Post match views: Charlton v Luton

Spanish said:

cafcsinger said:

The praise Igor gets is a touch over the top imo. Before his goal on Saturday i thought he looked completly off the pace, suddenly a well taken goal and excellent assist which i did not see coming. Prove me wrong Igor

Not OTT in my opinion. He was quality when he first joined and over the last 4 years has struggled desperately with injuries, a telling tale to how badly we were run. I think the praise he is getting now is because most our delighted he is showing glimpses of what he promised in his first spell. Last 3 games he ran his socks off. Arguable how much he adds by drawing away attention from Taylor. It is not always about the goals they score sometimes.

Possibly and the mismanagement of his injury was a disgrace. It looks like Igor is showing signs of improvement, presumably due to better fitness/confidence etc. However don't you feel people are so desperate to see him do well that it then clouds their judgement of how he actually plays?

cafcsinger said:

Spanish said:

cafcsinger said:

The praise Igor gets is a touch over the top imo. Before his goal on Saturday i thought he looked completly off the pace, suddenly a well taken goal and excellent assist which i did not see coming. Prove me wrong Igor

Not OTT in my opinion. He was quality when he first joined and over the last 4 years has struggled desperately with injuries, a telling tale to how badly we were run. I think the praise he is getting now is because most our delighted he is showing glimpses of what he promised in his first spell. Last 3 games he ran his socks off. Arguable how much he adds by drawing away attention from Taylor. It is not always about the goals they score sometimes.

Possibly and the mismanagement of his injury was a disgrace. It looks like Igor is showing signs of improvement, presumably due to better fitness/confidence etc. However don't you feel people are so desperate to see him do well that it then clouds their judgement of how he actually plays?

I think people are pleased for him and more generally relieved as there was no evidence that he would be effective when Grant was sold. What has been noticeable is that he has been getting fitter and more effective as he does so. We were carrying him when he first got back in the team, but not so now. It isn't OTT to find we actually have two different but excellent strikers as it massively increases our chance of success. 

And he's been workng very hard off the ball if you watch his movement, tracking back and closing down. 

PeterGage said:

foresthillred said:

CatAddick said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

He is going to back the ref as that is what he does. If it was the other way round and the ref sent Phillips off, he would be backing the ref making a completely different decision. 

To be fair, I think roughly 80% of refs would have sent their keeper off. So in that respect, we were unlucky. I would have sent him off. My son, who is a qualified ref, felt he should have been sent off. What refs seem to hate, and don't seem able to accept is that they interpret the laws differently. As a coach, I have recently seen refs give handball every time the ball hits an arm and have been given the explanation that is what is expected of them now, but we had a great ref this morning who used his judgement. With handball they have got themselves in a hell of a mess.

If you are a ref, you have to make a call and often you might not be sure it is the right one. I think the ref made his call in good faith, but would probably considered sending the keeper off. Then the Williams challenge, which I think Williams played for presented the ref with a call to make and that is when you can get a penalty like we got as the ref has to make another call and the fact he has made two one way means he is more likely to make the next the other.

I was in the East stand and the defender was very silly in terms of where he had his hands. I think Taylor felt them and played for it, but if he didn't feel them he couldn't have made it convincing. The ref would have seen the contact and Taylor going over and it was difficult to gauge the force from his position.

Anyway, I think it was a well deserved win against a decent side. That is the important thing. 

Sensible post.  I think refs would have a much easier time if they:
1. Admitted they were human
2. Admitted that sometimes they made mistakes 
3. Didn’t immediately close ranks in the face of any criticism 

I do all three, and it does make life easier. Most players respect me for being honest with them.

The referee yesterday, and Peter, got it wrong. The keeper sprinted out directly towards Igor, lunged feet first and cleaned him out. The ball had gone as Igor had already lobbed it. It was reckless and it was very dangerous. If a player had sprinted 20 metres to do that to an opponent on the halfway line, it would also have been a red card offence. I would imagine whoever was assessing the ref will have had a word.

