Referees

[Captain...]

Both of his big mistakes yesterday were completely understandable, if you don't see the foul by Johnson then it looks like Vardy launched two footed into a tackle, Simpson's arm was in an unnatural position so by the really shit wording of the law he has to give a penalty even though common sense says that clearly he wasn't trying to block the ball with his hand and you don't deserve a penalty because the ball hits someone's hand off a cross from outside the area.

 

Video refs and technology are not going to help when the wording of the laws are so ambiguous in some cases and yet have bizarre conditions in other. You cannot get any sort of consistency when laws state that it depends on the opinion of the ref. Video replays can't help with that because the instinctive opinion of the ref on the ground is going to be different to the cold analysis watching on TV.

[Barky]

36 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Both of his big mistakes yesterday were completely understandable, if you don't see the foul by Johnson then it looks like Vardy launched two footed into a tackle, Simpson's arm was in an unnatural position so by the really shit wording of the law he has to give a penalty even though common sense says that clearly he wasn't trying to block the ball with his hand and you don't deserve a penalty because the ball hits someone's hand off a cross from outside the area.

 

Video refs and technology are not going to help when the wording of the laws are so ambiguous in some cases and yet have bizarre conditions in other. You cannot get any sort of consistency when laws state that it depends on the opinion of the ref. Video replays can't help with that because the instinctive opinion of the ref on the ground is going to be different to the cold analysis watching on TV.

From what I've seen nothing in the rules says anything about unnatural position. The rules say it has to be deliberate, and that's it. It clearly wasn't deliberate, so it was the wrong decisions.

 

Things like this make me wonder what referees do all day. Pawson is a full time professional. He's paid good money and has all day every day to study the rules and yet he clearly doesn't even understand handball, one of the most basic rules in the sport. Such an astonishing level of incompetence wouldn't go unpunished in any other profession, except maybe politics.

[ozleicester]

Its an inexact science and open to interpretation. 

I dont want video refs.

 

let say this AGAIN....

 

This is football. ...a SPORT!, there WILL be errors, if you want perfection, go to the movies or the wrestling. Thats "entertainment " 

[SheppyFox]

You know it's about time the players and managers forgot about this "respect the ref" nonsense that the fa keep going on about, if a player/manager isn't good enough it's pointed out and they're removed. 

[Captain...]

6 hours ago, Barky said:

From what I've seen nothing in the rules says anything about unnatural position. The rules say it has to be deliberate, and that's it. It clearly wasn't deliberate, so it was the wrong decisions.

 

Things like this make me wonder what referees do all day. Pawson is a full time professional. He's paid good money and has all day every day to study the rules and yet he clearly doesn't even understand handball, one of the most basic rules in the sport. Such an astonishing level of incompetence wouldn't go unpunished in any other profession, except maybe politics.

It may not be in the rules but it is on the guidelines to the ref:

 

"Regarding handball they now ask the referee to consider the proximity of the potential offender to the person last playing the ball, the speed of the ball and importantly whether the offender's arms are in a natural or unnatural position. 

So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him?

If the answer to that is yes then it is correct to penalise that player even though it used to be argued that was ball to hand."

These were the guidelines given in 2013, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2284201/GRAHAM-POLL--The-Official-Line-The-new-handball-rule-explained-Newcastle-got-lucky-Fox-penalty.html

 

They are trying to define intent, but how can you judge if someone's arms are in a natural position? What is a natural position when you are launching yourself to block a cross? 

Following the flawed guidelines to interpreting the handball rule he has to call it as handball even though nobody would put there arm like that to block the ball deliberately.

[Rialto 290352]

As always the main issue comes down to inconsistency.  Not only from one referee to another when faced with a similar incident but with the same referee from one match to another.  They have to improve.  

[mozartfox]

Had there been video evidence in play yesterday, Arsenal may well have won 1-0.  For goal-line decisions, off-sides (after a goal is scored only) plus red card situations the likes of last Saturday, surely it must be brought in?

 

Bad decisions are effectively changing results every single week.  I say help the overpaid buggers.

[Barky]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

It may not be in the rules but it is on the guidelines to the ref:

 

"Regarding handball they now ask the referee to consider the proximity of the potential offender to the person last playing the ball, the speed of the ball and importantly whether the offender's arms are in a natural or unnatural position. 

So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him?

If the answer to that is yes then it is correct to penalise that player even though it used to be argued that was ball to hand."

These were the guidelines given in 2013, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2284201/GRAHAM-POLL--The-Official-Line-The-new-handball-rule-explained-Newcastle-got-lucky-Fox-penalty.html

 

They are trying to define intent, but how can you judge if someone's arms are in a natural position? What is a natural position when you are launching yourself to block a cross? 

