Nige, Refs , PGMOL & Yellow cards

[Clutton Caveman]

3 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Just reading the piece by Bristol Live , very interesting. I like that Nige stands up and talks about the standard of Refs, not worrying about fines. Amazing that the Powers that be send 2 notes that don't even agree with each other. The whole thing is a shambles and I can't see it improving for a while. But not even being able to send an explanation letter ? That is pathetic. The whole system needs a massive shake up.
Also, how do you get booked without a reason for it. Surely there would be a report and they couldn't just make up a reason after.

I like the idea of being Mic'd up, though how a Ref would explain guessing a decision as he missed it would be interesting.

Bristol City manager tired of being patronised as he slams inconsistent messages from PGMOL

Nigel Pearson believes the PGMOL and standard of officiating in England remains in turmoil after suggesting Bristol City are being patronised by the regular inconsistencies and mixed messages when explaining in-game decisions.

The officiating was again called into question in Saturday's 2-1 victory over Rotherham United after the visitors were awarded a highly contentious penalty in the second half when Jordan Hugill went down under the soft challenge of Zak Vyner.

It led to Nigel Pearson receiving a yellow card on the touchline for his reaction that had been brewing following decisions which had gone against his side in the first half. City were also denied two spot-kicks from referee Josh Smith when both Sam Bell and Tommy Conway had strong appeals turned down.

"Could’ve, should’ve had a penalty, maybe but again, I get tired of talking about it in all honesty with the inconsistencies," Pearson would say after the game. "We get a penalty turned down and they get one that looks as though the player falls down in installments and he gives it."

Pearson then went into a lengthy tirade regarding the PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Limited) and MOAS (Match Official Administration System) having received two different explanations in the wake of a decision in the 1-0 defeat against Sheffield United.

It occurred in the first half at Bramall Lane when Bell was pulled back marginally outside the area when played through on goal, but referee Geoff Eltringham waved play to continue. Pearson added: "Having said that we received two emails yesterday (Friday) from MOAS which I think are rather embarrassing for them.

"We got one at 14:12 that said that the foul on Sam Bell against Sheffield United there’s a really good case for it being a free-kick and a red card and then half an hour later, we had another one that they’d taken out two paragraphs and put that it was a free-kick and a yellow card.

"They clearly are in turmoil, not only are the officials unclear as to how to officiate games but then the process of how they go through decisions that have either been complained about or people who understand football, like managers and coaches, look at it and I’m not sure they know what they’re doing, to be honest with you.

"The leadership within their group is... wow. Everybody thought Howard Webb would come in and have a positive impact but even in the Premier League, it’s getting things wrong even with VAR.

"The game is in a situation where there needs to be a bit more clarity until the leadership of officiating is improved and we get a consistency of officiating or we’re as coaches or the players are going to end up moaning all the time because it just happens week after week and I’ve said it many times, we’re sick to the back teeth of having these reports come back that just patronise us.

"I got booked and I don’t know what I even got booked for apart from the fourth official basically imploded because he couldn’t deal with anything, and the referee basically came over and gave me a yellow card and didn’t even tell me what it was for so I’m not sure they understand what’s happening in that regard either.

"I just find it laughable in all honesty. They’re irritating, very, very irritating, inconsistent, not good enough and it’s ruining the game.”

Last week, French official Benoit Millot was mic'd up during a top flight game between Lyon and Nantes which received wide praise for the clarity behind the decisions while providing an interesting insight into how officials interact with players.

The decision from the French Football Federation was to "continue to push for the modernisation of the country’s refereeing system". When asked whether the English game would benefit from the introduction of mic'd up refs, Pearson responded: "My answer to the question simply would be yes, I think it would be good for the game.

2 points, how did Hugill get a yellow for the elbow on Vyner. If the ref saw it, it's a red, if he did not he should not have given a yellow. If he was not sure he should have consulted the linesman. This occurred directly in front of us. It was not accidental, Hugill took a look to see Vyner was coming.

