EFL Officiating Abomination Journal 23/24

[The Doctor]

The penalty was absolutely stonewall, you could have seen it from Kings Lynn and the ref/linos should be keeping up enough to see the contact there. 

[UniFox21]

Official wasn't the reason we drew, but how was this not a booking 

 

 

Edited 26 December 2023 by UniFox21

[Fox forever]

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

Official wasn't the reason we lost, but how was this not a booking 

 

 

Lost?

[FrankieADZ]

1 minute ago, moore_94 said:

 

only defence i have of the ref there, is his probably had a shit eyeline to see it, even then the linesman had a clear view

another shocker to go with the Fatawu non pen against Millwall the other week

growing trend of shit officials in this country

[UniFox21]

Just now, Fox forever said:

Lost?

Honestly it just feels a loss 

[FrankieADZ]

Just now, UniFox21 said:

Honestly it just feels a loss 

sort of does, but on reflection a draw is a fair result and least we deserved, dont get me wrong its annoying asf we didnt get over the line, 

think its more annoying the absolute honking ref's we seem to get every week, minus Sam Alisson the other week

 

[UniFox21]

 

Another angle, linesman is in line. 

 

 

[Jonezy]

Shit happens. Fatawu was lucky the other day. Life without VAR is mostly a delight.

[The Doctor]

5 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

 

Another angle, linesman is in line. 

 

 

That is atrocious refereeing Christ, lino has no excuse for missing that

[Ian Nacho]

So 2 pens and 3 red cards then?

[CosbehFox]

Worth mentioning one of the chances Ipswich had was set up a Leif Davis standing about three yards offside when the cross came in 

[ithuriel]

Shocking refereeing but we still took a point in spite of that.

[Nod.E]

Only me that thinks it would have been a harsh penalty then? 

 

Thought it just looked like a coming together. For me it's one of those that could have been given, but if you're on the receiving end of one of those it feels like a harsh one.

[ithuriel]

9 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Only me that thinks it would have been a harsh penalty then? 

 

Thought it just looked like a coming together. For me it's one of those that could have been given, but if you're on the receiving end of one of those it feels like a harsh one.

No attempt to play the ball in the penalty box, took the man instead, if it was given against us I'd be pissed at the shite defending that gave the pen away.

Edited 26 December 2023 by ithuriel

[Les-TA-Jon]

8 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Only me that thinks it would have been a harsh penalty then? 

 

Thought it just looked like a coming together. For me it's one of those that could have been given, but if you're on the receiving end of one of those it feels like a harsh one.

Only you I think. The defender is the wrong side of KDH, and it’s shoulder to back, not shoulder to shoulder, excessive force that clearly bundles him over. No attempt to win the ball. 
 

DOGSO and no attempt at playing ball = red + pen. 
 

pretty clear cut to me 

[Nod.E]

Yeah everyone, including the pundits covering the game and even my Forest supporting relative seems to think it's a pen, so I'm clearly in the minority with my opinion on this one.

 

I just think he's not legged him up and just used a bit of upper body to ease him off the ball. Could be perceived as a foul given it was into his back, but I don't think it's as clear cut as people are making out.

[Les-TA-Jon]

3 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Yeah everyone, including the pundits covering the game and even my Forest supporting relative seems to think it's a pen, so I'm clearly in the minority with my opinion on this one.

 

I just think he's not legged him up and just used a bit of upper body to ease him off the ball. Could be perceived as a foul given it was into his back, but I don't think it's as clear cut as people are making out.

Think ‘eased off the ball’ is very kind to the Ipswich defender. See if you can find a clip in real time. He batters him over. It’s not one of those where both players were competing for the ball and the defender ‘did enough’ to disrupts the attacker. 
 

he simply, unfairly, pushed him over 

[FOXSE]

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

Yeah everyone, including the pundits covering the game and even my Forest supporting relative seems to think it's a pen, so I'm clearly in the minority with my opinion on this one.

 

I just think he's not legged him up and just used a bit of upper body to ease him off the ball. Could be perceived as a foul given it was into his back, but I don't think it's as clear cut as people are making out.

