Referees' Performances | 2025/26

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

That's pretty arrogant. So you are the only person who apparently watches the game objectively. You are welcome to your opinion but you are IMO citing very minor things that supposedly favoured us while ignoring much more significant things that greatly favoured Brentford. In addition to letting them blatantly abuse throw-ins, he booked Nico for delaying a few seconds, allowed them to use the towel illegally, ignored Bobb's penalty shout, called Doku for handball when the linesman who was much closer didn't flag, and inexplicably allowed the game to go on for an extra minute at the end. He is a cheating tool and has generally ranged from bad to dreadful in our games that he has officiated (including those on VAR)

The buffeting that Haaland got from two Brentford players that continued into the area? Had he missed would we have got a penalty, 'cos the kind of 'contact' and often much less robust contact, that he received regularly brings a free kick for the opposition at The Etihad, but rarely for the home team.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

There is no mention of use of towels, either way, in the laws of the game.

Every mention of it online comes back to a BBC article, called 'Ask Me Anything' where an unnamed journalist claims that in the Premier League " Clubs have to agree to the availability of towels around the field before the match. If no agreement can be made, towels cannot be used"

But there's no source cited where they've got this from, so I wouldn't be taking it as fact.

I got it from Dermot Gallagher on Sky.
PGMOL later clarified that towels ‘can be used’, which was as helpful as you might expect…
Don’t know why they don’t just follow the EFL on this and ban them altogether.

 

[invisibleandalone]

T

The handball wasn't called out by Sly so it was quickly glossed over by VAR.

Please don't tell me Sly, the PL and the PiGMOL aren't colluding to try and influence outcomes.

They are absolutely colluding and this was brought home to me with the Rashford off side at the swamp a few seasons back.

 

[Stephen230]

I got it from Dermot Gallagher on Sky.
PGMOL later clarified that towels ‘can be used’, which was as helpful as you might expect…
Don’t know why they don’t just follow the EFL on this and ban them altogether.

Fuck knows then. The BBC article claims it was tied in to the multi ball rule. But that was years ago when it was optional and could be used as long as it was applied to both teams equally. Now its mandatory.

I suspect there's nothing in writing about it anywhere and individuals are just winging it if they're asked.

 

[invisibleandalone]

I think we need to start using a towel at 1 up… the rules will soon change.

Won't be long before they allow the ball to have a shower before the towel is used.

 

[heslops barnet]

I think we need to start using a towel at 1 up… the rules will soon change.

When our players get their hair wet?
Can see no other use for us

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

I thought yesterdays ref was ok tbh. He ignored a lot of histrionics (Mainly from Brentford players) and wasnt too one sided.

Something I would like to see less of is pushing players in the back. Its becoming a subjective consfusing foul that some refs give some dont. You could say depending upon the team but thats what people WILL say, so why dont Pgmol just ban it or tell everyone you can push players in the back whilst they're shooting or near the advertising boards.

I would rather it didnt happen, its basic fouling and spoils some good football from happening.

 

[invisibleandalone]

Throw in's are back in fashion now. We should sign a quarter back, get ahead of the field !

 

[Stephen230]

I see Donnarumma has a little 'trick' at corners where he gets a defender to stand between him and the attacker detailed to block him off and gives the City player a big shove in the back as the ball is coming over. Which obviously means the defender then shoves in to the opponent but can't really be given as a foul. Not yet anyway.

 

[richardtheref]

I see Donnarumma has a little 'trick' at corners where he gets a defender to stand between him and the attacker detailed to block him off and gives the City player a big shove in the back as the ball is coming over. Which obviously means the defender then shoves in to the opponent but can't really be given as a foul. Not yet anyway.

I think you will find, technically, that comes unsporting behaviour and if the ref wants to be pedantic he can give it

 

[richardtheref]

Fuck knows then. The BBC article claims it was tied in to the multi ball rule. But that was years ago when it was optional and could be used as long as it was applied to both teams equally. Now its mandatory.

I suspect there's nothing in writing about it anywhere and individuals are just winging it if they're asked.

You have to tell the PL prior to the season commencing that you intend to have towels pitch side. It then needs to be available to both sides

 

[Cassandra]

Some dialogue on the ref site re booking of O'Reily

Quote from: TA_Ref on Today at 12:03 pm

Quote from: Microscopist on Today at 11:43 am

I wonder if someone can explain to me what goes on in a referee's mind. At 82:07 the ball goes out of play for a City throw half way inside the Brentford half. the Brentford manager kicks the ball back onto the pitch ending up about 10yds in the pitch. O'Reilly moves to take the free kick and a Brentford player taps the ball about 5yds in his direction. O'Reilly walks onto the pitch picks up the ball briefly wipes it in his shirt and is in position to take the throw at 82:15, throws the ball in at 82:32 as the referee issues him with a yellow card, which seems harsh in comparison to what happens regularly. The throw in is finally taken by Brentford at 82:57 so the referee has effectively caused an additional delay of 25 seconds.

