Ref Watch City Games - 2023/24

[jamielowndes]

@Paladin stated this…..

“They take a few seconds to make their assessment of whether or not there might be an advantage”

So you are both right they can change their mind within a few seconds if there’s no advantage. The reason everyone is pissed off is there was a clear advantage.

Now in true PGMOL fashion I’d imagine they’d argue a “few” seconds is subjective.

It's my understanding that waving the play ahead with his arm is a signal that advantage had been played. He waits for Haaland to get back up while he's holding the whistle to his mouth. That is the "few seconds" being discussed.

Then when he waves the arm forward, that's Hooper saying advantage has been given, play on.

So for me, the moment he waves his arm forward, he's not giving us the advantage, he's signalling that it's already been given. Therefore, he's made a mistake in blowing it back.

 

[shemnel]

well, after two nights, and for some reason (perhaps I am delirious with winter cold), I am going to defend Hooper's decision as a mistake, over some sort of nefarious plot to stymie our soft-centred lads;

Ball breaks, Haaland is fouled, Hooper puts his whistle to mouth and signals for a direct free kick, just about immediately (within a second);




Haaland is up in a flash, in the same sliding movement as his fall, takes one touch to put himself a couple of yards wider and Hooper very quickly retracts a hand and signals what strongly appears to be advantage, before Haaland has touched again for a 2nd time.



Then the moment of everyone's ire; Haaland's very next touch (his 2nd of only two) is to play a long ball over to Jack. Hooper then blows his whistle as it crosses the halfway line (not when Jack is clean through) so the decision has already been made in his head and time is taken for the whistle to reach his mouth, so he's probably decided more towards when Haaland played the pass, or just after;




My interpretation is that Hooper blew the whistle for the foul, played advantage and then got confused about one of two things; that 1) he'd already blown and signalled a free kick and somehow thought he'd made an error with play on, or 2) that he'd blown for a free kick which he was allowing to be taken straightaway and thought he better bring it back for rolling ball.

I know i'm being lenient, and whatever he did was not good reffing, but "someone in his earpiece" seems unfeasible given ~2 seconds passed between foul and the ref having his whistle in mouth (2nd time) as above. That's not a lot of time for a 3rd party to react and get an instruction out to Hooper and then for Hooper to react to that and whistle. I just don't see it. Furthermore, why play on? if he's out to nobble us, just stop the game for the free kick, simple, he doesn't have to play on. It would have annoyed everyone but it happens every weekend. Finally, Occam's Razor dictates we take the simplest answer constructed from the fewest elements, and in a league where ineptitude seems to surface every single weekend, it just seems like it was a crappy mistake.

 

[Blue Maverick]

well, after two nights, and for some reason (perhaps I am delirious with winter cold), I am going to defend Hooper's decision as a mistake, over some sort of nefarious plot to stymie our soft-centred lads;

Ball breaks, Haaland is fouled, Hooper puts his whistle to mouth and signals for a direct free kick, just about immediately (within a second);

View attachment 100505


Haaland is up in a flash, in the same sliding movement as his fall, takes one touch to put himself a couple of yards wider and Hooper very quickly retracts a hand and signals what strongly appears to be advantage, before Haaland has touched again for a 2nd time.

View attachment 100506

Then the moment of everyone's ire; Haaland's very next touch (his 2nd of only two) is to play a long ball over to Jack. Hooper then blows his whistle as it crosses the halfway line (not when Jack is clean through) so the decision has already been made in his head and time is taken for the whistle to reach his mouth, so he's probably decided more towards when Haaland played the pass, or just after;

View attachment 100507


My interpretation is that Hooper blew the whistle for the foul, played advantage and then got confused about one of two things; that 1) he'd already blown and signalled a free kick and somehow thought he'd made an error with play on, or 2) that he'd blown for a free kick which he was allowing to be taken straightaway and thought he better bring it back for rolling ball.

I know i'm being lenient, and whatever he did was not good reffing, but "someone in his earpiece" seems unfeasible given ~2 seconds passed between foul and the ref having his whistle in mouth (2nd time) as above. That's not a lot of time for a 3rd party to react and get an instruction out to Hooper and then for Hooper to react to that and whistle. I just don't see it. Furthermore, why play on? if he's out to nobble us, just stop the game for the free kick, simple, he doesn't have to play on. It would have annoyed everyone but it happens every weekend. Finally, Occam's Razor dictates we take the simplest answer constructed from the fewest elements, and in a league where ineptitude seems to surface every single weekend, it just seems like it was a crappy mistake.

He didn’t whistle for the foul, it’s already been proven, he goes to whistle, sees an advantage raises his arm, takes 3 steps then decides to blow for god knows what, no wonder the players went fucking spare at him, what are they supposed to do, it’s not about City controlling their players it’s about PIGMOL not creating that situatio, the players aren’t robots, if it’s for a stupid foul etc I get it but this was one of his many stupid decisions this season.

 

[cheekybids]

It's my understanding that waving the play ahead with his arm is a signal that advantage had been played. He waits for Haaland to get back up while he's holding the whistle to his mouth. That is the "few seconds" being discussed.

