Referees' Performances | 2025/26

Prestwich_Blue said:
Very true, and you do wonder if the laws have deliberately been designed that way.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is much 'design' re the LotG. They are conveniently ignored, re-interpreted, re-explained when one incident doesn't match a previous explanation, and no matter what happens on the pitch refs 'n VAR will find a 'preferred' solution. When that solution is manifestly incorrect - Mbeumo's non-handball regardless of his attempted, and successful, netball play - there is always Howie to the rescue with an apology some time after the points have been irreversibly added to the table.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
But they do have to judge feet, as well as everything else, as well as when the ball was kicked.
As for the laws being applied differently in matches with VAR, I’m afraid that cat is not only out of the bag, but is now on the other side of the world.
Not only that, as VAR is applied differently in Scotland, England and the rest of Europe, as well as in UEFA competitions, even VAR matches are wholly inconsistent. When you then add a layer of seniority either to the VAR or the referee and the lack of willingness to go against the most senior one, you’ve got absolutely no chance.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but I would defy anyone to listen for the ball being kicked and judge where a player's feet are at the same. If it can't be done humanly, it shouldn't be a law or an interpretation imho. Same goes for all other laws.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You may be right, but I would defy anyone to listen for the ball being kicked and judge where a player's feet are at the same. If it can't be done humanly, it shouldn't be a law or an interpretation imho. Same goes for all other laws.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with you but, once they changed the handball law in the penalty area, depending on whether an accidental handball is by a defender or an attacker (rags notwithstanding), then they’d started down the slippery slope.
As for the offside, the change to ‘feet only’ could only be applicable to VAR matches.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Here is a thought.

As far as I am aware, there are meetings before games, especially important games, to determine how the referee will manage the game - easy on the physical side or strict, for example, or let more go because we "don't want to spoil the game". Nothing easier than allowing physicality on a possession-based team to get a desired result. No-one has to say anything specific, it's implied.

Remember the Forest game when Rodri snapped and was sent off? Easy as pie. Want lots of Arsenal goals? No problem - allow pushing, shoving and obstruction at corners (btw, it seems Arsenal had meeting with PGMOL to agree with them how far they could push the rules. That's very normal ...). Nothing conspiratorial has to be said, but it can be easily understood anyway.

And then remove any remaining risk of exposure with retirement NDAs in return for a pension.
Click to expand...

How much would a ref be paid for selling his story exposing absolute corruption and result manipulation in the premier league, one of the richest sporting competitions in the world?
No idea what pensions retired refs are on, but i would imagine its not a massive pot.

The story would be worth millions

Fair enough, your thinking isnt as crazy as “gets interest free loans” are whatever the fella said, but its still a million miles away from convincing me there is some high level corruption to stop us winning cups
 
Further to that I said above there also used to be " level is not offside ".
If that was applied now what would need to be level?
Clearly we've become too forensic in applying the laws.
 
Bluesince1979 said:
How much would a ref be paid for selling his story exposing absolute corruption and result manipulation in the premier league, one of the richest sporting competitions in the world?
No idea what pensions retired refs are on, but i would imagine its not a massive pot.

The story would be worth millions

Fair enough, your thinking isnt as crazy as “gets interest free loans” are whatever the fella said, but its still a million miles away from convincing me there is some high level corruption to stop us winning cups
Click to expand...
How much did Mark Halsey get?
 
In my opinion, there’s no corruption but there is bias. Mainly unconscious bias at that.
If you’re an official and you keep being told that despite City being great, the reason they’re great is due to cheating and you’re hearing this every time City are mentioned. Win, lose or draw.
As well as that, you’ve been brought up hearing how wonderful the redshirts are and how their history defines all that’s good about football. The press, of course, constantly reinforces this.
Maybe, just maybe, when there’s a debatable decision to be made, you err on the side of those history clubs and err against the oil money, no history, empty seat, 115 times cheats. Not my words to be clear where I stand, but the way it’s portrayed.
That’s my opinion about how all these, little and big, decisions can go the way they do.
 
Sofiablu said:
In my opinion, there’s no corruption but there is bias. Mainly unconscious bias at that.
If you’re an official and you keep being told that despite City being great, the reason they’re great is due to cheating and you’re hearing this every time City are mentioned. Win, lose or draw.
As well as that, you’ve been brought up hearing how wonderful the redshirts are and how their history defines all that’s good about football. The press, of course, constantly reinforces this.
Maybe, just maybe, when there’s a debatable decision to be made, you err on the side of those history clubs and err against the oil money, no history, empty seat, 115 times cheats. Not my words to be clear where I stand, but the way it’s portrayed.
That’s my opinion about how all these, little and big, decisions can go the way they do.
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, good, rational post but I totally disagree.

