Refereeing, again.

[Blue in Munich]

I knew it should have been a red card as soon as I saw it ................................... on the slow motion replay .


Slime.

Quite possibly the best point made. In real-time, it is just a foul. In slow motion, it's slightly more. TV pundits harp on saying the ref has made a mistake, but in real time, it has happened so quickly! TV pundits also have the benefit of 5 different angles of every incident...so they can really show everything at its worst!

Exactly. Sat in the ground today it wasn't at all obvious that Eto'o had caught him in that manner. Most of us wondered what the free kick had been given for.

In real time it was obvious that Eto'o went in with his foot at knee height and caught Henderson on the knee. Webb had an excellent view. Not a difficult decision. The standard of officiating in football is so poor compared to other sports.

No it wasn't. Even the Sky pundits, sat behind me, needed the slow motion to determine what it was.

Whilst we are on the subject of inconsistency, maybe we could add pundits to the list? Gary Neville's assertion that Lucas was entitled to react as he did to Oscar's tackle was possibly the most ridiculous comment I have heard from a pundit. Understandable, yes, but not an entitlement. And the blatant inconsistency regarding penalties beggars belief. I can't remember which pundit it was, I think it was Neville, in the Arsenal Chelsea game said there was a stonewall penalty by Willian on Walcott. The summation was that there was contact, not enough to knock him over, but that Walcott felt the contact was entitled to go down. Surely if there was insufficient contact to cause the player to go over but he does, then that is simulation, not a stonewall penalty? Yet Neville then accuses Hazard of looking for it in an incident that was far more a penalty than the Walcott or Suarez incidents ever were.

As regards Howard Webb, what was most confusing today was his total inconsistency with the cards. I'm not questioning the ones issued to Luiz, Cahill & Oscar (although Terry's was a joke), but if he sees those as fouls, then why not Agger's block off of Hazard, or Lucas' assault on Oscar?

 

[MadAdey]

Referees make mistakes and we need to accept that it is going to happen. My problem is when a referee bottles a decision like the Henderson one yesterday. Webb was next to it, so had a great view of the incident, but did not send etoo off like the book says he should, please put me right if I am wrong, but tackles like that are straight reds aren't they? The offside against at Man City was an absolute shocker, it was not even close, he was a good 3 or 4 yards onside.

That is my problem with refs. They can clearly see something but choose t bottle it, or they just make an absolute mess of things.

 

[doublebogey7]

Referees make mistakes and we need to accept that it is going to happen. My problem is when a referee bottles a decision like the Henderson one yesterday. Webb was next to it, so had a great view of the incident, but did not send etoo off like the book says he should, please put me right if I am wrong, but tackles like that are straight reds aren't they? The offside against at Man City was an absolute shocker, it was not even close, he was a good 3 or 4 yards onside.

That is my problem with refs. They can clearly see something but choose t bottle it, or they just make an absolute mess of things.

Suggest you become a referee, then they'll be no need for these boring threads.

 

[MadAdey]

Suggest you become a referee, then they'll be no need for these boring threads.

??????????????

Your point being?

 

[Slime]

Exactly. Sat in the ground today it wasn't at all obvious that Eto'o had caught him in that manner. Most of us wondered what the free kick had been given for.



No it wasn't. Even the Sky pundits, sat behind me, needed the slow motion to determine what it was.

Whilst we are on the subject of inconsistency, maybe we could add pundits to the list? Gary Neville's assertion that Lucas was entitled to react as he did to Oscar's tackle was possibly the most ridiculous comment I have heard from a pundit. Understandable, yes, but not an entitlement. And the blatant inconsistency regarding penalties beggars belief. I can't remember which pundit it was, I think it was Neville, in the Arsenal Chelsea game said there was a stonewall penalty by Willian on Walcott. The summation was that there was contact, not enough to knock him over, but that Walcott felt the contact was entitled to go down. Surely if there was insufficient contact to cause the player to go over but he does, then that is simulation, not a stonewall penalty? Yet Neville then accuses Hazard of looking for it in an incident that was far more a penalty than the Walcott or Suarez incidents ever were.

As regards Howard Webb, what was most confusing today was his total inconsistency with the cards. I'm not questioning the ones issued to Luiz, Cahill & Oscar (although Terry's was a joke), but if he sees those as fouls, then why not Agger's block off of Hazard, or Lucas' assault on Oscar?

Good point, well made. I agree 100% that contact does not mean foul ............... football is not a non-contact sport ............... yet.
And then you spoil it by suggesting that Hazard should have had a penalty! Hazard should have been penalised for flinging out his right leg & catching his opponent, a la Pires of years ago. Walcott WAS fouled, as was Suarez, and both should have received penalties. That much was obvious before watching replays!


Slime.

 

[Dodger]

Look, how many times have we sat at games and questioned Ref/Linesmen's decisions then when watching it at home after the game that decision is proved to be correct or even incorrect?

We have all been there.It happens,it is part of the game so deal with it.

1966 anyone?:smirk:

 

[Slime]

Look, how many times have we sat at games and questioned Ref/Linesmen's decisions then when watching it at home after the game that decision is proved to be correct or even incorrect?
We have all been there.It happens,it is part of the game so deal with it.

1966 anyone?:smirk:

Oy, that was miles over the line and you know it!


Slime.

 

[MegaSteve]

1966 anyone?:smirk:

In black and white it was a perfectly good goal...

With subsequent viewings in colour I am now not so sure ...

 

[MegaSteve]

Think it a bit unnecessary for Mourinho to be saying Suarez dived...

 

[Slime]

Think it a bit unnecessary for Mourinho to be saying Suarez dived...

I suspect he's trying to deflect attention from his own team's contoversies ................ such as the Eto'o tackle on Lucas.
I also find it hilarious coming from a man who has managed some of the games' best divers of all time, such as Robben, Drogba and now Hazard. Mourinho is a genuine clown ............... I mean character.
I'm glad he's in English football because he's a real character and that's good for the game.
I'm glad he's at Chelsea because he's a real clown ................ they somehow compliment each other don't you think?


Slime.

 

[MegaSteve]

I suspect he's trying to deflect attention from his own team's contoversies ................ such as the Eto'o tackle on Lucas.
I also find it hilarious coming from a man who has managed some of the games' best divers of all time, such as Robben, Drogba and now Hazard. Mourinho is a genuine clown ............... I mean character.
I'm glad he's in English football because he's a real character and that's good for the game.
I'm glad he's at Chelsea because he's a real clown ................ they somehow compliment each other don't you think?


Slime.

Don't think I'd describe him as a clown... I am sure he has reasons for what he says at press conferences... But believe, now he has some grey hairs, he should show some maturity to match...

 

[Blue in Munich]

Good point, well made. I agree 100% that contact does not mean foul ............... football is not a non-contact sport ............... yet.
And then you spoil it by suggesting that Hazard should have had a penalty! Hazard should have been penalised for flinging out his right leg & catching his opponent, a la Pires of years ago. Walcott WAS fouled, as was Suarez, and both should have received penalties. That much was obvious before watching replays!


Slime.

The point wasn't about whether or not it was a penalty Slime, the point was made to highlight the hypocrisy of pundits. Regardless of whether Hazard stuck his leg out or not, he had control of the ball and Lucas clattered into him, managing to avoid the allegedly dangled leg completely, and there was more than sufficient force to knock him over. Therefore the case for it being a penalty was much stronger than the Walcott one where he felt contact, thought about it and then fell over of his own accord. I didn't say it was a penalty, I said it was a stronger case for one than another that I believe the same pundit had called the other way round, and had actually condoned simulation over. I'm not saying either one was or wasn't, although ultimately neither were because the referee in each instance says so.

