The Refs

[MSingh]

We had Clattenburg yesterday & he was superb, except for deep into Injury time when Piquionne played 2 x one two's, got thorugh on Goal, slotted it home only for Clattenburg to give a hand ball when it clearly hit his Chest & it cost us 3 points but, that aside, he was superb..

But we only had the 4 replayes from 3 diffeent angles to see that, he doesn't..

Overall he was superb though like i say..

So what else is there & what are the moans ??

Atwell i don't rate at all, he's too young & is OBVIOUSLY influenced by " big Players " & Managers, that Ref at OT yesterday is horrific in my opinion ( dont' know his name ), Mariner is ok if not a little erratic, Webb is good & i think that Kevin Friend is a decent Ref too..

My moan is the " Expert Pundit's " who go on about consistency then in the same breath say that the Ref should have used common sense. They can't do both & as Human Beings, they won't all be consistent as all of them see things differently anyway..

Not easy for these Fella's..

[mrbojangles]

That goal given for Spurs against Fulham was a joke. The linesman flags and then they have a discussion. What about <deleted>, the linesman flagged off-side, end of. And his original decision was correct before the ref poked his nose in. Whether he touched it or not doesn't m,atter, he was definately interferring with play.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Use technology, it's available and won't waste any further time than is already being wasted.

[MSingh]

Technology wouldn't solve the issue of a Lino's interpretaton of whether a Player is interferring with play or not thoguh would it BJ ??

[mrbojangles]

Technology wouldn't solve the issue of a Lino's interpretaton of whether a Player is interferring with play or not thoguh would it BJ ??

All the ref would have had to do was radio the 4th official asking if there was any reason why he couldn't give the goal. The 4th official would have the benefit of replays to see that the player was definately interferring with play whilst in an off side position. That could be done in seconds, whilst the game was stopped anyway.

[MSingh]

Whereus if we cleared up this inteferring/not interferring with play rule full stop, there owulnd't be the need for any of this..

Anyone on the Field of play is interferring, whether it's directly interferring or having an influence on a Defender's position ( the Defeder trying to play the Fella Offside for example )..

I'd rather find another solution than Technology personally.

I just fear that bringing in Technology, no matter how small in the first place, will make the floodgates open & i dont' want it..

We haven't had it or needed it for over a hundred Years so why now ??

The Game is fine without it inmy opinion & whilst Human Beings Referee, there will be mistakes made, like in all walks of life..

[mrbojangles]

We haven't had it or needed it for over a hundred Years so why now ??

Cos like everything else in the world, football has moved on. 100 years ago you didn't have the benefit of replays to highlight bad decisions. Now you do. I can't believe that we (football) are lagging behind all of the other major sports. We should be ashamed of our selves, wanting to live in the dark ages.

The Game is fine without it in my opinion

Then you have no right to slag off bad decisions IMO, Singhers

[MSingh]

Then you have no right to slag off bad decisions IMO, Singhers

I don't really Mate overall that's the thing, i even put a in the opening Post about the decision that cost us another 2 Points on Saturday..

It happens, bad decisions happen, sh*t happens..

But of course i have a right to slag off bad decisions BJ, just like everyone else has..

Just because i support Refs over people like you who'll criticise them after watching the 4 replays from 3 different angle's, don't mean i can't criticise a bad decision every now & again does it because after all, what are we going to do, stop the Game on every single instance when a wrong decision could be possibly made ??

There is a big difference between someone's interpretation of an incident though BJ & someone getting things wrong on a regular basis..

& anyway, who's to say the 4th Offficial's interpretation of a certain Rule will be " right " or " wrong " anyway, even after seeing it 4 times ??

Who's to say that he wouldn't think Evans ( or was it O Shea ) Foul on Torres wasn't a sending off, like the Ref though, yet everyone else in the World barring Mna United Supporters though it was ??

Or the De Jong thing with Ben Arfa was in fact a straight Red, meaning you would have played with 10 Men for 87 or so minutes which would, i'm sure we'll both agree, made it a completely different Game & one that i'm not sure you would have got 3 Points out of ??

[MSingh]

Take this for example, what Holloway is saying here is that Video Tech should be used in even cases like something as innocuous as a Foul ??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/9100410.stm

How is that NOT going to slow the Game down, ruin the flow of it etc ??

It's impossible not to & no one will be bale to convince me otherwise..

The Game, with the Money & people involved in it now, is a horrible mess anyway but add to that Video Tech coming in, even only slightly at first, & the Game as we know it & remember, it's a Game we all fell in Love with so it can't be that bad, will die..

