RateTheRef

Quote from: DublinRef on Sun 14 Apr 2024 11:29

Quote from: bmb on Sun 14 Apr 2024 00:41

Quote from: ChippenhamCherry on Sat 13 Apr 2024 22:38

Woefully inconsistent. Or I suppose you could call it consistent but all in one direction.
Not a single booking for Man Utd. They committed more fouls in the game.
Christie booked for diving, Mainoo's dive ignored. Cook and Neto booked for dissent. Fernandes in his face all game, not booked.
Not even a booking for Kambwala for the foul that lead to the overturned penalty (sidenote: since his arms wrapped around Christie, was it not a holding offence that started outside the box and continued into the box and therefore should have remained a penalty?) at the end, even though that was textbook stopping a promising attack.
He was poor with the the little stuff too. E.g. Unal penalised for a light push. Two minutes later he's pushed to the ground, play on, Utd nearly score. That's what lead to Neto's understandable dissent.
As for the Man Utd penalty, it's the very definition of a big club penalty. There's no way a small club is getting that in their favour at Old Trafford.
There are Premier League referees capable of refereeing the big clubs evenly with the little ones. But some just can't compute that the game might actually be going in the other direction than the one they prepped for, that the big club might be struggling, that the big club might be committing as many indiscretions as the little one. Tony Harrington very much fell into that category.

This.

However whilst Neto’s dissent was understandable I still didn’t like to see it. We’re normally better than that.

Very unusual for the anti ref songs to be sung loudly and continuously at Dean Court. Can’t remember the last time I heard them. We have one of the most placid crowds going.

Thanks to Chippenhamcherry and bmb for the detailed review of what sounds like a poor day out for Mr. Harrington. I would be interested in exploring one point further -

There's no way a small club is getting that in their favour at Old Trafford.
There are Premier League referees capable of refereeing the big clubs evenly with the little ones. But some just can't compute that the game might actually be going in the other direction than the one they prepped for, that the big club might be struggling, that the big club might be committing as many indiscretions as the little one

Now I know on here we cannot (quite rightly) accuse referees of deliberate bias and I also know that is not what you are implying here Chippenhamcherry but I wonder what is the cause. Is it as you perhaps suggest a symptom of over preparing for a game to the point of prejudging the 'script' so to speak? So far that subconsciously the referee is expecting the game to go one way.

Or is it the case that it is not a real affect and that we simply perceive it to be the case due to confirmation bias? I believe there are statistics to show that 'bigger' teams playing at home get more favorable decisions (this is skewed though as home teams generally have more possession, more time in the penalty area). I would be interested if there are any statistics on top six clubs playing away from home.

However, and I am no statistician, but I wonder if something like penalties per minute played in penalty area would be a more accurate figure to look for than simply number of penalties awarded for example.

I certainly don't for a second think there was any deliberate bias & I have no questions at all regarding his integrity, I don't personally believe any of our referees to be corrupt or lacking in integrity.

I wonder if perhaps general speaking is there is "more well known" element. More people have heard of Man Utd, more people have watched Man Utd than ever will AFCB. Man Utd are often on the TV, any fan of football watching games on TV will have seen them regularly and you get to know what their patterns of play are, what their strengths are, how they adapt to situations and things like that (maybe not so much under the current manager as they have been pretty inconsistent of late but...). As a referee that must have some effect, you have that picture in your mind of what you expect to see, who you expect to be the dominant team, they are the big name, the team always on TV. I think it might play a part in unconscious bias and that is a difficult thing to change & not sure how or even if you can do so. I use visualisation techniques with referees I coach, making them watch sublime calls over and over again so it's implanted somewhere in the back of their mind that this is how to deal with that scenario in the hope that if hey are ever faced with it, their mind is already telling them this is how to do it correctly. I understand how powerful that can be so it makes sense to me that effect can also be attained less consciously by watching the same teams over and again. Does that make sense?

Many thanks for the insightful post bmb, what you are saying absolutely makes sense to me. I was thinking a bit more however about how one could prove effect this statistically and really it is never fully possible I think. Well maybe it is but I think need a very large sample of games.

Regardless of quantitative proof though, I do think your point is worth considering - how do we prevent this though? And equally, how do we prevent the opposite happening i.e. a refereeing trying subconsciously to show they are not biased and going the other way.

One thing I think we can all agree on though - these are great challenges for even the very best referees to overcome!

I only saw two decisions from this game - the Man United handball penalty which I felt was incorrectly awarded, particularly by EPL standards, from the angles I saw I was surprised VAR didn't intervene.

The Bournemouth penalty at the end -  probably correct for VAR to change to a FK. I felt the foul point he selected was correct and was outside the area.

I see a number of esteemed posters who also happen to support Bournemouth seem most unhappy with Mr. Harrington's general performance, I hope they will make more detailed posts on where they felt he had a poor game as we always benefit from their views.

Quote from: DublinRef on Wed 10 Apr 2024 09:16

Quote from: MCPridz on Wed 10 Apr 2024 00:00

Quote from: Lionator27 on Tue 09 Apr 2024 22:09

Great work at the end in not falling for that abysmal attempt at diving by Saka.

