The incident where the Reading player attempted to take a throw-in, dropped it and then picked it up, should have been a foul throw at least. Ref let him take it again. He’s a clown ...
Has he genuinely come straight from Australian “soccer” into refereeing the Championship? Mad if he has, the A-League is more akin to the Conference and by the sounds of it that’s where he should be.
Has he genuinely come straight from Australian “soccer” into refereeing the Championship? Mad if he has, the A-League is more akin to the Conference and by the sounds of it that’s where he should be.
He started reffing some League 2 games towards the latter half of last season. This will be his first full season in England. I'd have to think that he did well enough in his cameo last year to warrant promotion to the Championship but today he was proper shit
He let a few things go that some refs wouldn't, but I thought he was ok. I would be quite happy to have him ref us every game and that isn't because he favoured us, because he clearly didn't.
I judge refereees against the following criteria in order to take the subjectivity out of any views: 1. Did the referee on the day get the key, match changing decisions right, namely in order, goals, penalties, off sides and sendings off : (2) did he have overall control of the game.
On saturday, there was no controversy re the goal or any other goal scoring opportunities. IMO, he got the penalty right. Furthermore, I dont recall any controversial off sides, nor did the game warrant any sendings off, IMO.
He always gave me the impression he controlled the game, as judged by his handling of the two flashpoints in the game, which he handled with calmess and dignity.
To simply pick him up on the throw- in incident is rather chirlish, given the importance of a throw compared with, say, a goal decision. The throw was not a foul throw in my opinion, it was simply that the ball fell from the players arms; no intent was meant
I judge refereees against the following criteria in order to take the subjectivity out of any views: 1. Did the referee on the day get the key, match changing decisions right, namely in order, goals, penalties, off sides and sendings off : (2) did he have overall control of the game.
On saturday, there was no controversy re the goal or any other goal scoring opportunities. IMO, he got the penalty right. Furthermore, I dont recall any controversial off sides, nor did the game warrant any sendings off, IMO.
He always gave me the impression he controlled the game, as judged by his handling of the two flashpoints in the game, which he handled with calmess and dignity.
To simply pick him up on the throw- in incident is rather chirlish, given the importance of a throw compared with, say, a goal decision. The throw was not a foul throw in my opinion, it was simply that the ball fell from the players arms; no intent was meant
Overall therefore, I thought he was competent.
So what about some of the clear ridiculous fouls some IMHO dangerous which he didn't even give particularly on Williams.
Honestly thought it was getting nasty mainly due to his inability to control the game.
Thought he was bloody hopeless but there you go all about opinions.
I judge refereees against the following criteria in order to take the subjectivity out of any views: 1. Did the referee on the day get the key, match changing decisions right, namely in order, goals, penalties, off sides and sendings off : (2) did he have overall control of the game.
On saturday, there was no controversy re the goal or any other goal scoring opportunities. IMO, he got the penalty right. Furthermore, I dont recall any controversial off sides, nor did the game warrant any sendings off, IMO.
He always gave me the impression he controlled the game, as judged by his handling of the two flashpoints in the game, which he handled with calmess and dignity.
To simply pick him up on the throw- in incident is rather chirlish, given the importance of a throw compared with, say, a goal decision. The throw was not a foul throw in my opinion, it was simply that the ball fell from the players arms; no intent was meant
Overall therefore, I thought he was competent.
A referee sticking up for another referee.......who would have thought it..🤔.
In the player marks thread I never give marks to the ref as I believe all supporters are biased against the ref anyway. In this case I would say he was just as bad as most of the refs we have but didnt have a shocker. Saying that I think he tried to ref it like the Scottish one did yesterday in the old firm derby......let too many things go & made a rod for his own back.
I judge refereees against the following criteria in order to take the subjectivity out of any views: 1. Did the referee on the day get the key, match changing decisions right, namely in order, goals, penalties, off sides and sendings off : (2) did he have overall control of the game.
On saturday, there was no controversy re the goal or any other goal scoring opportunities. IMO, he got the penalty right. Furthermore, I dont recall any controversial off sides, nor did the game warrant any sendings off, IMO.
He always gave me the impression he controlled the game, as judged by his handling of the two flashpoints in the game, which he handled with calmess and dignity.
To simply pick him up on the throw- in incident is rather chirlish, given the importance of a throw compared with, say, a goal decision. The throw was not a foul throw in my opinion, it was simply that the ball fell from the players arms; no intent was meant
Overall therefore, I thought he was competent.
