The ref (see PGMOL thread)

[TZMouk]

Just heard the VAR audio from when Gusto got sent off against Villa. First thing he says is "Tackle's fine" FFS

 

[Silky]

That’s an easy answer mate, firstly normally if I have been asked that question before I would have replied so apologies if I missed it.

Firstly I am the first to admit, with always been a football player rather than a football watcher, I am not the most passionate Sunderland fan out there as was always playing football rather than watching, hence not regular going to games.

Secondly I honestly genuinely think the whole culture and treatment of officials in football as opposed to other sports is nothing short of a disgrace.

What people have used once or twice on this threads is the word ‘empathy’ I am genuinely puzzled where everyone involved has not got empathy for one person having to deal with in the main 22 players trying to con and cheat that person, not to mention thousands of fans screaming abuse at him.

When all they doing in the main is making decisions to the best of their ability.

Mr Clough would be appalled

You don’t see anything even close to the abuse and over the top scrutiny officials get in football in any other sports, when basically they doing exactly the same giving decisions on that sport.

I think it’s totally unfair their treatment that simple really.

Refs have bad games, what’s wrong with just saying that?

All this he wants to be Star of the show, Homer, biased, cheat is just totally ridiculous in my humble opinion mate.

I agree with nearly everything you say. FA, EUFA, FIFA, whoever, should make very clear rules about what kind of approaches can be made to the ref, and then ALL the refs must stick to the letter of the law ALL the time. Rugby used to be good at this, not so good nowadays though.

I accept your points about Saturday's ref having a bad game. That was pretty obvious, with him missing an actual assault on Ballard among other things. It is OK to get things wrong, we all do it.

The big problem though is he changed the whole nature of the game with Neil's second yellow. There is no explanation at all for why he decided that this was the moment, out of many throughout the game, that a player needed to be cautioned for dissent. There was no split second decision to be made. There was no obvious intimidatory behaviour from the player, at least certainly not anything worse than what had gone before or came after, and there was absolutely no hint of threat. By all accounts coarse language was used, but not in an abusive way.

What I am saying is that this was not simply a case of a ref making an incorrect decision under pressure. Neil's appeal might have even been the mildest that he heard that day. Why did he decide to card him? What "mistake" could he have made to see that as a cautionable offence? I can only see one conclusion that makes any sense: the ref had some remorse that he didn't send Neil off for the earlier yellow-carded tackle, and decided to make amends. That would be a completely wrong way to behave as a match referee. But any other plausible explanation is even worse.

To recap, in many instances I agree the ref could be seen to be just having a bad game, but the critical decision he made that affected the game's outcome cannot be explained that way.

 

[AC Mack]

I agree with nearly everything you say. FA, EUFA, FIFA, whoever, should make very clear rules about what kind of approaches can be made to the ref, and then ALL the refs must stick to the letter of the law ALL the time. Rugby used to be good at this, not so good nowadays though.

I accept your points about Saturday's ref having a bad game. That was pretty obvious, with him missing an actual assault on Ballard among other things. It is OK to get things wrong, we all do it.

The big problem though is he changed the whole nature of the game with Neil's second yellow. There is no explanation at all for why he decided that this was the moment, out of many throughout the game, that a player needed to be cautioned for dissent. There was no split second decision to be made. There was no obvious intimidatory behaviour from the player, at least certainly not anything worse than what had gone before or came after, and there was absolutely no hint of threat. By all accounts coarse language was used, but not in an abusive way.

What I am saying is that this was not simply a case of a ref making an incorrect decision under pressure. Neil's appeal might have even been the mildest that he heard that day. Why did he decide to card him? What "mistake" could he have made to see that as a cautionable offence? I can only see one conclusion that makes any sense: the ref had some remorse that he didn't send Neil off for the earlier yellow-carded tackle, and decided to make amends. That would be a completely wrong way to behave as a match referee. But any other plausible explanation is even worse.

To recap, in many instances I agree the ref could be seen to be just having a bad game, but the critical decision he made that affected the game's outcome cannot be explained that way.

I agree there were inconsistencies with the way the ref dealt with dissent, but Clarke, Neil and Greenwood were all shown yellow cards for it - not just Neil.

 

[Fletch]

Did the ref go to Teesside university or is that bullshit

 

[soapster]

Stoke are obviously just unlucky, you not seriously suggesting there is a conspiracy against Stoke for some mysterious unknown reason?

As for your second and third line you right the banter has gone between player and ref which is sad.

But I firmly put the over the top reaction and treatment of refs as the reason for that, rather than just accepting they will have good and bad games like players.