2nd point. I think we are trying to dehumanise referees by making them clones. In the past you knew that each ref was a bit different. By and large they made decisions as they saw it under their interpretation. You won some you lost some and just like players you accepted that refs made mistakes. Now we are trying to create a robot ref that has to follow constantly changing and more complex rules (for instance when does the linesman put his flag up). I think the following actions are needed

Get rid of 4th official, we don't have enough refs as it is

Simplify the rules such as handball, grappling at corners and handball.

Allow only the captain to speak to the ref

Strengthen the decent rule

Tell refs to thoroughly learn the rules and apply them to the best of their judgement (accepting they will get some wrong)

Use the linesman more when he has a better view that you.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

Mr Pearson has his perception. You like a stat, how would you measure turmoil? How would you measure the whole thing needs a shake up? What is the it Mr Pearson refers to?

He is criticising refs as irritating, inconsistent, not good enough. All of them? 

Nigel Pearson is sick to the back teeth ... Refs are sick to the back teeth in this Country of the treatment they are receiving. The game is losing by wide margins more refs than it is recruiting. Refs are being attacked, verbally abused consistently across the Country and there is a connection between the disrespect refs receive at the top of the game and the real evidence based turmoil at its grass roots. A grass roots that feeds refs up the pyramid. 

So, no he is not spot on. Mr Pearson may want to think about his words and their consequences. Refs are human, they deserve respect, when you deligitimise and dehumanise refs its become easier to abuse them, including the child refs who are also on the receiving end of abuse .. Mr Pearson is part of that. 

I still think he is spot on.

 

[Cowshed]

6 minutes ago, the1stknowle said:

Where is the abuse? I agree with your general point - and think it applies to some managers, like Warnock (who loads of people on here seem to think is good for the game but I think is pernicious precisely because of the way he treats referees).

But that is different from a very legitimate criticism of the mass of decisions that have gone against us over last few years and the shambolic admin process Nige describes in the article. 

Having elite referees mic'd and with a gopro is a good solution to try to change culture of abuse. Players and many managers would not look good with current behaviour.  Nige is not one of those. If anything, considering some of the penalty decisions, he's been pretty sanguine towards refs.

 

Abuse is bad effect. The bad effect at the games zenith's permeates through football's pyramid.

Mr Pearson legitimate criticisms are opinions. PMGOL ref efficiency favourably with any league in Europe. Ref efficiency is scrutinised and fed back to IFAB, who on occasions will direct FA's etc to intervene in how rules are applied consistently.

Mr Pearson threw in the good old don't know football. Refs cannot progress up the ladder without knowing football. Managers and coaches frequently don't know the rules, and frequently don't know reffing. The consistency argument is used again and again, and by Nigel Pearson. Mr Pearson would loathe refs being consistent over a game that is not. Each scenario is not the same. Game temperature requires differing intervention, and at times differing sanction, the last ten minutes of a game will not be the same as the first,  player behaviour and that match temperature ebbs and flows. 

Masses of decisions .. There is no conspiracy. 

[spudski]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

Mr Pearson has his perception. You like a stat, how would you measure turmoil? How would you measure the whole thing needs a shake up? What is the it Mr Pearson refers to?

He is criticising refs as irritating, inconsistent, not good enough. All of them? 

Nigel Pearson is sick to the back teeth ... Refs are sick to the back teeth in this Country of the treatment they are receiving. The game is losing by wide margins more refs than it is recruiting. Refs are being attacked, verbally abused consistently across the Country and there is a connection between the disrespect refs receive at the top of the game and the real evidence based turmoil at its grass roots. A grass roots that feeds refs up the pyramid. 

So, no he is not spot on. Mr Pearson may want to think about his words and their consequences. Refs are human, they deserve respect, when you deligitimise and dehumanise refs its become easier to abuse them, including the child refs who are also on the receiving end of abuse .. Mr Pearson is part of that. 

NP is frustrated by the regular inconsistencies and mixed messages when being  explained in-game decisions.

As for respect by players on the pitch, isn't it a reflection of society in general these days? Take away discipline in the home and schools, and consequences for actions...is it any surprise? 

I get the impression NP has lost all respect for the referees and authorities they belong to. 

Constant inconsistency with decisions in games, the whole penalty saga,  inconsistent explanations or no explanations. 