So what about some of the clear ridiculous fouls some IMHO dangerous which he didn't even give particularly on Williams.
Honestly thought it was getting nasty mainly due to his inability to control the game.
Thought he was bloody hopeless but there you go all about
Williams to whom you referred and Taylor too easily throw themselves to the ground (in fact hasnt Williams been cautioned for diving since he has been with us (?))
You dont accept that the criteria I used to judge a referee is logical (?), but you would rather stress the non result- changing decisions (?).
I judge refereees against the following criteria in order to take the subjectivity out of any views: 1. Did the referee on the day get the key, match changing decisions right, namely in order, goals, penalties, off sides and sendings off : (2) did he have overall control of the game.
On saturday, there was no controversy re the goal or any other goal scoring opportunities. IMO, he got the penalty right. Furthermore, I dont recall any controversial off sides, nor did the game warrant any sendings off, IMO.
He always gave me the impression he controlled the game, as judged by his handling of the two flashpoints in the game, which he handled with calmess and dignity.
To simply pick him up on the throw- in incident is rather chirlish, given the importance of a throw compared with, say, a goal decision. The throw was not a foul throw in my opinion, it was simply that the ball fell from the players arms; no intent was meant
Overall therefore, I thought he was competent.
So what about some of the clear ridiculous fouls some IMHO dangerous which he didn't even give particularly on Williams.
Honestly thought it was getting nasty mainly due to his inability to control the game.
Thought he was bloody hopeless but there you go all about
Williams to whom you referred and Taylor too easily throw themselves to the ground (in fact hasnt Williams been cautioned for diving since he has been with us (?))
You dont accept that the criteria I used to judge a referee is logical (?), but you would rather stress the non result- changing decisions (?).
It is about opinions, we can agree on that.
Have a good day
But surely the sign of a 'good' ref rather than just a competent or even a poor one is the ability to judge each match and incident on it's merits? Not judge a potential foul on the fact a player received a caution last year then therefore must be a diver? I agree with you that there were no game changer howlers, I also agree with others that he possibly let too much go which inadvertently he might have contributed to the flashpoints (which he did handle well) but he was inconsistent (see Morrison non caution). He probably favoured home in first half, away in second - you could argue that it evened it out but actually managed to rile both sets of fans. A throw-in may not seem important in your eyes (though I do seem to remember an incident at Fulham once....) but it WAS a bizarre incident and those things tend to stick in the mind.
I don't think he was hopeless but below average judged on his performance on all decisions not just the 'big' ones (I tend to judge on all criteria equally, but as you say it's all about opinion)
The throw in and the fouls were a judgement. The sort of judgements we see every week. I didn't see any glaring errors. And unlike Pete, I am not a ref apologist.
The game became quite feisty simply because of his inability to control the game, and his inconsistencies therein. He was poor - one of the poorest this season.
I judge refereees against the following criteria in order to take the subjectivity out of any views: 1. Did the referee on the day get the key, match changing decisions right, namely in order, goals, penalties, off sides and sendings off : (2) did he have overall control of the game.
On saturday, there was no controversy re the goal or any other goal scoring opportunities. IMO, he got the penalty right. Furthermore, I dont recall any controversial off sides, nor did the game warrant any sendings off, IMO.
He always gave me the impression he controlled the game, as judged by his handling of the two flashpoints in the game, which he handled with calmess and dignity.
To simply pick him up on the throw- in incident is rather chirlish, given the importance of a throw compared with, say, a goal decision. The throw was not a foul throw in my opinion, it was simply that the ball fell from the players arms; no intent was meant
Overall therefore, I thought he was competent.
So what about some of the clear ridiculous fouls some IMHO dangerous which he didn't even give particularly on Williams.
Honestly thought it was getting nasty mainly due to his inability to control the game.
Thought he was bloody hopeless but there you go all about
Williams to whom you referred and Taylor too easily throw themselves to the ground (in fact hasnt Williams been cautioned for diving since he has been with us (?))
You dont accept that the criteria I used to judge a referee is logical (?), but you would rather stress the non result- changing decisions (?).
It is about opinions, we can agree on that.
