Red_Mat Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Good game yes but wouldn't say he let the game flow. Very whistle happy imo. For example, think back to when Byfield was miles offside and he just flicked it, and it ran through to Weale. Instead of waving play on he made sure the free kick was taken. Only a little thing but just backing up my point... The linesman signalled, and Byfield had kicked the ball - what choice is the ref left with?! Technically, it is a free-kick... Maybe he was a bit whistle happy, but a good game none-the-less. I thought he did a fantastic job, and could easily have ruined the game by sending off Orr and Sullivan, but used common sense and let the game flow. A good telling off to Bradders and a little word with his captain meant a substitution at half-time, and although technically he could have sent Sullivan off for tripping Maynard - it was a clear goal-scoring opportunity - he just booked him, which was fair for the foul considering they were facing a penalty anyway. It makes a change to hear some positive comments about him on here, as opposed to some of the racist comments I was hearing in the Atyeo around me. Seems some of us can accept black players in our teams, but still can't accept Asian refs officiating at our games..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red_Mat Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 thought the guy had a good game,it doesnt seem that anyone else noticed that when sullivan brought down maynard he wasnt the last man, one of there defenders was running back near to the goal line,so was the correct decision. There's no such ruling as 'the last man'. If you read the rules, you'll see that the words 'last man' do not appear at all. The correct ruling that it would appear under would be, did he deny the striker of a direct goal scoring opportunity? The answer was yes, so technically he could have sent him off. But I felt he made the right decision to just award a booking. It wasn't deliberate, just clumsy, and wasn't violent. And a penalty was enough to face. Apart from that, yes he had a very good game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherErnieFromBarrowGurney Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 there are sikhs in ireland you know,or are you just too ignorant to believe this fact. its people like you who are dragging the game back 20 years. :noexpression: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevep38 Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 I sit in the Atyeo, and if I heard that I certainly wouldn't be laughing I don't know why a fuss is made over 1 comment, i think people shouldnt be over sensitive about it, if i said to a scottish person, go eat a haggis does that make me a racist, no it doesnt, in fact i married a scot, people should learn to lighten up and take it in the manner it was probably intended as a joke that doesnt mean anything, its getting to the stage that you cant say anything without the liberal lefty hand wringing brigade jumping in. I also thought the ref had a cracking game and yes he is the spit of monty panesar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Watts Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 There's no such ruling as 'the last man'. If you read the rules, you'll see that the words 'last man' do not appear at all. The correct ruling that it would appear under would be, did he deny the striker of a direct goal scoring opportunity? The answer was yes, so technically he could have sent him off. But I felt he made the right decision to just award a booking. It wasn't deliberate, just clumsy, and wasn't violent. And a penalty was enough to face. Apart from that, yes he had a very good game. And even if the "last man" rule did exist, the guy being back on the line would have meant nothing after he'd gone past the keeper there was one person between him and the goal. If he'd been brought down by the "last defender" whilst running through, there would still have been only one man between him and a goal and therefore should have walked. Anyhow....the ref (rightfully) pointed out that Maynard had pushed it quite far/wide and therefore it wasn't a clear goalscoring chance that was denied and a yellow was the correct decision. I agree though that overall he had a very good game. Didn't find him too whistle happy. I did feel that being so early in the game he could have just spoken to Bradders rather than book him - he set a precedent for himself by showing a card and there were worse tackles that he kept his card in his pocket for. But kudos to him as someone else has mentioned for calling Carey over and telling him to get that "good Christian boy" to behave! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Man Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 There's no such ruling as 'the last man'. If you read the rules, you'll see that the words 'last man' do not appear at all. The correct ruling that it would appear under would be, did he deny the striker of a direct goal scoring opportunity? The answer was yes, so technically he could have sent him off. But I felt he made the right decision to just award a booking. It wasn't deliberate, just clumsy, and wasn't violent. And a penalty was enough to face. Apart from that, yes he had a very good game. I am sorry, you have got this wrong. It says in the law book that if an opponent DOGSO the player will be sent from the field of play. If the penalty had been missed you would soon suggest it was unfair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdgifford64 Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 I am sorry, you have got this wrong. It says in the law book that if an opponent DOGSO the player will be sent from the field of play. If the penalty had been missed you would soon suggest it was unfair! I wouldn`t have thought that was legal in your own home never mind a public place. PDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottMurray23 Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 The only thing I have to say on this bloke that was referring today was he did let the game flow at times although from listening to The Game on the Radio and from The Report My Parents Gave Me Live From The Atyeo Stand via Txt Message was after Nick Maynard was brought down there should have been some form of Yellow or Red Card given and there was nothink done about it and the same bloke who brough Nicky Maynard down made a couple of bad tackles and made a lot of bad decisions during the match so he should have been taken off.The Crowd were very loud and Radio Bristol were very proud of the lads from City's turn around today during the whole game,they said they played with heart,passion and soul yesturday,lets just hope this atmosphere stays at the ground and our Winning Streak continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomRitchie'sBoots Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Thought Singh was v.good overall, particularly trying to play the advantage - penalty best example. Was a bit harsh with the booking on Orr but after think Johnson was right to take Bradley off as he appeared to be heading towards the red mist. As for the 'go for a curry' reference then yes it is racist as it was obviously intended to make reference to his percieved race - and as for the 'I was just laughing at it' comment, well by doing that you are condoning it. I was a bit bemused by the reference to the 'bottle' of the bloke that said it - how much bottle does it take to sink to lowest common denominator comments. Most of all though it's just a bit old and tired isn't it? It's 2008 not the 70's, thought we'd moved on. Most people would be embarrassed to have thought it or laughed at it, let alone said it.... I suppose though as curry is probably the most popular dish in the UK perhaps he was shouting it at anyone out on the pitch..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red_Mat Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 I am sorry, you have got this wrong. It says in the law book that if an opponent DOGSO the player will be sent from the field of play. If the penalty had been missed you would soon suggest it was unfair! I'd argue with you, if I knew what you were trying to say..... To be honest, no I wouldn't have suggested it would have been unfair if we'd missed. The penalty was the result of the foul. That was enough and there's a high percentage we'll score that. Playing against 10 men if we've missed the penalty does not 'make up' for that. Besides, the sending off is not made as any sort of 'guarantee of victory', it is done if the offence warrants it, and this didn't. Anyway, as we found out earlier this season playing 10 men doesn't mean we'll win! We played 45 mins against 10 men and still couldn't score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozo Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 He made a couple of dodgy ones, but then he's a ref ain't he. He was spot on with Orr and playing on for the penalty, which were the two biggest decisions to take so well done sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Fair play to the ref yesterday. He's been dodgy of late at AG, but yesterday was the best refereeing performance I've seen in years. Worth a mention I thought. Strange some people thought he had a clanger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 I agree. I thought he was consistant, tried to let the game flow and judged the yellow cards just right. Anyone who thought he was poor should remember some of the shocking refs we've had to suffer both home and away and make a comparison. One of the better ref's we've seen at AG in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 I thought the referee today was very inconsistant. During the first half there were numerous occasions where we were breaking and our players were brought down and no card was given!! Whereas Bradley was a little late on his first tackle in the middle of the pitch with Doncaster going no where and he books Orr! Also Sullivan should have been off after bringing down Maynard! He clearly explained that the ball was goin well wide of the goal, so it wasnt a red, good reffing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Just saw other thread, duh. Merge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim S Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 When I had seen that a Mr Singh was the referee my heart sank becuase I'm sure there used to be an indian ref called Harpal Singh (correct me if I'm wrong) and I remember he was the worst ref I have ever seen.... but apart from the same sirname, it wasnt the same ref - thankfully! I actually thought the ref had a good game compared to some of the awful twits we have seen at Ashton Gate in recent times. If I really had to be picky then I could say that he was a little fussy at times, but overall he seemed to try