Standard of refs

[The9]

Not booking Bertrand for his professional foul which prevented Stoke counter attack.

Amongst other mistakes. Refs have a difficult job, but they still make bad mistakes.

 

Your argument there doesn't even make any sense, if it was a "professional foul" which is now called "denying of goalscoring opportunity" it's a red card, not a yellow, so booking him for it would have been wrong anyway.

 

I'd agree that it was a "pulling back" and deliberate foul, so a yellow card would have been appropriate, but it was by no means the "professional foul" (for which a red card was punishment as long ago as the early 80s in England).

Edited 26 November, 2015 by The9

[The9]

He wasn't fouled. I accept that you have a different opinion but you have to accept that you are not unbiased.

 

I'm pretty sure the replays show very clearly that Wollscheid kicked Pelle very hard whilst they were both in the penalty area, which bit of that isn't a penalty?

[VectisSaint]

Your argument there doesn't even make any sense, if it was a "professional foul" which is now called "denying of goalscoring opportunity" it's a red card, not a yellow, so booking him for it would have been wrong anyway.

 

I'd agree that it was a "pulling back" and deliberate foul, so a yellow card would have been appropriate, but it was by no means the "professional foul" (for which a red card was punishment as long ago as the early 80s in England).

Professional foul does not always mean denying a goal-scoring opportunity. A professional foul "is a deliberate act of foul play intended to bring about an advantage for the perpetrator". Denying a goal scoring oportunity is the best example but is not the only one. But you missed the point anyway, whatever it was called should have lead to a caution (at least), it was therefore a big mistake by Mason and was there to illustrate that he made mistakes both ways not just in favour of Stoke. Morgan used to do this all the time, and usually got a booking, it is usually referred to as "taking one for the team".

Edited 26 November, 2015 by VectisSaint

[The9]

Professional foul does not always mean denying a goal-scoring opportunity. A professional foul "is a deliberate act of foul play intended to bring about an advantage for the perpetrator". Denying a goal scoring oportunity is the best example but is not the only one. But you missed the point anyway, whatever it was called should have lead to a caution (at least), it was therefore a big mistake by Mason and was there to illustrate that he made mistakes both ways not just in favour of Stoke. Morgan used to do this all the time, and usually got a booking, it is usually referred to as "taking one for the team".

 

A professional foul doesn't have an "official" definition, it's been replaced by DOGSO in terms of the laws. So it can mean anything you want, but the only "official" interpretation of it, even back in the 80s before it was a FIFA thing when the FA was doing it, was to stop a goalscoring opportunity.

[stevegrant]

A professional foul doesn't have an "official" definition, it's been replaced by DOGSO in terms of the laws. So it can mean anything you want, but the only "official" interpretation of it, even back in the 80s before it was a FIFA thing when the FA was doing it, was to stop a goalscoring opportunity.

I call the fouls VectisSaint is referring to as "taking one for the team" fouls - you know you're not catching him, but he's in a non-dangerous position so just wipe him out, take the inevitable booking and get back goal-side. The meaning of the term "professional foul" has evolved over the years, pretty much ever since those words were removed from the Laws of the Game around 15 years ago - it's pretty common for "taking one for the team" fouls to be described as "professional" fouls now - it is a foul that has roots in "game management", giving away free kicks in non-threatening positions to waste time and to allow your team to retreat to a proper defensive setup.

[benjii]

I call the fouls VectisSaint is referring to as "taking one for the team" fouls - you know you're not catching him, but he's in a non-dangerous position so just wipe him out, take the inevitable booking and get back goal-side. The meaning of the term "professional foul" has evolved over the years, pretty much ever since those words were removed from the Laws of the Game around 15 years ago - it's pretty common for "taking one for the team" fouls to be described as "professional" fouls now - it is a foul that has roots in "game management", giving away free kicks in non-threatening positions to waste time and to allow your team to retreat to a proper defensive setup.

 

Exactly, and these are the sorts of fouls that referees should recognise and sanction accordingly.