It's probably taken its toll. 

Im not saying either are right. 

[sh1t_ref_again]

I think they need to stop trying to give the soft fouls, this would take away a lot of the element of cheating and players going over at the slightest gust of wind. 

We have created a culture where players are looking to create contact or simulate contact or exaggerate the effect of the slightest touch. 

I find it so frustrating when a player waits to just feel a player approach from behind to then chuck himself on the floor like he been shot - stop giving them

Perhaps Tommy was guilty, he felt the player pull his shoulder and chucked himself on the floor, would rather he stayed on his feet and tried to take the shot, Hugils fake impact from Vyner was a joke, but both very soft

Go back to giving a foul when its clear a player has mistimed a challenge and taken a player out not just got to close.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The list of inconsistencies let's be polite and call them that vs us this year alone is staggering. Pearson is spot on and yeah his wider point about the two different sets of feedback for the same incident well that's ludicrous!

Our unlucky 13. 

1. Penalty against us at Hull- WRONG.

2. We can argue about the two we didn't get there, thought they were more debatable. Possibly cost us a point or 3.

3. Bennett v Wigan- Yellow only! Ha you either give nothing if you aren't certain or a red, I struggle to see how you hand out a yellow.

Either way we were a goal up and comfortable albeit early on. Wigan were chasing the game and in that stifling heat it would have out us in a very strong position. Not sure about the penalty however. Ironically Bennett got a red at Birmingham the following week for a lesser offence.

4. Sykes v Luton- Cost us a new signing settling in well for 3 games and forced us back a bit. Unsure about the penalty on Atkinson but had that been given or the two players sandwiching him he would not have made the red card tackle that he did. When he did make it, was Freeman really only worth a yellow.

5 . A tale of two reds- v Sheffield United, Tanner and Norwood- No complaint with the first but Norwood was fortunate. There was a possible penalty about too though maybe was just outside. Played well, should have won anyway.

6. Tale of two penalties- v Watford. As above, played well and probably should've won and the atmosphere was excellent too as we grew into the game the atmosphere grew with it and the two fed off each other, but yeah one clear penalty denied and one possible. Drew.

7. Swansea at home in Cup- Two, maybe three impressive shouts for a penalty denied. Fortunately replay won and it gave Bell a big night with his goal and assist.

8. Blackburn at home- Another fairly clear penalty denied. Drew, played well, Bell was just about offside.

9. Huddersfield away- Weren't they just allowed to kick us quite freely with little comeback first half especially, was it James who got injured there. Point, on balance of play we probably deserved all 3 anyway.

10. Swansea away- Better side probably won overall but another strong penalty shout denied at 1-0.

11. Well maybe maybe not for this and we won anyway but was Weimann absolutely offside at Stoke?

12. Sheffield United away- Bell- Free kick in the edge and yellow or red at 0-0. Might have forced more cautious defending but probably not a game changer unless we score or it's a straight red.

13. Tale of 2, 3 or even 4 penalties v Rotherham- One on Bell, not so sure, Conway certainly and a possible departure of Humphries too if so! Their two, the first was ludicrous, second that wasn't given ironically more of one of the first...but the one on Hugill to be the only one given I dunno.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[elhombrecito]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

Calling a official a cheat is dissent. The sanction will be a yellow, or red card. That is not harsh. 

Whilst you are correct, the only logical explanation I have for the referee's performance is that he is, in fact, a cheat.

[1960maaan]

33 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

2 points, how did Hugill get a yellow for the elbow on Vyner. If the ref saw it, it's a red, if he did not he should not have given a yellow. If he was not sure he should have consulted the linesman. This occurred directly in front of us. It was not accidental, Hugill took a look to see Vyner was coming.

If the Ref saw it as reckless, but not deliberate I guess he saw it as a yellow. We said the same as you at the time

2nd point. I think we are trying to dehumanise referees by making them clones. In the past you knew that each ref was a bit different. By and large they made decisions as they saw it under their interpretation. You won some you lost some and just like players you accepted that refs made mistakes. Now we are trying to create a robot ref that has to follow constantly changing and more complex rules (for instance when does the linesman put his flag up). I think the following actions are needed

I grew up with Clive Thomas, Jack Taylor and the rest , very much characters but seemed to control games better. The big differences are, we can see every mistake from 3 angles, they are put under much more pressure by players and Managers even. It's not clones we need but we have to have similar interpretation . 

