One, of the many, clichés that pundits trot out which really bugs me is, âOh well, things even themselves out over the seasonâ. So blooming what, if a refâs decision has cost your team points on the day. Iâm still bristling over Mr Probertâs decision to send Hangeland off against Sunderland but if I was a Wigan fan Iâd be incandescent ! See what you think of Mr Jonesâ decision last night - was this a penalty ? http://www.101greatgoals.com/gvideos/gif-the-reverse-angle-of-maynor-figueroas-challenge-on-papiss-cisse/ If it was then, technically Figueroa had to be shown a red card, I guess. Now I donât know if we would have beaten Sunderland nor do I know if Wigan would have got anything from last nightâs game but for those decisions. But I sure as hell know both teams would have had a better opportunity. And itâs inconceivable that the refs donât know it as well. Oh, I know the ref doesnât get the benefit of replays and oh, they have to play by the letter of the law blah, blah blah. And you can forget all the common sense stuff. Why donât they apply the common law tenet of âbeyond reasonable doubtâ ? And do âthings even themselves outâ? Not if you consider that Bale should have been sent off on Saturday for his sarcastic hand clapping following his booking for that âdiveâ. Thereâs a case for âreasonable doubtâ for the original booking but not for the second offence, if Mr Foy had applied the âletter of the lawâ. Would it have made a difference? I donât know but it sure as hell would have evened things out ! Mr Probert, Mr Jones and Mr Foy - I will be keeping a close eye on you !!!
I think Cisse made as much out of it as he possibly could. Like you say, by letter of the law it is a red card. I also agree that refs invoke this rule arbitrarily, which is annoying as **** - either use your discretion or don't, especially when the game is full of grey areas.
What I look for in a Referee is consistency. Whether it's during a game or over a season. Some refs seem to adopt a three strikes and you're booked. Some refs I noticed used to wait till the 70 minute and then start booking. Some refs just seem to want to play to the camera and be center stage, get their name in the papers. Then there are some who just seem like they are caught in the headlights, scared to make a wrong decision against a big club. Isn't there a saying some of the best refs during a game are the one's you don't notice. The big question is what on earth is the 4th Official there for ? if he can't help out the ref on rights and wrongs with video help during a game, but he has to be isolated from any outside influences ie, fans, media commentary, mangers or players.
And another poor penalty decision - Cazorla adjudged to have been fouled in the Arsenal v West Brom game http://media.lockerdome.com/uploads/69b0621275b80b8a01142aaab5b47986_large Not the only poor decision by 'one to keep an eye on' referee Mr Jones, which favoured Arsenal in the game either. And yet again, proof that things do not 'even themselves out'.
Well, evidence rather than proof. The 'things even themselves out' argument is a long term one, not the course of a single match. It's probably true that things even themselves out for clubs of equivelant stature, but there's statistical evidence to show that over time big clubs get more going there way than smaller clubs. Broadly speaking though, sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you.
Complaints about referees are not a new issue of course. Came across this from December 2000 : Have you got any other real howlers involing Fulham ?
Mr Marriner - who should have officiated in our match against Sunderland but called off and was replaced by Mr Probert - is in charge against Swansea tomorrow. please log in to view this image I'm sure there is no significance in the main advertiser in the backdrop. Mr Foy (Arsenal v Newcastle) and Mr Jones (Norwich v Man City) are both given their first games in a while. Watch Time !!
Your absolutely correct Fulhaman. And I must say I thought Harry had some justification on the 'penalty' decision - another shocker then by Mr Foy. Mr Foy didn't present himself terribly well before the match either (although it's probably how we all feel about QPR) - please log in to view this image
I think punishments for referee's should be more extreme for getting a decision wrong. In some cases their mistakes can see a team relegated, like Bolton last season who had an illegitimate goal scored against them that sent them down. Bring back the death penalty?
Some would say that is too lenient! They should be made to referee every Man Utd Home game, allow 10 minutes injury time during which they will give enough dodgy penalties to ensure that Utd loose and then be locked in a room with Ferguson with only a whistle to defend themselves. Now that would be prime-time viewing!!
I'm not even going to pretend I understand the variations that apply to the current 'offside law' but I can't for the life of me understand why Lukaku's goal was given yesterday. There was some brushing over the issue by various pundits along the lines "the ball was played square to him". If that's okay then why was Berbatov's goal ruled offside when the Swansea keeper pushed it out to him ? See what you think about the Lukaku one - http://www.101greatgoals.com/gvideos/gif-romelu-lukaku-levels-for-west-brom-v-fulham/ Bring back the old rule I say !!
He was in front of the ball when it was played wide and still had no Fulham player between him and the goalkeeper when it was played across - is that what they call 'second phase' ? Nobody argued that Berba was behind the ball in the Swansea game. I know you're not supporting the decision Bidley, it's just a confusing law and annoying that it has been brushed aside with a "not to worry, it's only Fulham" shrug. Separately, there's an amusing story doing the rounds that referee Mike Dean celebrated Lukaku's goal : Here a brief video clip of him on Tuesday (aparently there's a better one if you have Sky plus) - [video=youtube;fcMbd8_SJcg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fcMbd8_SJcg[/video]
Yeah, I think it was thought that he was behind the ball when it was played across. And I agree that a lot of others clubs would have drawn a bit of attention to that dodgy decision, but there it is. At least we're not left to rue it, and WBA did deserve a goal; which doesn't make the bad call right, obviously. And that Mike Dean thing is crazy, although it could well be a storm in a teacup.
Mr Dean is again in the headlines for each of the red cards in the Arsenal v Man City game. The one I'd like to look at is the second involving Vincent Kompany. According to MOTD it wasn't a sending off and apparently City are appealing. What however was the difference between Kompany''s challenge and Hangeland's in the Sunderland game? Nothing in my view -see what you think : a) Kompany http://www.101greatgoals.com/gvideos/gif-vincent-kompany-red-card-v-arsenal-angle-1/ b) Hangeland http://watchhighlightsonline.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/video-hangeland-red-card-vs-sunderland.html In this instance there would appear to be consistency among the refs. PS I don't recall anybody in the media supporting Hangeland.
I was going to mention something along those lines, C58, and very interesting to know that it was the same ref. The irony is painful - this time the ref is consistant, but the media aren't!
So the ruling body have turned over the red card decision against Kompany. Mr Dean must have been wrong all along ! And Kompany will be available against us on Saturday ! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2262782/Vincent-Kompany-boost-Manchester-City-defenders-red-card-overturned.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