Have a good day
But surely the sign of a 'good' ref rather than just a competent or even a poor one is the ability to judge each match and incident on it's merits? Not judge a potential foul on the fact a player received a caution last year then therefore must be a diver? I agree with you that there were no game changer howlers, I also agree with others that he possibly let too much go which inadvertently he might have contributed to the flashpoints (which he did handle well) but he was inconsistent (see Morrison non caution). He probably favoured home in first half, away in second - you could argue that it evened it out but actually managed to rile both sets of fans. A throw-in may not seem important in your eyes (though I do seem to remember an incident at Fulham once....) but it WAS a bizarre incident and those things tend to stick in the mind.
I don't think he was hopeless but below average judged on his performance on all decisions not just the 'big' ones (I tend to judge on all criteria equally, but as you say it's all about opinion)
Thanks for your interesting and thought provoking comments. Just a couple of comments, if I may.
I wasnt suggesting that a ref should bear in mind that Williams was cautioned for diving last year, but simply to reinforce my point that he goes down too frequently, too theatratically which will inevitably lead to referees getting some decisions wrong.
Your point about the Fulham throw and that on Saturday are not comparable. The Fulham throw was a wrong decision and led to a loss of points. The "incident" on Saturday was a case of the player dropping the ball rather than a foul throw and the ref decided to play to the spirit of the game rather than the laws. How somebody can use that incident alone to judge the competency of a referee , as one did on here, is puzzling and shows a lack of understanding of the bigger picture.
I judge refereees against the following criteria in order to take the subjectivity out of any views: 1. Did the referee on the day get the key, match changing decisions right, namely in order, goals, penalties, off sides and sendings off : (2) did he have overall control of the game.
On saturday, there was no controversy re the goal or any other goal scoring opportunities. IMO, he got the penalty right. Furthermore, I dont recall any controversial off sides, nor did the game warrant any sendings off, IMO.
He always gave me the impression he controlled the game, as judged by his handling of the two flashpoints in the game, which he handled with calmess and dignity.
To simply pick him up on the throw- in incident is rather chirlish, given the importance of a throw compared with, say, a goal decision. The throw was not a foul throw in my opinion, it was simply that the ball fell from the players arms; no intent was meant
Overall therefore, I thought he was competent.
So what about some of the clear ridiculous fouls some IMHO dangerous which he didn't even give particularly on Williams.
Honestly thought it was getting nasty mainly due to his inability to control the game.
Thought he was bloody hopeless but there you go all about
Williams to whom you referred and Taylor too easily throw themselves to the ground (in fact hasnt Williams been cautioned for diving since he has been with us (?))
You dont accept that the criteria I used to judge a referee is logical (?), but you would rather stress the non result- changing decisions (?).
It is about opinions, we can agree on that.
Have a good day
But surely the sign of a 'good' ref rather than just a competent or even a poor one is the ability to judge each match and incident on it's merits? Not judge a potential foul on the fact a player received a caution last year then therefore must be a diver? I agree with you that there were no game changer howlers, I also agree with others that he possibly let too much go which inadvertently he might have contributed to the flashpoints (which he did handle well) but he was inconsistent (see Morrison non caution). He probably favoured home in first half, away in second - you could argue that it evened it out but actually managed to rile both sets of fans. A throw-in may not seem important in your eyes (though I do seem to remember an incident at Fulham once....) but it WAS a bizarre incident and those things tend to stick in the mind.
I don't think he was hopeless but below average judged on his performance on all decisions not just the 'big' ones (I tend to judge on all criteria equally, but as you say it's all about opinion)
Thanks for your interesting and thought provoking comments. Just a couple of comments, if I may.
I wasnt suggesting that a ref should bear in mind that Williams was cautioned for diving last year, but simply to reinforce my point that he goes down too frequently, too theatratically which will inevitably lead to referees getting some decisions wrong.
Your point about the Fulham throw and that on Saturday are not comparable. The Fulham throw was a wrong decision and led to a loss of points. The "incident" on Saturday was a case of the player dropping the ball rather than a foul throw and the ref decided to play to the spirit of the game rather than the laws. How somebody can use that incident alone to judge the competency of a referee , as one did on here, is puzzling and shows a lack of understanding of the bigger picture.
Have a good day.
Thanks Peter for clarifying - I misinterpreted your original statement about Williams previous caution as being the fact he had a 'reputation' to be your defence of the refs performance.
