Ref Watch

Psychedelic Casual said:
Do you think that was enough for a penalty in these times since the Euros last year where the bar was raised for what is given for fouls and penalties?

I’m not sure it is.

But I suppose if Arsenal were given that one against Liverpool then it definitely is!
Click to expand...

I’ve no idea what the rules are from week to week;)

I thought it was a foul anywhere else on the pitch & therefore a penalty. It’s shit defending if they want to change the rules to an indirect free kick then it could stop “soft” pens but why should the attacker be penalised for a deliberate foul.
 
bluetonium said:
On the blue moon podcast this week, the guest journo confirmed that broadcasters can hear the chatter between the officials in real time. I'd have to go back and check if he was talking about Stockley park or the referee and assistants, but that was something I didn't actually realise happened. The hope is that this becomes audible to audiences at home too.

Be interesting to see if the have sky sports or bt on live at Stockley Park too. You'd hope not but on a few occasions the co commentator ex footballer, ie Neville, can be heard seemingly appealing to someone unseen to convince them of what just happened on the pitch.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, in rugby league:


The entire world can hear every word the ref says. Fans at the game can even buy an ear piece which is on the same radio frequency as the ref’s mic.
 
cheekybids said:
I thought the referee performance was typical of what we face. LOTG seemed to be changed to how to manage the game, effectively adding weight to a horse to even up the field.

Advantages are played when no advantage is there, under the guise of allowing it to flow. The disadvantage of this is fouls go unpunished, yellows aren’t awarded, fouls can continue & the flow of City’s attacks are affected.
At the other end any misdemeanour seems to be rewarded to allow the game to slow & provide the opportunity of dead-ball situation. This means fouls are awarded so obviously yellows are given & adds an edge.
Click to expand...
Good point on the advantages. There were at least two occasions yesterday where we were fouled as they pressed, ref put his arms up to signal foul but play on, ball pushed back to the centre back or ederson who then launches it and within 5 seconds it's Brighton's ball

One occasion we lost possession, the other we actually conceeded a foul seconds later as we were only just retaining the ball under much physical pressure. Both times the city player fouled being down meant one less player as an option to pass to.

I think there is an assumption that city play football in a certain way so prefer the advantages. Maybe that is true out of our own half, but not on the edge of our D! I think this also clearly contributes to the odd stats in our games on fouls vs possession, as the opposition are perceived to want every free kick for the respite.

According to the stats we must be commiting a foul something like every twenty seconds we're not in possession, whilst a run by Bernie in which he gets his shirt pulled and his ankles and shins tapped several times, is often waved on and not recorded as a foul at all.
 
"One occasion we lost possession, the other we actually conceeded a foul seconds later as we were only just retaining the ball under much physical pressure. Both times the city player fouled being down meant one less player as an option to pass to."

I'm certainly no conspiracy theorist but I find this idea plausible and for that reason quite disconcerting
 
I thought Pawson was poor (City v Brighton) and the inconsistency between matches was irritating. Pretty much any contact was given as a foul and certainly shoulder to shoulder was barely allowed. What was worse for me was VAR today. Clear and obvious mistake on Haaland, penalty should have been given, not called to the monitor. Yet Bernardo's was not clear and obvious to me. Personally I don't think it should have been given but the main issue is it will be clearly subjective which means VAR is re-refereeing the match. MOTD didn't make it clear that a substantial amount of time elapsed before they called it for review. Having such a delay shows it was not clear and obvious. Pawson clearly didn't want to give it but probably felt he had to given the minutes that elapsed and play being brought back. Imagine if Brighton had scored in that time!
 
bluetonium said:
on a few occasions the co commentator ex footballer, ie Neville, can be heard seemingly appealing to someone unseen to convince them of what just happened on the pitch.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this. Beseeching Stockley Park to take action in line with how an incident has been perceived in the studio. Bloomin obvious.
 
