City vs Liverpool

[RefereeX]

Plenty of threads are closed because people don't want to agree with a certain 5 or 6 people on here.

So because you met someone, it means you need to defend them all the time?

I don't need to throw anyone under the bus. I still speak to plenty of people within SG1/2 and below and have no issues discussing incidents with them. And in reality, if you got to know these people, you'd know that they have no real qualms with people saying they messed up.

Backing officials no matter what (as certain people on here do) does just as much harm than good to officials.

Where have I said it means I need to defend them all the time?

I actually know the official who made the decision. I know more about the justification for making that decision than I've said on here and yet I've still said I feel it's incorrect.

The issue is the failure to accept that other people have other opinions and the dismissive language that is sometimes used that can rub people up the wrong way.

Contact, yes. But very minimal contact. We’re always talking on here about the higher threshold within the penalty area.

Yes, a higher threshold, but the contact was enough to affect Doku's balance who actually genuinely did his best to stay on his feet and get a shot away.

I think we have discussed how VAR operates (or should operate) and number of times. I don't think there is a discussion between the ref and VAR for VAR to decide of ref is clearly and obviously wrong. The ref's decision is binary. Pen/no pen. Red/not red ... VAR should independently decide without consulting with ref if the decision was C&O wrong. Any discussion make it re-refereeing the game.

Not suggesting a conversation between ref and VAR, but the VAR can hear the refs comms and his decision making process.

 

[Runner Ref]

Where have I said it means I need to defend them all the time?

I actually know the official who made the decision. I know more about the justification for making that decision than I've said on here and yet I've still said I feel it's incorrect.

The issue is the failure to accept that other people have other opinions and the dismissive language that is sometimes used that can rub people up the wrong way.



Yes, a higher threshold, but the contact was enough to affect Doku's balance who actually genuinely did his best to stay on his feet and get a shot away.

Not suggesting a conversation between ref and VAR, but the VAR can hear the refs comms and his decision making process.

You didn’t say you always need to defend them. It’s something you literally do.

If that is true that you know the official in question, you’d know they have no issues with people not always agreeing or defending them. Something people in here have an absolute obsession with.

Problem is, you’re mates with the mods on here. So if someone says something you lot don’t agree with, they’re suspended or the thread closed. That’s literally why @GraemeS no longer posts on here. I made a complaint against a mod who loves throwing his weight around- guess what; it was completely ignored.

I can guarantee that had a penalty not been given, you’d be saying there wasn’t enough contact/higher threshold. You change your story to fit the narrative.

 

[Paul_10]

To divert from the offside incident, a less controversial incident because it had no impact, but also interesting, what does everyone think about the Doku penalty incident. I thought it didn't cross the C&O threshold for VAR to intervene.

For me if VAR does not get involved there I don't think there will be too many complaints but if you giving that sort of contact as a penalty then surely the Brentford one is also. Yes the player may of milked it somewhat but it's still a trip, there is still clear contact and it is definitely not a dive so two similar levels of contact and yet two completely different outcomes! Of course in that game, the VAR is Paul Tierney who from what I have seen when he's on is a very poor VAR who never wants to intervene on subjective decisions, always come up with excuses not to get involved.

 

[JamesL]

Plenty of threads are closed because people don't want to agree with a certain 5 or 6 people on here.

If that's what you believe then I can only tell you that you are mistaken and we close threads when they are just turning into petty arguments and point scoring

Backing officials no matter what (as certain people on here do) does just as much harm than good to officials.

Again this isn't really what happens, I've never seen anyone on here just blindly defend a decision. A lot of learning comes from looking at a decision, and understanding it is wrong, but trying to understand how that decision was made.

 

[JamesL]

I think we have discussed how VAR operates (or should operate) and number of times. I don't think there is a discussion between the ref and VAR for VAR to decide of ref is clearly and obviously wrong. The ref's decision is binary. Pen/no pen. Red/not red ... VAR should independently decide without consulting with ref if the decision was C&O wrong. Any discussion make it re-refereeing the game.

Its not a discussion but if you listen to the comms the referee will usually state the on field decision and why which I am sure the VAR has access to.

 

[Runner Ref]

Again this isn't really what happens, I've never seen anyone on here just blindly defend a decision. A lot of learning comes from looking at a decision, and understanding it is wrong, but trying to understand how that decision was made.

