Liverpool v Forest Referee (5 Viewers)

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

I really don't get the fuss about this one. From all the outrage I assumed they must have gone immediately up the other end and scored. There were so many opportunities for Forest to deal with it, how they can blame anyone but their own players is beyond me. For those saying it wouldn't have happened the other way, Forest fans on 606 said the ref did exactly the same in the first half and they benefited. Not saying that it's the right decision but this whole 'cover up for Liverpool' is just nonsense.

Part of the issue we have in this country is people make massive deals out of very subjective or inconsequential refereeing decisions which downplays the severity of the genuinely shocking ones.

 

---

[skybluegod]

They're not allowed to overrule the ref anyway, only advise.
"it is expected that referees will only seek assistance from the Fourth Official in respect of significant match changing incidents which have been missed by the other three match
officials and which are clearly visible to the Fourth Official. Such incidents are:
- red card offences
- yellow card offences
- penalty area offences"

When the Laws of the Game were written, they have always (rightly) been designed so that the Referee was the sole arbiter & their decision was final.

Unfortunately, with the introduction of VAR, this has been undermined & we now see fans, pundits etc. micro analysing (from multiple angles, in slow motion) even the smallest of decisions from a throw in to a corner/goal kick given the wrong way & just scream corruption if every single decision doesn't go the way they want. What was claimed to "assist" referees is actually leading to a very toxic atmosphere against them.

100% sorry poor wording by me. I meant in the sense, you work as a team at that level, so he would have to advise very quickly over Comms which is very unlikely. But yeah totally right.

 

[skybluegod]

I will add however, using the arguement of 'he made the same mistake for forest earlier in the game' doesn't fly for me.

It's why I hate the argument for consistency of decisions. Making a constantly wrong decision doesn't make it better. If he makes a mistake it shouldn't justified by saying yes but he made the same one earlier.

 

[oscillatewildly]

The Ref's Response to these criticisms was to post the Referee's Alphabet, highlighting the pertinent points in this case:

The A is for my authority
which many players seem to question,
thinking they'e somehow going to make me change my mind
B is for babies
which a lot of managers cry like
after a decision has not gone their way
C is for the continual criticism I recieve from the touchline
"Get back in your technical area!"
D is for the dunderheads
who seem to think we have a conspiracy
against their particular team
E is for the eery silence that echoes around the ground
after I've booked the home teams player
and it's obvious to everyone that he deserved it
F is the farce into which most games would descend if we weren't there
The G is for the gnarled face of someone who's on £90, 000 a week
and reckoned he should have had a throw-in
H is for handball
which has to be intentional and very rarely is
if only people would study the rules more
I is for innocence, pleaded by many a doe-eyed defender
after they've just scythed down that tricky winger
J is for ju-jitsu, which I quite intend to display given a dark alley
and some of the narky blerts I've encountered
K is for the kissing of the badge
how ridiculous that looks 6 months later when they're at another club
L is for lip reading, at which you dont need to be an expert
to see how odious some people are
M is for the mistakes we sometimes make
surely a bit of controversy is part of the games appeal
The N, the N is for the numbskull who during the boxing day game
asks me what else I got for christmas besides my whistle
...an afternoon with your wife mate
The O is for offside
which many forwards tell me they simply could not have been
The P is for the penalty shootout
great drama and no pressure on me
Q is the quiet word I sometimes need to have
with some of the more fiery participants
I usually choose the word 'pleat'
R is for running backwards
a difficult skill which the pundits never seem to appreciate
S is the suggestion that I should show a card to an opponent
by a player who's been awarded a free kick
he himself is more in danger of getting one for that
T is for the 21-man brawl
which is basically an embarrassing scene of pushing and shoving
U is for the umpire which I sometimes wish I'd been instead
you never hear a cricket crowd shouting who's the bastard in the hat
The V is for vitriol vilification vendetta and volley of verbal abuse
some good bird noises there by the way
W is for Walter Pidgeon
whose Mr Griffiths in 'How Green was My Valley'
I may have started to sound like during this song
'Where was the light I thought to see in your eye'
he says that to a young Huw played by Roddy McDowall
The X
The X represents the sarcastic kiss planted on my forehead by the swarthy potugese center half
who I just dismissed
The Y is for Yate
the kind of town referees come from
And the Z
Well the Z could be for Zidane, Zico, Zola, Zubizaretta, Zoff
Even Zondervan
but is in fact for the zest with which we approach our work
without this zest for the game we wouldnt become refs
and without refs, well zero
See also Zatopek, Zeus
and Zeal Monachorum
I have a caravan there
static naturally
Wouldn't it be fun if they gave the ref a gun
Wouldn't it be fun if they gave the ref a gun

*Courtesy of the mighty HMHB - Coming soon to a venue near us. (Well, most of us,)

 

[Hobo]

I will add however, using the arguement of 'he made the same mistake for forest earlier in the game' doesn't fly for me.

