Referees' Performances | 2025/26

The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Everyone can be gleeful when a subjective decision goes against another team, which is part of football. Where it’s different is when there is a clear breach of the laws and it’s just ignored. There’s not ONE reason why Pawson shouldn’t have sent the ref to the screen after the Foden foul and the handball. If the ref had gone over for both of them, said he’d seen them both and he was happy with his decisions, fair enough.
But, if you got a referee, a VAR and an assistant VAR who all let different levels of challenges go, it has to go back to the bloke on the field to make a decision.
Click to expand...
I agree, but it will be the same question on various forums throughout the land. It’s football.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
I suppose the question is, is it not a foul if you’ve passed the ball or had a shot? If it’s not, he made many errors after the Foden foul and a dangerous precedent has been set.
Click to expand...
It was see games ago we won’t even remember or know about. It’s referees being human. After that, depending which side you’re on, it’s fans going bonkers or mocking. We all get to do both.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
I suppose the question is, is it not a foul if you’ve passed the ball or had a shot? If it’s not, he made many errors after the Foden foul and a dangerous precedent has been set.
Click to expand...

It depends if the challenge is deemed reckless or not. I thought it should have been, some think differently. There’s no precedent, it’s just the refs opinion on that particular challenge.
 
meltonblue said:
No it isn’t, the laws have never worked like that. That’s why you get some agreeing with the handball and not the Foden one and others thinking the complete opposite way round. It always has a subjective element to it.
Click to expand...
Nothing subjective about it..he fouled Phil..
The ref either saw it and ignored it..and if he ignored it then Why... Or he missed it so Car should be looking at it and advising him to have a look at the monitor.
If Var looked at it they could see it was obviously a foul..then why hasn't it been given.
No subjectivity about the contact..he made contact so it's a foul..inside the area so a penalty..
I'm still fucking fuming about the shite offside and the non handball and the amount of fucking fouls he let them get away with..
Off to bed and hopefully I won't think about it again
 
blue by birth said:
Nothing subjective about it..he fouled Phil..
The ref either saw it and ignored it..and if he ignored it then Why... Or he missed it so Car should be looking at it and advising him to have a look at the monitor.
If Var looked at it they could see it was obviously a foul..then why hasn't it been given.
No subjectivity about the contact..he made contact so it's a foul..inside the area so a penalty..
I'm still fucking fuming about the shite offside and the non handball and the amount of fucking fouls he let them get away with..
Off to bed and hopefully I won't think about it again
Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter that he made contact, it’s whether that contact was deemed reckless or not. I thought it should have been, others don’t. Yes it is absolutely subjective.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the panel overwhelmingly says they got it wrong.

I don’t like the way he reffed the game as a whole and his general refereeing was the worst thing about it, thought the Foden one should have been a penalty, less fussed about the handball or the offside.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
I suppose the question is, is it not a foul if you’ve passed the ball or had a shot? If it’s not, he made many errors after the Foden foul and a dangerous precedent has been set.
Click to expand...

I heard one of the TV people say that there is usually a difference in these 'just after' incidents.
First, there is where a defender's momentum takes him into the player. If the shot has gone, the comment was that these are usually not given. I would guess that many goalkeeper challenges fall into this.

What they didn't mention was what alternatives to that there are. In this case, the studs being the first point of contact should have made it a reckless challenge which is always a yellow card, and therefore a penalty.
It would get muddier if the ball was out of play before the challenge, as then I don't think a penalty could be given but a yellow card could have been (I'd be surprised if the ball was already out, in this case).
 
malg said:
We did change it though. We added more refs and rather believably it led to even more problems. I 100% would change it. I'd take VAR away.
Click to expand...
And replace the Stockley Park crew with two extra on-field linesmen. Sure, they may make mistakes with some calls but fans in the ground wouldn't have to wait 2 - 3 minutes for a decision.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I heard one of the TV people say that there is usually a difference in these 'just after' incidents.
First, there is where a defender's momentum takes him into the player. If the shot has gone, the comment was that these are usually not given. I would guess that many goalkeeper challenges fall into this.