If you believe you have never seen that on here, I've no idea what threads you have or haven't been reading

 

[RefereeX]

You didn’t say you always need to defend them. It’s something you literally do.

If that is true that you know the official in question, you’d know they have no issues with people not always agreeing or defending them. Something people in here have an absolute obsession with.

Problem is, you’re mates with the mods on here. So if someone says something you lot don’t agree with, they’re suspended or the thread closed. That’s literally why @GraemeS no longer posts on here. I made a complaint against a mod who loves throwing his weight around- guess what; it was completely ignored.

I can guarantee that had a penalty not been given, you’d be saying there wasn’t enough contact/higher threshold. You change your story to fit the narrative.

I don't always defend their decisions... I defend them, because they are where they are for a reason, and it involved a lot of hard work.

It is true that I know the official in question and it's also true that he didn't mind me suggesting I thought it was wrong. He still stands by the decision presently. That doesn't suddenly make the internet the correct place to shame officials who make mistakes as officials ourselves, which this isn't necessarily one anyway.

There's only one mod on here that I've ever spoken with away from this forum, and he's probably one of the least controversial ones on here, so to suggest that any of the mods are going to back me and suspend you for disagreeing with me is hilariously paranoid.

Nobody on here has ever taken issue with someone saying they think a referee is wrong in a decision. There are right ways to do that, and there are ways that will rub people up the wrong way. Ultimately this is a forum for referees. The refereeing community face enough clueless criticism from outside, that it doesn't need unnecessary pile ons from it's own. If they do make a bad decision, they will get asked questions about it by the powers that be. Forgive me for thinking that's more likely to improve standards than a criticism on an online forum.

 

[RefereeX]

For me if VAR does not get involved there I don't think there will be too many complaints but if you giving that sort of contact as a penalty then surely the Brentford one is also. Yes the player may of milked it somewhat but it's still a trip, there is still clear contact and it is definitely not a dive so two similar levels of contact and yet two completely different outcomes! Of course in that game, the VAR is Paul Tierney who from what I have seen when he's on is a very poor VAR who never wants to intervene on subjective decisions, always come up with excuses not to get involved.

I think the key difference is in the way the players go down.
Brentford's was a very theatrical dive in a scenario where an honest player could probably have stayed on his feet. Doku tried very hard to stay on his feet and get the shot away but the contact had knocked his balance too much.

I can absolutely see your argument about the similarities, but for me, that's the difference.

 

[JamesL]

If you believe you have never seen that on here, I've no idea what threads you have or haven't been reading

As a mod I read practically everything that gets posted on here.
Usually defences comes in the form of:
I can see why they made /did not make that decision
A belief that the decision is correct which is perfectly acceptable when applying subjectivity.

Neither of these are blind defence. Blind defence would come in the form of never seeing an incorrect decision, and I don't believe we have single poster that fits that mould.

Anyway, we are headed a long way from the topic at hand which is incidentally one of the number 1 reasons why we close threads (despite your assertions otherwise) so if we could focus on the city V Liverpool game, constructively and respectfully, then you can continue to disagree with whomever you like.

 

[Runner Ref]

I don't always defend their decisions... I defend them, because they are where they are for a reason, and it involved a lot of hard work.

It is true that I know the official in question and it's also true that he didn't mind me suggesting I thought it was wrong. He still stands by the decision presently. That doesn't suddenly make the internet the correct place to shame officials who make mistakes as officials ourselves, which this isn't necessarily one anyway.

There's only one mod on here that I've ever spoken with away from this forum, and he's probably one of the least controversial ones on here, so to suggest that any of the mods are going to back me and suspend you for disagreeing with me is hilariously paranoid.

Nobody on here has ever taken issue with someone saying they think a referee is wrong in a decision. There are right ways to do that, and there are ways that will rub people up the wrong way. Ultimately this is a forum for referees. The refereeing community face enough clueless criticism from outside, that it doesn't need unnecessary pile ons from it's own. If they do make a bad decision, they will get asked questions about it by the powers that be. Forgive me for thinking that's more likely to improve standards than a criticism on an online forum.

