Referees' Performances | 2025/26

dennishasdoneit said:
Good effort ...,but there was no foul on the keeper ,imo
Not when trossard literally pushes the wham defender pablo into the arsenal keeper ,so defender is off balance ,and as a natural reaction ,puts his arm out to avoid losing balance and falling to the ground ....
Keeper comes rushing off his line to catch the ball,is imo,put off by the leap of a( arsenal ?)player in front of him,..and crashes into pablo

It's not a foul on the keeper as Pablo knows nothing about it ! No intention whatsoever,and it's not even reckless....he was literally shoved into the keeper !

Westham utd FC were robbed.
Click to expand...
I agree. Besides, how can a keeper charge into a pack of 4 or 5 players and not expect some sort of contact? We've seen a couple of occasions where Donnarumma has been blocked with 3 or 4 players in front of him and the goals have been given. You can't have it both ways.
 
dennishasdoneit said:
Good effort ...,but there was no foul on the keeper ,imo
Not when trossard literally pushes the wham defender pablo into the arsenal keeper ,so defender is off balance ,and as a natural reaction ,puts his arm out to avoid losing balance and falling to the ground ....
Keeper comes rushing off his line to catch the ball,is imo,put off by the leap of a( arsenal ?)player in front of him,..and crashes into pablo

It's not a foul on the keeper as Pablo knows nothing about it ! No intention whatsoever,and it's not even reckless....he was literally shoved into the keeper !

Westham utd FC were robbed.
Click to expand...

Only this. People saying it was the right decision are falling for the bullshit.

First, the argument that the "foul" on the keeper was the most serious because it led directly to the goal and so should be looked at in isolation is flawed. There is no way of knowing how Pablo would have challenged for the ball if he himself wasn't being fouled. No way of knowing means not clear and obvious, allow the goal or give a penalty for WHU if you think you have to disallow it.

Second, the argument that everyone was pushing and holding and so it may have been a free kick to Arsenal if the first foul was punished isn't a valid argument either. That sort of thing has happened all season and has only been punished, or not even punished in Arsenal's case, when it clearly affects the ability to challenge for the ball. The only relevant pushing and holding is that which led to the challenge on Raya.

Lastly, this stupid argument that it took five minutes because of how important the decision was is just, well, stupid. There are three points on the line in this game just as there were when Arsenal scored a goal like that in the first game of the season. This decision was no more important to the title race than the first one 35 games ago. If they start taking things like that into account, they may as well just say we looked more carefully because it was Arsenal.

An absolute travesty. Don't accept any of the arguments put forward by PGMOL through Dale fucking Johnson and Mike fucking Dean without thinking clearly for yourself. And then be outraged .... :)
 
I think there is a critical point that I haven’t seen discussed and that is how Reya’s shoulder got impacted under Pablo’ armpit? I haven’t been able to see clearly as the WHU keeper tens to obscure things a bit. If Pablo raises his arm to jump and Rays tucks his shoulder under Pablo’s arm then I would say no foul. If however Pablo tries to stop Reya jumping by putting his arm over Reya’s shoulder then I would say that is a foul (though one where there are multiple examples this season of them not being given), I’m inclined toward the no foul scenario and don’t agree with the chronology of events that any foul on the keeper was the first event,
 
coolcity said:
But you don't need to sort anything out. You simply give the award for the FIRST foul. Everything that happens after that is (or should be) irrelevant because the game stops at the point the whistle blows. If there's so much going on that the ref can't determine when the first foul took place then use VAR.

This is what I find the most frustrating, there are 7 or 8 potential fouls yet they chose to pick one out in the middle of the melee. How and why do they select that particular foul? There are no rules that state a foul on a keeper gets priority over every other foul, ESPECIALLY if that other foul (or fouls) happens before it.

It's not that difficult to sort this fairly, just give the decision for the first foul, whether it's a push, a shirt grab or a bear hug.
Click to expand...

Agreed, at least until the mess is sorted. Disallow goals and give penalties for minor, but identifiable pulls or holding and it will soon stop.

The only problem is asking the referee to identify the first offence. We don't really want VAR to be over-riding the referee because he missed an earlier offence out of his vision every time there is a decision. So just let him punish the one he sees first and let VAR confirm that one offence.

It will soon stop. Then we can get back to applying the existing laws properly. We all know it will be cleared up before next season anyway, now the PL has done as much as they can to get "new" champions this season.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Even if VAR was able to hear commentators, which they are not, why would they let Sky set the narrative when they have their own PLP broadcasting arm?
Click to expand...

I could give a response why but as they are not it’s not needed in this context.

However I do think they are influenced by the narrative from influential Sky pundits, it’s human behaviour to also know which calls will get you negative or positive coverage, it’s the difference between brave & incompetent or ruining the occasion or upholding the laws.
 
