Referees’ Performances | 2024/2025

[M23 Citizen]

@M23 Citizen

You alluded to it in this post.

I didn’t. That sentence was mentioning someone who was talking about the Commmunity Shield game.

 

[Phil1]

I didn’t. That sentence was mentioning someone who was talking about the Commmunity Shield game.

Then accept my apology. :-)

 

[Stephen230]

But Taylor had already disallowed the goal prior to VAR intervention.

So what was VAR reviewing?

The on-field decision was no goal. He was reviewing whether that was the correct decision or if it should have been a goal.

It’s pretty much the fundamental reason for having a VAR.

The crucial difference in this incident compared to the Palace game was that he didn’t give the foul until after the ball was in the net. So leaving all options open.

 

[SebastianBlue]

The on-field decision was no goal. He was reviewing whether that was the correct decision or if it should have been a goal.

It’s pretty much the fundamental reason for having a VAR.

The crucial difference in this incident compared to the Palace game was that he didn’t give the foul until after the ball was in the net. So leaving all options open.

The fundamental reason for having VAR is to insure that the referee’s actual decisions are correct based on the video evidence and related rules/guidance.

In order for that review to take place, the referee has to have made a decision based on a specific incident. It can’t be a case of “whistle and then have VAR find a reason why I have whistled”, as that violates the rules and guidance for VAR intervention.

Now, Taylor may have whistled specifically due to what he thought was a foul by Haaland in the box, but that was certainly not made clear at the time, which is the issue many of us are raising. The situation could (and should) have been handled better, is the main thrust of my point (and I imagine a few others’ criticism, as well).

And this is only one of hundreds of examples of this sort of poorly handled incident since VAR was implemented. There has only been marginal improvement since its inception, which is a damning indictment of PGMOL and the PL, in my opinion.

 

[Eds]

I know, that is what I was saying. Taylor had already disallowed the goal before VAR began review (but before Taylor clarified exactly what caused the goal to be disallowed). VAR didn’t begin review before Taylor blew the whistle.

So I am asking what VAR was reviewing (in the context of whether they actually should have been reviewing it)?

Presumably Alty tells VAR, no goal for the foul but have I made an obvious error. VAR looks at it and says it's fucking soft but there isn't an obvious error so no goal. Who was on VAR?

 

[M23 Citizen]

This forum is the real world, just as much as off it is the real world. That is important, as treating it as if it is not the real world is exceedingly dangerous for a myriad of reasons, some of which we have seen recently, unfortunately. We are all accountable for what we say on here in a similar way to how we are accountable to what we say off of the forum (you, yourself, have seemingly made that point; if this isn’t the real world, why would it matter what we post in this thread?). This is probably a discussion for the Off Topic forum, though, so I won’t go any further here, other than to point out the contradiction in your own stated positions.

Beyond that, though, I disagree with your overall premise regarding the criticism of referees, but am fine with your raising it. What I take issue with is your not actually engaging directly with other posters (including having the integrity to tag them in when you are directly criticising their posts), but rather choosing to make blanket statements about how blues post on the forum (and not just in this thread). That isn’t good faith behaviour and smacks of a troll, not a genuine blue looking to engage with other blues.

But I will take you at your word that you are a long time blue that has just decided to join the forum and tell everyone how they should be behaving on it.

You’ve run off on a tangent while not understanding or purposely ignoring the small point I was making about the real world in a post that has nothing to do with the majority of what I was talking about.

I didn’t contradict myself. My point about the real world is that I’ve not only just joined this community last Tuesday; in the real world, I’ve been part of it for decades.

I never suggested (even unintentionally) that we aren’t accountable for what we say online. What I’m saying is that whether I’m someone who joined last Tuesday or whether someone else joined back in the early days of internet forums, all our posts hold as much weight as each others. One collection of digits or letters (a username) is not more or less important than any other collection or digits or letters.
Whereas you come across as someone who holds a position that my opinion means less because I joined last Tuesday and I need bringing down a peg or two because you don’t agree with me. And that if I’d been here since 2006, I don't reckon you’d have responded to me the way you did.

You might want me to be a troll, not a genuine Blue and not looking to engage with other Blues… and by not doing this via PM, I assume you’re trying to sway others to think that too… but I’m not, I am and I am… and I’ve done nothing against the Forum Rules as far as I’m aware. If you think I’ve abused, personally insulted or disrespected you or anyone else with the perfectly normal things I’ve posted, I am sorry, but I really don’t think I have.

I’ll certainly use the reply function or tag in people in future to show who it is I’m talking about or what posts I’m referring to, but I’ll still post my opinion whether it’s what people like or agree with or not, as long as I’m not breaking forum rules.

 

[SebastianBlue]

You’ve run off on a tangent while not understanding or purposely ignoring the small point I was making about the real world in a post that has nothing to do with the majority of what I was talking about.

I didn’t contradict myself. My point about the real world is that I’ve not only just joined this community last Tuesday; in the real world, I’ve been part of it for decades.

I never suggested (even unintentionally) that we aren’t accountable for what we say online. What I’m saying is that whether I’m someone who joined last Tuesday or whether someone else joined back in the early days of internet forums, all our posts hold as much weight as each others. One collection of digits or letters (a username) is not more or less important than any other collection or digits or letters.
Whereas you come across as someone who holds a position that my opinion means less because I joined last Tuesday and I need bringing down a peg or two because you don’t agree with me. And that if I’d been here since 2006, I don't reckon you’d have responded to me the way you did.