I really think it would benefit the game if referees were permitted an interview to give their perspective on controversial decisions. There is no shame in saying "My view was obstructed" or "I couldn't be sure from the angle I was at" or my favourite "Your fat number 9 was in the way and I couldn't see a thing." Also no shame in saying "having viewed the footage, I got it wrong."

Unfortunately, with the FA, from the very top down to the grassroots, there is a culture of closing ranks and refusing to admit to a mistake, generated by a mixture of fear of the consequences and sheer arrogance. Anyone who has had to deal with the monumental cock-up that is the Whole Game System can attest to that. It just seems to be a means to generate income by fining clubs for non-existent misdemeanours. If you query it, or suggest the system is flawed, then you can pay for a personal hearing that costs more than the fine levied! 
The club I run has been on the receiving end of a few such fines and I just pay them as it's too much aggro and too costly to contest them. Fortunately, as a referee, I get my own back by not processing any cautions or sendings-off (unless it's a serious one), thus depriving the FA of money they don't need or deserve.

Peter wasnt wrong, simply because the decision is subjective, not absolute. If it was absolute, the match referee would have sent off the keeper, in your opinion and he didnt.

Some decisions are absolute, such as you cant score a goal direct from a throw in. In the case of the Luton keeper, some would see it as a "reckless" challenge and thus a caution and others would see it as "using excessive force", which is a red card.

Thanks @petergage but is it not possible for a challenge to be both reckless AND excessive?  Do they have to be exclusive? From my view it looked reckless (no attempt to play the ball / knee high) but also using excessive force (the height and distance that Igor travelled - this wasn’t just a simple block). I know my view was more side on and it was bound to look more violent than the more front on view from the camera gantry but glad to see you agree that there is the possibility that another referee might have interpreted the foul differently and shown a straight red. 

PeterGage said:

CatAddick said:

PeterGage said:

foresthillred said:

CatAddick said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

He is going to back the ref as that is what he does. If it was the other way round and the ref sent Phillips off, he would be backing the ref making a completely different decision. 

To be fair, I think roughly 80% of refs would have sent their keeper off. So in that respect, we were unlucky. I would have sent him off. My son, who is a qualified ref, felt he should have been sent off. What refs seem to hate, and don't seem able to accept is that they interpret the laws differently. As a coach, I have recently seen refs give handball every time the ball hits an arm and have been given the explanation that is what is expected of them now, but we had a great ref this morning who used his judgement. With handball they have got themselves in a hell of a mess.

If you are a ref, you have to make a call and often you might not be sure it is the right one. I think the ref made his call in good faith, but would probably considered sending the keeper off. Then the Williams challenge, which I think Williams played for presented the ref with a call to make and that is when you can get a penalty like we got as the ref has to make another call and the fact he has made two one way means he is more likely to make the next the other.

I was in the East stand and the defender was very silly in terms of where he had his hands. I think Taylor felt them and played for it, but if he didn't feel them he couldn't have made it convincing. The ref would have seen the contact and Taylor going over and it was difficult to gauge the force from his position.

Anyway, I think it was a well deserved win against a decent side. That is the important thing. 

Sensible post.  I think refs would have a much easier time if they:
1. Admitted they were human
2. Admitted that sometimes they made mistakes 
3. Didn’t immediately close ranks in the face of any criticism 

I do all three, and it does make life easier. Most players respect me for being honest with them.

The referee yesterday, and Peter, got it wrong. The keeper sprinted out directly towards Igor, lunged feet first and cleaned him out. The ball had gone as Igor had already lobbed it. It was reckless and it was very dangerous. If a player had sprinted 20 metres to do that to an opponent on the halfway line, it would also have been a red card offence. I would imagine whoever was assessing the ref will have had a word.

I really think it would benefit the game if referees were permitted an interview to give their perspective on controversial decisions. There is no shame in saying "My view was obstructed" or "I couldn't be sure from the angle I was at" or my favourite "Your fat number 9 was in the way and I couldn't see a thing." Also no shame in saying "having viewed the footage, I got it wrong."

