Referees’ Performances | 2024/2025

[Baggins.mcfc]

My favourite moment was haaland being bear hugged to the ground from a corner and the ref giving a free kick to Chelsea because rule 121.4b states that Haaland is always fouling all the time.

I actually did a quick rewind to watch that again. I couldn't work out how that was a foul by us. Also i think that must be rule 115.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The VAR can’t instigate a review for a yellow card. But once he is reviewing one of the four types of incidents under his jurisdiction, in this case, a goal/ no goal.

Then all options are back open, including advising the referee that a yellow card offence has taken place.

Really? It's all so unclear. The protocol says this:

• The referee and other match officials must always make an initial decision (including any disciplinary action) as if there was no VAR (except for a ‘missed’ incident)
• The referee and other match officials are not permitted to give ‘no decision’ as this will lead to ‘weak/indecisive’ officiating, too many ‘reviews’ and significant problems if there is a technology failure
• The referee is the only person who can make the final decision; the VAR has the same status as the other match officials and can only assist the referee.

I don't see how any of that applies to Haaland's yellow card. But I readily admit the whole thing is a mystery to me.

 

[Phil1]

I still think people are being far too lenient when it comes to how many bad challenges he gave as simple fouls (or even fouls against us).

But I do appreciate that he could have been far worse when it came to their shitehousing and diving.

Yeah, your last sentence is why I’m willing to give a little credit. Could have been easy to get sucked in by their blatant shithousing.

 

[.db.]

Very interesting post for someone that just joined the forum last Tuesday.

Yes, 15 years ago, and I didn’t start off my tenure by making grand posts chastising other blues for how they post on the forum (which they have done in a few threads, not just this one).

Hence why I very much doubt @M23 Citizen is actually a new user. If they are, it is a very interesting way of joining a community.

This internet chat room isn’t the real world. In the real world I’ve been a City fan for decades. I’m not only just joining this community, I’ve been part of the City supporting community in Manchester for decades.

So whether I’m a new member on Bluemoon is neither here nor there, because I’m not a new anything when it comes to City therefore my opinion holds as much weight as anyone on this forum or any WhatsApp group or in any pub or at any stadium when talking about this football club.

I don’t have to be reserved in case I raise the attention of the regulars. The regulars are just a bunch of letters on the internet to me, same as anyone else on here whether they joined last Tuesday or when the site first opened. I’ll be polite, I’ll be reasonable, I won’t call people names… but if I see something that makes our wider fanbase look daft, I’ll challenge it whether it’s my first post or ten-thousandth.

So far this season we’ve had two games and in both the refs were fine. Nowhere near perfect and not even very good, but fine. Yet, reading in this thread you’d think we’d had two performances like Mike Riley’s United v Arsenal game from 2004. I think that kind of hyperbole makes our fans look daft, we are laughed at about this sort of stuff, and people should accept that others might say, ‘let’s reign it in a bit and be more realistic, eh’.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Really? It's all so unclear. The protocol says this:

• The referee and other match officials must always make an initial decision (including any disciplinary action) as if there was no VAR (except for a ‘missed’ incident)
• The referee and other match officials are not permitted to give ‘no decision’ as this will lead to ‘weak/indecisive’ officiating, too many ‘reviews’ and significant problems if there is a technology failure
• The referee is the only person who can make the final decision; the VAR has the same status as the other match officials and can only assist the referee.

I don't see how any of that applies to Haaland's yellow card. But I readily admit the whole thing is a mystery to me.

I also come back to the fact that Taylor had immediately disallowed the goal before VAR even got involved. And Taylor didn’t give the yellow to Haaland (or seemingly directly convey the exact reason he disallowed the goal) until after he discussed things with VAR.

So it is still unclear to me what they had the purview to review initially and whether he acted appropriately.

From the fans’ perspective, it looked like he disallowed the goal and then worked with VAR to find the best reason to do so after the fact.

I am not saying that is actually what happened, but I don’t think anyone can seriously claim that the entire situation played out in line with the rules and guidance.

 

[.db.]

To claim that the foul on Kev was something or nothing and not worthy of a card is bollocks.

Why, who said that the foul on Kev was something or nothing and not worthy of a card? Because I’d disagree with that n’all.

 

[Phil1]

Taylor was fine. As was the ref at the CS last week.

The odd little thing here and there wrong for both refs, but that’s it.

When we start throwing lines around like ‘two leg breaking challenges’ (for two fairly nothing incidents that were just free kicks and nobody batted an eyelid at last week even from our own team), and ‘as poor a performance as i have seen’ (what in the whole of your football watching history, yesterday was as poor a referee’s performance as you’ve ever seen?!)… that’s where we get laughed at, and when we do really have a poor ref’s performance nobody pays any attention to us because we’ve cried wolf so often.