He has shouldered him in the back and legged him up.... you will be fast tracked as a VAR official if you keep this up! 😄 

[FOXSE]

I think refs have worked out that if you don't give us penalties and don't reduce the opposition to 19 (or 9!) Men, then the games can be close.

 

The game against Millwall was similar.

[jayfox26]

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

Only me that thinks it would have been a harsh penalty then? 

 

Thought it just looked like a coming together. For me it's one of those that could have been given, but if you're on the receiving end of one of those it feels like a harsh one.

If he doesn't clatter KDH then we score. It's as stonewall a pen as you'll see all season. No attempt to play the ball and every attempt made to stop KDH from scoring

[jayfox26]

1 hour ago, Ian Nacho said:

So 2 pens and 3 red cards then?

1 pen and 2 red cards if the ref got all his decisions correct today. Although you could argue that if the ref had got all his decisions correct them Harness wouldn't get sent off as the first yellow was harsh 

[Lillehamring]

2 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

You can tell this one's annoyed him.

 

Not a fan of the tweet, but also not wrong.

 

If only there was some way the official could have a second look at this and, you know, review it; like with some kind of video aided system of making sure decisions don't rob teams?

[Nod.E]

33 minutes ago, jayfox26 said:

If he doesn't clatter KDH then we score. It's as stonewall a pen as you'll see all season. No attempt to play the ball and every attempt made to stop KDH from scoring

At the ripe old age of 32 I must have lost touch with the game then! My understanding was that it was a contact sport, but I think the scope for 'allowed contact' has continued to diminish over time.

 

I understand you can't change your direction and forcefully push a player, but my interpretation is that they're both running for the ball and the Ipswich player's running momentum takes him into KDH. He'd have had to have taken evasive action to not make contact in the position he found himself in.

 

It's perhaps an odd distinction to make that because the contact is with his upper body, that's fine. Had the same thing happened and they tangled legs, I'd be calling it clumsy and a blatant penalty. I just think he's been strong and I'd be furious if it was our defender and he just allowed their attacker to waltz in.

 

As a side note, I reckon the way the defender falls on his back (rather than on top of KDH), probably adds to the idea that it looks like a coming together of players. Somehow the defender falling on his own back makes him look less so the aggressor. 

 

I can totally understand why the referee, from his angle, would think that's not a penalty.

 

EDIT: I've just seen the original angle again on KDH's tweet and that angle looks more of a pen than the other tweet which is more the ref's angle. You can see the force more from that angle. 

 

I think with full hindsight it probably is more of a pen than not. Maybe a 70/30 pen! Unfortunately we fell within the 30 tonight. But to be honest the modern game as it is, if the ref sees it from the other side I think he'd have given it.

Edited 27 December 2023 by Nod.E

[filbertway]

3 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

At the ripe old age of 32 I must have lost touch with the game then! My understanding was that it was a contact sport, but I think the scope for 'allowed contact' has continued to diminish over time.

 

I understand you can't change your direction and forcefully push a player, but my interpretation is that they're both running for the ball and the Ipswich player's running momentum takes him into KDH. He'd have had to have taken evasive action to not make contact in the position he found himself in.

 

It's perhaps an odd distinction to make that because the contact is with his upper body, that's fine. Had the same thing happened and they tangled legs, I'd be calling it clumsy and a blatant penalty. I just think he's been strong and I'd be furious if it was our defender and he just allowed their attacker to waltz in.

 

As a side note, I reckon the way the defender falls on his back (rather than on top of KDH), probably adds to the idea that it looks like a coming together of players. Somehow the defender falling on his own back makes him look less so the aggressor. 

 

I can totally understand why the referee, from his angle, would think that's not a penalty.

Nah you've interpreted it wrong. Maybe not seen the right angle, but there's one or two where you can see the Ipswich player literally just plays KDH and has no intention of going for the ball

[Nod.E]

2 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Nah you've interpreted it wrong. Maybe not seen the right angle, but there's one or two where you can see the Ipswich player literally just plays KDH and has no intention of going for the ball

I've just updated my post having seen the other angle again!