Newcastle vs Liverpool

[RefereeX]

For as much as @RustyRef and to a degree, myself @DavidObs and others have a default setting to support the referee, there are others who do seem to have a default mode to look for fault / criticise…
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it would be wrong for someone on one side to think the opposite side are the only ones who don't look neutrally at stuff.

 

[Kes]

Can you translate this for me please.

Yes my Aussie chum. It means a replay shown without slo mo.

 

[one]

Yes my Aussie chum. It means a replay shown without slo mo.

Right. I thought I was looking at Aussie dictionary but then i saw it says "Oxford"

 

[RefereeX]

I believe if we substitute the words 'real time' for 'full speed', all will be clear...

Similarly, if Australia substitute 7 new batsmen in to their test team, they'll give themselves a chance in the ashes.

 

[Kes]

Right. I thought I was looking at Aussie dictionary but then i saw it says "Oxford"

View attachment 8327

Maybe I should have just said "replay without slo mo"

By the way, Capital "I" please. Bad enough that you were murdering my ancestors without continuing to murder my language!!

 

[one]

It feels good to pick a winning battle in a losing war 'I' didn't pick

 

[one]

I believe if we substitute the words 'real time' for 'full speed', all will be clear...

Similarly, if Australia substitute 7 new batsmen in to their test team, they'll give themselves a chance in the ashes.

Considering recent form, we may have to leave a few of our first picks out to level the playing field and allow you to compete.

 

[Kes]

It feels good to pick a winning battle in a losing war 'I' didn't pick

I feel good that you feel good. Hands across the ocean etc.

 

[Kent Ref]

Perhaps support rather than defend is the way I see it. They will certainly be receiving feedback and I’ve never said that any one on this forum can’t try & identify those same development points. In fact, I would encourage it. The issue I often have is that comments are often made (far from all) seem to be more of an attack/crticisms rather than constructive areas of development. If those on here received an observation report containing those comments they had made on another Referee, would they happy to receive them - I doubt it. So all I’m saying is, yes, everyone to have their own thoughts & opinions, after all this is a forum, but to perhaps be a bit more considerate to any Referee, none of whom go out to make mistakes.

I think all refs make mistakes, even in the premiership.

Where the EFL/EPL use their own special set of the LOTG is where we criticise. That situation last week as a great example where the A/R was told to "F off" 3 times is an example of this.

A lot of the time the tone on here seems a little sycophantic for my liking.

I wish people would say "X was wrong, but that's how they do it" instead of making excuses for them.

I once asked Graham Poll about poor language and I said "when you were told to F off and see you next Tuesday why did you do nothing? "The powers that be want these pople to entertain and we're not here to stop them". The room (RA meeting) looked gobsmacked.

 

[DavidObs]

I think all refs make mistakes, even in the premiership.

Where the EFL/EPL use their own special set of the LOTG is where we criticise. That situation last week as a great example where the A/R was told to "F off" 3 times is an example of this.

A lot of the time the tone on here seems a little sycophantic for my liking.

I wish people would say "X was wrong, but that's how they do it" instead of making excuses for them.

I once asked Graham Poll about poor language and I said "when you were told to F off and see you next Tuesday why did you do nothing? "The powers that be want these pople to entertain and we're not here to stop them". The room (RA meeting) looke

I think all refs make mistakes, even in the premiership.

Where the EFL/EPL use their own special set of the LOTG is where we criticise. That situation last week as a great example where the A/R was told to "F off" 3 times is an example of this.

A lot of the time the tone on here seems a little sycophantic for my liking.

I wish people would say "X was wrong, but that's how they do it" instead of making excuses for them.

I once asked Graham Poll about poor language and I said "when you were told to F off and see you next Tuesday why did you do nothing? "The powers that be want these pople to entertain and we're not here to stop them". The room (RA meeting) looked gobsmacked.

With regard your final para, I can see both sides, so it is a dilemma, especially with spectators paying out large sums of money, though on the other hand - foul/offensive language directed towards any official does need to be dealt with. The question often is at any level, but especially PL - what tolerance is acceptable if any - volume, tone, confrontational, aggressive/non-aggressive etc. Yes, we can say apply strict interpretation of the Laws of the Game (same laws for all levels), but it is not as straightforward as that and nor should it be.

