Phil Dowd
- Thread starter Jay-Rede
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Sick to death of the praise n the media that chubbster is getting for ruining a game.
All refs are anti Cardiff.
I wouldn't say they are anti-Cardiff but we definitely haven't had our share of 50-50 calls , it looks like we need 60/40 or more in our favour to get anything out of the officials
And as they all say ......'Bad calls even themselves out',so we will either have 4 pens in our next two games or one hell of a season next year in the Championship
Penalty......yes
Red Card....no
For it to be a red hasn't there got to be a clear goal scoring opportunity? Had there been a 'CLEAR GOAL SCORING OPPORTUNITY' then he would have scored when given advantage - the fact he didn't means it wasn't CLEAR
Red Card....no
For it to be a red hasn't there got to be a clear goal scoring opportunity? Had there been a 'CLEAR GOAL SCORING OPPORTUNITY' then he would have scored when given advantage - the fact he didn't means it wasn't CLEAR
Not quite, if you watch the replay, the tug puts him off balance, so is no longer in a position to shoot, which he would have been had he not been tugged. So he lost the clear goal scoring opportunity due to the tug. Dowd did everything right, advantage, penalty and red card.
Having read all the comment and all the various quotes does everyone agree a referee has a thankless task. Dowd could have given various punishments for the offence based on one moment in time without the assistance of technology. He did not approach his linesmen (as far as I could see) and gave the decision based on his interpretation.
My view is he allowed play to go on after the initial offence (the tug) therefore advantage begins surely, at this time, the first offence is then consigned to memory as a red/yellow card and a free kick as it was outside the box. Fair play, the player never went down but his direction was then heading toward the corner flag and Marshall then came out to block further. At this time advantage over and pull back for the red/yellow card and free kick. Well that's my view and it was a huge screen and only a few beers...
My view is he allowed play to go on after the initial offence (the tug) therefore advantage begins surely, at this time, the first offence is then consigned to memory as a red/yellow card and a free kick as it was outside the box. Fair play, the player never went down but his direction was then heading toward the corner flag and Marshall then came out to block further. At this time advantage over and pull back for the red/yellow card and free kick. Well that's my view and it was a huge screen and only a few beers...
I agree with all bar the free kick part, as rules state that if the incident moves into the box, even if it starts outside, its deemed a penalty. I honestly believe if he had gone on to score, you would have kept your player on the pitch, and I think that was in Dowds mind when he allowed play to continue, as even when he was pushed wide, Dowd kept it going even after the chance had gone, just to see if he could get away with pulling it back, Sunderland score, and avoiding having to send your guy off.
I also agree that the ref has a thankless task, I would be annoyed if it happened to us, part of being a fan, but I can also see why he did what he did. If anything I think he did a great job, and done everything he could to allow the best for both teams, by playing the advantage, but it didn't materialise and he had to act.
Swanselona
If anything I think he did a great job, and done everything he could to allow the best for both teams, by playing the advantage, but it didn't materialise and he had to act.
But you would say that. You haven't had to endure Dowd twice in 4 games as we have.
It is almost like he has gone out of his way to give critical decisions against us and not give anything crucial in our favour. As I have said before Sunderland and Palace before them were better than us and deserved their wins but it is no help at all when we are also playing against the referee - as has appeared the case with Dowd.
I see we have Martin Atkinson at Newcastle on Saturday. That will be the fourth time this season. 2 defeats and 1 win so far. I can't recall anything incriminating against him so will accept him in good grace. Lol!!!
West Ham v Spurs have the pleasure of Mr. Dowd. Good luck to them. Swansea have Anthony Taylor.
If anything I think he did a great job, and done everything he could to allow the best for both teams, by playing the advantage, but it didn't materialise and he had to act.
But you would say that. You haven't had to endure Dowd twice in 4 games as we have.
It is almost like he has gone out of his way to give critical decisions against us and not give anything crucial in our favour. As I have said before Sunderland and Palace before them were better than us and deserved their wins but it is no help at all when we are also playing against the referee - as has appeared the case with Dowd.
I see we have Martin Atkinson at Newcastle on Saturday. That will be the fourth time this season. 2 defeats and 1 win so far. I can't recall anything incriminating against him so will accept him in good grace. Lol!!!
