+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 953
Latest: Yorksref
New This Month: 21
New This Week: 3
New Today: 1
Stats
Total Posts: 75094
Total Topics: 5525
Most Online Today: 148
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 8
Guests: 90
Total: 98

Show Posts

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 - Ref Fan

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 59
1
Going back even further, I was always delighted to see the brilliant Joe Worrall from Warrington at Old Trafford - less than 15 miles I'd have thought.
Even closer was another great referee, Neil Midgley, who I think was noted as being from Salford.  What I'm not sure was whether Neil refereed at OT other than the Manchester derby.

2

Do we get the full conversations between referee and VAR? There didn't seem to be much interaction between Oliver and Attwell in the Liverpool V Man City game.

Dale Johnson has tweeted that the PL Panel voted 3-2 that Oliver was correct not to give a penalty in Liverpool V Man City match and it was a 4-1 vote that VAR was correct not to intervene. Panel did all think Havertz should have been sent off for second yellow card in Arsenal V Brentford for simulation, but not one for VAR. And they also voted 5-0 that there should have been a red card for Brighton V Nottingham Forest - I was disappointed this clip wasn't included tonight seeing as even Dermot Gallagher agreed it should have been a red card and officials had got it wrong.

If I heard correctly, Webb didn't acknowledge any errors in the incidents selected which is a pity in my view.  I think he implied the potential Liverpool penalty was subjective and therefore "umpires call", and that VAR wouldn't have intervened had a penalty been awarded. He mentioned a referee needing to be sure in that situation.  Have to say I was surprised at the strong conviction on some other forums that it was a 100% penalty.  Mind you, didn't Dermot indicate it should have been a penalty (but no VAR intervention for an OFR) which puts him slightly out of tune for once with PGMOL?

3
Not a good decision at all to give an FK against Maguire there when he got a foot to the chest.

Yes, I wondered what that was all about. He seemed to get his decision on the free kick completely the wrong way round. But that was the only decision in 120 minutes that was definitely wrong in my view and John' s overall performance was excellent.

Yes, that was a very odd decision.  What was even more surprising was I didn't notice much dissent from the United players.
But a very good performance from John Brooks.  He looks the part, doesn't he.

4
General Discussion / Re: P TIERNEY - Forest v Liverpool
« on: Sun 03 Mar 2024 09:55 »
Sorry but how could it not affect the outcome? Forest had the ball and were attacking yet inexplicably Paul Tierney took away that advantage thus giving Liverpool the chance to get the ball up to the other end of the pitch.

Although I ticked 'agreed', it might have affected the outcome and it might not.  But I'm not sure how it could be asserted that it didn't affect the outcome because 90 seconds were played before Liverpool scored.  If Tierney had dealt with it correctly, we've no idea how the pattern of play would have developed differently.

Of course we don’t but posters are getting bogged down in ifs buts and maybes. The facts are quite simple: the referee and his team made a mistake in law in carrying out the dropped ball situation post the injury to the Liverpool goalkeeper.

Just over 2 minutes pass which include 2 passages of play where forest themselves have possession but give the ball back to Liverpool who force a last minute corner to score from. Forest even have a chance to clear the danger from the corner. They don’t and they get punished. Nothing to do with the officials but everything to do with poor decision making from the players on the field.

As for the owner he should never set foot in a football ground again!

Your'e quite right of course ajb95.  Forest had several opportunities subsequently to clear the ball or retain possession and made a mess of it.  I was simply trying to emphasise that we don't know what would have happened had Tierney restarted the game with a dropped ball to Forest, whereas 1 poster claimed it didn't affect the outcome and another that it did.

5
General Discussion / Re: P TIERNEY - Forest v Liverpool
« on: Sat 02 Mar 2024 23:05 »
Sorry but how could it not affect the outcome? Forest had the ball and were attacking yet inexplicably Paul Tierney took away that advantage thus giving Liverpool the chance to get the ball up to the other end of the pitch.

Although I ticked 'agreed', it might have affected the outcome and it might not.  But I'm not sure how it could be asserted that it didn't affect the outcome because 90 seconds were played before Liverpool scored.  If Tierney had dealt with it correctly, we've no idea how the pattern of play would have developed differently.

6
Wasn't Casemiro sent off in a PL game for putting his hands round someone's neck?  Obviously Mr Kavanagh and Mr Bond took a different view of this. The other surprise was that Fernandes was, for him, remarkably restrained in his reaction. 

7
General Discussion / Re: Chris kavanagh -Carabao cup final
« on: Sun 25 Feb 2024 22:07 »
Missed the first 35 minutes so only saw the Caicedo incident when it was shown at HT.
What struck me was the similarity with the Maguire foul yesterday.  Both late, a fair amount of force but contact low mainly on the foot/boot rather than higher.  From that perception, I don't see how it could be claimed that Maguire's was a definite RC but Caicedo only a YC.

The difference of course was that yesterday, while Oliver played advantage, he did go back and correctly caution Maguire, whereas as far as I know Kavanagh didn't recognise the foul.  Trying to be consistent, I felt both were of that orange hue.

If the early fouls were by Chelsea, it's notable that Liverpool ended up with 5 YC - (I actually thought it was 6 but may have been assuming Robertson was cautioned as he probably should have been) - and Chelsea only 2 according to the stats I saw.

From the 85 minutes I did watch, I thought Kavanagh was ok.  Nothing special but not poor.  Whether he will be totally satisfied with his performance I'm not sure, perhaps depending on that first 35 minutes I missed.
they were saying on commentary that it was an advantage

Well if that was the case and he saw it as a foul, I'm very surprised he didn't regard it as reckless. 

