I thought Bowyer showed a lot of restraint. He is supposed to be a hot head but I would have reacted worse than he did. He got sent off anyway. The laws of the game should cater for extreme ungentlemanly conduct which the Birmingham player/coach was responsible for.
"Ungentlemanly conduct"? That phrase in the Laws of the Game was replaced many years ago by "Unsporting Behaviour". Please keep up if you are going to comment upon refereeing matters.
I was saying what the laws should cater for. I wasn't quoting them. Typical ref response there. Sorry mate, but it is why you lot piss me off. You are refs, not the bloody Queen FFS!
I was livid at the behaviour of whoever threw that ball on the pitch. I haven't seen anything so crass before. The laws are an ass if Bowyer deserved a red. He was never going to hurt anybody by returning that ball. The laws should deal with the initial throwing of a ball on the pitch in the strongest manner possible.
Apart from that, I don't think the ref was particularly bad or good. He missed a few things as all refs will do. He didn't cost us the game. Bowyer's sending off may even be the fault of the laws although common sense - something so many refs lack, or are not allowed to use was what was missing there.
I don't usually comment on the ref, or give him a mark out of 10 because as fans we are naturally biased. Didnt think today that he was any worse than a number of numpties that we've had so far this season but the booking of their manager seems bizarre. Referee asked him who had thrown the ball onto the pitch & if he didn't tell him he would be booked. Sounds like something a 10 year old would say when playing in the park with his mates just before he stomps off home with the ball.
I thought Bowyer showed a lot of restraint. He is supposed to be a hot head but I would have reacted worse than he did. He got sent off anyway. The laws of the game should cater for extreme ungentlemanly conduct which the Birmingham player/coach was responsible for.
"Ungentlemanly conduct"? That phrase in the Laws of the Game was replaced many years ago by "Unsporting Behaviour". Please keep up if you are going to comment upon refereeing matters.
Your posts on these ref threads are a thing of beauty. Parody of yourself?
For an hour or so I didn't really notice the ref but after that he suddenly became the focal point of the game. He made a number of dubious decisions, as many refs do, but this guy simply became more and more annoying as the game went on. But none of his decisions are likely to have changed the outcome of the game.
I thought the ref did very well in the first half before losing the plot completely in the second. The most annoying thing was how he walked very slowly from the centre spit to the touch line to administer the yellow and red cards to the managers when he should have sprinted given we were deep into added time. Smacked of “look at me”.
Referees are not encouraged to "sprint" to an incident unless by doing so he can reduce the level of escalation. A calm approach to an already volitile is recommended and that includes allowing time for volitile heads to reduce by such a slow pace of approach.
I thought the ref did very well in the first half before losing the plot completely in the second. The most annoying thing was how he walked very slowly from the centre spit to the touch line to administer the yellow and red cards to the managers when he should have sprinted given we were deep into added time. Smacked of “look at me”.
Referees are not encouraged to "sprint" to an incident unless by doing so he can reduce the level of escalation. A calm approach to an already volitile is recommended and that includes allowing time for volitile heads to reduce by such a slow pace of approach.
I thought the ref did very well in the first half before losing the plot completely in the second. The most annoying thing was how he walked very slowly from the centre spit to the touch line to administer the yellow and red cards to the managers when he should have sprinted given we were deep into added time. Smacked of “look at me”.
Referees are not encouraged to "sprint" to an incident unless by doing so he can reduce the level of escalation. A calm approach to an already volitile is recommended and that includes allowing time for volitile heads to reduce by such a slow pace of approach.
I thought Bowyer showed a lot of restraint. He is supposed to be a hot head but I would have reacted worse than he did. He got sent off anyway. The laws of the game should cater for extreme ungentlemanly conduct which the Birmingham player/coach was responsible for.
"Ungentlemanly conduct"? That phrase in the Laws of the Game was replaced many years ago by "Unsporting Behaviour". Please keep up if you are going to comment upon refereeing matters.
Rather than digging people out at their use of language when they clearly meant the same thing as unsporting behaviour, why don’t you ever enlighten us on your opinion on the referees performance?
As a referee myself, I am conscious of the fact that it’s a difficult job, but I’m not a fool to release the system is flawed and there is a serious lack of genuinely quality officials as well as a lack of officials in general. And that’s why we will continuously get poor performances. I also know that there are some ego’s involved and that does the game no good.
If you are not allowed to criticise any of the officials performances, it’s a joke and how are we ever going to improve respect when the decisions many of these referees are making exhibit incompetency and lack of understanding of the laws of the game and how football is played.