Absolutely no bother at all mate, they my genuine opinions and I enjoy the crack, however I am the first to admit I am argumentative and can’t leave things

I am not suggesting a conspiracy by referees. what I am saying, is there a reason as to why stoke have been denied 6 penalties. dont forgot, these instances have been looked at by the ref assoc and confirmed a penalty should have been given.
why were they not given. Is it a education need. something needs to be done. To do nothing is not an option.
I saw one of the instances and the stoke player was clearly clattered from the back and the two players ended up on the floor.
I certainly do not want to take the physical contact out the game, but a phrase of two players coming together, seems to be creeping in more and more.
I notice on ref watch, things are explained as a coming together.
Coburns elbow on saturday was being described as a coming together

I agree there were inconsistencies with the way the ref dealt with dissent, but Clarke, Neil and Greenwood were all shown yellow cards for it - not just Neil.

it looked as though Clarke was just speaking to the linesman. he was not remonstrating at all . dont forgot clarke had been getting hammered all game

 

[Butcher's Coat]

Did the ref go to Teesside university or is that bullshit

It's bullshit.
IIRC he went to John Moore's in Liverpool.

 

[wicketkeeper]

I don't know whose faùlt it is but the whole Neil situation stemmed from lack of communication.
Too often these days instead of talikng to players refs just wave them away or worse issue cards.
Last season against Stoke I remember Mowbray going calmly on to the pitch to clarify a point with the referee and the ref just shouting go away and waving a yellow card.
In no other job public facing , do employees refuse to engage with people or ban them unless they are abusive. Imagine going into school to talk to your childs teacher about something that happened in school and them waving you away .
The refs these days are like robots and dont engage with players.
In the 70s and 80s you got the feeling that refs felt sad and took it as a personal failure when they had to send a player off now it sometimes looks like they revel in it.
They use cards to control the game rather than talk to players like they used to . Todays refs dont seem to enjoy the games like they used to . They come across as distant and aloof. They have virtually zero interaction with players

What's actually wrong with defending officials? You may not like mine and others opinions but we put forward perfectly valid arguments and if anything its those who slag them off constantly who tend to run away when you get into the nitty gritty of a debate. I dont post my opinion to wind people up. I get as pissed off as anybody when something doesn't go our way but ultimately of its our team or another I'm consistent with my views and they don't change like the wind depending if something goes for Sunderland or against us. That can certainly be leveled at quite a few posters when it comes to these debates

I think you are correct that there is nothing wrong with defending refs and you are clearly correct that the bigger picture shows that refereeing is an extremely difficult/impossible job as shown by the amount of errors year after year. Something which many fans , including myself ignore when we see our team being on the wrong end of one.
However that being said your determination to defend referees sometimes means that you will never admit they were wrong in specific cases.
On Saturday the referee should have simply given Neil a warning instead of brandishing a card.
Former referee Jeff Winter has come out yesterday and stated that is what he would have done and added that by issuing a card instead of tallking to the player loses the ref credibility. Instead of accepting that in this instance the ref acted hastily your response was that the player must have said something else or it may have been the way he said it. In affect looking for an excuse for the refs decision.
The whole thrust of your overall big picture argument is that refeering is very difficult and mistakes are inevitable so I cant understand why you are struggling to admit that on this occasion he did make a mistake.

 

[soapster]

It appears that redandwhiterob and voice of fair play, are defending referees in the general sense for all the correct reasons (difficult job, only one view , players conning etc).
However when posters are complaing on saturday, they are complaining about 2 main instances, the Dan Neill booking and the elbow to Ballard. These are actual occurances.
They are both different points and in reality both are correct in their own context.

 

[Silky]

I agree there were inconsistencies with the way the ref dealt with dissent, but Clarke, Neil and Greenwood were all shown yellow cards for it - not just Neil.

Greenwood was not carded at all, so don't know where you get that from. No Boro player was carded for dissent, unless you view Coburn's "incident" with Ballard as dissent. Clarke's card came much later in the match, not easy to see why but I can only guess that, being fed up with going 3 down and the officiating errors, he said something about the quality of the linesman or the ref for the goal that should have been given offside, which would be a pretty standard dissent booking.

The point, and I am sure you know it, is that there is nothing at all to suggest how Neil's second booking came anywhere near the normal threshold for a dissent booking. If it was because he used a crude word while speaking to a match official 20 yards away, with consistency you would expect nobody but Patto would be left on the pitch. And there is no evidence at all that the ref made a mistake in the heat of the moment, he simply chose to give a card for a fairly mild complaint to our only player already on a yellow.

 

[soapster]

Greenwood was not carded at all, so don't know where you get that from. No Boro player was carded for dissent, unless you view Coburn's "incident" with Ballard as dissent. Clarke's card came much later in the match, not easy to see why but I can only guess that, being fed up with going 3 down and the officiating errors, he said something about the quality of the linesman or the ref for the goal that should have been given offside, which would be a pretty standard dissent booking.

