Ref Watch City Games - 2023/24

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

We should not have been relying on the ref is what i was saying.

We were not "relying" on the ref. I accept that City should have had the game won comfortably by half time, I accept Spurs played very well especially with half the team unavailable but I do not accept that we should, therefore, absolve the referee of any blame for a shocking error which could have influenced the result as much as our poor finishing. Poor finishing and poor defending are independent issues of poor refereeing. The one does not justify the other.

 

[Ducado]

Answer me then. What happened? Get a shout in his ear? Bribed before the game? What?

You and others keep shouting CORRUPT but no one has actually said why they think it so.
Have some bollocks and say what you think

One could have a number of theories as to why he did what he did but what he did does not look like it was a mistake

 

[Gundogan's Moustache]

I actually think Jack is a lot clearer than what others think, Davies who was closest to him would of had to seriously lunge to even bring him town.

The keeper is also in no mans land on the edge of the box nearly and would have only taken a chip over him

 

[Paladin]

I am not going to go and watch back full matches, just to show you something that happens in nearly every game of football.

Pay more attention in future ;)

Haha. Why not? It should only take a few minutes to find an example, if they are so common.

 

[meltonblue]

Erm,

“I’m assuming he either didn’t see Grealish at all”

As in why he blew, the only two things I can think of are he didn’t see Grealish as his view was blocked or he thought the chance wasn’t as good as it was.

 

[blueyorkie]

I think conscious decisions might be overstating it.

The tackle happens, and he moved to blow the whistle. Haaland unexpectedly gets up, and he changes his mind, motioning for play to move on. This happens in about 1.5 seconds. Haaland plays the ball, and he changes his mind and has decided to blow before the ball gets across the half way line. That last bit happens in less than half a second.

I suspect he's seen Jack with three players around him, and has made the mistake of thinking it's just not going to reach him, so blows up. By the time he whistles, something like a quarter of a second after beginning the motion that he's going to, the ball is with Jack.

Imagine if any of us had to decide on a foul, put a whistle to our mouths, make a decision on playing on, motioning to play on, and then weighing up whether to blow - knowing that if he left it too long the Spurs players would complain. All in front of 50,000 people, millions on TV, and in a high pressure, adrenaline fuelled match. The rule for advantage used to involve two arms, but was changed so one is allowed, because it was needed so quickly and it wasn't physically possible for refs to move their bodies in the time. All in about a second from the first non-whistle, to the actual whistle. Most of us would probably have tripped over our own feet, as our brains tried to work out what to do.

Yes, we expect the best referees to be able to make very quick decisions, but I see it as three in a very short space of time, and it looks to me like he's just been too hasty under pressure.

If they aren’t up to the task they should not be there!

 

[Bluesince1979]

I think conscious decisions might be overstating it.

The tackle happens, and he moved to blow the whistle. Haaland unexpectedly gets up, and he changes his mind, motioning for play to move on. This happens in about 1.5 seconds. Haaland plays the ball, and he changes his mind and has decided to blow before the ball gets across the half way line. That last bit happens in less than half a second.

I suspect he's seen Jack with three players around him, and has made the mistake of thinking it's just not going to reach him, so blows up. By the time he whistles, something like a quarter of a second after beginning the motion that he's going to, the ball is with Jack.

Imagine if any of us had to decide on a foul, put a whistle to our mouths, make a decision on playing on, motioning to play on, and then weighing up whether to blow - knowing that if he left it too long the Spurs players would complain. All in front of 50,000 people, millions on TV, and in a high pressure, adrenaline fuelled match. The rule for advantage used to involve two arms, but was changed so one is allowed, because it was needed so quickly and it wasn't physically possible for refs to move their bodies in the time. All in about a second from the first non-whistle, to the actual whistle. Most of us would probably have tripped over our own feet, as our brains tried to work out what to do.

Yes, we expect the best referees to be able to make very quick decisions, but I see it as three in a very short space of time, and it looks to me like he's just been too hasty under pressure.

Yep. As simple all that.

 

[Bluesince1979]

What an attitude.
I don't have to explain anything to you. The evidence was there for all to see. If you can't see it that's your problem.

I dont know why youre getting your knickers in a twist with me. Im as pissed off as you but i dont think the actual corruption exists, you think it does, im just interested in what way you think it does? Thats all. To use your parlance, its kinda how forums work.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

City fans can cite instances of questionable decisions in the very recent past - the disallowed goal against Liverpool is one - and we can all add plain wrong ones as well - the penalty in the cup final, the "goal" at the swamp last season to quote but two. Some of our fans are convinced that we are victims of corruption. I cannot rule it out but I/we have no proof. Other clubs feel exactly the same and this season Wolves appear to have suffered badly. On the other hand Liverpool suffered at Spurs from a decision which was demonstrably wrong and Arsenal have a burning sense of grievance, whether justified or not. Every club seems to lack confidence in the quality of officiating, which seems startlingly low at times. Someone suggested earlier that one of the first things an independent regulator should do on taking up office is to institute a full scale review of the, recruitment, training and independence of referees and other officials. Then they could consider how to ensure proper respect for officials.

 

[meltonblue]

The process is quite clear. The referee "plays the advantage" to see if there is any advantage. In this case if Porro is the next player to gain possession there is no advantage and he awards City the free kick, but in this case it was clear that the next player to gain possession was almost certainly going to be our Jack (who had not yet touched the ball) and he was in a very advantageous position. If Jack then fell over his own feet, blasted the ball into the crowd or such like, he would have wasted that advantage but it could not be denied City had gained an advantage. The referee seemed to make an indefensible decision that Spurs had not gained an advantage from their foul and so City should be brought back! What exactly had he waited to see?

Correct, I’m not arguing any of that.