Crap Ref Thread.

[CosbehFox]

I was most irritated by Michael Brown's 2 double footed tackles on Abe in the first half. Both dangerous, and if it happened in the Prem to a top 4 team, pundits would have been all over it. Awful tackle, and not even a booking. To rub it in, Oakley was then booked for a much softer tackle minutes later.

Completely agree but seemed to get ignored in this sort of attitude refs have that yellow cards can not be given in the first ten minutes.

If Vitor didn't bring Nugent down, who had a clear and unobstructed path to goal from 18 yards away, would Nugent have had an obvious opportunity to score? Of course he would. At the time of the foul Berner was not going to tackle Nugent.

Nugent had 18 yards to go and two men to beat with his back to goal. If he scored, it would have been goal of the season. He had a lot of work to do. If that was an 'obvious' opportunity...can we start pulling up for when Lloyd Dyer gets tripped at the half-way line then and he's aiming for goal on one of his runs?

To make it worse the ref was at least fourty yards away has showcased by his sprint towards the incident. Woeful officiating in that sense alone.

[The Doctor]

In the laws of the game what was wrong with the Liverpool goal?

Was the ball stationary? Yes.

Was the ball from the position of the infringement? Yes.

Had the referee indicated to restart play (which he doesn't have to do but this leaves no doubt)? Yes.

For match control he could have blew the whistle to take the free kick again, and no one would have said anything, but he was certainly not wrong.

If Vitor didn't bring Nugent down, who had a clear and unobstructed path to goal from 18 yards away, would Nugent have had an obvious opportunity to score? Of course he would. At the time of the foul Berner was not going to tackle Nugent.

no. Vitor had possession and was in a way wrestling with Nugent with Nugent leaning back into Vitor and Vitor trying to stop himself being pushed over, Vitor is between Nugent and the ball, which is behind Nugent, and with the position of Berner (and Morrison is getting round as well), by the time Nugent regains possession (if he actually does - something you can't confirm he'll do) he has at least 1, maybe 2 defenders between him and goal. Clear chance? not a chance.

[DB11]

HAHA! my mate informed me of a bloke on foxes talk who called himself 'the ref' and just defended everything that the ref did even if it was completely wrong!

And here you are!

Are you here just to wind people up? Seriously?

It was clearly not a red card you muppet

Yep been posting for five years just to wind people up.

Nugent had 18 yards to go and two men to beat with his back to goal. If he scored, it would have been goal of the season. He had a lot of work to do. If that was an 'obvious' opportunity...can we start pulling up for when Lloyd Dyer gets tripped at the half-way line then and he's aiming for goal on one of his runs?

To make it worse the ref was at least fourty yards away has showcased by his sprint towards the incident. Woeful officiating in that sense alone.

If what you're saying was right, then yes, but that's not what happened when he was fouled. He had a clear run to goal with Vitor and Berner behind him. And for your last points, the officials are mic'd up and I'm very sure that the assistant will have spoken to the referee through them and 'confirmed' that it was a red. The assistant was flagging for a foul also.

[Tilley]

Yep been posting for five years just to wind people up.

DB11: Paying respect to the dead and defending poor refereeing since 2005.

[Libertine]

RIP.

[Jackirius]

How many wrong decisions do you see by a cricket umpire or a Rugby referee? Not many because they actually watch the game!

Cricket umpires have to do it all day and concentrate every ball. Football Refs do it for 90 minutes with a break in the middle and yet cant keep up with play and get their decisions right

[adam1]

Re King Goal debate.

Yes King was slightly in front of the defender. However it was not offside. This is because parts of King were alongside the defender.

1) There was no daylight between King and the Defender.

And

2) When applying the rule to the situation, if it is 50/50 the advantage is always given to the attacker.

My thoughts on how the offside rule is applied;

There was no daylight between the two players therefore he was onside. If the assistant couldn't establish it because it is such a tight to call to make one way or another then the goal should stand because he should apply the advantage to the attacker.

Oh and with regards to the 'crap refs' we are all human. 3 yellow cards, phantom goals etc. It is all down to human error. Communication between all three officials is important as three people (or 4 counting the fourth official) are less likely to make the same mistake over a decision. More officials means better decisions and that is the way forward if video technology is not allowed.