West Ham v Spurs have the pleasure of Mr. Dowd. Good luck to them. Swansea have Anthony Taylor.
I am sure if you were to check my post history, Dowd is one of my least favourite refs, where as Clattenburg is my favourite. So I am not biased here, I am not his biggest fan by a long ****, as he doesn't seem to like us much either.
But how can you say in that instance the ref was against you? I honestly don't understand how you can come to that conclusion, unless there is bias creeping in. The guy tried to allow advantage, and had Wickham scored, it would have saved your player, now he could have blown up first as last, and just sent your guy off, but he didn't, he allowed Wickham the chance, and that chance would have saved your own player, what more could he have done so that you didn't think he had an axe to grind with you? Let it go altogether? There was no way he could do that. If he had let it go altogether, many (most probably not you guys of course
) would have been criticising him for not having the balls to do his job properly.What happened in the palace game, I don't know, but I am talking about this incident, an incident I seen, of which I cannot see what the guy did wrong.
EDIT - ok although I didn't actually say I dislike dhim, here is the post about it
http://www.not606.com/showthread.ph...unday-!!?p=5544276&highlight=dowd#post5544276
As the article suggested, Dowd doesn't like us. Clattenburg however was a favourite of mine prior to this article too. Which could explain why
EDIT 2 ****, and as you pointed out, we have Taylor. Dammit
Swanselona
Dowd gave us less than f**k all in both games. The penalty and sending off may well have been correct but overall he gave us nothing of any worth at Sunderland.
Accepting you have no knowledge of the Palace game, they were blatantly time wasting from the second minute and yet in the first half he only added 2 minutes extra - there were 2 injuries also with trainers on. Second half there were 6 substitutions plus further injuries and time wasting and he only added 4 minutes. In fact one of the injuries was to Joe Ledley right in front of me. Ledley could easily have rolled off the pitch but Dowd didn't make him move and his trainers sauntered across the width of the pitch, in total wasting at least 4 minutes - I am being generous in their favour there. In saying that we weren't that bothered at the end and just wanted the final whistle.
However, Daehli was hacked down in the penalty area and he gave nothing. 2 minutes later exactly the same happened by the centre circle and he gave us a free kick - just where it didn't matter. That is a clear example of him giving us nothing where it was important.
These are just the issues that stick out for me and there were a number of others.
I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
Good luck with Taylor. Lol!!!!
Dowd gave us less than f**k all in both games. The penalty and sending off may well have been correct but overall he gave us nothing of any worth at Sunderland.
Accepting you have no knowledge of the Palace game, they were blatantly time wasting from the second minute and yet in the first half he only added 2 minutes extra - there were 2 injuries also with trainers on. Second half there were 6 substitutions plus further injuries and time wasting and he only added 4 minutes. In fact one of the injuries was to Joe Ledley right in front of me. Ledley could easily have rolled off the pitch but Dowd didn't make him move and his trainers sauntered across the width of the pitch, in total wasting at least 4 minutes - I am being generous in their favour there. In saying that we weren't that bothered at the end and just wanted the final whistle.
However, Daehli was hacked down in the penalty area and he gave nothing. 2 minutes later exactly the same happened by the centre circle and he gave us a free kick - just where it didn't matter. That is a clear example of him giving us nothing where it was important.
These are just the issues that stick out for me and there were a number of others.
I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
Good luck with Taylor. Lol!!!!
The problem with all of these contentious incidents is the pundits get the rule book out to find appendices and bullet points to prove the ref right/wrong, totally ignoring the precident that is set by decisions throughout the season.
I ask this genuinely, not just as a biased City fan but as a genuine point of reference - can anybody ever remember a PL referee allowing a player to continue to nearly score, then bringing play back AND awarding a penalty AND sending a player off? I will give you an example of the opposite - Zaha against Southampton. Clearly fouled, foul continues into the area, he shoots, play goes on.
How many times have you heard the phrase 'if he had gone down there, hed have got a penalty'? I have heard it too many times. It is the way referees have refereed our game for years.
Now, put the rule book away and answer the following:
Why has this rule now been applied, for the first time seemingly ever (correct me if I am wrong), in one of the most important games of our season? I know I am being irrational, and I am trying not to scream conspiracy, but why?! They never do it.
