It's the future of the club that causes the most anguish. Relegation is a mere bagatelle in comparison. Reality is a relative concept.
What I find worrying about some referees is that their interpretation of the laws has started to become subjective. I can understand goals not given because they weren't seen and that is right. I cannot understand a goal give that was not seen. As for yesterdays ref and linesmen they were pretty poor. The defender who brought down Lallana from behind should have been booked. By not booking him (never mind it would have led to a red) he ignored the rules and made a subjective judgement. My argument is that subjectivity by the officials will only add to the confusion and contradictory decisions being made and that is not good for the game.
He was very lucky to escape. He probably would have got a yellow, if he hadn't been on one already. A lot of refs are compassionate like this and a lot aren't. One form of inconsistency among many others. But, have no fear, it will not affect Southampton's progress, only their chance of winning that lovely old trophy.
Haven't watched the highlights, because I'm not ready to put myself through that yet, so I can't comment on the ref. But I never like it when fans, and indeed managers (stand up Sir Alex), of other clubs start blaming the ref when results go against them. And if the complaint is that the ref failed to send a player off for a rash tackle, that reflects particularly badly on the complainant. The way I see it, we got beat by a decent side because we either weren't good enough on the night, or we didn't get the breaks. Either way, regardless of what West Ham do on Monday, it's all in our hands. Nigel will have the team focussed on beating Coventry next Saturday, and hopefully won't be whining about refereeing decisions yesterday.
I don't believe the standards for referees are any worse or better than they used to be, years ago before TV came along and showed all the errors they made. Unfortunately, because TV concentrates on the mistakes the officials make, and generally not the good decisions, we've all become post-match experts, often without understanding. Some of us are eagle-eyed enough to know, at the match, on the spot. Personally, I'm not one of those as my eyes haven't been 20/20 since my teenage years, and spectacles are not a reliable substitute. It's possible that referees are getting decisions wrong under the stress of TV coverage and analysis, but that will only apply to a minority, I feel. I think they've been this bad all along, which is why for donkey's years, I've called for video technology to be used in as many areas as it reliably can. I don't care if it holds up the game, providing the right decision is reached. Stop the bloody clock if it becomes a problem. The fact is, that referee decisions have been that bad in critical games that football clubs are actually in different divisions because of it. You don't believe me..? Ask Shrewsbury Town from last season. They didn't get automatic promotion because of an awarded goal for Wycombe that simply didn't happen. And it didn't actually need video backup to see that it was wrong, so bad was the decision. Everyone saw it, except the officials. However, if a procedure had been in place so that the video could have been played to the ref on a screen, at the time, he could have reversed his decision in mere seconds, and Shrewsbury would be in League One with Wycombe in League Two, right now. Trouble is, these things only take on importance when it happens personally. If something is wrong it is still wrong whether it happens to your team or to the opposition.
He didn't. In the post-match interview he had with Solent's Adam Blackmore, he refused to acknowledge that the referee had bottled his decision, as Blackmore suggested to him. He just said, it won't change the result, that's life. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17803022#asset My admiration for Nigel Adkins just grows and grows.
...you make a good point, but i was wondering - has there been a time when a lot of referees haven't been useless? I am struggling to think of one - I don't think this year has been any worse than any other year to be honest.
I thought you were offside if any part of your body that can legally score is off. I think it's head, chest or foot. His feet were in line but because his head and chest weren't on side he was given off. I don't know if it's still about this rule but I remember it getting mentioned on Soccer Saturday a couple of years ago.
That is correct, or in other words your arms don't count. It was dead close anyway, those decisions can go either way.
Had a study of the Jukebox "goal" and that was one hell of a correct decision, only by looking at the pitchmarks can you tell it was a correct decision, have to credit the Lino for that one.
In that case it's probably the wrong decision because there's no way he could have been that accurate and benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking player! Of course, that rule doesn't seem to apply these days, it's always easier to disallow a good goal than to allow one that shouldn't have been, I suppose.
It was an accurate decision (according to SaintDon, I haven't seen it closely enough to judge it), but according to the rules, as I explained, it's technically the wrong call. Like it was wrong for the ref to give that non-goal to Chelsea, not because it didn't cross the line, but because he couldn't have been sure it had. If you can understand that, then you get a prize
What's your interpretation of the offside rule? Because my interpretation means he was offside, a very close call but still off.
The benefit of the doubt to attacker/defender thing was a bit of a commentators invention and certainly was never part of the rules. He's either on, or he's off, I reckon he was just off.
If you think about it....there are potentially 22 referees on the pitch in addition to the legal ones.....Not to mention the ones in the crowd. It is not an easy job at the best of times, having players baying at you does not help! You need to make a decision as to the severity of a punishment. You have to let refs play things back in their mind with all the shouting and pulling that goes on today they will often make the wrong decision because they haven't been allowed to do that. All of which takes nanoseconds but with all the baying going on a ref will often take the lessor of the two evils. Have been a referee to a reasonable standard and one of the things that were hammered home to us was...if you are sure give it, if you are not don't. Consult when there is an opportunity to consult! An above average ref will make as many as 5 wrong decisions in a game which again on average is about 2.5% of the decisions he will have to make during a game. No ref can ever hope to get through a game with out making some sort of wrong decision. Whether because he was unsighted or he was distracted by another incident. all you can do is to hope in hell you get the major ones right!!
I agree with you and I have said for a long time that the players on the pitch in the main get the standard of refereeing that they deserve. If they are constantly calling for decisions that they know full well aren't theirs such as for throw ins, corners and offsides and the usual diving etc then they cannot moan about a referee making wrong decisions in the game.