 

Mason didn't have a clue.

[VectisSaint]

A professional foul doesn't have an "official" definition, it's been replaced by DOGSO in terms of the laws. So it can mean anything you want, but the only "official" interpretation of it, even back in the 80s before it was a FIFA thing when the FA was doing it, was to stop a goalscoring opportunity.

No it isn't. Really don't see why you are arguing, its not the point anyway. Just accept you are wrong and give it up, instead of making yourself look a bit silly, shame being one of the decent posters on here. You say yourself there is no official definition, so stop arguing that there is a precise definition and that what I called it (an off the cuff remark with no intent to be to the letter of the law) is wrong. Stick to the point, which is that Mason made a big error (one of many) in not sanctioning a foul that should have been sanctioned (in the loose sense of the word and not what may or may not be called in the Laws of the Game).

[VectisSaint]

I call the fouls VectisSaint is referring to as "taking one for the team" fouls - you know you're not catching him, but he's in a non-dangerous position so just wipe him out, take the inevitable booking and get back goal-side. The meaning of the term "professional foul" has evolved over the years, pretty much ever since those words were removed from the Laws of the Game around 15 years ago - it's pretty common for "taking one for the team" fouls to be described as "professional" fouls now - it is a foul that has roots in "game management", giving away free kicks in non-threatening positions to waste time and to allow your team to retreat to a proper defensive setup.

Thanks Steve

[hasper57saint]

We've got Roger (sent off the wrong man) East for Saturday.I hope we get a fair deal.

[The9]

I call the fouls VectisSaint is referring to as "taking one for the team" fouls - you know you're not catching him, but he's in a non-dangerous position so just wipe him out, take the inevitable booking and get back goal-side. The meaning of the term "professional foul" has evolved over the years, pretty much ever since those words were removed from the Laws of the Game around 15 years ago - it's pretty common for "taking one for the team" fouls to be described as "professional" fouls now - it is a foul that has roots in "game management", giving away free kicks in non-threatening positions to waste time and to allow your team to retreat to a proper defensive setup.

 

Completely agree that a playbreaking preventative foul is completely worth a yellow card, but b011ocks is it a "professional foul".

[The9]

No it isn't. Really don't see why you are arguing, its not the point anyway. Just accept you are wrong and give it up, instead of making yourself look a bit silly, shame being one of the decent posters on here. You say yourself there is no official definition, so stop arguing that there is a precise definition and that what I called it (an off the cuff remark with no intent to be to the letter of the law) is wrong. Stick to the point, which is that Mason made a big error (one of many) in not sanctioning a foul that should have been sanctioned (in the loose sense of the word and not what may or may not be called in the Laws of the Game).

 

Completely agree that it was a yellow card, still not a professional foul, which has only ever been defined as one thing, which is now DOGSO.

 

Even Wikipedia, which on occasion mentions "professional fouls" as yellow card offences in the wider use of the team, is clear that professional fouls were defined by and replaced by DOGSO. Any other discussion is just using the terminology wrongly, and there are numerous other terms which have sprung up to cover non-red card cynical fouls precisely to fill this terminology gap:

 

"History[edit]

The concept gained notoriety in association football after an infamous incident in the 1980 FA Cup Final when Willie Young of Arsenal committed a deliberate foul on Paul Allen of West Ham, when Allen had a clear run at goal. As the Laws of the Game stood, the referee (George Courtney) could only award West Ham a free kick, which he did. This provoked a national debate on deliberate fouls that denied opponents the chance to score a goal. At the time, the English game was suffering a downturn in attendances and the chairmen of the Football League clubs decided to consider ways in which the game could be made exciting. A subcommittee was appointed to produce some suggestions, chaired by Jimmy Hill and including Matt Busby and Bobby Charlton.