All season long I have laughed about the fact that we never, ever get penalties, despite having had about 15 clear cut penalties waved away all season.
Low and behold, in two vital relegation season matches, we concede 2 penalties. One of which was sketchy at best (granted, Webb evened it up in that game) and the other was clutched from the bottom drawer of technicalities in the rule book - we all know Cala fouled Wickham BECAUSE he was outside the area and deserved sending off. However we also know that, freeze frame aside, he let him go as soon as they entered the area. Ok, I know, by the strictest definition of the law the ref was right - but as he has already decided to play advantage, allow Sunderland their 'clear goalscoring opportunity' but send Cala off anyway, he might give us the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Nah, why change the habbit of a lifetime?
AS a side note - not the reason we lost and not the reason we are going down. We are going down cos we are s***. But I will never question anybody again if they tell me that refereeing is only consistent in its inconsistency at PL level...
I ask this genuinely, not just as a biased City fan but as a genuine point of reference - can anybody ever remember a PL referee allowing a player to continue to nearly score, then bringing play back AND awarding a penalty AND sending a player off? I will give you an example of the opposite - Zaha against Southampton. Clearly fouled, foul continues into the area, he shoots, play goes on.
How many times have you heard the phrase 'if he had gone down there, hed have got a penalty'? I have heard it too many times. It is the way referees have refereed our game for years.
Now, put the rule book away and answer the following:
Why has this rule now been applied, for the first time seemingly ever (correct me if I am wrong), in one of the most important games of our season? I know I am being irrational, and I am trying not to scream conspiracy, but why?! They never do it.
All season long I have laughed about the fact that we never, ever get penalties, despite having had about 15 clear cut penalties waved away all season.
Low and behold, in two vital relegation season matches, we concede 2 penalties. One of which was sketchy at best (granted, Webb evened it up in that game) and the other was clutched from the bottom drawer of technicalities in the rule book - we all know Cala fouled Wickham BECAUSE he was outside the area and deserved sending off. However we also know that, freeze frame aside, he let him go as soon as they entered the area. Ok, I know, by the strictest definition of the law the ref was right - but as he has already decided to play advantage, allow Sunderland their 'clear goalscoring opportunity' but send Cala off anyway, he might give us the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Nah, why change the habbit of a lifetime?
AS a side note - not the reason we lost and not the reason we are going down. We are going down cos we are s***. But I will never question anybody again if they tell me that refereeing is only consistent in its inconsistency at PL level...
Popbank, I agree it doesn't happen often enough for my liking, but that doesn't change my mind in that Dowd got it spot on, and is something I would like to see him, along with other referee's do more often, actually use the advantage, as an advantage, not just an excuse to let play go on for 2 seconds, the team lose the ball, and not have to blow for the free kick.
I have always liked the way the rugby has used the advantage, in that if you gain no advantage of the play continuing, you go back.
In this case, at least from my point of view, was that the advantage lost from the tug, was a shot at goal (if balanced, he would have shot with Marshall running out, Marshall would never got as close as he did) I mean Wickham never did regain control of the situation. So no advantage was gained, so Dowd made the right call, so for me it was 100% correct. In fact I thought he showed balls in doing it, I think most refs, would have bottled it, and carried on, which of course for you guys is a kick in the teeth, but it is something I would like to see all refs start doing.
As for inconsistency, we have been having that problem for a while, we have always felt we got the short straw, just look how long we went without a penalty, and in that time there were some clear nailed on penalties turned down, one of them being this one.
http://www.footytube.com/video/Swansea-City-vs-Manchester-City-175710
Watch it from 1:45 onwards, how we never got that is beyond me.
Refs are inconsistent, they are on the whole, pretty damn awful, but for me, I have to give Dowd credit for what I feel was bang on what all refs should be doing, its just **** luck for you guys to have been at the wrong end of it.
I have always liked the way the rugby has used the advantage, in that if you gain no advantage of the play continuing, you go back.
In this case, at least from my point of view, was that the advantage lost from the tug, was a shot at goal (if balanced, he would have shot with Marshall running out, Marshall would never got as close as he did) I mean Wickham never did regain control of the situation. So no advantage was gained, so Dowd made the right call, so for me it was 100% correct. In fact I thought he showed balls in doing it, I think most refs, would have bottled it, and carried on, which of course for you guys is a kick in the teeth, but it is something I would like to see all refs start doing.
