You know it’s impossible for me to highlight a consistently correct league. It’s a silly request really as you well know.
Point one, there’s no requirement to take several minutes for each decision. To strive for consistency doesn’t equate to accepting this nor is it necessary. Unsure what you’re suggesting with this?
Point two, Rugby (and cricket) are both transparent and the officials are accountable given their decisions and discussions are clearly explained on mic during the game. Fair point on tennis.
The game I refer to is v Palace. He jumped for a header and took Mitchell away from Ox who then slotted in unmarked. Clearly offside and clearly impacting on play. The Jota penalty in that same match was another absurd one which the referee didn’t give but was then forced to look at the monitor and reversed his decision. He’d actually made the right one in the first instance.
The Maguire one you could argue Rodriguez wasn’t anywhere near Varane so was he interfering with play? You see blocks on set pieces each week so I’d say it’s quite soft. The third goal was worse mind.
Ultimately professionals should be held accountable and there should be transparency in their decision making. We may not like a decision but without either of the above you can’t blame people for feeling as though there’s a lack of integrity and understanding of the rules which is totally unacceptable at that level.
This isn’t Sunday league where random parents jump in as the Lino because they’ve pulled up.
Attwell has shafted us as the VAR for the last two matches. Who on earth has thought it a good idea to appoint him as the on field referee for our next match, at home to Southampton on Saturday? What the f*ck is going on?
Personally that’s the issue and I don’t think it should be that hard to achieve. People will always feel hard done by if there’s no consistency. Especially when you add in the lack of accountability and transparency within the body of professional referees.
I could stomach decisions like the handball goal and the ruling out of United’s third goal last night if the decisions were consistent across the board.
Currently you have different interpretations of the rules being applied week in week out by a group of people who meet regularly to review such matters and discuss how the rules should be applied. There’s clearly huge failings.
One thing that would help is to have referee’s mic’d up during games along with allowing VAR reviews to be heard. This would not only be transparent but would allow people to understand why a decision had been reached.
Vague statements from Stockley Park don’t cut it and the individuals making the decisions need to be accountable themselves. If they perform poorly they should be dropped. It’s the only way to improve standards.
Look, I’m absolutely not sure enough of this that I’m prepared to argue one or other point to the death. I think it’s fair to ask you to name a genuinely fair and consistent football league, not because I think you can but because I know you can’t, and I think you should learn something from that.
Edit- I’ve found the Liverpool situation you’re referring to. Although RF doesn’t foul his marker the idea that the fullback running in didn’t have his line of approach affected by Firmino’s position is clearly ridiculous. If Firmino wasn’t there there’s no guarantee he’d have stopped AOC scoring but he’d have at least had a fighters chance. I agree with you that it’s entirely the wrong decision. In my view the principle of not interfering with play should mean you are on the other side of the pitch to the cross, or sitting down injured. Almost every other scenario involves a defensive player adjusting their position. That’s interfering in my book. I do remember though that there was a season about a decade ago where referees have interviews on MOTD after matches. I don’t remember it in anyway improving the decisions though. I don’t know if you watch cricket but where I think they coulld improve is having that almost flow-chart style approach to decisions. So in cricket it would be
-Was the bowlers foot over the line?
-Was the bowling action good?
-Did the ball pitch inside or outside off stump?
-Was there contact between bat and ball, or pad and ball?
-Would the ball have hit the wicket?
Although I think that algorithm is perhaps simpler in cricket it might make sense to try to initiate something like that in football. I still think there would be more grey areas but fans could at least see and understand a logical process. But you’d still be left with definitions of interference, dangerous play etc, which don’t happen in other sports.
I agree being able to hear the conversation would be invaluable in building trust in refs decisions.
I really don't get how they can't sort this consistency issue out either.
I worked in a call centre years ago and we had a huge issue with consistency in results.of Call coaching so we set up calibration sessions for everyone grading calls each month. We all listened to and graded the same calls, and then compared notes after each one and discussed the differences along with the Quality lead.
The consistency improved quite quickly.