Unfortunately, with the FA, from the very top down to the grassroots, there is a culture of closing ranks and refusing to admit to a mistake, generated by a mixture of fear of the consequences and sheer arrogance. Anyone who has had to deal with the monumental cock-up that is the Whole Game System can attest to that. It just seems to be a means to generate income by fining clubs for non-existent misdemeanours. If you query it, or suggest the system is flawed, then you can pay for a personal hearing that costs more than the fine levied! 
The club I run has been on the receiving end of a few such fines and I just pay them as it's too much aggro and too costly to contest them. Fortunately, as a referee, I get my own back by not processing any cautions or sendings-off (unless it's a serious one), thus depriving the FA of money they don't need or deserve.

Peter wasnt wrong, simply because the decision is subjective, not absolute. If it was absolute, the match referee would have sent off the keeper, in your opinion and he didnt.

Some decisions are absolute, such as you cant score a goal direct from a throw in. In the case of the Luton keeper, some would see it as a "reckless" challenge and thus a caution and others would see it as "using excessive force", which is a red card.

Thanks @petergage but is it not possible for a challenge to be both reckless AND excessive?  Do they have to be exclusive? From my view it looked reckless (no attempt to play the ball / knee high) but also using excessive force (the height and distance that Igor travelled - this wasn’t just a simple block). I know my view was more side on and it was bound to look more violent than the more front on view from the camera gantry but glad to see you agree that there is the possibility that another referee might have interpreted the foul differently and shown a straight red. 

The two phrases to support the caution/red card decision are exclusive in the Laws of the Game, so I guess there is no need to muddy the waters by using both phrases to describe a on-field situation.

Also, no account of the impact of the agrieved player - Igor in this case - should influence the extent of the action taken by the referee, ie caution or red card. Take for example an innocuous tackle by a player results in the offended player unluckly sustains,say, a broken leg. The referee wont upgrade the action he will take because of the extent of the injury

CatAddick said:

PeterGage said:

CatAddick said:

PeterGage said:

foresthillred said:

CatAddick said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

He is going to back the ref as that is what he does. If it was the other way round and the ref sent Phillips off, he would be backing the ref making a completely different decision. 

To be fair, I think roughly 80% of refs would have sent their keeper off. So in that respect, we were unlucky. I would have sent him off. My son, who is a qualified ref, felt he should have been sent off. What refs seem to hate, and don't seem able to accept is that they interpret the laws differently. As a coach, I have recently seen refs give handball every time the ball hits an arm and have been given the explanation that is what is expected of them now, but we had a great ref this morning who used his judgement. With handball they have got themselves in a hell of a mess.

If you are a ref, you have to make a call and often you might not be sure it is the right one. I think the ref made his call in good faith, but would probably considered sending the keeper off. Then the Williams challenge, which I think Williams played for presented the ref with a call to make and that is when you can get a penalty like we got as the ref has to make another call and the fact he has made two one way means he is more likely to make the next the other.

I was in the East stand and the defender was very silly in terms of where he had his hands. I think Taylor felt them and played for it, but if he didn't feel them he couldn't have made it convincing. The ref would have seen the contact and Taylor going over and it was difficult to gauge the force from his position.

Anyway, I think it was a well deserved win against a decent side. That is the important thing. 

Sensible post.  I think refs would have a much easier time if they:
1. Admitted they were human
2. Admitted that sometimes they made mistakes 
3. Didn’t immediately close ranks in the face of any criticism 

I do all three, and it does make life easier. Most players respect me for being honest with them.

The referee yesterday, and Peter, got it wrong. The keeper sprinted out directly towards Igor, lunged feet first and cleaned him out. The ball had gone as Igor had already lobbed it. It was reckless and it was very dangerous. If a player had sprinted 20 metres to do that to an opponent on the halfway line, it would also have been a red card offence. I would imagine whoever was assessing the ref will have had a word.

I really think it would benefit the game if referees were permitted an interview to give their perspective on controversial decisions. There is no shame in saying "My view was obstructed" or "I couldn't be sure from the angle I was at" or my favourite "Your fat number 9 was in the way and I couldn't see a thing." Also no shame in saying "having viewed the footage, I got it wrong."