As for inconsistency, we have been having that problem for a while, we have always felt we got the short straw, just look how long we went without a penalty, and in that time there were some clear nailed on penalties turned down, one of them being this one.
http://www.footytube.com/video/Swansea-City-vs-Manchester-City-175710
Watch it from 1:45 onwards, how we never got that is beyond me.
Refs are inconsistent, they are on the whole, pretty damn awful, but for me, I have to give Dowd credit for what I feel was bang on what all refs should be doing, its just **** luck for you guys to have been at the wrong end of it.
Problem is highly doubt this will be the start of a new dawn in refereeing - next time a similar incident hapens and its a 'big club' player, the rule book will go away and play will be waved on.
Sorry, it stinks. I get what you are saying, but rules are precident as much as thy are writing. That rule that everybody keeps quoting has almost never been applied in the pl. When a rule is never applied it almost ceases to be a rule. Strikers know they dont get a penalty if they dont go down. With that in mind- if connor wickham had thought he didnt have a 'clear goalscoring opportunity' he would 100% have gone down, resulting in a free kick and red card.
Anybody see the liverpool chelsea game? 2 chelsea players go down and need treatment at the same time and have to leave pitch. Both allowed back immediately. Go figure.......
Oh well, i will stop complaining until the next time a selectively applied rule is used to stitch cardiff up....
Hes a fat ****er who hates Cardiff, me personally, I think he's a Jack in disguise.
Cala went to grab, but had 2nd thoughts and lightly brushed his arm.. NEVER a sending off
This may help, they have a special offer this week ............ http://www.specsavers.co.uk/stores/cardiff
Whatever the case it's true to say that Cardiff were already losing and hardly had a serious attack all game.
1 shot on target, that Mannone yawned at, isn't likely to win many games.
BTW, who'll play at Newcastle in place of Cala who may also miss the Chelsea match?
This may help, they have a special offer this week ............ http://www.specsavers.co.uk/stores/cardiff
Whatever the case it's true to say that Cardiff were already losing and hardly had a serious attack all game.
1 shot on target, that Mannone yawned at, isn't likely to win many games.
BTW, who'll play at Newcastle in place of Cala who may also miss the Chelsea match?
Turner probably
Newcastle are desperate at the moment, you'll never have a better chance than Saturday.
Some Sunderland supporters are convinced they'll want to lose and help send us down.
The refs in the Championship were atrocious most of the time. The ones in the Pl have been better but City have had the wrong end of too many bad decisions for me. We'll have to suffer the likes of Mr Miller, Mr Bates, Mr dwarf Stroud, Mr Madley, Mr Mathiesson etc again 
Had he not pulled him he was running at your goalkeeper with a clear goalscoring opportunity - so red card yes. Only Cardiff fans appear to think otherwise. i.e. there WOULD HAVE BEEN a clear goalscoring opportunity if he wasn't FOULED - therefore Cala stopped a clear goalscoring opportunity
Mr dwarf Stroud
AAAgggghhhhh, not him again.
He's never forgiven Welsh clubs since a Newport County fan threw a wooden folding chair at his father in 1967. County were 3 - 0 up (a rarity in itself) and coasting when he abandoned the game after about 65 minutes because it was raining a bit and the pitch had a few little puddles. Now I'm not condoning the fan's action but it's a bloody long time to bear a grudge.
I did a bit of research last season and found that we had lost 4 of the 5 games he had officiated in over the previous 3 seasons or so.
Conspiracy theories and referees go hand in hand.
AAAgggghhhhh, not him again.
He's never forgiven Welsh clubs since a Newport County fan threw a wooden folding chair at his father in 1967. County were 3 - 0 up (a rarity in itself) and coasting when he abandoned the game after about 65 minutes because it was raining a bit and the pitch had a few little puddles. Now I'm not condoning the fan's action but it's a bloody long time to bear a grudge.
I did a bit of research last season and found that we had lost 4 of the 5 games he had officiated in over the previous 3 seasons or so.
Conspiracy theories and referees go hand in hand.
He did give City a penalty in their last match at Hull last season and didn't send off Nugent for the penalty he conceded when last man etc.
But generally he has not done City any favours over the years.