Dogawful Officiating

[AyeDubbleYoo]

19 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

We get that anyway, usually through the commentators, or eventually. Seems like a total waste of time and effort for what's barely a benefit. 

 

 

 

Course we don’t, the commentators often don’t have a clue what’s going on

 

The idea is to establish some kind of clarity so that the thinking and the decision making has to be explicable. Not to mention for the fans in the stadium who are completely in the dark half the time. 

[Kid Icarus]

37 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Course we don’t, the commentators often don’t have a clue what’s going on

 

The idea is to establish some kind of clarity so that the thinking and the decision making has to be explicable. Not to mention for the fans in the stadium who are completely in the dark half the time. 

 

I disagree. If the commentators don't know, we still find out eventually.

 

I also obviously understand the idea, I just think it's not worth doing for what is barely even a benefit, as it changes nothing decision-wise.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Yeah, but eventually is not what we should be aiming for. The decision should be clear and explicit the moment it’s made. 
 

Of course it’s not as important as correct decisions, but I think it would help get more correct decisions because the thinking and application of the laws would need to be clearer. 

[Kid Icarus]

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Yeah, but eventually is not what we should be aiming for. The decision should be clear and explicit the moment it’s made. 
 

Of course it’s not as important as correct decisions, but I think it would help get more correct decisions because the thinking and application of the laws would need to be clearer. 

 

I'll refer to the better Ian on this one. 

 

 

These changes are always presented with the positives, rarely the negatives, we saw that with VAR. The net benefit means that it's probably just about worth it imo, but we all know that it's nowhere near perfect in its intended form, needs to improve, and even beyond that there's an argument to be made that even when it works perfectly, it still has a negative impact in football as a spectator sport.

 

The arguments that were made for it coming in look incredibly naive now. If we have VAR, then obviously this will happen, obviously that decision wouldn't be made, obviously things will be clearer, fairer, less biased.

 

So now it turns out that although we have a net benefit from VAR as a whole, the wrong decisions are scrutinised even more and are even more maddening because the officials are being shown to be incompetent, indecisive, and inconsistent even when there are 5 of them, they can watch incidents frame-by-frame, and they have the rule book in front of them. 

 

Not only that, but there are repurcussions from VAR's existence, with two unwritten implications between officials that are imo clear to see in the behaviour of the officials.

 

1) a 'to-you-to-you' setup whereby a referee doesn't make a decision, with the implication being that if they're wrong, VAR will correct it. Meanwhile the referees non-call is implied to be a decision in itself by the referee, received in that way by the VAR and because it's not a clear and obvious error, they don't correct it.

 

Another issue here is that despite the above, there's still clear inconsistency and displayed incompetence when the VAR does intervene and it's not a clear and obvious error, or they've flat out made the wrong decision. 

 

2) That the referee being asked to review an incident implies that the decision should be changed. There is no impartial review taking place, the referee is watching an incident with the implication that they've made the wrong decision going through their head. So the referee reviews the incident and 9 times out of 10 they change their decision, again often exposing incompetence in a couple of different ways - one, they change their decision and it's either not clear and obvious, or completely the wrong decision (see our match vs Forest, Palace, and others), or 2 on the rare occasion that they stick with their original decision, if it's wrong or contentious it looks even more imcompetent and ridiculous because it's so rare (see foul on Traore last weekend)

 

So we get the refs mic'd up. The idea being that at least we get a layer of transparency and know what's going on. You don't think that, just like with VAR and the issues above, there are unintended consequences that could maybe make our curiosity being immediately satisfied not worth it as a benefit?

 

1) when they fuck up, we get to listen to them fucking up in real time. We get to hear them misunderstand and incorrectly apply the rules. We get to hear them being indecisive and unsure, we get to hear them confidently assert that the black that we can see with our own eyes is actually white - even more maddening.

 

2) nothing actually changes, so we're all sat there like Matthew McConaughey screaming through the bookcase in Interstellar when they fuck up.

 

3) referees and the VAR will know that for every big call they make, there'll be an expectation for them to get on the mic and communicate it with millions of people listening into their conversation in real time. Consciously or unconsciously, that will impact upon the referee's and the VAR's courage to make those big calls.

 

Who's going to stand up and make the big call, then get on the mic knowing that them not just looking stupid, but sounding stupid might become a meme? - again leading to more non decisions that should be made.

 

4) An additional arbitrary layer of what constitutes a decision that should be communicated over the mics

 

And probably other consequences that we haven't even considered. And for what? So that we know what the rationale behind a decision is in real time rather than later? Something that we've never explicitly known in cases like that anyway. Total waste of time imo and opens another can of worms. It's like we learned nothing from begging for VAR to come in. At least with VAR you can argue the case for the worth of the net benefit we get from it. With this the net benefit of immediately knowing the rationale behind a decision is barely worth it for all the additional problems it would cause. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Kid Icarus

[andycap]

I bet you a chocolate hobnob if they were mic-ed up all of a sudden decisions would be a lot better. They get away with being lazy and half arsed not having to explain themselves. 

