|
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Leggy
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 63
1
« on: Tue 27 Jan 2026 18:42 »
https://x.com/ScotlandSky/status/2015725457363042535
Very controversial one in Scotland calling in to question not just DOGSO but where VAR should intervene. Interested in esteemed takes on this. Colours to the mast, I support Celtic so naturally have my opinion but have more respect for the refs here.
The red card appeal has just been thrown out too which probably underlines the correct call was given in the end. But an interesting case study nonetheless.
I thought it was DOGSO "live" and was surpriseed that the onfield decision was a yellow card. My wife is a Hearts fan, but she was not watching, so no influence there!
2
« on: Tue 27 Jan 2026 18:38 »
Martinez is an outstanding keeper but he is one of the worst cheats in the league. Check ou the reaction of Konsa here to his antics.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DT8Q_izjQGy/
Perhaps Konsa should have a word with his fellow "professionals" who are all capable of doing the same when it suits them. His reaction is shared by many, but not many are innocent!
3
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 17:21 »
PS: If I have read the re-printed extracts of Law 12 (above) correctly, then it appears to have a sanction listed for an offence that is not identified - in the Law - as an offence.
Sloppy drafting / wording leads to law interpretation that could be wrong, confusing or contradictory. The aim should always be for the interprtation to be correct, clear and unambiguous.
4
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 17:15 »
Firstly, there are two things troubling with this sentence:
"While we may not like it, ultimately what does football expect here? Personally I suggest football expects that justifiable position or not, that we can't accept that a player can use their arm to prevent a goal being scored".
i) There is too much said about "what football expects" - what football (and any other sport) expects is for the Laws to be clear and correctly enforced.
ii) If the "offence" was not deliberate, then the player did not use their arm to prevent a goal being scored. The ball hit his arm, that is entirely different. The ball can hit the goal-post, but that it not a deliberate act by the goal-post!
Secondly, where have we got to in this endless (and futile) attempt to absolutely define hand-ball whereby a referee is announcing to a full stadium (and on Live TV) that no deliberate offence has been commited but he is going to award a penalty kick and caution the player??
Please can we stop trying to define everything, revert to simple wording and leave it to the discretion of well trained referees.
5
« on: Sun 25 Jan 2026 13:14 »
Firslty, I think this is very much a "referee's call" and I wonder if the two "experienced" VARs felt the need to help out their "inexperienced" colleague more than the need to make the right call?
Secondly, the referee is getting a lot of kudos for sticking with his onfield decision and not taking the VAR view. Whilst this may be correct, I also wonder how many of those praising him are doing so because they are anti-VAR in gerneral and/or just want to see more VAR interventions overturned? Their comments / prasie are less about this specific decision and more about VAR in its wider use?
6
« on: Sun 25 Jan 2026 13:06 »
Unfortunately it seems my comments from Monday are still being received in a different way to what I intended despite the fact I explained my reasoning.
I agree that no team or fixture should be exempt from having Oliver referee appointed. However, context and timing is key. Oliver is going to have a whopper match on Wednesday in the Champions League I would expect (just a guess). If he does, I think giving him this game is unnecessary and a rest would've done him better as many on here often give out about him needing more resting time. If for some reason he's not appointed on Wednesday, then fair enough, this appointment cannot be critiqued. I just feel that a rest is better than having to trek down to London to ref one of the more manageable games of the weekend.
That is a fair argument. It might also be the case that MO is one of those referees who prefers to be active and would rather referee on a Saturday than sit idle while others are officiating. I have no idea, but it is possible.
7
« on: Fri 23 Jan 2026 18:46 »
I started refereeing because of a very...err... erratic performance of Trevor Simpson (Sowerby Bridge) at Field Mill, thinking if I can't do better than that Gawd help me!
A couple of years later Mr Simpson spoke at the Mansfield Society of Referees, and I was asked to give the vote of thanks afterwards. I did, recalling the above in all it's glory to a pretty silent room.
Forty years on, I still wish I could rewind that clock, and were he still with us, profusely apologise to Mr Simpson for my brattish five minutes.
My reasons for taking up the whistle were similar. It was Tommy Ash (Rotherhithe) in a Southern League game at Welling United. I had a pop at him in the bar afterwards and he challenged me to put my money where my teenage mouth was. I did and ended up working with him a number of times - never really grew to like him, but did resepct his experience and match management. Fortunately none of my games has featured in this thread (yet!) but if any fans of Isthmain League clubs from about 1989 to 2006 visit this site, then I could be in a lot of trouble!!
8
« on: Wed 21 Jan 2026 18:36 »
Agree with AA on the offside proposal by Wenger.
Wherever you draw the line, there will be a player who is very marginally offside and complaints. The more you push defenders back towards their own goal, the less room there is for attacking. The "low block" (whatever that is) will evolve into the "very low block" and the games will be less entertaining / exciting.
Leave offside alone please and just live with the fact that - in games with VAR - you will have a forensic analysis and a correct decision (hairline or not). In all other games you will a decision indicated by either a trained AR, an untrained club AR or a referee operating alone. It will be their best effort and it will not be coreect 100% of the time, but football has lived with this for many, many years and can continue to do so.
PS: The non-VAR games comprise about 99.99% of all football games played under the auspices of FIFA, its affiliated Confederations and Associations. IFAB should not overlook this!!