Following the flawed guidelines to interpreting the handball rule he has to call it as handball even though nobody would put there arm like that to block the ball deliberately.

In the guidelines maybe (the rules on the FA website contain some pointers but unnatural position is not among them) but not in the rules. The referees should know that guidelines are just guidelines and that that particular guideline is flawed, and why, and what situations to look out for where it might not work. And they should know that applying the rules correctly takes precedence over applying the guidelines. The fact that Pawson doesn't seem to know any of this, is frankly a bit bizarre considering this is his profession. 

[FireFox]

Outside of the box, a free kick is given 100% of the time.

It was a pen.

If it was in our favour, everyone would be saying it was a pen, maybe saying a bit harsh but still a pen.

 

His hand is maybe in a "natural position" for throwing himself to the ground, and he's not intentionally handling the ball, but he is intentionally throwing himself to the ground to try to stop the cross. He is intentionally making himself bigger. He is intentionally having his arm possibly be in that "natural position", which could possibly be in a position to block the cross.

Obviously sometimes, you have to go to ground trying to stop a cross, but when you do, make sure your arms aren't in a position to block the cross or know that it would be ball to hand.

 

 

[Captain...]

37 minutes ago, mozartfox said:

Had there been video evidence in play yesterday, Arsenal may well have won 1-0.  For goal-line decisions, off-sides (after a goal is scored only) plus red card situations the likes of last Saturday, surely it must be brought in?

 

Bad decisions are effectively changing results every single week.  I say help the overpaid buggers.

The definition of fouls and handballs are so wooly that video referee can't definitively say either way, how many times do pundits and ex-refs and ex-players look at the same decision and disagree? It is all down to interpretation and when you are on the ground in the thick of the action you get a different feel for it than if you are watching slo-mo replay.

 

Situations in which video refs could be used:

 

To judge an off the ball incident that no other official has seen, but this will lead to officials saying they didn't see anything so they don't have to make a decision, this can be done without stopping play if necessary and then punishment can be meted out at the next break.

 

A handball that didn't strike the hand, (think of Wes Morgan vs Liverpool 2 seasons ago) this could be a referral from a team, it can't be used to determine if a handball was deliberate or not.

 

A blatant dive where there is no contact whatsoever, but even that is getting harder with minimal contact seemingly sufficient to count as a foul, and that a foul can be given if there is no contact if it causes the player to take evasive action.

 

Offside is difficult, you don't want every goal to be checked for offside, and you don't want players to be penalised for being fractionally offside, that is not the point of the law,  the point is to prevent goal hanging.

[desertfox2]

2 bad games in a row. Webb was saying after the Man U game he should perhaps have taken the week off. It became a joke in the first half dishing out yellow cards the sending off etc. It was like playing against 12 men with 10 on the pitch. Surprised someone didn't caption him pointing at his watch after the goal line technology showed Ulloas goal went in. ''Sorry Stoke, Can't give you that one and keep my job''

[Tielemans63]

Pen decision was right, sending off decision was wrong and arguably that had the biggest impact on the game.

 

Might sound weird but when I've seen a terrible performance from ref in the Prem I think back to when we were in the Championship. The standard might not be what it could / should be in the Prem but it's a million times better than the level of refereeing below the top-flight.

 

It was very rarely we had a competent referee when we were in the Championship. At least now we're up there it's the poor performances that are relatively few and far between. 

 

That said, you can't lose control of a match the way Pawson did. It wasn't just his decisions that were wrong it was his whole demeanour. He makes a huge decision then books everyone in sight because they dared to question it. 

[Matt]

So it's our fault Pawson lost control of the game and took it out on us?

 

Twat.

 

Can't appeal yellows either can you? (Another pathetic rule) so I assume we can't appeal the fine.

 

All thanks to some willy puller who can't do his job properly.

 

[Captain...]

It would probably help refs if there was some actual game analysis on MOTD or SKY and not just reviewing ref's decisions and saying they were wrong without giving the ref a right to reply. Pundits are obsessed with how refs do because it is easy "analysis", but it is boring and counter productive especially as most pundits don't know the laws of the game, it just serves to put more  pressure on refs. Saturday's card happy performance was clearly a reaction to the slating he got for missing the Rojo red.

[foxestalkisfullofidiots]

15 hours ago, notnow john said:

Pawson isn't a good ref, he missed a two footed tackle by Rojo in midweek and he was slated on tv radio and in the press.

 This put him under huge pressure not to repeat the mistake .