I agree that the throw-in incident shouldn't (and in my case didn't) colour overall marks (I gave him a 5), but the point I was trying to make was the fact it was memorable and therefore will always come up in debate. TBH, at the time I wasn't even sure that it was a foul throw as far as hand/ball/release; just that the had slipped out and he wandered onto the pitch to pick it up and have another go - I was expecting a handball decision :-) and it is nice to see common sense break out occasionally. Personally, in this case, I thought it was too much of an attacking position even on halfway, and I would have been much happier at the time if it had occurred in Reading's defensive third. As you say, didn't materially affect the outcome and probably not worthy of debate. Just file under unusual.
My problem was the inconsistency - which is why I thought he could/should have been better.
He is clearly a good situation manager but maybe needs a bit more exposure to some of the more cynical behaviour in the Championship - I think he has the potential to be good (maybe even very good) but Saturday wasn't a standout performance.
I judge refereees against the following criteria in order to take the subjectivity out of any views: 1. Did the referee on the day get the key, match changing decisions right, namely in order, goals, penalties, off sides and sendings off : (2) did he have overall control of the game.
On saturday, there was no controversy re the goal or any other goal scoring opportunities. IMO, he got the penalty right. Furthermore, I dont recall any controversial off sides, nor did the game warrant any sendings off, IMO.
He always gave me the impression he controlled the game, as judged by his handling of the two flashpoints in the game, which he handled with calmess and dignity.
To simply pick him up on the throw- in incident is rather chirlish, given the importance of a throw compared with, say, a goal decision. The throw was not a foul throw in my opinion, it was simply that the ball fell from the players arms; no intent was meant
Overall therefore, I thought he was competent.
So what about some of the clear ridiculous fouls some IMHO dangerous which he didn't even give particularly on Williams.
Honestly thought it was getting nasty mainly due to his inability to control the game.
Thought he was bloody hopeless but there you go all about
Williams to whom you referred and Taylor too easily throw themselves to the ground (in fact hasnt Williams been cautioned for diving since he has been with us (?))
You dont accept that the criteria I used to judge a referee is logical (?), but you would rather stress the non result- changing decisions (?).
It is about opinions, we can agree on that.
Have a good day
But surely the sign of a 'good' ref rather than just a competent or even a poor one is the ability to judge each match and incident on it's merits? Not judge a potential foul on the fact a player received a caution last year then therefore must be a diver? I agree with you that there were no game changer howlers, I also agree with others that he possibly let too much go which inadvertently he might have contributed to the flashpoints (which he did handle well) but he was inconsistent (see Morrison non caution). He probably favoured home in first half, away in second - you could argue that it evened it out but actually managed to rile both sets of fans. A throw-in may not seem important in your eyes (though I do seem to remember an incident at Fulham once....) but it WAS a bizarre incident and those things tend to stick in the mind.
I don't think he was hopeless but below average judged on his performance on all decisions not just the 'big' ones (I tend to judge on all criteria equally, but as you say it's all about opinion)
Thanks for your interesting and thought provoking comments. Just a couple of comments, if I may.
I wasnt suggesting that a ref should bear in mind that Williams was cautioned for diving last year, but simply to reinforce my point that he goes down too frequently, too theatratically which will inevitably lead to referees getting some decisions wrong.
Your point about the Fulham throw and that on Saturday are not comparable. The Fulham throw was a wrong decision and led to a loss of points. The "incident" on Saturday was a case of the player dropping the ball rather than a foul throw and the ref decided to play to the spirit of the game rather than the laws. How somebody can use that incident alone to judge the competency of a referee , as one did on here, is puzzling and shows a lack of understanding of the bigger picture.
Have a good day.
Thanks Peter for clarifying - I misinterpreted your original statement about Williams previous caution as being the fact he had a 'reputation' to be your defence of the refs performance.
I agree that the throw-in incident shouldn't (and in my case didn't) colour overall marks (I gave him a 5), but the point I was trying to make was the fact it was memorable and therefore will always come up in debate. TBH, at the time I wasn't even sure that it was a foul throw as far as hand/ball/release; just that the had slipped out and he wandered onto the pitch to pick it up and have another go - I was expecting a handball decision :-) and it is nice to see common sense break out occasionally. Personally, in this case, I thought it was too much of an attacking position even on halfway, and I would have been much happier at the time if it had occurred in Reading's defensive third. As you say, didn't materially affect the outcome and probably not worthy of debate. Just file under unusual.
My problem was the inconsistency - which is why I thought he could/should have been better.
