Ref Watch City Games - 2023/24

[Norbiton]

For what it’s worth I thought it was a bad mistake but nothing sinister about it. It happens, and the chances of Grealish going on to score were pretty thin. I just wonder whether Hooper was knackered, already twenty yards behind play and thought sod this, I’m not trying to sprint fifty yards to see a scuffed shot dribble through to the keeper. Anyone who’s been a referee will have had similar thoughts and no, it shouldn’t happen at the highest level of course

 

[Paladin]

@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.

Three seconds elapsed between the foul and the whistle.

There are different understandings of the laws and the guidance on here, and I can see both sides. But I don't think this was an honest mistake. I think there is something sinister in this, but unfortunately, that is very difficult to prove.

 

[Moss Side's Finest]

For what it’s worth I thought it was a bad mistake but nothing sinister about it. It happens, and the chances of Grealish going on to score were pretty thin. I just wonder whether Hooper was knackered, already twenty yards behind play and thought sod this, I’m not trying to sprint fifty yards to see a scuffed shot dribble through to the keeper. Anyone who’s been a referee will have had similar thoughts and no, it shouldn’t happen at the highest level of course

That scenario would be every bit as bad as if he did it to stop us scoring tbh. You can't stop a team attacking because you are tired ffs

 

[Bluearmy]

Three seconds elapsed between the foul and the whistle.

There are different understandings of the laws and the guidance on here, and I can see both sides. But I don't think this was an honest mistake. I think there is something sinister in this, but unfortunately, that is very difficult to prove.

How anyone can think its anything other than bent, defies all logic and common sense!! The same type of decision as the Rashford one, in that youll likely never see anything similar again!!

 

[meltonblue]

@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.

No, Paladins point was that by putting this arm up, he couldn’t then change his mind. I agree with you on why everyone is pissed off :)

 

[Paladin]

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.

I think you are suggesting he blew his whistle twice. He didn't.

Why are people jumping through hoops to find ways to justify Hooper's poor decision? He's given his explanation via PGMOL. He said he thought the through ball wouldn't reach Grealish. Well, there was one way to find out, delay your whistle for half a second and you will see that in fact the ball did reach Grealish, in a very promising position.

I don't believe Hooper's explanation. I don't believe nonsense about a word in his ear, or any of that rubbish either. I just think for some reason, Hooper didn't want City to score again.

Motive? I said I wouldn't speculate, but maybe on some forum, somewhere, someone is saying they know Hooper's family and they are a bunch of ardent Spurs fans, and despite claiming to be a fan of Jurassic Rangers in the Isthmian League, Hooper was a season ticket holder at White Hart Lane for twenty years and is the Godmother to Harry Kane and Isabella Levy's secret lovechild.

 

[meltonblue]

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.

No that isn’t right, I’ve quoted the guidance and the law saying if advantage doesn’t accrue, he can still bring it back.

The issue is down to how long he left it (as in not long enough), not whether he signalled anything or not.

 

[york away to this!]

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.

Don't forget that this was in time added. At least 43000 had already left to get the tram...

 

[OntarioBlue]

Interesting but totally expected response from the Premier League to the incompetence of their match officials. Rather than deal with the real problem they instead charge and fine those who complain.

Man City charged over players confronting referee

The Football Association charges Manchester City after players surrounded referee Simon Hooper in Sunday's draw against Tottenham.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Paladin]

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

Yeah, thanks for that. I've been through it carefully, and there is this bit you refer to: "The referee can wait a few seconds to allow a possible advantage to develop, and if the non-offending team does not benefit and gains no advantage, the original free kick can be given. However, the non-offending team should not be given two chances, e.g. a player is fouled but recovers and has a shot at goal; if the player does not score, the referee cannot go back and give a free kick for the original offence."

The problem I think, is the law doesn't state clearly when the advantage signal should be made. In my days of refereeing, a referee would assess the situation, possibly for a few seconds and then make a decision. Either give the foul, or play the advantage, giving the appropriate signal (and shouting as loud as possible to the players). There was never a scenario of signalling advantage then going back for the foul.

I think the reaction of the City players indicates that it is also their understanding that once advantage had been signalled, that is the decision made, and it is not then possible to retract that decision and give the foul. If the advantage doesn't materialise, then that's just tough luck.

This said, I still can not recall one instance in professional football, at any level, where a referee signals advantage, then goes back and gives the foul. Yet people say it happens in every game. Maybe it's a subconscious thing that we think we do or don't see, but really pay no real regard to. Well I hope someone can point me to one of these that assistant happen in nearly every game, just so I can set my mind at ease.