The point, and I am sure you know it, is that there is nothing at all to suggest how Neil's second booking came anywhere near the normal threshold for a dissent booking. If it was because he used a crude word while speaking to a match official 20 yards away, with consistency you would expect nobody but Patto would be left on the pitch. And there is no evidence at all that the ref made a mistake in the heat of the moment, he simply chose to give a card for a fairly mild complaint to our only player already on a yellow.

he was speaking to the linesman. only lasted a few seconds and referee came running and booked him.
Thats why I think the miked up conversations on saturday should be released. dan neill booking, elbow to ballard and Clarke booking
I should also mention, that since nothing has been published about a retrospective viewing of the coburn / ballard incident, that the referee has mentioned it in his report.
That is staggering that none of the officials saw the elbow to the throat and headbut.

 

[Voice of fair play]

It appears that redandwhiterob and voice of fair play, are defending referees in the general sense for all the correct reasons (difficult job, only one view , players conning etc).
However when posters are complaing on saturday, they are complaining about 2 main instances, the Dan Neill booking and the elbow to Ballard. These are actual occurances.
They are both different points and in reality both are correct in their own context.

I think that’s more than fair and kind of gets lost in the arguments going back and forth.

I think problem is that instead of people saying ref had a bad game and missed some incidents.

You have the usual well over the top comments, such as ‘ clueless’ ‘ clown’ ‘should never ref again’ ‘ wants to be star of the show’ ‘ is a cheat’ ‘ wanted to be not influenced by the home crowd’.

When in reality all that has happened is he has missed an Instance in this particular game and he had a bad game.

I get that fans get pissed off but refs will have good games and some bad games, and some very good games and some very bad games.

And we will experience them all just like any club, and sooner fans and people of all clubs realize that the better imo.

Rather than constantly looking for ridiculous conspiracies or bias against their club

 

[Rottie]

he was speaking to the linesman. only lasted a few seconds and referee came running and booked him.
Thats why I think the miked up conversations on saturday should be released. dan neill booking, elbow to ballard and Clarke booking
I should also mention, that since nothing has been published about a retrospective viewing of the coburn / ballard incident, that the referee has mentioned it in his report.
That is staggering that none of the officials saw the elbow to the throat and headbut.

Boro lad at work was adamant he was booked during the Ballard Melee, i've had a search and no site (i've seen) has Greenwood down as being carded!!

 

[Dobblemackem]

I think that’s more than fair and kind of gets lost in the arguments going back and forth.

I think problem is that instead of people saying ref had a bad game and missed some incidents.

You have the usual well over the top comments, such as ‘ clueless’ ‘ clown’ ‘should never ref again’ ‘ wants to be star of the show’ ‘ is a cheat’ ‘ wanted to be not influenced by the home crowd’.

When in reality all that has happened is he has missed an Instance in this particular game and he had a bad game.

I get that fans get pissed off but refs will have good games and some bad games, and some very good games and some very bad games.

And we will experience them all just like any club, and sooner fans and people of all clubs realize that the better imo.

Rather than constantly looking for ridiculous conspiracies or bias against their club

Yeah but you’re saying good games and bad games, seeing things and missing things etc. those are bitter pills to swallow, 100% they are, it’s ridiculous. As an example our “fouls” on there keeper vs the foul on Patto not being given, it’s absolutely shit, but you can accept that explanation, and write it off as not seeing it correctly. Even the clear elbow on Ballard can be written off, as shit as it is.

However how can the dissent be missed. A player screaming Fuckoff or calling you a **** standing right in front of you. No booking. Dan Neil from 20 yards away, shouting, aye card that get off lad.

There’s no not seeing or missing it with that situation. You’re either carding players for dissent or you aren’t. You can’t pick and choose which ones are dissent and which aren’t.

He can’t miss it. So what’s the excuse, only certain swear words get you in the book?

 

[Silky]

Yeah but you’re saying good games and bad games, seeing things and missing things etc. those are bitter pills to swallow, 100% they are, it’s ridiculous. As an example our “fouls” on there keeper vs the foul on Patto not being given, it’s absolutely shit, but you can accept that explanation, and write it off as not seeing it correctly. Even the clear elbow on Ballard can be written off, as shit as it is.

However how can the dissent be missed. A player screaming Fuckoff or calling you a **** standing right in front of you. No booking. Dan Neil from 20 yards away, shouting, aye card that get off lad.

There’s no not seeing or missing it with that situation. You’re either carding players for dissent or you aren’t. You can’t pick and choose which ones are dissent and which aren’t.

He can’t miss it. So what’s the excuse, only certain swear words get you in the book?