What they didn't mention was what alternatives to that there are. In this case, the studs being the first point of contact should have made it a reckless challenge which is always a yellow card, and therefore a penalty.
It would get muddier if the ball was out of play before the challenge, as then I don't think a penalty could be given but a yellow card could have been (I'd be surprised if the ball was already out, in this case).
Click to expand...

& yet the goalkeeper following through was a penalty away to the Arsenal.
 
We can all agree that sometimes a subjective decision goes for you and against you. So, let’s agree on that before continuing.

From there, is there a reasonable subjective reason YOU can think of why the Foden challenge was not reviewed, the contact obviously seen, but the referee not given the opportunity to review it? Was it not “clearly and obviously” a late, studs up, above the ankle challenge made by a player who launched himself, with both feet and legs off the ground, with his eyes closed? If YOU subjectively think that is NOT TRUE, then my only question would be, “Can you not see ALL OF THAT in the REAL WORLD still picture?”

IMHO, it was, OBJECTIVELY, based on the Laws of the Game AND the normal standard of refereeing in the PL, including the backstop of VAR, a very poor, indefensible decision NOT to review the challenge at the monitor, at a minimum.

So, where does it leave a club, a team, individual players, when they see a clear and obvious penalty not be given, and VAR failing to intercede? When it’s only the first of multiple deeply questionable decisions within the same game, what then? And, lastly, when you actually SEE a supposedly objective, computer generated, decision made that contradicts what you’ve literally seen with your own eyes, that literally places a player in a different position than he was clearly in when the offside decision should have been made (jumping to head a ball that has supposedly not been headed towards him yet!!!), where do you go, what do you do, what can you say…especially when the decision decides a very important game?

Boggles the mind…if your mind relies on truth, facts and objective reality!
 
Last edited:
ChicagoBlue said:
We can all agree that sometimes a subjective decision goes for you and against you. So, let’s agree on that before continuing.

From there, is there a reasonable subjective reason YOU can think of why the Foden challenge was not reviewed, the contact obviously seen, but the referee not given the opportunity to review it? Was it not “clearly and obviously” a late, studs up, above the ankle challenge made by a player who launched himself, with both feet and legs off the ground, with his eyes closed? If YOU subjectively think that is NOT TRUE, then my only question would be, “Can you not see ALL OF THAT in the REAL WORLD still picture?”

IMHO, it was, OBJECTIVELY, based on the Laws of the Game AND the normal standard of refereeing in the PL, including the backstop of VAR, a very poor, indefensible decision NOT to review the challenge at the monitor, at a minimum.

So, where does it leave a club, a team, individual players, when they see a clear and obvious penalty not be given, and VAR failing to intercede? When it’s only the first of multiple deeply questionable decisions within the same game, what then? And, lastly, when you actually SEE a supposedly objective, computer generated, decision made that contradicts what you’ve literally seen with your own eyes, that literally places a player in a different position than he was clearly in when the offside decision should have been made (jumping to head a ball that has supposedly not been headed towards him yet!!!), where do you go, what do you do, what can you say…especially when the decision decide a very important game?

Boggles the mind…if your mind relies on truth, facts and objective reality!
Click to expand...
It’s simpler than that in reality.

VAR looks at each decision and determines whether the call that has been made is justifiable in any way within the laws of the game.

The human element of VAR means that two identical decisions could be viewed differently by the on field ref initially and then the VAR official trying to see whether thr original call on field is justifiable.

Now, I guess the Foden call was that he got his shot off and the contact was inevitable because the defender is desperately lunging to block the shot.

I think it was a penalty, because he took Foden out after he played the ball.

However, if the on field ref says that it’s an inevitable coming together, then how can VAR intervene?

The system is a mess. I think that all major marginal calls should be looked at by the on field ref.
 
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