If the person who is in charge is Luton fan(as said by forest) then there is every reason to believe this is more than just incompetence.
VAR and Refs | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
If the person who is in charge is Luton fan(as said by forest) then there is every reason to believe this is more than just incompetence.
In isolation, the penalty call v AWB is a disgrace. How that can be given when 24 hours earlier in the same competition, Grealish gets away with a far worse shout, then Young 2 hours before, is absolutely maddening. The refs are worse than incompetent.
Social media has gone crazy about the offside call, but not seen a peep about this which is hilarious.
Surely it was better for Luton if Forest won or it was a draw as we have to play Luton?
People like Jeremy Vine talking about it being a disgrace
feck off man it was offside, might not like the rule which is fair enough but he was off. Ours meanwhile, dearie me. I can't wrap my head around it.Don't know, looking at the table it would have been better for Everton to win as they are ahead and also good enough team to beat relegation as their position in table is not their true position, because of points deduction.
Not sure what Luton fans think, but if the ref is a Luton fan then it was a blunder to appoint him in this game.
The thing is, he is saying that their is influence as an ex ref.
@Dirty Schwein said they'd rather a draw and then Forest win.
It was offside.
However loads of people (our manager included) still believe Garnacho was onside vs. Arsenal earlier this year, so yeah... not hard to see where some people are coming from I suppose.
However loads of people (our manager included) still believe Garnacho was onside vs. Arsenal earlier this year, so yeah... not hard to see where some people are coming from I suppose.
It's a bit bizarre. Simms looked offside on first viewing and the replay confirmed that. ITV's commentary team totally ignored that, deliberately I reckon to inject more drama and injustice to the moment. Didn't help that Dixon saw it twice, thought he was on, and then a third time and made a u-turn.
Nah, I hadn't realised Everton also still need to play Sheffield when I wrote that. So I made an edit.
I think the result was fine.
Forest have City next, which they will lose. They also have Chelsea, who on their day can be good and finish at Burnley, who are looking ok.
We need to beat wolves next to have a chance and I think that's possible.
Because football is less a sport and more WWE these days. There was a ref a few years back that admitted as such, gave decisions because it made the game more exciting or some other such nonsense. Just the other day we had a penalty not given because the ref thought it was a "schoolboy error" so it is obvious the rules are not really rules but more guidance for entertainment purposes.
Which is why I said "at the very least" - the line is extremely blurry at that level, and the step towards corruption/cheating is easy to make. And while conflict of interest isn't by default an issue, it's something that needs to be controlled within a specific framework - i.e. how can you believe that with these thoughts in the back of your mind, when making big calls in the heat of the moment, the subjectivity won't affect them? You make sure they're not in that specific position, by not allowing them to ref certain games.
But he was onside.
That was Forrest's refereeing consultant.
I don't disagree with conflict of interest being an issue but think the leap to cheating that some have or implying I do as the decisions from this season and even on the same match weekend would lean more into the fact that it's issues with poor referees and the clear and obvious rule.
Michael Oliver, also a Newcastle fan said that he would not be allowed to officiate a match of a relegation rival for Newcastle and nor would he ever want to because it just causes too much suspicion and isn’t worth the hassle.
The same Michael Oliver who a year later took charge of a Manchester United game when both Manchester United and Newcastle United were locked in a battle for Top 4.
You also have ex refs like Mike Dean talking about not giving decisions to protect his mates, it's very obvious that human feelings/emotions are prioritised over application of the rules.
The statement says clearly that PGMOL ignored a blatant conflict of interest even when they were warned. You can say it implies anything you want, but its clearly stating that PGMOL ignores conflicts of interests.
There is a reason they shouldn't be doing that.
The most frustrating this is that most the answers are so obvious.
1. Make offside just for feet only. (Semi automated offside like WC).
2. Get rid of the video referee and make it so that each captain has 3 challenges... If challenged the ON FIELD ref goes to a pitch side monitor (Or even better yet a big screen so the crowd can see). The get a set number of replays from different angles and speeds and then they make a decision.
Is it perfect - No
Is it better - Yes
Is it fair - Yes
Is it entertaining - yes
is it quick - Yes
It's so obvious but you just know they will add layer upon layer of new laws, new reviews, new job roles etc and make it even worse.
1. Make offside just for feet only. (Semi automated offside like WC).
2. Get rid of the video referee and make it so that each captain has 3 challenges... If challenged the ON FIELD ref goes to a pitch side monitor (Or even better yet a big screen so the crowd can see). The get a set number of replays from different angles and speeds and then they make a decision.
Is it perfect - No
Is it better - Yes
Is it fair - Yes
Is it entertaining - yes
is it quick - Yes
It's so obvious but you just know they will add layer upon layer of new laws, new reviews, new job roles etc and make it even worse.
Well it's not even confirmed yet if he is a Luton fan, is it?
For me it's the entire group of PL referees who are absolutely useless and are sabotaging football games. You don't see the same level of issues during CL and/or international competitions
Or bias, sure. But it cant be ruled out if they are willing to say 'weve been patient enough' or their complaints were made pre-game, and then this happened.
I actually agree with your latter statement there is incompetency surrounding this (as well as inconsistency)
The problem occurs when you have clear conflict of interests that need to be addressed and should be addressed, but arent, then situations like this happen.