 

The sub-committee produced several suggestions, including making the professional foul a mandatory red card offence, which they submitted to the IFAB for consideration. All the suggestions were defeated. However, the Football League was determined to have their way, and instructed its referees that professional fouls (including deliberate handball to stop a goal being scored) should be deemed serious foul play, which was and is a mandatory red card offence. The new interpretation was first issued to referees prior to the 1982-83 season.[6]

 

FIFA first instructed its referees to send off for a professional foul prior to the 1990 World Cup, and in 1991 IFAB added decisions to the law which provided that a player who committed a foul or handling offence that denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity should be sent off for serious foul play. These decisions were incorporated in the laws in 1997.[6]"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_foul

Edited 26 November, 2015 by The9

[stevegrant]

It literally doesn't matter, you're being deliberately obtuse for the sake of it. MLG would be proud

[Donatello]

It literally doesn't matter, you're being deliberately obtuse for the sake of it. MLG would be proud

 

 

Just to make up numbers, Wollscheid volleyed Pelle. Penalty.

[shurlock]

Completely agree that it was a yellow card, still not a professional foul, which has only ever been defined as one thing, which is now DOGSO.

 

Even Wikipedia, which on occasion mentions "professional fouls" as yellow card offences in the wider use of the team, is clear that professional fouls were defined by and replaced by DOGSO. Any other discussion is just using the terminology wrongly, and there are numerous other terms which have sprung up to cover non-red card cynical fouls precisely to fill this terminology gap:

 

"History[edit]

The concept gained notoriety in association football after an infamous incident in the 1980 FA Cup Final when Willie Young of Arsenal committed a deliberate foul on Paul Allen of West Ham, when Allen had a clear run at goal. As the Laws of the Game stood, the referee (George Courtney) could only award West Ham a free kick, which he did. This provoked a national debate on deliberate fouls that denied opponents the chance to score a goal. At the time, the English game was suffering a downturn in attendances and the chairmen of the Football League clubs decided to consider ways in which the game could be made exciting. A subcommittee was appointed to produce some suggestions, chaired by Jimmy Hill and including Matt Busby and Bobby Charlton.

 

The sub-committee produced several suggestions, including making the professional foul a mandatory red card offence, which they submitted to the IFAB for consideration. All the suggestions were defeated. However, the Football League was determined to have their way, and instructed its referees that professional fouls (including deliberate handball to stop a goal being scored) should be deemed serious foul play, which was and is a mandatory red card offence. The new interpretation was first issued to referees prior to the 1982-83 season.[6]

 

FIFA first instructed its referees to send off for a professional foul prior to the 1990 World Cup, and in 1991 IFAB added decisions to the law which provided that a player who committed a foul or handling offence that denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity should be sent off for serious foul play. These decisions were incorporated in the laws in 1997.[6]"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_foul

 

You're much better as the gok wan of football kits.

[SFKA South Woodford]

There are a lot of points there and I will only answer a couple of them.

 

Cedric has received a lot of head injuries and I would put that down to his stature and technique. When he jumps his head often ends up at arm and elbow level so he is likely to get caught. You cannot blame the referees if you see his situation as unique, you have to look at the player.

 

Most of the other points are just your opinion, which happens to be different from the referee who happened to be in charge. There are situations where if you had 100 referees in charge half would give a foul and half wouldn't that doesn't make half of them wrong, or are they only 'wrong' if there opinion differs from yours.

 

Pellè's mid-air collision was nowhere near a stonewall penalty and one other person saying he thought it was doesn't make it so. Was Pellè backing towards goal at the time? Where were the defender's eyes looking at the time? None of this can be determined on the TV but will have influenced Mason's decision. Of course I would have been delighted if he had given us a penalty but it was no surprise that he didn't and nor would plenty of others. Remember that all of your opinions are coloured by your allegiance.

 

Video referees would not stop love anything, you're just asking for another opinion which you hope would go in your favour. You can't decide matters like this by committee. As someone once told me, it's best to have an odd number of members for a committee and three's too many.