All this analysis of the refs is giving too many players a free pass. The players union should be talking to their members. Too easy to say players will always push rules to breaking point but when you're intent on blocking a player and not even looking at the ball then it needs calling out by other professionals as cheating
 
coolcity said:
But you don't need to sort anything out. You simply give the award for the FIRST foul. Everything that happens after that is (or should be) irrelevant because the game stops at the point the whistle blows. If there's so much going on that the ref can't determine when the first foul took place then use VAR.

This is what I find the most frustrating, there are 7 or 8 potential fouls yet they chose to pick one out in the middle of the melee. How and why do they select that particular foul? There are no rules that state a foul on a keeper gets priority over every other foul, ESPECIALLY if that other foul (or fouls) happens before it.

It's not that difficult to sort this fairly, just give the decision for the first foul, whether it's a push, a shirt grab or a bear hug.
Click to expand...
The PiGMOL apparatchiks on the field and in the VAR shed just want to find a reason to disallow the goal and make sure the Arse get the three points so after five mins of deliberation its "Ooooh, that's a foul on the Arse goalie! Bugger the other half dozen fouls on West Ham's attackers. We've got it! No goal. Howie can sort out the shit later!"

I think it's pretty clear that MCFC fucked over the PL in the courts so they're gonna make damn sure we don't get their hands on the PL prize.
 
cheekybids said:
I could give a response why but as they are not it’s not needed in this context.

However I do think they are influenced by the narrative from influential Sky pundits, it’s human behaviour to also know which calls will get you negative or positive coverage, it’s the difference between brave & incompetent or ruining the occasion or upholding the laws.
Click to expand...
An argument based on feeling, rather than one with any evidence though.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
An argument based on feeling, rather than one with any evidence though.
Click to expand...
I'm not really into the conspiracy theories that suggest the officials are trying to make sure City don't win it or Arsenal do (although there are enough examples now of when things have gone against us in matches in recent seasons to make you ask the question).

But it's not inconceivable that those in the VAR shed can hear what the likes of Neville are saying...things like
"Definitely a foul, they can't give this, they have to disallow it, they need to look at xxxx, it will be ridiculous if they allow this to stand etc. etc.", or actually pointing out specific points or challenges that might not have been immediately obvious to the VAR team.

Sky provide the cameras so it's more or less a given that they can hear the TV commentary if they wanted to. We all know Neville is biased, it's not a point he even tries to hide. So who is to say they don't hear him say "There's an arm around Raya's neck there, they have to disallow this". Ultimately they're human and humans can easily be influenced what others say, even subconsciously. So in other words they might be reviewing a different incident entirely and are then drawn to whatever Neville is saying.

For me, the whole point was it took 37 reviews and nearly 5 minutes to reach a decision, and that fact alone proves beyond any doubt that it wasn't a clear and obvious error. It doesn't take that much scrutiny to find a clear and obvious error, they were clearly looking for a reason to disallow it. The constant delays proved that's the only foul they were actually considering too. How much more proof do you need?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Agreed, at least until the mess is sorted. Disallow goals and give penalties for minor, but identifiable pulls or holding and it will soon stop.

The only problem is asking the referee to identify the first offence. We don't really want VAR to be over-riding the referee because he missed an earlier offence out of his vision every time there is a decision. So just let him punish the one he sees first and let VAR confirm that one offence.

It will soon stop. Then we can get back to applying the existing laws properly. We all know it will be cleared up before next season anyway, now the PL has done as much as they can to get "new" champions this season.
Click to expand...
I agree, but If teams continue to get away with this I think it will get worse, it won't be cleared up, especially if we are cleared when the 115 verdict comes out. We'll be targeted some other way, like in the CL - isn't it strange that we draw Real Madrid EVERY season since CAS cleared us of the UEFA charges? I'm not even a conspiracy theorist but you do have to wonder, 4 or 5 times in 8 seasons I can belive but every single season? Come on.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Only this. People saying it was the right decision are falling for the bullshit.

First, the argument that the "foul" on the keeper was the most serious because it led directly to the goal and so should be looked at in isolation is flawed. There is no way of knowing how Pablo would have challenged for the ball if he himself wasn't being fouled. No way of knowing means not clear and obvious, allow the goal or give a penalty for WHU if you think you have to disallow it.

Second, the argument that everyone was pushing and holding and so it may have been a free kick to Arsenal if the first foul was punished isn't a valid argument either. That sort of thing has happened all season and has only been punished, or not even punished in Arsenal's case, when it clearly affects the ability to challenge for the ball. The only relevant pushing and holding is that which led to the challenge on Raya.

