As to your last para, I think keeping it anonymous is fine otherwise it can just get personal. Also, there is a PGMOL rep in the group. I also think it’s a red not just outside England, but in England, but outside of the PL.
Everton v Brentford
- Thread starter ladbroke8745
- Start date
Runner Ref
Well-Known Member
What gets personal?
One big issue that The FA and PGMOL have had is transparency. To a point Howard Webb is trying to fix that. But keeping these people who aren’t necessarily qualified to referee a football match anonymous, when they are in essence saying referees have got a major decision wrong, just seems odd.
What is there to hide? What accountability is there?
There is nothing to hide. Let’s say Alan Shearer is on the panel and he considers incorrect sending off and that Roy Keane is also on the panel and he considers correct sending off. Are people not going to say, it was only shearer or only Kane. Whereas if say, the panel is represented by coaches, ex players and PGMOL rep it takes this argument mostly out of the equation perhaps. However, I do accept your point as to why to highlight who they are.
Runner Ref
Well-Known Member
It doesn’t matter who they are, but there’s no need to hide their identity. It’s all about accountability for me.
Fair enough.
It must be demoralising & confusing as a PGMOL match official. In no other profession is your work so scrutinised & anonymous/unqualified individuals determine that your work was then incorrect. Particlarly when its a subjective decision.
I wonder if HW privately tells his referees he is fine with the decision & any appeals panel decision won't reflect badly on them?
Seems likely that this will be covered on the next Mic'd Up and we'll get to hear Webb's take on this sort of appeal outcome.
I said it would get overturned, you could tell because pretty much every ex-pro said it was wrong on the basis he was going for the ball and not trying to hurt him. Whereas most journalists with no skin in the game seemed to think the red was correct.
The FA and PGMOL should get some power back and not allow appeals,, just as almost every other country doesn't. You wouldn't allow ex-convicts to sit on court of appeal cases as judges, and that is effectively the same as having ex-players and managers on real card appeal commissions.
The FA and PGMOL should get some power back and not allow appeals,, just as almost every other country doesn't. You wouldn't allow ex-convicts to sit on court of appeal cases as judges, and that is effectively the same as having ex-players and managers on real card appeal commissions.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
Just read the written reasons.
Part of the complaint by the club, and the panel agreed, was that CK was first shown a still image of the contact. That was his first impression of the incident. The still.
Then slo-mo images solely of the attempt to get the ball. 3 from behind CN, and 5 from the side. All slo-mo.
The complaints were that the whole story wasn't shown, in real time.
Apparently there was a little flick by the forward Yoann Wissa that took the ball off CN otherwise he would've got the ball.
There are other things that they felt made it reckless and not SFP.
My impression, however, is they were annoyed with the fact the referee was only shown what VAR wanted him to see to justify their cause for calling him over and not giving him the full picture.
Part of the complaint by the club, and the panel agreed, was that CK was first shown a still image of the contact. That was his first impression of the incident. The still.
Then slo-mo images solely of the attempt to get the ball. 3 from behind CN, and 5 from the side. All slo-mo.
The complaints were that the whole story wasn't shown, in real time.
Apparently there was a little flick by the forward Yoann Wissa that took the ball off CN otherwise he would've got the ball.
There are other things that they felt made it reckless and not SFP.
My impression, however, is they were annoyed with the fact the referee was only shown what VAR wanted him to see to justify their cause for calling him over and not giving him the full picture.
Runner Ref
Well-Known Member
WEBB'S VERDICT:
"I was surprised by the outcome of the appeal. Of course I respect the judgement of the panel but I would have expected them to see this the way I did, as an act of serious foul play when the studs go into the knee of Jordan Pickford and endangers his safety. I didn't agree with their judgement.
"I don't think Norgaard has gone in there to try to hurt Jordan Pickford in any way, he's gone to try and get onto the end of the ball. But to do that, stretch out with a raised foot, with studs exposed when there's an opponent in front of him. We [referees] have to deal with consequences. We have have to determine whether or not the actions have endangered an opponent's safety.
"When Norgaard does do that, he's obviously hoping to get the ball but there's a risk associated with it. There's quite a lot of force going into a vulnerable part of the body, there's a risk he inherits when he lunges in that way. When he fails to make contact with the ball and makes contact with Pickford in this way the consequences are Pickford's safety is endangered, therefore it's an act of serious foul play. I do sympathise with him but we're here to protect player safety."
"I was surprised by the outcome of the appeal. Of course I respect the judgement of the panel but I would have expected them to see this the way I did, as an act of serious foul play when the studs go into the knee of Jordan Pickford and endangers his safety. I didn't agree with their judgement.
"I don't think Norgaard has gone in there to try to hurt Jordan Pickford in any way, he's gone to try and get onto the end of the ball. But to do that, stretch out with a raised foot, with studs exposed when there's an opponent in front of him. We [referees] have to deal with consequences. We have have to determine whether or not the actions have endangered an opponent's safety.
"When Norgaard does do that, he's obviously hoping to get the ball but there's a risk associated with it. There's quite a lot of force going into a vulnerable part of the body, there's a risk he inherits when he lunges in that way. When he fails to make contact with the ball and makes contact with Pickford in this way the consequences are Pickford's safety is endangered, therefore it's an act of serious foul play. I do sympathise with him but we're here to protect player safety."
Despite the protests of Shearer & Lineaker as part of a goalscorers union, I agree with everything HW has said.
Pretty much exactly what I said at the time, it was a clear red card but I knew the appeals panel would overturn it. Going to keep saying it, but that is what will happen when you have people with no qualification in the laws ruling on appeals about decisions that a referee has made. It is ludicrous, and doesn't happen in any other country.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
As I understand it, MLS in the US is pretty similar. IIRC, it is 3 people, one of whom is from PRO.
And this doesn't help us at lower levels, trying to sell things like this as SFP when players all claim "didn't mean it, trying to get the ball" etc.
We need to look less at what football (fans etc) expects, and more at actually being allowed to apply the laws proficiently.
We need to look less at what football (fans etc) expects, and more at actually being allowed to apply the laws proficiently.
And the MCS Panel on the National League North and South as far as I understand it are all Observers/ex Referees.
Last edited: