The ref (see PGMOL thread)

[Silky]

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?

Is it possible one of the other match officials could have told him through his earpiece that yellow looked a bit soft? Or he just thought it was borderline himself, so in his own mind it was more or less an orange card?

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.

So he forgot to put it in his report to the EFL?

 

[AC Mack]

So he forgot to put it in his report to the EFL?

No idea. He waved two yellow cards. It was one of the things I actually checked after the game as I wasn't sure who the second person was at the time, and there wasn't any record of it on Live Score when I looked.

Sky confirmed it was Greenwood.

 

[jazz]

No idea. He waved two yellow cards. It was one of the things I actually checked after the game as I wasn't sure who the second person was at the time, and there wasn't any record of it on Live Score when I looked.

Sky confirmed it was Greenwood.

Your right, on sky it said 2 bookings Jones first then Greenwood

 

[seahamstar]

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.

Fair enough mate.
I just hadn't noticed

 

[Silky]

No idea. He waved two yellow cards. It was one of the things I actually checked after the game as I wasn't sure who the second person was at the time, and there wasn't any record of it on Live Score when I looked.

Sky confirmed it was Greenwood.

OK, don't doubt you if you saw it, but now it looks like an even worse performance if he booked someone and forgot to report it. Everywhere I have looked I can only see two cards for Boro - Jones and Coburn.

 

[soapster]

OK, don't doubt you if you saw it, but now it looks like an even worse performance if he booked someone and forgot to report it. Everywhere I have looked I can only see two cards for Boro - Jones and Coburn.

then perhaps another reason for investigating and releasing the ref audio.

It has been done before. Perhaps sky got it wrong.

However so much wrong it needs to be investigated. wrong to malign people on assumptions

 

[AC Mack]

OK, don't doubt you if you saw it, but now it looks like an even worse performance if he booked someone and forgot to report it. Everywhere I have looked I can only see two cards for Boro - Jones and Coburn.

It's not on live score, it confused me when I checked. It was clear as day at the time, it was a similar motion from the ref like when he booked Ballard and Coburn. When I watched it back on Sky, they confirmed it with the quote I used earlier.

One of the reasons I went to check was because I knew Neil wasn't the first to be done for dissent, I even mentioned it at the time.

then perhaps another reason for investigating and releasing the ref audio.

It has been done before. Perhaps sky got it wrong.

However so much wrong it needs to be investigated. wrong to malign people on assumptions

I'm really not sure how it could have been missed/gone unreported. Strange one.

 

[Fleagle]

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".

Part of the problem is that we’re all guessing because of the governing body policy never to allow the ref to explain and almost never to explain as a body.

So we can probably come up with plenty of suggestions that might be true. Here’s five off the top of my head that would justify a card without thinking it was the worst single bit of dissent in the half on language alone that you couldn’t prove were wrong:
a) it was a ”last straw” booking after persistent whinging by Neil (should have given a warning but doesn’t have to);
b) it was a ”last straw” booking after persistent whinging by the team (should definitely have given a warning there);
c) he did give a warning of next time in the book (if they never explain, they won’t say) and that was the next time;
d) gave it because of the approach from distance, which the current guidelines have as a major aggravating factor, much more so than the actual words used;
e) weighed all the aggravating factors differently because the ones they look at aren’t the ones we think they should look at.

Of course, he may just have lost it and made a bad judgement call. I still think that’s a likely explanation. But if they did explain the logic we could at least look at it.

I kind of understand why they don’t explain as we as fans just aren’t receptive. You see this with the VAR stuff. If the decision is arguably weighted as per the guidelines we say the guidelines are shit. If the decision is unarguably correct as per the law we say the law is shit. We NEVER say, oh I see, you’re right, thanks for explaining I apologise for my ignorance. So why bother explaining? Chicken and egg really.

 

[Silky]

Part of the problem is that we’re all guessing because of the governing body policy never to allow the ref to explain and almost never to explain as a body.

So we can probably come up with plenty of suggestions that might be true. Here’s five off the top of my head that would justify a card without thinking it was the worst single bit of dissent in the half on language alone that you couldn’t prove were wrong:
a) it was a ”last straw” booking after persistent whinging by Neil (should have given a warning but doesn’t have to);
b) it was a ”last straw” booking after persistent whinging by the team (should definitely have given a warning there);
c) he did give a warning of next time in the book (if they never explain, they won’t say) and that was the next time;
d) gave it because of the approach from distance, which the current guidelines have as a major aggravating factor, much more so than the actual words used;
e) weighed all the aggravating factors differently because the ones they look at aren’t the ones we think they should look at.

Of course, he may just have lost it and made a bad judgement call. I still think that’s a likely explanation. But if they did explain the logic we could at least look at it.

I kind of understand why they don’t explain as we as fans just aren’t receptive. You see this with the VAR stuff. If the decision is arguably weighted as per the guidelines we say the guidelines are shit. If the decision is unarguably correct as per the law we say the law is shit. We NEVER say, oh I see, you’re right, thanks for explaining I apologise for my ignorance. So why bother explaining? Chicken and egg really.

I appreciate you taking the time to think through the possibilities and write them down. I don't find anybody's rationale for what happened compelling, not even my own, but I am wasting too much brain energy trying to work out what his reasoning was, so I am probably just going to bow to the emotional response now and let myself think he was just dick swinging, trying to make a point to the powers that be that he wasn't going to be swayed by a big noisy crowd.

On the explanations front, I can't help thinking it would be better if the rugby union system was adopted, where the ref calls over captain and offender and explains the decision before giving out the punishment. On big televised games, the ref is miked up and audible to viewers too, so it helps get a sense of the reasoning even if you don't agree with it, and even if he has made a mistake or missed something you understand why decisions are made. Just talking more to the players would be a start - just getting them to calm down and telling them where they stand could help avoid a lot of stuff that basically just spoils a game.

Funny thing is, if he had shown Neil a red for the first offence, we'd all be blaming Neil and not the ref.

 

[legend7]

No idea. He waved two yellow cards. It was one of the things I actually checked after the game as I wasn't sure who the second person was at the time, and there wasn't any record of it on Live Score when I looked.

Sky confirmed it was Greenwood.

Aye me and the lad I was sitting with were puzzled at that as we remembered 2 together

 

[DrewC]

OK, don't doubt you if you saw it, but now it looks like an even worse performance if he booked someone and forgot to report it. Everywhere I have looked I can only see two cards for Boro - Jones and Coburn.

If your beating props for the match I be pissed if I lost due to the ref not recording it

 

[hank williams]

According to the Sunday sun in their match report only two smoggy players got booked

Jones & Coburn

 

[AC Mack]

A quick search through the forum shows that plenty of people saw Greenwood get booked.

 

[GipseT]

Part of the problem is that we’re all guessing because of the governing body policy never to allow the ref to explain and almost never to explain as a body.

So we can probably come up with plenty of suggestions that might be true. Here’s five off the top of my head that would justify a card without thinking it was the worst single bit of dissent in the half on language alone that you couldn’t prove were wrong:
a) it was a ”last straw” booking after persistent whinging by Neil (should have given a warning but doesn’t have to);
b) it was a ”last straw” booking after persistent whinging by the team (should definitely have given a warning there);
c) he did give a warning of next time in the book (if they never explain, they won’t say) and that was the next time;
d) gave it because of the approach from distance, which the current guidelines have as a major aggravating factor, much more so than the actual words used;
e) weighed all the aggravating factors differently because the ones they look at aren’t the ones we think they should look at.

Of course, he may just have lost it and made a bad judgement call. I still think that’s a likely explanation. But if they did explain the logic we could at least look at it.

I kind of understand why they don’t explain as we as fans just aren’t receptive. You see this with the VAR stuff. If the decision is arguably weighted as per the guidelines we say the guidelines are shit. If the decision is unarguably correct as per the law we say the law is shit. We NEVER say, oh I see, you’re right, thanks for explaining I apologise for my ignorance. So why bother explaining? Chicken and egg really.

Yes I think they would come a long way trying to explain and admit when things get wrong... They don't need to get everyone on their side but think plenty would cool down

 

[AC Mack]

Yes I think they would come a long way trying to explain and admit when things get wrong... They don't need to get everyone on their side but think plenty would cool down

I'm not too sure. I think most people would probably just move the goalposts. 'He's explained his decision but he still got it wrong and it affected my team.'

 

[1879]

Having had 5 days to reflect on my OP. I’m still of the opinion the ref is an absolute prick who I hope doesn’t take charge of one of our games again.

In fact, I hope he doesn’t officiate in the English leagues again. It’ll only be a matter of time before he completely spoils another game of football with his inconsistency and bizarre decision making.

 

[Missplaced Childhood]

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?

Shirt pulls were the more obvious inconsistancy, multiple on Clarke allowed to go unpunished against the laws of the game (he gave fouls so clearly saw them) but as soon as Roberts does one he remembers the new directive and books him, ridiculous.

 

[Rick O Shea]

Shirt pulls were the more obvious inconsistancy, multiple on Clarke allowed to go unpunished against the laws of the game (he gave fouls so clearly saw them) but as soon as Roberts does one he remembers the new directive and books him, ridiculous.

Crooks got away with several shirt pulls - I might be wrong, but I think he committed 7 fouls in the first half alone.

 

[Missplaced Childhood]

Crooks got away with several shirt pulls - I might be wrong, but I think he committed 7 fouls in the first half alone.

He could easily have had at least a couple of yellows with a different ref, when you look back at Neils 2nd yellow Crooks telling the ref to fuck off in his face earlier in the game and just being waved away seems laughable.

 

[Dobblemackem]

Shirt pulls were the more obvious inconsistancy, multiple on Clarke allowed to go unpunished against the laws of the game (he gave fouls so clearly saw them) but as soon as Roberts does one he remembers the new directive and books him, ridiculous.

So are we saying you have to pull a shirt in a certain way to receive a card