Let’s be sensible in these threads, eh. We’ve all got to be connected to these comments you all make because we’re seen as a set of fans as one entity.

@M23 Citizen

You alluded to it in this post.

 

[SebastianBlue]

This internet chat room isn’t the real world. In the real world I’ve been a City fan for decades. I’m not only just joining this community, I’ve been part of the City supporting community in Manchester for decades.

So whether I’m a new member on Bluemoon is neither here nor there, because I’m not a new anything when it comes to City therefore my opinion holds as much weight as anyone on this forum or any WhatsApp group or in any pub or at any stadium when talking about this football club.

I don’t have to be reserved in case I raise the attention of the regulars. The regulars are just a bunch of letters on the internet to me, same as anyone else on here whether they joined last Tuesday or when the site first opened. I’ll be polite, I’ll be reasonable, I won’t call people names… but if I see something that makes our wider fanbase look daft, I’ll challenge it whether it’s my first post or ten-thousandth.

So far this season we’ve had two games and in both the refs were fine. Nowhere near perfect and not even very good, but fine. Yet, reading in this thread you’d think we’d had two performances like Mike Riley’s United v Arsenal game from 2004. I think that kind of hyperbole makes our fans look daft, we are laughed at about this sort of stuff, and people should accept that others might say, ‘let’s reign it in a bit and be more realistic, eh’.

This forum is the real world, just as much as off it is the real world. That is important, as treating it as if it is not the real world is exceedingly dangerous for a myriad of reasons, some of which we have seen recently, unfortunately. We are all accountable for what we say on here in a similar way to how we are accountable to what we say off of the forum (you, yourself, have seemingly made that point; if this isn’t the real world, why would it matter what we post in this thread?). This is probably a discussion for the Off Topic forum, though, so I won’t go any further here, other than to point out the contradiction in your own stated positions.

Beyond that, though, I disagree with your overall premise regarding the criticism of referees, but am fine with your raising it. What I take issue with is your not actually engaging directly with other posters (including having the integrity to tag them in when you are directly criticising their posts), but rather choosing to make blanket statements about how blues post on the forum (and not just in this thread). That isn’t good faith behaviour and smacks of a troll, not a genuine blue looking to engage with other blues.

But I will take you at your word that you are a long time blue that has just decided to join the forum and tell everyone how they should be behaving on it.

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

But Taylor had already disallowed the goal prior to VAR intervention.

So what was VAR reviewing?

No he hadn't. The ball had hit the back of the net and then he blew. So VAR then has to look at whether the goal being disallowed was correct but whoever was on VAR was never going to overrule Alty

 

[SebastianBlue]

No he hadn't. The ball had hit the back of the net and then he blew. So VAR then has to look at whether the goal being disallowed was correct but whoever was on VAR was never going to overrule Alty

I know, that is what I was saying. Taylor had already disallowed the goal before VAR began review (but before Taylor clarified exactly what caused the goal to be disallowed). VAR didn’t begin review before Taylor blew the whistle.

So I am asking what VAR was reviewing (in the context of whether they actually should have been reviewing it)?

 

[.db.]

@M23 Citizen

You alluded to it in this post.

I didn’t. That sentence was mentioning someone who was talking about the Commmunity Shield game.

 

[Phil1]

I didn’t. That sentence was mentioning someone who was talking about the Commmunity Shield game.

Then accept my apology. :-)

 

[Stephen230]

But Taylor had already disallowed the goal prior to VAR intervention.

So what was VAR reviewing?

The on-field decision was no goal. He was reviewing whether that was the correct decision or if it should have been a goal.

It’s pretty much the fundamental reason for having a VAR.

The crucial difference in this incident compared to the Palace game was that he didn’t give the foul until after the ball was in the net. So leaving all options open.

 

[SebastianBlue]

The on-field decision was no goal. He was reviewing whether that was the correct decision or if it should have been a goal.

It’s pretty much the fundamental reason for having a VAR.

The crucial difference in this incident compared to the Palace game was that he didn’t give the foul until after the ball was in the net. So leaving all options open.

The fundamental reason for having VAR is to insure that the referee’s actual decisions are correct based on the video evidence and related rules/guidance.

In order for that review to take place, the referee has to have made a decision based on a specific incident. It can’t be a case of “whistle and then have VAR find a reason why I have whistled”, as that violates the rules and guidance for VAR intervention.

