a bet on nine goals being scored last night you'd be pissed off at the full time whistle being blown at 90 minutes with no additional time, but equally if you had a bet on eight goals being scored last night, you were pleased that Taylor didn't add an additional four or five minutes on. So that particular point seems to me to be as broad as it is long.

The biggest take-away for me last night is that Taylor, in my view at least, refereed the game pretty well, and it makes me wonder why he is so cack-handed during league matches.
Click to expand...
The last bit of your post is obvious to me , pigmol and the prem do not want us to keep winning things and he goes out of his way to lose control of prem games so we boil over so he can get card happy, following the script
 
Last edited:
kaz7 said:
The last bit of your post is obvious to me , pigmol and the prem do not want us to keep winning things and he goes out of his way to lose control of prem games so we boil over so he can get card happy, following the script
Click to expand...

I think there are several strands to this.

We had Richard Scudamore saying a while ago that it was not good for the same team to keep winning the league (unless they played in red) and that a weak rags side was bad for the brand.

We have had a series of regulatory changes aimed specifically at preventing teams that are not already amongst the elite from getting there. (Nobody can argue that the changes to 'associated party transactions' were not targeted at Newcastle, for instance, just as the UEFA FFP was, according to Michel Platini when speaking to the European Parliament at the time of the Kaka transfer bid, aimed at us.)

For years we have watched certain teams get the benefit of highly dubious offside and other refereeing decisions, and when VAR was introduced, we find that the same teams still seem to be getting the smooth side of the decisions and not the rough.

For years we have seen how a compliant media has been wholly uninterested in reporting corruption within the game, such as when Mark Halsey revealed that he was given instructions to change his report to permit a retrospective punishment, or when there was an almost universal lack of interest in the story that Liverpool had hacked into our scouting database.

We see how the average time added on at the end of a game increases by 30% when we are leading by a single goal.

We have seen how stories detrimental to our club are planted in the media as regularly as clockwork in the run up to certain games. (How often did we hear that Sergio was off to Real Madrid at the end of the season?)

Some people look at these different as pointers, which indicate a more general direction of travel or a wider trend. Others see them as the product of paranoia. Others see them as just random things with no connection to each other.

Each to their own, I suppose.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
You’re pissed off whatever happens, highlighted by the discussion following a 6-2 hammering last night.

The game must last 90 minutes, unless one team is down to 6 players.

Now, whilst I get your point that we could have played <insert whatever number you like> more minutes last night, Taylor decided that it was irrelevant and that we’d play none.

It affected nothing, bar your hypothetical bets from people. They’re as unlucky as the ones that had bet on Haaland scoring 6 when Pep took him off.
Click to expand...
The referee is there to run the game fairly for both teams. This doesn’t include ending the match without the additional time which should be added. He is not there to decide the result is settled so finish whenever he feels like. People pay to watch a game of football not 90% of a game of football.
 


Here's a conspiracy theory for you: there must be some great decisions coming up this weekend if Johnson has chickened out of his weekly review ....

Gird your loins!
 
halfcenturyup said:


Here's a conspiracy theory for you: there must be some great decisions coming up this weekend if Johnson has chickened out of his weekly review ....

Gird your loins!
Click to expand...


According to a little known sub section of the offside law, it actually turns out that the referee was correct to allow Rashford’s 118th minute equaliser to stand, as apparently you can not be deemed to be interfering with play if the ball comes off your right leg on a Sunday following a leap day.
 
Stephen230 said:
According to a little known sub section of the offside law, it actually turns out that the referee was correct to allow Rashford’s 118th minute equaliser to stand, as apparently you can not be deemed to be interfering with play if the ball comes off your right leg on a Sunday following a leap day.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dale, err .... Dermot.
 
Was fearing the worse when i saw we had Madley yet again esp after Chelsea at home but was surprised by him today, didn't fall for the Rags diving (you know Oliver/Attwell/Taylor etc would have given them a free kick for that Rashford dive).
Only gripe was the time added on, remember his 4 minutes only v Chelsea. 1st half i though 3 added on was too low considering they were time wasting from every set piece and no idea where 8 came from at the end either.
Expecting the usual v Dippers though, reckon Taylor or Oliver
 
hertsblue said:
Was fearing the worse when i saw we had Madley yet again esp after Chelsea at home but was surprised by him today, didn't fall for the Rags diving (you know Oliver/Attwell/Taylor etc would have given them a free kick for that Rashford dive).
Only gripe was the time added on, remember his 4 minutes only v Chelsea. 1st half i though 3 added on was too low considering they were time wasting from every set piece and no idea where 8 came from at the end either.
Expecting the usual v Dippers though, reckon Taylor or Oliver
Click to expand...
You know Ederson would have been booked if he was doing what Onana did today
 
Bizarrely having given eight minutes which was either five too little due to their time wasting or three too many given he was ignoring it he then added on nothing for the stoppage for Phil and the substitution which was another couple of minutes. I bet if it was still 2-1 those couple would have been played.
 
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