 

[Hilly1618]

With regard your final para, I can see both sides, so it is a dilemma, especially with spectators paying out large sums of money, though on the other hand - foul/offensive language directed towards any official does need to be dealt with. The question often is at any level, but especially PL - what tolerance is acceptable if any - volume, tone, confrontational, aggressive/non-aggressive etc. Yes, we can say apply strict interpretation of the Laws of the Game (same laws for all levels), but it is not as straightforward as that and nor should it be.

Interestingly I delivered a WF Referees Course last week and when we covered player management I made mention of the Sheff Utd incident. Unanimous decision when asked what would then have done as a Referee (we seldom have assistants in WF) was a red card. The discussion progressed and it was recognised that the words alone may not always warrant the red card approach but certainly the tone , volume etc changes the sanction required.

 

[GraemeS]

Perhaps support rather than defend is the way I see it. They will certainly be receiving feedback and I’ve never said that any one on this forum can’t try & identify those same development points. In fact, I would encourage it. The issue I often have is that comments are often made (far from all) seem to be more of an attack/crticisms rather than constructive areas of development. If those on here received an observation report containing those comments they had made on another Referee, would they happy to receive them - I doubt it. So all I’m saying is, yes, everyone to have their own thoughts & opinions, after all this is a forum, but to perhaps be a bit more considerate to any Referee, none of whom go out to make mistakes.

Happy to phrase it as development if that would for some reason make a difference.

I think the pattern I'm noticing is that he almost always starts a game trying to implement a "high bar", but frequently pitches it too high and it comes across to the players like they can do anything. He then either maintains that high bar (resulting in missed yellows, yellows that should be reds and a generally dangerous game), or ends up having to drop it to compensate (resulting in inconsistency and comparably soft cards).

Neither of those is a good outcome and we had a bit of both on Monday. Konate's yellow was correctly given for a "technical" offence with a SPA pull, but that feels wildly inconsistent with almost no cards for players being kicked all over the place. And then at the end of a half where no consequences have occurred, Burn finally gets booked for a nasty lunge with minimal contact and then Hooper continues to over-apply the high bar for Gordon's challenge and misses an obvious SFP lunge.

I think it would benefit his development to not do that. The classic advice I was always given is to start tight and loosen if the spirit of the game is good. But it's classic advice that's been given to refs for years for a reason - he's straying away from that to try and let games flow, but it regularly develops into him standing in the middle watching things get borderline dangerous.

 

[RustyRef]

For as much as @RustyRef and to a degree, myself @DavidObs and others have a default setting to support the referee, there are others who do seem to have a default mode to look for fault / criticise…
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it would be wrong for someone on one side to think the opposite side are the only ones who don't look neutrally at stuff.

It isn't so much wanting to support the referee, after all I said they got it wrong in the Fulham vs Man U game last weekend, rather I try to look at reasons why something happened. Sometimes people post as if they are perfect referees and have never made mistakes, and I don't think that is helpful on a forum that is primarily a learning aid for referees, there are plenty of other forums to just criticise a decision as being wrong. Mistakes happen to even the very best of referees, they always have and they always will for every more.

There is usually something that can be identified that led to a major error. Might be poor positioning, lack of concentration, being blocked off, and sometimes is just pure bad luck (no better example than in the Bedford game where the assistant manager made an arm movement just as the ball was passing him, had that not happened at that exact moment in time I don't think the referee would have shot himself in the foot as he did).

 

[RustyRef]

I think all refs make mistakes, even in the premiership.

Where the EFL/EPL use their own special set of the LOTG is where we criticise. That situation last week as a great example where the A/R was told to "F off" 3 times is an example of this.

A lot of the time the tone on here seems a little sycophantic for my liking.

I wish people would say "X was wrong, but that's how they do it" instead of making excuses for them.

I once asked Graham Poll about poor language and I said "when you were told to F off and see you next Tuesday why did you do nothing? "The powers that be want these pople to entertain and we're not here to stop them". The room (RA meeting) looked gobsmacked.

Haven't you answered your own question there though? Or rather Poll answered it for you with his answer to your question.