[madras]

1 hour ago, andycap said:

I bet you a chocolate hobnob if they were mic-ed up all of a sudden decisions would be a lot better. They get away with being lazy and half arsed not having to explain themselves. 

So it's easier to make poor decisions they know will be poured over from many angles for ages ?

 

Don't think so.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

We would have an explanation, which in turn would help to make sure the decision had been thought through and we would have much less speculation about how the decision had been made. Fans would be less confused and angry about refereeing. 
 

Of course you could still disagree with decisions, but right now we have debates over things like which rule has even been used. That’s a ridiculous situation for an elite sport. 
 

Right now, I believe most fans, pundits, players and probably even officials don’t know the correct way to arrive at a decision in a lot of cases. 

[Tisd09]

Being mic'd up doesn't guarantee the correct decision, as this weekend's rugby showed with the English player's ban actually getting overturned upon review. However, I think it will improve decision making and could be a good educational tool if/when things go wrong. 

[Bimpy474]

13 hours ago, magvicar said:

Just an opinion and hence why I put up the subjective part.

 

Very true   Still mad as a box of frogs suggestion.

[Tisd09]

Anyone see the Podence incident today with Johnson in the Wolves/Forest game. I’m not sure what I’m missing but it all seems pretty straightforward, not sure how there was no red for Podence there ?

[Hanshithispantz]

When are they going to do something about Man Utd’s disgusting time wasting? It’s the worst I’ve ever seen. Vile.

[Stifler]

1 minute ago, Hanshithispantz said:

When are they going to do something about Man Utd’s disgusting time wasting? It’s the worst I’ve ever seen. Vile.

They won’t, but if we are in a favourable position at the end and Pope doesn’t immediately take the goal kick, you know he’ll get a booking.

[Pilko]

I couldn't believe it when Antony was "injured" about 4 yards off the pitch and 52,300 people had to wait for him to get up and come back on before we could resume play, and yet later in the game a Schar potential head injury where he's laid out on the pitch just meant Man U could counter at will. Absolutely incredible stuff.

[Stifler]

7 minutes ago, Pilko said:

I couldn't believe it when Antony was "injured" about 4 yards off the pitch and 52,300 people had to wait for him to get up and come back on before we could resume play, and yet later in the game a Schar potential head injury where he's laid out on the pitch just meant Man U could counter at will. Absolutely incredible stuff.

The referee was a disgrace, but it never cost us. He absolutely fell into the trap that Ten Hag left out for him.

He actually gave Pope a warning for taking his time on taking a goal kick, heck the sky camera’s hadn’t even shifted back to Pope, it was that soon.

[nufc123]

How did Schar not get a penalty? 

[80]

The ref wasn't all that bad yesterday was he? Was thinking 'here we go' with Burn and Antony in the first 15 mins but I thought there was plenty of their bullshit that he didn't fall for.

[huss9]

1 hour ago, nufc123 said:

How did Schar not get a penalty? 

and Wilson!

[AyeDubbleYoo]

22 hours ago, Pilko said:

I couldn't believe it when Antony was "injured" about 4 yards off the pitch and 52,300 people had to wait for him to get up and come back on before we could resume play, and yet later in the game a Schar potential head injury where he's laid out on the pitch just meant Man U could counter at will. Absolutely incredible stuff.

That was truly bizarre. No justification at all to stop the game, easiest decision in the world. Very strange. 

[Pilko]

Whoever's on VAR today - hope you get fucking cock rot. Shite decision. If that's a pen we should have had about 10 of them this season.

[alexf]

"Clear and obvious"

[Stifler]

Teams need to start walking off.

[marki]

terrible decision utter crap refereeing

 

[Disco]

Zero consistency as usual. Henry may or may not have been kicked but was going down anyway is a pen. Schär gets kicked in the head to a ball he’s now out of control of is not even looked at.

[Rich]

6 minutes ago, Pilko said:

Whoever's on VAR today - hope you get fucking cock rot. Shite decision. If that's a pen we should have had about 10 of them this season.

It’s that daft cunt from the infamous Forest Champo game innit?

[Lush Vlad]

They’ve looked at it about 30-40 times and still looks inconclusive. I thought since Webb came in. They’ve set the bar higher for VAR decisions? 
 

How can anyone look at that with the angles available and the way Henry goes into the challenge and say it’s a clear and obvious error and a foul?