Dogawful Officiating

[Wallsendmag]

It's actually one of the reasons I don't go to matches anymore (amongst others). A lot of the time it felt like I was paying to watch the referee. We would be in the pub after the match and the topic if conversation would be about how awful the ref was instead of the match (which was usually awful as well). It got to the point where I thought I'm not paying 600 quid a season to watch 22 millionaires and a referee who wants the show to be all about him and a lot of the time seeing him ruin what potentially looked like it might be a good game.

 

It's certainly got far worse over the past 4-5 seasons but because they're not accountable for the ridiculous decisions they make and managers aren't allowed to criticise them they know they can get away with doing what they want time and time again. The arrogance of a lot of them is just staggering and the only thing that making them "professional" did was to boost their over inflated egos even further.

 

Leaves a bit of a bitter taste coming less than 2 months since a different referee totally ruined the home match with Arsenal but there's no point getting too worked up about it because there's nowt we can do. Maybe we'll get the benefit of some awful refereeing decisions next week?

[Guest firetotheworks]

The thing that gets me is the substituition of the word 'dive' or 'cheat' with 'simulation'.

 

It's almost saying outright cheating isn't that bad.

 

Football is one of the few professional sports where overt cheating is just about actively encouraged.

 

 

 

 

Exactly. Those that were at the forefront of lambasting it (pundits) now only do so when it's blatant. The amount of times you hear 'could/should have gone down' from commentators and ex-pros alike is sickening.

[TRC]

Is there a website that rates referees, or says how many wrong decisions influenced a game? Would be interested to see Robert Madleys.

[Guest neesy111]

Is there a website that rates referees, or says how many wrong decisions influenced a game? Would be interested to see Robert Madleys.

 

Impossible to even judge a referee's performance from a fans point of view.

[madras]

Is there a website that rates referees, or says how many wrong decisions influenced a game? Would be interested to see Robert Madleys.

 

Impossible to even judge a referee's performance from a fans point of view.

It can be, however all the non nufc or safc fans I've talked to said we'd been mugged by the ref. A few saying they'd seen performances like that but crap decisions given both ways, rarely with the bias shown. In particular the red (obviously), Cattermoles tackle on Colback, and laughingly in a couple of cases, the ref pointing out to Cattermole all his fouls and STILL not booking him.

[Mole_Toonfan]

Cattermole's biggest offense to me was the knee in the back of Perez, sort of the shit you see in MMA.

[Disco]

Didn't even think the tackle that did Colback was a foul.

[Guest Gino14]

Cattermole's biggest offense to me was the knee in the back of Perez, sort of the s*** you see in MMA.

 

Fletcher also managed a running elbow on someone and not even a word. Yet the ref gleefully ran over and brandished a yellow to Tiote. It's not that Tiote shouldn't have been booked, it's just that it didn't look like he'd book a Sunderland player, even if one of them were to literally walk over and punch someone.

[madras]

Cattermole's biggest offense to me was the knee in the back of Perez, sort of the s*** you see in MMA.

 

Fletcher also managed a running elbow on someone and not even a word. Yet the ref gleefully ran over and brandished a yellow to Tiote. It's not that Tiote shouldn't have been booked, it's just that it didn't look like he'd book a Sunderland player, even if one of them were to have literally walked over and punch someone.

Tiote was booked because the ref has spoken to him previously after his first one. No problem with that. Do have a problem with the ref then pointing out to Cattermole all his fouls and doing nothing.

[merlin]

They need to bring in the same system that they have in cricket, i.e. a TV review of a penalty decision, either for or against, or a sending off decision.  Said review to be requested by the captain after briefly consulting with the deemed offender/offendee.  Review requests limited to 2 i.e. one each half.

There is NO way FIFA or any football organization at the top level, want this bringing into the game - it would stop them interfering with results....I would take your point further and demand that they also have TV reviews of disputed Offsides where a goal results, but they don't want that either..!

[Kaizero]

They need to bring in the same system that they have in cricket, i.e. a TV review of a penalty decision, either for or against, or a sending off decision.  Said review to be requested by the captain after briefly consulting with the deemed offender/offendee.  Review requests limited to 2 i.e. one each half.

