Dogawful Officiating

[Hanshithispantz]

There a copy paste of that?

[geordie_b]

3 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

There a copy paste of that?

 

Just press ESC (or browser stop button) as the page is loading

 

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by geordie_b

[Hanshithispantz]

They'll not admit fault so will likely just reiitirate "clear and obvious error" and 'clarify' that off the ball incidents are under the discretion of the officials or something.

[Hanshithispantz]

4 minutes ago, geordie_b said:

 

Just press ESC (or browser stop button) as the page is loading

 

 

 

cheers

[Fantail Breeze]

16 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Glad we're taking a swing at them despite the fact it'll obviously go nowhere. 

 

At least it puts the pressure on regarding future decisions.

[wormy]

At least higher ups in the club are willing to argue the toss with referees, even if our players can't be arsed.

[Jackie Broon]

3 hours ago, Fantail Breeze said:

The only thing I can think of, is they’ve (probably rightly) judged that Fraser was never going to get the ball and it was an accidental/natural collision rather than an attempt to challenge Fraser.

 

What I mean is - Ederson was challenging his own player rather than Fraser and pulled out when he realised his player was going to easily collect the ball. There was then an accidental coming together which had no impact on Fraser getting the ball.

 

I suppose the equivalent would be if a player slid in to make a challenge, but his team mate nipped in ahead of him and ran off with the ball, but the sliding player’s momentum took him into a an opposition player off the ball - would it be given as a foul or just be accepted as a coming together?

 

I don’t know. I’m trying to find any way to make sense of the incredibly wrong decision  

 

 

 

But he was in a position to have pressured Cancelo, possibly nicked the ball off him with the keeper stranded or at least forced a corner.

 

Their explanation seems to be misapplying the assessment of whether it is a sending off offence for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity to whether it is a foul.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[madras]

We should put it to the test if we are ever in the position to, you know 3 up in the last minute get the ball to our defender in the box and wipe out a forward 5....10yds away and claim "but we had the ball". 

[midds]

It'll come across as sour grapes to many but I think they had to make some kind or statement or protest, the nature and volume of questionable decisions we've been on the wrong end of recently is ridiculous. At some point you need to  question the 'just unlucky' and 'it'll even itself out' bollocks. It's happening way too often to be a simple coincidence.  

[Jackie Broon]

5 minutes ago, madras said:

We should put it to the test if we are ever in the position to, you know 3 up in the last minute get the ball to our defender in the box and wipe out a forward 5....10yds away and claim "but we had the ball". 

 

Yeah, with this new interpretation of a foul they've basically created a new sport, a bastardised marriage of football and rugby.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[madras]

The way these things work with Man city is, if you cast your minds back to Tiotes goal, within a few weeks they scored when their player stepped over the ball whilst offside, so fully expect them to get a pen in the next few weeks for someones  arm getting brushed when he has his back to the ball, 40yds away at the opposite end of the box to where the ball is. Probable red as well.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by madras

[1964]

18 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

But he was in a position to have pressured Cancelo, possibly nicked the ball off him with the keeper stranded or at least forced a corner.

 

Their explanation seems to be misapplying the assessment of whether it is a sending off offence for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity to whether it is a foul.

 

 

 

And to be honest whilst that has been touted as mitigation it's irrelevant according to the laws of the game.  The ball could have been in our half, but if their keeper does that it's still a pen to us

[Awaymag]

8 minutes ago, 1964 said:

And to be honest whilst that has been touted as mitigation it's irrelevant according to the laws of the game.  The ball could have been in our half, but if their keeper does that it's still a pen to us

of course its irrelevant.    Otherwise, when Dubs has the ball in his hands, there is nothing to stop lascells running toward opposition striker and taking him out with a sliding tackle, just for the hell of it!  Dubs had control of the ball and striker wasn't likely to get the ball!

