I agree it makes him look worse. It makes him look like a liar trying desperately to convince everyone that what they clearly saw didn't happen.If they were going to lie, there’d have been no reason to say Hooper signalled with his arm without realising it. It makes him look worse than saying he knowingly signalled. Was surprised Webb said that.
I agree. The motive is unknown and Webb hasn’t clarified it very well.
I'm just going where the evidence takes me.He blew the whistle before he knew whether it was going to accrue, he made an early and shit judgment.
I’m not inventing anything, let alone facts. I’m giving an opinion on his thought process that I’ve been consistent with since it happened. There’s been some inventing of laws and guidance on this thread but that’s it as far as I’ve seen.
You think he’s done it knowingly to stop us and so is corrupt, I think he’s incompetent. Neither of them are good things.
I think Webb has made it worse. I’ll still err on the side of Hooper making a dreadful decision. As you say, neither are a good look for the referee.I agree the motive is unknown. The options seem to me to be these:
(a) innocent mistake. This requires the referee to have committed three serious errors within about a five second period.
The first is that he allowed a foul to go unpunished in order to see if an advantage accrued, in circumstances where it was pretty unlikely there would be any advantage, because of Haaland's loss of balance, his position and direction of travel on the field and relative lack of blue shirts.
The second is that he signalled an advantage without meaning to. Communication for a referee, including the use of gestures, is something as I understand it they are very hot on. You know when a ref has given a free kick for a handball, and even during the 6-1 we all knew why Clattenberg didn't give the penalty on Micah when he did that stupid fingers-entwined gesture. So this is a second monster error within a second of the first.
The third is that having - on Webb's explanation - decided to wait to see if an advantage accrued, but having made that decision, blew inexplicably early before seeing whether any advantage had in fact accrued. Having decided to wait and see, he didn't wait and see. That is perplexing beyond belief.
(b) Deliberate decision. Having decided to play an advantage he changed his mind after Haaland hit the through ball and Grealish was in the clear.
Insert your own reasons as to why he might have changed his mind. None of them are innocent.
Me? I'm just going on the probabilities. The more you have to invent facts to fit your theory, the less likely it is to be true.
I agree the motive is unknown. The options seem to me to be these:
(a) innocent mistake. This requires the referee to have committed three serious errors within about a five second period.
The first is that he allowed a foul to go unpunished in order to see if an advantage accrued, in circumstances where it was pretty unlikely there would be any advantage, because of Haaland's loss of balance, his position and direction of travel on the field and relative lack of blue shirts.
The second is that he signalled an advantage without meaning to. Communication for a referee, including the use of gestures, is something as I understand it they are very hot on. You know when a ref has given a free kick for a handball, and even during the 6-1 we all knew why Clattenberg didn't give the penalty on Micah when he did that stupid fingers-entwined gesture. So this is a second monster error within a second of the first.
The third is that having - on Webb's explanation - decided to wait to see if an advantage accrued, but having made that decision, blew inexplicably early before seeing whether any advantage had in fact accrued. Having decided to wait and see, he didn't wait and see. That is perplexing beyond belief.
(b) Deliberate decision. Having decided to play an advantage he changed his mind after Haaland hit the through ball and Grealish was in the clear.
Insert your own reasons as to why he might have changed his mind. None of them are innocent.
Me? I'm just going on the probabilities. The more you have to invent facts to fit your theory, the less likely it is to be true.
It doesn’t help that both Owen and Webb sound insincere on that program each month.
I think he makes his officials more nervous of making decisions. He should be doing the exact opposite and getting them to relax and give themselves that extra time to make the right calls, or at least ones you can see how they’ve got there.
We’re in a nosedive currently, where refs are scared to make decisions and when they do, they’re getting more wrong than they should. I bet their collective confidence is really low.
NDJ loved him as a ref.I agree completely but that’s not how he reffed.
I think, with a little application and imagination they could plunge a bit lower whilst Webb has the reins of PIGMOLDitto. They’re at a bottom of what was already a very low ebb right now.
I think Webb has made it worse. I’ll still err on the side of Hooper making three dreadful decisions within a five second period each of which benefitted Spurs even though they were the team that committed the foul. As you say, neither are a good look for the referee.
I agree it makes him look worse. It makes him look like a liar trying desperately to convince everyone that what they clearly saw didn't happen.
To repeat, Hooper went to blow his whistle, he didn't. He clearly signalled advantage. To now say he didn't realise he had signalled without explaining the deliberate decision not to blow his whistle is treating us like morons.