It beggars belief that professional referees, with all of the tools available to them can't sort it.
Pure comedy!Attwell has shafted us as the VAR for the last two matches. Who on earth has thought it a good idea to appoint him as the on field referee for our next match, at home to Southampton on Saturday? What the f*ck is going on?
I also think you should learn that just because you can’t find an example of something from the off it doesn’t mean what you’re saying is incorrect. Making excuses like “well it’s inconsistent everywhere so what’s the issue?” doesn’t really cut it for me when it’s clear that a professional body of referees are unable to interpret the rules of the game equally between them.
A quick example would be how well VAR was used during the Euros.
I don’t advocate interviewing referees post match but they should absolutely be mic’d up as should the VAR.
Mic both in VAR room and on referees for audience to hear. I'm also for interviews after games. I don't see problems with that. Have been saying this for ages.I also think you should learn that just because you can’t find an example of something from the off it doesn’t mean what you’re saying is incorrect. Making excuses like “well it’s inconsistent everywhere so what’s the issue?” doesn’t really cut it for me when it’s clear that a professional body of referees are unable to interpret the rules of the game equally between them.
A quick example would be how well VAR was used during the Euros.
I don’t advocate interviewing referees post match but they should absolutely be mic’d up as should the VAR.
What makes it worse is referees allegedly meet regularly and review contentious decisions in the league from recent weeks and discuss at length to ensure they are all happy and clear with the outcomes.
If that happens then it’s pure incompetence in my opinion.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, I agree, and in that sense you could argue it’s an unfair request. And yet, if there was an example of a far better level of consistency I’d assume the PL would be all over it. You’ve misinterpreted me by suggesting I think we should accept potentially bad decisions on the basis that they happen everywhere. I’ve not said that, nor do I think it. I’m talking about what is plausible within the confines of the game, rather than some utopian perfection we’d all like to see. You seem reasonable and, like I say, the current set up is far from perfect. I just have serious doubts that anything you’ve mentioned would actually result in the consistency you say you are asking for.
It’s not untrue. United would have used a review on the disallowed goals last night and if we use that method everyone would have heard the decision making process in detail.
On a side anyone pent up about England winning the WC a few years ago needs to get out more.
Well I know where I was watching they said the VAR decision for the first was something along the lines of “involvement from an offside position” (I can’t remember the specific line) so it was pretty clear. In fact they did last year play the audio of these decisions but took that out after too much complaining.
In that situation I know exactly what both decisions would have been, and the same as they were, as the second they’d have gone with the equivalent of the soft signal IE the lino giving the foul because there wasn’t anything obviously wrong with the decision as it was a foul albeit a little soft.
Oh and people absolutely do still complain about that, ironically the exception is New Zealanders by and large, who just see it as one of those things.
A vague statement from Stockley Park doesn’t cut it for me though.
The individuals making the decisions need to be able to be heard as they are being made. That’s transparency.
But like I just said, they did that last season and got loads of complaints so said feck it what’s the point and dropped it this.
I think the intention was good - I’d assumed “clear and obvious“ would be things likeI never understood the clear and obvious error reasoning. If it is too close for the VAR official to make the decision, how is that person even a referee. If the official thinks it's too close for them to over turn then the on field referee can look at it. The term 'obvious error' bothers me.
As far as I'm concerned, VAR has been great for offside rulings. Now they just have to straighten other VAR calls.
Excellent post.The idea that a referee would prioritise their bias against a club over their careers seems highly ludicrous. This notion can only be arrived at through extreme solipsism of fans projecting themselves onto everything and everyone (which unfortunately is a common theme). Players are fans, referees are fans, journalists are fans, they are all just like me, except they have different names and different jobs. They might be apparently different, but their raison d'etre, just like mine, is to see one club do well, and have another get all the unfettered misery it deserves. These refs, they can't sleep thinking about how much they hate Liverpool, surely, and they'd give their arm up to see United rise to glory again. Except they might be from Leeds, but then it's just more of the same stuff but with different names and kit colours.