9
« on: Mon 19 Jan 2026 17:44 »
Name, shame, ban and convict.
Possibly better in a different order: Convict, then name, shame and ban (for life).
10
« on: Sun 18 Jan 2026 19:05 »
Not a red for me, and certainly not a clear and obvious error to go with a caution. It was a glancing blow with very little force, had it really planted into his leg then I would say red.
I think the reactions to this post clearly show that we are split 50/50 among the forum and there’s nothing wrong with that as we never have to all agree. But I would then suggest that the original decision to award a YC was not a clear and obvious error.
I’m always really wary using pundits as examples when it comes to refereeing decisions, it so far, I’m yet to see a pundit say this isn’t a red card.
A chaWhilst I know ex-players aren’t always experts in the laws, if they’re all saying the same thing (along with ex-referees) you maybe need to take note.
I agree that the pundits have been in unanimous in their opinion but I have to point out some pundits very little knowledge on the laws of the game. Micah Richards I think was a culprit when he said the challenge by Dalot was reckless and then said it endangered the safety. Well which one is it? Reckless which is a yellow or endangering the safety which is red? If you’re going to say it’s a red card, then get your words right when explaining your thoughts.
In footballing terms, the wording was confusing. But a challenge can be both "reckless" and "endangering the safety of an opponent" in literal terms.
11
« on: Sun 18 Jan 2026 13:26 »
.....about eight minutes from full time there was a collision between a Palace forward and Sunderland defender Omar Alderete which ended up with our defender injured.I sit behind the North Stand goal where the incident occurred and whilst it looked like a flailing arm or hand it was purely unintentional when the contact came.
Alderete lay on the pitch for a few seconds and the referee waved on our physio however what happened then was the player got up and pointed at his lower jaw and cheek area where the contact had taken place and he didn't need treatment.
The referee insisted he had a head injury and made him leave the field of play even though he jogged off without any assistance however this left us one man down for thirty seconds.
"Alderete lay on the pitch for a few seconds and the referee waved on our physio however what happened then was the player got up and pointed at his lower jaw and cheek area where the contact had taken place"
What a silly silly thing to do by the referee.
Once the referee authorises treatment the player has to go off, it doesn't matter whether any treatment actually occurs.
.........but the player himself indicated he wasn't injured at all.
What is Robert Jones. A high quality referee or a medical professional ?
So the player was down with a potential facial injury? That requires professional medical aseessment. That means he is going off the field of play for at least 30 seconds. If he was not requiring treatment, why did he stay down? Its only an educated guess, but could it have been an attempt to gain an unfair advantage by feigning injury? edited to fix quote thingamajigga, bmb
12
« on: Fri 16 Jan 2026 18:01 »
Re the 1970 Eric Jennings final: I think he also refereed the replay on a very muddy pitch at OT. I stand to be corrected but I recall he must have sharpened his pencil to write a few more names in his note book on that evening.
It's been mentioned before on RtR but subsequently David Elleray was asked to rewatch that final based on the updated policies for discipline. I forget how many red and yellow cards he came up with but it was a lot!
I saw Eric referee a number of times at Old Trafford for league games. My memory is that he sauntered or lumbered round the pitch - even more so than a certain unpopular referee on here some 15-20 years later.
My memory might be playing tricks, but I think they got Michael Oliver to do the same (as Elleray) based on more recent intrepretation of Law and the card count was even higher!
13
« on: Fri 16 Jan 2026 17:58 »
The more we complicate things, the greater the chance of something going awry.
So what was wrong with a team sheet, hand-written in triplicate and signed by a club official that required the introduction of technology? Was it broken? Did it need fixing?
14
« on: Thu 15 Jan 2026 17:11 »
Gyökeres offside for the goal and - going on last night - interfering with play?! I don’t agree with it but the lack of consistency with VAR is absolutely shocking.
According to Dale Johnson the VARs have been told to stop “forensically analysing” certain situations. Whether this goal would have been ruled out who knows, but it’s definitely the right outcome. The defender is facing the wrong way for starters
Which situations does he say should and shouldn’t be forensically analysed?
If you give 2/3 top match officials access to:
~ 20ish camera angles.
~ The best slow-motion / reply tech around.
~ A highly trained technical assistant (or two).
~ SAOT when it works, or the ability to draw lines on the images when it does not.
And ..... you tell them not to get it wrong.
What do you expect? A forensic analysis, or a quick look followed by an educated guess?
“The PGMO bosses have driven home that it does not advocate for forensic examination of situations” is what he said. So it was badly worded on my part, I couldn’t remember his exact quote
15
« on: Thu 15 Jan 2026 17:07 »
Love that from Hooper. Cautioning Estevao for waving the imaginary card.
Yet again I ask why is that deemed to be a YC offence? The referee is either going to book the player who commits the foul or he isn't. How different is it to a player claiming for a free kick, a throw in, a corner or a penalty?
Its different because it is aimed at getting an opponent into trouble - and the very definition of unsprting behaviour. It also puts a referee in an impossible position. If they do caution, then it was only because the player implored the referee to do so. If they do not caution, then it is perceived as only doing so to be seen not to being swayed by player. Claiming a free-kick, throw-in, corner or, penalty-kick is also unhelpful for the same reasons above. Perhaps less troubling for the referee (except the penalty-kick) but not helpful all the same.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 63
|
Home
Search
Contact
Login
Register
Show Posts