Ref Watch

[Paladin]

I think we always go OTT about Taylor because of his (alleged) allegiance,but i don't think he has ever properly lived up to that billing......he is usually far better than most.

I think Taylor is generally ok, until you look at his record in derbies. He does give a lot of penalties against us. Some stone wall, others not so much. The Chelsea debacle is another outlier. Can't really fault him where we're not playing though.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Chelsea home he was.

Screwed up big time that day. His antics were quietly passing by most fans (blocking the passing lanes in our midfield; disparity in the application of the LOTG- usual game management shit). He would have gotten away with it if Sideshow Bob hadn't decided to bring Aguero down when he was clean through. That left Alty with a bit of a dilemma; Reduce Chelsea to 10 men and pretty much guarantee a City win, or do nothing and give the game away.

He chose the latter and once the cat was out of the bag he couldn't help himself but go all in. It was Oliver actions (or lack of them) that led the incidents that got both Sergio and Fern to be sent off. It was a bent performance that day, and there have been many more since.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Screwed up big time that day. His antics were quietly passing by most fans (blocking the passing lanes in our midfield; disparity in the application of the LOTG- usual game management shit). He would have gotten away with it if Sideshow Bob hadn't decided to bring Aguero down when he was clean through. That left Alty with a bit of a dilemma; Reduce Chelsea to 10 men and pretty much guarantee a City win, or do nothing and give the game away.

He chose the latter and once the cat was out of the bag he couldn't help himself but go all in. It was Oliver actions (or lack of them) that led the incidents that got both Sergio and Fern to be sent off. It was a bent performance that day, and there have been many more since.

the pair in tandem, as with last year's Derby. From the minute Costa equalised on the hour mark we only got 1 freekick in the rest of the game, in the 87th minute on the touchline on half way. We made 11 tackles, and gave away 7 fouls. Chelsea made 15 tackles, only 1 foul. Plus the Luiz incident, plus the stonewall Gundogan penalty appeal on half-time not given, plus the 2 red cards at the end. Screwjob that day that Twattwell can only aspire to given its magnitude. Up there with Atkinson in the 3-2.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

The way to get to the top is compliance and there’s no way they get to where they are unless they take direction from the Boss.

 

[bernard o'silver]

I think Taylor is generally ok, until you look at his record in derbies. He does give a lot of penalties against us. Some stone wall, others not so much. The Chelsea debacle is another outlier. Can't really fault him where we're not playing though.

The penalties awarded in derbies got me thinking .From memory I can only recall us being awarded three .Only one was at the swamp , which was Keith Curles superb effort in 1992 . The next two were at home Vasells (missed) 2007 & Tevez LC semi 2010. So in nearly 30 years that's just 3 City penalties &nd 11 years since the last one. By contrast the rags have been awarded one in each of the last three league derbies at the Etihad.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

The penalties awarded in derbies got me thinking .From memory I can only recall us being awarded three .Only one was at the swamp , which was Keith Curles superb effort in 1992 . The next two were at home Vasells (missed) 2007 & Tevez LC semi 2010. So in nearly 30 years that's just 3 City penalties &nd 11 years since the last one. By contrast the rags have been awarded one in each of the last three league derbies at the Etihad.

United have had 8.

 

[Maly]

Was I giving accolades. ?
A decent conversation would be nice.
The whole system of recruitment , training , assessment, progression needs an overhaul.
I don't think aggressive , pointless attacks on someone wanting to discuss referees is a way forward .

Will leave it to you.

You’re absolutely right. It definitely needs an overhaul to improve things as the standard seems to be deteriorating instead of improving.

I don’t think it helps having Mike Riley in charge. From my understanding, speaking to Graham Poll & listening to an interview with an ex-Ref who’s name escapes me, Mike Riley is a big part of the problem.

He apparently likes a specific type of referee who is almost robotic instead of using common sense & football nous & does t like ‘characters’.