If someone is inept or not to the standard required in any walk of life, they’re going to be told and then ought to have an action plan in place to improve. Officials are no different. However, in football, because of the situation, poor officials are being rewarded and it’s damaging our game.
I am not saying he is the reason we lost today. But I am saying he was crap.
As a "home boycotter" (but attend away games), I am not in a position to comment upon the referees performance today; equally I am not in a position to defend him either.
The game is, of course, refereed by human beings, and as in all walks of life, mistakes will be made by human beings. I can never understand the fact that cricket umpires never get pillored in the same way that football referees do. I guess it is down to the level of stress that both football supporters and players are put in for 90 minutes - a guess on my part
I would disagree with you with regard to your statement that Premier League referees and EFL referees do not understand the Laws of the Game; IMO that is nonsense.
Finally, may I respectfully ask what game -changing decisions did the ref get wrong today (ie disallowed goals, missed penalties, missed sendings off etc). Genuine question, as I was not there.
Finishing by saying again, I am not defending the referee today - I wasnt there.
Enjoy the rest of your evening
Of course the game is refereed by human beings and mistakes will happen, just as in any walk of life. However, there is a difference between mistakes happening and the same kind of ‘mistakes’ or decisions being made which either do not follow along with the laws of the game, or they do not make any logical sense.
As you were not at the game today, I would like to refer you to the points made above regarding his decisions today. They may not have had a defining moment such as a penalty decision, but an accumulation of decisions contributed to the events of the game today. For example, he should have sent off David Davis as he fouled Gallagher late, that’s a yellow, he also got into a scuffle with Pearce which was a yellow, and he got booked for the latter. The referee missed a number of handballs, gave a free kick to Birmingham when we had possession and their player came in late on Aneke, completely ignored a late challenge on Williams but gave a free kick for a challenge where we won the ball just moments later, and then also about the Bowyer situation. A good referee goes unnoticed and has control of the game throughout.
You are entitled to disagree with me when I say many do not know and understand the laws of the game. But from my own eyes, I can see they exhibited just that they don’t. The laws of the game are continuously changing and many, many referees act as if they are going along with whatever they feel best at the time. They do not think rationally and think about applying the laws of the game in the correct way. We are a handful of games into the season and have seen so many performances and decisions which portray incompetency and a lack of understanding of the laws and applying them, both in the Premier League and EFL. We shouldn’t be having the vast array of ‘mistakes’ in the professional game if they genuinely understand and apply the laws correctly.
Thanks for your response, which I have read and considered. Let me approach the subject from a different angle and specifically address the angle for which you picked me up, namely my response to muttleys post.
Let me start by stating some obvious points.
All sports are "coded" to determine how that sport is played, the conditions and the determination of the winner; in soccer, that code is the 17 Laws of the Game. It follows therefore that the compentcy of the referee on the day is largely judged by his/her ability to interpret and apply those 17 Laws. It also follows therefore that any critic of a referee must equally have a good understanding of those 17 Laws. For example I would not tell my GP that he has misdiagnosed my medical condition because medical matters are not within my scope of knowledge. This logic is not always applied to soccer refereeing.
Turning specifically to my response to muttleys posting, and bearing in mind that the laws, or their interpretation change ever more frequently, a red flag was raised in my mind to his level of knowledge. He referred to a terminology "ungentlemanly knowledge", which anybody who knows anything about the Laws of the Game would know is a redundant term, replaced many years ago by a cautionable term "unsporting behaviour".
Having re- read my response to Muttley I can see that it can be interpreted as being flippant and perhaps even rude, for which I happily apologise. A more wise choice of words will be used next time.
Thanks for that crap, insincere apology. You seem to want to pick on me because I am critical of refs. I accept there are good ones and always have, but my blasphemy is the view that there are bad ones and worse too. You seem to have no respect for the time I and others like me spend developing young men in youth football. That is more time and effort and has cost me more money and possibly criticism than being a ref will have cost you and your mates pocketing tax free payments on a Saturday and Sunday and going straight home. In your world it is a one way street.
My tip is when you make an apology, don't qualify it with a paragraph insinuating the person you are apologising to doesn't understand the rules of the game. Yes, I am going to call them rules because that is what they F***ing well are. If you want to correct me knowingly, because they should be referred to as laws, it merely shows complete pedantry that exists in your world.