Lastly, this stupid argument that it took five minutes because of how important the decision was is just, well, stupid. There are three points on the line in this game just as there were when Arsenal scored a goal like that in the first game of the season. This decision was no more important to the title race than the first one 35 games ago. If they start taking things like that into account, they may as well just say we looked more carefully because it was Arsenal.

An absolute travesty. Don't accept any of the arguments put forward by PGMOL through Dale fucking Johnson and Mike fucking Dean without thinking clearly for yourself. And then be outraged .... :)
Click to expand...
The baseline argument for me is that if it takes 5 minutes and 37 reviews then it cannot potable be a clear and obvious error.

I've also seen nothing in the rules that says a foul on a keeper gets any sort of priority over any other sort of foul. Therefore you have to stop play for the first foul. If it has to be determined by VAR then they need to start at the beginning of the sequence, say "that's a foul" and award it accordingly (penalty or free kick to the other side), because everything that happens AFTER that foul is irrelevant and that's the point those who say it was a foul on the keeper need to understand - even if it was, it wasn't the FIRST foul.
 
coolcity said:
I'm not really into the conspiracy theories that suggest the officials are trying to make sure City don't win it or Arsenal do (although there are enough examples now of when things have gone against us in matches in recent seasons to make you ask the question).

But it's not inconceivable that those in the VAR shed can hear what the likes of Neville are saying...things like
"Definitely a foul, they can't give this, they have to disallow it, they need to look at xxxx, it will be ridiculous if they allow this to stand etc. etc.", or actually pointing out specific points or challenges that might not have been immediately obvious to the VAR team.

Sky provide the cameras so it's more or less a given that they can hear the TV commentary if they wanted to. We all know Neville is biased, it's not a point he even tries to hide. So who is to say they don't hear him say "There's an arm around Raya's neck there, they have to disallow this". Ultimately they're human and humans can easily be influenced what others say, even subconsciously. So in other words they might be reviewing a different incident entirely and are then drawn to whatever Neville is saying.

For me, the whole point was it took 37 reviews and nearly 5 minutes to reach a decision, and that fact alone proves beyond any doubt that it wasn't a clear and obvious error. It doesn't take that much scrutiny to find a clear and obvious error, they were clearly looking for a reason to disallow it. The constant delays proved that's the only foul they were actually considering too. How much more proof do you need?
Click to expand...
I’ll listen more when there’s actual evidence, rather than “they must be able to maybe hear it if they want.”

Neville parrots what the VAR are saying.
 
coolcity said:
The baseline argument for me is that if it takes 5 minutes and 37 reviews then it cannot potable be a clear and obvious error.

I've also seen nothing in the rules that says a foul on a keeper gets any sort of priority over any other sort of foul. Therefore you have to stop play for the first foul. If it has to be determined by VAR then they need to start at the beginning of the sequence, say "that's a foul" and award it accordingly (penalty or free kick to the other side), because everything that happens AFTER that foul is irrelevant and that's the point those who say it was a foul on the keeper need to understand - even if it was, it wasn't the FIRST foul.
Click to expand...
From Darren McCann comments on MoTD the other fouls weren't "significant" clearly briefed to use the term so that had anticipated the point raised by Shay Given when he asked why the other fouls weren't considered Seems that they make it up as they go along, there is no mention of "significant" in the laws
 
To even out this diabolical discission against West Ham, I think we will see some very favourable discissions going West Ham way with the remaining 2 games.
You might see Burnley get a penalty against Arsenal (only after Arsenals 4th goal though, all from corners)
Now the rags are in Champs League we might see a penalty at the swamp against the rags.
What I am saying is we might see some honest refereeing and var discissions now that some of the Prem League goals have been achieved.
The one goal they haven't achieved though is the destruction of Manchester City and it's killing them.
 
JPAMCR said:
Put club observers in the var room. Not allowed to speak to the officials or discuss anything, purely to observe.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily in the room but connected by one way audio and video link which is also recorded.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I’ll listen more when there’s actual evidence, rather than “they must be able to maybe hear it if they want.”

Neville parrots what the VAR are saying.
Click to expand...
Nobody knows for sure but the question needs to be asked. You're never going to be likely to prove anything one way or another, the best you'll probably get is a statement on a quiet evening out of season when nobody is listening, stating that they're no longer going to allow the VAR team to hear the commentary. As it stands there's nothing to stop them listening to it on a TV or radio in the background.
 
Gordyola said:
From Darren McCann comments on MoTD the other fouls weren't "significant" clearly briefed to use the term so that had anticipated the point raised by Shay Given when he asked why the other fouls weren't considered Seems that they make it up as they go along, there is no mention of "significant" in the laws
Click to expand...
Exactly. As I say, there is nothing in the rules that says a foul on a keeper is worse than any other foul. The decision should be given on the first foul and that's where VAR should be starting their assessment. They didn't even look at anything else.
 
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