He is clearly a good situation manager but maybe needs a bit more exposure to some of the more cynical behaviour in the Championship - I think he has the potential to be good (maybe even very good) but Saturday wasn't a standout performance.
I guess you and I are now not too far from agreeing on most points pertaining to saturday's referring performance !!
I judge refereees against the following criteria in order to take the subjectivity out of any views: 1. Did the referee on the day get the key, match changing decisions right, namely in order, goals, penalties, off sides and sendings off : (2) did he have overall control of the game.
On saturday, there was no controversy re the goal or any other goal scoring opportunities. IMO, he got the penalty right. Furthermore, I dont recall any controversial off sides, nor did the game warrant any sendings off, IMO.
He always gave me the impression he controlled the game, as judged by his handling of the two flashpoints in the game, which he handled with calmess and dignity.
To simply pick him up on the throw- in incident is rather chirlish, given the importance of a throw compared with, say, a goal decision. The throw was not a foul throw in my opinion, it was simply that the ball fell from the players arms; no intent was meant
Overall therefore, I thought he was competent.
So what about some of the clear ridiculous fouls some IMHO dangerous which he didn't even give particularly on Williams.
Honestly thought it was getting nasty mainly due to his inability to control the game.
Thought he was bloody hopeless but there you go all about
Williams to whom you referred and Taylor too easily throw themselves to the ground (in fact hasnt Williams been cautioned for diving since he has been with us (?))
You dont accept that the criteria I used to judge a referee is logical (?), but you would rather stress the non result- changing decisions (?).
It is about opinions, we can agree on that.
Have a good day
But surely the sign of a 'good' ref rather than just a competent or even a poor one is the ability to judge each match and incident on it's merits? Not judge a potential foul on the fact a player received a caution last year then therefore must be a diver? I agree with you that there were no game changer howlers, I also agree with others that he possibly let too much go which inadvertently he might have contributed to the flashpoints (which he did handle well) but he was inconsistent (see Morrison non caution). He probably favoured home in first half, away in second - you could argue that it evened it out but actually managed to rile both sets of fans. A throw-in may not seem important in your eyes (though I do seem to remember an incident at Fulham once....) but it WAS a bizarre incident and those things tend to stick in the mind.
I don't think he was hopeless but below average judged on his performance on all decisions not just the 'big' ones (I tend to judge on all criteria equally, but as you say it's all about opinion)
Thanks for your interesting and thought provoking comments. Just a couple of comments, if I may.
I wasnt suggesting that a ref should bear in mind that Williams was cautioned for diving last year, but simply to reinforce my point that he goes down too frequently, too theatratically which will inevitably lead to referees getting some decisions wrong.
Your point about the Fulham throw and that on Saturday are not comparable. The Fulham throw was a wrong decision and led to a loss of points. The "incident" on Saturday was a case of the player dropping the ball rather than a foul throw and the ref decided to play to the spirit of the game rather than the laws. How somebody can use that incident alone to judge the competency of a referee , as one did on here, is puzzling and shows a lack of understanding of the bigger picture.
Have a good day.
Thanks Peter for clarifying - I misinterpreted your original statement about Williams previous caution as being the fact he had a 'reputation' to be your defence of the refs performance.
I agree that the throw-in incident shouldn't (and in my case didn't) colour overall marks (I gave him a 5), but the point I was trying to make was the fact it was memorable and therefore will always come up in debate. TBH, at the time I wasn't even sure that it was a foul throw as far as hand/ball/release; just that the had slipped out and he wandered onto the pitch to pick it up and have another go - I was expecting a handball decision :-) and it is nice to see common sense break out occasionally. Personally, in this case, I thought it was too much of an attacking position even on halfway, and I would have been much happier at the time if it had occurred in Reading's defensive third. As you say, didn't materially affect the outcome and probably not worthy of debate. Just file under unusual.
My problem was the inconsistency - which is why I thought he could/should have been better.
He is clearly a good situation manager but maybe needs a bit more exposure to some of the more cynical behaviour in the Championship - I think he has the potential to be good (maybe even very good) but Saturday wasn't a standout performance.
I guess you and I are now not too far from agreeing on most points pertaining to saturday's referring performance !!
I don't think we ever were poles apart (not on this occasion :-) :-) )
poorest ref this season that i have seen in the league.
