RateTheRef

I don’t support either side. My post is really about the inept performance of the referee. The whole 90 mins he just didn’t seem interested. A non descript referee. His overall decision making was poor throughout and he got the critical decisions wrong. For me Havertz should have received a red card endangering the safety of the player. He missed a clear penalty for a double shirt pull on Murphy. As for VAR I will saying nothing but I despair. To add insult to injury of course the player who should not have been on the field scores the winner.

I support neither  side, but I am very surprised that the Havertz challenge wasn’t deemed a red.

If the penalty incident had happened outside the box, would Coote have blown for a free kick?  Of course he would.  Puts me in mind of the blatant penalty Newcastle weren't given against Man City when Edison wiped out Fraser.  Everyone in the world apart from the ref and Guardiola thought it was nailed on.

I didn’t see this game so nothing to add about it but it’s telling that you say he didn’t look interested. I saw him referee Liverpool v Shrewsbury Town in the FA Cup earlier this season and that was exactly what I thought. At the time I wondered if he thought it was beneath him not having a tie involving two Premier League sides.

Teams deserve better than these poor officials in the middle and on VAR

They would maybe deserve better if they cut out all the simulation, false claiming, dissent et cetera and instead played the game honestly.
If they did, the refereeing would immediately become much less controversial - and yes, better.

Quote from: Comeonref on Sun 13 Mar 2022 16:10

I don’t support either side. My post is really about the inept performance of the referee. The whole 90 mins he just didn’t seem interested. A non descript referee. His overall decision making was poor throughout and he got the critical decisions wrong. For me Havertz should have received a red card endangering the safety of the player. He missed a clear penalty for a double shirt pull on Murphy. As for VAR I will saying nothing but I despair. To add insult to injury of course the player who should not have been on the field scores the winner.

"A non-descript referee". The perfect way to describe Coote (and probably a few others - Bankes comes to mind). How on earth he holds one of England's valuable FIFA badges is beyond me. I can't wait for the day that there is an overhaul of the English refs holding FIFA badges (Pawson another one) and those more deserving are rewarded with one (Gillett). How many years before this happens though is another question...

While I generally agree that appointments to the FIFA list from England are not based fully on competence to say the least, I disagree strongly on Pawson. A very safe pair of hands IMO and after Oliver and Taylor the most active English referee in UEFA. Indeed given his appointments UEFA seem to consider him one of the stronger first group referees, although not a candidate for elite.

On your general point though I am in full agreement. A FIFA badge should be on loan for a year depending on performance (of course you must give time to develop too) but it is bizarre to me that you can get on the FIFA list at 35 or so, stay on for ten years, make no progress and take up a place blocking other referees with more time/potential and not be removed. Very odd that this seems to be the general practice by the English FA.

If the penalty incident had happened outside the box, would Coote have blown for a free kick?  Of course he would.  Puts me in mind of the blatant penalty Newcastle weren't given against Man City when Edison wiped out Fraser.  Everyone in the world apart from the ref and Guardiola thought it was nailed on.

Given your somewhat exaggerated claim over the Newcastle v Everton game you will be able to easily answer the questions I raised at the time which have so far remained unanswered.

Quote from: Microscopist on Tue 21 Dec 2021 13:09

I watched whilst facetiming with my sister and daughter and my immediate response was "That should have been a penalty", and I am surprised that it wasn't referred back for an on field review on the monitor.  There are one or two questions in my mind however, which perhaps someone can answer for me.  In these circumstances how do we decide whether the goalkeeper has fouled the forward or whether the forward has fouled the goalkeeper.  If Cancelo hadn't been involved at all it would have been relatively straightforward - assuming there had been no unreasonable action by either party, whoever played the ball first would claim priority.  So, had Ederson caught or parried the ball away it would have been Fraser's responsibility to avoid a collision; if Fraser had reached the ball first it would have been Ederson's responsibility to avoid the collision.  In this case it seems both players were intent on getting to the ball first and their combined momentum meant that there was a collision.  Do we judge Ederson's approach to be unreasonably energetic?  Do we guess who would have reached the ball first had Cancelo not intervened?  Also supposing Cancello had simply allowed the ball to run through to Ederson and then held his ground so Fraser collided with him (and quite likely Ederson, with ball, then collided with both of them) what would have been the decision?

Peter Walton in today's Times:

Havertz should not have been on the field to score Chelsea's winner. His elbow on Burn in the 1st half was dangerous play with no regard for the safety of his opponent and it is irrelevant that his eyes were on the ball....I was disappointed that Coote awarded only a booking.... VAR did not intervene after Newcastle's penalty shout as this was a subjective decision, though the shirt-pull was an extended one. If Coote had given a penalty, I doubt it would have been overturned".

This confirms my belief that VAR is causing our top referees to become much more hesitant about making the big calls. 

By whatever system we use in England, these are the top 20ish referees we have and their judgement in making the big calls is/was a significant factor in them getting there.  We now give them VAR and they become hesitant and cease to trust that judgement.  If VAR only intervenes where a clear error has taken place we end up with situations like the two that happened yesterday.

This is not helping the game, it is not increasing the percentage of correct decisions and - when contrasted with how Rugby Union uses their TMOs - reflects incredibly badly on a game that really does not need any further negative publicity.