Unfortunately, with the FA, from the very top down to the grassroots, there is a culture of closing ranks and refusing to admit to a mistake, generated by a mixture of fear of the consequences and sheer arrogance. Anyone who has had to deal with the monumental cock-up that is the Whole Game System can attest to that. It just seems to be a means to generate income by fining clubs for non-existent misdemeanours. If you query it, or suggest the system is flawed, then you can pay for a personal hearing that costs more than the fine levied! 
The club I run has been on the receiving end of a few such fines and I just pay them as it's too much aggro and too costly to contest them. Fortunately, as a referee, I get my own back by not processing any cautions or sendings-off (unless it's a serious one), thus depriving the FA of money they don't need or deserve.

Peter wasnt wrong, simply because the decision is subjective, not absolute. If it was absolute, the match referee would have sent off the keeper, in your opinion and he didnt.

Some decisions are absolute, such as you cant score a goal direct from a throw in. In the case of the Luton keeper, some would see it as a "reckless" challenge and thus a caution and others would see it as "using excessive force", which is a red card.

Thanks @petergage but is it not possible for a challenge to be both reckless AND excessive?  Do they have to be exclusive? From my view it looked reckless (no attempt to play the ball / knee high) but also using excessive force (the height and distance that Igor travelled - this wasn’t just a simple block). I know my view was more side on and it was bound to look more violent than the more front on view from the camera gantry but glad to see you agree that there is the possibility that another referee might have interpreted the foul differently and shown a straight red. 

The two phrases to support the caution/red card decision are exclusive in the Laws of the Game, so I guess there is no need to muddy the waters by using both phrases to describe a on-field situation.

Thanks Peter.  I genuinely didn’t realise that they were exclusive and was trying to be sarcastic.  Doesn’t stop me thinking that it was violent lunge though ;-)

Ah, but it wasnt "Violent Conduct" -:). Violent Conduct is a red card jobby when the ball is not part of the incident - such as headbutting or punching  :-)

CatAddick said:

Also, interesting your assertion that no account is taken of the effect on the fouled player.  I come from an engineering background and view these things in a very Newtonian / objective way:  excessive movement is caused by excessive force.  As it’s a subjective assessment,  how do you come to the conclusion that a tackle uses excessive force?  It might help me understand some of these subjective decision.
There is no supporting narrative in the Laws of the Game to help clarify the descriptive statements "careless", "reckless" and "using excessive force". However I expect the football league referees forums would have discussed and agreed a formula for each category to arrive at a consistent collective view.

PeterGage said:

PeterGage said:

CatAddick said:

Also, interesting your assertion that no account is taken of the effect on the fouled player.  I come from an engineering background and view these things in a very Newtonian / objective way:  excessive movement is caused by excessive force.  As it’s a subjective assessment,  how do you come to the conclusion that a tackle uses excessive force?  It might help me understand some of these subjective decision.
There is no supporting narrative in the Laws of the Game to help clarify the descriptive statements "careless", "reckless" and "using excessive force". However I expect the football league referees forums would have discussed and agreed a formula for each category to arrive at a consistent collective view.

PeterGage said:

CatAddick said:

Also, interesting your assertion that no account is taken of the effect on the fouled player.  I come from an engineering background and view these things in a very Newtonian / objective way:  excessive movement is caused by excessive force.  As it’s a subjective assessment,  how do you come to the conclusion that a tackle uses excessive force?  It might help me understand some of these subjective decision.
There is no supporting narrative in the Laws of the Game to help clarify the descriptive statements "careless", "reckless" and "using excessive force". However I expect the football league referees forums would have discussed and agreed a formula for each category to arrive at a consistent collective view.

Furthermore your statement re "excessive movement/force" is, I guess, relevant when talking about inanimate objects. However players, as we know, throw themselves about, roll over and over at an exaggerated level, inconsistent with the force of the contact 

Precisely.  I know I over analyse and look at thing too objectively because of my personality (it still annoys the hell out of me now that offsides are treated subjectively - When I played you could be unconscious in the corner quadrant and as soon as the ball was played the flag went up: and that law changed years ago....)
That’s why I do value your insight (even though you might think I’m being antagonist) I really want to try and understand HOW some of these decisions are made.