Thanks for that crap, insincere apology. You seem to want to pick on me because I am critical of refs. I accept there are good ones and always have, but my blasphemy is the view that there are bad ones and worse too. You seem to have no respect for the time I and others like me spend developing young men in youth football. That is more time and effort and has cost me more money than being a ref will have cost you and your mates pocketing tax free payments on a Saturday and Sunday. In your world it is a one way street.
My tip is when you make an apology, don't qualify it with a paragraph insinuating the person you are apologising too doesn't understand the rules of the game. Yes, I am going to call them rules because that is what they F***ing well are. If you want to correct me knowingly, because they should be referred to as laws, it merely shows complete pedantry.
I dont wish to continue with is discussion and perhaps you dont either, so the last word from me. My apology was not insincere, indeed, if you remember, I suggested a little while ago that we get together at an away game to discuss refereering matters; you didnt take me up on that concilatory gesture. Not sure why you brought in the subject of your managerial role, I have never commented on managers.
I am sincere when I say, as I am saying now, "enjoy your day".
I brought it in because it shows that I do know a little bit about the game. The way refs look down on managers and players is a one way street, as it is blasphemy to criticise refs. You defend a referee's performance even if you haven't seen it FFS! That is my last word. Enjoy your day too.
I thought Bowyer showed a lot of restraint. He is supposed to be a hot head but I would have reacted worse than he did. He got sent off anyway. The laws of the game should cater for extreme ungentlemanly conduct which the Birmingham player/coach was responsible for.
"Ungentlemanly conduct"? That phrase in the Laws of the Game was replaced many years ago by "Unsporting Behaviour". Please keep up if you are going to comment upon refereeing matters.
Rather than digging people out at their use of language when they clearly meant the same thing as unsporting behaviour, why don’t you ever enlighten us on your opinion on the referees performance?
As a referee myself, I am conscious of the fact that it’s a difficult job, but I’m not a fool to release the system is flawed and there is a serious lack of genuinely quality officials as well as a lack of officials in general. And that’s why we will continuously get poor performances. I also know that there are some ego’s involved and that does the game no good.
If you are not allowed to criticise any of the officials performances, it’s a joke and how are we ever going to improve respect when the decisions many of these referees are making exhibit incompetency and lack of understanding of the laws of the game and how football is played.
If someone is inept or not to the standard required in any walk of life, they’re going to be told and then ought to have an action plan in place to improve. Officials are no different. However, in football, because of the situation, poor officials are being rewarded and it’s damaging our game.
I am not saying he is the reason we lost today. But I am saying he was crap.
As a "home boycotter" (but attend away games), I am not in a position to comment upon the referees performance today; equally I am not in a position to defend him either.
The game is, of course, refereed by human beings, and as in all walks of life, mistakes will be made by human beings. I can never understand the fact that cricket umpires never get pillored in the same way that football referees do. I guess it is down to the level of stress that both football supporters and players are put in for 90 minutes - a guess on my part
I would disagree with you with regard to your statement that Premier League referees and EFL referees do not understand the Laws of the Game; IMO that is nonsense.
Finally, may I respectfully ask what game -changing decisions did the ref get wrong today (ie disallowed goals, missed penalties, missed sendings off etc). Genuine question, as I was not there.
Finishing by saying again, I am not defending the referee today - I wasnt there.
Enjoy the rest of your evening
Of course the game is refereed by human beings and mistakes will happen, just as in any walk of life. However, there is a difference between mistakes happening and the same kind of ‘mistakes’ or decisions being made which either do not follow along with the laws of the game, or they do not make any logical sense.
As you were not at the game today, I would like to refer you to the points made above regarding his decisions today. They may not have had a defining moment such as a penalty decision, but an accumulation of decisions contributed to the events of the game today. For example, he should have sent off David Davis as he fouled Gallagher late, that’s a yellow, he also got into a scuffle with Pearce which was a yellow, and he got booked for the latter. The referee missed a number of handballs, gave a free kick to Birmingham when we had possession and their player came in late on Aneke, completely ignored a late challenge on Williams but gave a free kick for a challenge where we won the ball just moments later, and then also about the Bowyer situation. A good referee goes unnoticed and has control of the game throughout.
You are entitled to disagree with me when I say many do not know and understand the laws of the game. But from my own eyes, I can see they exhibited just that they don’t. The laws of the game are continuously changing and many, many referees act as if they are going along with whatever they feel best at the time. They do not think rationally and think about applying the laws of the game in the correct way. We are a handful of games into the season and have seen so many performances and decisions which portray incompetency and a lack of understanding of the laws and applying them, both in the Premier League and EFL. We shouldn’t be having the vast array of ‘mistakes’ in the professional game if they genuinely understand and apply the laws correctly.
