There have always been dubious and contentious reffing decisions and it partly makes the game what it is. However there seems to have been a surfeit of laughably crazy decisions this season.

I don't know how many of you saw the Stoke v Swansea game yesterday. I only saw the MOTD highlights, but just as I was celebrating the fact that Michael Oliver had at last stepped out of the reffing line and red-carded a CB for mauling a forward in the box (and it was that wholly deserving f**kwit and serial gross offender, Ryan Shawcross, to boot) he comes up with a red card on Angel Rangel that was so wholly undeserved it was embarrassing. I've seen a few 'good dives' this season but Moses was a rank amateur.

Pity - the game should have gone down as a milestone in good reffing for that ground-breaking decision to stamp out the hugging and tugging fraternity.

Were you pished when you watched the game Santi??????

He gave a red card to NEITHER Shawcross or Rangel.

In my opinion both were penalties.

However consistency is what is missing. I guarantee next week there will be identical fouls as the one Shawcross committed, with no action taken

I think Santi is planning on becoming a ref himself, what with that vision, he's a shoe in.

redrus

Whinging gooner!

don't give me all that b// shit about what reffing used to be, IT WASNT it was crap. Reffing actually,, overall, is better than ever,and to a degree accountable. What has increased disproportionately is the ability of pundits and fans post decision dissect analyze and criticize.

Whoops yes - penalties (or pelanty's, as that Welsh pundit whose name escapes me, rather endearingly insists on calling them), not red cards.

Actually I was an FA-qualified ref (grade 3 - pretty localised stuff), Redrus. Long time ago - about the same time as you were a choirboy I'm guessing.

oi !! dont knock being a choir boy,,, fine part time job as opposed to a paper round,,being a crap part time job.

This is what I wrote after the Lampard incident versus Spurs and also applies for the Rangel incident :

I think this is one of these ones where the ref should be asking himself 2 questions :

A. If the player doesn't go down is it a penalty ?

B. Was there enough contact to warrant going down ? if one of the answers is a yes then it's a penalty

Too many times in these instances the ref is making the decision on weather the plays goes down or not and not on the actual infridgement, therefore they are actually encouraging the players to go down !!!

For budding reds out there, is it a foul if a player actually touches another player who is running with the ball ?

Typo, no such thing as a budding red obviously sb refs.

This is what I wrote after the Lampard incident versus Spurs and also applies for the Rangel incident :

I think this is one of these ones where the ref should be asking himself 2 questions :

A. If the player doesn't go down is it a penalty ?

B. Was there enough contact to warrant going down ? if one of the answers is a yes then it's a penalty

Too many times in these instances the ref is making the decision on weather the plays goes down or not and not on the actual infridgement, therefore they are actually encouraging the players to go down !!!

For budding reds out there, is it a foul if a player actually touches another player who is running with the ball ?

As usual no effin sense in that line