 

Whilst I appreciate that you are trying to play devil's advocate in respect of the penalty we should have had, you are the only person who thinks it wasn't a nailed on pen, so it's not just my opinion. Does this mean that you thought that the shirt tugging on Van Dijk at Chelsea was just six of one half a dozen of the other as well? The fact is clear, Pelle had controlled the ball on his chest facing goal as he was rushing further into the penalty area and the Stoke defender kicked across him made no contact with the ball and impeeded Pelle. So by the rules of the game it's a penalty.

 

As for Cedric, the wound on Saturday was caused by a player two inches shorter than him, so your argument about his height is wrong on that one, similarly a couple of the others were also caused by players of equal or less height than Cedric himself. I guess that leaves you with Cedrics jumping ability not being great, but I have seen him outjump players who are taller than him, so it can't be that either. Leaving us with the most likely explanation, that the challenges have been unfair!

 

Early shout for the theme for the last away of the season, people to wear Rab C Nesbitt style head bands in Cedrics honour!

[Batman]

The ref at swansea is getting pelters from all angles this morning

 

fell asleep during MOTD so never saw it

[Give it to Ron]

The ref at swansea is getting pelters from all angles this morning

 

fell asleep during MOTD so never saw it

 

The Swansea sending off and their penalty were hilarious decisions.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Whitey Grandad]

The Swansea sending off and their penalty were hilarious decisions.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The sending off was extremely harsh but it was a definite penalty which those in the tv studio and press studios couldn't, or didn't want to see. The forward's (can't remember name) left knee was caught by Wes Brown (?) which caused him to trip. It's there to see if anyone bothers to look closely. As I have said on another thread, the referee is a lot closer and has a stereoscopic view of the incident with a much higher visual resolution.

 

The red card was another matter though. There may have been an issue about studs showing but 'reckless with excessive force'?

[Batman]

Just seen the highlights of the swansea game. Sorry whitey, your biased towards the refs each week is rather bizarre on this occasion

[Wade Garrett]

Mr S Wonder was absolute dogsh*t reffing the Swansea game.

[fanimal]

Why does MOTD never show our 'dubious' moments? No analysis of VVD having his shirt ripped off in the first half and Davis being onside for a disallowed goal? I thought the ref was very soft on what I thought was quite a dirty Championship style Watford.

[Dangermouth]

Agree with WG: the back leg was caught. However, he'd already kicked the floor and lost control of the ball so ... I wouldn't have given it (unless the rules force you to).

[Batman]

Just seen Terry's equaliser

 

absolutely woeful from the lino.

[Batman]

utter shyte form Moss AGAIN against swansea

 

he is so poor. I wonder if Whitey will be on defending this performance?

[Saint_clark]

The disallowed goal today reminds me of when we played Reading away. We had a corner and as the ball came in their keeper came flying towards a crowd of people and the ref put his whistle to his lips pre-emptively, blowing up as soon as the keeper went down - after colliding with ANOTHER READING PLAYER. I'll never get over that.

[shurlock]

Thats the second disallowed goal we've had at the Liberty from a keeper spill/flap - we had an even clearer-cut one in 2013's nil nil.

[Kingsbridge Saint]

Monstrous inconsistency with the yellow cards in favour of the home side. Moss was also looking for opportunities to give them free kicks and our disallowed goal would have stood with a stronger referee in the middle. I recall when Nani got a straight red for a high boot - and Cork didn't even get spoke to for two of them.

Edited 14 February, 2016 by Kingsbridge Saint
Name Moss as the Homer

[John Boy Saint]

Watching the game on a stream, when Romeu was subbed I thought it was shocking that a manager was forced to change his line up due to the inconsistent actions of the referee. Ronald's post match comments very subtly put his point across where the refs performance was concerned.

[Wes Tender]

Mason, Moss and Friend are all referees whose standard is closer to Sunday Pub matches than PL football.

[rallyboy]

Inconsistency is the worst thing.

 

Get things wrong, yeah, we all make mistakes - but to give different decisions in the same match for similar events suggests you are out of your depth.

And for me too many of our refs are inconsistent.

[Batman]

fair play to the ref at palace for giving watford that penalty. Needs to happen much more often

[Saints foreva]

fair play to the ref at palace for giving watford that penalty. Needs to happen much more often

 

We would be ****ed. Fonte does that on the regular.