Thanks for your response, which I have read and considered. Let me approach the subject from a different angle and specifically address the angle for which you picked me up, namely my response to muttleys post.
Let me start by stating some obvious points.
All sports are "coded" to determine how that sport is played, the conditions and the determination of the winner; in soccer, that code is the 17 Laws of the Game. It follows therefore that the compentcy of the referee on the day is largely judged by his/her ability to interpret and apply those 17 Laws. It also follows therefore that any critic of a referee must equally have a good understanding of those 17 Laws. For example I would not tell my GP that he has misdiagnosed my medical condition because medical matters are not within my scope of knowledge. This logic is not always applied to soccer refereeing.
Turning specifically to my response to muttleys posting, and bearing in mind that the laws, or their interpretation change ever more frequently, a red flag was raised in my mind to his level of knowledge. He referred to a terminology "ungentlemanly knowledge", which anybody who knows anything about the Laws of the Game would know is a redundant term, replaced many years ago by a cautionable term "unsporting behaviour".
Having re- read my response to Muttley I can see that it can be interpreted as being flippant and perhaps even rude, for which I happily apologise. A more wise choice of words will be used next time.
Enjoy your Sunday.
“Ungentlemanly knowledge”’- the crime of commenting on a referee’s performance as a spectator. Definitely a cautionable offence as such knowledge is not permitted unless you’re a qualified ref.
I thought Bowyer showed a lot of restraint. He is supposed to be a hot head but I would have reacted worse than he did. He got sent off anyway. The laws of the game should cater for extreme ungentlemanly conduct which the Birmingham player/coach was responsible for.
"Ungentlemanly conduct"? That phrase in the Laws of the Game was replaced many years ago by "Unsporting Behaviour". Please keep up if you are going to comment upon refereeing matters.
Rather than digging people out at their use of language when they clearly meant the same thing as unsporting behaviour, why don’t you ever enlighten us on your opinion on the referees performance?
As a referee myself, I am conscious of the fact that it’s a difficult job, but I’m not a fool to release the system is flawed and there is a serious lack of genuinely quality officials as well as a lack of officials in general. And that’s why we will continuously get poor performances. I also know that there are some ego’s involved and that does the game no good.
If you are not allowed to criticise any of the officials performances, it’s a joke and how are we ever going to improve respect when the decisions many of these referees are making exhibit incompetency and lack of understanding of the laws of the game and how football is played.
If someone is inept or not to the standard required in any walk of life, they’re going to be told and then ought to have an action plan in place to improve. Officials are no different. However, in football, because of the situation, poor officials are being rewarded and it’s damaging our game.
I am not saying he is the reason we lost today. But I am saying he was crap.
As a "home boycotter" (but attend away games), I am not in a position to comment upon the referees performance today; equally I am not in a position to defend him either.
The game is, of course, refereed by human beings, and as in all walks of life, mistakes will be made by human beings. I can never understand the fact that cricket umpires never get pillored in the same way that football referees do. I guess it is down to the level of stress that both football supporters and players are put in for 90 minutes - a guess on my part
I would disagree with you with regard to your statement that Premier League referees and EFL referees do not understand the Laws of the Game; IMO that is nonsense.
Finally, may I respectfully ask what game -changing decisions did the ref get wrong today (ie disallowed goals, missed penalties, missed sendings off etc). Genuine question, as I was not there.
Finishing by saying again, I am not defending the referee today - I wasnt there.
Enjoy the rest of your evening
Of course the game is refereed by human beings and mistakes will happen, just as in any walk of life. However, there is a difference between mistakes happening and the same kind of ‘mistakes’ or decisions being made which either do not follow along with the laws of the game, or they do not make any logical sense.
As you were not at the game today, I would like to refer you to the points made above regarding his decisions today. They may not have had a defining moment such as a penalty decision, but an accumulation of decisions contributed to the events of the game today. For example, he should have sent off David Davis as he fouled Gallagher late, that’s a yellow, he also got into a scuffle with Pearce which was a yellow, and he got booked for the latter. The referee missed a number of handballs, gave a free kick to Birmingham when we had possession and their player came in late on Aneke, completely ignored a late challenge on Williams but gave a free kick for a challenge where we won the ball just moments later, and then also about the Bowyer situation. A good referee goes unnoticed and has control of the game throughout.