Agreed it takes a lot of hard work. But they aren't always there for the reason I'm sure you're suggesting. Plenty of officials have not made it to the top as their face didn't fit. Not a chance the likes of Mason or Mike Jones were ever good enough to be top flight. But we're steering a bit too far from the topic there.

Not suspend for necessarily disagreeing with you, but they're always likely to take your side. And I get it, some of you are still active and terrified and upsetting the powers that be online. Although the mod you speak of has indeed suspended me.

They aren't 'pile ons' just because people are disagreeing with them. One of the criticisms officials get from the outside world is that there is no accountability and extremely poor (if any) communication. If there's 1 thing PGMOL are shockingly bad at, its communication. But if there's one place we should be able to discuss the bad from referees, its here.

 

[Runner Ref]

Neither of these are blind defence. Blind defence would come in the form of never seeing an incorrect decision, and I don't believe we have single poster that fits that mould.

I'll respectfully disagree with you there. There's plenty of us on here who speak and feel the exact same

 

[one]

I think the key difference is in the way the players go down.
Brentford's was a very theatrical dive in a scenario where an honest player could probably have stayed on his feet. Doku tried very hard to stay on his feet and get the shot away but the contact had knocked his balance too much.

I can absolutely see your argument about the similarities, but for me, that's the difference.

I like this. Though I think Doku's on pure VAR reasons should not have been a review, involving the "cheating" factor, or lack there of, as something that influence a decision to be reviewed could have positive impact on the game.

 

[DavidObs]

And its always the same members who will back/justify/agree with PGMOL officials, no matter what. Rather than just calling them out for their **** ups. The old 'mental gymnastics' comes to mind. The MLS incident vs Wolves will forever be my favourite. Howard Webb had many peoples pants down on here on that one.

It's also the same members who we are basically forced to agree with, otherwise we're either suspended or threads are closed down. We're meant to believe that certain people on here are 'experts', yet they are commonly wrong in law.

For the bit in bold; the problem is, you don't know that they aren't going to get involved. It is an absolute lottery as to whether VAR will get involved in a situation or not.

But many are not ****ups, but a subjective interpretation of Law that some/many don’t agree with. As to VAR, I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s a lottery as to whether VAR will get involved or not - as far as I am aware, there is clear guidance when they become involved. What may be somewhat of a lottery is if they do become involved which way the decision goes, but ultimately the Referee has to own the eventual decision.

Agreed it takes a lot of hard work. But they aren't always there for the reason I'm sure you're suggesting. Plenty of officials have not made it to the top as their face didn't fit. Not a chance the likes of Mason or Mike Jones were ever good enough to be top flight. But we're steering a bit too far from the topic there.

Not suspend for necessarily disagreeing with you, but they're always likely to take your side. And I get it, some of you are still active and terrified and upsetting the powers that be online. Although the mod you speak of has indeed suspended me.

They aren't 'pile ons' just because people are disagreeing with them. One of the criticisms officials get from the outside world is that there is no accountability and extremely poor (if any) communication. If there's 1 thing PGMOL are shockingly bad at, it’s communication. But if there's one place we should be able to discuss the bad from referees, it’s here.

Communication is often bad/shockingly bad in day to day life at home, work and play, so it can be no surprise that this includes PGMOL, as it does with virtually every one of us/every organisation.

 

[Runner Ref]

But many are not ****ups, but a subjective interpretation of Law that some/many don’t agree with. As to VAR, I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s a lottery as to whether VAR will get involved or not - as far as I am aware, there is clear guidance when they become involved. What may be somewhat of a lottery is if they do become involved which way the decision goes, but ultimately the Referee has to own the eventual decision.

Communication is often bad/shockingly bad in day to day life at home, work and play, so it can be no surprise that this includes PGMOL, as it does with virtually every one of us/every organisation.

Of course its a lottery. They claim its for clear & obvious, yet we sit for 5 minutes whilst they look at something in slow motion. That would suggest it is neither clear or obvious.

So because other people are poor at communication, it is okay for them to be poor at it? A basic skill within refereeing is communication. Yet the people at the very top somehow lack these skills towards the wider public, and to a point, towards the officials. Do you really think the Premier League & PGMOL releasing the statements they do on twitter, which are very often wrong, is acceptable?

