And the ref for Sunday is........

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

The zeal and enthusiasm, nay, glee, with which Corporal Jones dealt with the 'penalty' leads me to think that he had a pre-chosen method of dealing with this issue. First sniff of a dive he was 'diving' in. He has put all his eggs on the way Sergio fell and not one single element of the decision on the swinging leg contacting both shins. I think it might be some time before we see another shocking decision such as this. Sergio might feel a little bit for Bellamy's second yellow when he got shafted by Crappenberg.

 

[Palace84]

And he was wrong in his interpretation of the law anyway. He blew up for the Aguero penalty incident, so why did he blow his whistle and award a free kick to Southampton? Referees should only blow their whistle for a 'penal' offence. A dive is not something that should be penalised, it is something that should be noted and gone back to when the ball is out of play.

Hi Eli, This is covered under Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct. Whilst I agree that the decision is incorrect in the fact that Sergio did not "attempt to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)," the referee can stop play for the following:-

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player.
Read more at <a class="postlink" href="http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct#iF00iw3LsSTcyBd4.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... STcyBd4.99</a> and is also further covered under the interpretations of Law 12 under cautions for Unsporting Behaviour.

Whilst his opinion has proved to be wrong, his interpretation is correct.

 

[Academica]

Either just before the penalty incident or just after, their was a situation where in or around the centre circle he gave Southamton an advantage. They almost played a neat one -two but over hit the pass slightly; City regained possession - then he brought the play back for a free kick. This and the penalty were really the only errors I noticed. No arguments from me on any other decisons, bookings, free kicks - anything at all.

The error for the penalty though was perhaps the worst decision to go against us since Kompany's Red Card in the cup tie against United for the perfect tackle on Nani. I just don't see how they can allow him to have a game next weekend. He was so close and staring right at it. I am sure he tried his best and I am sure he is honest with no agenda but for such shocking decisions refs just have to be held accountable more than they are.

I always try to be honest and take my sky blue specs off when discussing refs and still even after all this time believe things will even themselves out but we have to have a much higher standard than what we are currently getting.

'Things will even themselves out' bet you can't wait for Father Christmas to come.

 

[Paladin]

And he was wrong in his interpretation of the law anyway. He blew up for the Aguero penalty incident, so why did he blow his whistle and award a free kick to Southampton? Referees should only blow their whistle for a 'penal' offence. A dive is not something that should be penalised, it is something that should be noted and gone back to when the ball is out of play.

Hi Eli, This is covered under Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct. Whilst I agree that the decision is incorrect in the fact that Sergio did not "attempt to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)," the referee can stop play for the following:-

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player.
Read more at <a class="postlink" href="http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct#iF00iw3LsSTcyBd4.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... STcyBd4.99</a> and is also further covered under the interpretations of Law 12 under cautions for Unsporting Behaviour.

Whilst his opinion has proved to be wrong, his interpretation is correct.

I take your point here Palace84, and I confess I am not fully up to date with the technicalities of the laws since I stopped refereeing a few years ago. But I still question the necessity to stop play for this offence.

The updated clause in Law 12 you have quoted does seem to give the referees a get out clause for stopping play at their own will. Just issue a spurious caution, and get away with interrupting play.

Law 5 - The Referee also lists the following responsibility of the referee: "Takes disciplinary action against players guilty of cautionable and sending-off offences. He is not obliged to take this action immediately but must do so when the ball next goes out of play." I accept that this applies more to an advantage situation, and that Southampton would not have had an advantage as we were attacking.

 

[OB1]

Either just before the penalty incident or just after, their was a situation where in or around the centre circle he gave Southamton an advantage. They almost played a neat one -two but over hit the pass slightly; City regained possession - then he brought the play back for a free kick. This and the penalty were really the only errors I noticed. No arguments from me on any other decisons, bookings, free kicks - anything at all.

The error for the penalty though was perhaps the worst decision to go against us since Kompany's Red Card in the cup tie against United for the perfect tackle on Nani. I just don't see how they can allow him to have a game next weekend. He was so close and staring right at it. I am sure he tried his best and I am sure he is honest with no agenda but for such shocking decisions refs just have to be held accountable more than they are.

