Dogawful Officiating - Dave Coote suspended

[Bizza]

Ref like a complete moron and get a weekend off, nice.

[gbandit]

He’s an utter buffoon, was like a plea for a P45 at the weekend 

[Fak]

Mark Clattenburg saying the Milan crowd is currently against the ref so he needs to give a couple of small fouls in Milan’s favour to get the crowd back on his side. 

[Yorkie]

Howard Webb on the TNT "mic'd up" show saying they shouldn't have disallowed Bournemouth's non-winner against us, on the basis of it not being a conclusive handball. Looks like we got away with one. 

[LFEE]

55 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Howard Webb on the TNT "mic'd up" show saying they shouldn't have disallowed Bournemouth's non-winner against us, on the basis of it not being a conclusive handball. Looks like we got away with one. 

VAR shouldn’t have. Didn’t say the referee shouldn’t have. Referee didn’t see it properly so you can argue if it was allowed Bournemouth got away with one...

 

[Skeletor]

Must have "lost" the footage of Brereton Diaz's cheating then. Or is it only things in our favour that get debated?

[LFEE]

The more they discuss the more it’s handball actually. Ball definitely struck below the armpit which Webb said was handball. Just basing how big a ball is then quite a bit of the circumference needs to be above the shoulder for it not to be below the armpit which it wasn’t.

[Cf]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cjd5l8ll7zko

 

2 things to call out here.

 

"I have no choice. He's put me in an awful position. Dec, you need to go I'm afraid."

 

Dec? Fuck off. You're the referee. He's not your mate.

 

And in terms of the Bournemouth goal...

 

"The VAR looked at this and decided that, in his professional opinion, that was in the area of the arm that has to be penalised below the bottom of the armpit. That's the important reference point. I don't think that's conclusive enough to intervene.

 

"Equally, if the goal had been disallowed by the on-field officials, I don't think there's evidence here to say that there's no handball either. So again, it goes back to referee's call. It's an important concept. And for those factual matters you need evidence. It's very clear that the on-field call is wrong, I don't think we have it here."

 

The ref clearly can't see where the ball hits so what you're saying here is don't use VAR and just allow a random arbitrary decision from on-field instead? Because apparently watching a video of a ball hitting the arm isn't "conclusive".

[AyeDubbleYoo]

9 hours ago, LFEE said:

The more they discuss the more it’s handball actually. Ball definitely struck below the armpit which Webb said was handball. Just basing how big a ball is then quite a bit of the circumference needs to be above the shoulder for it not to be below the armpit which it wasn’t.

 

It was a handball. Also he only reached the ball because he reached his shoulder and upper arm over the defender. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

3 minutes ago, Cf said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cjd5l8ll7zko

 

2 things to call out here.

 

"I have no choice. He's put me in an awful position. Dec, you need to go I'm afraid."

 

Dec? Fuck off. You're the referee. He's not your mate.

 

And in terms of the Bournemouth goal...

 

"The VAR looked at this and decided that, in his professional opinion, that was in the area of the arm that has to be penalised below the bottom of the armpit. That's the important reference point. I don't think that's conclusive enough to intervene.

 

"Equally, if the goal had been disallowed by the on-field officials, I don't think there's evidence here to say that there's no handball either. So again, it goes back to referee's call. It's an important concept. And for those factual matters you need evidence. It's very clear that the on-field call is wrong, I don't think we have it here."

 

The ref clearly can't see where the ball hits so what you're saying here is don't use VAR and just allow a random arbitrary decision from on-field instead? Because apparently watching a video of a ball hitting the arm isn't "conclusive".

 

Yep, it makes no sense. You can see where it hits, you can judge that it's the illegal bit of the arm. I didn't see the show but those comments are bollocks. 

[Sima]

46 minutes ago, Cf said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cjd5l8ll7zko

 

2 things to call out here.

 

"I have no choice. He's put me in an awful position. Dec, you need to go I'm afraid."

 

Dec? Fuck off. You're the referee. He's not your mate.

 

And in terms of the Bournemouth goal...

 

"The VAR looked at this and decided that, in his professional opinion, that was in the area of the arm that has to be penalised below the bottom of the armpit. That's the important reference point. I don't think that's conclusive enough to intervene.

 

"Equally, if the goal had been disallowed by the on-field officials, I don't think there's evidence here to say that there's no handball either. So again, it goes back to referee's call. It's an important concept. And for those factual matters you need evidence. It's very clear that the on-field call is wrong, I don't think we have it here."

 

The ref clearly can't see where the ball hits so what you're saying here is don't use VAR and just allow a random arbitrary decision from on-field instead? Because apparently watching a video of a ball hitting the arm isn't "conclusive".

 

Telling me nothing I don't already know.  The PGMOL is completely pally/overfriendly with the darling six and will try their best not to give decisions in favour of the 14 scum clubs.

 

 

Edited September 18 by Sima

[gbandit]

When a ref has zero eyeline on something and it’s clear that the ball has gone directly in off someone’s arm into the net then it’s absolutely the case that VAR should intervene 

[beardsleymagic]

Hold on, hold on… so let me get this straight, you brought VAR in to make sure you got  the “big” decisions right. You know maybe important ones like, I don’t know…goals?

Then when a ref for whatever reason, view blocked or incompetent, gets the decision wrong… we are now supposed to just stay with the onfield decision?!

