Referees/Officials

[MillionMilesAway]

Just watched the game again and the challenge from Fernadinho, from an angle I haven't seen before Mason is clearly seen trying to push his earpiece in his ear, what is he listening to? It's his decision and clearly he is making up his mind as the Burnley players surround him when he starts to listen in his left ear and then makes his decision. Now why is this? Was the same with Taylor at the Luiz challenge on Aguero waiting till he heard advice from his assistants, now a theory is that by waiting few seconds there is the opportunity for another official to view an incident again and relay another opinion.
All conspiracy but is very questionable and would be interesting to get an answer as to who and why they are doing it.

I've said before that it's the not knowing that is creating the chatter, e.g (and I'm not specifically talking about Ferny here):

Ref: "Lino, that looked two footed and high to me. Did he hit the man with his studs? Card colour advice please."
Lino: "got the ball with one foot, but impetus took him studs first into the man. Red card."

That is a perfectly acceptable exchange, and would probably be considered to be good reffing if he doesn't have clear sight of where the contact was.

 

[Chipmeister]

That's a fair scenario, but it's not the only scenario is it, and that is the crux of this whole debate. It could well be the 4th official with a manager in his ear who influences the decision or something even more sinister.

 

[SWP's back]

A foul in that part of the box can never be a red card? What nonsense. The type of challenge had a bearing on the colour of a card too.
So only Jose and rag fans thought it was? NO-ONE else at all? Right, ok....

And my point was that if there's an agenda against City, it would have been given. Wasn't arguing whether it was or not.

It wasn't even foul so how could it have been deemed dangerous play?

There's agendas and agendas though aren't there.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

That's a fair scenario, but it's not the only scenario is it, and that is the crux of this whole debate. It could well be the 4th official with a manager in his ear who influences the decision or something even more sinister.

Quite - see my first line!
What it is is something that we cannot prove.

I'm a little surprised that no player or the sideline gang have heard anything untoward, or if they have, it's been buried. Surely someone would point a camera at the 4th official to see if he says anything.

 

[SWP's back]

The referee if well within his rights to receive assistance from all 3 assistant referees.

There's not a chance in hell the ref card or any other decision was based on video replays.

 

[St.Pauli support]

Then you should, like myself, be very concerned about Lee Mason's performance in the Burnley game:
Blowing the whistle LATE for the foul on a City player when Navas was through on goal was scandalous.
As was continually allowing Burnley players to leave something on City players after the ball was gone, allowing Burnley players to use City players as step ladders for getting to balls in the air and a definite bias in letting Burnley hard-tackles go but declaring City ones as fouls.
Classic referee match fixing tactics.

That's exactly what I have watched, and everybody else who has ever played this game or at least is unbiased.

The reaction of players and also of Pep is, that they don't feel fairly treated by the judge and get emotional.
What I don't really understand is the reaction in the ground. When obviously scandalous decisions happen in German grounds, the former peaceful place gets wild as everybody feels winded up. The whole crowd gets on the ref's back as long as he goes on like that and the atmosphere really gets aggressive all around the place. Until the ref clearly shows that he is on the neutral side again.

Why is that different in England (nowadays?)? Is it similar to the reasons described in the "Etihad amtosphere" thread?

I even think the crowd's non-reaction is the reason for Pep's and the players's frustration about their own "supporters" as they feel left alone especially when things are getting tough.

 

[BlueAnorak]

That's exactly what I have watched, and everybody else who has ever played this game or at least is unbiased.

The reaction of players and also of Pep is, that they don't feel fairly treated by the judge and get emotional.
What I don't really understand is the reaction in the ground. When obviously scandalous decisions happen in German grounds, the former peaceful place gets wild as everybody feels winded up. The whole crowd gets on the ref's back as long as he goes on like that and the atmosphere really gets aggressive all around the place. Until the ref clearly shows that he is on the neutral side again.

Why is that different in England (nowadays?)? Is it similar to the reasons described in the "Etihad amtosphere" thread?

I even think the crowd's non-reaction is the reason for Pep's and the players's frustration about their own "supporters" as they feel left alone especially when things are getting tough.

In this case, post sending off the crowd were pretty reved up. After the Silva foul the 3 minute "banker" chant followed by traditional anti ref Fayre was pretty damned loud.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Just watched the game again and the challenge from Fernadinho, from an angle I haven't seen before Mason is clearly seen trying to push his earpiece in his ear, what is he listening to? It's his decision and clearly he is making up his mind as the Burnley players surround him when he starts to listen in his left ear and then makes his decision. Now why is this? Was the same with Taylor at the Luiz challenge on Aguero waiting till he heard advice from his assistants, now a theory is that by waiting few seconds there is the opportunity for another official to view an incident again and relay another opinion.
All conspiracy but is very questionable and would be interesting to get an answer as to who and why they are doing it.

I used to like refs pausing for a few moments before making up their minds, but we see now what the fuckers are upto. Ref: Can you see what happened their, Blind Pugh? 4th Off: not really, Mr. Mason but dya want the blue shirt binning? Ref: Just as I thought. Fuck off, Ferny, early bath yer dirty bastard!"

 

[blue b4 the moon]

This is most naive thing I've ever read. They have to be reasonably subtle about it or they would soon get called out.

How would you do it? I would look to stop breakaways after a foul by not playing advantage when we were attacking but not for the other team. I would deny penalties safe in the knowledge that they would not be debated on TV but not for the other team. I would not flag for offside even when there is clear daylight between players but not for the other team. I would book players for two footed reckless tackles, safe in the knowledge that it cannot be looked at due to a law the FA refuse to changes, but send off players from the other team.

I would offer penalties when the game is already won and start referring fairly once my influence ons the game had ended due to the scoreline. That's how I would do it. That's how Mason, Taylor, Clattenburg etc operate. And it's bent, there is an agenda and the whole thing stinks of Scudamore needing a strong United for his product.

Spot on, I give you Chris Foy, Norwich 1 City 6 as exhibit A.

 

[caseball]

When teams like Burnley and Watford systematically push the limits at the Etihad from the start, you have to suspect that there's a feeling within the Premier league that you can get away with murder at our place.