I always try to be honest and take my sky blue specs off when discussing refs and still even after all this time believe things will even themselves out but we have to have a much higher standard than what we are currently getting.

Good sensible post. There weren't that many incorrect calls, but the ones that there were, were pretty fucking embarrassing. Personally, I thought he was guilty of mental weakness. The small town Johnnies got on his back over a couple of early decisions, the Wanyama booking included, and he folded faster than a cheap card table as a result. Bearing in mind the Gouffran offside call last season, you'd be hard pushed to make an agenda charge stick on Jones, but the unwillingness of officials (Jon Moss excepted) to award us even nailed on penalties, never mind contentious ones, is becoming a real issue. Ya Ya vs Stoke, Aguero x 3 vs the rags, Dzeko vs CSKA, Aguero again today. It's getting ridiculous

There was another very poor decision when Aguero was fouled just outside the box. He gave Manga two yellow cards for making three fouls and I didn't at the time think the one he didn't flash a card for was a foul. You can argue the merits all day long of the two cards he brandished; my view was that the second was harsh and that the two fouls together did not warrant a sending off. I think the ref was far too quick to reach for his pocket on the second one.

 

[Palace84]

I get what you're saying Eli. To the players immediately around you and if this were to happen on a parks pitch then I agree. However at the semi professional levels and upwards referees are always going to stop the game to caution for this as it could be impossible to sell if you then wait for the next stoppage in play. It is about the communication of what you doing, regardless of whether it is correct or not, to the other people in the ground. If play went on for another 2 or 3 minutes and then you went back to caution, there is a chance that you would have to indicate why you are doing it. Depending on how well or otherwise you communicate the offense, you could easily inflame the players and hence the crowd and your match control could evaporate. Yesterday, the players, as side from the usual moans that accompany all decisions, just got on with the game, but on another day.....

 

[Carstairs]

I was at the Birmingham vs Forest game on Saturday, and a disallowed Birmingham goal (handball on the line) was given after the fourth official intervened (I think Stuart Pearce may even have instgated it).

The referee called the players back, allowed the goal, and sent the defender off. All of this happened with 30 - 40 odd seconds of the incident.

I'd always been a bit sceptical about video refs, but having seen first hand how the correct outcome can be reached with a very slight delay in proceedings, I have to say my mind is made up very mucch in favour of changing the current system. For the sake of the integrity of the sport at the highest levels, I am now convinced that the 4th official should have a screen and the ability to quickly review an incident and intervene if necessary, not constantly throughout the match, but in those incidents where the ref / linesmen have got it completely wrong. In cricketing parlance, to "eliminate the howlers".

 

[berryblue]

Jones is just another Ref in the "Clatterburke" mold. Opinionated, Arrogant and too involved in the emotion of the game. A recipe for errors!

 

[oakiecokie]

Jones is just another Ref in the "Clatterburke" mold. Opinionated, Arrogant and too involved in the emotion of the game. A recipe for errors!

The twat looked very arrogant when he was "talking" to MP on the touchline.It was as though he wasn`t going to even let MP have any say,without him having the last word.
The look on MP face said it all,"you fucking little Hitler".

 

[blue b4 the moon]

I was at the Birmingham vs Forest game on Saturday, and a disallowed Birmingham goal (handball on the line) was given after the fourth official intervened (I think Stuart Pearce may even have instgated it).

The referee called the players back, allowed the goal, and sent the defender off. All of this happened with 30 - 40 odd seconds of the incident.

I'd always been a bit sceptical about video refs, but having seen first hand how the correct outcome can be reached with a very slight delay in proceedings, I have to say my mind is made up very mucch in favour of changing the current system. For the sake of the integrity of the sport at the highest levels, I am now convinced that the 4th official should have a screen and the ability to quickly review an incident and intervene if necessary, not constantly throughout the match, but in those incidents where the ref / linesmen have got it completely wrong. In cricketing parlance, to "eliminate the howlers".

That Swarbrick guy was having the fourth official talk him through the decisions against Swansea, he was still shit.

Fat Dowd was fourth official on Sunday, I'm not at all confident he'd get stuff right even watching a reply.