It does but I concur it didn't this time (I was also ready to post a message albeit not a long one and surely nowhere as important as Kelso's).
I wouldn't class any of my posts as 'important'. Or anyone else's for that matter. It's all a 'bit of a larff innit'? It was however mildly irritating. No matter. I just got pissed instead.
I see Gallagher is full of praise for Lee Mason on Saturday and called the linesman decision to disallowed Carrillo's goal "amazing". Interesting that Silva got a "stage one" warning on Saturday. Referee's need help from SAR but do not help themselves by constantly showing poor errors of judgement. It's bloody hard to bite your lip when it's so obvious. I sympathise with coaches, because unfair decisions can cost jobs. http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co....n-at-swansea/story-30520525-detail/story.html The thing is with Gallagher he's too heavily backing people from his profession, making excuses for them when they get it wrong and is full of praise when they get it right. Personally I don't give the linesman that kind of credit. I think he got lucky his decision was correct. The linesman last week couldn't see two more obvious offside decisions and I doubt they are skilled enough to spot something so close. I believe he fell into the trap of thinking because Carrillo was offside (although inactive) when he came on the pitch when the initial shot was fired in, he must still be offside when the ball was passed to him. No mention of the two penalty incidents either. Maybe because he couldn't defend it. However, it's good we're getting these incidents highlighted though as it shows Watford are having quite a few controversial moments and so far have all gone pretty much against us.
It's not only us.....did anyone see how stitched up West Brom were at Arsenal? A clear penalty not given to them when the score was 0-0. A poor decision for the foul which led to Arsenal's first goal, and a fairly soft penalty against them. This time the referee was Bobby Madley. So it's yet another example of the bigger side getting all the decisions on the day. It will be interesting what happens in the West Brom v Watford match. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41302628
Bloody hell HB1, you will twist anything to fit your agenda! I am not necessarily saying that big teams dont get the rub of the green (and don't want to get into a full discussion regarding this) but your points about last night are comical. Agreed on the West Brom penalty - it was a penalty but it was also a confusing situation as Rodriguez was far too honest and took the free shot afterwards. Not entirely sure on the laws of the game but would assume the only advantage from not giving penalty is a certain goal but I'm sure someone with better knowledge would be able to confirm. There were other contentious issues though and I would not constitute this as a 'stitch up'. However, the other 2 decisions that 'stitched up' West Brom were good decisions. There was a clear foul for the free kick and also their penalty was definitely a penalty, Nyom was behind Ramsey - that is a not a shoulder barge as you have to be square on. The other thing you fail to see is that, West Brom got some soft free kicks too (I am not saying the free kick for Arsenal's first was soft, just trying to make a point) in and around the area. However, they didn't score from theirs so you don't remember them. That's the trouble with these things, you only remember the free kicks/handballs etc that lead to goals, not the everyday ones that were bad decisions; the ref cannot know how the free kick will work out.
There is no twisting here. The match at Arsenal last night has been widely reported. Even Dermot Gallagher admitted West Brom should have been given a penalty. Playing on in that situation was to West Brom's disadvantage, even though they hit the post. Mustafi was the last man, so could have even been a red card. I think Madley bottled it and didn't want to give a big call against a big team. I hardly think it's comical to say these things, when everyone else is saying the same things as well. Sanchez took a clear dive for the Arsenal free kick which led to their first goal. It was the softest of touches. A bit like the Knockaert penalty in the playoff semi final. Everyone could see there was not enough in that for Sanchez to go to ground. It was interesting. I've just heard the views of Nigel Winterburn, who is a staunch Arsenal fan. He was at the game last night and says for West Brom "It's a penalty". He said "I looked at the referee when Mustafi made the tackle and he just didn't look like he was going to give it. He didn't play advantage and had a bit of a brain freeze. There is no other debate to have, I just genuinely think the ref doesn't think it's a penalty, when it clearly is." So if you use the first West Brom "non penalty" as a measure, then Madley cannot give the second one because it's nowhere near as blatent. That is my argument. I'm not saying the Arsenal penalty was a terrible decision, but it was soft. Nyom just leant into him. It wasn't a big shove. If you compare the two incidents from the same match by the same referee, the decisions could easily have been reversed and I don't think anyone would have said anything about it. It's things like this, which happen very often, that gives the impression the bigger sides get favourable decisions. Now on the flip side to this, Pulis has made a big deal out of it, as you may well expect. He's highlighted the fact that West Brom haven't had a penalty for a year.......and he's right. Their last penalty was v West Ham on 17th September 2016. Since then there have been 93 penalties awarded in the EPL.....and no guessing who has got the most......yep Bournemouth with 10. West Brom are our next opponent, so I'll put a lot of money on them getting one against us.
Did anyone see the two 'experts' ,Henry & Carragher talking after last night's match? They were asked if Sanchez was cheating when he dived. Carragher was struck dumb,he just couldn't speak & eventually Henry said cheating was 'Too strong a word". Now if a blatant dive is not cheating then wtf is?
As has previously been mentioned, there are repeated offenders. Some officials act as if they are the stars of the show, enjoy making the big calls and showing teams who is boss. This leads to an overzealous application of the rules, bad decisions when teams take against the ref, and so on. Taylor, Madeley, et al Video assistance is the only solution. Refs must not be above the law. There needs to be more transparency when they get stuff wrong. A league table of bad decisions? A ranking or scoring system? Something like that would also drive up standards.