At 85:39 the ball goes out of play, I thought for a City throw but it was awarded to Brentford, never mind. A Brentford player picks up the ball the leaves it for a second Brentford player who decides he doesn't like that ball, walks 10 yards towards the City end to pick up the multiball, picks up a towel and wipes it whist walking 5yds back towards where the ball went out, is told to move further back and moves a few yards further back, lines up to take a long run up to throw the ball into the City area at 86:30.

So it has taken Brentford 51 seconds to take a throw and no action is taken by the referee whilst City are show a yellow card after 25 seconds - why?

Well your point is a good one but there is one very clear and obvious answer to this.

Manchester City were winning by 1 goal. The game was still in the balance and in my opinion if the referee feels like a team are taking time out the game when winning or trying to hold out for a draw, then a YC can be expected fairly quickly. If Brentford want to take nearly a minute to take a throw when losing then let them. They are wasting their own time more than anything else.

I would say there are a couple of problems with that answer.

1 If the referee is going to assign motive/intent to the actions of the team then that has to apply to both teams. Hence he should question why the Brentford Manager kicked the ball back into play, it certainly looked a purposeful action. He will have known that whilst that ball was on the pitch City couldn't take a quick throw in even if they used one of the other balls. The most obvious motive to me is that he wanted a few seconds to allow his players to get in a better defensive formation.
That has a double effect as the City players were then tightly marked by the time the throw could be taken making it more difficult for the thrower to find a suitably positioned player, as well as contributing to about a quarter of the time the ball was out of play.

2) Supposing City had a long throw expert then you are effectively saying that because they were in the lead they could not behave in the same way as Brentford and take time to pile all their players up into the penalty area before the throw is taken. So teams that are losing are given an advantage.

I have a second gripe, again essentially minor but one which makes me wonder about the mindset of referees. Nunes was shown a yellow car for not retreating for a free kick when the Brentford plakicked the ball right at him, Nunes did not make any move to stop the ball just stood there.. Don't have a problem with that as such as it annoys me when players don't retreat, be they City or otherwise. However not long before that two Brentford players had stood a similar distance away from a City free kick blocking off two forward passing routes and no action was taken about that as City played the ball to the side. Of course it is commonplace but it is one of the easier laws for referees to apply, no tule change is needed just show yellows to anyone who doesn't retreat and keep doing it. But to book players only when the kicker aims the ball at them doesn't make sense.

 

[Centurions]

That’s okay. Fans generally only remember negative aspects of referees performances.

Thought he did okay. He didn’t fall for the forward feigning that he’d got an arm in the face from Gvardiol towards the end, where he could easily have fallen for it.

He booked their player for waving an imaginary card when they don’t always do that.

It was the inconsistency that got to me, for both sides, no bias involved.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It was the inconsistency that got to me, for both sides, no bias involved.

And that’s fine, I’m just sorry I posted in here!

 

[Blue Til Death]

Won't be long before they allow the ball to have a shower before the towel is used.

Or if it’s an arsenal player, he can have a shower while captain black gives the rest of the team a pep :-) talk ..

 

[Vic]

Theses refs make it up as they go along, when blasted it at Nunes I was fuming!

So was I. Just wrong application of the laws.



If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue. However, an opponent who deliberately prevents a free kick being taken quickly must be cautioned for delaying the restart of play.

 

[Stephen230]

I think you will find, technically, that comes unsporting behaviour and if the ref wants to be pedantic he can give it

Yeah, that's fair enough but it's a lot less likely to get picked up than shoving an opponent in the back. And I can't imagine a VAR is ever going to flag it.

 

[Gordyola]

I know its the rule, but have you noticed that the towels are never in the attacking half that we are attacking? The Brentford ground staff must have moved them around at half time and put them in the half that Brentford were attacking. There needs to be a tweak to that rule, where towels have to be supplied all around the pitch or not at all

Throw-ins are a means of getting the ball in play never intended to be a tactic need to tweak the law to say nearest players takes the throw or impose the 8 seconds rule Seems to be that a player taking a long throw can take longer

 

[lasereyes]

The buffeting that Haaland got from two Brentford players that continued into the area? Had he missed would we have got a penalty, 'cos the kind of 'contact' and often much less robust contact, that he received regularly brings a free kick for the opposition at The Etihad, but rarely for the home team.

I think this was my favourite Haaland goal ever (more than the side acrobatic leap vs Dortmund). Cos he really bullied the defense in a way we have been crying out for (and bemoaned our own defenders so suffering). It augurs very well

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think we need to start using a towel at 1 up… the rules will soon change.

I was thinking we should use the towel to dry the ball and take thirty seconds doing it before every throw-in. The "rule" would soon change.

It's just a nonsense. Nobody can dry their boots or the ball before a free-kick when it could have a decisive effect on ball movement, what is the point doing it just for a throw-in? A throw-in is just to get the ball back in play, it's not a result of a sanction for an offence that is meant to give an advantage.