 

[DavidObs]

Of course its a lottery. They claim its for clear & obvious, yet we sit for 5 minutes whilst they look at something in slow motion. That would suggest it is neither clear or obvious.

So because other people are poor at communication, it is okay for them to be poor at it? A basic skill within refereeing is communication. Yet the people at the very top somehow lack these skills towards the wider public, and to a point, towards the officials. Do you really think the Premier League & PGMOL releasing the statements they do on twitter, which are very often wrong, is acceptable?

I didn’t actually mean to include the first paragraph (I thought I had deleted it, but clearly I didn’t). However, I do agree with you that many are not clear & obvious.

As to the 2nd/final para, I definitely agree with you that a basic skill within Refereeing is communication & those in the PL/PGMOL need to be much better at it. I can see what they are trying to do with releasing statements on Twitter/social media - reach out to the masses, but any statement etc needs to be accurate.

 

[Paul_10]

I think the key difference is in the way the players go down.
Brentford's was a very theatrical dive in a scenario where an honest player could probably have stayed on his feet. Doku tried very hard to stay on his feet and get the shot away but the contact had knocked his balance too much.

I can absolutely see your argument about the similarities, but for me, that's the difference.

As I say, the player may of milked it but it's still clear contact and the referee clearly made an error in showing a yellow card for simulation.

With the Doku one, it probably a penalty but is it a VAR penalty? Is a knee into the foot enough to bring a player down at pace? Maybe, maybe not but then you can argue a trip can certainly enough to bring a player down, hiding behind the "minimal contact" seems a cop out too me.

 

[RefereeX]

As I say, the player may of milked it but it's still clear contact and the referee clearly made an error in showing a yellow card for simulation.

With the Doku one, it probably a penalty but is it a VAR penalty? Is a knee into the foot enough to bring a player down at pace? Maybe, maybe not but then you can argue a trip can certainly enough to bring a player down, hiding behind the "minimal contact" seems a cop out too me.

Don't disagree that to suggest it's simulation is an error (although there was an element of simulation in his fall) but VAR can't overturn that caution, it can only suggest that it's a penalty, at which point the referee can then rescind the caution. But if VAR don't think it's a penalty the caution has to stick.

 

[Russell Jones]

And its always the same members who will back/justify/agree with PGMOL officials, no matter what. Rather than just calling them out for their **** ups.

This thread is about the decision to disallow the Liverpool goal for offside. As evidenced by media commentary and discussion on here / other forums, it's a decision that has, unsurprisingly, divided opinion. It's a highly technical and subjective call and one of those (much like the Spurs v Everton one) where there was always going to be outrage from fans and media regardless of the decision made. For any referee, even one who ultimately believes the call is incorrect, to see this as a **** up is a complete misread / misunderstand of the situation (IMO).

As for the "usual suspects", I'd suggest picking a different battle to this particular decision. @RustyRef is "a bit torn" #9, @RefereeX says "probably a legal goal" #20, @DavidObs concedes "that's a reasonable point concerning clearly". I'm probably the most 'hard core' of the bunch on this one and that's largely because of precedent, here and overseas of goals being chalked off for offside players jumping over or ducking under goalbound efforts. Certainly no 'blind backing' of the officials overall on this thread ......

 

[Runner Ref]

This thread is about the decision to disallow the Liverpool goal for offside. As evidenced by media commentary and discussion on here / other forums, it's a decision that has, unsurprisingly, divided opinion. It's a highly technical and subjective call and one of those (much like the Spurs v Everton one) where there was always going to be outrage from fans and media regardless of the decision made. For any referee, even one who ultimately believes the call is incorrect, to see this as a **** up is a complete misread / misunderstand of the situation (IMO).

As for the "usual suspects", I'd suggest picking a different battle to this particular decision. @RustyRef is "a bit torn" #9, @RefereeX says "probably a legal goal" #20, @DavidObs concedes "that's a reasonable point concerning clearly". I'm probably the most 'hard core' of the bunch on this one and that's largely because of precedent, here and overseas of goals being chalked off for offside players jumping over or ducking under goalbound efforts. Certainly no 'blind backing' of the officials overall on this thread ......

I didn’t specify people. Interesting you did…..

 

[Russell Jones]

I didn’t specify people. Interesting you did…..

It ain't rocket science