Would you like to expand upon that please. As a starting point to your response, may I ask what game changing decisions did he get wrong? Thanks
So he can be a shit referee but as long as he doesn't get any "game changers" wrong that's alright then.....meaning he can get 95% wrong but the 5% he gets right means he's doing a good job.
I judge refereees against the following criteria in order to take the subjectivity out of any views: 1. Did the referee on the day get the key, match changing decisions right, namely in order, goals, penalties, off sides and sendings off : (2) did he have overall control of the game.
On saturday, there was no controversy re the goal or any other goal scoring opportunities. IMO, he got the penalty right. Furthermore, I dont recall any controversial off sides, nor did the game warrant any sendings off, IMO.
He always gave me the impression he controlled the game, as judged by his handling of the two flashpoints in the game, which he handled with calmess and dignity.
To simply pick him up on the throw- in incident is rather chirlish, given the importance of a throw compared with, say, a goal decision. The throw was not a foul throw in my opinion, it was simply that the ball fell from the players arms; no intent was meant
Overall therefore, I thought he was competent.
So what about some of the clear ridiculous fouls some IMHO dangerous which he didn't even give particularly on Williams.
Honestly thought it was getting nasty mainly due to his inability to control the game.
Thought he was bloody hopeless but there you go all about
Williams to whom you referred and Taylor too easily throw themselves to the ground (in fact hasnt Williams been cautioned for diving since he has been with us (?))
You dont accept that the criteria I used to judge a referee is logical (?), but you would rather stress the non result- changing decisions (?).
It is about opinions, we can agree on that.
Have a good day
Lol no I don't accept what you say, to me player safety is far more important than any result.
Their careers are short enough as it is, some of the tackles, from both sides which were going unpunished was to be frank a joke.
i don't agree with what you say, the game is about opinions as is this forum.
I judge refereees against the following criteria in order to take the subjectivity out of any views: 1. Did the referee on the day get the key, match changing decisions right, namely in order, goals, penalties, off sides and sendings off : (2) did he have overall control of the game.
On saturday, there was no controversy re the goal or any other goal scoring opportunities. IMO, he got the penalty right. Furthermore, I dont recall any controversial off sides, nor did the game warrant any sendings off, IMO.
He always gave me the impression he controlled the game, as judged by his handling of the two flashpoints in the game, which he handled with calmess and dignity.
To simply pick him up on the throw- in incident is rather chirlish, given the importance of a throw compared with, say, a goal decision. The throw was not a foul throw in my opinion, it was simply that the ball fell from the players arms; no intent was meant
Overall therefore, I thought he was competent.
Why on earth would you want to be objective when watching a Charlton match? I am unashamedly, irrationally, subjective when it comes to Charlton and if the ref doesn’t give us five penalties and and send off two of theirs then he must be biased!
poorest ref this season that i have seen in the league.
Would you like to expand upon that please. As a starting point to your response, may I ask what game changing decisions did he get wrong? Thanks
So he can be a shit referee but as long as he doesn't get any "game changers" wrong that's alright then.....meaning he can get 95% wrong but the 5% he gets right means he's doing a good job.
You're not in the VAR truck are you....??
I agree. It's a bit like a lino getting EVERY offside wrong - as long as the game finishes 0-0 he's had a good performance. All decisions should be judged on their accuracy, not necessarily just on how they affect the result
IMHO, I don't think the Aussie got a huge amount wrong on Saturday, just that his decision point was variable and inconsistent and that was why he had a below average game, rather than a shit one
poorest ref this season that i have seen in the league.
Would you like to expand upon that please. As a starting point to your response, may I ask what game changing decisions did he get wrong? Thanks
So he can be a shit referee but as long as he doesn't get any "game changers" wrong that's alright then.....meaning he can get 95% wrong but the 5% he gets right means he's doing a good job.
You're not in the VAR truck are you....??
Getting game changers is absolute key to judging the referees performance, even if that represents only 5% of all decisions he/she has to make. I wouldnt agree with you that he was sh*t, given that he did get the 5% absolutely correct.I accept that, as a secondary requirement, we would hope that he/she gets a high percentage of the 95% less major decisions correct.
My personal views on VAR is that it is not working too well at the moment, but given time and some tweaking, maybe it can be come a useful aid to assisting in more correct decision-making, which what we all universally seek. Is what I cant understand is the rationale on here by some individuals which both slates referee standards and slates VAR. Those people cant have it both ways unless they have solution towards a greater number of correct decisions, which has baffled experts for over 100 years.
