Premier League Thread 2023/2024

[StanSP]

 

 

 

[Super_horns]

Ref watch reckoned  that 3nd incident was , the handball maybe (apparently in Scotland they always get given? .) and the first one probably not.

 

Should a ref be in charge of games involving rival clubs of the team they support as we have had these two a lot over the years ?

Edited 22 April 2024 by Super_horns

[RowlattsFox]

There are certain refs who won't go against the on-field ref, and I'd class Attwell in that category. 

Not looked closely enough at the decisions but are they 100% wrong decisions? 

 

Can't have it both ways as fans, VAR either only changes a decision when it's certain or it looks at everything.

[filbertway]

22 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Ref watch reckoned  that 3nd incident was , the handball maybe (apparently in Scotland they always get given? .) and the first one probably not.

The first one is a dive - clearly exaggerates the contact and should be booked for trying to deceive the ref..

2nd would have been harsh.

3rd was definitely a pen, no idea how it wasn't given.

[HybridFox]

1 hour ago, OntarioFox said:

Yeah but they won teh eurocup and play at the world famus city ground, their massiv

World famous apology? 

[The Doctor]

15 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said:

But maybe if they actually give valid reasons for their decision and a explanation of what they see, it might help gain some understanding.  

 

The whole thing needs serious change. Its one thing there being mistakes being made on the field which is more understandable but when the same mistakes are being made on VAR or back up, something is wrong. 

I mean that's not "post match interviews", that's more mic up the refs, have them announce their var decisions where they go to the screen (as in the women's world cup last year) and release VAR audio after the game

[ramboacdc]

Clattenburg is happy to take the money from Forest and all but throws his former colleagues under the bus:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11727/13120581/gary-neville-mark-clattenburg-should-step-down-after-forest-statement


Is the standard of refereeing poor? Yes

Is VAR not fit for purpose in its current state? Yes

Does that justify Forest throwing their toys out of the pram just because it inconvenienced them? No

 

VAR will never make everyone happy. Cov yesterday will argue he was onside because it's BS his feet were larger than the defenders, if it had gone the other way United would have been complaining. It's separating football to millimetres which is rubbish, but you are now just giving fans something else to beat referees with. Teams benefit from VAR and lose out to VAR. Forest were happy when it got them promoted when the call went wrong at the playoff final, but now throw a tantrum when it doesn't. Liverpool fans are good at claiming that too, then again in regards to football match-related incidents, Liverpool fans will always claim they get the s**t end of the stick, but that is a case of who moans loudest in my opinion.

 

This boils down to one thing, Forest through money at the wall with an owner with such a controversial past, has a topic and 2 sub-topics around his controversies on his Wikipedia page. He has chased refs down tunnels and shows he is not fit for purpose. Say what you want about KP and Top, but you never see him threatening to take out a ref in the tunnel. If Forest go down, that owner will take his remaining money and run and Forest will suffer for it. They will lose millions in revenue and would instead throw more money into litigation than take the licks and go back to putting that money into coming back better. They are losing millions now, hence the point deductions, but what is Mark Clattenburg on the payroll for? To consult the manager about the ref's decisions? He isn't reffing the games, cannot change the results and can do bugger all but go "Tell you what Nuno, that red card would have been a yellow in my eyes. You should appeal." Everyone at Forest is getting rich off this Premier League ride and wants it to continue by throwing tantrums and statement's hoping to cause furore. If they get relegated, all those rats will leave the sinking ship and it will be the fans who pay the price. 

 

Long story short: VAR, Clattenburg and that dodgy Forest owner can get in the sea. 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Was there more wrong decisions before var? They must have stats on it.

[Koke]

I'd embarrassed if our club adnin posted that. We got relegated because we are rubbish. Notts Forest has been a stain on the Premier League ever since they got promoted, but they're trying to blame external factors like the tinpot club they are.

[Super_horns]

14 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Was there more wrong decisions before var? They must have stats on it.

They say VAR brings more accurate decisions but that probably includes the offsides we saw at Wembley or penalties given for handball that people are saying have been harsh.

 

It’s never going to get everything “right “ as most decisions are subjective.

If that is what people expected out of VAR then they were mistaken and should have been told so at start rather than being promised it would clear things up and there would be nothing go to debate .

 

TBH the main issue for fans seems to be how slow the system is and the lack of communication more than anything else.

Edited 22 April 2024 by Super_horns

[foxfanazer]

2 hours ago, StanSP said:

 

 

 

Big fan of Cry me a river

[The Bear]

We had one given against us just like that first penalty shout for Forest earlier in the season. Tiny amount of contact if any and an exaggerated fall. Ref didn't hesitate and VAR backed him up even though it looked like there was no contact. 

