Speaking of Nordin..... http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/sport/10058859.Wooter_interview_a__bizarre_experience_/
Hmm - so the FA have now decreed that the last line of defence can impede attacking players with impunity and impede straightforward scoring opportunities? Or are they saying that Deeney should have confirmed that he had been fouled by falling over?
ridiculous you send fessi of for diving, fair enough we all want it stopped , then when a player stands up to foul play we get this ,mixed messages or what! Hope he scores against forest though.
Staggering. Complete slap in the face for honesty. It would have been a lot easier for Deeney to go down under the challenge which I suspect he will do now in future. People in charge of football are incompetent from top to bottom.
I am not in the least bit surprised Berra's red was overturned. That his actions almost certainly denied Deeney from scoring but that in itself is not a red card offence. Deeney went on to shoot, ergo he was not denied the opportunity to score, ergo Berra should not have been sent off. The referee was incorrect in his application of the law. In other threads I've said that we have had poor refereeing decisions in application of the law (as opposed to was that a foul or wasn't it opinions) and now we've had one go for us. Now before everyone starts having a pop at me, I do think justice has been served - morally Berra had to go, no arguments from me there - and we won the match. And Berra is not further punished for a crime that, technically, he did not commit. As to whether or not Deeney should have 'gone down' it is to his credit that he stayed on his feet. Had he the mindset not be not quite so strongly determined to win the ball and allowed himself to be pulled off the ball and stumble a bit and not take the shot then who could argue? The referee had seen the foul a long way back and tried to play the advantage... had Deeney not had the shot, the advantage is lost and the opportunity denied. I would say the advantage was lost because he did not have a foul free shot on goal which, given his current form he would most likely have scored, but we'll never know. He was 'properly' fouled, not the referee saw it, justice was served in the match and is further served by the 'blazers' tonight but the law is insufficient, perhaps, in cases like this.
I'm not really all that surprised really. Deeney wasn't denied a 'clear' goal scoring opportunity, it was just that he was denied a 'better' one than he had. I think you can argue for both cases really, seeming he still had the shot but maybe not as good a shot if the defender had not impeded him I think if it was on the other foot, we'd all be saying that the striker still got his shot off, so he wasn't fouled 'enough' to warrant a straight red, depending on how you want to define 'enough' We got the decision on the day, and nice we have got a couple ourselves now. Also well done to Deeney for not falling over under the pressure - I hope the refs take note of this and not just the ones who go down too easy!
But Salisbury K your 2nd para would suggest that there could be double standards amongst football fans. Go back a page, Hornette will tell you if a decisions wrong but in your clubs favour its called REFRESHING !! (I'm assuming the 'they' referred to must be the opposition) If Dan made the ruling on that incident it must also be correct.
Maybe so Nick, most fans have a bias towards their own team... they will get the benefit of doubt nearly every time, especially on 50/50 decisions. What I would say is the 2nd paragraph is my opinion though, so doesn't make it correct. When a decision goes our way, I think we will always point out to where we feel we have been wronged, and feel that it has evened itself out. It's just the nature of the sport now, where matches can be decided by some of these decisions, and every call is scrutinised, especially with the money that is in the game where the rewards can be exceptional.
Well Kev I would say,judging by the attitude of a considerable amount of people on here, your opinion has to be correct. In an ideal world referees would not be so influenced by the crowd, Watfords could never be described as vociferous but I do believe that that player would not have been sent off for what he did on Sat had he been in the home team.
oh dear Nick, nice try. Shame your attempt at humour this time misses the mark. I'm sorry if my own attempts went over your head. Hey ho.
Fez - I'll probably have to bow down to your 'qualified ref's opinion' - but wouldn't that rather depend upon when the ref actually blew the whistle? It seems fairly clear to me from the highlights that, although the whistle can't be heard, the ref had already blown for the offence before Deeney got his shot away, the initial offence having occurred about 20 yards further back, and continued on occurring, during which distance Berra had had quite a few unsuccessful attempts at bringing him down. It seems to me that the ref thought enough is enough.
BB - I hope my original post (above) explains. He must have blown before the shot which was from inside the area. Watching the highlights on the iplayer again you'll be a better man than I if you spot the referee before he reaches for the red card out of his back pocket! He might well have thought 'enough is enough' and from a football point of view a red card justified - but it was still wrong in law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zsl3ZnLnDgY Perfect example of 'denying a goalscoring opportunity' NOT punished with a red card by the ref. Penalty was obviously correct, the sanction (or lack of) was wrong in law. Still, it's only li'l ol' Watford, eh? 'Ask the Ref' thread anyone? Will do my best to help though I really don't know it all - even if I think I do... will always research for the right answers and ask better qualified colleagues where there is an argument to be had...
I must be getting old (no comments please) but I find it hard to get worked up about this. For me, it's over and done with. We got three points. Football would be far less interesting without its ups and downs, which of course have nothing to do with what seems fair...
I would normally agree with you, Theo, but when was the last time we played in a game that finished with 11 men on each side? Clearly, cheating has to be stopped but matches are being spoilt with too many cards. Having said that a survey just published in NZ shows that GenY, roughly the same age group as most of the players, see nothing particularly wrong in cheating and lying to get what they want.
