DB11 Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 From Naughtons throw he had 2 options, book the player for rolling back on, or allow the goal. Bottled it. Probably the funniest of a lot of ridiculous comments in this thread Allow what goal? And why would it be a caution for the player being on the pitch? For match control reasons you'd never have allowed that to continue - the goalkeeper was clearly trying to get his team mate treatment. Remember the uproar when Gomes rolled the ball on the floor and the Man Utd player scored? Well if you don't read this thread and see what people thought of it.
Kingylcfc Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 also has anyone seen the games he has refereed this month??? Cheltenham Vs Chesterfield (League 2) Bury Vs Morecambe (League 2) Port Vale Vs Oxford (League 2) Leicester Vs Portsmouth (Championship) ....yes, he has refereed more games in the championship this season, but surely those 3 games in League 2 can't prepare him for a trip to the Walkers
ScouseFox Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 the goalkeeper was clearly trying to get his team mate treatment. It is 100% fcuk all to do with what the goalkeeper wants. He has not got the power to stop and start the game when he wants to. The player was off the pitch, he can be treated with the game going ahead, there's no reason for the ball to be put out of play, and no reason for us to wait until treatment has taken place to continue with the game. The ref looked a bit silly after that incident, but in no way was it crucial or game-changing.
DB11 Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 also has anyone seen the games he has refereed this month??? Cheltenham Vs Chesterfield (League 2) Bury Vs Morecambe (League 2) Port Vale Vs Oxford (League 2) Leicester Vs Portsmouth (Championship) ....yes, he has refereed more games in the championship this season, but surely those 3 games in League 2 can't prepare him for a trip to the Walkers That's ridiculous. If you referee on the Football League, that makes you a Football League referee. There's no Championship referees, League 1 referees etc.
Kingylcfc Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 That's ridiculous. If you referee on the Football League, that makes you a Football League referee. There's no Championship referees, League 1 referees etc. yeahh but, there are normally refs who take championship games, i know that they are football league refs, but there is a huge difference from League 2 football to Championship football
Bugg Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 Probably the funniest of a lot of ridiculous comments in this thread Allow what goal? And why would it be a caution for the player being on the pitch? For match control reasons you'd never have allowed that to continue - the goalkeeper was clearly trying to get his team mate treatment. Remember the uproar when Gomes rolled the ball on the floor and the Man Utd player scored? Well if you don't read this thread and see what people thought of it. You were the one saying that referee had to send the player off in the Havant and Waterlooville game for tackling a streaker, regardless of match control reasons. Be more consistant with your opinion
DB11 Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 You were the one saying that referee had to send the player off in the Havant and Waterlooville game for tackling a streaker, regardless of match control reasons. Be more consistant with your opinion That was black and white. A player rugby tackling a spectator into the ground is violent conduct, which the law says is a red card. The assessor there would have hammered him had he not done it, I'm sure. Yesterday the referee had discretion, and used it.
Bugg Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 That was black and white. A player rugby tackling a spectator into the ground is violent conduct, which the law says is a red card. The assessor there would have hammered him had he not done it, I'm sure. Yesterday the referee had discretion, and used it. So an assessor wouldn't have hammered him for not going by the book and allowing play to continue?
DB11 Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 So an assessor wouldn't have hammered him for not going by the book and allowing play to continue? That wouldn't have been by the book at all. The referee could have said a number of things: The player was still on the field of play; thought that the player was seriously injured so wanted the physio to have the shortest distance to run (across the pitch). No one made Naughton throw the ball back when the referee eventually allowed the throw in to be taken.
acooling08 Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 The Portsmouth player was off the pitch so play should of continued. How the ref did not book so many players for cynical tackles I'll never know. Absolute pussy as well, was hounded by Nugent for 5 minutes and just took the abuse. No authority.
Matt Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 Right as I said earlier in this thread the referee is not to blame for yesterday our teams performance is however for once DB11 will you take you 'referees can do no wrong' tinted glasses off please!!! I've said it in the past, I'll say again and the more you comment about referees you just confirm it even more that you never have and never will admit when a referee is in the wrong. On the flip side to other people soley blaming the referee I question if this thread would have been created if our Leicester team had actually turned up yesterday and won.
DB11 Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 Right as I said earlier in this thread the referee is not to blame for yesterday our teams performance is however for once DB11 will you take you 'referees can do no wrong' tinted glasses off please!!! I've said it in the past, I'll say again and the more you comment about referees you just confirm it even more that you never have and never will admit when a referee is in the wrong. On the flip side to other people soley blaming the referee I question if this thread would have been created if our Leicester team had actually turned up yesterday and won. I don't think you understand. I offer the referee's perspective of things. There's no point in me just repeating what everyone else is saying and agreeing. I, to use your analogy, deliberately put the tinted glasses on to try to explain what, IMO, the referee did and why. Not whether it was right or wrong, but why he perhaps did what he did.
Guest ttfn Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 I don't think you understand. I offer the referee's perspective of things. There's no point in me just repeating what everyone else is saying and agreeing. I, to use your analogy, deliberately put the tinted glasses on to try to explain what, IMO, the referee did and why. Not whether it was right or wrong, but why he perhaps did what he did. But the fact that you're a referee would make your perspective, from what you understand the rules to be, all the more valuable. As for the Gomes example, Leicester committed no offence. Nani handled the ball twice in that incident.
The Doctor Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 That wouldn't have been by the book at all. The referee could have said a number of things: The player was still on the field of play; thought that the player was seriously injured so wanted the physio to have the shortest distance to run (across the pitch). No one made Naughton throw the ball back when the referee eventually allowed the throw in to be taken. no but no doubt it would have been called back should we have gone on to score, the way gallagher's goal at preston last season was. I understand you backing the refs but you need to accept sometimes that the ref has made a howler rather than try and defend the indefensible.
Corky Posted 20 March 2011 Posted 20 March 2011 He was poor. Had an opportunity to stamp his authority on the game early on and failed to.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.