Michael Oliver

Anyone complaining about referees should have seen the match between Viking and Brann in the norwegian League yesterday. Quite possibly the worst from a ref, I have seen in recent years (possibly the Chelsea win against Cardiff was worse)

Brann should have had 3 penalties - referee afterwards admitted to getting 2 of them wrong. But every expert thought the third one was a penalty as well. In addition one of the Viking-players somehow escaped a second yellow with 25 minutes left to play.

Just to make matters worse - Viking won by 2-1 !
 
One thing I noticed especially today is his positioning is shocking. He at times can be standing too many times in front of potential passes for both teams. He needs to move his ass out the way.
 
I don’t know how anyone rates him — he’s woeful.
 
Just wanted to go through the game without having to make any decisions, then handed out some token yellows in the 85th so that nobody’s wondering how a tough game went by without any yellows. Bunch of through the back tackles just let go, wild slides went by without yellows etc.
 
Anustart89 said:
Just wanted to go through the game without having to make any decisions, then handed out some token yellows in the 85th so that nobody’s wondering how a tough game went by without any yellows. Bunch of through the back tackles just let go, wild slides went by without yellows etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah he’s wildly inconsistent.
 
Why didn't he booked Walker for that dive near the end? And Sterling should of been booked earlier as well. And there was the Walker handball..
 
MaxiPaxi said:
Yeah he’s wildly inconsistent.
Click to expand...
You’d need a whole new term for Oliver.

This being the referee who sent Di Maria off for grabbing his back, but allowed Joe Hart to shout in his face and headbutt him, without even a warning
 
He's the definition of a deer in headlights.
 
Didn't give a possible 2 pens against City. Seems like a good performance to me.
 
Why the hell is he always put on the most important games?? It's not good for anyone or anything that one ref is automatic choice for the most pressured situations..
 
This is why kids need to be more inclusive at school. Otherwise that kid that was never picked for the school team and always told to feck off when he tried to join in a game in the playground will devote his entire existence to ruining the game for everyone else.
 
The problem isn't Oliver, everyone and their grandma knows he's dogshhit ref, it's the EFA that keeps giving him officiating job for high profile games.
 
Hes awful. You know he spends at least an hour in front of the mirror before a game getting his hair ready for the TV screens.
 
He was in an excellent position to see the handball. How he missed it i am not sure.

And if that is not a clear and obvious error for VAR to intervene, i don't know what is.
 
Mr H said:
He was in an excellent position to see the handball. How he missed it i am not sure.

And if that is not a clear and obvious error for VAR to intervene, i don't know what is.
Click to expand...
Which hand ball was that? Silvas or Arnold’s?
 
Bojan11 said:
Terrible ref. He is Liverpools version of Howard Webb.
Click to expand...

He is the yan to Martin Atkinson's yin. He is a very good ref who occasionally misses things but which ref doesn't? Atkinson is just a malicious cheat.
 
Swarlos said:
Which hand ball was that? Silvas or Arnold’s?
Click to expand...
It's not clear and it would be good to get a former refs explanation (given current refs organisation would never consider it), but....

If Silva's handball was accidental : it wasn't creating a goal scoring opportunity so I think, doesn't get given under new rules. So you'd move to the next one = penalty.

If Silva's handball is deemed deliberate, it's a free-kick to Liverpool and game should have stopped.

The official line after the game was announced as Arnold's handball didn't meet the current requirements. On that basis, they're implying that Silva's wasn't the issue.
 
VAR getting the blame but Oliver couldnt be in a better position to see it.
It doesnt really matter if VAR thought it was a pen or not if Oliver stands by his decision.
 
Oliver could see the blatant penalties so don't blame Var.
 
Mr H said:
He was in an excellent position to see the handball. How he missed it i am not sure.

And if that is not a clear and obvious error for VAR to intervene, i don't know what is.
Click to expand...

cyberman said:
VAR getting the blame but Oliver couldnt be in a better position to see it.
It doesnt really matter if VAR thought it was a pen or not if Oliver stands by his decision.
Click to expand...

