AND WE WONDER WHY

[ECPL]

 

Anyone watching the Liverpool v Bournemouth match will be amazed at the standard of officiating. Firstly Bournemouth captain Tommy Elphick had a perfectly good headed goal ruled out for a foul. It was clear that the Liverpool defender made a hash of his positioning and tried his hardest to get the foul because he ducked his head and moved back into Elphick – who yes had his arms up but with minimal contact the referee who was in the perfect position disallowed the goal for a foul which if committed anywhere else on the field would have been ignored. But the biggest shock was Liverpools goal. The change of the offside law makes life so much easier for officials and managers alike yet when the ball came over Philippe Coutinho almost made contact with the ball. The goalkeeper reacted to that but couldn't stop Christian Benteke – who was not offside from scoring. The linesman (I refuse to call them assistants, their job to me is to rule on offsides and ball in or out of play) for whatever reason decided that the new law didn't apply to him so he kept his flag down. I am sure that officials had been put through the wringer for this type of scenario. Clubs held meetings with the officials yet somehow this man failed to see the obvious.

Are we going to have another season of contentious decisions. The officials do not like team managers, have the press speaking to them immediately after the match to answer searching questions. They are even more protected for abuse from managers and players (which I agree wholeheartedly with). Yet linesmen have about half a dozen decisions to make in a match, but still get decisions wrong. What do we get when a **** up has been made. The traditional thumbs up to the referee. We now see linesmen more and more interfering with the game by waving their flags vigorously for so called fouls which the referee often ignores.

The most telling remark came from Hull City boss Steve Bruce when he said 'welcome to the big league. The big boys will always get the big decisions in their favour.' Seems like he is being proved right and we have only just started the season. Have a look at the Liverpool web site for the match report. NOT A MENTION OF THE INCIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mangle]

Thing is, I do not think any "new guidelines" were needed in this case anyway. He was offside, right in front the keeper. This season, lsst season, 20 seasons ago, he was offside!

[Mangle]

The PL have admitted that the Liverpool goal should not have stood. Even though that is obvious, I think that is a good thing. Eddie Howe says the guidelines are a "grey area". Here are the guidelines:

"A player in an offside position shall be penalised if he; 1. Clearly attempts to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or; 2. Makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball."

In all honesty, that is pretty clear, and to me is common sense and makes perfect sense. How could you make it any clearer?

[Richard Rundle]

In all honesty, that is pretty clear, and to me is common sense and makes perfect sense. How could you make it any clearer?

Go back to the pre-Premier League era interpretation? Anyone in an offside position is offside.

[Mangle]

Make everyone's life easier!

[Mangle]

Agreed. In the main, the officials do a great job. There will ALWAYS be mistakes as we are human. I maintain that the real problem stems from the players themselves. So much cheating (claims for throws, free kicks, corners and so on when clearly they know it's wrong) means that the officials always have a mountain to climb. To see what actually happened and not what is claimed to have happened. Easier to moan and complain than to officiate.

[plainlazy]

Being a die hard cherries fan it was a tough result and decision to take! However I said at the time to a mate that we wouldn't get the correct decisions due to our clubs stature. I'm just glad we held on and got a decision for us in the West Ham game.

[ECPL]

No excuses.  These guys are now well paid for doing their job.  The off side rule is so simple.  I don;t get how people can get it wrong.  Let us not forget, a linesman, because that is all they are, only has to make a handful of what may remotely be called contentious decisions in a match.  Even a referee who can be excused for not making a decision he does not see because of obscured vision etc got it wrong when in front of everyone and in full view he did not give a penalty for what clearly was handball and with head on full vision only for him to show on TV that the players arms were pulled down.  Did he blink or what, what did he see that nobody else saw.  Is it not time for football at the highest level to have TV replays of contentious issues to be shown just like in Rugby Union and League and cricket.  After all what we want is the correct decision being made, and surely this will help the match officials.  All they have to do is to stop the clock so no time lost    

 

 

[ECPL]

Here we go again another linesman sticks his flag up for a non existent offside to deny Arsenal a goal against Liverpool.  Are they trying to give Liverpool the title.  Every decision seems to be going their way.  Bring in TV replays AND NOW.  this nonsense cannot go on.   

[Mangle]

I'm not sure I can agree entirely with what you are saying here. Mistakes will happen. Surely you can agree to that? Have you run the line before? I do it quite often (as apparently it's my best position which I thoroughly disagree with!!) and it is difficult sometimes to watch with one pair of eyes everything that is going on. You should be in line with the last defender, easy to say, but in  a fast moving game, not so easy to do. One minute you are on the halfway line watching the game at the other end, then a long ball into "your half" means you have to turn and run, whilst keeping an eye on the ball (who did it come off last in case it goes out of play), keeping an eye on the last defender, who may sprint, then stop, change direction, get overtaken by another defender, and so it goes on. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be in the correct position at all times. Therefore, when the decision, such as Ramsey's last night, is very tight, you are basically "guessing" what the actual situation is. He got it wrong. But we only know that as we saw a TV reply, with imaginary lines across the screen to show exactly where each players foot was. And even then, the commentators are saying "it looks like offside". Not 100% sure.

