Ref Watch

cyan said:
part of a referee's role is to ensure player safety. The result of not punishing Martinelli for that challenge is that Martinelli was himself injured in an act of revenge - and presumably on the basis that he not booked Martinelli he then did not book Caicedo - he then potentially gave free range to other revenge challenges, and the game is left out of control.

A good referee deals strongly with early foul play and that sets the ground rules. He could have booked or sent off Martinelli and then if Caicedo still thought he needed to take revenge he could have been dealt with the same way - and then everyone knows. Both codes of Rugby are so far ahead of football in looking to eradicate foul play by strong consistent refereeing and take a particularly strong stance on anything that involves a head injury - it doesn't ruin a game - it makes for a game in which skilful players on either side are allowed to play without thugs ruining the game.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Martinelli should have gone. Some are defending him online saying he kept his eyes on the ball. Then Haaland doesn't get the pen because he looked at Pickford.

That's the rules from 20 years back. Now they have a duty to be aware of other players and to not knacker them unintentionally. Not seeing the player is no defence.
 
mattcity5 said:
How many times though do we hear commentators/'experts' saying the ref 'spoilt the game' when they give an early red card?

I think they just want to avoid doing that, but in doing so they're avoiding doing their jobs. Not saying there's no corruption, but more often than not it's due to cowardice on their part.
Click to expand...
@mattcity5 I've said many times that corruption does not always entail bribes. If you do not follow the rules/laws of the game you are acting corruptly. If you are advised by the PL that the product is better for the tv viewers with 22 men on the pitch so do not or try not to send anybody off, you are acting corruptly.
Cowardice is too easy as an excuse. Was he frightened of the abuse he might have got of he had sent Martinelli off ? If so he is in the wrong job.
 
cyan said:
part of a referee's role is to ensure player safety. The result of not punishing Martinelli for that challenge is that Martinelli was himself injured in an act of revenge - and presumably on the basis that he not booked Martinelli he then did not book Caicedo - he then potentially gave free range to other revenge challenges, and the game is left out of control.

A good referee deals strongly with early foul play and that sets the ground rules. He could have booked or sent off Martinelli and then if Caicedo still thought he needed to take revenge he could have been dealt with the same way - and then everyone knows. Both codes of Rugby are so far ahead of football in looking to eradicate foul play by strong consistent refereeing and take a particularly strong stance on anything that involves a head injury - it doesn't ruin a game - it makes for a game in which skilful players on either side are allowed to play without thugs ruining the game.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you but I believe they are 'encouraged' not to send players off because it affects the product. If Milner had been sent off against us last season, 3 yellows, Sky would not have had the end to end frantic last 10 minutes. If Martinelli had been sent off Arsenal's title hopes were gone, the neutral turns off and sky, the paymasters are very unhappy.
 
Blue Mist said:
@mattcity5 I've said many times that corruption does not always entail bribes. If you do not follow the rules/laws of the game you are acting corruptly. If you are advised by the PL that the product is better for the tv viewers with 22 men on the pitch so do not or try not to send anybody off, you are acting corruptly.
Cowardice is too easy as an excuse. Was he frightened of the abuse he might have got of he had sent Martinelli off ? If so he is in the wrong job.
Click to expand...

I've said there's corruption loads of times too, maybe we just have slightly different definitions here but I don't think we're entirely disagreeing.

Lots of the laws of the game are open to slightly different interpretations (eg. What is 'excessive force').

I don't particularly think refs are told by TV companies or the league to not do early red cards in big games. However, they have probably worked out themselves that there are usually less obvious problems if they are cautious. That to me leads to cowardly refereeing and what we've been up against numerous times this season.

However, it's a fine line. I've said numerous times this season that there have been games where the opposition has been given a helping hand by this kind of refereeing. The most obvious being at Anfield, where we were unable to play our game and have any kind of control, because the ref let everything go. It ended up chaotic, which just suited Liverpool. That one went too far, was too obvious and to me should have warranted some kind of investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.