Corruption or incompetence?


Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't "buy" into your points marra. No offense. I didnt see it that way.

Anyways here's the rule.

The referee may play advantage whenever an infringement or offence occurs.
The referee should consider the following circumstances in deciding whether to apply the advantage or stop play:
~ The severity of the offense. If its a straight red then you can stop play and issue the red.
~ the position where the offence was committed: the closer to the opponent's goal, the more effective it can be
~the chances of an immediate, promising attack
~ the atmosphere of the match
The decision to penalise the original offence must be taken within a few
seconds.

If the offence warrants a caution, it must be issued at the next stoppage.
However, unless there is a clear advantage, it is recommended that the referee stops play and cautions the player immediately. If the caution is NOT issued at the next stoppage, it cannot be shown later.


It can't get any clearer mate.

Well, from my point of view (the bullet-points in my last post) you've summed up perfectly why I agree with the ref's call.

You have made the rule more clear to me though. I had no idea the atmosphere of the match made a difference to the advantage rule.

Edit: Oh, and thanks for posting that.
 
Refs afraid of upsetting the big teams (and by extension the FA).[DOUBLEPOST=1379173352][/DOUBLEPOST]Refs afraid of upsetting the big teams (and by extension the FA).
It wasn't allowed because Altidore is a foreign player against an English player, oh hang on.....[DOUBLEPOST=1379187851][/DOUBLEPOST]I'm so f***ing angry about all this, if we had got beat fair and square then so be it, but when it should have been 2-2 and playing against 10 men surely we had a chance to win the game.
 
Well, from my point of view (the bullet-points in my last post) you've summed up perfectly why I agree with the ref's call.

You have made the rule more clear to me though. I had no idea the atmosphere of the match made a difference to the advantage rule.

Edit: Oh, and thanks for posting that.

:lol:
No worries mate.

What I can't get my head around is how you can read that and affirm your views even more? I'm simply flabbergasted that you could read that and not hate the ref for making such a huge error. HE PLAYED NO ADVANTAGE. Its in plain simple English that he should have waited and seen until Jozy had no advantage before pulling them back.

How can you not see this?
 
:lol:
No worries mate.

What I can't get my head around is how you can read that and affirm your views even more? I'm simply flabbergasted that you could read that and not hate the ref for making such a huge error. HE PLAYED NO ADVANTAGE. Its in plain simple English that he should have waited and seen until Jozy had no advantage before pulling them back.

How can you not see this?

:lol:

In my opinion he did. He waited a second or two while the foul was going on, so that he could see whether we'd get an advantage, and then when Altidore turned his back on the ball to face Sagna, assumed that the move was over and blew the whistle.
 
Indeed.

Imagine the lad had cleared off the line, we got a free kick and Gardner put it in the top corner. There'd be no issue.

The advantage rule is a difficult one.

Corruption doesn't even need to be discussed. Refereeing is a very very hard job. They do occasionally get things wrong.

It's not the refs that are corrupt, it's the FA and the media. The refs are biased due to the intense pressure they are under.[DOUBLEPOST=1379188640][/DOUBLEPOST]
:lol:

In my opinion he did. He waited a second or two while the foul was going on, so that he could see whether we'd get an advantage, and then when Altidore turned his back on the ball to face Sagna, assumed that the move was over and blew the whistle.

Then he should have sent Sagna off.
 
:lol:

In my opinion he did. He waited a second or two while the foul was going on, so that he could see whether we'd get an advantage, and then when Altidore turned his back on the ball to face Sagna, assumed that the move was over and blew the whistle.

A second or two? He was on goal in 3-4 seconds man.

Whichever way you see it, the ref has had a mare. :lol: I'm not sure why your playing the devil's advocate so vehemently.
 
Explain your corruption theory and how it is propogated and allowed to continue.

With pleasure.

It's no longer in the Premier League's interest for it to be a competition. Because it's such global moneyspinner, certain things have to be guaranteed for the moneyspinning to continue. Would your average Malaysian, Arab or American be interested in West Brom v Stoke, for example, battling it out over the last half dozen games for second place? Course not, they've never heard of them. They want the glamour names, those who were successful during the last cycle (because teams used to have cycles of success, remember?) to stay up there, or the money goes away.

It's very simple to nudge a football match in the way you want it to go. A decision here or there, stopping one team's momentum and encouraging another. Add to that the fact that referees have no consequences to their actions other than a week refereeing in the championship, and the question becomes why we believe that it's not corrupt. It's more and more blatant every year. This is why I want every technological aid at their disposal, let's make them more accountable, everything can be hidden behind 'I didn't see it clearly'. Well we all saw it clearly ten seconds afterwards, why can't they?
 
