Referees’ Performances | 2024/2025

Champions again in 2012 said:
But i bet there is no correlation in the number of bookings we have received compared to the other clubs
Click to expand...
The fouls to booking ratio for and against us this season in the PL are around 22% for both City and the Opposition.

That's the average across the season mind, and some of the bookings against opposition players have definitely been stat padding. We've had quite a few games this season where 50% or more of the opposition's yellow cards have been in the last 15 minutes of the game.
 
meltonblue said:
And I disagree.
Click to expand...

It's all about opinions. Pawson's opinion was that it wasn't a foul. It's the inconsistency that winds me up.

Had that been 2 other teams playing last night I bet you wouldn't have been surprised had the VAR come back and said "not enough in it to overturn the referee's decision"?

The referee on the field is ultimately in charge of the game, and he was overruled last night. It wasn't a glaring mistake, or a clear and obvious error. In his opinion and his application of the LOTG, he decided it wasn't a penalty. Yes, we can all say 'seen them given', but how many times have we heard pundits like Neville say 'not enough in it for me'?

Ultimately, VAR re-refereed the game and that isn't what it's for.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
It's all about opinions. Pawson's opinion was that it wasn't a foul. It's the inconsistency that winds me up.

Had that been 2 other teams playing last night I bet you wouldn't have been surprised had the VAR come back and said "not enough in it to overturn the referee's decision"?

The referee on the field is ultimately in charge of the game, and he was overruled last night. It wasn't a glaring mistake, or a clear and obvious error. In his opinion and his application of the LOTG, he decided it wasn't a penalty. Yes, we can all say 'seen them given', but how many times have we heard pundits like Neville say 'not enough in it for me'?

Ultimately, VAR re-refereed the game and that isn't what it's for.
Click to expand...

I agree fully about the inconsistency. Personally I’ve no problem with the decision or how it was done, other than wanting to see it consistently applied.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
Who pays these referees? Ultimately who holds POGMOL purse strings? Might it be the Premier League? Might it be the same entity that’s currently in a legal fight to the death with a certain club to stop them succeeding? What other way might they damage that clubs progression I wonder.
Click to expand...

Said similar on the way out yesterday. I'm not a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist but it's hard to believe an experienced professional at the top end of English football is simply *that* incompetent. It does make you wonder.
 
This is what we were told at the beginning of the season:

There will be a particular focus this season on what the Premier League have branded the ‘Referees Call’, which will see an emphasis on trusting on-field decisions unless evidence is ‘readily available’ that a call constitutes a clear and obvious error.

Pawson last night had a clear view of the incident, IMO opinion Dias planted his leg and Ramsey initiated contact. Even if you don't agree with that the contact was minimal and wasn't a 'clear and obvious error'. Effectively the game was re-reffed by the VAR and Pawson didn't have the balls to say he was sticking with his original decision. I hope the audio is made public as I hope Pawson would have said minimal contact not enough for a penalty, Dias hasn't put his leg out to play the player. What I reckon was said was there isn't any contact at which VAR then said you need to have a look at this. Even so the original decision should have stood.

Pawson like so many other refs also needs to have the balls to say to the keeper in the fist few minutes that taking 25 seconds from when he has the ball in his hands to taking a goal kick is too long and you will be booked the very next time it happens and the same for holding on to the ball longer than six seconds. Why the PL think by changing it to 8 seconds next year is going to be better for the game is beyond me. The law is quite clear but just isn't enforced. I half expected Stefan to be booked at the very end when he walked across to take the free kick.
 
Nevizade said:
Said similar on the way out yesterday. I'm not a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist but it's hard to believe an experienced professional at the top end of English football is simply *that* incompetent. It does make you wonder.
Click to expand...
So he is bent, and didn't give them a pen which to many is clear (only some blues think otherwise) against City for a bit of a laugh? Which is it
 
Eds said:
This is what we were told at the beginning of the season:

There will be a particular focus this season on what the Premier League have branded the ‘Referees Call’, which will see an emphasis on trusting on-field decisions unless evidence is ‘readily available’ that a call constitutes a clear and obvious error.

Pawson last night had a clear view of the incident, IMO opinion Dias planted his leg and Ramsey initiated contact. Even if you don't agree with that the contact was minimal and wasn't a 'clear and obvious error'. Effectively the game was re-reffed by the VAR and Pawson didn't have the balls to say he was sticking with his original decision. I hope the audio is made public as I hope Pawson would have said minimal contact not enough for a penalty, Dias hasn't put his leg out to play the player. What I reckon was said was there isn't any contact at which VAR then said you need to have a look at this. Even so the original decision should have stood.

Pawson like so many other refs also needs to have the balls to say to the keeper in the fist few minutes that taking 25 seconds from when he has the ball in his hands to taking a goal kick is too long and you will be booked the very next time it happens and the same for holding on to the ball longer than six seconds. Why the PL think by changing it to 8 seconds next year is going to be better for the game is beyond me. The law is quite clear but just isn't enforced. I half expected Stefan to be booked at the very end when he walked across to take the free kick.
Click to expand...
Won’t matter they’ll edit the audio ..
 
eyalluvitt said:
They always cry ‘not enough contact for a foul’ when our players get hit. Yet trot out ‘well there was contact so technically its a foul’ when it’s our opposition, infuriating
Click to expand...

Spot on

City are an easy target from the Premier League under match officials and VAR, Soft pens, close offsides, hold and pulling of shirts at corners, early flag killing any chance to go on a score when it's a tight call,

They used to be a thing called the referee is a homer, giving the advantage to the home team ? well, it's now called anti-bias
 
Eds said:
This is what we were told at the beginning of the season:

There will be a particular focus this season on what the Premier League have branded the ‘Referees Call’, which will see an emphasis on trusting on-field decisions unless evidence is ‘readily available’ that a call constitutes a clear and obvious error.

Pawson last night had a clear view of the incident, IMO opinion Dias planted his leg and Ramsey initiated contact. Even if you don't agree with that the contact was minimal and wasn't a 'clear and obvious error'. Effectively the game was re-reffed by the VAR and Pawson didn't have the balls to say he was sticking with his original decision. I hope the audio is made public as I hope Pawson would have said minimal contact not enough for a penalty, Dias hasn't put his leg out to play the player. What I reckon was said was there isn't any contact at which VAR then said you need to have a look at this. Even so the original decision should have stood.

Pawson like so many other refs also needs to have the balls to say to the keeper in the fist few minutes that taking 25 seconds from when he has the ball in his hands to taking a goal kick is too long and you will be booked the very next time it happens and the same for holding on to the ball longer than six seconds. Why the PL think by changing it to 8 seconds next year is going to be better for the game is beyond me. The law is quite clear but just isn't enforced. I half expected Stefan to be booked at the very end when he walked across to take the free kick.
Click to expand...
Yup.

Very fast and lose with their rules and protocols when it suits.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
It's all about opinions. Pawson's opinion was that it wasn't a foul. It's the inconsistency that winds me up.

Had that been 2 other teams playing last night I bet you wouldn't have been surprised had the VAR come back and said "not enough in it to overturn the referee's decision"?

The referee on the field is ultimately in charge of the game, and he was overruled last night. It wasn't a glaring mistake, or a clear and obvious error. In his opinion and his application of the LOTG, he decided it wasn't a penalty. Yes, we can all say 'seen them given', but how many times have we heard pundits like Neville say 'not enough in it for me'?

Ultimately, VAR re-refereed the game and that isn't what it's for.
Click to expand...
Absolute dead cert it would have been the outcome, particularly if in their home toilets
 
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