You are entitled to disagree with me when I say many do not know and understand the laws of the game. But from my own eyes, I can see they exhibited just that they don’t. The laws of the game are continuously changing and many, many referees act as if they are going along with whatever they feel best at the time. They do not think rationally and think about applying the laws of the game in the correct way. We are a handful of games into the season and have seen so many performances and decisions which portray incompetency and a lack of understanding of the laws and applying them, both in the Premier League and EFL. We shouldn’t be having the vast array of ‘mistakes’ in the professional game if they genuinely understand and apply the laws correctly.
Thanks for your response, which I have read and considered. Let me approach the subject from a different angle and specifically address the angle for which you picked me up, namely my response to muttleys post.
Let me start by stating some obvious points.
All sports are "coded" to determine how that sport is played, the conditions and the determination of the winner; in soccer, that code is the 17 Laws of the Game. It follows therefore that the compentcy of the referee on the day is largely judged by his/her ability to interpret and apply those 17 Laws. It also follows therefore that any critic of a referee must equally have a good understanding of those 17 Laws. For example I would not tell my GP that he has misdiagnosed my medical condition because medical matters are not within my scope of knowledge. This logic is not always applied to soccer refereeing.
Turning specifically to my response to muttleys posting, and bearing in mind that the laws, or their interpretation change ever more frequently, a red flag was raised in my mind to his level of knowledge. He referred to a terminology "ungentlemanly knowledge", which anybody who knows anything about the Laws of the Game would know is a redundant term, replaced many years ago by a cautionable term "unsporting behaviour".
Having re- read my response to Muttley I can see that it can be interpreted as being flippant and perhaps even rude, for which I happily apologise. A more wise choice of words will be used next time.
Enjoy your Sunday.
“Ungentlemanly knowledge”’- the crime of commenting on a referee’s performance as a spectator. Definitely a cautionable offence as such knowledge is not permitted unless
apologies "should have read "ungentlemanly conduct". Nor did I say or hint that critics need to be a qualified ref to comment, but simply they should have a knowledge of the laws of the game. As said,I would not challenge a GPs diagnosis of an illness because I dont have much medical knowledge. This same logic does not always apply to refereeing critics.
Appalling officiating, he lost control, didn't book players when he should have, didn't action a clear aggressive kick out on a player who should have already been booked.
Linesmen not making decisions without the refs blessing aswell, absolutely no point on them yesterday.
There was also the corner given as a goal kick and the failure to deal with the time wasting or add on enough time to cover the stoppages he made. Not the worst ref we've had by any means, but he was not in control of the game second half.
Peter, perhaps he didn't see the three blatant hand balls but please give your view on the foul against Aneke. Also why only a yellow for the three phased assault on Pearce, and no yellow after playing advantage.
I thought Bowyer showed a lot of restraint. He is supposed to be a hot head but I would have reacted worse than he did. He got sent off anyway. The laws of the game should cater for extreme ungentlemanly conduct which the Birmingham player/coach was responsible for.
"Ungentlemanly conduct"? That phrase in the Laws of the Game was replaced many years ago by "Unsporting Behaviour". Please keep up if you are going to comment upon refereeing matters.
Rather than digging people out at their use of language when they clearly meant the same thing as unsporting behaviour, why don’t you ever enlighten us on your opinion on the referees performance?
As a referee myself, I am conscious of the fact that it’s a difficult job, but I’m not a fool to release the system is flawed and there is a serious lack of genuinely quality officials as well as a lack of officials in general. And that’s why we will continuously get poor performances. I also know that there are some ego’s involved and that does the game no good.
If you are not allowed to criticise any of the officials performances, it’s a joke and how are we ever going to improve respect when the decisions many of these referees are making exhibit incompetency and lack of understanding of the laws of the game and how football is played.
If someone is inept or not to the standard required in any walk of life, they’re going to be told and then ought to have an action plan in place to improve. Officials are no different. However, in football, because of the situation, poor officials are being rewarded and it’s damaging our game.
I am not saying he is the reason we lost today. But I am saying he was crap.
As a "home boycotter" (but attend away games), I am not in a position to comment upon the referees performance today; equally I am not in a position to defend him either.
The game is, of course, refereed by human beings, and as in all walks of life, mistakes will be made by human beings. I can never understand the fact that cricket umpires never get pillored in the same way that football referees do. I guess it is down to the level of stress that both football supporters and players are put in for 90 minutes - a guess on my part
I would disagree with you with regard to your statement that Premier League referees and EFL referees do not understand the Laws of the Game; IMO that is nonsense.