Regarding video technology, do not compare rugby, american football or cricket. Those sports are completely different to football. They are all stop start games in which there is time to review a decision. The way in which the sport of football is played does not allow for this to be used (perhaps in certain instances but then we have a huge debate on how to establish when it should and should not be used).

And anyone who wants to moan about the ref costing us games - we lose games because we are not good enough. Face the fooking music. WE ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH. If we have one goal disallowed and lose 1-0, IT IS OUR FAULT BECAUSE WE SHOULD HAVE SCORED MORE.

Ref slagging always reaches its peak when we are losing...

[DB11]

How many wrong decisions do you see by a cricket umpire or a Rugby referee? Not many because they actually watch the game!

Cricket umpires have to do it all day and concentrate every ball. Football Refs do it for 90 minutes with a break in the middle and yet cant keep up with play and get their decisions right

They have video technology!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re King Goal debate.

Yes King was slightly in front of the defender. However it was not offside. This is because parts of King were alongside the defender.

1) There was no daylight between King and the Defender.

And

2) When applying the rule to the situation, if it is 50/50 the advantage is always given to the attacker.

My thoughts on how the offside rule is applied;

There was no daylight between the two players therefore he was onside. If the assistant couldn't establish it because it is such a tight to call to make one way or another then the goal should stand because he should apply the advantage to the attacker.

Oh and with regards to the 'crap refs' we are all human. 3 yellow cards, phantom goals etc. It is all down to human error. Communication between all three officials is important as three people (or 4 counting the fourth official) are less likely to make the same mistake over a decision. More officials means better decisions and that is the way forward if video technology is not allowed.

Regarding video technology, do not compare rugby, american football or cricket. Those sports are completely different to football. They are all stop start games in which there is time to review a decision. The way in which the sport of football is played does not allow for this to be used (perhaps in certain instances but then we have a huge debate on how to establish when it should and should not be used).

And anyone who wants to moan about the ref costing us games - we lose games because we are not good enough. Face the fooking music. WE ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH. If we have one goal disallowed and lose 1-0, IT IS OUR FAULT BECAUSE WE SHOULD HAVE SCORED MORE.

Ref slagging always reaches its peak when we are losing...

I read what I highlighted and stopped. You listen to Andy Gray too much! That is totally and utterly wrong. It's incomprehensible how wrong you are with that statement!

[Matt]

In the laws of the game what was wrong with the Liverpool goal?

Was the ball stationary? Yes.

Was the ball from the position of the infringement? Yes.

Had the referee indicated to restart play (which he doesn't have to do but this leaves no doubt)? Yes.

For match control he could have blew the whistle to take the free kick again, and no one would have said anything, but he was certainly not wrong.

If Vitor didn't bring Nugent down, who had a clear and unobstructed path to goal from 18 yards away, would Nugent have had an obvious opportunity to score? Of course he would. At the time of the foul Berner was not going to tackle Nugent.

Hang on then let's turn this around then you are supporting the referee on that arguement, correct?!

Sooooo, do you support the referee who disallowed the Leicester goal against I think it was Preston last year (not sure if it was Preston - the game that guarenteed us a playoff place) when the ball was played out of play because a player went down injured or something anyway Gallagher had to restart the game and the sportsman like thing to do would be give it back to the opposition, he didn't he shot and scored, the referee disallowed the goal, that was a legal goal correct? Do you have an answer to support the ref?

[Jackirius]

They have video technology!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They have had it for the last year and a half and only have it in international cricket. What about all the years before that...

[DB11]

Hang on then let's turn this around then you are supporting the referee on that arguement, correct?!

Sooooo, do you support the referee who disallowed the Leicester goal against I think it was Preston last year (not sure if it was Preston - the game that guarenteed us a playoff place) when the ball was played out of play because a player went down injured or something anyway Gallagher had to restart the game and the sportsman like thing to do would be give it back to the opposition, he didn't he shot and scored, the referee disallowed the goal, that was a legal goal correct? Do you have an answer to support the ref?