The whole way that VAR is being implemented especially since Webb took charge screams 'they are sabotaging it to get rid of it'. Whether thats the case can be argued as conspiracy, and thats upto whoever wants to argue it.
A lot of decisions are now truly game changing. Before VAR, there was defo sympathy given how fast the game moves. Now, with numerous replays, minutes taken to review something in some situations vs a quick check in another situation can be very frustrating.
A lot of this stuff needs to be called out. Some teams have been quiet and probably tried to do it the 'right' way. I can see why teams are going the 'low' route now becauae this way it gets more media coverage, and more likely something will happen.
Before VAR we just had to accept a refereeing decision as final. Now, we have extra referees who are supposed to watch videos to correct errors, but in general they just back up what their mate has seen on the pitch.
It's ludicrous carry on, they are either extremely bias and incompetent. Or they are now so aware of the drama that can be created, they do their best to facilitate it.
Oh for the days for David Elleray and Mike Riley. At least you knew where you stood with those guys.
As someone unfortunate enough to be too close to Greek football to avoid it, i chuckle a bit at the reactions to the NF statement. More so because Forest have every right to feel aggrieved. But this is nothing new for their current ownership. And should the British press decide to run a story on the love affair between Marinakis and Clattenburg, there will be plenty of laughs for everyone.
I do think they need to introduce the concept of “linesman’s call”, ie where the lines are so close together it really becomes a matter of inches and I think the benefit should be given to the linesman whether he/she flags or not. That would address these very close calls which to me seem artificial and depend on which line is drawn where rather than whether there is an actual offside (ie the forward getting a benefit by being ahead of the defender). From that perspective Coventry’s goal would have stood, as would a few of ours over the season.
I don't think it's even confirmed that Attwell is a Luton fan or not yet. The PGMOL need to come out and confirm or deny this.
I also do think it's a bit rich that Forest with Clattenberg who has admitted cheating we coming out with this. Just because you're a corrupt arsehole it doesn't mean others are, they might just be bad at their job.
Watching the Forest game, I don't get how they all aren't penalties.
With the handball it's a cess pit right now for the rules so you can understand if that was in isolation as a 'bad' call but the other two aren't even debateable. Young doesn't get the ball on either and kicks through the back on both?
With the handball it's a cess pit right now for the rules so you can understand if that was in isolation as a 'bad' call but the other two aren't even debateable. Young doesn't get the ball on either and kicks through the back on both?
Youre right about the first line. I know there were rumours previously (wondering if thats where it came from). If Forest made the claim, and it was denied, then Forest dont have anything to go on that line unless there actual proof. If however they made the claim, and it was ignored, then its something else.
I think the clattenberg thing is a non issue, at least based on the first point.
Have found the collective losing of head all over social media over an offside being given as offside so funny. But what about the story everyone is asking. So it would have been fine if it was United whose goal had been ruled out
The media coverage this morning has just proved again how much easier it is for these incompetent officials to give decisions against United than it is for them to point in United's favour. Hardly see anything about the handballs in the FA cup games and outrage over a correct offside call that went in United's favour.
I know all basically admitting that the narrative is greater than applying the rules correctly, basically screw united.
In one. Same people screeching about this ignoring that Coventry were given a penalty in the last minute because it doesn't fit their "narrative" that the FA/Refs wanted United in the final
Why just feet when you can score with your head amongst other things? I don’t see how arbitrarily choosing feet helps anything.
2. Agree with this although I think 3 is too many. I think it should also be very defined in scope. The contesting team has to say exactly the reason they are contesting the decision, and maybe they could give multiple reasons if they think more than one infringement took place. That way you reduce the chance of teams using the contest as pot luck that something happened.
There's something to be said for this. I've never understood how having a hand on the wrong side of the defender is supposed to give you an unfair advantage. I've seen the challenge system in the NHL, and it seems to work well there at least.
Dermot:
Forest 1: no penalty. There’s contact but it’s insufficient to give a penalty. Pundits - both say penalty.
Forest 2: would have been very harsh to be given, running in a natural position. Pundits - natural for arms to be there, no penalty.
Forest 3: this is a penalty. Young doesn’t play the ball and gets caught wrong side. Should have gone to the screen. Pundits - 100% penalty.
Forest 1: no penalty. There’s contact but it’s insufficient to give a penalty. Pundits - both say penalty.
Forest 2: would have been very harsh to be given, running in a natural position. Pundits - natural for arms to be there, no penalty.
Forest 3: this is a penalty. Young doesn’t play the ball and gets caught wrong side. Should have gone to the screen. Pundits - 100% penalty.
Ha!
Just feet because it takes away arguments about where your arm starts / stops. Seeing players being offside by an arbitrary line under the armpit is a bit ridiculous. Doing it by feet makes the whole thing cleaner.
Oh 100%. The challenge needs to be specific... We want you to look at that throw in that just happened as it looked like it bounced off the opponent, or we believe their number 5 handballed it in the penalty area etc etc. I think 3 is a good number for an entire game of football. You get an extra challenge if the game goes to extra time in a cup.
It would be great entertainment, force the on field refs to make the calls and not just be passive. It would also add an extra element to being a captain. Somebody like Bruno would likely use all his challenges in the first 15 minutes whereas some captains would be good at making the right calls at the right times.