[mrbojangles]

I don't think it would be any good for a foul. All I am saying is that in the instance of a Goal and the play has already stopped. The ref can just call the 4th official and ask if there is any reason why he shouldn't give a goal. It's not rocket science and the technology for that is already well established. I actually think that waiting for a decision in the likes of cricket, adds to excitement.

[MSingh]

Well we'll agree to disagree then, & i don't like Cricket because it stops all the tim, so wouldn't know..

[mrbojangles]

Well we'll agree to disagree then, & i don't like Cricket because it stops all the tim, so wouldn't know..

What about Rugby?

[DoubtingThomas]

Whereus if we cleared up this inteferring/not interferring with play rule full stop, there owulnd't be the need for any of this..

Anyone on the Field of play is interferring, whether it's directly interferring or having an influence on a Defender's position ( the Defeder trying to play the Fella Offside for example )..

I'd rather find another solution than Technology personally.

I just fear that bringing in Technology, no matter how small in the first place, will make the floodgates open & i dont' want it..

We haven't had it or needed it for over a hundred Years so why now ??

The Game is fine without it inmy opinion & whilst Human Beings Referee, there will be mistakes made, like in all walks of life..

Yeah, well we didn't have 'planes 100 years ago either, so why do we need them now?

You must be wearing Sepp Blatter's glasses if you think we "haven't needed it for over 100 years now". The problem was always there, modern technology just reveals it. Even in 1966 it was an argument down the pub as to whether it was a goal or not. Today, there's no argument, we know for sure. Technology. It will come once the silly old sods running football go to the big myopic committee in the sky. Daft as they come, most of 'em.

[carmine]

That goal given for Spurs against Fulham was a joke. The linesman flags and then they have a discussion. What about <deleted>, the linesman flagged off-side, end of. And his original decision was correct before the ref poked his nose in. Whether he touched it or not doesn't m,atter, he was definately interferring with play.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Use technology, it's available and won't waste any further time than is already being wasted.

No it was'nt a joke Mr B, it was a deflection off Baird. A deflection similar to Tevez second goal...not the first "oofside" one that is. It might well have been wrong that the ref changed his mind the way he did, but the facts are it was a perfectly correct goal in the first place. It deflected off a Fulham player did'nt it. So how would you have called it?

[MSingh]

Well we'll agree to disagree then, & i don't like Cricket because it stops all the tim, so wouldn't know..

What about Rugby?

I can't stand that either & it isn't as free flowing, nowhere near in fact, as Football is either..

[MSingh]

That goal given for Spurs against Fulham was a joke. The linesman flags and then they have a discussion. What about <deleted>, the linesman flagged off-side, end of. And his original decision was correct before the ref poked his nose in. Whether he touched it or not doesn't m,atter, he was definately interferring with play.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Use technology, it's available and won't waste any further time than is already being wasted.

No it was'nt a joke Mr B, it was a deflection off Baird. A deflection similar to Tevez second goal...not the first "oofside" one that is. It might well have been wrong that the ref changed his mind the way he did, but the facts are it was a perfectly correct goal in the first place. It deflected off a Fulham player did'nt it. So how would you have called it?

It was a perfectly correct Goal, i only said it wasn/t in the other thread because your Team scored it Carmine..

& it strikes me as if in what Mr BJ says, about them having a chat with each & he doesn't know what it's about, well they had a chat to get the decision right whch they done & surely that's what we'd all want ultimately, the Officials to mak ethe correct decisions ??

& yeah, what BJ says in the " interferring " bit is how i believe the rule should be interpreted, but it isn't, he wasn't interferring with play based on how the rule is set up currently, even though we all know that he was interferring with play..

[mrbojangles]

That goal given for Spurs against Fulham was a joke. The linesman flags and then they have a discussion. What about <deleted>, the linesman flagged off-side, end of. And his original decision was correct before the ref poked his nose in. Whether he touched it or not doesn't m,atter, he was definately interferring with play.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Use technology, it's available and won't waste any further time than is already being wasted.

No it was'nt a joke Mr B, it was a deflection off Baird. A deflection similar to Tevez second goal...not the first "oofside" one that is. It might well have been wrong that the ref changed his mind the way he did, but the facts are it was a perfectly correct goal in the first place. It deflected off a Fulham player did'nt it. So how would you have called it?

I haven't seen that in the replays, if it did touch Baird then fair enough but even the pundits weren't mentioning that on the night. But right there we have the reason to use technology. Cos for sure, you didn't see it touch Baird in normal play, it was only when you saw the replays that you knew he touched it.