My view has been consistent - some refs would have sent him off and some wouldn't. Refs that would can justify it within the laws of the game as can those that wouldn't. For me, I think it was a sending off. Imagine that had happened on the half way line with Solly doing it to one of their players. Nobody would be complaining on here if Solly walked. And we are biased.   

Sometimes in football it is down to interpretation and refs seem to hate that as a body. It prevents consistency and striving for consistency, they get in a complete mess as in the offside rule. The issue is there are refs with good judgement and refs with bad judgement. Refs mess about with the laws to help those with bad judgement. The problem is, it is hard to improve something like judgement and maybe the solution is better refs who understand the game. 

On this one, whilst I think it was a sending off, I do undertsand the refs position and it is hard to say it was a terrible mistake.  

PeterGage said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

My view has been consistent - some refs would have sent him off and some wouldn't. Refs that would can justify it within the laws of the game as can those that wouldn't. For me, I think it was a sending off. Imagine that had happened on the half way line with Solly doing it to one of their players. Nobody would be complaining on here if Solly walked. And we are biased.   

Sometimes in football it is down to interpretation and refs seem to hate that as a body. It prevents consistency and striving for consistency, they get in a complete mess as in the offside rule. The issue is there are refs with good judgement and refs with bad judgement. Refs mess about with the laws to help those with bad judgement. The problem is, it is hard to improve something like judgement and maybe the solution is better refs who understand the game. 

On this one, whilst I think it was a sending off, I do undertsand the refs position and it is hard to say it was a terrible mistake.  

Much of what you have said above is not original, merely recycling the content of my posts on this thread and the other live thread titled ref decisions (or something similar). Other parts of your post cant go unchallenged.

Please amplifly your strange statement "....seems to hate that as a body".

"Refs with good/bad judgement". This seems to me to be totally inconsistent with your correct recognition that many decisions are subjective and therefore there is no right or wrong. 

"Refs mess about with the laws of the game" is totally incorrect. The laws of the game are reviewed by the International Football Association Board, which  used to be the case (not sure if has changed) of full time members of the English FA and Welsh FA and 3 other members who are voted in; nothing whatsoever to do with referee bodies.

How do you get "better refs who understand the game. Please dont use your discredited statement about ex players. Fast tracking ex players has been a tried and failed experiment. Players skill sets are totally different from those of refs. The latters greatest skill is that of man management, in what is a stressful and volatile environment.

Interested to read your response. Thanks

You are just proving my point. A great example of poor judgement is around handball. Some refs seem to think that every time the ball hits a hand or arm it is handball. Others apply reasoning and decide intent. To help refs out an added line was added to the laws about unnatural positioning of the arm. This was a big mistake for many refs take everything literally. They are trying to interpret  too rigidly what is natural or not when the rule was there simply to reflect that hands can be put in a position to increase the chance of blocking and what is required is good judgement.

Sadly good judgement is not possessed by everybody and rather than weed out the refs that don't have it, the union of refs try to change the rules to take judgement away from proceedings. Of course the union of refs don't allow people to challenge or criticise refs either. And you my friend are a prime example. You seem to have some sort of vendetta against me because I openly say a lot of refs are poor. I coach an U18 team and experience excellent refs and very poor refs. There are too many of the latter and I even see too many of them, in my opinion, in the professional game. That is my view and it is just as valid as yours. The excellent refs are the ones that highlight the poor ones.  

My statement about ex players is not discredited. It just needs proper implementation. The union of refs would rather say it is discredited than look how it can be made to work. For me, the game needs to accept two things - you can never achieve total consistency and it needs officials with good judgement and some people and, ex players are included in this, have it and some don't. Offside is another example. A law that has become so complicated it is ridiculous. It needs to be built around judgement around whether striker is seeking to be offside for his/her advantage or not. So anything extremely close wouldn't be offside, if a defender tries to push up and catch an attacker out, it wouldn't be offside etc... If refs had good judgement, you could do this.

In terms of ex players - people who played football to a decent level - not necessarily professionals - I think Taylor is a good example. He is a physically strong player. If you come up against a player stronger than you, you have to find ways to stop them. Ex players will know that and the ways used to achieve that. The amount of fouls against Taylor that go unpunished show a lack of understanding of this. And the number of fouls given against him when he is just being stronger shows this too. When you have a player like Akinfenwa, when even a village idiot knows he is much stronger than anybody else, refs rightly seem to let him use his strength without punishment. You are allowed to be stronger in football.  