I've said all along that I would like to see something done about player behaviour, but that it has to come from the top, no individual referee is going stick their head above the parapet as it will be shot off. I would hazard a guess that the gobsmacked reaction to Poll's comment in an RA meeting, which I would guess was predominantly grass roots referees, would have been a very different reaction had it been said in a meeting full of level 1, 2 and 3s. Plus it is absolutely nothing new, I posted a video of Millwall vs Arsenal from 1989 where David Elleray was mic'd up in a different topic and the player behaviour and language was considerably worse than it is today. That's 36 years ago and predates all of the EPL, EFL and PGMOL, I think people have a tendency, and I don't just mean on here, to think that things were always better in the past, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

But to address your opening line, yes all referees will make mistakes, even in the Premier League and even the very top FIFA referees.

 

[DavidObs]

Happy to phrase it as development if that would for some reason make a difference.

I think the pattern I'm noticing is that he almost always starts a game trying to implement a "high bar", but frequently pitches it too high and it comes across to the players like they can do anything. He then either maintains that high bar (resulting in missed yellows, yellows that should be reds and a generally dangerous game), or ends up having to drop it to compensate (resulting in inconsistency and comparably soft cards).

Neither of those is a good outcome and we had a bit of both on Monday. Konate's yellow was correctly given for a "technical" offence with a SPA pull, but that feels wildly inconsistent with almost no cards for players being kicked all over the place. And then at the end of a half where no consequences have occurred, Burn finally gets booked for a nasty lunge with minimal contact and then Hooper continues to over-apply the high bar for Gordon's challenge and misses an obvious SFP lunge.

I think it would benefit his development to not do that. The classic advice I was always given is to start tight and loosen if the spirit of the game is good. But it's classic advice that's been given to refs for years for a reason - he's straying away from that to try and let games flow, but it regularly develops into him standing in the middle watching things get borderline dangerous.

Happy to phrase it as development if that would for some reason make a difference.

I think the pattern I'm noticing is that he almost always starts a game trying to implement a "high bar", but frequently pitches it too high and it comes across to the players like they can do anything. He then either maintains that high bar (resulting in missed yellows, yellows that should be reds and a generally dangerous game), or ends up having to drop it to compensate (resulting in inconsistency and comparably soft cards).

Neither of those is a good outcome and we had a bit of both on Monday. Konate's yellow was correctly given for a "technical" offence with a SPA pull, but that feels wildly inconsistent with almost no cards for players being kicked all over the place. And then at the end of a half where no consequences have occurred, Burn finally gets booked for a nasty lunge with minimal contact and then Hooper continues to over-apply the high bar for Gordon's challenge and misses an obvious SFP lunge.

I think it would benefit his development to not do that. The classic advice I was always given is to start tight and loosen if the spirit of the game is good. But it's classic advice that's been given to refs for years for a reason - he's straying away from that to try and let games flow, but it regularly develops into him standing in the middle watching things get borderline dangerous.

You may be right with your summary of his performance, and I’m sure there are things he would have reflected upon to have done some things differently, but at the end of the day did he lose control/have any mass confrontations etc. There is nothing wrong with the advice you were offered and that stands good today as it did since the beginning of football as we know it. The skill is when to let go and when to pull up as you have said, whereby for the latter, there is always likely to be soft free kicks/yellow cards etc. I can still remember the Liverpool v Everton derby from many years ago with McMahon and Reid both going at each other from the outset, but didn’t bat an eyelid and indeed shook hands following some challenges that others would wince at. The Referee had the bar set high and it worked for the entirety of the game. Days later, the same 2 teams played different opposition though with completely different outcomes - more cautions/sendings off. The modern day Referee will have done his homework on various things & would have some sort of plan for his pre-match instructions. It’s then up to the players as to whether he sticks to plan A, or moves to plan B, or even C.

 

[RustyRef]

Happy to phrase it as development if that would for some reason make a difference.

I think the pattern I'm noticing is that he almost always starts a game trying to implement a "high bar", but frequently pitches it too high and it comes across to the players like they can do anything. He then either maintains that high bar (resulting in missed yellows, yellows that should be reds and a generally dangerous game), or ends up having to drop it to compensate (resulting in inconsistency and comparably soft cards).

Neither of those is a good outcome and we had a bit of both on Monday. Konate's yellow was correctly given for a "technical" offence with a SPA pull, but that feels wildly inconsistent with almost no cards for players being kicked all over the place. And then at the end of a half where no consequences have occurred, Burn finally gets booked for a nasty lunge with minimal contact and then Hooper continues to over-apply the high bar for Gordon's challenge and misses an obvious SFP lunge.