The idea that not everyone is invested in football fandom to the same degree or in the same way is completely alien to most fans, which is why they label players who pick clubs based on the best working conditions 'mercenary' and they are constantly baffled that Luke Shaw or Ole Solskjaer could play for United when they are fans of Chelsea and Liverpool respectively. It can't be fathomed that for people who are professionals in an industry, fandom isn't really a thing in quite the same way.
You may have supported a club as a child, and there might be some lingering bias for it in an adult, but that is more a sympathy than a full on affective obsession. Raised a Toffee through and through, but lo and behold, when you need to make a career decision, when it's your livelihood at stake, you do what Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerrard did, and become a legend somewhere else entirely. These actions are unthinkable to a fan, because they would never do it, because their loyalty is eternal, it is what makes them fans.
Referees aren't fans. Not in the same way as you or me. If they have any lingering biases of the sort that is assumed, they need to be aware of them and effectively purge them, because it can only ever be an extreme hindrance to their career. These people aren't in charge of matches so that they can watch them and be entertained, they are there to earn a living, and to do that they have to be good at it. Of course within a culture that designates them the role of a piñata, it can be a bit of challenge to understand that they aren't trying to make bad decisions on purpose. But of course they are not, and their jobs are highly performance dependant, and there's a ladder you need to climb.
If this banal stuff were understood (and it can be if you only make the slightest of efforts to place yourself in someone else's shoes), we wouldn't be talking about referees having it in for a particular club, and absurd conspiracies such as all but united would not blossom.
This is an admittedly United tinted post.
But looking at the Martinelli red card tonight, which was a definite red for 2 separate yellows in the same passage of play, I genuinely don't believe that red would be given were the fouls against a United player, by a Wolves player for example.
Hear me out. Its the type of decision that's correct but 'unusual' or 'controversial', that always seems to go against united lately. If Oliver gave a single yellow tonight he'd be wrong, but ultimately get away with it rather than invite the furore were it to Uniteds benefit. That's what happened with Boro goal. Its a clear handball and easy to give if it's boro v villa. The Burnley own goal.
This is a separate point to 'bias' or 'abu' but I truly think many (not all) refs are too scared to give anything controversial our way due to the attention it gets. This has worsened since Klopp ramped it up
The weather is plotting against me! Has been for years now....Of course not.
Literally all the other top sides make the same complaints about refs being biased against them. And all the smaller sides complain about bias towards the top sides. We can't all be right and it would be arrogant/delusional to think we're the only ones who are. It's nonsense.
It's just random, erratic incompetence. There's so little reason or consistency to what they do anyway that trying to claim they're biased against us is akin to saying the weather is plotting against you.
Sorry but I totally disagree with you.
Other sports such as rugby, cricket and tennis use technology yet you’ll be pushed to find regular disputes over decisions and interpretations of the laws of the game. You also can hear what’s being said by the officials which shows transparency. Another thing lacking within football.
No consistency and no accountability is a recipe for disaster as people will understandably come to the conclusion there’s a lack of integrity, honesty and professionalism from high paid top flight officials
Is he or is he just a fecking shocking referee? Does he do well in other games?Stuart Atwell is definitely an ABU.
Is he or is he just a fecking shocking referee? Does he do well in other games?
He only booked mct there because that guy was genuinely hurt. fecking mental
Is he or is he just a fecking shocking referee? Does he do well in other games?
He only booked mct there because that guy was genuinely hurt. fecking mental
I think quite a lot of them are just bad and VAR has massively exposed itProbably a bit of both.
Besides the last two var incidents, I remember a couple of years ago McTominay getting absolutely clattered inside the penalty area and Attwell giving nothing for the most obvious foul ever.
Shaw with a pull back to stop a counter and doesn't get booked. It's just post refereeing
Thats just not true is it? Didn't martenilli get double yellow on an advantage in one phase of play the other night?The new rules are they cant give yellow if they play advantage
Thats just not true is it? Didn't martenilli get double yellow on an advantage in one phase of play the other night?
Thats just not true is it? Didn't martenilli get double yellow on an advantage in one phase of play the other night?
