Shocking Refs

[Tree13]

Yes, he did. Words fail me.

Short memories chaps? Read the match thread: http://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/50057-Fulham-v-Stoke-Sat-3rd-Nov-15-00 - we played some pretty football and had more possession, but we did [Poor language removed] all with it and didn't get the three points. That to me, against a mid-table team like Fulham, is "not good enough". Perhaps poor play is not quite the right label, as we created something like 20 chances, but we didn't get the result. Against Fulham.

Scanning through that thread, consensus opinion seemed to be that we threw away the win with a combination of sloppy finishing (Jelavic and Naismith identified by multiple posters as missing two sitters each) and poor defending. For those that can be bothered to search through the thread, there is a post in there from one user commending the ref in that game on his performance - that same user in this thread is one of the group that thinks a poor ref is a valid excuse for ignoring poor play in the same game.

So:

Ref has a good game + we have more possession and shots + non "top six" opposition, but we fail to win - what exactly would you call that? Unlucky? Not good enough? Or do we praise the performance OVER the result?

There are a lot of different permutations, because there are several major contributing factors.... for the umpteenth time YES we have got the rough end of an unusually large number of poor calls in several games, and there is no sign of things "balancing out", BUT EQUALLY we have underperformed in several games too, mostly against "lesser" opposition; in SOME of those games the ref has been poor but in others he's been fine. However in the games were we've NOT got the results, most of them have seen us play poorly.

Perhaps it's perception based: a draw against Fulham is not a good "result", but a draw against Man City is, in my mind at least, because of the differing strengths of those two clubs shaping my expectations from the respective games. Failing to finish off chances, and defending sloppily, appear to be repeat offences in games against lesser opposition - we scored four against Newcastle and had two unfairly disallowed, but we could only get one past Norwich.

 

[TX Bill]

I don't disagree with the comments about fans being "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" on refereeing decisions after seeing the replays but when I see the foul happen "Live" on my TV and the referee hasn't, can I assume then that his vision was blocked or that he wasn't in a position to see it?

 

[Ihaters]

Short memories chaps? Read the match thread: http://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/50057-Fulham-v-Stoke-Sat-3rd-Nov-15-00 - we played some pretty football and had more possession, but we did [Poor language removed] all with it and didn't get the three points. That to me, against a mid-table team like Fulham, is "not good enough". Perhaps poor play is not quite the right label, as we created something like 20 chances, but we didn't get the result. Against Fulham.

Scanning through that thread, consensus opinion seemed to be that we threw away the win with a combination of sloppy finishing (Jelavic and Naismith identified by multiple posters as missing two sitters each) and poor defending. For those that can be bothered to search through the thread, there is a post in there from one user commending the ref in that game on his performance - that same user in this thread is one of the group that thinks a poor ref is a valid excuse for ignoring poor play in the same game.

So:

Ref has a good game + we have more possession and shots + non "top six" opposition, but we fail to win - what exactly would you call that? Unlucky? Not good enough? Or do we praise the performance OVER the result?

There are a lot of different permutations, because there are several major contributing factors.... for the umpteenth time YES we have got the rough end of an unusually large number of poor calls in several games, and there is no sign of things "balancing out", BUT EQUALLY we have underperformed in several games too, mostly against "lesser" opposition; in SOME of those games the ref has been poor but in others he's been fine. However in the games were we've NOT got the results, most of them have seen us play poorly.

Perhaps it's perception based: a draw against Fulham is not a good "result", but a draw against Man City is, in my mind at least, because of the differing strengths of those two clubs shaping my expectations from the respective games. Failing to finish off chances, and defending sloppily, appear to be repeat offences in games against lesser opposition - we scored four against Newcastle and had two unfairly disallowed, but we could only get one past Norwich.

I don't understand your seeming desperation to both to blame our players, refuse to accept a good performance that didn't get the result it deserved and your reluctance to accept that we have had poor ref decisions, to the point that you have claimed that saying it was a poor refereeing decision that shouldn't of been which lead to the goal, and not slating the players for a match in which we were the better team against Norwich, was 'a total betrayal of the history and standards that this club has built over the decades'.
It isn't.. truly.. it just isn't. Its pointing out actual facts.
Seriously.. we've lost a lot of points through decisions.. Its a fact. I know I keep telling you... but it really is.
Yes poor finishing has cost us, I doubt anyone would disagree, and so has slack defending, but so have the ref's decisions and I don't care whether it was the sun in their eyes, they fell asleep, they were immense all game but judged the big decision wrong, they were deceived or whether it was entirely impossible to see it... Its still a wrong decision that's changed the game.
But not a bad decision.. 13 or 14 major game changers in as many games, that's a lot even to the man who's trying to shut his eyes tightest and refuse to see.

 

[Jeff Jones]

Short memories chaps? Read the match thread: http://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/50057-Fulham-v-Stoke-Sat-3rd-Nov-15-00 - we played some pretty football and had more possession, but we did [Poor language removed] all with it and didn't get the three points. That to me, against a mid-table team like Fulham, is "not good enough". Perhaps poor play is not quite the right label, as we created something like 20 chances, but we didn't get the result. Against Fulham.

Scanning through that thread, consensus opinion seemed to be that we threw away the win with a combination of sloppy finishing (Jelavic and Naismith identified by multiple posters as missing two sitters each) and poor defending. For those that can be bothered to search through the thread, there is a post in there from one user commending the ref in that game on his performance - that same user in this thread is one of the group that thinks a poor ref is a valid excuse for ignoring poor play in the same game.

