Ref Watch

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

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.

It was obvious from Bernie's reaction that he knew he had been tripped and the fuckin' useless whistling wanker was gonna play on!

 

[Blue Theatre]

Isn't a big part of the problem that there isn't really a definition of what is or isn't a penalty ? Well, it's supposed to be something you'd have got a (direct) free kick for outside the box, but we know it isn't applied like that or there'd be 2 or 3 penalties every game.

But because it has to be more significant than a foul anywhere else on the pitch, no one can agree how much more. So 10 "experts" can watch an incident a dozen times in slow motion from every angle ... and still 5 will say " clear penalty" and 5 say "well, he did catch him but there's not enough contact for me / he was looking for it / he went down too easily / etc".

Once you say that, then VAR also becomes subjective ?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Fine but its true

You have empirical evidence of this? Because other than "because we say it's true" I've seen nothing to support this assertion.

 

[paulchapo]

It was obvious from Bernie's reaction that he knew he had been tripped and the fuckin' useless whistling wanker was gonna play on!

Yes I'm right behind that goal and we all saw it was a clear penalty. The same with the Haaland one. When you watch it live you see the speed and momentum and how the fouled players body alters by the contact.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You have empirical evidence of this? Because other than "because we say it's true" I've seen nothing to support this assertion.

We were told at the start that they couldn’t hear the commentary. They haven’t informed us of a change, so unless you have any evidence to suggest they can hear the commentary, all you have is your bias.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

We were told at the start that they couldn’t hear the commentary. They haven’t informed us of a change, so unless you have any evidence to suggest they can hear the commentary, all you have is your bias.

Told by who?

We have ZERO evidence EITHER way. What we do have though are countless examples of the actions of VAR officials mirroring the match commentary, even for contentious decisions.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Told by who?

We have ZERO evidence EITHER way. What we do have though are countless examples of the actions of VAR officials mirroring the match commentary, even for contentious decisions.

When it first came out.

I can’t be arsed debating with you though as you don’t believe anything anyone says unless it keeps your perpetual agenda in motion.

Literally nothing will ever change your mind on refereeing, so it’s utterly pointless debating with you or any of your fellow corruption conspiracy nonsense.

Have a good day,

 

[pride in battle]

We were given a penalty that wasn’t a penalty for me yesterday. Bernardo was the one who kicked the defender more than anything and his lighter weight seemed to jolt over from the transfer of weight back up his body.

I don't think it was a penalty either, but the Haaland one was, just shit reffing mate

 

[Stephen230]

Well I'd say not giving us clear penalty, before we scored our first. Both commentator and sidekick were baffled that we didn't get one.

Then the farce of not getting a clear penalty for the shove THEN foul on Bernardo, and then having to wait for Stockley Park to reluctantly tell him to go and look.

Gross' late challenge on Rodri went unpunished until someone had a word in the ref's ear.

Just 3 incidents, summing up why we are up against it.

Clear and simple

Yet if he was “bent” he could quite easily have ruled out the first goal for a shove by Haaland and this place would have been in uproar if we’d conceded the penalty they eventually did.

 

[dadnlad]

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.

Dermott will point it out on ref watch
Yeah right

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Dermott will point it out on ref watch
Yeah right

Walton would say that there was little contact; Crappenberg would say it was 'a coming together'! However, up the other end both would be pointing to the spot before the fellah had hit the deck. But they would all be laughing off their arses at PawPatrol playing on for five minutes and then giving it!

 

[murcian blue]

Pawson is shite. He’s weak and that was epitomised by not giving a stonewall penalty and instead hiding behind VAR giving it. I’ve never seen him have a firm control of a game, it’s like a free for all.

The free kick on Rodri in the second half too. What was it? 5 seconds after it happened that he brought it back?

Also, what took so long for them to review and ultimately give that penalty?!

The rag twat Mason would have to look for any possible reason to disallow it

 

[lefty goldblatt]

Yet if he was “bent” he could quite easily have ruled out the first goal for a shove by Haaland

Apart from the fact that the Brighton player ALSO shoved Haaland (watch it again), but Haaland is the stronger player.......Haaland won the ball with ease.

 

[swinton blue]

We were told at the start that they couldn’t hear the commentary. They haven’t informed us of a change, so unless you have any evidence to suggest they can hear the commentary, all you have is your bias.

Every var decision in the spurs game has gone the same why spitty has said. Even to the point that spotty was deciding what the ref was seeing

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Every var decision in the spurs game has gone the same why spitty has said. Even to the point that spotty was deciding what the ref was seeing

Believe they can hear the audio if you want. It doesn’t bother me. It just seems to work people up without any evidence.

 

[Stephen230]

Apart from the fact that the Brighton player ALSO shoved Haaland (watch it again), but Haaland is the stronger player.......Haaland won the ball with ease.

I don’t have to watch it again. My argument isn’t whether it was the right decision or not.

My point is if I was a “bent” ref, looking to do City over, the shove by Haaland would have been plenty for me to have a reason to blow up.

It’s also weird that the Brighton manager who benefitted from all this bent officiating was also fuming with the referee after the game.

It’s almost as if it’s possible to judge a refereeing display completely differently depending on who you want to win.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

When it first came out.

I can’t be arsed debating with you though as you don’t believe anything anyone says unless it keeps your perpetual agenda in motion.

Literally nothing will ever change your mind on refereeing, so it’s utterly pointless debating with you or any of your fellow corruption conspiracy nonsense.

Have a good day,

Evidence would.

 

[cheekybids]

I watched the Arsenal game & thought they were being reffed the same as us. I thought very unlucky not to be given pens.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I watched the Arsenal game & thought they were being reffed the same as us. I thought very unlucky not to be given pens.

Keep it close, the brand has spoken.

 

[cheekybids]

Keep it close, the brand has spoken.

I don’t think it’s that, I think they’d be happy to let them get away. I did but I’m now starting think it’s a mis-understanding of the styles & how refereeing impacts it. Years ago in Europe when we started playing Barca we’d always have players sent off as we’d impose ourselves. If teams didn’t do what they are doing we’d win 6 nil every week. If they applied the LOTG it would be 6 nil as we’d be up against 9 each week.

I don’t have a problem with us winning 6 nil every week but I do have a problem with the LOTG not being applied fairly.