Assuming that it is actually what happened (for all we know just as the ref dropped the ball his assistant could have said something like "stop play! they want a sub")

It was a legal goal, yes. In law, should it have stood? Yes. Can I understand why it was disallowed? Yes.

Two words: Match Control.

[Lcfcman2010]

Hang on then let's turn this around then you are supporting the referee on that arguement, correct?!

Sooooo, do you support the referee who disallowed the Leicester goal against I think it was Preston last year (not sure if it was Preston - the game that guarenteed us a playoff place) when the ball was played out of play because a player went down injured or something anyway Gallagher had to restart the game and the sportsman like thing to do would be give it back to the opposition, he didn't he shot and scored, the referee disallowed the goal, that was a legal goal correct? Do you have an answer to support the ref?

arrrr yes, i want to see reply to this.

somewhere along the lines of its up to the ref i suppose

the refs have been shockingly shite in most games so far this season. Certainly at home more. I know Ref's at a good standard and i'm sure they could do alot better than most of the shower we have. Difference is with local refs and non league ones are most have played the game and love it for what it is. Top division Ref's are wannabe or previously police/teachers/bullies and still want the power trip.

[Matt]

Assuming that it is actually what happened (for all we know just as the ref dropped the ball his assistant could have said something like "stop play! they want a sub")

It was a legal goal, yes. In law, should it have stood? Yes. Can I understand why it was disallowed? Yes.

Two words: Match Control.

I.e - The referee can do no wrong.

Unbelievable DB11 can understand and give reason as to how England's disallowed goal v Germany in the World Cup didn't stand.

[DB11]

I.e - The referee can do no wrong.

Unbelievable DB11 can understand and give reason as to how England's disallowed goal v Germany in the World Cup didn't stand.

Do you just want me to not comment on refereeing matters then? I just seem to be repeating the same things over and over again, and it's getting really tedious. If I think the referee is wrong, then I say so, but I also offer the alternative point of view and offer reasons as to why the decision that was made may have been made. If I don't think he's wrong, then I'll tell you why. But everywhere in the laws of the game it will say in the referee's opinion.

You don't seem to apprciate it so hey, Sousa's God, Mandaric is our saviour and let's just blame it all on referees!

[J.Lisemore]

Do you just want me to not comment on refereeing matters then? I just seem to be repeating the same things over and over again, and it's getting really tedious. If I think the referee is wrong, then I say so, but I also offer the alternative point of view and offer reasons as to why the decision that was made may have been made. If I don't think he's wrong, then I'll tell you why. But everywhere in the laws of the game it will say in the referee's opinion.

You don't seem to apprciate it so hey, Sousa's God, Mandaric is our saviour and let's just blame it all on referees!

Thats more like it!

[Guest ttfn]

Do you just want me to not comment on refereeing matters then? I just seem to be repeating the same things over and over again, and it's getting really tedious. If I think the referee is wrong, then I say so, but I also offer the alternative point of view and offer reasons as to why the decision that was made may have been made. If I don't think he's wrong, then I'll tell you why. But everywhere in the laws of the game it will say in the referee's opinion.

You don't seem to apprciate it so hey, Sousa's God, Mandaric is our saviour and let's just blame it all on referees!

So what you're saying is that the referee is NEVER wrong. Well, I can sleep easy now.

[Matt]

Do you just want me to not comment on refereeing matters then? I just seem to be repeating the same things over and over again, and it's getting really tedious. If I think the referee is wrong, then I say so, but I also offer the alternative point of view and offer reasons as to why the decision that was made may have been made. If I don't think he's wrong, then I'll tell you why. But everywhere in the laws of the game it will say in the referee's opinion.

You don't seem to apprciate it so hey, Sousa's God, Mandaric is our saviour and let's just blame it all on referees!

When and where have you EVER said that?!

And "Sousa's god, Mandaric's our saviour?" If thats aimed at me in the fact I seem to placing all the blame on referees, I suggest you check my posts.

A) Earlier in this thread I said the referee's have been poor, very poor but even if they were good/favoured us it would make no difference - We are poorer than the referees.

B) I am in the Sousa out camp, and am one of the first to have a good old slagging off about Mandaric.