to let the game flow as much as possible. Yes there were a couple of questionable decisions but when a ref has an overall good game then I don't mind if the ref makes a couple of human errors. Anyway - no matter what the ref was like, at least we didnt have the officials at the Watford/Reading game! Thats hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BITW Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Monty Panesar anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name Posted September 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 When I had seen that a Mr Singh was the referee my heart sank becuase I'm sure there used to be an indian ref called Harpal Singh (correct me if I'm wrong) and I remember he was the worst ref I have ever seen.... but apart from the same sirname, it wasnt the same ref - thankfully! I actually thought the ref had a good game compared to some of the awful twits we have seen at Ashton Gate in recent times. If I really had to be picky then I could say that he was a little fussy at times, but overall he seemed to try to let the game flow as much as possible. Yes there were a couple of questionable decisions but when a ref has an overall good game then I don't mind if the ref makes a couple of human errors. Anyway - no matter what the ref was like, at least we didnt have the officials at the Watford/Reading game! Thats hilarious! I know what you are saying elf, but Harpal Singh was the winger we had on loan from Leeds a few years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Man Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 I know what you are saying elf, but Harpal Singh was the winger we had on loan from Leeds a few years back. The ref was actually called Gurnham Singh (Wolverhampton). I believe he took the Premier League to court for discrimination. He believed that he was 'held' back because of racism. He duly 'hung up' his whistle because of this. I will admit that after watching the incident on TV tonight, the ref got the penalty and caution right. At first I thought he should have sent the keeper off. I apologise to all those who disagreed with me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim S Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 The ref was actually called Gurnham Singh (Wolverhampton). I believe he took the Premier League to court for discrimination. He believed that he was 'held' back because of racism. He duly 'hung up' his whistle because of this. I will admit that after watching the incident on TV tonight, the ref got the penalty and caution right. At first I thought he should have sent the keeper off. I apologise to all those who disagreed with me! Ah yes - Gurnham Singh - I knew it was something Singh - so Harpal must have been in my head from that player! Well to be fair to the FA (or Premier League - whoever he sued), I wouldnt have thought there was any discrimination for racism in that case..... if he was denied getting any further in his career as a referee, from what I had seen of him it had nothing to do with race - it was purely becuase he was just crap! Now as for the ref we had yesterday, Mr J Singh..... if he carries on performing like that on a regular basis and doesnt make the Premier League then he might have reason to ask questions. Now Ive said that - we will have him again at some point this season and he will have a shocker knowing our luck!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freemantle 27 Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 Monty Panesar anyone? WOA that is almost unbelievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but I thought the ref today was excellent. I remember Mr. Singh from a few years ago as being very unsure of himself, and inconsistant. Today he had control of the game throughout, and was authoratative in his decisions, and let the game flow when it needed it, hence the foul just before the penalty. I thought the ref was excellent as well, I was pleased with the way he played advantage and let the game flow and he also didn't allow anyone to take liberties with the positioning of set pieces and walls which most referees aren't too hot on. The penalty decision was correct as was not sending the keeper off in my opinion because the likelihood of keeping control of the ball (which was going out of play at pace) is a factor in that decision. It was an honest attempt at a tackle/save rather than a deliberate cynical foul so I prefer the referee to interpret the rules as meaning a yellow in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bh_red Posted September 22, 2008 Report Share Posted September 22, 2008 The ref was actually called Gurnham Singh (Wolverhampton). I believe he took the Premier League to court for discrimination. He believed that he was 'held' back because of racism. He duly 'hung up' his whistle because of this. I will admit that after watching the incident on TV tonight, the ref got the penalty and caution right. At first I thought he should have sent the keeper off. I apologise to all those who disagreed with me! I remember him, we thought the same thing when the ref came out on saturday. Gurnham Singh was without doubt the worst ref I've ever seen, he made Uriah Rennie look like Collinia. I remember the discrimination case, I recall pretty much everyone saying on various forums, it was nothing to do with his colour, it was just because he was crap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.