Get rid of 4th official, we don't have enough refs as it is

With potentially 12 Subs a game, among other things, we need a 4th official 

Simplify the rules such as handball, grappling at corners and handball.

Totally agree

Allow only the captain to speak to the ref

Yep

Strengthen the decent rule

Tell refs to thoroughly learn the rules and apply them to the best of their judgement (accepting they will get some wrong)

They do , somewhere between knowledge, interpretation and implementation there is a disconnect.

Use the linesman more when he has a better view that you.

This bugs me too. For a while it has looked like some Refs tell the "assistants" to do throws and offsides and nothing else. The best ones are a team of 3 working together. 

 

[the1stknowle]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

Abuse is bad effect. The bad effect at the games zenith's permeates through football's pyramid.

Mr Pearson legitimate criticisms are opinions. PMGOL ref efficiency favourably with any league in Europe. Ref efficiency is scrutinised and fed back to IFAB, who on occasions will direct FA's etc to intervene in how rules are applied consistently.

Mr Pearson threw in the good old don't know football. Refs cannot progress up the ladder without knowing football. Managers and coaches frequently don't know the rules, and frequently don't know reffing. The consistency argument is used again and again, and by Nigel Pearson. Mr Pearson would loathe refs being consistent over a game that is not. Each scenario is not the same. Game temperature requires differing intervention, and at times differing sanction, the last ten minutes of a game will not be the same as the first,  player behaviour and that match temperature ebbs and flows. 

Masses of decisions .. There is no conspiracy. 

Conspiracy is your word. You can have a mass of decisions go against you without a conspiracy. 
 

in fact, because it’s NOT a conspiracy is the point. It’s a lot of objectively bad decisions that warrant genuine criticism. It’s a separate issue from the abuse of refs driving them from the game. 

[Robbored]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

NP is frustrated by the regular inconsistencies and mixed messages when being  explained in-game decisions.

As for respect by players on the pitch, isn't it a reflection of society in general these days? Take away discipline in the home and schools, and consequences for actions...is it any surprise? 

I get the impression NP has lost all respect for the referees and authorities they belong to. 

Constant inconsistency with decisions in games, the whole penalty saga,  inconsistent explanations or no explanations. 

It's probably taken its toll. 

Sweeping statement there Spudski. It’s not that simple

As I recall players have always ‘got at’ referees going back decades. Of course society has changed over time largely down to improving technology like the internet and a plethora of live football on tv and that has exposed some  professional footballers appalling attitudes towards officials.

Those behaviours have been there for donkeys years. Even when I was playing 40+ years ago players were bad mouthing the referees and this was amateur football not exposed to millions on tv.

No way am I suggesting that it’s right of course but when players are involved in any match they’re psychology changes to ultra competitiveness that can’t always be controlled.

[luke_bristol]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

Abuse is bad effect. The bad effect at the games zenith's permeates through football's pyramid.

Mr Pearson legitimate criticisms are opinions. PMGOL ref efficiency favourably with any league in Europe. Ref efficiency is scrutinised and fed back to IFAB, who on occasions will direct FA's etc to intervene in how rules are applied consistently.

Mr Pearson threw in the good old don't know football. Refs cannot progress up the ladder without knowing football. Managers and coaches frequently don't know the rules, and frequently don't know reffing. The consistency argument is used again and again, and by Nigel Pearson. Mr Pearson would loathe refs being consistent over a game that is not. Each scenario is not the same. Game temperature requires differing intervention, and at times differing sanction, the last ten minutes of a game will not be the same as the first,  player behaviour and that match temperature ebbs and flows. 

Masses of decisions .. There is no conspiracy. 

Do you think this is incompetence or the referees doing a good job?

[spudski]

36 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Sweeping statement there Spudski. It’s not that simple

As I recall players have always ‘got at’ referees going back decades. Of course society has changed over time largely down to improving technology like the internet and a plethora of live football on tv and that has exposed some  professional footballers appalling attitudes towards officials.

Those behaviours have been there for donkeys years. Even when I was playing 40+ years ago players were bad mouthing the referees and this was amateur football not exposed to millions on tv.

No way am I suggesting that it’s right of course but when players are involved in any match they’re psychology changes to ultra competitiveness that can’t always be controlled.

So with that in mind...why is it that Rugby players can control their emotions and be respectful to the ref? 

Why is it that football is probably the most disrespectful of all sports across the world? 

Perhaps growing up, children have watched football over the years, and seen it was normal behaviour to treat refs so poorly...add that to a society with no discipline and no consequences and we are now like we are. 

Some thoughts on this link. 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2395419-is-there-anything-wrong-with-how-footballers-treat-referees

Edited April 24, 2023 by spudski

[Robbored]

4 minutes ago, spudski said:

So with that in mind...why is it that Rugby players can control their emotions and be respectful to the ref? 

Why is it that football is probably the most disrespectful of all sports across the world? 

That’s a good question Spudski

The old saying of football being a gentleman’s game played by thugs and rugby is a thugs game played by gentlemen has an element of truth to it.

Rugby came into being around 1825 and football just 20 years later and in Victorian times society was immensely different to nowadays.

The difference between the two must be the rules of each sport. Rugby got it right and football didn’t. Plus back then rugby was played at more prestigious schools with better education curriculums and fewer working class pupils. However that’s not the case theses days of course.

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, Robbored said:

That’s a good question Spudski

The old saying of football being a gentleman’s game played by thugs and rugby is a thugs game played by gentlemen has an element of truth to it.

Rugby came into being around 1825 and football just 20 years later and in Victorian times society was immensely different to nowadays.

The difference between the two must be the rules of each sport. Rugby got it right and football didn’t. Plus back then rugby was played at more prestigious schools with better education curriculums and fewer working class pupils. However that’s not the case theses days of course.

I edited my response when you were probably replying. In the link it speaks about the difference. 

[TedsHeadIs Red]

What would Nige say if really poor refereeing decisions were consistently made in our favour? 

[Major Isewater]

21 minutes ago, TedsHeadIs Red said:

What would Nige say if really poor refereeing decisions were consistently made in our favour? 

I think it would offend his sense of justice and fair play. I really don’t believe that Nigel is a ‘ win at all costs ‘ merchant. He wants to be successful in the right way like Brian Clough was. 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, the1stknowle said:

Conspiracy is your word. You can have a mass of decisions go against you without a conspiracy. 
 

in fact, because it’s NOT a conspiracy is the point. It’s a lot of objectively bad decisions that warrant genuine criticism. It’s a separate issue from the abuse of refs driving them from the game. 

Boom  

[Davefevs]

Just watched red zone….Belly’s was a stonewall penalty, let alone Conway’s!

[Sweeneys Penalties]

55 minutes ago, Robbored said:

That’s a good question Spudski

The old saying of football being a gentleman’s game played by thugs and rugby is a thugs game played by gentlemen has an element of truth to it.

Rugby came into being around 1825 and football just 20 years later and in Victorian times society was immensely different to nowadays.

The difference between the two must be the rules of each sport. Rugby got it right and football didn’t. Plus back then rugby was played at more prestigious schools with better education curriculums and fewer working class pupils. However that’s not the case theses days of course.

I have a recollection of Football trying to introduce the "immediately retreat 10 yards" legislation. It didn't last 10 minutes as the Argentines claimed they couldn't understand it. Oddly The Pumas do

[The Bard]

Pet subject for me is the Rugby /football comparison when it comes to referees.  It is no surprise that the experiment with mic'ing up officials has happened in France.  They play Rugby in France too and clearly their football/referee governance isn't as corrupt/shambolic (delete as appropriate) as it is in this country.  

There are obvious advantages to mic'ing up referees. 

1.  The viewing public know what is actually going on.

2.  Referees will actually learn from their mistakes.  There's no hiding place when everyone can see/hear how you have made decisions. It is the process of decision making which is normally at fault.

