The Refereeing Thread

[Kingstheman]

It's funny. The refs always make some shocking decisions that go against the lower teams on the table when they play teams at or towards the top. Except if they play us. Then the decisions are in their favor. Always screwing us over.

Brown paper bags.

Money.

 

[dirtyh]

Lots of money changed hands today for sure.

 

[yankspurs]

Brown paper bags.

Money.

It certainly would be interesting to have a look at their bank accounts around fixture dates. Because there are sometimes where I can swear that they have to be being paid for such shocking decisions.

I think it was last October, Chelsea was losing to West Brom was it? and Mariner gave them a penalty that clearly should not have been a penalty just before the full time whistle. It was so shocking and painfully obvious that something was obviously amiss there. Lead me to one of my "Fuck this, fuck that" rants on here.

 

[Syn_13]

It certainly would be interesting to have a look at their bank accounts around fixture dates. Because there are sometimes where I can swear that they have to be being paid for such shocking decisions.

I think it was last October, Chelsea was losing to West Brom was it? and Mariner gave them a penalty that clearly should not have been a penalty just before the full time whistle. It was so shocking and painfully obvious that something was obviously amiss there. Lead me to one of my "Fuck this, fuck that" rants on here.

The one where Ramires threw himself into Reid? Yeah, I can totally believe that. Chelsea do get some "luck", that's for sure.

 

[Hawk_Spur]

Sterling penalty was 50/50 I reckon but it should not have been given as Sterling should have been pinged for handball seconds earlier.

 

[nightgoat]

That Liverpool third goal really is two utterly laughable decisions.

 

[Spurger King]

It certainly would be interesting to have a look at their bank accounts around fixture dates. Because there are sometimes where I can swear that they have to be being paid for such shocking decisions.

I think it was last October, Chelsea was losing to West Brom was it? and Mariner gave them a penalty that clearly should not have been a penalty just before the full time whistle. It was so shocking and painfully obvious that something was obviously amiss there. Lead me to one of my "Fuck this, fuck that" rants on here.

Definitely a bribe. No question about it as far as I'm concerned. The sort of plain sight cheating and corruption that makes a mockery of the whole sport.

 

[Toela65]

And Rodgers reckons it was a penalty, too. If that had been given against Liverpool he'd be insisting the referee is the mayor of Stoke in his spare time.

After the game Rodger's said it was a soft penalty and we were a bit lucky to get it but Sterling didn't dive and never has. I didn't hear say anything making out it was a stone wall penalty.

 

[nightgoat]

After the game Rodger's said it was a soft penalty and we were a bit lucky to get it but Sterling didn't dive and never has. I didn't hear say anything making out it was a stone wall penalty.

The interview I saw he sounded like he knew it wasn't a penalty but still said it was anyway.

 

[gushayes11]

I think Mike Jones will be given a Championship game next weekend. All eyes will be on him if he's given a big game. He looks the sort who loses control oh games easily.

 

[Disconosebleed]

Definitely a bribe. No question about it as far as I'm concerned. The sort of plain sight cheating and corruption that makes a mockery of the whole sport.

The incident in question wasn't even a terrible decision - probably not a penalty, but nowhere near the travesty of justice people made it out to be at the time. Claiming incidents like that are blatant evidence of corruption is as unhelpful as it is brainless. It's likely there is corruption at some level of the game, but using this as a cover for complaining about decisions you just don't LIKE is stupid.

 

[Spurger King]

The incident in question wasn't even a terrible decision - probably not a penalty, but nowhere near the travesty of justice people made it out to be at the time. Claiming incidents like that are blatant evidence of corruption is as unhelpful as it is brainless. It's likely there is corruption at some level of the game, but using this as a cover for complaining about decisions you just don't LIKE is stupid.

Get off your high horse. If you want to start throwing insults around like 'brainless' and 'stupid', I'd say that is more of an indication of your own limited mental faculties.

If you want to have a debate about it, try putting together a coherent argument instead of comments usually reserved for the playground.

 

[wooderz]

Didn't he say it was a "spanish penalty"?

 

[Disconosebleed]

No, I called it for what it is, a stupid and unhelpful post, the likes of which make it more difficult to root out ACTUAL corruption. As I said before, it wasn't even a particularly blatant bad call - I don't think it WAS a penalty, but equally I wasn't especially surprised that it was given. Referees make mistakes just the same as players - is Rose in the pocket of some shady Triad gang seeing as he dropped a massive bollock against Arsenal last week?

There is almost definitely corruption in the English game, but crying foul every time a marginal decision favours a rival team makes it more difficult to solve the problem.

Explain your reasoning for that particular incident being indicative of corruption. You won't, obviously, because you can't. But I would like to see you at least pretend that your argument has some basis in reality rather than it being plucked from the sky.