As a past senior referee, you would expect me to remind you that referees do make mistakes, but also many decisions are purely subjective and thus open to differing opinions.
Why did he book Gallagher for a perfectly good challenge at the end?
I am not sure from the reactions from the Reading players, that they thought it was a good challenge! Rightly or wrongly, it caused one of the two flair ups during the game.
Comments
He for me was then the cause of the rugby tackle on Pearce
Had he blown for a foul on Leko (ignored) then the whole handbags at dawn wouldnt have occured
Some ludicrous descisions including the foul throw incident, how the hell did he pass the EFL fit and proper test?
On saturday, there was no controversy re the goal or any other goal scoring opportunities. IMO, he got the penalty right. Furthermore, I dont recall any controversial off sides, nor did the game warrant any sendings off, IMO.
He always gave me the impression he controlled the game, as judged by his handling of the two flashpoints in the game, which he handled with calmess and dignity.
To simply pick him up on the throw- in incident is rather chirlish, given the importance of a throw compared with, say, a goal decision. The throw was not a foul throw in my opinion, it was simply that the ball fell from the players arms; no intent was meant
Overall therefore, I thought he was competent.
Honestly thought it was getting nasty mainly due to his inability to control the game.
Thought he was bloody hopeless but there you go all about opinions.
In the player marks thread I never give marks to the ref as I believe all supporters are biased against the ref anyway. In this case I would say he was just as bad as most of the refs we have but didnt have a shocker. Saying that I think he tried to ref it like the Scottish one did yesterday in the old firm derby......let too many things go & made a rod for his own back.
You dont accept that the criteria I used to judge a referee is logical (?), but you would rather stress the non result- changing decisions (?).
It is about opinions, we can agree on that.
Have a good day
I don't think he was hopeless but below average judged on his performance on all decisions not just the 'big' ones (I tend to judge on all criteria equally, but as you say it's all about opinion)
He was poor - one of the poorest this season.
I wasnt suggesting that a ref should bear in mind that Williams was cautioned for diving last year, but simply to reinforce my point that he goes down too frequently, too theatratically which will inevitably lead to referees getting some decisions wrong.
Your point about the Fulham throw and that on Saturday are not comparable. The Fulham throw was a wrong decision and led to a loss of points. The "incident" on Saturday was a case of the player dropping the ball rather than a foul throw and the ref decided to play to the spirit of the game rather than the laws. How somebody can use that incident alone to judge the competency of a referee , as one did on here, is puzzling and shows a lack of understanding of the bigger picture.
Have a good day.
I agree that the throw-in incident shouldn't (and in my case didn't) colour overall marks (I gave him a 5), but the point I was trying to make was the fact it was memorable and therefore will always come up in debate. TBH, at the time I wasn't even sure that it was a foul throw as far as hand/ball/release; just that the had slipped out and he wandered onto the pitch to pick it up and have another go - I was expecting a handball decision :-) and it is nice to see common sense break out occasionally. Personally, in this case, I thought it was too much of an attacking position even on halfway, and I would have been much happier at the time if it had occurred in Reading's defensive third. As you say, didn't materially affect the outcome and probably not worthy of debate. Just file under unusual.
My problem was the inconsistency - which is why I thought he could/should have been better.
He is clearly a good situation manager but maybe needs a bit more exposure to some of the more cynical behaviour in the Championship - I think he has the potential to be good (maybe even very good) but Saturday wasn't a standout performance.
You're not in the VAR truck are you....??
Their careers are short enough as it is, some of the tackles, from both sides which were going unpunished was to be frank a joke.
i don't agree with what you say, the game is about opinions as is this forum.
have a wonderful day.
IMHO, I don't think the Aussie got a huge amount wrong on Saturday, just that his decision point was variable and inconsistent and that was why he had a below average game, rather than a shit one
My personal views on VAR is that it is not working too well at the moment, but given time and some tweaking, maybe it can be come a useful aid to assisting in more correct decision-making, which what we all universally seek. Is what I cant understand is the rationale on here by some individuals which both slates referee standards and slates VAR. Those people cant have it both ways unless they have solution towards a greater number of correct decisions, which has baffled experts for over 100 years.
As a past senior referee, you would expect me to remind you that referees do make mistakes, but also many decisions are purely subjective and thus open to differing opinions.
Have a good day.