VAR was supposed to help, but with the lack of transparency, it’s actually made things worse for me. Best thing they could do to have an instant effect is exactly the same as they do in rugby & let everyone hear how they come to decisions

 

[SebastianBlue]

Fully agree with this. There's nothing they could do to negate our goals. No hint of an offside or infringement with Gundogan's, and Foden's was just sheet brilliance. This is often the case. But if there is just the slightest hint of anything untoward, real or perceived, or if there is any decision that is open to interpretation or judgment, it goes against us.

Examples of this are numerous. Recent non-penalities on Jesus, Sterling, Foden. Blatant refusal to award penalties like when the Spurs defender flattened Rodri. And goals cancelled such as against Spurs at the start of last season, when Liverpool were given every assistance to get them an unassailable lead.

Some might say performances such as the one on Tuesday are down to referee incompetence. This can't be correct though, because most of those decisions could have been rectified by VAR.

1. Foul by Stones on the Brighton goalkeeper. VAR could have said, no, Stones did nothing wrong. The goalkeeper jumped on him, fouling him, and it should be a penalty to City.

2. Sending off. VAR could have at minimum said come and have a look for yourself. Welbeck didn't have control of the ball (a prerequisite for a red card by denying a goalscoring opportunity). Also, there is the possibility that Welbeck fouled Cancelo.

3. Foul on Jesus near half way line. VAR should have asked how on earth have you not seen that vicious kick out by the Brighton player, that completely wiped out Jesus and planted him on the floor? Come and look at the replay, and check for potential red card. Then tomorrow, go and get your eyes checked out by a qualified optician.

4. Foul on Jesus in the last minute. VAR should have awarded a penalty, or at least recommended referee review.

Other decisions went against City, such as the imaginary foul by Bernardo. For Brighton, they might have had a penalty when Garcia handled the ball. (Edit. This might have been the token counter-mistake to support the subsequent false claims that he was bad for both teams).

If Attwell's poor performance was just sheet incompetence, the poor decisions would be evened out, not the majority against City, and some of them would have been corrected.

To me, this was a highly suspicious performance, and is more characteristic of collusion and corruption than incompetence.

This is not even accounting for the most egregious of referee and VAR “failures” on the day (and how the commentary aided in the cover up of the fix).




Jahanbakhsh was so late to the tackle the referee and VAR must have thought the halftime whistle had already been blown before the incident.

 

[cleavers]

The way to get to the top is compliance and there’s no way they get to where they are unless they take direction from the Boss.

In my organisation the way to the top has often been through incompetence, with managers moving people because they can't do the job in a managerial role.

I've no idea how they justify some of the people who move upwards, but I know how they justify the ones who don't, they're too good at what they do, and they can't afford to lose them in that role, and those not so good in the operational role get promoted, or moved sideways.

 

[SebastianBlue]

In my organisation the way to the top has often been through incompetence, with managers moving people because they can't do the job in a managerial role.

I've no idea how they justify some of the people who move upwards, but I know how they justify the ones who don't, they're too good at what they do, and they can't afford to lose them in that role, and those not so good in the operational role get promoted, or moved sideways.

I have seen this, as well — it has been called “failing up”: people tend to rise to their highest level of tolerable incompetence (though, it has taken on a more positive meaning of late for various self-help adoption reasons). It is all too common in the corporate world based on the post-industrial associate-to-management track that is in many ways well out-of-date.

But it doesn’t contradict the compliance track, as often the incompetent employees are especially compliant to higher management as their livelihood is entirely down to staying in the organisation (as their incompetence outside of that structure is a hindrance to gainful employment and/or advancement). They are willing to do things other, more competent, more freethinking people would not, to preserve their relatively advantageous position, knowing it is unlikely to be something they can find elsewhere, at least without restarting at a somewhat lower level (as it by nature requires time and the right continual [dysfunctional] conditions to achieve).