[Whitey Grandad]

Mason, Moss and Friend are all referees whose standard is closer to Sunday Pub matches than PL football.

 

That's a gross insult.

 

 

 

To those of us who used to ref the Sunday games

[fanimal]

Clattenburg at it again… never a penalty….would never have given that to us!!!

[beatlesaint]

Clattenburg at it again… never a penalty….would never have given that to us!!!

 

That **** Niall Quinn said before the match that Clattenburg was a top ref and you shouldn't make cheap shots at him......then he does that, gives a pen for a ball that grazes an elbow and Quinn now describes as so so harsh !!!!

[danjosaint]

Mason, Moss and Friend are all referees whose standard is closer to Sunday Pub matches than PL football.

 

Add Roger East to that

[Lets B Avenue]

Mason, Moss and Friend are all referees whose standard is closer to Sunday Pub matches than PL football.

 

Add Roger East to that

 

And Mike Jones makes them look competent.

[Batman]

I heard today that the FA Cup (next season) could trial video technology.

 

UEFA have ruled out touchline/player challenges and instead have a man in a van so to speak, mic'd up to the Ref.

They will only offer assistance when asked or jump in...on 4 types of incidents

 

The last phase of play when a goal is scored

Penalty shouts

Player sendings off/mistaken identity

offsides (i think)

 

the replays used by the man in a van will not be shown on the big screens (if any used at said ground)

 

good move IMO

Edited 4 March, 2016 by Batman

[Shroppie]

I heard today that the FA Cup (next season) could trial video technology.

 

UEFA have ruled out touchline/player challenges and instead have a man in a van so to speak, mic'd up to the Ref.

They will only offer assistance when asked or jump in...on 4 types of incidents

 

The last phase of play when a goal is scored

Penalty shouts

Player sendings off/mistaken identity

offsides (i think)

 

the replays used by the man in a van will not be shown on the big screens (if any used at said ground)

 

good move IMO

Would certainly be step in the right direction

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Yet another terrible decision, a dive by benteke

How long can this go one before TV reviews are used

[Window Cleaner]

Yet another terrible decision, a dive by benteke

How long can this go one before TV reviews are used

 

Next season isn't it?

[Shroppie]

Next season isn't it?

Maybe. But FA Cup only.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Next season isn't it?

 

Don't know but I hope so

[Shance]

Tbf he went to have a word with his linesman who was the one who gave it and it is hard to argue against it. I know it was never a pen but it was so close that in real time no official was going to be able to see it was a dive. Looked stonewall at first.

[Shroppie]

Even Benteke looks embarrassed to have got that decision. And as for Sky pundits. Especially Redknapp.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

[ALWAYS_SFC]

The standard of refereeing is disgraceful and deteriorating game by game

[Shroppie]

What really infuriates me is that, in the incident today there was the faintest accidental contact, but the reasoning is apparently any contact and especially if the player goes down, and it's a legitimate penalty.

 

But at a corner, there can be 50 times the physical contact, shirt pulling and holding, and it's ignored. It's simply not a credible position for refs to be taking.

 

I partly blame the media for perpetuating the idea that you just have to accept what goes on at corners, or with defenders climbing on forwards, yet analysing tackles for the faintest of possible contact.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

[Shroppie]

I must be dreaming. I thought I saw Mata sent off. Surely not.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

[Leicestersaint]

I don't understand why PL referees have become so very bad - I think anyone who wants to be a PL referee should be stopped from being one on the grounds they have the wrong mentality. How can they be so poor?

[rallyboy]

Appalling inconsistency all round at the moment.

It can't all be about shepherding Chelsea and Liverpool up the table, there must be genuine mistakes going on too.

The most obvious decision of the weekend was a second yellow card against a Spurs player.

How did he stay on the pitch?

 

The guys who train refs have many questions to answer as following a decent start to the season with sensible officiating, their members' mistakes are now overshadowing games every week.