|
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 - Semi Retired
1
« on: Fri 09 Jan 2026 21:10 »
Sorry I just don’t buy any of this “accidental” that’s being reported in the media. How do you accidentally pull an opponents hair? I know it’s been a while since I played but I don’t recall accidentally pulling anyone’s hair (or deliberately - to be clear).
Absolute rubbish. He knew what he was doing there. You could argue whether aggressive or violent. But it certainly wasn’t a complete accident.
I’m not saying it was premeditated and especially violent but it was unnecessary. And by definition that the referee has, it’s defined violent conduct, the red card is avoidable.
That said, Kirk is probably almost wishing VAR didn’t spot it. The intervention probably caused more aggro than had it just been missed. But that’s no reason to ignore it if spotted.
2
« on: Thu 08 Jan 2026 17:08 »
All of the decisions Tom Kirk made last night are very defensible, and right.
Quite why there’s this broad belief that we should ignore petulant behaviour from footballers is beyond me.
Had Grealish not sarcastically applauded Kirk, he wouldn’t have been dismissed (despite multiple other incidents of dissent)
Had Keane not pulled Arokodare’s hair he wouldn’t have been dismissed.
Both of these were stupid and unnecessary actions by players. And yet it’s the refs fault?
3
« on: Mon 10 Nov 2025 17:32 »
Kavanagh is an excellent referee. I am not sure what input he had in disallowing the goal, and by that I mean what he could see in terms of whether Robertson was blocking the goalkeeper"s view. The AR had no option but to flag offside as Robertson was clearly offside and even ducked which to me would suggest he was obscuring the keeper's view.
So on field decision is to disallow the goal, a reasonable decision. As Dermott Gallagher said this morning, there are no hard and fast rules in this situation. It is not a clear and obvious error, and being subjective, you are risking re-refereeing the game.
For me, Robertson was too slow getting out of the 6 yard box. If he wants to block the keeper then fine but if the defence move out he has to move out. He was too slow and bears some responsibility for the goal being chalked off.
Exactly this. Robertson is clearly in an offside position. He ducks out of the way of the ball. Overall I think it’s a slightly harsh call, but a perfectly reasonable one for the on field officials to make, and comes into the “is it actually an obvious error?” Camp. For what it’s worth I don’t think it’s an offside offence but I also don’t think it’s a clear and obvious error. He’s so close to the keeper, and ducks out of the way of the ball, so there are definite arguments he could have been in the keeper’s sight.
4
« on: Thu 23 Oct 2025 12:56 »
It’s an error in law so I can understand the decision to replay. And referees should know better.
That said a couple of things come to mind;
Firstly this is a pretty rare thing to happen so it’s likely a brain fart from the officials. They correctly identified that the team needs to nominate a player to not take a kick, not thinking through the implications of that player being the keeper.
Secondly, it’s not clear in the article but 4-3 on penalties implies that not all players were used on either side? So it feels pretty harsh to me to replay the game - effectively the team who didn’t have a player dismissed are punished for playing a player who hasn’t been sent off. It feels harsh
5
« on: Mon 20 Oct 2025 10:27 »
As far as I can tell, nobody is really arguing that the delay to treatment had any negative consequence to player safety. The challenge here is the underlying expectation seems to be the moment a player holds his head, the game is stopped immediately. Given the potential implications of a head injury the principle isn’t bad but it does lead to situations where players are encouraged to feign head injuries to get the game stopped. Not saying that’s what happened here, it all looked genuine. But referees are damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
Realistically the delay was a few seconds. Let’s be clear Liverpool fans are angry because they were expecting a get out of jail free card for conceding a goal. And that’s not really the intention of this protocol.
I remember a few years back I was refereeing a game and stopped because the keeper came off worse in a 50/50 tackle and was down injured. A couple of seconds after blowing the whistle the ball was in the back of the net. Cue lots of whinging to me. Had I not stopped the game I’d have had whinging on the other side.
Sometimes referees have no good option!
6
« on: Tue 30 Sep 2025 18:38 »
Dewsbury-Hall maybe unlucky with the foul and caution. I’d not go as far as to say a shocking call - he did make contact with studs on opponents foot, but it didn’t have much force, and a clear play on the ball too. That said, having picked up a caution he should have seen an immediate second caution for multiple obvious outbursts of dissent (whether he had reason to feel aggrieved or not).
Tbh I do think it’s a tackle that would be called a foul elsewhere in the world but in England probably not consistently so.
But additionally hitting out on social media (resulting in a BBC article hitting out at referees) should then be followed by an additional match ban in my view.
I disagree with Dewsbury-Hall's on-field reaction to the caution, which warranted a further card. It was clearly dissent. However, I don’t believe he should be sanctioned for expressing disagreement with the referee in the media afterwards. He did not impugn Sam Barrott’s integrity, nor did he make any personal remarks. As mature adults, we should be able to disagree with one another without one party taking offence and the other facing disciplinary action.
I do get that, and I’m not saying Barrott would take offence personally (it seemed to more broadly be aimed at the group of referees in general), the challenge is it goes in the face of this alleged “respect” campaign. You certainly wouldn’t expect a rugby player to do similar, and if they did, they’d likely get a slap on the wrist for it. Trouble is in the social media era it invites a pile on. In my profession it would certainly be frowned upon to use social media to whinge about colleagues…
7
« on: Tue 30 Sep 2025 12:39 »
Dewsbury-Hall maybe unlucky with the foul and caution. I’d not go as far as to say a shocking call - he did make contact with studs on opponents foot, but it didn’t have much force, and a clear play on the ball too. That said, having picked up a caution he should have seen an immediate second caution for multiple obvious outbursts of dissent (whether he had reason to feel aggrieved or not).