So:

Ref has a good game + we have more possession and shots + non "top six" opposition, but we fail to win - what exactly would you call that? Unlucky? Not good enough? Or do we praise the performance OVER the result?

There are a lot of different permutations, because there are several major contributing factors.... for the umpteenth time YES we have got the rough end of an unusually large number of poor calls in several games, and there is no sign of things "balancing out", BUT EQUALLY we have underperformed in several games too, mostly against "lesser" opposition; in SOME of those games the ref has been poor but in others he's been fine. However in the games were we've NOT got the results, most of them have seen us play poorly.

Perhaps it's perception based: a draw against Fulham is not a good "result", but a draw against Man City is, in my mind at least, because of the differing strengths of those two clubs shaping my expectations from the respective games. Failing to finish off chances, and defending sloppily, appear to be repeat offences in games against lesser opposition - we scored four against Newcastle and had two unfairly disallowed, but we could only get one past Norwich.

With regard to your reponse above to my comment 'Words fail me', I was referring to your expressed opinion that Everton 'played poorly' against Fulham. Do you really think so?

 

[Allezfan]

Or do we praise the performance OVER the result?

What we do is we acknowledge that they're different things. A draw at fulham isn't a good result but nonetheless that was a good performance.

 

[D410]

Personally, i think this is the worst season I can recall for poor officiating in the EPL for many a year, for all teams.

 

[Sideliner]

Consistency?

The day every single ref is a replica of each other so therefor sees every incident in exactly the same way, and has 10 pairs of eyes so can see every single thing that goes on on a football pitch is the day you get "consistency".

Its just a word people throw out without actually thinking about what it means in this context.

If on Sunday Dawson pulls back Fellaini in the 6 yard box but the ref or linesman doesn't see it because they're watching if the ball goes out of play or if theres a foul being comitted on the edge and we don't get a penalty its tough **** pure and simple.

Not **** reffing, not inconsistency but the result of a human being trying to do a near impossible job.

if it is daydreaming expecting referees to be consistant in their interpretations of the rules then it should also be daydreaming to expect players to cosistantly play according to the rules - without consistancy me might as well not have rules but rather referees discretion
if refs dont see the foul its fine but why do the refs have perfect eyes for Everton fouls but are totally blind for a lot of oposition fouls like Suarez ?Fellaine got booked for toe-stepping - Suarez gats away twice with ankle standing
if refs are trying to do the near impossible why don't they admit it and call in the help of the advanced technology available?and why, if they do consistantly display human error, does it not manifest against sides playing against Everton ?if it does please give us the examples

 

[Seamus Colemole]

I don't disagree with the comments about fans being "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" on refereeing decisions after seeing the replays but when I see the foul happen "Live" on my TV and the referee hasn't, can I assume then that his vision was blocked or that he wasn't in a position to see it?

Could be that yeah, you'll see it on tv differently from how a ref would see it standing on the pitch, or it could simply be he saw it and didn't deem it a foul, or he wasn't sure enough in order to award a foul whereas you (or anyone) would be more likely to call foul whilst watching on tv because you can.

Plus you have to take into account fans bias, whatever way a ref calls a decision you can bet the team it goes for wil tend to agree and the team it goes against will disagree.

 

[Jeff Jones]

Lee Probert had a clear view of Aston Villa's goal against Reading last week. I know, because I watched replays shown from several angles and I watched them a few times. There is absolutely no doubt that it should have been disallowed, so, why wasn't it? Remember, Probert had a very clear view of what occurred. You'll have to take my word that there was a foul, unless you've seen it, but believe me, you can.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

Lee Probert had a clear view of Aston Villa's goal against Reading last week. I know, because I watched replays shown from several angles and I watched them a few times. There is absolutely no doubt that it should have been disallowed, so, why wasn't it? Remember, Probert had a very clear view of what occurred. You'll have to take my word that there was a foul, unless you've seen it, but believe me, you can.

BECAUSE LEE PROBERT DIDN'T THINK IT WAS WORTHY OF BEING A FOUL SO THEREFOR DIDN'T GIVE A FOUL, THE FACT YOU THINK ITS A FOUL MEANS ITS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION NOT A WRONG CALL.

 

[Ihaters]

You somehow make it sound like you think these decisions are all opinion as opposed to just this one... i take it that's not your opinion?

 

[ijjysmith]

Wow. This is still going on.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

You somehow make it sound like you think these decisions are all opinion as opposed to just this one... i take it that's not your opinion?

Some of your list the other day are, some aren't.

The Benteke example above, thats clearly a case of the refereee not thinking that a foul was committed but Benteke simply outjumped a standing defender using just enough force to be within the rules.

Jeffrey didn't, similar to the Pienaar/Arteta "foul" (and others), the ref didn't think it was a foul, some fans don't think it was a foul some fans do. In cases like these its simply a case of how an individual views an incident and how it falls in accordance to the laws of the game.

 

[Bigmaclad]

Wow. This is still going on.

Get back to work mate x

 

[Jeff Jones]

BECAUSE LEE PROBERT DIDN'T THINK IT WAS WORTHY OF BEING A FOUL SO THEREFOR DIDN'T GIVE A FOUL, THE FACT YOU THINK ITS A FOUL MEANS ITS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION NOT A WRONG CALL.

You obviously haven't seen it. If Lee Probert didn't think it was a foul, he needs to be be re-tested on his understanding of the rules.