[Koke]

Fan bases who think there's a conspiracy against them are the most cringe ever. I can just about fathom Man Utd fans having this mentality as they're the biggest club in the country and a lot of people actually hate them. Notts Forest are an insignificant afterthought and they somehow think people care enough if they go down or not.

[Guest Bilo]

9 hours ago, Lambert09 said:

yeah I think they’ve got a fair point both Attwell (VAR) and stroud (4th official) aren’t allowed to ref Luton… they complained and it was ignored. 

 

The statement shouldn’t have been so whiny about decisions and just focused on that…. but i can get why they’re fuming.

 

Ironically i’m fairly certain there was corruption to get them promoted to begin with, as ‘huddersfield are bad for the brand’ 

Yeah, nothing or nobody will convince me that there was nothing dodgy about Jonathan Moss's appalling performance on the day he retired while officiating a massive game involving a club owned by a man with a long history of match-fixing and corruption allegations. 

[StanSP]

They're now saying they didn't ask for Attwell to be taken off VAR

 

 

[LcFc_Smiv]

First one was the only one I was convinced was a pen, although it's near identical to the one that went against Wolves earlier in the season and that was labelled the wrong decision. I also think there's a chance it gets given if the Forest player doesn't go down like that, it makes it look like hes played for it straight away.

 

Second one for me isn't a pen, the proximity is way too close. People trying to compare it AWB as it being identical but the ball travelled far further for the Cov pen, volley is already starting the balls trajectory at a different height making it even more difficult to move the arm out the way.

 

The third one I just don't think theres enough in it, Young has gone to ground to win the ball and CHO has got in front of him, neither are in control of the ball and both are challenging to get it. 

 

On skysports they keep banding around the word stonewall, I wouldn't say any of them are stonewall. I'd be fuming if we didn't get one as a Leicester fan, but I'd also know that there would be a great number of people who would be able to make decent cases for them not being pens as well, as is the subjective nature of the game. 

 

 

[LcFc_Smiv]

12 minutes ago, StanSP said:

They're now saying they didn't ask for Attwell to be taken off VAR

 

 

I didn't realise the general complaint was supposed to have come from a phone call from Clattenburg to Webb, they made it sound like the club itself had issued an official complaint about an appointment, not two ex referees sharing a phone call.

[Super_horns]

15 minutes ago, StanSP said:

They're now saying they didn't ask for Attwell to be taken off VAR

 

 

Just pointed the issue out apparently..

 

Well obviously no one cared or took it on board.

[Tuna]

23 minutes ago, StanSP said:

They're now saying they didn't ask for Attwell to be taken off VAR

 

 

It's like that ant and dec meme

[Tuna]

 

Edited 22 April 2024 by Tuna

[StanSP]

6 minutes ago, Tuna said:

 

I knew that would set a precedent. 

 

Every club will at some point request the audio (which will eventually be released) before it comes to the point that PGMOL deem all comms should be aired live as it happens. 

 

 

 

 

[ramboacdc]

1 hour ago, LcFc_Smiv said:

I didn't realise the general complaint was supposed to have come from a phone call from Clattenburg to Webb, they made it sound like the club itself had issued an official complaint about an appointment, not two ex referees sharing a phone call.

At what point does that break some rules? That starts to go down the lines of corruption surely or something just as sinister. "Ring your old boss will ya and drop a few hints and have a quiet word." That's just wrong.

[Super_horns]

56 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I knew that would set a precedent. 

 

Every club will at some point request the audio (which will eventually be released) before it comes to the point that PGMOL deem all comms should be aired live as it happens. 

 

 

 

 

That isn’t going to change anything .

 

We’d all heard them before and really aren’t the decisions subjective (even if “wrong”)?

[LcFc_Smiv]

44 minutes ago, ramboacdc said:

At what point does that break some rules? That starts to go down the lines of corruption surely or something just as sinister. "Ring your old boss will ya and drop a few hints and have a quiet word." That's just wrong.

To be fair I read the article earlier but didn’t realise it came from the cesspit of all sources. I haven’t seen it from anyone else.

 

https://www.gbnews.com/sport/football/nottingham-forest-believe-mark-clattenburg-stuart-attwell-var

[dsr-burnley]

If Clattenburg believes that refs are influenced, deliberately or otherwise, to favour their "own" team when refereeing rivals, then it can only be because he did so himself.  Perhaps he ought to be investigated?

 

Is there not an obvious problem with the idea that refs who support teams at the bottom can't referee matches involving teams at the bottom?  Half the matches in the league involve teams at the bottom.  You would be restricting the available ref pool far too much.  (Especially if you take into account that any ref who supports Spurs, say, couldn't referee a match involving any team in the top 10.)  Perhaps the answer is to appoint only those refs who have no interest in football and who have never attended a match?