It's why I hate the argument for consistency of decisions. Making a constantly wrong decision doesn't make it better. If he makes a mistake it shouldn't justified by saying yes but he made the same one earlier.

Yes having consistency can mean a series a bad decisions rather than a couple of errors.

 

[Frostie]

Yes having consistency can mean a series a bad decisions rather than a couple of errors.

He didn't make the same mistake for Forest earlier. He called that spot on it's just most fans, pundits, players etc. don't actually know the Laws of the Game.

 

[Warwickhunt]

Paul Teirney not selected to referee this weekend then!

 

[Adge]

I’m afraid I can’t excuse Paul Tierney or the rest off his team and I’m one as we all know who mostly sits in the referee camp. At that level to not give the dropped ball to Forest who were in possession at the time is poor and it is a basic mistake.
Even at my level the remit before a ball is kicked (in the changing room beforehand) would be something along the lines of-
“If you KNOW I have made a mistake regarding a restart of play or a wrong decision-shout-scream-wave your flag and get my attention and call me over. We will look like tits for 10 seconds and get to the right decision rather than looking like we’re incompetent for the rest of the game when I have made a wrong call”
Very very surprised as somebody said previously that a word wasn’t said by one of his team in his ear before he restarted play in the Penalty area with the dropped ball.

 

[Adge]

Had finished Refereeing my game at the weekend and there was another game on the next pitch which was still ongoing so decided to see if I knew who was refereeing and watched the remainder of the match.
As most should know if the ball hits the referee (as part of the game) a dropped ball is given to the team in possession before it hit the referee.
This referee unfortunately got hit by the ball in the penalty area after an attacker had taken a shot!
Bonus point for anyone who can guess (without looking it up) what the restart is in that instance?
I had an idea but had to check when I went home-but my hunch was correct
Golden rule-expect the unexpected as it does happen once in a while.

 

[MikeyMoo]

Had finished Refereeing my game at the weekend and there was another game on the next pitch which was still ongoing so decided to see if I knew who was refereeing and watched the remainder of the match.
As most should know if the ball hits the referee (as part of the game) a dropped ball is given to the team in possession before it hit the referee.
This referee unfortunately got hit by the ball in the penalty area after an attacker had taken a shot!
Bonus point for anyone who can guess (without looking it up) what the restart is in that instance?
I had an idea but had to check when I went home-but my hunch was correct
Golden rule-expect the unexpected as it does happen once in a while.

I got this off the internet, Law 8, doesn't look like you can just bang it in in any case...

OFFENCES AND SANCTIONS

If a dropped ball enters the goal without touching at least two players play is restarted with:

• a goal kick if it enters the opponents’ goal
• a corner kick if it enters the team’s goal

 

[Frostie]

Had finished Refereeing my game at the weekend and there was another game on the next pitch which was still ongoing so decided to see if I knew who was refereeing and watched the remainder of the match.
As most should know if the ball hits the referee (as part of the game) a dropped ball is given to the team in possession before it hit the referee.
This referee unfortunately got hit by the ball in the penalty area after an attacker had taken a shot!
Bonus point for anyone who can guess (without looking it up) what the restart is in that instance?
I had an idea but had to check when I went home-but my hunch was correct
Golden rule-expect the unexpected as it does happen once in a while.

Drop ball to keeper I guess?

 

[skybluegod]

Had finished Refereeing my game at the weekend and there was another game on the next pitch which was still ongoing so decided to see if I knew who was refereeing and watched the remainder of the match.
As most should know if the ball hits the referee (as part of the game) a dropped ball is given to the team in possession before it hit the referee.
This referee unfortunately got hit by the ball in the penalty area after an attacker had taken a shot!
Bonus point for anyone who can guess (without looking it up) what the restart is in that instance?
I had an idea but had to check when I went home-but my hunch was correct
Golden rule-expect the unexpected as it does happen once in a while.

I have no idea on this one myself. Like you I have a hunch that it would be drop ball to the keeper, be interested if it was something else?

Although was the referees positioning off as I have no idea how he's in the line of a shot?

 

[Adge]

I have no idea on this one myself. Like you I have a hunch that it would be drop ball to the keeper, be interested if it was something else?

Although was the referees positioning off as I have no idea how he's in the line of a shot?

Yes-the referee himself has got in the way really and his positioning should be better.
The correct restart is a dropped ball to the keeper which seems a bit unfair if the attacking team was in with a chance of a goal.

 

[Hobo]

He didn't make the same mistake for Forest earlier. He called that spot on it's just most fans, pundits, players etc. don't actually know the Laws of the Game.