Technology may be the answer, it may not be. But to load all the fault with the "paid officials" is not fair in my book. Why not analyse matches to show how many decisions they get right, which I would believe to be most of the time.

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

Just get on with it....its only a game for gods sake.

[Mangle]

Just get on with it....its only a game for gods sake.

You are incapable of debate it appears. Your often childish, succinct replies are aimed at nothing more than causing mild grief. You offer no point of view. Are you afraid of something? I don't really get why you get involved in these subjects when you have nothing of interest to add. When you read what others have said, you see replies that explain views, with consideration of other views. Have a go at it, tell us what you think would improve the game. Are the officials not up to it. Shpuld they be replaced by better officials, technology, or what.....

[ECPL]

As an ex referee and having run the line on numerous occasions (many, many years ago) you have to be alert at all times.  How many times does a linesman (because that is all they are) have to make a remotely contentious decision.  Once or twice in a game.   Unfortunately my biggest bug is when a linesman who is clearly in the wrong position raises his flag (or not) and then has the affront to give the thumbs up sign to the referee even when he is wrong.  For goodness sake he only has to follow the last defender.  Can't be that hard.    . 

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

Just get on with it....its only a game for gods sake.

You are incapable of debate it appears. Your often childish, succinct replies are aimed at nothing more than causing mild grief. You offer no point of view. Are you afraid of something? I don't really get why you get involved in these subjects when you have nothing of interest to add. When you read what others have said, you see replies that explain views, with consideration of other views. Have a go at it, tell us what you think would improve the game. Are the officials not up to it. Shpuld they be replaced by better officials, technology, or what.....

What's to debate ? Decisions have been given, they're not going to change them. Very easy to bomb the referee and lino, when players continually **** it up, as well as managers.

My replies are succinct, because I can say it with less words than a lot of the blowhards on here.

Here's a point of view, did it cause you mild grief? am I bovvered - you know the answer.

Here's another point of view. Do I want technology, NO -  leave it to the ref and the lino. Its worked for a few years now.

[Mangle]

Blimey, something we may agree on, the use of technology that is. I think the recent introduction of the goal line technology is a good thing. No hold up in play, and a correct decision can be made. As for offsides, penalties, handballs and so on, leave as is.

I also agree that although we may debate, it is not going to change any decision. But that is not the point. We can still give opinions. When you played, did you not retire to the clubhouse after the game and discuss all the rights and wrongs of the game, and put the world to right? That is basically what we are doing here, although it's not our game we are discussing, and it's not the clubhouse.

And ECPL, I still think you are being harsh. It can be difficult. Although you have to stay in line with the last defender, he is not stationary, and you are also having to watch the ball in play and so on. 

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

No, not really, straight on the beer, not the coca cola / lucozade s**t they all drink today. Then 3 card brag, or euchre. The game was done and dusted. Party time!!!

Goal line technology, yup....like that. The referee, and the lino's - leave them alone. All the pundits have the most wonderful hindsight, and fifty cameras to make their decision, then they can't agree, and would be two hours late in making the decision anyway.

I put the world to right everyday as well.

Stay well bud.

[St Darren]

Ecpl must be a Man Utd fan! The reason I guess this, is because of the obsession that they all have with anything to do with Liverpool football club. I can't remember this debate last year when was it Mata or RVP offside for a Utd goal against Liverpool!! But such is their obsession they can't let it go

 

back to the linesman debate, they've been getting gunned wrong for years, I can forgive the Ramsey one as that could have gone either way but the countinho one against Bournemouth was ridiculous, he's way offside and goes for the ball. Those are the breaks I suppose, but until the officials are held accountable then nothing will be done. They can't improve, you can't have done genetic implant to make you get everything right. They need video evidence to help them in certain situations. Fouls are interpreted so don't want it for that, but clear cut laws like offside or ball in and out of play there should be no grey area

 

bu they, if Liverpool didn't have it all their own way the Utd fans wouldn't have anything to sing about. They've already lost most of their match day songs following the departure of Gerrard and Suarez 

[ECPL]

Hey ho.  Yes I am a Man U supporter.  Have been for over 60 years.  But, and this is a big but.  It matters not to me whose decision is given wrongly or right.  I am only interested in the powers to be to GET IT RIGHT.  It is as simple as that.  Nothing to do with Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal etc.  But I do agree with you about accountability.  