 

[Disconosebleed]

Didn't he say it was a "spanish penalty"?

Yeah, he did. We all understand what he meant, but it was a bit tactless. Perhaps Jose Enrique is always chucking himself to the floor in training.

 

[Spurger King]

No, I called it for what it is, a stupid and unhelpful post, the likes of which make it more difficult to root out ACTUAL corruption. As I said before, it wasn't even a particularly blatant bad call - I don't think it WAS a penalty, but equally I wasn't especially surprised that it was given. Referees make mistakes just the same as players - is Rose in the pocket of some shady Triad gang seeing as he dropped a massive bollock against Arsenal last week?

There is almost definitely corruption in the English game, but crying foul every time a marginal decision favours a rival team makes it more difficult to solve the problem.

Explain your reasoning for that particular incident being indicative of corruption. You won't, obviously, because you can't. But I would like to see you at least pretend that your argument has some basis in reality rather than it being plucked from the sky.

How is it plucked from the sky exactly? It's pretty simple really. If you consider it to be an incident that could easily be given on another day, in another match, there's little I can say to dissuade you. As it happens, I completely disagree with that view.

It wasn't just a soft penalty. It was non-existent. If anything it should have been a free kick the other way, given that he ran into the defender. I'd be shocked at that decision regardless of who it was in favour of, but Chelsea? In those circumstances?

Anyone who thinks the Premier League is free of corruption is being naive (and yes, I acknowledge that you agree with this statement). With that in mind, it's not a tremendous leap of logic to assume that a club run by one of the most corrupt and immoral individuals involved in the game might be a prime candidate for participating in such underhand tactics. Abramovich built his fortune on criminal activity, so excuse me if I pay attention to signs that the chavs aren't playing by the book.

Seconds away from the chavs getting a rare beating at home, and at the first opportunity (literally, a Chelsea player running into a West Brom player in the penalty area), the ref gives it. If you think coming to the conclusion that this highly unusual incident, within the context of Abramovich's criminal past, is plucking an argument from the sky, then maybe you should work on joined up thinking. Agree, disagree, whatever...but it's not the arbitrary 'throwing toys out of the pram' prejudice reaction you seem to be implying. It's a view based on a number of circumstances, and an understanding of the context within which the incident occurred. If the ref didn't know full well that he was handing the chavs a lifeline, he's clearly incompetent and shouldn't be an official at this level.

 

[Syn_13]

How is it plucked from the sky exactly? It's pretty simple really. If you consider it to be an incident that could easily be given on another day, in another match, there's little I can say to dissuade you. As it happens, I completely disagree with that view.

It wasn't just a soft penalty. It was non-existent. If anything it should have been a free kick the other way, given that he ran into the defender. I'd be shocked at that decision regardless of who it was in favour of, but Chelsea? In those circumstances?

Anyone who thinks the Premier League is free of corruption is being naive (and yes, I acknowledge that you agree with this statement). With that in mind, it's not a tremendous leap of logic to assume that a club run by one of the most corrupt and immoral individuals involved in the game might be a prime candidate for participating in such underhand tactics. Abramovich built his fortune on criminal activity, so excuse me if I pay attention to signs that the chavs aren't playing by the book.

Seconds away from the chavs getting a rare beating at home, and at the first opportunity (literally, a Chelsea player running into a West Brom player in the penalty area), the ref gives it. If you think coming to the conclusion that this highly unusual incident, within the context of Abramovich's criminal past, is plucking an argument from the sky, then maybe you should work on joined up thinking. Agree, disagree, whatever...but it's not the arbitrary 'throwing toys out of the pram' prejudice reaction you seem to be implying. It's a view based on a number of circumstances, and an understanding of the context within which the incident occurred. If the ref didn't know full well that he was handing the chavs a lifeline, he's clearly incompetent and shouldn't be an official at this level.

Damn right, particularly about that sentence in bold. We've seen practically every big league in the world come into disrepute from betting scandals, ref bribing and match fixing. No way the Premier League, arguably the best league in the world, is free from this.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Please can anyone explain to me how the fuck Rafael escaped a straight red card for the most blatant and scandalously dangerous two footed lunge I've seen for ages ?

 

[wooderz]

Also that we got lucky with our ref, Dawson definitely pushed Boly.

But yeah, Raf should have gone, Vidic a yellow

 

[nightgoat]

Please can anyone explain to me how the fuck Rafael escaped a straight red card for the most blatant and scandalously dangerous two footed lunge I've seen for ages ?

Presumably because Vidic had already been sent off, and the ref's career would probably be over if he sent off two Man Utd players in the same match.