I think he's bottled it waiting for the VAR to intervene, then the VAR doesn't want to intervene cos it doesnt want to undermine Oliver. A real mess
 
Cutch said:
I think he's bottled it waiting for the VAR to intervene, then the VAR doesn't want to intervene cos it doesnt want to undermine Oliver. A real mess
Click to expand...
I honestly think he stood by his decision which is admirable in a way.
 
cyberman said:
I honestly think he stood by his decision which is admirable in a way.
Click to expand...
I mixed the dogs wet and dry food with the same spoon I then used for my crunchy nut granola this morning. It was a mistake but nevertheless I stand by my decision, which is admirable in a way.
 
11101 said:
Hes awful. You know he spends at least an hour in front of the mirror before a game getting his hair ready for the TV screens.
Click to expand...

I think he needs to spend more time than an hour if that's the case.
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
It's not clear and it would be good to get a former refs explanation (given current refs organisation would never consider it), but....

If Silva's handball was accidental : it wasn't creating a goal scoring opportunity so I think, doesn't get given under new rules. So you'd move to the next one = penalty.

If Silva's handball is deemed deliberate, it's a free-kick to Liverpool and game should have stopped.

The official line after the game was announced as Arnold's handball didn't meet the current requirements. On that basis, they're implying that Silva's wasn't the issue.
Click to expand...
That’s not how it works though. If Trents hand ball is deemed to be a pen, then Silvas hand ball clearly created a goal scoring opportunity, meaning Liverpool should have a free kick.

If Trents hand ball is accepted as a close range deflection and no pen, Silvas hand ball is not punishable, and you should play on.

You can argue for both, but there is simply no way it’s a pen.
 
Swarlos said:
That’s not how it works though. If Trents hand ball is deemed to be a pen, then Silvas hand ball clearly created a goal scoring opportunity, meaning Liverpool should have a free kick.

If Trents hand ball is accepted as a close range deflection and no pen, Silvas hand ball is not punishable, and you should play on.

You can argue for both, but there is simply no way it’s a pen.
Click to expand...

The first is apparently not argued by PGMOL. According to MOTD they specifically ruled it out. They're arguing the second one - ie a close range deflection. Problem with this is it is absolutely arguable and blatantly poor reasoning. Silva was 25 feet away and TAA clearly moved his arm towards the ball, making himself bigger in the process.
 
Last edited:
Ekkie Thump said:
The first is apparently not argued by PGMOL. According to MOTD they specifically ruled it out. They're arguing the second one - ie a close range deflection. Problem with this is it is absolutely arguable and blatantly poor reasoning. Silva was 25 feet away and TAA clearly moved his arm towards the ball, making himself bigger in the process.
Click to expand...
They are not arguing the first one because the second one was not deemed punishable. If it was, they would have to include the first one, and award Liverpool a fk.
 
Swarlos said:
They are not arguing the first one because the second one was not deemed punishable. If it was, they would have to include the first one, and award Liverpool a fk.
Click to expand...

But that second argument is clearly nonsense since TAA's 25 feet away, looking directly at it and moving his arm towards the ball. If they're adjudicating on the basis of that alone then it's a terrible decision.

Also, if MOTD reporting is to be believed then in PGMOL's own words the Silva handball wasn't applicable not because they'd already adjudicated on other grounds but because it didn't result in an actual goal. I can see the argument why it should (since it leads to a penalty that could be converted), but that seems not to be the official position. Maybe they'll clarify this in due course.
 
Swarlos said:
That’s not how it works though. If Trents hand ball is deemed to be a pen, then Silvas hand ball clearly created a goal scoring opportunity, meaning Liverpool should have a free kick.

If Trents hand ball is accepted as a close range deflection and no pen, Silvas hand ball is not punishable, and you should play on.

You can argue for both, but there is simply no way it’s a pen.
Click to expand...
No, that's not how it works.... they're two separate incidents and it's a "goal" not a "goal scoring opportunity".

You're assuming PGMOL considered Silva's because they commented on TAAs.... that's all it is, an assumption. (Hence why I said originally, it would be good if such decisions were explained instead of part explained and leaving unanswered questions).

Mark Halsey (experienced ex ref) is quite clear that it was a penalty and why...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro....s-former-premier-league-referee-11076329/amp/

Football has poor referees and is mis using VAR. If that had been officiated using the same style as rugby union refs, they'd have looked at both incidents, explained them and are miked up... leaving no confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.