A second or two? He was on goal in 3-4 seconds man.

Whichever way you see it, the ref has had a mare. :lol: I'm not sure why your playing the devil's advocate so vehemently.

:lol: The ref definitely had a mare, I'm with you on that one. Sagna should certainly have been sent off.

I'm not playing devil's advocate as such, I'm just saying I can see how it happened the way it did with regard to the advantage side of the incident.

Once the ref had blown his whistle he certainly couldn't have then awarded the goal, and on another day he might've been slower blowing his whistle and it would've been a goal.
 
I've not read this thread in whole and I don't intend to but that decision is one of the worst I've ever seen. In terms of the effect it had on the result and how wrong the decision was, it was absolutely appallng and a game decider. Martin Atkinson should be refereeing in the Northern League next week.
 
Not incompetence but a load of referees who are like starstruck bairns and not wanting to upset the Premier League Applecart. See the Man Utd game earlier for evidence.
 
Just saw this again on football first and the whistle doesn't goo until Altidore is already free of Sagna and running towards the ball. Horrendous decision not to play the advantage.
 
With pleasure.

It's no longer in the Premier League's interest for it to be a competition. Because it's such global moneyspinner, certain things have to be guaranteed for the moneyspinning to continue. Would your average Malaysian, Arab or American be interested in West Brom v Stoke, for example, battling it out over the last half dozen games for second place? Course not, they've never heard of them. They want the glamour names, those who were successful during the last cycle (because teams used to have cycles of success, remember?) to stay up there, or the money goes away.

It's very simple to nudge a football match in the way you want it to go. A decision here or there, stopping one team's momentum and encouraging another. Add to that the fact that referees have no consequences to their actions other than a week refereeing in the championship, and the question becomes why we believe that it's not corrupt. It's more and more blatant every year. This is why I want every technological aid at their disposal, let's make them more accountable, everything can be hidden behind 'I didn't see it clearly'. Well we all saw it clearly ten seconds afterwards, why can't they?

So do you think refs are told by the powers that be to favor big teams?
 
:lol: The ref definitely had a mare, I'm with you on that one. Sagna should certainly have been sent off.

I'm not playing devil's advocate as such, I'm just saying I can see how it happened the way it did with regard to the advantage side of the incident.

Once the ref had blown his whistle he certainly couldn't have then awarded the goal, and on another day he might've been slower blowing his whistle and it would've been a goal.

We'll just have to agree that your wrong then. ;)
 
So do you think refs are told by the powers that be to favor big teams?

I think there's certainly pressure of some description, whether it's direct or indirect I don't know. How often do you see an outrageous decision like this afternoon's go against a big club when it's playing a little club? I'm struggling to think of any.
 
I think there's certainly pressure of some description, whether it's direct or indirect I don't know. How often do you see an outrageous decision like this afternoon's go against a big club when it's playing a little club? I'm struggling to think of any.

I think (hope) it's less direct that in other leagues. Ie: they know if they give two decisions against Arsenal and they lose as a result Wenger will make sure they're hauled over the coals....and the FA are more than happy to oblige when the call comes from certain managers.

I wouldn't exactly be surprised to hear of money changing hands though.
 
I think there's certainly pressure of some description, whether it's direct or indirect I don't know. How often do you see an outrageous decision like this afternoon's go against a big club when it's playing a little club? I'm struggling to think of any.

So when you think about the amount of refs that have taken charge of a PL game over say 10 years you think not one would have come out and said what you are saying happens.

I would find it staggering, in fact impossible that the FA or PL have told any officials to favour any teams. By now you would have at least one whistle blower who would want to make a name for himself. Its a nonsense conspiracy theory imo
 
So when you think about the amount of refs that have taken charge of a PL game over say 10 years you think not one would have come out and said what you are saying happens.

I would find it staggering, in fact impossible that the FA or PL have told any officials to favour any teams. By now you would have at least one whistle blower who would want to make a name for himself. Its a nonsense conspiracy theory imo

I seem to remember that the referee's payoff after retirement is dependent on them signing a confidentiality agreement. This came up a couple of months back, can't remember the ref in question tbh but he refused it.

Why would a referee need to sign a confidentiality agreement? And why is their money dependent on it?
 
I seem to remember that the referee's payoff after retirement is dependent on them signing a confidentiality agreement. This came up a couple of months back, can't remember the ref in question tbh but he refused it.

Why would a referee need to sign a confidentiality agreement? And why is their money dependent on it?

You basically saying every referee past and present is on the payroll to keep his mouth shut with regards to favoring big teams. Whp pays them by the way, the FA or the PL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top