Dogawful Officiating

[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 44 minutes ago 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