Dogawful Officiating

[The Prophet]

Big Dermot thinks it should have been a penalty.

[Wullie]

I can't let any mention of Dermot Gallagher pass without posting his real accent.

 

 

[pinkeye]

The VAR was set up to fix any obvious errors I think, or seem to remember being said.  They are now basically re-refereeing games from a TV monitor.  It was great to see Michael Oliver stick to his decision to award a penalty to Brentford, even though it was probably a wrong decision in my opinion, and I hope that starts to set a new standard that ref's do not have to bow down to the superiority of Lee Mason or whoever is doing VAR.

 

Last week was probably the darkest of times for incorrect decisions, no coincidence that both of ours were at the hands of Mason, he was an awful referee and is continuing that as a terrible VAR.

 

Off side has changed over the years, I can remember a time that to be off side there had to be clear daylight between the attacker and the defender, that was very clear.  No trigonometry or sun dial to judge the shadows required for that, just eye sight.  Why can it not just be that simple again?

[Johnny]

World Cup, Euro, Woman Euro, CL, erc all uses VAR. But they don't have the same problem (at least not as frequent).

 

Or maybe the standard of referee in PL far below of the other world class competition? I don't believe that to be the problem either.

 

So, what is the problem? Corruption is the answer.

 

[mosstef]

Yeah, that quote is still fake though.

[Wullie]

I'd love to know what the intention of this supposed corruption is. If it's all about getting one over on NUFC, do they just not invite Michael Oliver to the meetings? Leave him off the email distribution list, like they're having a whip round for his birthday?

 

Maybe that's why he stuck with his decision on Saturday, because he's missed all the secret gatherings.

[Wullie]

Love the idea that refs are "told to give a certain amount of throw ins"

 

Halsey towards the end of a game just desperately awarding throws at random when the ball is blasted over the bar.

[Guest HTT II]

Var needs abolished, it’s ruining the game.

[Tsunami]

1 hour ago, The Prophet said:

Big Dermot thinks it should have been a penalty.

Yeah, saw that, no playing advantage then or sending off for deliberately stopping a goal scoring opportunity.?Mind you, he also thought Guita was getting to the ball ahead of Willock……

[Nobody]

If you can't make a decision within 15 seconds, it's not a clear and obvious error and the original decision stands.

[The Prophet]

The problems are largely driven by incompetence, but I do think there is an element of "protect the brand" to it. It can't be a coincidence these decisions largely favour the larger teams and it's probably because revenue's are driven by the biggest players and the best teams playing regularly at the top table.

[Hanshithispantz]

I doubt it’s anything more than internal bias tbh, there’s innumerable reasons why we would want teams we have no affiliation with to win or lose points, and it will obviously have an effect on how an official views an incident. It’s why I think having the officials in separate rooms voting on an outcome would be a lot fairer.

[Kid Icarus]

A 'conspiracy' doesn't really need to be explicit, just subtly implied and picked up on subconsciously.

 

As an example, if the Premier League tell referees to 'protect the brand' they're not explicitly saying to bias certain teams and players, but it doesn't take a tin foil hat to see how that makes it more likely to result in a ref not sending off Van Dijk when they should, or giving a yellow for a robust tackle on Harry Kane when they shouldn't.

 

The same applies with the way a player's reputation will influence decisions. We're not blind, if Joey Barton and Harry Kane both make the same tackle, we know what's more and less likely to happen.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by Kid Icarus

[Guest]

Defensive line playing the offside trap

 

[Wullie]

What brand are they protecting by disallowing a Newcastle goal vs Crystal Palace? 

 

Does ruling out the MacAllister goal yesterday protect the brand? "Come and watch our league, when a stunning goal is scored, we'll look for a pedantic way to disallow it" (presumably to protect Leicester City, then award a penalty against them five minutes later). That makes no sense whatsoever as an argument. 

 

I can't believe I'm defending the officials but the principle of Hanlon's Razor applies here.

[pinkeye]

There are certain teams in the UK that I absolutely cannot stand, I have no logical reasoning for this but, I simply cannot stand them and I always wish bad luck upon them.  (There are others where I hate them for very obvious reasons, mackems, Villa etc).

 

You cannot tell me that I am the only one, therefore it follows that referees (inc VAR) have the same albeit for different teams and that "list" may change over time....  Some referees may even hate NUFC and without realising be prone to making - I won't say biased but, decisions that are less favourable....

[Happinesstan]

6 minutes ago, Wullie said:

What brand are they protecting by disallowing a Newcastle goal vs Crystal Palace? 

 

Does ruling out the MacAllister goal yesterday protect the brand? "Come and watch our league, when a stunning goal is scored, we'll look for a pedantic way to disallow it" (presumably to protect Leicester City, then award a penalty against them five minutes later). That makes no sense whatsoever as an argument. 

 

I can't believe I'm defending the officials but the principle of Hanlon's Razor applies here.

Newcastle v Palace isn't the brand therefore it isn't at the forefront of promoting the brand, people will see it, but it will be in amongst all the other drivel. It probably won't be on the highlights videos for long.

[Happinesstan]

Also, if their is any conspiracy to protect the brand, they'd be moronic to just do it in favour of the brand clubs. It would be a helluva lot easier to prove.

The point is they don't need to do that much. Just a few important moments over the whole season is enough. The important thing is that they're always positioned to make that decision.

[Kid Icarus]

12 minutes ago, Wullie said:

What brand are they protecting by disallowing a Newcastle goal vs Crystal Palace? 

 

Does ruling out the MacAllister goal yesterday protect the brand? "Come and watch our league, when a stunning goal is scored, we'll look for a pedantic way to disallow it" (presumably to protect Leicester City, then award a penalty against them five minutes later). That makes no sense whatsoever as an argument. 

 

I can't believe I'm defending the officials but the principle of Hanlon's Razor applies here.

 

'Protect the brand' was just one example of how an instruction can be implied and result in bias, I wasn't suggesting that one example always applies.

[joeyt]

3 hours ago, 54 said:

 

 

Saw this yesterday and the ball looked so far over the line. Could cost the Hudds manager his job

[Kid Icarus]

Another example is that in upcoming games Newcastle are probably now more likely to get an experienced ref and the shit decisions we've had against us will be in the back of the mind of any ref or VAR and potentially play a part in their decisions.

[Adam P]

In this case, incompetence is a far simpler explanation than conspiracy.

 

However, you cant rule out bias from anyone's thought or actions, its supposedly programmed into us when it comes to important social issues, means its hardwired into a referee no matter how objective they think they are. If we cant escape bias in our thinking, its hard to see how referees remove. The irony (?) here is that if a referee makes a decision that a fanbase disagrees with (rightfully or wrongly), then the fanbase proceeds to batter the ref on social media, acting like bellends in some circumstances, i could then forgive some refs for not being able to remove their unconscious bias against that team. You call me worse than a cunt on twitter and threaten my family, i'm holding that grudge forever even if you pay me not to. 

 

Not saying bias played any part in the decisions this weekend, just pointing out how hard it is to be able to dismiss that in preference for a competence / conspiracy explanation. 

[Guest]

I don't think there's any corruption like. It's just complete incompetence.

 

[alexf]

I want Lee Mason to have to explain in a statement, why he made the decision he did and why he didn't give the onfield ref the benefit of all the same angles that he had access to. 

Don't just give us a generic apology, explain your actions and why you took them.  

[leffe186]

1 minute ago, Optimistic Nut said:

I don't think there's any corruption like. It's just complete incompetence.

 

It’s a kind of incompetence that’s corrupted/biased in the same way generally though. Like, that West Ham decision is absolutely incompetent, but I’d be very surprised if the decision was given with the teams reversed. 
 

I don’t think brown envelopes change hands, but there’s something in the process/refereeing consciousness that favours certain teams. I think that’s a fair statement.