MuttleyCAFC said:

PeterGage said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

My view has been consistent - some refs would have sent him off and some wouldn't. Refs that would can justify it within the laws of the game as can those that wouldn't. For me, I think it was a sending off. Imagine that had happened on the half way line with Solly doing it to one of their players. Nobody would be complaining on here if Solly walked. And we are biased.   

Sometimes in football it is down to interpretation and refs seem to hate that as a body. It prevents consistency and striving for consistency, they get in a complete mess as in the offside rule. The issue is there are refs with good judgement and refs with bad judgement. Refs mess about with the laws to help those with bad judgement. The problem is, it is hard to improve something like judgement and maybe the solution is better refs who understand the game. 

On this one, whilst I think it was a sending off, I do undertsand the refs position and it is hard to say it was a terrible mistake.  

Much of what you have said above is not original, merely recycling the content of my posts on this thread and the other live thread titled ref decisions (or something similar). Other parts of your post cant go unchallenged.

Please amplifly your strange statement "....seems to hate that as a body".

"Refs with good/bad judgement". This seems to me to be totally inconsistent with your correct recognition that many decisions are subjective and therefore there is no right or wrong. 

"Refs mess about with the laws of the game" is totally incorrect. The laws of the game are reviewed by the International Football Association Board, which  used to be the case (not sure if has changed) of full time members of the English FA and Welsh FA and 3 other members who are voted in; nothing whatsoever to do with referee bodies.

How do you get "better refs who understand the game. Please dont use your discredited statement about ex players. Fast tracking ex players has been a tried and failed experiment. Players skill sets are totally different from those of refs. The latters greatest skill is that of man management, in what is a stressful and volatile environment.

Interested to read your response. Thanks

You are just proving my point. A great example of poor judgement is around handball. Some refs seem to think that every time the ball hits a hand or arm it is handball. Others apply reasoning and decide intent. To help refs out an added line was added to the laws about unnatural positioning of the arm. This was a big mistake for many refs take everything literally. They are trying to interpret  too rigidly what is natural or not when the rule was there simply to reflect that hands can be put in a position to increase the chance of blocking and what is required is good judgement.

Sadly good judgement is not possessed by everybody and rather than weed out the refs that don't have it, the union of refs try to change the rules to take judgement away from proceedings. Of course the union of refs don't allow people to challenge or criticise refs either. And you my friend are a prime example. You seem to have some sort of vendetta against me because I openly say a lot of refs are poor. I coach an U18 team and experience excellent refs and very poor refs. There are too many of the latter and I even see too many of them, in my opinion, in the professional game. That is my view and it is just as valid as yours. The excellent refs are the ones that highlight the poor ones.  

My statement about ex players is not discredited. It just needs proper implementation. The union of refs would rather say it is discredited than look how it can be made to work. For me, the game needs to accept two things - you can never achieve total consistency and it needs officials with good judgement and some people and, ex players are included in this, have it and some don't. Offside is another example. A law that has become so complicated it is ridiculous. It needs to be built around judgement around whether striker is seeking to be offside for his/her advantage or not. So anything extremely close wouldn't be offside, if a defender tries to push up and catch an attacker out, it wouldn't be offside etc... If refs had good judgement, you could do this.

In terms of ex players - people who played football to a decent level - not necessarily professionals - I think Taylor is a good example. He is a physically strong player. If you come up against a player stronger than you, you have to find ways to stop them. Ex players will know that and the ways used to achieve that. The amount of fouls against Taylor that go unpunished show a lack of understanding of this. And the number of fouls given against him when he is just being stronger shows this too. When you have a player like Akinfenwa, when even a village idiot knows he is much stronger than anybody else, refs rightly seem to let him use his strength without punishment. You are allowed to be stronger in football.  