3.  It will educate supporters and pundits about the actual rules/laws.

4.  It will lead to greater respect for referees. Behaviour from players and managers will immediately be moderated. This matters hugely, especially in grassroots football. 

5.  It will make grassroots referees better as they will see more of how decisions are made at the highest level.

 

[The Bard]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

That’s a good question Spudski

The old saying of football being a gentleman’s game played by thugs and rugby is a thugs game played by gentlemen has an element of truth to it.

Rugby came into being around 1825 and football just 20 years later and in Victorian times society was immensely different to nowadays.

The difference between the two must be the rules of each sport. Rugby got it right and football didn’t. Plus back then rugby was played at more prestigious schools with better education curriculums and fewer working class pupils. However that’s not the case theses days of course.

I need to pick this to pieces. You're both wrong and right.
You're trying to lay this at the door of class - the English disease.  That's rubbish.  Football and rugby are played in other countries.  Ones not so obsessed with gentleman and players and that hypocritical Victorian horseshit.    

1.  The rugby referee actually runs the game.  They have a massive influence on it compared to a football referee. The referee for Brighton v Man U on Sunday made virtually no difference to the game did he? Refs at our level only do if they are incompetent.  There are parts of rugby (eg the breakdown) that come down to how the referee views it. Get that and scrums wrong and you're likely to lose.

2. Rugby is physically violent and knackering, especially if you're a forward.  It's difficult to shout at someone if you're talking to your ancestors as Max Lahiff put it.

3. Role of the captain.  Rugby refs communicate with captains. I don't get why the same thing doesn't happen in football.  Just need to flash yellow cards around to stop the ref being surrounded.

4. Rules of rugby allow refs to punish the team for poor behaviour.  March them back 10 metres.  Football needs to do the same

Edited April 24, 2023 by The Bard

[bexhill reds]

Let’s hope Nige isn’t watching the referee performance in the Luton v Boro game. 2 shocking decisions gifting Luton goals. Dreadful performance.

[Malago]

Luton v Boro

Another awful pen decision 

 

[Northern Red]

I'm surprised the Boro keeper didn't kick up more of a fuss.

[CodeRed]

Oh dear, watching Luton v Boro......the Luton player is running onto a through ball, keeper comes out and makes no contact at all with the Luton player who simply stumbled to the ground and the ref gives.....a penalty. Luton player clearly goes down without any contract whatsoever.

Var would instantly overrule that decision .

[Markthehorn]

4 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

Oh dear, watching Luton v Boro......the Luton player is running onto a through ball, keeper comes out and makes no contact at all with the Luton player who simply stumbled to the ground and the ref gives.....a penalty. Luton player clearly goes down without any contract whatsoever.

Var would instantly overrule that decision .

You'd think so but never know with VAR!

Hopefully Luton don't get such luck in the play-offs.

There is no real trust in the officials and VAR really I feel now. 

As for dissent/time wasting - that needs to be dealt with quicker or consistency then players might learn their lessons. 

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by Markthehorn

[Rob k]

Talking of decisions - on Sat we had a breakaway near the end of the game before we scored, for some reason the ref gave a free kick to Rotherham and i think Weiman got booked, iM still absolutely baffled as to what the free kick was given for? Anyone else know?

Edited April 24, 2023 by Rob k

[BCFC11]

13 minutes ago, Malago said:

Luton v Boro

Another awful pen decision 

 

It’s also the Ref who denied us 2/3 pens in our FA Cup game at AG v Swansea.

So inconsistent it’s unreal.

Edited April 24, 2023 by BCFC11

[Northern Red]

2 minutes ago, BCFC11 said:

It’s also the Ref who denied us 2/3 pens in our FA Cup game at AG v Swansea.

So inconsistent it’s unreal.

It's not him, that was Craig Pawson, who then did the Brighton-Man Utd semi yesterday.

[BCFC11]

1 minute ago, Northern Red said:

It's not him, that was Craig Pawson, who then did the Brighton-Man Utd semi yesterday.

Sorry you’re correct, they are all shit I get confused.