Then when he waves the arm forward, that's Hooper saying advantage has been given, play on.

So for me, the moment he waves his arm forward, he's not giving us the advantage, he's signalling that it's already been given. Therefore, he's made a mistake in blowing it back.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I stand by the lying cunts at PGMOL calling subjective.

 

[cheekybids]

well, after two nights, and for some reason (perhaps I am delirious with winter cold), I am going to defend Hooper's decision as a mistake, over some sort of nefarious plot to stymie our soft-centred lads;

Ball breaks, Haaland is fouled, Hooper puts his whistle to mouth and signals for a direct free kick, just about immediately (within a second);

View attachment 100505


Haaland is up in a flash, in the same sliding movement as his fall, takes one touch to put himself a couple of yards wider and Hooper very quickly retracts a hand and signals what strongly appears to be advantage, before Haaland has touched again for a 2nd time.

View attachment 100506

Then the moment of everyone's ire; Haaland's very next touch (his 2nd of only two) is to play a long ball over to Jack. Hooper then blows his whistle as it crosses the halfway line (not when Jack is clean through) so the decision has already been made in his head and time is taken for the whistle to reach his mouth, so he's probably decided more towards when Haaland played the pass, or just after;

View attachment 100507


My interpretation is that Hooper blew the whistle for the foul, played advantage and then got confused about one of two things; that 1) he'd already blown and signalled a free kick and somehow thought he'd made an error with play on, or 2) that he'd blown for a free kick which he was allowing to be taken straightaway and thought he better bring it back for rolling ball.

I know i'm being lenient, and whatever he did was not good reffing, but "someone in his earpiece" seems unfeasible given ~2 seconds passed between foul and the ref having his whistle in mouth (2nd time) as above. That's not a lot of time for a 3rd party to react and get an instruction out to Hooper and then for Hooper to react to that and whistle. I just don't see it. Furthermore, why play on? if he's out to nobble us, just stop the game for the free kick, simple, he doesn't have to play on. It would have annoyed everyone but it happens every weekend. Finally, Occam's Razor dictates we take the simplest answer constructed from the fewest elements, and in a league where ineptitude seems to surface every single weekend, it just seems like it was a crappy mistake.

You’ve got to remember Hoopers view which the Ariel picture doesn’t provide. He can clearly see the ball going over the defenders heads who have their backs to goal whilst Grealish is sprinting forward.

He’s got the same view as Haaland (-6”) & that’s why Haaland was incensed along with 50k others who saw it.

 

[shemnel]

He didn’t whistle for the foul, it’s already been proven, he goes to whistle, sees an advantage raises his arm, takes 3 steps then decides to blow for god knows what, no wonder the players went fucking spare at him, what are they supposed to do, it’s not about City controlling their players it’s about PIGMOL not creating that situatio, the players aren’t robots, if it’s for a stupid foul etc I get it but this was one of his many stupid decisions this season.

You’ve got to remember Hoopers view which the Ariel picture doesn’t provide. He can clearly see the ball going over the defenders heads who have their backs to goal whilst Grealish is sprinting forward.

He’s got the same view as Haaland (-6”) & that’s why Haaland was incensed along with 50k others who saw it.

points taken, i still think this one is a shitty mistake

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Have PiGMOL said anything on this yet (despite putting Hooper under pressure and appointing him for midweek)

 

[cheekybids]

points taken, i still think this one is a shitty mistake

Yeah I’m in the shitty conscious bias mistakes.

I didn’t think the ref was out to “do us” I do think there’s an element of keeping it competitive, mistakes v City aren’t criticised,& let’s be honest if you are a ref watching this shit show the world has taught you that your job is at risk if you get a Dipper decision wrong but City is not a problem.

 

[hammocity]

I refereed in and around Manchester until the late 90s. I refereed in Warrington in the 2000s and 2010s. I have been involved in football administration for over 40 years. I currently organise weekly vets football.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but it has always been in the laws that advantage must be signalled with one or both arms.

Playing advantage is a decision that referees must take in every game. They take a few seconds to make their assessment of whether or not there might be an advantage, and then they make their decision. Either play an advantage, or give a free kick. This then becomes the final decision in respect of the offence that occurred. There is no scope to play advantage then give the free kick. The advice that goes with the laws prohibits this.

I stand by this interpretation. People keep saying it is a common occurrence for referees to signal advantage then go back and give a free kick if the advantage didn't materialise. They are wrong. I have challenged them to show me just one single example. The best I have had in return is that there might have been one when we played Hull City at some point. Certainly not that common, as we've not played Hull City since 2017.

Read this on IFAB, it’s within the ref’s remit to allow an advantage then bring play back, I’ve seen it many times. It does say advantage can be played but if a player gets a shot away that’s the advantage done with.

Advantage | IFAB

Advantage

www.footballrules.com

 

[jamielowndes]

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I stand by the lying cunts at PGMOL calling subjective.

They don't want to hang out one of their own to dry.

They need to present a united front. So they're going to play the sympathy card and then you have Gallagher going on TV saying he has followed the laws of the game.

No he hasn't. You give advantage or you bring it back. You cant do both. He clearly did both.