 

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Awaymag

[joeyt]

I bet referee's egos definitely come into it. I bet there's a hierarchy

 

Imagine little Paul Tierney having the audacity to overrule the big boys in Dean, Marriner and Atkinson

[Happinesstan]

16 minutes ago, Awaymag said:

of course its irrelevant.    Otherwise, when Dubs has the ball in his hands, there is nothing to stop lascells running toward opposition striker and taking him out with a sliding tackle, just for the hell of it!  Dubs had control of the ball and striker wasn't likely to get the ball!

 

 

 

Nah. The speed of Lascelles means the opposition would get a free-kick for Dubs wasting time.

[geordiesteve710]

4 hours ago, Fantail Breeze said:

The only thing I can think of, is they’ve (probably rightly) judged that Fraser was never going to get the ball and it was an accidental/natural collision rather than an attempt to challenge Fraser.

 

What I mean is - Ederson was challenging his own player rather than Fraser and pulled out when he realised his player was going to easily collect the ball. There was then an accidental coming together which had no impact on Fraser getting the ball.

 

I suppose the equivalent would be if a player slid in to make a challenge, but his team mate nipped in ahead of him and ran off with the ball, but the sliding player’s momentum took him into a an opposition player off the ball - would it be given as a foul or just be accepted as a coming together?

 

I don’t know. I’m trying to find any way to make sense of the incredibly wrong decision  

 

 

 

I know you're playing devils advocate, so please don't think it's aimed at your comment per se.

 

But the "he had already started sliding and couldn't stop himself" argument makes it worse. How many times do we see a player sent off and the specific rationale is given as "he was out of control of himself therefore it's a dangerous tackle."

 

If you can't stop yourself from sliding then that must count as not being in control of yourself surely?

 

They just need to put their hands up, admit they got it wrong and stop trying to bullshit everyone. Would probably get more respect as well if they did.

[geordiesteve710]

17 minutes ago, joeyt said:

I bet referee's egos definitely come into it. I bet there's a hierarchy

 

Imagine little Paul Tierney having the audacity to overrule the big boys in Dean, Marriner and Atkinson

I absolutely bet there is a hierarchy, and you're right the likes of Dean and Marriner (see also previously Graham Poll) have proper egos on them.

 

Again, they've created their own problem here though. The VAR isn't supposed to be overruling the referee, they're supposed to be suggesting the ref take a look at the footage. But they're in a situation where they've overturned every single review, so now there's an expectation that as soon as a ref goes to the monitor they will be changing their decision.

[Infinitely Content]

2 hours ago, Hanshithispantz said:

There a copy paste of that?

https://12ft.io/

Paywalls no more.

[The Prophet]

 

Good thread on VAR.

[Hanshithispantz]

Yeah good read and it explains a lot. How anyone came up with that idea is beyond me like. It makes no sense.

 

Allow the referee to control the flow of the game from on pitch but VAR should interfere  with major decitions (red cards/penalties) when he gets them wrong - if the VAR team collectively agree he did so. It's really not hard.

 

Either that or just get shot of VAR for anything other than offsides and off the ball stuff the ref cannot see.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Hanshithispantz

[Fantail Breeze]

Said it in the match thread, but how was Ronaldo’s kick on Fraser any different to the one of Robertson that saw VAR send him off?

 

I don’t particularly think either were reds, but if you are giving Robertson one, you have to give Ronaldo one too.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Fantail Breeze

[Nobody]

Just now, Fantail Breeze said:

Said it in the match thread, but how was Ronaldo’s kick on Fraser any different to the one of Robertson that saw VAR send him off?

 

I don’t particularly think either were reds, but if you are giving Robertson one, you have to give Ronaldo one too.

The Robertson one is worse, but not by a lot. Both decesions were correct IMO.

[Guest neesy111]

Personally think neither were red cards.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2021 by neesy111

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Thought the reffing was pretty decent today tbf.

 

of course your screaming for a pen and a red but he kept it flowing and was consistent to both sides 

[The Prophet]

Thought Pawson had a decent game overall.