It's impossible to guess if a video ref would have overturned the Vardy sending off but what I find repulsive are the actions of 

players like Diouff who actively try to influence referees by being cheating b@stards .

he never missed the Rojo challenge, he booked him which for me makes it worse because in the eyes of the FA its been dealt with!

[Kitchandro]

20 hours ago, Lionator said:

This is a problem that'll never be solved I'm afraid. Goal line technology and video replays will help with offsides however yesterday's incident is completely down to interpretation. Even after video replays, some people will say red card and others will say different. It's the nature of the game, it always has been and always will be. Ref's don't go out to ruin the game, they give what they see and sometimes they have bad days and dips in confidence just like players, obviously with bigger consequences, there really is little you can do. 

Agree with a lot of what you say but this is blatantly not true. How many times a game does a referee see a player fall over or the goalkeeper drop the ball and invent a foul in his head?

Or with Simpson on Saturday - there's no way he could look at that and think it was deliberate, but like most referees, he didn't apply the law.

 

 

[Manwell Pablo]

2 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

Agree with a lot of what you say but this is blatantly not true. How many times a game does a referee see a player fall over or the goalkeeper drop the ball and invent a foul in his head?

Or with Simpson on Saturday - there's no way he could look at that and think it was deliberate, but like most referees, he didn't apply the law.

 

 

 

As I've said elsewhere, I've asked someone I know who refs at a very high level as there is blatantly more to that rule than whether it is dictionary definition "deliberate." As we see pens like that given every other week. 

He essentially told me the deliberate isn't what most people would consider literally deliberate, the definition of what FIFA means by deliberate is spelled out to them in much more detail,  they are asked to take into account proximity, whether the arm is in a natural position, and if it was possible to remove an arm if a player can see the ball is going to strike it their arm if it remains in it's current position. 

 

 

[Bedford Fox]

Too many games are ruined by poor refereeing. We shouldn't know the refs by name, they are there just to police the game not make headlines. 

[ARTY_FOX]

Pawson shouldn't have been in charge of the game it's as simple as that. He had a shocker just before and was always going to be a walking mistake 

[jammie82uk]

1 hour ago, ARTY_FOX said:

Pawson shouldn't have been in charge of the game it's as simple as that. He had a shocker just before and was always going to be a walking mistake 

Well at least he can keep a low profile in the next game as he only has Liverpool v Manchester City 

[Matt]

1 minute ago, jammie82uk said:

Well at least he can keep a low profile in the next game as he only has Liverpool v Manchester City 

But I bet a hell of alot more noise will be made if he makes a mistake in that game.

 

It's only Leicester, no doubt it'll be seen that Liverpool and Man City matter more.

[foxy boxing]

just slating referees and having a go at them will not work, they need constructive criticism and held accountable for their mistakes by informing them when they were wrong and educating them more and by giving them every help possible like a touchline referee that can communicate with them quickly.it is not about continually slating referees about poor decisions but about getting them every help possible to make the right decision. we all want referees to make the right decisions so they and everyone should be open to get them the maximum help possible to get these decisions right.

[Matt]

1 minute ago, foxy boxing said:

just slating referees and having a go at them will not work, they need constructive criticism and held accountable for their mistakes by informing them when they were wrong and educating them more and by giving them every help possible like a touchline referee that can communicate with them quickly.it is not about continually slating referees about poor decisions but about getting them every help possible to make the right decision. we all want referees to make the right decisions so they and everyone should be open to get them the maximum help possible to get these decisions right.

I agree but don't you think the FA protect's them a little too much, even when it's quite clear they are wrong clubs and players still get punished? The FA almost never backs down against a decision no matter how wrong it is, like you say they need to be held accountable and informed, constructive criticism, but nah they'll just get supported and backed up by the FA.

 

I can't imagine what a hard job being a referee is, of course they're not going to get every decision right, but it's almost like the FA/Fifa/Uefa/Whoever makes the rules doesn't want to help them, they could quite easily bring video replays in or a touchline referee as you have suggested, give them help but instead nah, they're quite happy to let the officials keep making the mistakes but justify that by backing them to the hilt when they're wrong, that is their way of 'protecting their officials'.

[Super_horns]

Let them comment and answer back to the likes of Wenger who just cannot take the fact his team are bottle jobs again (still looking for the 2 "offside" goals Man City scored..)

 

And then there is Mark Hughes who just summed up the totally pointless act of asking a manager about any decision because they only see it one way generally.

 

Can tell you now if that had been a Stoke player sent off like Vardy was he'd been on the pitch doing all sorts/demanding action etc.

 

Anyway maybe it just shows there are a lack of top officials that none really seem to get dropped now.

 

 

[MPH]

 

 

I can accept the ref made a mistake, but can he?