Ref Watch City Games - 2023/24

[Alan Harper's Tash]

As I said.

I haven't, I said "should have", not "did have".

I know I had a very good view of it, and it wasn't a foul. It was clearly from the side not behind, and it was clear he won the ball, he even wins it from the side the referee is on.

I don’t think anybody is defending it being a foul. It clearly wasn’t.

So far in this thread, we’ve had a photo still put up that shows the referee’s view is impaired and we can’t see the linesman. He’s obviously guessed and got it wrong.

I have no problem debating referees. What was impossible in the past was that if anyone tried to debate anything except obvious corruption, they were labelled a WUM.

Now, for whatever reason, the discourse is more genial and we can debate these things more cordially.

Referees will always make mistakes and have to guess at times. It’s the nature and speed of football now.

He should have booked Mitoma for his kicking the ball away. That would be my main criticism of him.

 

[bluemanchester]

I don’t think anybody is defending it being a foul. It clearly wasn’t.

So far in this thread, we’ve had a photo still put up that shows the referee’s view is impaired and we can’t see the linesman. He’s obviously guessed and got it wrong.

I have no problem debating referees. What was impossible in the past was that if anyone tried to debate anything except obvious corruption, they were labelled a WUM.

Now, for whatever reason, the discourse is more genial and we can debate these things more cordially.

Referees will always make mistakes and have to guess at times. It’s the nature and speed of football now.

He should have booked Mitoma for his kicking the ball away. That would be my main criticism of him.

The first time,
the second time
or both times;-)

 

[Eds]

I don’t think anybody is defending it being a foul. It clearly wasn’t.

So far in this thread, we’ve had a photo still put up that shows the referee’s view is impaired and we can’t see the linesman. He’s obviously guessed and got it wrong.

I have no problem debating referees. What was impossible in the past was that if anyone tried to debate anything except obvious corruption, they were labelled a WUM.

Now, for whatever reason, the discourse is more genial and we can debate these things more cordially.

Referees will always make mistakes and have to guess at times. It’s the nature and speed of football now.

He should have booked Mitoma for his kicking the ball away. That would be my main criticism of him.

The liner was at least 25 yards away so probably had no clue either.

 

[Cassandra]

I don’t think anybody is defending it being a foul. It clearly wasn’t.

So far in this thread, we’ve had a photo still put up that shows the referee’s view is impaired and we can’t see the linesman. He’s obviously guessed and got it wrong.

I have no problem debating referees. What was impossible in the past was that if anyone tried to debate anything except obvious corruption, they were labelled a WUM.

Now, for whatever reason, the discourse is more genial and we can debate these things more cordially.

Referees will always make mistakes and have to guess at times. It’s the nature and speed of football now.

He should have booked Mitoma for his kicking the ball away. That would be my main criticism of him.

Indeed sometimes referees and assistants have to guess, for example when a ball goes out of play and they don’t know for sure who touched it last. In the case of the challenge by Foden the referee has no need to make decision if he hasn’t seen the incident properly. In is much easier to forgive a referee for not giving a foul because he/she was unsighted than it is to forgive the decision to award a foul when there was no foul there fo him/her to see.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Indeed sometimes referees and assistants have to guess, for example when a ball goes out of play and they don’t know for sure who touched it last. In the case of the challenge by Foden the referee has no need to make decision if he hasn’t seen the incident properly. In is much easier to forgive a referee for not giving a foul because he/she was unsighted than it is to forgive the decision to award a foul when there was no foul there fo him/her to see.

I don’t disagree, but neither of us were in his head at the time and he’s obviously thought something has happened that didn’t in reality.

It’s the kind of decision that VAR was brought in for. Had it been given as a penalty, it’d have been overturned.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The first time,
the second time
or both times;-)

Well, at least the second time, given he’d given Rodri one by then.

 

[Stephen230]

The referee reacted to the flag and blew the whistle.

I genuinely thought protocol was to let the play develop and let VAR decide if the ball ends up in the net. After this nonsense I now think the protocol is (especially where we are concerned) whatever the f*ck they want it to be.

The protocol is if the linesman thinks there is an offside, to delay the flag:

“When an immediate goal scoring opportunity is likely to occur”

Other than that, the linesman will flag immediately, as they’ve always done.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

The protocol is if the linesman thinks there is an offside, to delay the flag:

“When an immediate goal scoring opportunity is likely to occur”

Other than that, the linesman will flag immediately, as they’ve always done.

'Immediate goal scoring opportunity' is another one if those subjective calls that gives the officials far too much wiggle room.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

'Immediate goal scoring opportunity' is another one if those subjective calls that gives the officials far too much wiggle room.

If every single word was heard and transcribed, you’d still be screaming corruption.

 

[Mcfc1.9.8.0]

On Saturday never mind the fouls how man yards did Brighton gain on every free kick and throw in I know every team gains a few yards but they took the piss. Add to that they must have had 4 or 5 foul throws they weren’t pulled up on