Yes, I was just making a general comment about how pundits and fans are always saying we want more 'consistency'.

Also you are correct about fans not knowing the laws of the game. When I explained why a ref was correct and fan once responded with, "well I don't agree with that rule it's a stupid rule.". Can you imagine if refs just used the laws they agreed with and ignored the one's they didn't like?

 

[M&B Stand]

Refs make mistakes, always have always will.
The thing the I find so difficult with VAR, is how selective it seems to be and how sometimes after a goal is scored it’s like they’re looking for a reason not to give it.
Whenever England score in a major tournament they seem to go thru it with a fine tooth comb, what can we disallow this for, maybe it’s just my paranoia!! Dunno the answer, Referring by committee isn’t the way forward

 

[Hobo]

Refs make mistakes, always have always will.
The thing the I find so difficult with VAR, is how selective it seems to be and how sometimes after a goal is scored it’s like they’re looking for a reason not to give it.
Whenever England score in a major tournament they seem to go thru it with a fine tooth comb, what can we disallow this for, maybe it’s just my paranoia!! Dunno the answer, Referring by committee isn’t the way forward

And even after all the checks the experts still are divided


Players make mistakes and refs make mistakes. Just accept it and move on, is what I say.

 

[Nick]

Refs make mistakes, always have always will.
The thing the I find so difficult with VAR, is how selective it seems to be and how sometimes after a goal is scored it’s like they’re looking for a reason not to give it.
Whenever England score in a major tournament they seem to go thru it with a fine tooth comb, what can we disallow this for, maybe it’s just my paranoia!! Dunno the answer, Referring by committee isn’t the way forward

They do, some goals they will spend about 5 minutes looking at about 10 different things to try and disallow it. Other times it's as if they hardly even check it.

It's not consistent on how in depth they go.

 

[skybluegod]

And even after all the checks the experts still are divided


Players make mistakes and refs make mistakes. Just accept it and move on, is what I say.

Exactly. I actual think most issues are completely over analysed by pundits who often don't understand the laws of the game. There have been some like the Diaz offside against spurs which were howlers, with fundamental flaws. But things like this are just pundits creating headlines. Fucking Mike Dean added onto it as well!

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

I always thought they were originally only supposed to disallow goals where there was a clear and obvious error. If the VAR operators are still deliberating after 60 seconds a goal should stand as far as I'm concerned, even if it subsequently passes that someone might have had a toe offside.

 

[stupot07]

I always thought they were originally only supposed to disallow goals where there was a clear and obvious error. If the VAR operators are still deliberating after 60 seconds a goal should stand as far as I'm concerned, even if it subsequently passes that someone might have had a toe offside.

It was, it was brought in because the big clubs bemoaning any decision that goes against them.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[skybluegod]

I always thought they were originally only supposed to disallow goals where there was a clear and obvious error. If the VAR operators are still deliberating after 60 seconds a goal should stand as far as I'm concerned, even if it subsequently passes that someone might have had a toe offside.

Mentioned this on another thread a while ago. This has become pretty much a non-thing within reason. Speaking to a few premier league referees, this was exactly how it was for the first 6 weeks of VAR - hence no involvements for the first 6 weeks. After this they were getting a lot of pressure to get involved with more incidents, 'why doesn't x,y,z' count as clear and obvious, and that is why we have no ended up being where we are where it gets involved for what appears to be non-obvious.

I will however say, that offside is offside. It's probably the only decisions that VAR should 100% be getting involved in and correct even if it takes ages. It's completely objective to the game.

 

[Frostie]

I will however say, that offside is offside. It's probably the only decisions that VAR should 100% be getting involved in and correct even if it takes ages. It's completely objective to the game.

If the technology was up to it... Which it isn't.

They can't select the exact frame when the ball was played due to the poor quality framerate of the technology.

 

[SBT]

They do, some goals they will spend about 5 minutes looking at about 10 different things to try and disallow it. Other times it's as if they hardly even check it.

It's not consistent on how in depth they go.

I would be happy if they made it extra consistent and just let refs make decisions there and then.

 

[Frostie]

Yes-the referee himself has got in the way really and his positioning should be better.
The correct restart is a dropped ball to the keeper which seems a bit unfair if the attacking team was in with a chance of a goal.

Just seen this!
Really poor positioning from the ref you'd have to say.

 

[Adge]

Just seen this!
Really poor positioning from the ref you'd have to say.

Yep-dropping the ball for the keeper in the area aswell which does seem unfair really but thems the laws.

 

[skybluegod]

Just seen this!
Really poor positioning from the ref you'd have to say.

Think I'd hang up Mr reffing boots if I ever did that jesus!

 

[wingy]

Different game refs tarnished reputation and talking of corruption,watch highlights of Hull vLeicester!