MuttleyCAFC said:

PeterGage said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

My view has been consistent - some refs would have sent him off and some wouldn't. Refs that would can justify it within the laws of the game as can those that wouldn't. For me, I think it was a sending off. Imagine that had happened on the half way line with Solly doing it to one of their players. Nobody would be complaining on here if Solly walked. And we are biased.   

Sometimes in football it is down to interpretation and refs seem to hate that as a body. It prevents consistency and striving for consistency, they get in a complete mess as in the offside rule. The issue is there are refs with good judgement and refs with bad judgement. Refs mess about with the laws to help those with bad judgement. The problem is, it is hard to improve something like judgement and maybe the solution is better refs who understand the game. 

On this one, whilst I think it was a sending off, I do undertsand the refs position and it is hard to say it was a terrible mistake.  

Much of what you have said above is not original, merely recycling the content of my posts on this thread and the other live thread titled ref decisions (or something similar). Other parts of your post cant go unchallenged.

Please amplifly your strange statement "....seems to hate that as a body".

"Refs with good/bad judgement". This seems to me to be totally inconsistent with your correct recognition that many decisions are subjective and therefore there is no right or wrong. 

"Refs mess about with the laws of the game" is totally incorrect. The laws of the game are reviewed by the International Football Association Board, which  used to be the case (not sure if has changed) of full time members of the English FA and Welsh FA and 3 other members who are voted in; nothing whatsoever to do with referee bodies.

How do you get "better refs who understand the game. Please dont use your discredited statement about ex players. Fast tracking ex players has been a tried and failed experiment. Players skill sets are totally different from those of refs. The latters greatest skill is that of man management, in what is a stressful and volatile environment.

Interested to read your response. Thanks

You are just proving my point. A great example of poor judgement is around handball. Some refs seem to think that every time the ball hits a hand or arm it is handball. Others apply reasoning and decide intent. To help refs out an added line was added to the laws about unnatural positioning of the arm. This was a big mistake for many refs take everything literally. They are trying to interpret  too rigidly what is natural or not when the rule was there simply to reflect that hands can be put in a position to increase the chance of blocking and what is required is good judgement.

Sadly good judgement is not possessed by everybody and rather than weed out the refs that don't have it, the union of refs try to change the rules to take judgement away from proceedings. Of course the union of refs don't allow people to challenge or criticise refs either. And you my friend are a prime example. You seem to have some sort of vendetta against me because I openly say a lot of refs are poor. I coach an U18 team and experience excellent refs and very poor refs. There are too many of the latter and I even see too many of them, in my opinion, in the professional game. That is my view and it is just as valid as yours. The excellent refs are the ones that highlight the poor ones.  

My statement about ex players is not discredited. It just needs proper implementation. The union of refs would rather say it is discredited than look how it can be made to work. For me, the game needs to accept two things - you can never achieve total consistency and it needs officials with good judgement and some people and, ex players are included in this, have it and some don't. Offside is another example. A law that has become so complicated it is ridiculous. It needs to be built around judgement around whether striker is seeking to be offside for his/her advantage or not. So anything extremely close wouldn't be offside, if a defender tries to push up and catch an attacker out, it wouldn't be offside etc... If refs had good judgement, you could do this.

In terms of ex players - people who played football to a decent level - not necessarily professionals - I think Taylor is a good example. He is a physically strong player. If you come up against a player stronger than you, you have to find ways to stop them. Ex players will know that and the ways used to achieve that. The amount of fouls against Taylor that go unpunished show a lack of understanding of this. And the number of fouls given against him when he is just being stronger shows this too. When you have a player like Akinfenwa, when even a village idiot knows he is much stronger than anybody else, refs rightly seem to let him use his strength without punishment. You are allowed to be stronger in football.  

I see little point in continuing this debate, other than to say I do not hold a vendetta against you, or indeed anyone else on here. I am more than happy to buy you a beer at Oxford on Friday to discuss our differences. Please pm me with your tele number if you wish to take up my offer.

Have a good day.