I think it would benefit his development to not do that. The classic advice I was always given is to start tight and loosen if the spirit of the game is good. But it's classic advice that's been given to refs for years for a reason - he's straying away from that to try and let games flow, but it regularly develops into him standing in the middle watching things get borderline dangerous.

Not so sure that the advice to keep it tight for the first 10 minutes is as applicable at the top level as it is at grass roots, certainly not in the modern game. Probably still has some merit, but I suspect they trust their officials to let the game breathe from the off and then reign it back in if they need to.

What is very clear with Simon Hooper is he has developed much faster under Howard Webb than he did under Mike Riley. He is now being trusted much more with bigger games, whether that is because he has improved under Webb or just wasn't liked by Riley is open to interpretation. But I would suggest that him now being trusted with the bigger games suggests he is getting good results from the PGMOL evaluation panel that looks at performances in all games, and that probably means they don't share your concerns. Doesn't mean your view is wrong, but I would say I've been really impressed by Hooper in recent seasons.

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

Tell you what I think we all want to see @Kent Ref @GraemeS and @RustyRef do a game together

 

[GraemeS]

You may be right with your summary of his performance, and I’m sure there are things he would have reflected upon to have done some things differently, but at the end of the day did he lose control/have any mass confrontations etc.

Yes. There were two mass cons at the end of the game, and a mini-mass-con following the foul that led to Gordon being sent off at the end of the first half. Gravenburch also got pushed and shoved a bit in response to the tackle he got booked for early on, so I would say that's a pretty consistent pattern throughout the whole game that he failed to stop.

There is nothing wrong with the advice you were offered and that stands good today as it did since the beginning of football as we know it. The skill is when to let go and when to pull up as you have said, whereby for the latter, there is always likely to be soft free kicks/yellow cards etc. I can still remember the Liverpool v Everton derby from many years ago with McMahon and Reid both going at each other from the outset, but didn’t bat an eyelid and indeed shook hands following some challenges that others would wince at. The Referee had the bar set high and it worked for the entirety of the game. Days later, the same 2 teams played different opposition though with completely different outcomes - more cautions/sendings off. The modern day Referee will have done his homework on various things & would have some sort of plan for his pre-match instructions. It’s then up to the players as to whether he sticks to plan A, or moves to plan B, or even C.

I might be hyper-aware as a Liverpool fan, but a) Newcastle are a fairly physical team regardless and b) they were particularly hyped up for this game due to the Isak saga. If there's one game where starting loose is a failure of your pre-match scouting, it was this one.

 

[GraemeS]

Not so sure that the advice to keep it tight for the first 10 minutes is as applicable at the top level as it is at grass roots, certainly not in the modern game. Probably still has some merit, but I suspect they trust their officials to let the game breathe from the off and then reign it back in if they need to.

What is very clear with Simon Hooper is he has developed much faster under Howard Webb than he did under Mike Riley. He is now being trusted much more with bigger games, whether that is because he has improved under Webb or just wasn't liked by Riley is open to interpretation. But I would suggest that him now being trusted with the bigger games suggests he is getting good results from the PGMOL evaluation panel that looks at performances in all games, and that probably means they don't share your concerns. Doesn't mean your view is wrong, but I would say I've been really impressed by Hooper in recent seasons.

Someone has to do the games. Has Hooper developed well or has Kavanaugh's development stalled and some of the older refs are starting to be phased out? We can't possibly know if they actually like him, or if they're running out of options they do like and he's the least worst of what's left.

I understand the thinking behind a high bar, and accept that it's great when it works out. But I've said before that I've run lines for refs who try to do a high bar, and if the game starts to get rough, it's a complete lottery trying to work out when they want a foul and when they don't. Because at some point, they'll go "oh ****, this is slipping away from me" and try to regain control, but you never know when that's going to happen or if they're even capable of holding a consistent low bar once they do decide to move to that.

That's what I see in Hooper. If you have two teams that want to play football, he's a great ref for fading into the background and only giving what's necessary in order to let the game flow. But in games where it gets rough, you sometimes just don't know what you're going to get from him.

 

[one]

Tell you what I think we all want to see @Kent Ref @GraemeS and @RustyRef do a game together

@DavidObs as 4O and @Runner Ref as VAR sharing the love