[ECPL]

I couldn't resist this one.  We all know that raising your hands to another player is a sending off.  Don't we.  I could name many but having watched these three incidents numerous times I am a little baffled.  Yes we like any referee will miss the obvious that is human nature.  But the guy who got sent off for Stoke against West Brom made me laugh. He gets fouled, he then gets a little slap in the face but reacts by slapping the West Brom player.  Let us forget common sense for a moment, if you go by the letter of the law then both players should have been red carded.  But no the referee decides to send off the Stoke player, why, was it because his slap was harder than what he got.  Now we use common sense.  Neither should have gone, give them a yellow each for stupidity but not a red.  Then we head off to Bournemouth.  And what do we get.  Huth of Leicester fouls the Bournemouth player but not only that almost decapitates him by thumping the ball at him, but wait for it a Bournemouth player comes in to remonstrate with him and what does Huth do. GIVES HIM A RIGHT HOOK.   Now the referee sees all this, so there is no problem it is a straight red. NOPE.  He gets a yellow.  Now back to the Stoke game, Adams chases back and tackles a player ok, you can give a foul he then gets in a tangle with the player accidently trods on him and immediately apologises to him, But hey ho,  What happens a raging banshee of a linesman comes on waving his flag like mad and he gets ADAMS SENT OFF for what he thinks he sees.  But what actually happened.  I have checked the incident a dozen times and my conclusion is where on earth was he supposed to put his leg, he is trying to get his balance.but no.  A straight red.  I just remembered.  Noble gets red carded for a great tackle, studs down , wins the ball and gets red carded.  Again I had to watch this numerous times and I cannot for the life of me see that he even committed a foul.   But hey ho.  A straight red.   I could go on having watched the football league program as well and I am baffled. WHAT IS IT THAT OFFICIALS SEE THAT NOE ONE ELSE DOES.  Poor decisions can cost players their place because after suspension they cannot get back in the team or a manager his job because his team has lost.

DISCUSS       .   

[fenman]

It goes a bit further than that . Last season  in the championship Wolves had a player sent off in the first half for a tackle that by all accounts never was . They had to play the entire second half with ten men against  a team in the top 3 .They lost 1-2   , the red card was rescinded . At the end of the season Wolves finished 7th , failing to reach the play offs by 4 goals . Had they have played the second half with 11 men they might have won , might have drawn equally might still have lost ,but , whatever , with 11 men would have a better chance of a point . That point would have got them in the play offs and a chance of the Premiership  . I know its all might have been etc. BUT it illustrates what a sometimes obvious refereeing error  can lead to .

[ECPL]

The reason I raise the point is because when you see a referee having an uninterrupted view he still gets it wrong.  I know that officials attend numerous meetings where they go over and over past decisions on video but they still get it so obviously wrong.   Any one who has blown the whistle knows that in a split second he has to decide what he sees once, but my argument is why are they getting it so wrong.  Are they being given to many guidelines that must confuse them.  A referee can only give what he sees, even having time to weigh up the decision.  What has happened to commonsense refereeing.  And why should a raving lunatic waving his flag and racing on to the field as if a serious assault had taken place when in fact it has proved to be nothing.  The referee didn't see it so the jobsworth man with the flag who over reacted to something that didn't happen decided that it was assault so it is on his say so that a player is sent off.  Believe it or not I am on the side of the officials having been one myself but something is going drastically wrong and needs to be nipped in the bud straight away.  I have given a number of examples that are indefensible but I am sure the referee fraternity will come on here backing the officials 100%.    If they do then it shows the game has a major problem.       

[Brianmooreshead]

If you honestly think Charlie Adam did that accidentally then you're a mug

He's just about the nastiest, snidest malicious player in the league. He knew what he was doing

Ask Gareth Bale what he thinks - He's tried to cripple him on two occasions

 

[ECPL]

Nothing like a good honest biased opinion.   I spoke to some local referees this afternoon and although they would not say it in public they felt that the Adams sending off was a bit harsh especially with the linesman acting as if a violent assault had taken place.  It was an accident. Where else was he to put his leg.  Leave it hanging in the air.   

I was at a Womens match this afternoon involving Plymouth Argyle.  There were two strange decisions and perhaps an official will come on and explain.

1. A Plymouth player broke clear to race on to a high ball but she was just inside the opponents half.  Nothing happened so she chased after the ball and got to it just before reaching the penalty area,a run of some 40 yards or so.  But then the linesman raised his flag and the referee blew for offside.  I couldn't see but I assume the decision was right.  The referee could clearly be heard saying she couldn't blow up until the player had touched the ball.   How bizarre is that.  Surely a little common sense should have been shown but they allowed her to run flat out to get to the ball, because no decision has been made.  I appreciate the laws of the game are their to be observed but to allow that was a little bizarre to say the least.   And this from linesman who twice in a row who did not have a clue whether a ball was a corner or goal kick and stood there with his flag down looking totally bemused.  In the end the referee who was 30 yards away gave the corner while he was no more than three yards away.    . 