My issue with the pundits is that they are even more inconsistent than the referees. When some players dangle legs and are caught, they are clever, they drew the challenge, they are entitled to go down with minimal contact, they earned the penalty and all is fair and above board. When other players do something almost identical, they were looking for it, there wasn't anything there, the referees should be picking up on it and the dirty little cheat should be carded. And it seems to depend on the pundit and the team involved rather than the actions on the field. Exactly as per the Oscar Lucas incident, where Neville slated Oscar but defended Lucas' right to slap him about a bit after. That's the same Lucas who after the challenge went after Oscar, got up to his feet ready to take on the world, then 30 seconds later was rolling around on the deck again like he'd been shot. No condemnation of Lucas' actions whatsoever.

Oh, and the Hazard non-penalty is an absolute stonewall penalty according to Shearer................

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So refs once again deny us stonewall pen and should have sent off Etoo - ref bottled it.

It's all confirmed by Maureen as well.

 

[Slime]

So refs once again deny us stonewall pen and should have sent off Etoo - ref bottled it.

It's all confirmed by Maureen as well.

I'm sure refs work for you as much as against you .................. especially at Anfield.
The problem with being a football fan is that, like it or not, we are all too myopic and can't help being biased toward the club we follow, and I'm just as bad as the next one .......... I just don't accept it as so!


Slime.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I'm sure refs work for you as much as against you .................. especially at Anfield.
The problem with being a football fan is that, like it or not, we are all too myopic and can't help being biased toward the club we follow, and I'm just as bad as the next one .......... I just don't accept it as so!


Slime.

There is no doubt we have had decisions go our way

But the last two matches have cost up possibly 6 points - that could be the difference between
CL or not. If it does even out over the season then there is no complaints but it should have to even itself out - refs should get the big decisions right

 

[Pin-seeker]

I don't even think it was a penalty.Maybe Eto should have been sent off for the early challenge in the game.

 

[Slime]

The point wasn't about whether or not it was a penalty Slime, the point was made to highlight the hypocrisy of pundits. Regardless of whether Hazard stuck his leg out or not, he had control of the ball and Lucas clattered into him, managing to avoid the allegedly dangled leg completely, and there was more than sufficient force to knock him over. Therefore the case for it being a penalty was much stronger than the Walcott one where he felt contact, thought about it and then fell over of his own accord. I didn't say it was a penalty, I said it was a stronger case for one than another that I believe the same pundit had called the other way round, and had actually condoned simulation over. I'm not saying either one was or wasn't, although ultimately neither were because the referee in each instance says so.

Sorry Blue, I saw the incident totally differently, and maybe that's the whole nub of the problem .................... interpretation.
I saw the same event as you did but my interpretation was that Hazard, upon realising that he'd lost control of the ball, saw Lucas coming and then deliberately manufactured the contact, by sticking his right leg out at a totally unnatural angle, in order to gain a penalty.
Oh, and I'm neither a Chelsea or a Liverpool fan and therefore have no particular axe to grind.

Slime.

 

[Slime]

There is no doubt we have had decisions go our way

But the last two matches have cost up possibly 6 points - that could be the difference between
CL or not. If it does even out over the season then there is no complaints but it should have to even itself out - refs should get the big decisions right

And the previous 17 matches?


Slime.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

And the previous 17 matches?


Slime.

Well I'm struggling to remember too many instances that have helped us gain points these season- so at the moment I don't see things evening themselves out just yet.

 

[Fish]

There is no doubt we have had decisions go our way

Dam right.

How about an equaliser 8 minutes into added time of 6 minutes scored by a player who did a tackle just like Eto'o and a player who should have been sent off for biting. Frankie Lampard's sending off when he was the one kicked, oh, and lest we forget the "ghost goal" in the Champions League. So please yes, decisions do swing and fro...

Look like Suarez was tempted AGAIN



But hey, even Bob the Builder stayed at No1 over Christmas longer than Liverpool, so...



:smirk: