The Ref

[Fuber]

20 hours ago, The Original OTIB said:

Yellow for Zak utterly bizarre

It was the three following Soton fouls by Armstrong (twice) and Mara had me tilting my head in confusion like A German Shepherd.

[hertsexile]

There were some very odd decisions, still bewildered by Zak’s yellow for a perfectly good tackle! Yet Walker-Peter’s got away with equally if not worst tackles on Bell and Mehmeti. Also he waved play on for a so called advantage less than a minute at most but failed to bring back for a foul he had acknowledged. Allowing Southampton to go on the counter. Overall there were some very odd decisions. Yet we won so it didn’t matter in the end. 
However this seems to be par for course when referees turn up at Ashton Gate inconsistency takes centre stage

[Portland Bill]

19 hours ago, Cityboy1954 said:

He was pathetic must of new saints players by their first names .

A referee will ( when he can ) talk to players on first name terms, it’s all about building up a rapport with the players. 
As for the Vyner challenge that earned him a yellow, a close up camera angle showed he didn’t actually touch him. 

Did the referee get this close up camera view… no, but because people on here did, then they blame the referee. 

There are so many experts at officiating on here, that I’m amazed we have a referee shortage in this country….

[Sheltons Army]

2 hours ago, Maltshoveller said:

It was blatant but the ref couldnt of pointed to the spot any quicker

Im sure he pointed to the spot before the soton player had even hit the deck

In fairness Arry did volley him a few feet in the air

[Cityboy1954]

3 hours ago, Portland Bill said:

A referee will ( when he can ) talk to players on first name terms, it’s all about building up a rapport with the players. 
As for the Vyner challenge that earned him a yellow, a close up camera angle showed he didn’t actually touch him. 

Did the referee get this close up camera view… no, but because people on here did, then they blame the referee. 

There are so many experts at officiating on here, that I’m amazed we have a referee shortage in this country….

Im on about the challenges that saints players were getting away with endless times before any of their players were booked just wondering did you go to the game or watch it on t.v ?

[Portland Bill]

8 hours ago, Cityboy1954 said:

Im on about the challenges that saints players were getting away with endless times before any of their players were booked just wondering did you go to the game or watch it on t.v ?

Committing a foul is not always a yellow card offence. I didn’t see any particular foul that they were “getting away” with and not getting carded.

Both teams received 2 yellows each, which seemed fine imo. 
I watched it on tv thanks. Do you referee often ?. 

[1960maaan]

1 minute ago, Portland Bill said:

Committing a foul is not always a yellow card offence. I didn’t see any particular foul that they were “getting away” with and not getting carded.

Both teams received 2 yellows each, which seemed fine imo. 
I watched it on tv thanks. Do you referee often ?. 

It wasn't fouls as in poor challenges that got me, but the "professional" fouls. Shirt pulling and stopping a break without challenging for the ball is always a card, they got away with 4 . Then add the 2 dodgy "tackles" that he waved play on but looked confused to who committed them when play stopped.
If you want another, late on I think it was McCrorie cleaned their player out with the ball gone, we just burst out laughing when he waved play on. Definite foul and possible booking, by that time I think he'd given up 
His performance went from OK to clueless through the game.

[cidered abroad]

13 hours ago, hertsexile said:

There were some very odd decisions, still bewildered by Zak’s yellow for a perfectly good tackle! Yet Walker-Peter’s got away with equally if not worst tackles on Bell and Mehmeti. Also he waved play on for a so called advantage less than a minute at most but failed to bring back for a foul he had acknowledged. Allowing Southampton to go on the counter. Overall there were some very odd decisions. Yet we won so it didn’t matter in the end. 
However this seems to be par for course when referees turn up at Ashton Gate inconsistency takes centre stage

That "advantage" was less than 10/15 seconds so should have given the free kick to City.

Even though we won, all these incorrect decisions do matter. They alter the flow of the game, upset the players concentration and generally give the points to the best cheating team.

[cidered abroad]

22 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

Committing a foul is not always a yellow card offence. I didn’t see any particular foul that they were “getting away” with and not getting carded.

Both teams received 2 yellows each, which seemed fine imo. 
I watched it on tv thanks. Do you referee often ?. 

It's the simple fouls of shirt pulling and innocuous ankle taps when a team is breaking out of their own defensive area and can threaten a speedy break on opposing goal. None of them are dangerous like causing injury, neither are they last man/red cards. Simply to allow them to organise their defence.

In other words CHEATING.

[Cityboy1954]

1 hour ago, Portland Bill said:

Committing a foul is not always a yellow card offence. I didn’t see any particular foul that they were “getting away” with and not getting carded.

Both teams received 2 yellows each, which seemed fine imo. 
I watched it on tv thanks. Do you referee often ?. 

Thats why you didnt get a true reflection of the game read other comments on this page most agree with me he was useless and so was his linesman just favour the big prem teams or ex .

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

14 hours ago, Sheltons Army said:

In fairness Arry did volley him a few feet in the air

If he'd have caught him in the ass then he would have been Southampton net

[Portland Bill]

2 hours ago, Cityboy1954 said:

Thats why you didnt get a true reflection of the game read other comments on this page most agree with me he was useless and so was his linesman just favour the big prem teams or ex .

“He was useless” ok mate

When will you be showing us show it’s done then?. 
Seriously, what do you want out of the officials, other than giving every decision City’s way. It’s boring now seeing the officials slagged off continuously. 
If you think you could do better, then go for it, get your black kit on, then tell us when you do your first game!. 

[Portland Bill]

4 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

It's the simple fouls of shirt pulling and innocuous ankle taps when a team is breaking out of their own defensive area and can threaten a speedy break on opposing goal. None of them are dangerous like causing injury, neither are they last man/red cards. Simply to allow them to organise their defence.

In other words CHEATING.

Cheating by whom, the players. 

You want every foul to be a yellow card then. I’m sure referees would like to oblige, but then you would say the ref spoilt the game when it’s 8 v 8.

 

 

[Portland Bill]

4 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

It wasn't fouls as in poor challenges that got me, but the "professional" fouls. Shirt pulling and stopping a break without challenging for the ball is always a card, they got away with 4 . Then add the 2 dodgy "tackles" that he waved play on but looked confused to who committed them when play stopped.
If you want another, late on I think it was McCrorie cleaned their player out with the ball gone, we just burst out laughing when he waved play on. Definite foul and possible booking, by that time I think he'd given up 
His performance went from OK to clueless through the game.

The ref is clueless, but you know everything…ok!. 

Perhaps you should carry a whistle and referee from the Dolman!. 
 

[1960maaan]

8 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

The ref is clueless, but you know everything…ok!. 

Perhaps you should carry a whistle and referee from the Dolman!. 
 

Sounds like you're having a bad day.

What was wrong in my post ?
99 times out of a hundred shirt pulls or stopping breaks illegally are bookings. He pulled them up about 4 times and never gave one Yellow. 
He waved play on twice, one lasted a second or two. He didn't even speak to anyone let alone book them . It looked like he didn't know who committed one of the fouls as he pointed and seemed to chat on his Mic , then shrug . 
How he never gave a freekick against us for that late challenge I don't know, and when fans burst out laughing you know something is wrong. 
All of that is factual , it happened. Only the Ref knows what he was thinking .
I didn't criticise the Vyner one because from the Lansdown I didn't see it, even then he might have thought Vyner made contact as the player went down . 

I am biased , at the time I will probably call for loads that are wrong, but going back and watching the game again I still don't understand what he was up to a lot of the time.

Anyway , hope your day gets better.
 

[transfer reader]

5 hours ago, Portland Bill said:

Committing a foul is not always a yellow card offence. I didn’t see any particular foul that they were “getting away” with and not getting carded.

Both teams received 2 yellows each, which seemed fine imo. 
I watched it on tv thanks. Do you referee often ?. 