Finally, may I respectfully ask what game -changing decisions did the ref get wrong today (ie disallowed goals, missed penalties, missed sendings off etc). Genuine question, as I was not there.
Finishing by saying again, I am not defending the referee today - I wasnt there.
Enjoy the rest of your evening
Of course the game is refereed by human beings and mistakes will happen, just as in any walk of life. However, there is a difference between mistakes happening and the same kind of ‘mistakes’ or decisions being made which either do not follow along with the laws of the game, or they do not make any logical sense.
As you were not at the game today, I would like to refer you to the points made above regarding his decisions today. They may not have had a defining moment such as a penalty decision, but an accumulation of decisions contributed to the events of the game today. For example, he should have sent off David Davis as he fouled Gallagher late, that’s a yellow, he also got into a scuffle with Pearce which was a yellow, and he got booked for the latter. The referee missed a number of handballs, gave a free kick to Birmingham when we had possession and their player came in late on Aneke, completely ignored a late challenge on Williams but gave a free kick for a challenge where we won the ball just moments later, and then also about the Bowyer situation. A good referee goes unnoticed and has control of the game throughout.
You are entitled to disagree with me when I say many do not know and understand the laws of the game. But from my own eyes, I can see they exhibited just that they don’t. The laws of the game are continuously changing and many, many referees act as if they are going along with whatever they feel best at the time. They do not think rationally and think about applying the laws of the game in the correct way. We are a handful of games into the season and have seen so many performances and decisions which portray incompetency and a lack of understanding of the laws and applying them, both in the Premier League and EFL. We shouldn’t be having the vast array of ‘mistakes’ in the professional game if they genuinely understand and apply the laws correctly.
Thanks for your response, which I have read and considered. Let me approach the subject from a different angle and specifically address the angle for which you picked me up, namely my response to muttleys post.
Let me start by stating some obvious points.
All sports are "coded" to determine how that sport is played, the conditions and the determination of the winner; in soccer, that code is the 17 Laws of the Game. It follows therefore that the compentcy of the referee on the day is largely judged by his/her ability to interpret and apply those 17 Laws. It also follows therefore that any critic of a referee must equally have a good understanding of those 17 Laws. For example I would not tell my GP that he has misdiagnosed my medical condition because medical matters are not within my scope of knowledge. This logic is not always applied to soccer refereeing.
Turning specifically to my response to muttleys posting, and bearing in mind that the laws, or their interpretation change ever more frequently, a red flag was raised in my mind to his level of knowledge. He referred to a terminology "ungentlemanly knowledge", which anybody who knows anything about the Laws of the Game would know is a redundant term, replaced many years ago by a cautionable term "unsporting behaviour".
Having re- read my response to Muttley I can see that it can be interpreted as being flippant and perhaps even rude, for which I happily apologise. A more wise choice of words will be used next time.
Enjoy your Sunday.
“Ungentlemanly knowledge”’- the crime of commenting on a referee’s performance as a spectator. Definitely a cautionable offence as such knowledge is not permitted unless
apologies "should have read "ungentlemanly conduct". Nor did I say or hint that critics need to be a qualified ref to comment, but simply they should have a knowledge of the laws of the game. As said,I would not challenge a GPs diagnosis of an illness because I dont have much medical knowledge. This same logic does not always apply to refereeing critics.
The lack of referees, and decent ones at that too, means that referees are getting promoted up the leagues far too quickly before they’re good enough or ready. It’ll continue to happen unfortunately.
He was awful today and I just don’t know what he saw most of the time. Inept beyond words.
Why is there a lack of refs? Who pays their wages? The FA? If there aren't enough decent refs even in the second division then it suggests the FA is spending far less money in this area than they should. Where has all the money the English leagues attract/generate each year gone?
The lack of referees, and decent ones at that too, means that referees are getting promoted up the leagues far too quickly before they’re good enough or ready. It’ll continue to happen unfortunately.
He was awful today and I just don’t know what he saw most of the time. Inept beyond words.
Why is there a lack of refs? Who pays their wages? The FA? If there aren't enough decent refs even in the second division then it suggests the FA is spending far less money in this area than they should. Where has all the money the English leagues attract/generate each year gone?
Peter seems happy to pull people up on laws of the game but not to justify specific incidents and wrong decisions . I suspect if he was the man in black, a crowd would be chanting " you're not fit to referee".