Tbh I do think it’s a tackle that would be called a foul elsewhere in the world but in England probably not consistently so.
But additionally hitting out on social media (resulting in a BBC article hitting out at referees) should then be followed by an additional match ban in my view.
8
« on: Fri 15 Aug 2025 23:29 »
Enjoyable game of football overall. Thought Taylor and team did fine overall and contributed to a good spectacle.
Regarding the handling offence, I think there are a few questions here. Protocol for VAR to get involved here is that the referee has made a clear and obvious error on an incident justifying a red card (or penalty, goal etc of course).
We don’t know what VAR actually said so will leave that part for later discussion once any audio is released.
But for VAR to get involved here, he needs to be sure on two things;
1. An offence of handling occurred
2. That offence denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity
The challenge with the first aspect is not only deeming did player handle the ball (yes) but was it a deliberate offence? Additionally, what has the referee said? If Taylor has said he saw the ball hit the hand and it was accidental it’s going to be difficult for VAR to come in. That’s before considering whether it’s DOGSO. To be clear, I wouldn’t dispute a call of handling and DOGSO, but I’m not sure it’s a catastrophic clanger as being made out in some discussions elsewhere. I think there’s just about enough doubt on the DOGSO element for VAR to stay out of it; Taylor was in a good position with a good view. Overall, did the referee make a clear and obvious error?
One of those that most Liverpool fans would want free kick and red card, but others would say a bit harsh. As a neutral and considering the general tolerance for handling offences in England compared to other countries in Europe, I was OK with the outcome.
9
« on: Tue 01 Jul 2025 21:09 »
Unless I completely misinterpreted something with this new Select Group supplementary list, I think Will Finnie, who officiated 15 Championship games and the L2 play off final, can feel a bit hard done by to not be on the list. He performed well on the couple of games I watched him.
Will be interesting to see the full lists when they’re released.
I’d be interested to see if the SG merger happens this summer. Some of the Instagram posts now talk about “primarily championship” rather than SG2. Could explain the lack of formal promotions…
10
« on: Tue 27 May 2025 20:49 »
I believe the best thing we could do on this forum is not even discuss the thoughts Mr Hackett offers. Some people are best completely ignored.
11
« on: Sun 25 May 2025 21:57 »
The complaint comes across as needing to have a scapegoat for why Villa missed out on Champions League football. With 3 and a half thousand minutes of football played over the season, of course it all comes down to this one split decision, made by a fully fledged Select Group referee, who is on his third season on the list. And to be honest, while I think we can all recognise it’s probably not a foul in retrospect, I can understand why he made the call on first viewing, and I’m not convinced VAR would have bailed him out if the on field decision was foul. I’m also unconvinced other, more experienced referees wouldn’t have made the same call on field.
It also deflects from the fact Villa were second best today. Of course, referees are judged on decisions and I’m sure Mr Bramall is beating himself up on it, but I do think the furore is somewhat overstated. I think you can justify the decision in law, and I think on first viewing at full speed it’d look worse.
I bet Mr Bramall is wishing his season had ended on a high on Wednesday night! Hopefully he’ll be given a good chance next season; he’s seemed pretty decent all in all this season and I’d suggest he deserves a decent run of games, despite what happened here.
12
« on: Sun 25 May 2025 19:30 »
Yes and I think we all agree it’s a bad call.
My thinking here is more that VAR would not have corrected it, and it would have come down to “referees call”. We’ve seen many decisions that have been deemed to be wrong kept as referees call this season.
Doesn’t mean it’s not a bad call, but I think the bigger criticism is on the call itself
I tend to disagree, either the ball is in his hands or not its a matter of fact rather than a referees call.
That as may be, but that isn’t what the law says. I know what football expects here, and I don’t think VAR would be getting involved had the referee given the goal either. But going back to quote law the goalkeeper is deemed to be in control of the ball; by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save So the question here is whether it’s a rebound or save. I’d argue no to either. So technically, the goalkeeper is deemed in law to be in control, and thus an attacker is not allowed to challenge him. As I’ve said a few times, I think it’s the wrong call, but having made the call on field, I fail to see a way VAR can really overrule here. The law backs the referee’s call…
13
« on: Sun 25 May 2025 18:42 »
Yes and I think we all agree it’s a bad call.
My thinking here is more that VAR would not have corrected it, and it would have come down to “referees call”. We’ve seen many decisions that have been deemed to be wrong kept as referees call this season.
Doesn’t mean it’s not a bad call, but I think the bigger criticism is on the call itself
14
« on: Sun 25 May 2025 18:24 »
I guess we will never know for sure, but for VAR to come in they have to be sure the referee has made a clear and obvious error.
The law with this one says;
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:
the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
Now, we can see the keeper made a hash of it, but there is an argument he would have retained control of the ball were it not for the challenge.
“Or by touching it with any part of his hands or arms” implies that by the letter of the law here, the keeper could be deemed to be in control, and thus should not be challenged for the ball.
I agree it’s a wrong call, and I agree he should have held the whistle, but I would be very surprised if VAR got involved here…
15
« on: Sun 25 May 2025 18:12 »
To be honest, much like Barrott incident earlier in the season, though he’ll get grief for not delaying the whistle it would not have made a jot of difference.
The key point here is he believed there to be a foul. Never in a month of Sundays is VAR coming in to call that a clear and obvious error, even if he did delay the whistle.
As others have said, I have sympathy here - when you’re refereeing as much without VAR as with it, it must be very difficult to train the instincts around delaying the whistle.
I think he’s had a good run overall and hopefully more consistent appointments next season will help build momentum.
|
Home
Search
Contact
Login
Register
Show Posts