Referees’ Performances | 2024/2025

[Cassandra]

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?

If he had seen the foul then why didn’t he also show the yellow card at that point? VAR isn’t supposed to be for judging whether a yellow card is required. The only other alternative is that the yellow card was for something Haaland said - perhaps he should have commented in Norwegian.

 

[Stephen230]

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.

There’s certainly no requirement to go to the spot of the foul. Nor can I really see it achieving anything. From memory the only players near the ball were Chelsea players and Haaland. So it was pretty obvious by giving a foul to Chelsea, he was penalising Haaland.

I’m guessing what you’re implying here is that he didn’t see a foul. He blew up because he hates City and was hoping the VAR would find something, anything, to justify his cheating.

If that’s the case, then fair enough. But there’s not really anything worthwhile to discuss.

If that’s not the case and you accept his intentions were honourably, I genuinely don’t know what was confusing you about his decision, whether you agree with it or not.

 

[SebastianBlue]

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.

I haven’t been following you around, mate. If I see something you have posted, I may respond. Especially when I think you are acting in bad faith in that particular instance or being disingenuous or intellectually dishonest, as I think you have been in this entire exchange. I am on here quite a lot for my own reasons, so we are very likely to come across each other’s posts.

At any rate, I’ll assume you weren’t actually calling me a “mad arse” for no reason, given you said “I’ll be polite, I’ll be reasonable, I won’t call people names”, and will concede I have been completely wrong with my initial perception of you and will be sure to interact with you as a fellow longtime blue in the future.

 

[SebastianBlue]

There’s certainly no requirement to go to the spot of the foul. Nor can I really see it achieving anything. From memory the only players near the ball were Chelsea players and Haaland. So it was pretty obvious by giving a foul to Chelsea, he was penalising Haaland.

I’m guessing what you’re implying here is that he didn’t see a foul. He blew up because he hates City and was hoping the VAR would find something, anything, to justify his cheating.

If that’s the case, then fair enough. But there’s not really anything worthwhile to discuss.

If that’s not the case and you accept his intentions were honourably, I genuinely don’t know what was confusing you about his decision, whether you agree with it or not.

Your memory is incorrect. There was a group of players around Haaland—and in the box—so the gesture in that direction from his position well away from the scrum was not clear to any reasonable observer. It also did not occur in a vacuum—there were previous incidents in the game involving Haaland and other players that would have muddied the interpretation of the gesture.

And I haven’t said anywhere that I thought he disallowed it because he hates City. Implying that is non sequitur.

All of my comments have been about mishandling and incompetence across the situation and the officials/VAR system.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

And give the yellow card immediately if the infringement warranted it? And then let VAR review the goal / no goal incident and if they disagree with Taylor on that because of a reckless challenge then he should look on the screen. If he agrees with their disagreement, goal and rescind the card. If he stays with his decision, no goal and yellow stays.

I am still not sure he should be disallowing the goal for a reckless challenge by Haaland and not giving a yellow, or that VAR should intervene on the yellow.

My original point was that VAR says they agreed with the "referee's call" (no goal and yellow card) when, in fact, he didn't give a yellow on-field before the VAR review. So there is something wrong somewhere. All imho, of course. And the whole thing is such an opaque mess, who knows?

 

[SebastianBlue]

And give the yellow card immediately if the infringement warranted it? And then let VAR review the goal / no goal incident and if they disagree with Taylor on that because of a reckless challenge then he should look on the screen. If he agrees with their disagreement, goal and rescind the card. If he stays with his decision, no goal and yellow stays.

I am still not sure he should be disallowing the goal for a reckless challenge by Haaland and not giving a yellow, or that VAR should intervene on the yellow.

My original point was that VAR says they agreed with the "referee's call" (no goal and yellow card) when, in fact, he didn't give a yellow on-field before the VAR review. So there is something wrong somewhere. All imho, of course. And the whole thing is such an opaque mess, who knows?

I agree. It is a mess.

And I don’t actually disagree entirely with some of @Stephen230 ’s responses. But I do disagree with the characterisation that you or I think this is some sort of “conspiracy”.

I just think this is one of many, many examples of the current dysfunction of officiating (including VAR) that the powers that be in PGMOL and the PL don’t seem to be particularly motivated to remedy.

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

I thought it was a strange refereeing performance. Did some things, like a consistently high bar on penalties, well, but then let a lot of poor tackles go unpunished. The sort of game where he could have lost control (again) with less disciplined teams.

And not Taylor's fault but that stupid delayed flag rule again. The poor linesman must have been desperately hoping for Chelsea to lose possession so he could put his flag up.

Only 100% of them by Chelsea though so that's ok. That alright by you, Mr Fofana? Mr Caicedo? Compare those to Haaland's booking.

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

So here is a question. VAR agreed with the "referee's call" that Lewis's goal should be cancelled and Haaland gets a yellow for a reckless challenge.

View attachment 128750

Two questions, I suppose. Firstly, VAR aren't supposed to look at yellows, are they? They can't seriously be saying they looked at it as a potential red? Secondly, Taylor didn't give Haaland a yellow until after the VAR check. I thought VAR was supposed to only check what the referee has done. If Taylor didn't give the yellow, VAR can't agree with it.