Peter, perhaps he didn't see the three blatant hand balls but please give your view on the foul against Aneke. Also why only a yellow for the three phased assault on Pearce, and no yellow after playing advantage.
He can't. He wasn't there. Doesn't matter though......the ref is always right.
Peter, perhaps he didn't see the three blatant hand balls but please give your view on the foul against Aneke. Also why only a yellow for the three phased assault on Pearce, and no yellow after playing advantage.
Hi as I said in an earlier post, as a home boycotter I wasnt at the game
Peter, perhaps he didn't see the three blatant hand balls but please give your view on the foul against Aneke. Also why only a yellow for the three phased assault on Pearce, and no yellow after playing advantage.
Hi as I said in an earlier post, as a home boycotter I wasnt at the game
Then you should probably stop telling people that actually saw the game that they are wrong.
Comments like yours sum up the issues with refs, you all think you're beyond criticism.
I don't usually comment on the ref, or give him a mark out of 10 because as fans we are naturally biased. Didnt think today that he was any worse than a number of numpties that we've had so far this season but the booking of their manager seems bizarre. Referee asked him who had thrown the ball onto the pitch & if he didn't tell him he would be booked. Sounds like something a 10 year old would say when playing in the park with his mates just before he stomps off home with the ball.
If that happened, what if he was focusing on the game and didn't know?
I thought Bowyer showed a lot of restraint. He is supposed to be a hot head but I would have reacted worse than he did. He got sent off anyway. The laws of the game should cater for extreme ungentlemanly conduct which the Birmingham player/coach was responsible for.
"Ungentlemanly conduct"? That phrase in the Laws of the Game was replaced many years ago by "Unsporting Behaviour". Please keep up if you are going to comment upon refereeing matters.
Rather than digging people out at their use of language when they clearly meant the same thing as unsporting behaviour, why don’t you ever enlighten us on your opinion on the referees performance?
As a referee myself, I am conscious of the fact that it’s a difficult job, but I’m not a fool to release the system is flawed and there is a serious lack of genuinely quality officials as well as a lack of officials in general. And that’s why we will continuously get poor performances. I also know that there are some ego’s involved and that does the game no good.
If you are not allowed to criticise any of the officials performances, it’s a joke and how are we ever going to improve respect when the decisions many of these referees are making exhibit incompetency and lack of understanding of the laws of the game and how football is played.
If someone is inept or not to the standard required in any walk of life, they’re going to be told and then ought to have an action plan in place to improve. Officials are no different. However, in football, because of the situation, poor officials are being rewarded and it’s damaging our game.
I am not saying he is the reason we lost today. But I am saying he was crap.
As a "home boycotter" (but attend away games), I am not in a position to comment upon the referees performance today; equally I am not in a position to defend him either.
The game is, of course, refereed by human beings, and as in all walks of life, mistakes will be made by human beings. I can never understand the fact that cricket umpires never get pillored in the same way that football referees do. I guess it is down to the level of stress that both football supporters and players are put in for 90 minutes - a guess on my part
I would disagree with you with regard to your statement that Premier League referees and EFL referees do not understand the Laws of the Game; IMO that is nonsense.
Finally, may I respectfully ask what game -changing decisions did the ref get wrong today (ie disallowed goals, missed penalties, missed sendings off etc). Genuine question, as I was not there.
Finishing by saying again, I am not defending the referee today - I wasnt there.
Enjoy the rest of your evening
Of course the game is refereed by human beings and mistakes will happen, just as in any walk of life. However, there is a difference between mistakes happening and the same kind of ‘mistakes’ or decisions being made which either do not follow along with the laws of the game, or they do not make any logical sense.
As you were not at the game today, I would like to refer you to the points made above regarding his decisions today. They may not have had a defining moment such as a penalty decision, but an accumulation of decisions contributed to the events of the game today. For example, he should have sent off David Davis as he fouled Gallagher late, that’s a yellow, he also got into a scuffle with Pearce which was a yellow, and he got booked for the latter. The referee missed a number of handballs, gave a free kick to Birmingham when we had possession and their player came in late on Aneke, completely ignored a late challenge on Williams but gave a free kick for a challenge where we won the ball just moments later, and then also about the Bowyer situation. A good referee goes unnoticed and has control of the game throughout.
You are entitled to disagree with me when I say many do not know and understand the laws of the game. But from my own eyes, I can see they exhibited just that they don’t. The laws of the game are continuously changing and many, many referees act as if they are going along with whatever they feel best at the time. They do not think rationally and think about applying the laws of the game in the correct way. We are a handful of games into the season and have seen so many performances and decisions which portray incompetency and a lack of understanding of the laws and applying them, both in the Premier League and EFL. We shouldn’t be having the vast array of ‘mistakes’ in the professional game if they genuinely understand and apply the laws correctly.
Thanks for your response, which I have read and considered. Let me approach the subject from a different angle and specifically address the angle for which you picked me up, namely my response to muttleys post.
Let me start by stating some obvious points.
All sports are "coded" to determine how that sport is played, the conditions and the determination of the winner; in soccer, that code is the 17 Laws of the Game. It follows therefore that the compentcy of the referee on the day is largely judged by his/her ability to interpret and apply those 17 Laws. It also follows therefore that any critic of a referee must equally have a good understanding of those 17 Laws. For example I would not tell my GP that he has misdiagnosed my medical condition because medical matters are not within my scope of knowledge. This logic is not always applied to soccer refereeing.
Turning specifically to my response to muttleys posting, and bearing in mind that the laws, or their interpretation change ever more frequently, a red flag was raised in my mind to his level of knowledge. He referred to a terminology "ungentlemanly knowledge", which anybody who knows anything about the Laws of the Game would know is a redundant term, replaced many years ago by a cautionable term "unsporting behaviour".
Having re- read my response to Muttley I can see that it can be interpreted as being flippant and perhaps even rude, for which I happily apologise. A more wise choice of words will be used next time.
Enjoy your Sunday.
“Ungentlemanly knowledge”’- the crime of commenting on a referee’s performance as a spectator. Definitely a cautionable offence as such knowledge is not permitted unless
apologies "should have read "ungentlemanly conduct". Nor did I say or hint that critics need to be a qualified ref to comment, but simply they should have a knowledge of the laws of the game. As said,I would not challenge a GPs diagnosis of an illness because I dont have much medical knowledge. This same logic does not always apply to refereeing critics.
Enjoy your day.
And if a doctor makes a poor wrong diagnosis, nobody can criticise them?
Comments
Regarding offers, wouldn’t be surprised if it happens in England, it happens elsewhere and that includes Europe.
I was livid at the behaviour of whoever threw that ball on the pitch. I haven't seen anything so crass before. The laws are an ass if Bowyer deserved a red. He was never going to hurt anybody by returning that ball. The laws should deal with the initial throwing of a ball on the pitch in the strongest manner possible.
Apart from that, I don't think the ref was particularly bad or good. He missed a few things as all refs will do. He didn't cost us the game. Bowyer's sending off may even be the fault of the laws although common sense - something so many refs lack, or are not allowed to use was what was missing there.
"I'd like to apologise to the club and everyone else for my actions".
Seb - you're a fan who swore at the ref. No ones going to hold it against you.
Let me start by stating some obvious points.
All sports are "coded" to determine how that sport is played, the conditions and the determination of the winner; in soccer, that code is the 17 Laws of the Game. It follows therefore that the compentcy of the referee on the day is largely judged by his/her ability to interpret and apply those 17 Laws. It also follows therefore that any critic of a referee must equally have a good understanding of those 17 Laws. For example I would not tell my GP that he has misdiagnosed my medical condition because medical matters are not within my scope of knowledge. This logic is not always applied to soccer refereeing.
Turning specifically to my response to muttleys posting, and bearing in mind that the laws, or their interpretation change ever more frequently, a red flag was raised in my mind to his level of knowledge. He referred to a terminology "ungentlemanly knowledge", which anybody who knows anything about the Laws of the Game would know is a redundant term, replaced many years ago by a cautionable term "unsporting behaviour".
Having re- read my response to Muttley I can see that it can be interpreted as being flippant and perhaps even rude, for which I happily apologise. A more wise choice of words will be used next time.
Enjoy your Sunday.
My tip is when you make an apology, don't qualify it with a paragraph insinuating the person you are apologising to doesn't understand the rules of the game. Yes, I am going to call them rules because that is what they F***ing well are. If you want to correct me knowingly, because they should be referred to as laws, it merely shows complete pedantry that exists in your world.
I am sincere when I say, as I am saying now, "enjoy your day".
Enjoy your day.
Linesmen not making decisions without the refs blessing aswell, absolutely no point on them yesterday.
Nevermind, onto the next incompetent dud!
Not the worst ref we've had by any means, but he was not in control of the game second half.
Comments like yours sum up the issues with refs, you all think you're beyond criticism.