The game is being officiated by corruption in plain sight. Strings pulled by the red yank cartel clubs, scheming dodgy agents and south east asian betting ocg.
 
Sofiablu said:
In my opinion, there’s no corruption but there is bias. Mainly unconscious bias at that.
If you’re an official and you keep being told that despite City being great, the reason they’re great is due to cheating and you’re hearing this every time City are mentioned. Win, lose or draw.
As well as that, you’ve been brought up hearing how wonderful the redshirts are and how their history defines all that’s good about football. The press, of course, constantly reinforces this.
Maybe, just maybe, when there’s a debatable decision to be made, you err on the side of those history clubs and err against the oil money, no history, empty seat, 115 times cheats. Not my words to be clear where I stand, but the way it’s portrayed.
That’s my opinion about how all these, little and big, decisions can go the way they do.
Click to expand...
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...
 
Bluesince1979 said:
How much would a ref be paid for selling his story exposing absolute corruption and result manipulation in the premier league, one of the richest sporting competitions in the world?
No idea what pensions retired refs are on, but i would imagine its not a massive pot.

The story would be worth millions

Fair enough, your thinking isnt as crazy as “gets interest free loans” are whatever the fella said, but its still a million miles away from convincing me there is some high level corruption to stop us winning cups
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It was just a thought.

But here is another. Corruption is a big word. What we think is corruption when it is targeted towards us is may be thought of as "protecting the game" by others. It is supposed to be a sport, after all, with an element of risk, surprise, opportunity and emotion, not a procession.

After Sucdamore said the quiet part out loud about a business plan to have a new name on the trophy every six years, it wasn't a big stretch for me to imagine they would be able to take steps to make sure their business plans were met.

I don't even think it's necessarily a bad idea. And I'm not sure Mansour does either which may be why the club is so quiet when he sees, as I am sure he does, how much help Arsenal got this year and how difficult it has become for City to win the league since we won three in a row (yes I know it was four in a row, but that last one was against all odds and exhausted the squad for a couple of years). At the end of the day, a strong, competitive PL increases the value of his investment just as much as his club winning it every year. As long, of course, that it doesn't permanently impair the club's ability to compete and achieve success occasionally or, hopefully, more than occasionally.

I will never buy into this argument that fans of all other clubs say the same about their clubs. Of course they do. But it's a weak argument that means nothing. Individual referees can make individual judgements that can affect the outcome of individual games, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about "levelling the playing field" over a season. I can readily accept City are on the wrong end of such a thing - I can see the evidence with my own eyes. And, although I can get riled up about it on a match by match basis, I can, at least, see the sense in such a process.

Close: X-files music ......
 
Sofiablu said:
In my opinion, there’s no corruption but there is bias. Mainly unconscious bias at that.
If you’re an official and you keep being told that despite City being great, the reason they’re great is due to cheating and you’re hearing this every time City are mentioned. Win, lose or draw.
As well as that, you’ve been brought up hearing how wonderful the redshirts are and how their history defines all that’s good about football. The press, of course, constantly reinforces this.
Maybe, just maybe, when there’s a debatable decision to be made, you err on the side of those history clubs and err against the oil money, no history, empty seat, 115 times cheats. Not my words to be clear where I stand, but the way it’s portrayed.
That’s my opinion about how all these, little and big, decisions can go the way they do.
Click to expand...

Its corrupt and because the truth would almost ruin the brand it won't change my being nice.
It would change if the dirt is dug up and a dozen or so arseholes life's are ruined.
 
Sofiablu said:
In my opinion, there’s no corruption but there is bias. Mainly unconscious bias at that.
If you’re an official and you keep being told that despite City being great, the reason they’re great is due to cheating and you’re hearing this every time City are mentioned. Win, lose or draw.
As well as that, you’ve been brought up hearing how wonderful the redshirts are and how their history defines all that’s good about football. The press, of course, constantly reinforces this.
Maybe, just maybe, when there’s a debatable decision to be made, you err on the side of those history clubs and err against the oil money, no history, empty seat, 115 times cheats. Not my words to be clear where I stand, but the way it’s portrayed.
That’s my opinion about how all these, little and big, decisions can go the way they do.
Click to expand...

My apologies, sniff, sniff,sniff
 
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