I know they are talking all this rubbish about re-refereeing the game but I think getting goals allowed or disallowed right should be the one thing that it’s definitely used for regardless of wether the refs made a genuine mistake or is just usless

[Sima]

15 hours ago, Fak said:

Mark Clattenburg saying the Milan crowd is currently against the ref so he needs to give a couple of small fouls in Milan’s favour to get the crowd back on his side. 

 

If this practice is historically commonplace in refereeing it's a worry.  Doesn't surprise me though as it's sometimes the case as when a contentious free kick/corner has been awarded the referee blows up for a soft foul against the attacking team.

 

 

Edited September 18 by Sima

[midds]

Don't they routinely check every goal for 'something' either in the build up or whatever? Foul in the build up, offside, handball or whatever? 

 

Letting a ref completely guess a huge decision then saying 'meh, just go with it, it's close' doesn't seem like the best use of technology like. Which way it went is irrelevant, if the ref is completely unsighted then that's the perfect time to use the different camera angles to get the right decision. There's just so much wrong with VAR man

[Sima]

There's a few occasions where players have been offside in an attack and the ball has eventually went out for a corner which presents a goalscoring opportunity.

 

Are these even checked?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

44 minutes ago, Sima said:

There's a few occasions where players have been offside in an attack and the ball has eventually went out for a corner which presents a goalscoring opportunity.

 

Are these even checked?

 

Nah, happens all the time. Guess it's just accepted under the new rules. 

[Fak]

46 minutes ago, Sima said:

There's a few occasions where players have been offside in an attack and the ball has eventually went out for a corner which presents a goalscoring opportunity.

 

Are these even checked?

 

Only if the attack leads to a goal. If the attack leads to a corner, goal kick or throw-in etc. then the onfield decision sticks.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 hour ago, midds said:

Don't they routinely check every goal for 'something' either in the build up or whatever? Foul in the build up, offside, handball or whatever? 

 

Letting a ref completely guess a huge decision then saying 'meh, just go with it, it's close' doesn't seem like the best use of technology like. Which way it went is irrelevant, if the ref is completely unsighted then that's the perfect time to use the different camera angles to get the right decision. There's just so much wrong with VAR man

 

Said so many times, the on-field decision shouldn't matter. They should use the video to make the decision if the video has a clear angle. Anything else is silly. 

[Joe1984]

1 hour ago, midds said:

Don't they routinely check every goal for 'something' either in the build up or whatever? Foul in the build up, offside, handball or whatever? 

 

Letting a ref completely guess a huge decision then saying 'meh, just go with it, it's close' doesn't seem like the best use of technology like. Which way it went is irrelevant, if the ref is completely unsighted then that's the perfect time to use the different camera angles to get the right decision. There's just so much wrong with VAR man

Again it's not VAR that's the issue. It's the human element that's the issue.

 

Technology has no bias. The refs always do.

[Pata]

4 hours ago, Cf said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cjd5l8ll7zko

 

2 things to call out here.

 

"I have no choice. He's put me in an awful position. Dec, you need to go I'm afraid."

 

Dec? Fuck off. You're the referee. He's not your mate.

 

And in terms of the Bournemouth goal...

 

"The VAR looked at this and decided that, in his professional opinion, that was in the area of the arm that has to be penalised below the bottom of the armpit. That's the important reference point. I don't think that's conclusive enough to intervene.

 

"Equally, if the goal had been disallowed by the on-field officials, I don't think there's evidence here to say that there's no handball either. So again, it goes back to referee's call. It's an important concept. And for those factual matters you need evidence. It's very clear that the on-field call is wrong, I don't think we have it here."

 

The ref clearly can't see where the ball hits so what you're saying here is don't use VAR and just allow a random arbitrary decision from on-field instead? Because apparently watching a video of a ball hitting the arm isn't "conclusive".

They really don’t want VAR to work with these artificial boundaries.  The respect the on-field decision gets is insane when you consider why VAR is a thing.

[Cf]

1 hour ago, Joe1984 said:

Again it's not VAR that's the issue. It's the human element that's the issue.

 

Technology has no bias. The refs always do.

 

VAR is the issue as the whole point of it is it's human's operating it. Remove the humans and you don't have VAR.

 

 

Edited September 18 by Cf

[Rod]

1 hour ago, Joe1984 said:

Again it's not VAR that's the issue. It's the human element that's the issue.

 

Technology has no bias. The refs always do.

Exactly!

[Rod]

45 minutes ago, Cf said:

 

VAR is the issue as the whole point of it is it's human's operating it. Remove the humans and you don't have VAR.

 

 

 

Ridiculous take on it.  If someone had of told me all those years ago that cameras could help with contentious decisions I just wouldn't have believed you.  VAR is actually brilliant if used correctly.

[Cf]

10 minutes ago, Rod said:

Ridiculous take on it.  If someone had of told me all those years ago that cameras could help with contentious decisions I just wouldn't have believed you.  VAR is actually brilliant if used correctly.

 

What do you think VAR is? It's literally a human being watching a replay.

 

People talk about "the technology". Apart from the semi-auto offside still to come the rest of it is a human being's opinion having watched a video replay. Something we could have been doing 20+ years ago.

 

If the argument is "Video cameras are awesome" then yes I agree.

 

I disagree with "Using video cameras to re-referee games is awesome".