Said in an earlier reply, the only explanation that makes any sense is the ref thought was making up for leniency on Neil's earlier carded tackle (which was possibly worth a straight red). But if that was the case, the ref is just making up his own rules in the middle of the game. Still yet to hear anyone come up with a rational and fair explanation for it, just a lot of deflection about "everybody makes mistakes".

 

[Voice of fair play]

Yeah but you’re saying good games and bad games, seeing things and missing things etc. those are bitter pills to swallow, 100% they are, it’s ridiculous. As an example our “fouls” on there keeper vs the foul on Patto not being given, it’s absolutely shit, but you can accept that explanation, and write it off as not seeing it correctly. Even the clear elbow on Ballard can be written off, as shit as it is.

However how can the dissent be missed. A player screaming Fuckoff or calling you a **** standing right in front of you. No booking. Dan Neil from 20 yards away, shouting, aye card that get off lad.

There’s no not seeing or missing it with that situation. You’re either carding players for dissent or you aren’t. You can’t pick and choose which ones are dissent and which aren’t.

He can’t miss it. So what’s the excuse, only certain swear words get you in the book?

Said in an earlier reply, the only explanation that makes any sense is the ref thought was making up for leniency on Neil's earlier carded tackle (which was possibly worth a straight red). But if that was the case, the ref is just making up his own rules in the middle of the game. Still yet to hear anyone come up with a rational and fair explanation for it, just a lot of deflection about "everybody makes mistakes".

I think it’s works both ways guys, there has to be a explanation for it, as he did it, so if you keeping saying there has to be explanation for it, and nobody has come up with one.

What do you guys think the reason was?

I am not sure he was making up for the leniency of the first yellow card, as both in the first half so will not have seen it back, so at that point would be totally unaware it was lenient surely?

 

[AC Mack]

Greenwood was not carded at all, so don't know where you get that from. No Boro player was carded for dissent, unless you view Coburn's "incident" with Ballard as dissent. Clarke's card came much later in the match, not easy to see why but I can only guess that, being fed up with going 3 down and the officiating errors, he said something about the quality of the linesman or the ref for the goal that should have been given offside, which would be a pretty standard dissent booking.

The point, and I am sure you know it, is that there is nothing at all to suggest how Neil's second booking came anywhere near the normal threshold for a dissent booking. If it was because he used a crude word while speaking to a match official 20 yards away, with consistency you would expect nobody but Patto would be left on the pitch. And there is no evidence at all that the ref made a mistake in the heat of the moment, he simply chose to give a card for a fairly mild complaint to our only player already on a yellow.

He was booked in the 33rd minute, so that's where I got it from.

 

[redandwhiterob]

Yeah but you’re saying good games and bad games, seeing things and missing things etc. those are bitter pills to swallow, 100% they are, it’s ridiculous. As an example our “fouls” on there keeper vs the foul on Patto not being given, it’s absolutely shit, but you can accept that explanation, and write it off as not seeing it correctly. Even the clear elbow on Ballard can be written off, as shit as it is.

However how can the dissent be missed. A player screaming Fuckoff or calling you a **** standing right in front of you. No booking. Dan Neil from 20 yards away, shouting, aye card that get off lad.

There’s no not seeing or missing it with that situation. You’re either carding players for dissent or you aren’t. You can’t pick and choose which ones are dissent and which aren’t.

He can’t miss it. So what’s the excuse, only certain swear words get you in the book?

I think even with swearing there is a nuance and it doesn't have to be back and white as in any swearing gets a card. You could say the same thing but in two totally different ways and one could get a yellow or red and the other won't get a card. The footage posted earlier shows what looks like ref waving the initial dissent away and Neil could have basically pushed his luck and the ref has thought fuck it and carded him for his stupidity. I don't think the refs particularly mind swearing but obviously how much and how it's delivered will have baring on how they deal with it

 

[seahamstar]

He was booked in the 33rd minute, so that's where I got it from.

As far as I know, Jones and Coburn were the only Boro players booked

 

[Silky]

He was booked in the 33rd minute, so that's where I got it from.

Isaiah Jones was booked in the 32nd minute for foul play. They don't look alike, and it wasn't for dissent. There is no record of Greenwood receiving a caution on BBC, Sky or indeed the EFL official site. Of course they could all be wrong and you are right...

 

[AC Mack]

As far as I know, Jones and Coburn were the only Boro players booked

Isaiah Jones was booked in the 32nd minute for foul play. They don't look alike, and it wasn't for dissent. There is no record of Greenwood receiving a caution on BBC, Sky or indeed the EFL official site. Of course they could all be wrong and you are right...

The ref booked two players in one incident. Jones for the foul and Greenwood straight after. It was right in front of me. Sky confirmed it, I've just watched it back.

"Confirmation of the yellow card for Sam Greenwood, which was for dissent". Quote from the Sky commentator.