2.  The second point came when a cross caused panic in the visitors defense, the goalkeeper collided with a defender, an argyle play smacked the ball into the net.  The referee then blew the whistle to stop play.  When the injured player went off with a leg injury, the referee explained why she disallowed the goal saying and I could not believe it, that it was for health and safety of an injured player who had a had a head injury.  She did not it was a leg injury.  My question is.  When a goal is scored and then the referee blows the whistle for an injury, surely the goal must stand as the official blew the whistle AFTER THE GOAL HAD BEEN SCORED.        

 

 

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

If you honestly think Charlie Adam did that accidentally then you're a mug

He's just about the nastiest, snidest malicious player in the league. He knew what he was doing

Ask Gareth Bale what he thinks - He's tried to cripple him on two occasions

 

I agree, he knew exactly what he was doing.

[Mangle]

You do make some very good points ECPL, but I can only surmise that human error dictates. As "Older" comments about the Charlie Adam decision, his opinion is different to yours. I also agree that Charlie Adam knew what he was doing, and should have been sent off. So, you can see, from your point, no doubt an error. From my point, a correct decision. You must remember that we see all these incidents on HD TV. Usually from a couple of different angles, slo-mo and so on. The ref can easily miss one or two decisions which in hindsight, should have been a different decision. BUT, we all have different opinions anyway - so the ref is on a hiding-to-nothing anyway!

I think Noble's card will get overturned. I think Adams card will be upheld (if they decide to appeal). Also think the other Stoke player will keep his red. The WBA guy did not make contact in that incident, so I believe the correct decision. Did not see the Huth incident, but sounds like he should get a red after review (haven't they changed the rules now so that a review board can take retrospective action even if the ref took action in the match?). I also think the Newcastle guy will keep his red, even though many people thought his was harsh. He knew what he was doing, and if they appeal, I believe he will keep it.

[ECPL]

Some good points.   as far as the ADAMS situation is concerned I have now seen it so many times and I still cannot see where he was supposed to put his leg.  You could see by his reaction that he had caught the player and was apologising.  Unfortunately the decision was made by the linesman who got completely carried away and should take a few happy pills to calm him down.  Adams does have a reputation and often justified but I'm afraid not in this case.   Pity you missed the Huth incident it was a cracking right hook.  Anyway I think we have exhausted this thread. Onwards and upwards.

Edited September 3, 2015 by ECPL

[ECPL]

Here we go again.  Watched the Bristol Rovers match on TV.  When I was a referee it was continually drummed into me INTENT.  So why did the referee red card the Bristol player.  Both players had their eyes on the ball, both players had their arms up but because one player catches the other he is red carded.  The referee had the perfect view, there was no complaint from the players but he sent the Bristol man off.  Are we breeding officials who know the laws of the game inside out but have absolutely no commonsense.  I didn't see the second half so I cant comment on the other sending off. 

I then go to a womens match Plymouth Argyle v Charlton Athletic and I witnessed one of the best referees performances for some time.  Even when there was a dispute he explained everything.  In another game with another referee it would have had a number of yellow cards.  But not this fella.  His experience shone like a beacon, don't know his name but he was super even when it got a bit tetchy.  Kept his cards in his pocket.  Good on him      

 

[ECPL]

Here we go again Tottenham v Manchester City.  Manchester City break the ball is passed out wide, just offside but where was the dozy linesman.  He is ahead of the play so in his eye line the players are level.      What happened to linesman picking up the last defender or the first forward.  I'm afraid this guy was fast asleep and missed the obvious, the result a goal.  The second incident was unbelievable.  The ball is played out to the right wing directly in front of the linesman, clearly 2/3 yards offside but the clown missed it.  HOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.  and guess what the ball eventually comes out to a Tottenham player who scores.  You could say that evens it up.  My argument is that it should not have been allowed n the first place.  And you guessed it a Manchester City player gets a yellow card.  Yes he possibly overreacted but if the correct decision had been made then this would never have happened.  

Please , please FA train these people properly because it is becoming farcical.  Anyway I'm off to watch real football   

[ECPL]

I don't believe it, I'm about to go out the door popped my head round the door to watch Spurs third goal AND GUESS WHAT.  Another offside.  This is now becoming embarasing as when the free kick is taken Kane is offside a spurs player fires against a post and Kane who is still offside scores.  I just don't believe it.  The linesman is directly in line and misses it.  Bet the two linesmen will get as pat on the back and more lucrative matches.

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

COME ON YOU SPURS