You might want me to be a troll, not a genuine Blue and not looking to engage with other Blues… and by not doing this via PM, I assume you’re trying to sway others to think that too… but I’m not, I am and I am… and I’ve done nothing against the Forum Rules as far as I’m aware. If you think I’ve abused, personally insulted or disrespected you or anyone else with the perfectly normal things I’ve posted, I am sorry, but I really don’t think I have.

I’ll certainly use the reply function or tag in people in future to show who it is I’m talking about or what posts I’m referring to, but I’ll still post my opinion whether it’s what people like them or not, as long as I’m not breaking forum rules.

You said “This internet chat room isn’t the real world.” So I don’t think I misunderstood, you are just changing your point, after I have highlighted the contradiction inherent in your original post and your follow up to mine. So you did (seemingly unintentionally) imply this forum is not the real world and thus has a different standard for accountability and/or behaviour (whilst also chastising others on here for their behaviour on the forum negatively impacting the perception of fans off it). Everything else is regarding your claim to being a long time blue from Manchester that has just joined the forum to chastise other blues about how the behave on it, which I have said I will accept.

Any case, though, you simply didn’t initially engage directly with the blues you were criticising—there is no way to argue that you did. And I called that out. I did so publicly, directly responding to you and tagging you in when I discussed it with others, as that is what I hold to be a good faith response when someone publicly acts in bad faith, as I believe you had initially. You do not get to act publicly then demand private response. If you feel private response is appropriate for calling people out on their behaviour then you should have PM’d the posters you felt were posting unreasonably in the thread, rather than posting a blanket critique. I find it intellectually dishonest to insinuate that my public response to your public criticism is somehow inappropriate. That is also the common behaviour of a troll, hence my statement to that effect.

All of that said, if you would like to continue to discuss this via PM I am happy to do so. I don’t wish to hijack thread any more than I have and attract the wrath of the mods.

 

[Stephen230]

The fundamental reason for having VAR is to insure that the referee’s actual decisions are correct based on the video evidence and related rules/guidance.

In order for that review to take place, the referee has to have made a decision based on a specific incident. It can’t be a case of “whistle and then have VAR find a reason why I have whistled”, as that violates the rules and guidance for VAR intervention.

Now, Taylor may have whistled specifically due to what he thought was a foul by Haaland in the box, but that was certainly not made clear at the time, which is the issue many of us are raising. The situation could (and should) have been handled better, is the main thrust of my point (and I imagine a few others’ criticism, as well).

And this is only one of hundreds of examples of this sort of poorly handled incident since VAR was implemented. There has only been marginal improvement since its inception, which is a damning indictment of PGMOL and the PL, in my opinion.

I’m not really sure what more you’re expecting the referee to do when he thinks he’s seen a foul? He blew the whistle, pointed in the general direction of Haaland and then indicated which way the foul was.

What more are you looking for him to do to make his decision any clearer?

 

[SebastianBlue]

I’m not really sure what more you’re expecting the referee to do when he thinks he’s seen a foul? He blew the whistle, pointed in the general direction of Haaland and then indicated which way the foul was.

What more are you looking for him to do to make his decision any clearer?

Do what referees are meant to do with any such infringement: go to the spot of the foul and indicate to the players involved there was a foul committed.

Gesturing in a general direction and then waiting for VAR to confirm something happened isn’t the appropriate way to handle it.

 

[M23 Citizen]

You said “This internet chat room isn’t the real world.” So I don’t think I misunderstood, you are just changing your point, after I have highlighted the contradiction inherent in your original post and your follow up to mine. So you did (seemingly unintentionally) imply this forum is not the real world and thus has a different standard for accountability and/or behaviour (whilst also chastising others on here for their behaviour on the forum negatively impacting the perception of fans off it). Everything else is regarding your claim to being a long time blue from Manchester that has just joined the forum to chastise other blues about how the behave on it, which I have said I will accept.

Any case, though, you simply didn’t initially engage directly with the blues you were criticising—there is no way to argue that you did. And I called that out. I did so publicly, directly responding to you and tagging you in when I discussed it with others, as that is what I hold to be a good faith response when someone publicly acts in bad faith, as I believe you had initially. You do not get to act publicly then demand private response. If you feel private response is appropriate for calling people out on their behaviour then you should have PM’d the posters you felt were posting unreasonably in the thread, rather than posting a blanket critique. I find it intellectually dishonest to insinuate that my public response to your public criticism is somehow inappropriate. That is also the common behaviour of a troll, hence my statement to that effect.

That said, if you would like to continue to discuss this via PM I am happy to do so.

I have not changed my point, you’ve snipped one bit of it and taken it away from its context. Twice. I think that’s quite disingenuous.

I haven’t demanded owt, you’ve made that up, I merely made an assumption for why you didn’t do something.

I can see this is one of those situations where you’ll keep doing the same thing with anything I say, so I’ll stop replying to you about this now.

And let’s not be a mard arse following me around the site because you’ve decided you don’t like or trust me, like I’ve already seen you starting to do. Let’s put this behind us and move on.