Am I wrong? Again? :)

Amazing that little 'fouls' are found when we score but x-rated challenges go unpunished for the rest of the game, especially with that twat Taylor. Anyone remember Klanfield with him?

 

[Cassandra]

And give the yellow card immediately if the infringement warranted it? And then let VAR review the goal / no goal incident and if they disagree with Taylor on that because of a reckless challenge then he should look on the screen. If he agrees with their disagreement, goal and rescind the card. If he stays with his decision, no goal and yellow stays.

I am still not sure he should be disallowing the goal for a reckless challenge by Haaland and not giving a yellow, or that VAR should intervene on the yellow.

My original point was that VAR says they agreed with the "referee's call" (no goal and yellow card) when, in fact, he didn't give a yellow on-field before the VAR review. So there is something wrong somewhere. All imho, of course. And the whole thing is such an opaque mess, who knows?

I went to check the sequence of events surrounding the yellow card for Haaland and I couldn’t find the showing of the yellow card which I saw on Sunday as being after the VAR check ……

 

[halfcenturyup]

I went to check the sequence of events surrounding the yellow card for Haaland and I couldn’t find the showing of the yellow card which I saw on Sunday as being after the VAR check ……

It's a fair point that I may not remember the sequence of events accurately. Hell, I can barely remember what I was doing this morning. But I was sure (I thought) that Taylor booked Haaland after the VAR review because I remember thinking it was strange.

Anyone any thoughts?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

It's a fair point that I may not remember the sequence of events accurately. Hell, I can barely remember what I was doing this morning. But I was sure (I thought) that Taylor booked Haaland after the VAR review because I remember thinking it was strange.

Anyone any thoughts?

It looks as though the actual showing of the card was not shown.

What is shown is that Taylor disallows the goal immediately (he doesn't point to the halfway line, so it's obviously disallowed).
He walks towards the incident and points at the location. I think he's talking, so presumably telling VAR what he's seen.
About 55 seconds after the incident, Taylor is shown putting the yellow card back in his pocket as Haaland is walking back towards him, so he's obviously booked Haaland by then, and it comes up on the screen as such.

Is 45 seconds enough for VAR to cue it up and review? I think it suggests that the yellow card decision was made almost immediately from the incident (Taylor took a few seconds to walk there, and had to fend off Chelsea protests on the way).

I don't think that Taylor could see where contact was made on Colwill by Haaland (Colwill is blocking his view). His linesman may have had a view and told him.

As a theory, the linesman told him 'high contact, foul, yellow card'. There was then a check for a red card (for force used, as Taylor was unsighted).

 

[Norbiton]

I thought Taylor believed Haaland had committed a foul worthy of a yellow card in the goalmouth skirmish, waited to see if the ball would finish up in the net and blew for the foul once it had. Of course VAR would check and if they advised it wasn’t a foul it obviously wouldn’t be a card either. So he waited for the verdict before showing the card. Which seems fair enough to me if that’s what happened

 

[halfcenturyup]

I thought Taylor believed Haaland had committed a foul worthy of a yellow card in the goalmouth skirmish, waited to see if the ball would finish up in the net and blew for the foul once it had. Of course VAR would check and if they advised it wasn’t a foul it obviously wouldn’t be a card either. So he waited for the verdict before showing the card. Which seems fair enough to me if that’s what happened

• The referee and other match officials must always make an initial decision (including any disciplinary action) as if there was no VAR (except for a ‘missed’ incident)
• The referee and other match officials are not permitted to give ‘no decision’ as this will lead to ‘weak/indecisive’ officiating, too many ‘reviews’ and significant problems if there is a technology failure
• The referee is the only person who can make the final decision; the VAR has the same status as the other match officials and can only assist the referee.

 

[Norbiton]

• The referee and other match officials must always make an initial decision (including any disciplinary action) as if there was no VAR (except for a ‘missed’ incident)
• The referee and other match officials are not permitted to give ‘no decision’ as this will lead to ‘weak/indecisive’ officiating, too many ‘reviews’ and significant problems if there is a technology failure
• The referee is the only person who can make the final decision; the VAR has the same status as the other match officials and can only assist the referee.

Clearly going against the guidelines then!

 

[SebastianBlue]

To avoid being called a “conspiracy nutter”, I will just say that, for me, the referee was generally very lenient on Ipswich, especially in the second half and particularly with Delap.

 

[ufo]

ffs seedorf

 

[cheekybids]

I just thought he was utterly out of his depth. I thought we should have had a pen in the 1st minute & it continued.

 

[ufo]

I just thought he was utterly out of his depth. I thought we should have had a pen in the 1st minute & it continued.

sunday league standard

 

[waspish]

He only wanted to make the easy decisions Var had to tell him about our penalty when he had a great view of it! That yellow for Grealish was an after thought!

 

[hertsblue]

To avoid being called a “conspiracy nutter”, I will just say that, for me, the referee was generally very lenient on Ipswich, especially in the second half and particularly with Delap.

And couldn't wait to get the cards out for us in each of the very few times he had a chance.
Just shows how refs officiate us. Last week Ipswich picked up 3 cards in 4 fouls by the 25th minute v Dippers, today they were allowed to get away with fouls, holding and then thuggery in the 2nd half