There was a very clear one where we had a 5v3 and Bednarek (I think) just stepped up and bodychecked. No intent at playing the ball. It was as blatant a booking as you could get and the ref didn't go back to book him.

[Back of the Dolman]

1 minute ago, transfer reader said:

There was a very clear one where we had a 5v3 and Bednarek (I think) just stepped up and bodychecked. No intent at playing the ball. It was as blatant a booking as you could get and the ref didn't go back to book him.

If I recall that was the one where he played advantage but there was no real advantage.

Even the Sky commentators were bemused that Bednarek wasn’t pulled up for it 

[Back of the Dolman]

Just now, Back of the Dolman said:

If I recall that was the one where he played advantage but there was no real advantage.

Even the Sky commentators were bemused that Bednarek wasn’t pulled up for it 

To add to that, a booking would have seen Bednarek suspended for the next game so these things although small do change games or even future games.

[Davefevs]

55 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Sounds like you're having a bad day.

What was wrong in my post ?
99 times out of a hundred shirt pulls or stopping breaks illegally are bookings. He pulled them up about 4 times and never gave one Yellow. 
He waved play on twice, one lasted a second or two. He didn't even speak to anyone let alone book them . It looked like he didn't know who committed one of the fouls as he pointed and seemed to chat on his Mic , then shrug . 
How he never gave a freekick against us for that late challenge I don't know, and when fans burst out laughing you know something is wrong. 
All of that is factual , it happened. Only the Ref knows what he was thinking .
I didn't criticise the Vyner one because from the Lansdown I didn't see it, even then he might have thought Vyner made contact as the player went down . 

I am biased , at the time I will probably call for loads that are wrong, but going back and watching the game again I still don't understand what he was up to a lot of the time.

Anyway , hope your day gets better.
 

Yes, a classic case of inconsistency / failure to follow the guidelines.  Only Mr Donohue will know whether his leniency to give yellow cards for a few fouls was down to ex-PL / big-club bias.

[Ian M]

28 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, a classic case of inconsistency / failure to follow the guidelines.  Only Mr Donohue will know whether his leniency to give yellow cards for a few fouls was down to ex-PL / big-club bias.

I don't think any match officials adopt conscious biases but I do think they are subject to unconscious biases in favour of the perceived better teams/players.

[Cityboy1954]

10 hours ago, Portland Bill said:

“He was useless” ok mate

When will you be showing us show it’s done then?. 
Seriously, what do you want out of the officials, other than giving every decision City’s way. It’s boring now seeing the officials slagged off continuously. 
If you think you could do better, then go for it, get your black kit on, then tell us when you do your first game!. 

Oh ffs keep watching the t.v .

[Cityboy1954]

15 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

It wasn't fouls as in poor challenges that got me, but the "professional" fouls. Shirt pulling and stopping a break without challenging for the ball is always a card, they got away with 4 . Then add the 2 dodgy "tackles" that he waved play on but looked confused to who committed them when play stopped.
If you want another, late on I think it was McCrorie cleaned their player out with the ball gone, we just burst out laughing when he waved play on. Definite foul and possible booking, by that time I think he'd given up 
His performance went from OK to clueless through the game.

Spot on hope portland bill reads,this :laugh:.

[Back of the Dolman]

Just now, Cityboy1954 said:

Spot on hope portland bill reads,this :laugh:.

I’ll agree with you to that there were numerous fouls which broke up attacks which were worthy of a yellow card and more often than not now are dealt with by the referee with that result.

[Cityboy1954]

10 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Sounds like you're having a bad day.

What was wrong in my post ?
99 times out of a hundred shirt pulls or stopping breaks illegally are bookings. He pulled them up about 4 times and never gave one Yellow. 
He waved play on twice, one lasted a second or two. He didn't even speak to anyone let alone book them . It looked like he didn't know who committed one of the fouls as he pointed and seemed to chat on his Mic , then shrug . 
How he never gave a freekick against us for that late challenge I don't know, and when fans burst out laughing you know something is wrong. 
All of that is factual , it happened. Only the Ref knows what he was thinking .
I didn't criticise the Vyner one because from the Lansdown I didn't see it, even then he might have thought Vyner made contact as the player went down . 

I am biased , at the time I will probably call for loads that are wrong, but going back and watching the game again I still don't understand what he was up to a lot of the time.

Anyway , hope your day gets better.
 

Thats what comes from watching it on the telly

[NOTBLUE]

There were 3 or 4 occasions in the second half, when the ball went out of play on the Dolman side of the ground, where  the Ref looked at the linesman, and the linesman looked at the Ref,they didn’t have a clue and the Ref just seemed to guess who’s throw in it was,and gave every one of them to them.

[italian dave]

8 minutes ago, NOTBLUE said:

There were 3 or 4 occasions in the second half, when the ball went out of play on the Dolman side of the ground, where  the Ref looked at the linesman, and the linesman looked at the Ref,they didn’t have a clue and the Ref just seemed to guess who’s throw in it was,and gave every one of them to them.

Two of those the ref did that little signal to the linesman, pointing the way he felt it should go, and the linesman promptly flagged the other way!

It’s fair enough if neither know for sure, but I always thought that if that was the case then they should give the benefit to the defending team. That didn’t happen either. 

[elhombrecito]

On 15/02/2024 at 09:04, cidered abroad said:

That "advantage" was less than 10/15 seconds so should have given the free kick to City.

Even though we won, all these incorrect decisions do matter. They alter the flow of the game, upset the players concentration and generally give the points to the best cheating team.

Are you honestly suggesting that referees should wait up to 10-15 seconds before pulling play back? That's a ridiculously long amount of time - this isn't rugby.

Personally, I feel the ref got the advantage decision correct (if we're talking about the same incident). The ball got to the intended target, Mehmeti, who then lost the ball, which had nothing to do with the original foul. 

There was another one though, where he played advantage and then should have booked Smallbone once played had stopped, but for some reason decided not to.

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, elhombrecito said:

Personally, I feel the ref got the advantage decision correct (if we're talking about the same incident). The ball got to the intended target, Mehmeti, who then lost the ball, which had nothing to do with the original foul. 

But if the player hadn’t fouled Conway, Conway would’ve been a passing option for Mehmeti.  

[1960maaan]

23 minutes ago, elhombrecito said:

Personally, I feel the ref got the advantage decision correct (if we're talking about the same incident). The ball got to the intended target, Mehmeti, who then lost the ball, which had nothing to do with the original foul. 

But isn't that the advantage rule in a nutshell. You are allowed to play on but if there proves no advantage it called back. We were given about a seconds advantage. 

The rule says;

The referee signals advantage by extending one or both arms forward at shoulder height.

He didn't seem to that properly , so I was confused if it was advantage or he didn't think it was a foul.

The referee can wait a few seconds to allow a possible advantage to develop, and if the non-offending team does not benefit and gains no advantage, the original free kick can be given. However, the non-offending team should not be given two chances, e.g. a player is fouled but recovers and has a shot at goal; if the player does not score, the referee cannot go back and give a free kick for the original offence.

He gave us enough time for Mehmeti to control the ball and get tackled , I'd say that it was a perfect time to pull it back.

[transfer reader]

One of the 'issues' (also a benefit at times) with the advantage rule is how nebulous it is.

What one referee will deem to be enough time another one won't, what one will consider an advantage another one won't.

 

If a team gets an additional 5 yards down the pitch, but the ball is suddenly out on the wing instead of fairly central (think a tackle where the defender goes through a player then hits the ball) and with a defender close by, how advantageous is that?

If the ball goes 5 yards back from the tackle to a player for the attacking side, a quarterback type pass is immediately played and doesnt come off, is that the advantage wasted? What if the player making it is being rapidly closed down, so forced into that as their only option?