There is NO way FIFA or any football organization at the top level, want this bringing into the game - it would stop them interfering with results....I would take your point further and demand that they also have TV reviews of disputed Offsides where a goal results, but they don't want that either..!

 

It would be so glorious. Fuck the refs.

 

Their argument to keep review out of it is that they want football to be the same game even if you play it with your friends or if you play it at the top level, and you can't have TV reviews when playing with your friends. Alright, FIFA. But amateurs playing with friends don't get paid millions a year either and get watched by millions. Just fucking bring in reviews on the top level you cunts.

[Cronky]

The main argument against using video technology is that so many decisions in football are matters of opinion rather than fact. In cricket, that can work well. In rugby it's turning into a bit of a mess. It's just simply the nature of the game.

 

To take the Colo penalty/sending off decision, how much time would be wasted viewing it from all sorts of angles, and in the end you'd still be left with no certainty. In most cases, it wouldn't settle arguments, it would only hype them up.

[Nobody]

Can't believe I agree with Cronky Goal line technology is great, leave it there though unless you can get 100 % reliable off side technology as well, as that is another thing that is fact rather than opinion.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I just think technology would lead to all sorts of weird things, unless you let the video ref comment on anything at any time. What if you review an offside, but in the slo-mo you see the guy handled the ball? You'd have to look at almost everything leading up to a goal. Which I would probably be in favour of, but that's not normally how it's proposed.

 

Not sure I like the challenge system either, if the aim is to get rid of massive errors then why should it be limited by challenges?

[Guest Hog]

Rather than review tech being brought in perhaps they should simplify the rules of the game a tad more then, make it harder for any decision to be queried. The problem with rules by interpretation is at present a ref can be swayed quite easily, if there weren't so many caveats to each rule they could only interpret them one way and it'd be far more consistent.

[NG32]

Each team gets one video review a game, the time it takes gets added to the game, the ref, linesmen and 4th official decide.  Once the decision has been made, that's it done.

 

Cant see it being an issue.

[themanupstairs]

Each team gets one video review a game, the time it takes gets added to the game, the ref, linesmen and 4th official decide.  Once the decision has been made, that's it done.

 

Cant see it being an issue.

 

Takes two minutes for a decision. That means they can cut to 4 commercials!! Imagine the dosh to be made!!

 

....is the only reason it would ever get introduced.

[Ankles Bennett]

The main argument against using video technology is that so many decisions in football are matters of opinion rather than fact. In cricket, that can work well. In rugby it's turning into a bit of a mess. It's just simply the nature of the game.

 

To take the Colo penalty/sending off decision, how much time would be wasted viewing it from all sorts of angles, and in the end you'd still be left with no certainty. In most cases, it wouldn't settle arguments, it would only hype them up.

 

As in cricket, the decision is only set aside if it is clearly wrong.  If its arguable, i.e. open to debate after a TV review, then the original decision of the ref stands.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Each team gets one video review a game, the time it takes gets added to the game, the ref, linesmen and 4th official decide.  Once the decision has been made, that's it done.

 

Cant see it being an issue.

 

But that would only resolve one contentious decision, why ignore all the others?

[Exiled in Texas]

I think all straight Red Card decisions should go to the TMO review (TV Match Official to use rugby parlance). Referee states his decision and then asks the TMO if there is any evidence that indicates the decision is wrong (if its not clear then go with the referee's original decision).

 

I would actually extend this to all Penalty Decisions given in favor of a PK (with the option of a Yellow card/IFK coming out if there was simulation).

 

I think the NHL reviews all goals in real time from their offices in Toronto, so its definitely manageable if they wanted to do that.

 

I'm not convinced about coaches challenges, but if we were to go down that path then the NFL has a good baseline to start with where the coach has to gamble one of their valuable timeouts (for us it could be gambling a substitution opportunity). Win the appeal, and you keep the sub opportunity, lose the appeal and you loose a sub opportunity, which keeps frivolous appeals to a minimum. 

[Exiled in Texas]

When I was refereeing U19 Boys and High School games I would have loved the opportunity to replay what I "thought" I saw or what I didn't quite see.