It wasn’t an attempt at diving it was a stonewall penalty even an ex Man Utd player said it was a stone wall penalty and before you say I’m being biased Bayerns was a penalty to, Kane should have also of been off for that blatant elbow on Gabriel, thought the occasion got to the referee shouldn’t of had such an inexperienced referee managing a Champions League Quarter Final having only previously done 6 Champions League game need a more experienced referee for the second leg

I will certainly not accuse you of bias, but you are, in my humble opinion, profoundly wrong.

Why would Saka do that literally in the dying seconds of a game when he had a better opportunity to score he wouldn’t it’s a clear foul and a clear penalty but what astounds me the most is it wasn’t even looked at

When you say wasn’t even looked at I assume you mean by VAR? If that is true (which I highly doubt) then I would agree with you on that point only that it of course should be reviewed by the VAR. I am almost certain it would have been though. With respect to your question, I think we have seen countless examples of players diving when in very good goal scoring opportunities. For me Saka’s movement is inexplicable and inconsistent with anything else other than attempting to win a penalty kick. There is no need for him to move his leg into the goalkeeper as he did, he moved into the keeper - not the other way around.

I fear we may have to agree to disagree my friend! But I would very humbly suggest that the strength of opinion on here and other refereeing sites, from neutrals in terms of time this game, suggest the referee got it right.

Thought Harrington's comms were poor but was impressed by how quickly Gillet (and Cann) realized immediately what the confusion was in terms of which law was being applied. Thought that was excellent to have that awareness when they hadn't seen any replays.

I remember a few years ago in Hungary, there was a manager who thankfully no-one employs these days. Nasty, arrogant bully and a complete dinosaur. I was sat with Újpest's then manager at the end of season shindig, a week or so after we had won the cup, beating this other guys team. There were some Federation bigwigs sat there and he came over and started ranting that they had lost the cup because of an incorrect decision by the referee in the 7th minute and how disgraceful the refereeing was etc. He was very abusive and threatening. I piped up with number 1 it was a correct decision in law and explained the law to him and reminded him that his team had gone on to lead in the game twice, throw the lead away twice and eventually lose on penalties that were played 113 minutes, plus any TAO, after the decision he wrongly thought was incorrect and that he needed to eff off, go and take a long hard look at himself in the mirror and accept his errors in tactics and his team's errors that lead to them throwing away the lead twice and the only ones to blame for their defeat was themselves! To this day he maintains that perceived in his mind error was to blame! Thankfully Újpest's manager was driving me home as there was a steady stream of pálinka my way that night!!
[/quote]

bmb you make an insightful point as always, however perhaps the most important takeaway - a bottle of pálinka supplied by the PGMOL after matches will make officials post match meeting with managers all the more tolerable!!

"is a shame Mr. Clattenburg wouldn't, or couldn't condemn or at least criticize some of these actions."

Mark is employed by Forest, so there is no way he will.publicly rebuke the owner. I see Referee advisors as just being another way to put pressure on referees, all friendly beforehand yet claws out after - plus its going to make headlines when "former FIFA ref says....."

Apologies RCG I am only getting a chance to reply to your very reasonable point now. I do agree with your sentiments, what I was trying to say (obviously I didn't say it particularly clearly) was that I think it is a shame that 1) Mr. Clattenburg would accept, or feels he needs to accept a position that forces him into acting this way and/or 2) That he couldn't have made any, even small push back, something like "of course we need to be sure we behave respectfully but -" while I think that would have been a weak statement, at least it would have been something. Anyway, I don't mean to turn the debate back to Mark Clattenburg, I agree about your thoughts on the role.

I think in terms of Mr. Tierney the incident is rather unfortunate, of course at the elite level we expect officials to get everything correct in law (and indeed they shouldn't ever err in this manner) but the timing of his mistake is unfortunate, it is also unfortunate that Notts Forrest defensive errors seem to be a non issue as some feel Mr. Tierney gifted Liverpool a goal. He made a mistake yes, a bad one, but I think it is too far to say he cost them the game.

I liked Mark Clattenburg as a referee and have heard from a few sources (including bmb who has stated it publicly on here) that the arrogant label associated with his personality is unfair and I certainly don't want to add to any comment on him personally as that isn't really of any relevance.

I also understand that everyone needs to work and I understand the idea of referee consultants (even if I don't agree) which we have seen in many sports in the past. Mr. Clattenburg obviously has to provide for his family and that will, quite reasonably, be his primary concern. Anyway this is just a long winded way to say the moral high ground is a lonely place and I don't like people being vilified.

Saying all of that I am very disappointed by his comments today. These comments hurt refereeing and will hurt Paul Tierney. I can understand (again I don't agree with it) if Mr. Clattenburg is hired to liaise with the PGMOL privately and to advise Nottingham Forrest accordingly to avoid falling foul of any directives etc. However, commenting publicly only serves to place unfair pressure on the referee and attempt to create a narrative which is unfair, and in my opinion this is a very disingenuous and dishonorable way to behave. I'd take Mr. Tierney's honest mistakes over some of the appalling behavior we have seen today, it is a shame Mr. Clattenburg wouldn't, or couldn't condemn or at least criticize some of these actions.