Ref Watch City Games - 2023/24

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

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

The fact that it does, on a regular basis, can't be put down to happenstance. One of the biggest issues in the game is that the ref and the VAR shambles can deliver a verdict that beggars belief and professional footballers are expected to lap it up with a smile and a shoulder shrug, whilst the ref, and how many have we seen, can't resist the urge to smirk.

I can't bring myself to look at the highlights, not even as far as Jack's goal, but I've just received a text from my Swindon-supporting mate who informs me that The Times has superimposed Edvard Munch's The Scream onto Erling which was a result of Hooper denyting us a matchwinning opportunity, as my mate puts it! I think this is the first time Erling has had a verbal go at anyone so it's fuckin' obvious to me that something's wrong.

This is the second time we have had a poor performance from Hooper. And that's two out of two. Has he taken tips from Jonny Moss as to how to stay up with play?

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

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.

And that covers about 75% of our VAR decisions, every shitty decision I've experienced over the last ten seasons - they don't want us to score.

 

[tommybooth]

I say chaps. Do you mind calming down after that dick head of a ref fucked us over.

 

[Paladin]

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.

We have to accept there are different, equally valid ways of interpreting the laws. This is in the current laws: "The referee can wait a few seconds to allow a possible advantage to develop." So whilst he is waiting, his decision isn't made yet. He makes his decision after waiting. His decision is to whistle for a foul, or play on for the advantage.

In my view, Hooper didn't wait a few seconds to apply advantage. He applied it as soon as Haaland got back to his feet. He was on the verge of giving the foul, but he changed his mind and clearly indicated with an arm signal, that he was playing advantage. For me, that is his decision made.

We have to respectfully agree to disagree on this point, because neither side is persuading the other side to change their views. I think we will have to form a commission, to be chaired by @jimharri.

 

[JRockBlues]

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.

My own interpretation is that the heavy-set whistling wanker just didn't want to go chasing after Jack & the defenders so blew up instead.

 

[laplandblue]

Show me one example please.

I have been trying to remember the game. I'm quite sure it was a game against Hull. That's when Vincent Kompany got sent off and lost his temper due to the nature of the refereeing. Luckily David Silva played a blinder. It's on here Hull v City, 2014. I haven't read much from that but it will probably be mentioned. I was thinking about trying to find it later on City +.

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

We have to accept there are different, equally valid ways of interpreting the laws. This is in the current laws: "The referee can wait a few seconds to allow a possible advantage to develop." So whilst he is waiting, his decision isn't made yet. He makes his decision after waiting. His decision is to whistle for a foul, or play on for the advantage.

In my view, Hooper didn't wait a few seconds to apply advantage. He applied it as soon as Haaland got back to his feet. He was on the verge of giving the foul, but he changed his mind and clearly indicated with an arm signal, that he was playing advantage. For me, that is his decision made.

We have to respectfully agree to disagree on this point, because neither side is persuading the other side to change their views. I think we will have to form a commission, to be chaired by @jimharri.

i view his decision to pull play back just as the ball reached Grealish as highly suspicious and in contradiction to the way he had refereed the game to that point. I think he made a spare of the moment decision to stop City having the opportunity to win the game and then felt the gravity of his action.

What is without doubt is City are now dealt with in a completely different way to other clubs. No apology or explanation has been forthcoming from Webb or PiGMOL to what MOTD hardly City’s biggest fans called a ‘monster error’.

Webb was pictured with Atkinson and Moss enjoying MUFC corporate hospitality before their season opener against Wolves, coincidentally the referee that day was Hooper, who again made an egregious error, however, this time Webb was on hand to issue Wolves an immediate apology with Hooper subsequently stood down for the next round of games.

I would hope the club approach Webb and demand an explanation but that’s where the club diverge from the fans and players. They have sent Pep out to get savaged by a malicious media and left us fans on our own. Our players are at risk of serious injury as thugs have had cart blanch to kick lumps out of them.

 

[meltonblue]

We have to accept there are different, equally valid ways of interpreting the laws. This is in the current laws: "The referee can wait a few seconds to allow a possible advantage to develop." So whilst he is waiting, his decision isn't made yet. He makes his decision after waiting. His decision is to whistle for a foul, or play on for the advantage.

In my view, Hooper didn't wait a few seconds to apply advantage. He applied it as soon as Haaland got back to his feet. He was on the verge of giving the foul, but he changed his mind and clearly indicated with an arm signal, that he was playing advantage. For me, that is his decision made.

We have to respectfully agree to disagree on this point, because neither side is persuading the other side to change their views. I think we will have to form a commission, to be chaired by @jimharri.

But that would be an absolutely terrible time to give a final advantage! If he was being assessed, he’d have been marked down for that as much as he would the error that he actually did.

 

[meltonblue]

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.

It was in the actual laws to do that though while you were refereeing yourself!

 

[laplandblue]

Two HOME games on the trot that the treble winners have been fucked over. But we did "get away" with a Rodri handball years ago. At least the fat, bald bastard can fuck over Liverpool next week. Stop laughing at the back there.

Yep, City should have taken the chances but that doesn't change the fact that refereeing should be consistent. With different decisions City still get three points last week against Liverpool and three points against Spurs. Liverpool would have one point from the last two games too. The goal City scored against them could have been given. If their winning goal against Fulham wouldn't have been given, rather a free kick to Fulham for the foul in the box there goes another two points. That's four points dropped for City and four gained for Liverpool based on decisions in two games. These decisions change games and seasons.