[mrbojangles]

Technology. It will come once the silly old sods running football go to the big myopic committee in the sky. Daft as they come, most of 'em.

Absolutely. It WILL come one day and people will love it and ask why it wasn't brought in earlier. Some people don't like change..................until they try it.

[smokie36]

I'm in favour of video replays but only for 'did the ball cross he line?' issues. Leave the rest to the officials on the pitch.

[MSingh]

That goal given for Spurs against Fulham was a joke. The linesman flags and then they have a discussion. What about <deleted>, the linesman flagged off-side, end of. And his original decision was correct before the ref poked his nose in. Whether he touched it or not doesn't m,atter, he was definately interferring with play.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Use technology, it's available and won't waste any further time than is already being wasted.

No it was'nt a joke Mr B, it was a deflection off Baird. A deflection similar to Tevez second goal...not the first "oofside" one that is. It might well have been wrong that the ref changed his mind the way he did, but the facts are it was a perfectly correct goal in the first place. It deflected off a Fulham player did'nt it. So how would you have called it?

I haven't seen that in the replays, if it did touch Baird then fair enough but even the pundits weren't mentioning that on the night. But right there we have the reason to use technology. Cos for sure, you didn't see it touch Baird in normal play, it was only when you saw the replays that you knew he touched it.

I don't see what relevence a deflection off of a Defender has on Gallas being in an Offside position but not interferring with Play in the way the Ruling is ??

It has nothing to do with anything..

The issue here is Gallas positioning if it DIDN'T take a deflection ( as not many people including the Ref didn't see that anyway ), which is what is being debated..

If you're now saying because that got missed then that's why we need to bring in technology, then God help the Game..

Where will it stop ??

Technology to be used in EVERY aspect of the Game ??

[MSingh]

I'm in favour of video replays but only for 'did the ball cross he line?' issues. Leave the rest to the officials on the pitch.

Probably the best & most sensible shout on here so far..

Which is strange coming from this particular Poster...

[mrbojangles]

If you're now saying because that got missed then that's why we need to bring in technology, then God help the Game..

Where will it stop ??

Technology to be used in EVERY aspect of the Game ??

No Singhers, not in EVERY aspect. Just to check with the 4th official if he saw any reason not to allow the goal. The game had already stopped so no time lost and let's have it right, a goal being given or not is the most important moment in any game.

[mrbojangles]

I'm in favour of video replays but only for 'did the ball cross he line?' issues. Leave the rest to the officials on the pitch.

Probably the best & most sensible shout on here so far..

Which is strange coming from this particular Poster...

See, you're already warming to the idea Singhers. At first you didn't want any technology.

[MSingh]

If you're now saying because that got missed then that's why we need to bring in technology, then God help the Game..

Where will it stop ??

Technology to be used in EVERY aspect of the Game ??

No Singhers, not in EVERY aspect. Just to check with the 4th official if he saw any reason not to allow the goal. The game had already stopped so no time lost and let's have it right, a goal being given or not is the most important moment in any game.

Aye ??????????

[MSingh]

I'm in favour of video replays but only for 'did the ball cross he line?' issues. Leave the rest to the officials on the pitch.

Probably the best & most sensible shout on here so far..

Which is strange coming from this particular Poster...

See, you're already warming to the idea Singhers. At first you didn't want any technology.

Well that can happen with sounding which doesn't stop Games can't it, same as in Ice Hockey, a Buzzer maybe, & that will only happen or sound quite simply when the Ball is ove rthe line, as soon as it's over the line or better still, a buzzer going off in the Ref's pocket so only he knows, we don't need to hear it..

[MSingh]

By the way, i notice our Ref " Issue " at the weekend got a whopping 20 seconds of Air Time last nigth on one of the Prem Programmes..

& that wasn't controversial at all, it was a Gola as clear as day except it wasn't, the Ref gave hand ball when it wasn't due to a HUGE appeal from Players & the Crowd but there is no way in the World due to his positioning that he could see either way..

93rd minute that was, they had no time to influence the Game & we would have got 3 Points instead of teh 1 & Wolves wouldn't have got any..

But sh*t happens & as my Mate Avram said, " We are very disappointed but we have many positives to take. We scored two goals, one of them was given and the other the referee decided wasn't a goal.

"Mark [Clattenburg] is a very good referee but he's also a human being. He made a mistake. It's not the first time this has happened to us this season. Of course it was a goal.