Now, Taylor may have whistled specifically due to what he thought was a foul by Haaland in the box, but that was certainly not made clear at the time, which is the issue many of us are raising. The situation could (and should) have been handled better, is the main thrust of my point (and I imagine a few others’ criticism, as well).

And this is only one of hundreds of examples of this sort of poorly handled incident since VAR was implemented. There has only been marginal improvement since its inception, which is a damning indictment of PGMOL and the PL, in my opinion.

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

I know, that is what I was saying. Taylor had already disallowed the goal before VAR began review (but before Taylor clarified exactly what caused the goal to be disallowed). VAR didn’t begin review before Taylor blew the whistle.

So I am asking what VAR was reviewing (in the context of whether they actually should have been reviewing it)?

Presumably Alty tells VAR, no goal for the foul but have I made an obvious error. VAR looks at it and says it's fucking soft but there isn't an obvious error so no goal. Who was on VAR?

 

[.db.]

This forum is the real world, just as much as off it is the real world. That is important, as treating it as if it is not the real world is exceedingly dangerous for a myriad of reasons, some of which we have seen recently, unfortunately. We are all accountable for what we say on here in a similar way to how we are accountable to what we say off of the forum (you, yourself, have seemingly made that point; if this isn’t the real world, why would it matter what we post in this thread?). This is probably a discussion for the Off Topic forum, though, so I won’t go any further here, other than to point out the contradiction in your own stated positions.

Beyond that, though, I disagree with your overall premise regarding the criticism of referees, but am fine with your raising it. What I take issue with is your not actually engaging directly with other posters (including having the integrity to tag them in when you are directly criticising their posts), but rather choosing to make blanket statements about how blues post on the forum (and not just in this thread). That isn’t good faith behaviour and smacks of a troll, not a genuine blue looking to engage with other blues.

But I will take you at your word that you are a long time blue that has just decided to join the forum and tell everyone how they should be behaving on it.

You’ve run off on a tangent while not understanding or purposely ignoring the small point I was making about the real world in a post that has nothing to do with the majority of what I was talking about.

I didn’t contradict myself. My point about the real world is that I’ve not only just joined this community last Tuesday; in the real world, I’ve been part of it for decades.

I never suggested (even unintentionally) that we aren’t accountable for what we say online. What I’m saying is that whether I’m someone who joined last Tuesday or whether someone else joined back in the early days of internet forums, all our posts hold as much weight as each others. One collection of digits or letters (a username) is not more or less important than any other collection or digits or letters.
Whereas you come across as someone who holds a position that my opinion means less because I joined last Tuesday and I need bringing down a peg or two because you don’t agree with me. And that if I’d been here since 2006, I don't reckon you’d have responded to me the way you did.

You might want me to be a troll, not a genuine Blue and not looking to engage with other Blues… and by not doing this via PM, I assume you’re trying to sway others to think that too… but I’m not, I am and I am… and I’ve done nothing against the Forum Rules as far as I’m aware. If you think I’ve abused, personally insulted or disrespected you or anyone else with the perfectly normal things I’ve posted, I am sorry, but I really don’t think I have.

I’ll certainly use the reply function or tag in people in future to show who it is I’m talking about or what posts I’m referring to, but I’ll still post my opinion whether it’s what people like or agree with or not, as long as I’m not breaking forum rules.

 

[SebastianBlue]

You’ve run off on a tangent while not understanding or purposely ignoring the small point I was making about the real world in a post that has nothing to do with the majority of what I was talking about.

I didn’t contradict myself. My point about the real world is that I’ve not only just joined this community last Tuesday; in the real world, I’ve been part of it for decades.

I never suggested (even unintentionally) that we aren’t accountable for what we say online. What I’m saying is that whether I’m someone who joined last Tuesday or whether someone else joined back in the early days of internet forums, all our posts hold as much weight as each others. One collection of digits or letters (a username) is not more or less important than any other collection or digits or letters.
Whereas you come across as someone who holds a position that my opinion means less because I joined last Tuesday and I need bringing down a peg or two because you don’t agree with me. And that if I’d been here since 2006, I don't reckon you’d have responded to me the way you did.

You might want me to be a troll, not a genuine Blue and not looking to engage with other Blues… and by not doing this via PM, I assume you’re trying to sway others to think that too… but I’m not, I am and I am… and I’ve done nothing against the Forum Rules as far as I’m aware. If you think I’ve abused, personally insulted or disrespected you or anyone else with the perfectly normal things I’ve posted, I am sorry, but I really don’t think I have.

I’ll certainly use the reply function or tag in people in future to show who it is I’m talking about or what posts I’m referring to, but I’ll still post my opinion whether it’s what people like them or not, as long as I’m not breaking forum rules.

You said “This internet chat room isn’t the real world.” So I don’t think I misunderstood, you are just changing your point, after I have highlighted the contradiction inherent in your original post and your follow up to mine. So you did (seemingly unintentionally) imply this forum is not the real world and thus has a different standard for accountability and/or behaviour (whilst also chastising others on here for their behaviour on the forum negatively impacting the perception of fans off it). Everything else is regarding your claim to being a long time blue from Manchester that has just joined the forum to chastise other blues about how the behave on it, which I have said I will accept.

Any case, though, you simply didn’t initially engage directly with the blues you were criticising—there is no way to argue that you did. And I called that out. I did so publicly, directly responding to you and tagging you in when I discussed it with others, as that is what I hold to be a good faith response when someone publicly acts in bad faith, as I believe you had initially. You do not get to act publicly then demand private response. If you feel private response is appropriate for calling people out on their behaviour then you should have PM’d the posters you felt were posting unreasonably in the thread, rather than posting a blanket critique. I find it intellectually dishonest to insinuate that my public response to your public criticism is somehow inappropriate. That is also the common behaviour of a troll, hence my statement to that effect.

All of that said, if you would like to continue to discuss this via PM I am happy to do so. I don’t wish to hijack thread any more than I have and attract the wrath of the mods.

 

[Stephen230]

The fundamental reason for having VAR is to insure that the referee’s actual decisions are correct based on the video evidence and related rules/guidance.

In order for that review to take place, the referee has to have made a decision based on a specific incident. It can’t be a case of “whistle and then have VAR find a reason why I have whistled”, as that violates the rules and guidance for VAR intervention.

Now, Taylor may have whistled specifically due to what he thought was a foul by Haaland in the box, but that was certainly not made clear at the time, which is the issue many of us are raising. The situation could (and should) have been handled better, is the main thrust of my point (and I imagine a few others’ criticism, as well).

And this is only one of hundreds of examples of this sort of poorly handled incident since VAR was implemented. There has only been marginal improvement since its inception, which is a damning indictment of PGMOL and the PL, in my opinion.

I’m not really sure what more you’re expecting the referee to do when he thinks he’s seen a foul? He blew the whistle, pointed in the general direction of Haaland and then indicated which way the foul was.

What more are you looking for him to do to make his decision any clearer?

 

[SebastianBlue]

I’m not really sure what more you’re expecting the referee to do when he thinks he’s seen a foul? He blew the whistle, pointed in the general direction of Haaland and then indicated which way the foul was.

What more are you looking for him to do to make his decision any clearer?

Do what referees are meant to do with any such infringement: go to the spot of the foul and indicate to the players involved there was a foul committed.

Gesturing in a general direction and then waiting for VAR to confirm something happened isn’t the appropriate way to handle it.

 

[.db.]

You said “This internet chat room isn’t the real world.” So I don’t think I misunderstood, you are just changing your point, after I have highlighted the contradiction inherent in your original post and your follow up to mine. So you did (seemingly unintentionally) imply this forum is not the real world and thus has a different standard for accountability and/or behaviour (whilst also chastising others on here for their behaviour on the forum negatively impacting the perception of fans off it). Everything else is regarding your claim to being a long time blue from Manchester that has just joined the forum to chastise other blues about how the behave on it, which I have said I will accept.

Any case, though, you simply didn’t initially engage directly with the blues you were criticising—there is no way to argue that you did. And I called that out. I did so publicly, directly responding to you and tagging you in when I discussed it with others, as that is what I hold to be a good faith response when someone publicly acts in bad faith, as I believe you had initially. You do not get to act publicly then demand private response. If you feel private response is appropriate for calling people out on their behaviour then you should have PM’d the posters you felt were posting unreasonably in the thread, rather than posting a blanket critique. I find it intellectually dishonest to insinuate that my public response to your public criticism is somehow inappropriate. That is also the common behaviour of a troll, hence my statement to that effect.

That said, if you would like to continue to discuss this via PM I am happy to do so.

I have not changed my point, you’ve snipped one bit of it and taken it away from its context. Twice. I think that’s quite disingenuous.

I haven’t demanded owt, you’ve made that up, I merely made an assumption for why you didn’t do something.

I can see this is one of those situations where you’ll keep doing the same thing with anything I say, so I’ll stop replying to you about this now.

And let’s not be a mard arse following me around the site because you’ve decided you don’t like or trust me, like I’ve already seen you starting to do. Let’s put this behind us and move on.