If anyone can be bothered, you'll find that the referee at Doncaster was very much a 'homer'. He gave every foul Gills dared to commit - yet was unable to see all the stuff dished out to our players ( especially Eaves ). Today, against Bradford, we had a referee, and a shocking linesman ( GRS side ), who were awful - and again failed to see so much shirt pulling and pushing and shoving. I don't mind the defeat ( as such ) - but I hate to be beaten by such poor officials. I have no real issue with the bookings sustained by both teams - but there were a few more Bradford players who would have got one - if the referee had been consistent. The goal that was conceded, I am certain, had the linesman as a 'key' participant. The lino was unable to see the Bradford forward about 4 feet offside ( on their left ), in the attack that ultimately led to the goal. The unnecessary pressure [when a Gills free kick should have been awarded ], kept us pinned back --- OK, we should have defended better - but - when you get such poor decisions, it must have some psychological effect on the players................. and, as for the sending off - Wilkinson never touched the defender -- who got up and had no trouble in movement ( along with the laughing and winking to the crowd ).- AND - HOW was Wilkinson's challenge worse than the one early in the first half by their No.4 on Byrne ? The only consistency about the referees and the linesmen is their bowel movements. edit - whilst I will concede that Wilkinson's 'style' of challenge wasn't the most intelligent - my point in this thread is the NON consistency of the officials --- at least I can have some admiration that Wilkinson 'wanted' the ball - hopefully that type of effort will see Gills OK this season.
If you are expecting consistency from officials then you are watching the wrong game. Over the last 2 or 3 seasons my estimation of officials has gone down and down. I thought the referees in league 2 were bad and the linos were just there to hold their flag rather than wave it anytime soon. I hoped that when we got moved up a division things might improve considerably. 2 matches in and sadly I was mistaken. There is no consistency from officials anywhere. I do think that all officials will make mistakes. They are human and there isn't one alive that has never made an error (with the exception of my missus of course). But some decisions are just simply bizaar and what they see or think they see is beyond anyone else in the ground. 2 minutes later they ignore one that is identical and that happens game in and game out. My only defence of them comes in the way players are now. They have become so good at cheating that refs do have a torrid time in some games having to decide between the complete cheating bastard and the half cheating bastard. They must practice throwing themselves on the floor in various types of heap depending on wanting a penalty or a red card or both.. The Pundits then come up with some fanciful excuse on their behalf where it is justified going down. Managers never see it of course and it leaves suporters fuming. If players and their managers can't behave themselves and do things right then can we really expect referees to be faultless? It's asking a lot.
AP has confirmed that the club isn't going to appeal the red card now after advice from officials have stated that it's very unlikely to be rescinded. 3 match ban for Wilkinson then.
First we had players being able to 'barge' a goalkeeper ( and ball ), into the net - GOAL Football then gradually descends to all out thuggery ( The 70s - happy days ) Then we get political correctness - and all seater stadiums --- including clean toilets !!! At the same time we got 'Fergie time' - and all of a sudden nobody got a penalty at OldTrafford ! of course the referee was never intimidated. Sky and BT came along - and now it's not so much as paying to watch football - but to see stuff more at home in drama school-- Now life's a stage -we all are actors - everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame - including football 'officials.'
OK - forget my last post. I do understand the 'mechanics' of Wilkinson's 'offence.' --- The rules of 'football engagement' are so ambiguously worded that any interpretation can be placed on their definition -- and, in Wilkinson's case he was guilty - because the officials deemed his 'challenge' to be 'dangerous' or conducted dangerously / and or with excessive force - regardless of the fact that Wilkinson NEVER touched the Bradford player. Because of THAT, all encompassing description of a 'reckless' challenge, unfortunately Wilkinson is guilty - ---- but I'll take that sort of commitment everyday !
Could you imagine Charlie Lee these days...red card for just being on the pitch, as he would be deemed dangerous That's what happens when you change something from a man's game, to a pampered elite. Under today's rules the crazy gang would never have existed and Vinney Jones would have been on the touchline instead knitting a pair of woollen socks for Gaxza's balls! If the Ronaldo of today was up against the likes of Chopper Harris and Norman Hunter, he'd being staying home getting his hair done. Really miss them days we've spoilt the game.