bluemoon1981 said:
I thought Pawson was poor (City v Brighton) and the inconsistency between matches was irritating. Pretty much any contact was given as a foul and certainly shoulder to shoulder was barely allowed. What was worse for me was VAR today. Clear and obvious mistake on Haaland, penalty should have been given, not called to the monitor. Yet Bernardo's was not clear and obvious to me. Personally I don't think it should have been given but the main issue is it will be clearly subjective which means VAR is re-refereeing the match. MOTD didn't make it clear that a substantial amount of time elapsed before they called it for review. Having such a delay shows it was not clear and obvious. Pawson clearly didn't want to give it but probably felt he had to given the minutes that elapsed and play being brought back. Imagine if Brighton had scored in that time!
Click to expand...
This illustrates the issue with the "Clear & Obvious" criteria and in particular the way it is interpreted and applied
The Bernie incident was pretty clear and obvious on the video reply from each angle, ignoring Murphy on MoTD who claimed it wasn't because Bernie "put a leg in" Michael Brown also said much the same on Sky GofD
The Erling incident wasnt as clear on video replay
The way it works is the ref is informed there is a possibility that he has missed something, he then gives a description of what he saw and if its different to the actual then, he is asked to look at the monitor for a decision
The VAR will also check the phase of play down the line for any other incidents missed hence the delay in the decision Why it took 3 minutes yesterday is beyond explanation
Harping back to the Haaland incident at anfield then Taylor should have awarded the goal to follow the context of the way he had run the game but, he knew the stick he would have received
 
bluetonium said:
On the blue moon podcast this week, the guest journo confirmed that broadcasters can hear the chatter between the officials in real time. I'd have to go back and check if he was talking about Stockley park or the referee and assistants, but that was something I didn't actually realise happened. The hope is that this becomes audible to audiences at home too.

Be interesting to see if the have sky sports or bt on live at Stockley Park too. You'd hope not but on a few occasions the co commentator ex footballer, ie Neville, can be heard seemingly appealing to someone unseen to convince them of what just happened on the pitch.
Click to expand...
I've said that about Stockley Park hearing commontators, as how many times you here Neville say not a foul, or that's a pen and it's looked at or decisions changed
If it is happening its a disgrace and confirms to me the game isn't at all straight
 
Gordyola said:
This illustrates the issue with the "Clear & Obvious" criteria and in particular the way it is interpreted and applied
The Bernie incident was pretty clear and obvious on the video reply from each angle, ignoring Murphy on MoTD who claimed it wasn't because Bernie "put a leg in" Michael Brown also said much the same on Sky GofD
The Erling incident wasnt as clear on video replay
The way it works is the ref is informed there is a possibility that he has missed something, he then gives a description of what he saw and if its different to the actual then, he is asked to look at the monitor for a decision
The VAR will also check the phase of play down the line for any other incidents missed hence the delay in the decision Why it took 3 minutes yesterday is beyond explanation
Harping back to the Haaland incident at anfield then Taylor should have awarded the goal to follow the context of the way he had run the game but, he knew the stick he would have received
Click to expand...

On the Bernardo penalty they all failed to say he was also pushed, knocking him off balance and kicking his leg out was a result of that.
 
Skip Donoghue said:
I've said that about Stockley Park hearing commontators, as how many times you here Neville say not a foul, or that's a pen and it's looked at or decisions changed
If it is happening its a disgrace and confirms to me the game isn't at all straight
Click to expand...
I don't think that is the case, and I certainly hope it isn't, but it's a symptom of this lack of transparency around VAR.

Personally I think it's probably the other way around, Neville and others can hear the chatter between officials and use it to appear clever and ahead of the game because they know exactly what is being looked at and why.

With regards to Stockley Park, you'd hope that integrity and common sense would not permit any outside influence. But then we have these shadowy match commanders who are occasionally referenced and seemingly have some sway in the VAR decision making process, but nobody knows who they are or what they do.
 
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