This seems to suddenly have become very topical on the back of last night's match. There is currently a debate on TalkSport about injustices in football and the decisions for the bigger side v the smaller one. Apparently there was a study done in 2013 on this very issue and the finding was clear. Home sides tend to get better decisions. Teams with bigger crowds influence officials. This was the result of the study. So in effect big sides get bigger crowds, so the bigger side debate holds some merit. I also think it clearly shows the human side of a referee. It's clear that a referee reacts too emotionally to incidents. Their interpretation is too human. This is the problem. It needs to be taken away and the only way to do this is to use technology which totally impartial.
Can you give us chapter and verse on this 2013 study hb1? In the same way as SLB did for his German one?
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/apr/28/referees-home-team-sean-ingle http://ftp.iza.org/dp8857.pdf
I would say that, despite the obvious Leicester play off incident, Michael Oliver has since developed into one of the best - gets most things right and is pretty calm and collected about his decision-making
OK good. But it talks of home advantage rather than 'big team' advantage. Obviously the biggest teams have the biggest home crowds though.
We will see as we now have him on Saturday! He booked five of ours against Burnley last season and sent off one of theirs. Refs are human, I guess my point is we should try and design out the errors as far as possible to ensure a level playing field (pun unintended).
I always argue that big teams tend to be in more control against lower opposition who are often under pressure and more likely to go lunging in so I would expect a disparity. However I also agree much of the rest is also true especially crowd influence. Bournemouth is an anomaly, they are masters of the dark art of going down easily.
Bizarrely the sky pundits were saying before the muff game that they should be nastier and win fouls block off opponents etc - they’ve clearly never watched the cheating bar stewards
I also listened to this load of B*llocks spouted by Phil Thompson on soccer Saturday earlier. I have rarely seen a team in the last few seasons more adept at the dark arts of football as Bournemouth. Nigly, dirty, and at times down right fraudulent would be a better description of Bournemouth!
Oliver was OK yesterday , though he should have booked Foster for wasting time. It is hard for officials at WBA as winning free kicks and time management is their entire strategy. In the end it came back to bite them on the arse. My one moan would be that Richarlison doesn't get enough protection. I fear it is just a matter of time before he gets injured. On the whole it's still a lot better than the Championship.
My main moan is that he likes to fall over too easily. No one seems to be mentioning that.. apart from it being increasingly noted by opposition supporters. He has been great to watch of course but for me some of the shine has been taken off because of the cheating. What's the betting he will be targeted more and more. Opposition players do that when they see a player is 'light footed'.. in the hope to get them carded for it. I hope he grows out of it.
I think you're being pretty harsh. The shine taken off of him because of some bog standard PL gamesmanship? The reality falls somewhere between Roger's and your views I think. Richarlison certainly gets stuck in enough for me to be happy for him to play for fouls and, yes, even go down softly when the opportunity presents itself. That's the nature of the professional game.
Yes in the modern game we do have to accept some players use cheating as part of their gameplay. But i dont like it personally and i'll never be happy to see a player go down lightly. Never have, never will. PS Some players are more inclined to do it than others.. i think our Ricky is one of them.
I think you're being a bit harsh stevo. He's not as far as I recall committed the type of dive that Alli did for spurs yesterday. And he is constantly getting nibbled by defenders. I'd say he's from the Okaka school of having a moan and over exaggerating every kick he gets rather than simulation.
It's a different planet from the Championship. Yes we get some dodgy refs, but just a single league below is full of the most incompetent officials I think I've ever witnessed. The ref who did Southampton away was a pleasure to have reffing our match. Just looked him up, Lee Probert.
Yeah true.. So far it's been more going down too easily when touched rather than diving when not. But.. i still see that as cheating myself. Perhaps i'm a bit old school but i prefer players to stay on their feet unless they've had a good whack. Maybe it says more about the modern game than about our new starlet but i'll reserve the right to note it, even from one of or own. I dare say if we had seen that from an opposition player (god forbid a Bournemouth player) we'd be up in arms about it.
The boy was being kicked all over the park in the 2nd half yesterday. Even Sky commented on how he had taken 7 or 8 "knocks" aka kicks, from the West Brom players. He might go down easily on occasion but the boy can take a kickin as well and isn't afraid to get stuck in.
He was better yesterday i'll give you that.. Saints game was probably the worst. Maybe he has 'grown out of it' or Troy has had a word with him.
There's been a lot of talk about diving over the last couple of seasons or so. Can anybody point me to where it says in the rules that a player actually has to fall onto the ground for it to be an offence?
I must admit I wasn't certain if he was being kicked off the park or being a drama queen. One particular incident, when he momentarily looked up at the ref from the floor before holding his head in agony makes me side with Steveo. Cf with Troy when he could easily have gone down in the box but instead congratulated the defender on a good challenge.
All true. He gets a lot of stick, gives plenty of it back and isn't properly protected by refs. But going down too easily ain't the answer. I believe there's another rather good player out on the wing who does the same sort of thing. Initials AK, currently plays for the Seagulls. I'm led to believe that we don't particularly like him. In addition, it's counter-productive. It will understandably and rightly colour the ref's judgement when it comes to benefit-of-the-doubt decisions. We could have had a foul immediately prior to Aguero's wonder hat-trick goal against us. But we didn't get it. Anything to do with Richy going down way too easily a couple of times earlier in the match?