 

No referee wants to get decisions wrong.  But then again, there is wrong .... and there is not what team X wanted, which isn't always wrong. Fact and opinion are two very different things

[Stifler]

How about we just invest all that millions we have on training new referee's and officials who aren't shit and play up to the big teams/players?

 

Yeah that's too much to ask.

 

The 1 challenge rule is probably the best solution, not going to happen though. The big problem is that referee's will just start maintaining their judgement. If you showed that decision at the weekend to the referee then he would still maintain it was the right one. Imagine that happening on decisions that help the big teams?

You know the FA will just come up with some bullshit rule where any cards shown on an appealed incident can't be appealed to a panel later on and the appealing club can't express their disagreement with the decision in their reports either.

[merlin]

The revelations on Sky News last night, where an uncomfortable and visibly twisting Dyke was grilled by an MPs Committee after it had been revealed that FIFA had already decided to give Russia the WC in 2018 long before the bidding process, added to the fact that Platini had got Blatter to change the 2022 venue from the US to Qatar after a lunch with the Qatari prince, show only too clearly how the game is corrupt from the top and adds further to my conviction that this runs right through from FIFA to national FAs.

One MP grilled Dyke about taxpayers' money, used in the 2018 bidding process and claimed that Dyke should attempt to recover the money as the venue had already been decided...he also nailed Dyke about the FAs support for Platini which had apparently been given without any affirmation as to what - if any - reforms Platini intended to make to FIFA ; Dyke was really uncomfortable about this one and the MP insisted that he inform the committee whether the FA would now look at another candidate to back.

 

The whole thing stinks to high heaven and although this might appear removed from NUFC and the PL, a fish rots from the head down and nothing would surprise me about corruption in the game - there have been scandals in Italy and Germany in the past but the FA sneaked under the radar, probably because the media etc. have little interest in pursuing any suspicions as they would suffer by non-access to people within the game from club level upwards.

 

I KNOW that games in English football have been manipulated to put it kindly and this was told to me by a former coach of Newcastle United back in 1974......

[mrmojorisin75]

At the very least I'd like to see a reform of the card review process.

 

I can accept mistakes are made during a game by refs and assistants, it's often a fast moving game and certain angles can show certain things differently.

 

I can't accept this nonsense like the ref saw it and dealt with it so it can't be challenged and so on.

 

If there's a video of something that brings the original decision into doubt, thus renders the issuing of a card debatable then I think it should always be possible to appeal without fear of sanction.

 

The current alternative is to believe that refs are infallible, or are to be treated as such. Balls.

[Cronky]

The revelations on Sky News last night, where an uncomfortable and visibly twisting Dyke was grilled by an MPs Committee after it had been revealed that FIFA had already decided to give Russia the WC in 2018 long before the bidding process, added to the fact that Platini had got Blatter to change the 2022 venue from the US to Qatar after a lunch with the Qatari prince, show only too clearly how the game is corrupt from the top and adds further to my conviction that this runs right through from FIFA to national FAs.

One MP grilled Dyke about taxpayers' money, used in the 2018 bidding process and claimed that Dyke should attempt to recover the money as the venue had already been decided...he also nailed Dyke about the FAs support for Platini which had apparently been given without any affirmation as to what - if any - reforms Platini intended to make to FIFA ; Dyke was really uncomfortable about this one and the MP insisted that he inform the committee whether the FA would now look at another candidate to back.

 

The whole thing stinks to high heaven and although this might appear removed from NUFC and the PL, a fish rots from the head down and nothing would surprise me about corruption in the game - there have been scandals in Italy and Germany in the past but the FA sneaked under the radar, probably because the media etc. have little interest in pursuing any suspicions as they would suffer by non-access to people within the game from club level upwards.

 

I KNOW that games in English football have been manipulated to put it kindly and this was told to me by a former coach of Newcastle United back in 1974......

 

It's more than a bit fanciful to use the high level corruption at FIFA to suggest that referees in the Premier League are bent, and that this could have influenced decisions on Sunday. If that's not what you're suggesting, then the Blatter-Platini-Dyke bit - however interesting - is in the wrong thread.