8
General Discussion / Re: Chris kavanagh -Carabao cup final
« on: Sun 25 Feb 2024 19:22 »
Missed the first 35 minutes so only saw the Caicedo incident when it was shown at HT.
What struck me was the similarity with the Maguire foul yesterday.  Both late, a fair amount of force but contact low mainly on the foot/boot rather than higher.  From that perception, I don't see how it could be claimed that Maguire's was a definite RC but Caicedo only a YC.

The difference of course was that yesterday, while Oliver played advantage, he did go back and correctly caution Maguire, whereas as far as I know Kavanagh didn't recognise the foul.  Trying to be consistent, I felt both were of that orange hue.

If the early fouls were by Chelsea, it's notable that Liverpool ended up with 5 YC - (I actually thought it was 6 but may have been assuming Robertson was cautioned as he probably should have been) - and Chelsea only 2 according to the stats I saw.

From the 85 minutes I did watch, I thought Kavanagh was ok.  Nothing special but not poor.  Whether he will be totally satisfied with his performance I'm not sure, perhaps depending on that first 35 minutes I missed. 

9
Sorry, but I don't think it's as clear cut as some are making out.  There was certainly a fair amount of force but the contact was low,mainly on the boot as far as I could tell.
For me, it was definitely in the orange category.  Not a nice challenge but one of those when whatever colour card the referee shows, I don't think VAR would intervene.

10
General Discussion / Re: Anthony Taylor - Forest v Newcastle
« on: Mon 12 Feb 2024 12:10 »
When I saw the replay I was surprised VAR didn't intervene because to me it was a clear foul by the GK.
Even Dermot, as well as the 2 pundits thought it was a penalty.

The issue for me in this situation is what the referee actually sees.  If the protocol is for VAR to ask the referee what he saw, and Anthony Taylor says he had a decent view and didn't think it was a penalty, is VAR going to re-referee the incident?  If the referee says he didn't have a clear view or a good angle, then it's a different matter. If the latter was the case, I don't understand how VAR could not recommend an OFR. Or is it a symptom of a less experienced colleague not wishing to override a FIFA elite referee by telling him he got it wrong?

11
General Discussion / Re: Wolves vs Man Utd -Jarred Gillett
« on: Thu 01 Feb 2024 22:52 »
I'm still trying to convince myself there was actually contact for the penalty and understand why there was a just a slight delay before the Wolves player fell to the ground.  That apart, no problem with Gillett whose YCs were correct, especially the one to Casemiro for that stupid foul (all too typical I'm afraid) in the second minute. The only surprise was he managed to avoid a second YC.

12
According to Law5, Oliver and Taylor are in Cyprus for the UEFA Advanced Course for top referees (Elite and Cat1) which it says runs 28th Jan. to Thursday 1st Feb.  As Oliver has the 12.30 game at Everton on Saturday, it would be helpful if he can get back late Thursday I would have thought. If not, wouldn't it have been better to give him a Sunday game like Taylor?

Incidentally, Stuart Burt is not with Oliver but is AVAR, with Kav as VAR, on Sunday.

Pleased to see Bond, Bramall and Welch with games.

13
Catching up on highlights and looks like Brooks was fine in United V Spurs. Only gripe i have is the pull back on garnacho in the box. Most will say not enough contact for a penalty and I would agree, but what is the difference between that and the one Man City were given by VAR in the derby earlier in the season?

On watching it again on RefWatch, I changed my mind and thought it should have been a penalty.  It looked to me that the pull back was sufficient to stop Garnacho getting to the ball and which the defender had no chance of playing.  Perhaps someone could interpret Dermot's view for me - I think he said not enough for a penalty but at least one, if not both, of the pundits said penalty. Probably not one for VAR to get involved but I'm sure they wouldn't have done so either had the penalty been awarded on field.
No issues otherwise with John Brooks.

14
It looks like the next one is scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday) night - 7pm on TNT and 8pm on Sky.

The lack of an OFR for Gusto's foul on Willian must be an odds-on for discussion?

Perhaps surprisingly, Dermot and the 2 pundits thought a YC was correct, if I heard their comments properly.

I hope tomorrow's review is better than the last one when they spent too long on 1 incident and glossed over 2 others with just a quick comment that red cards would have been expected (when they weren't given).

15
I get the feeling certain posters on here have a thing against City and are looking for any excuses as to try and justify why they were lucky - goals that came from failure to award free kicks to Newcastle, Rodri should have been off, Walker should have been booked etc.
All conveniently ignores the following 3 facts - for the 2nd time City have lost a player through injury due to this silly delayed flag nonsense (Stones the other); City had 73% of the play and 27 shots to 12 so were very dominant; and in Kevin De Bruyne they have an amazing talent who today was outstanding and a joy to watch.

You could be right Hendo suggesting some have an agenda against City but there were some questionable decisions to debate.
I missed part of the first half and only saw 1 replay at normal speed at half time of City's first goal.  It did strike me that Gordon may have been fouled but without a close-up or slo-mo, I couldn't say for sure. I don't know how much attention it was given at the time.  In the prevailing climate this season on dissent, I did think Rodri was very fortunate.  However, the decision that puzzled me most was not to caution Burn for the sort of challenge Silva was correctly carded for only a few minutes later. On this occasion, while not to be condoned, I could understand Pep's frustration and antics in front of the 4O.
After his recent good performances, imo it was not Chris Kavanagh's best day at the office.

That said, this United supporter was pleased to see City win because they deserved to with some brilliant football at times.  Newcastle had some great counter attacks and scored 2 excellent goals in the first half but couldn't match City after half time. A fascinating watch for neutrals I'd have thought.
 

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 59