CatAddick said:

PeterGage said:

CatAddick said:

PeterGage said:

CatAddick said:

PeterGage said:

PeterGage said:

CatAddick said:

Also, interesting your assertion that no account is taken of the effect on the fouled player.  I come from an engineering background and view these things in a very Newtonian / objective way:  excessive movement is caused by excessive force.  As it’s a subjective assessment,  how do you come to the conclusion that a tackle uses excessive force?  It might help me understand some of these subjective decision.
There is no supporting narrative in the Laws of the Game to help clarify the descriptive statements "careless", "reckless" and "using excessive force". However I expect the football league referees forums would have discussed and agreed a formula for each category to arrive at a consistent collective view.

PeterGage said:

CatAddick said:

Also, interesting your assertion that no account is taken of the effect on the fouled player.  I come from an engineering background and view these things in a very Newtonian / objective way:  excessive movement is caused by excessive force.  As it’s a subjective assessment,  how do you come to the conclusion that a tackle uses excessive force?  It might help me understand some of these subjective decision.
There is no supporting narrative in the Laws of the Game to help clarify the descriptive statements "careless", "reckless" and "using excessive force". However I expect the football league referees forums would have discussed and agreed a formula for each category to arrive at a consistent collective view.

Furthermore your statement re "excessive movement/force" is, I guess, relevant when talking about inanimate objects. However players, as we know, throw themselves about, roll over and over at an exaggerated level, inconsistent with the force of the contact 

Precisely.  I know I over analyse and look at thing too objectively because of my personality (it still annoys the hell out of me now that offsides are treated subjectively - When I played you could be unconscious in the corner quadrant and as soon as the ball was played the flag went up: and that law changed years ago....)
That’s why I do value your insight (even though you might think I’m being antagonist) I really want to try and understand HOW some of these decisions are made.

I dont think you are antagonistic. We all have differing levels of knowledge of different subjects. I just happen to believe I can offer valid views on all things refereeing because of experience of officiating at a high level; that doesnt mean I am right on all matters because some are subjective. I do however try to expain why I have arrived at a particular decision so that others on here can know where I am coming from.

As in all walks of life, there are some on here who believe referees are always wrong or all decisions are anti-Charlton. That is natural I guess.

But in this case I DON’T think you have explained why. You said it was reckless, and when pushed, quoted an (unqualified) poster who erroneously used the same word without realising it’s special meaning in the refereeing world.  It’s a bit like me wilfully misunderstanding a layman who confuses velocity and speed.  I know it’s subjective but I’m still curious as to why you decided ‘reckless’ and therefore never considered ‘excessive ‘.  

OK, let me try to set out my postion more clearly. First, can I say I wasnt at the game and thus was not caught up with the emotion of the moment. I viewed the video a few times and have seen the still photographs.

Let's see if we interpret the situation the same. First, Igor got to the ball first and played it before there was any contact between the players. Next the keeper played his leg across the front of Igor's body to stop Igor from continuing his run - a clear and deliberate cynical foul for which the referee deemed it to be reckless and brandished a yellow card.. Igor made contact with the keepers leg and was brought down. The keepers leg did not strike Igor nor did the keepers body - the keepers body was falling away from Igor. That being the case how can the term "using excessive force" be applied when the keeper did not even touch Igor? It was a trip, a most cynical trip, but a trip. The photographs (3 of them) on the match thread, I believe,  supports my views above - i cannot now find the video to view it once again.

Hope I have given you a more descriptive and explantory view as to how I viewed the incident. You may of course disagree with my interpretation.

Have a good day.

Thanks Peter.  That’s what I wanted to know.  As you say down to view and interpretation.  Agree with Igor getting the shot away (which I believe was the 4ths justification for not being a goal scoring opportunity). But as I said earlier, from my angle it looked like the keeper went hard straight through Igor from the front with his feet rather than across.  That’s why I thought it was excessive as IMHO he could have just bodychecked him; no need for the lunge.

In the spirit of compromise, lets class this debate as an honourable draw :-)

Covered End said:

https://www.skysports.com/football/charlton-vs-luton/report/393591

Thanks @Covered End for this. I did find it on You Tube earlier today. I still believe that it was a trip, albeit a cynical trip, but not "using excessive force". Thus if it wasn't classed as a goalscoring opportunity, then it cannot be a red card.

Sadly I have not been able to secure a ticket for Oxford