DavesaRam

If every barely perceptible brush of laces like that was a foul all over the pitch at any time and in any circumstances, the game would never generate any momentum at all , it'd just be foul... foul... foul.. every time you challenge for a ball. Every defender and midfielder would be on a yellow in minutes or they simply don't risk a tackle of any sort and let the player walz through, fundamentally changing how the game is played.
That was a dive, pure and simple and the ref has bought it.

Yes. If, when Sibley got absolutely clattered on the touchline, he had rolled around holding his leg, maybe the ref might have reacted differently. I know if Sibley had gone in on the Plymouth player in the same way, he may well have been red-carded! 

I was fuming at the end of the match last night. I went to bed straight away because I had to get up at 4am for work, but took ages to go to sleep! But I felt it better to give my comments on the match after I had calmed down, so here I am - just a 10 hour shift today, so a relative part-timer!
The referee decided the outcome of that match. Of that I have no doubt. But before anyone starts shooting me down in flames, I will explain myself in due course. I watched Paul Warne's interviews on both Sky and Rams TV, and thought he was pretty darned good, because he put everything in the right perspective. In the end, Plymouth didn't win the match last night, neither did the ref hand it to them on a plate. We lost that match. 
At half-time I was satisfied, but curiously unsatisfied. We had done a good job on Plymouth, been on the front foot and contained them pretty well. But at the same time, our play wasn't that impressive. I don'[t know whether it is since Bird was injured, but we seem to have adopted a more basic style of play - perhaps more towards the style we expected (or feared when Warne was first appointed), and it has co-incided with our drop in form. Some of it is that Warne's game plan involves putting the ball out into the channels to create the chance of crosses into the box, but all our play has migrated to the longer ball (not route one or hoofball) style of game. In recent games where we have struggled, we have scored after getting the ball on the floor and playing football with it. And our first half last Saturday was entirely as a result of playing football instead of channel-hopping. Similarly when the ball is in the air in midfield, our lads seem to think that what they have got to do is head it back up into the air, as if playing a head-tennis version of keepy-uppy. Sadly, where the ball might drop after the latest cranial launch doesn't seem to matter, and it inevitably goes to an opposition player who can start an attack with it - by getting the ball down on the floor and playing football with it. We have got the players who can do this, but it is almost as if they are not allowed to do it!
For the first Plymouth goal, there has been a lot of  criticism of White for his lack of a firm tackle. Actually the scorer had only just come onto the pitch, so maybe we weren't clear as to who should pick him up, so he was able to roam free on the right hand side. But actually as the attack was flowing forwards, I noticed Hayden Roberts jogging back into position. Plymouth had caught us on the break, which is how the get a lot of their goals, but if Roberts was in position, the Plymouth striker wouldn't have been free and unmarked, so possibly wouldn't have scored.
There is also the impression from  some of the criticism of our play that we were absolutely mullered last night, but the stats tell a different story, with honours fairly even. Plymouth played way better than we did in the second half, and moved the ball really well, but actually didn't threaten us that much. A 1 - 1 draw would have been a fair result with it being a game of two halves. Re tired players, some of it is playing a high energy game with a small squad, because there aren't enough players to rotate properly, and we don't have much variety within the squad. But Paul's penchant for like-for like substitutions might hark back to something he said just after he arrived. He wanted his players to give their all, and if they "gas out" (a favourite phrase of his) it is not a problem, he would simply bring a sub on. Almost saying "Oh, this player is worn out, I'll get another one", expecting them to do the same thing as the broken model, which then points at Warne's approach being rather one-dimensional. Which brings us to his lack of adapting to the opposition changing their tactics, ass per last night, when Plymouth changed their formation 3 times in the second half.
Re the penalty - any contact was the rubbing together of the leather of two boots side by side for a split second. The player then flicked his feet backwards, and arched his back like he had been shoved in the back. It was sooooo obvious only a buffoon, or an EFL referee would buy it. VulcanRam quite rightly says that this sort of event shouldn't be a match-decider. We shouldn't put ourselves in that position, and once it has happened, we should have big enough balls to shake ourselves down and say "Right. Let's sort this out for ourselves", and take the match by the scruff of the neck. Instead, our heads go down. They shouldn't, but although we have virtually a completely different squad to previous seasons, having bad decisions go against us seems pretty incessant, so "Oh no. Not again" is the response. Come on Derby County - MAN UP!!
There was an interesting stat given by Sky last night - Most penalties conceded in League 1. It should read "Most penalties awarded against". I know we only had 3 penalties against us last season (thanks, VulcanRam), so should we be slagging the refs off as much as we do? (Yes, me included!). Well yes, once you factor all the blatant, nailed on, stonewall penalties we weren't given last year, and it was a fair few of them! WE had two good shouts turned down on Saturday, which may have overcome the dodgy penalty awarded against us, of course.
Let's hope that Paul Warne's hairdryer has found a new use, and we get a good response on Saturday.

RE the notion that referees cannot possibly be corrupt, and that the ruling bodies don't have an agenda: In his autobiography, Mark Halsey openly states that the Premiership leaned on them to favour the big teams, and to keep the big name players on the pitch. And just this week, Mark Clattenburg, who for some reason was very highly rated, is quoted as saying to either a Leicester or Everton player "I should have sent you off, but i didn't do it because I wanted yous to win".
ANd if it is just incompetence and not anything else, then these crap decisions would affect both teams in a match equally, but they don't. Think of the blatant time-wasting in recent games which the officials did nothing about. Even on Saturday when the ref booked a player for throwing the ball away fairly early on - he didn't book anybody else for doing the same thing. And the number of strong, even violent challenges he let go was ridiculous. Plus 2 good penalty shouts turned down, then a non-penalty given against. Or last season where a huge number of clear penalty shouts were turned down. IT has gone on match after match after match after match after match after match, with one team getting all the leniency. Yes, we have had a few dodgy decisions go in our favour, which may be incompetence. But there is much m ore than that.
Even so, although last night's decision did decide the game, it is still our fault that we have to rely on the ref getting it right. We should make it that his crapness doesn't actually matter. The game should either have been out of sight, or we should have shut up shot and kept them out, or even  changed our formation and tactics to make them have to adapt to what we have done, instead of the other way round.

RE the notion that referees cannot possibly be corrupt, and that the ruling bodies don't have an agenda: In his autobiography, Mark Halsey openly states that the Premiership leaned on them to favour the big teams, and to keep the big name players on the pitch. And just this week, Mark Clattenburg, who for some reason was very highly rated, is quoted as saying to either a Leicester or Everton player "I should have sent you off, but i didn't do it because I wanted yous to win".
ANd if it is just incompetence and not anything else, then these crap decisions would affect both teams in a match equally, but they don't. Think of the blatant time-wasting in recent games which the officials did nothing about. Even on Saturday when the ref booked a player for throwing the ball away fairly early on - he didn't book anybody else for doing the same thing. And the number of strong, even violent challenges he let go was ridiculous. Plus 2 good penalty shouts turned down, then a non-penalty given against. Or last season where a huge number of clear penalty shouts were turned down. IT has gone on match after match after match after match after match after match, with one team getting all the leniency. Yes, we have had a few dodgy decisions go in our favour, which may be incompetence. But there is much m ore than that.
Even so, although last night's decision did decide the game, it is still our fault that we have to rely on the ref getting it right. We should make it that his crapness doesn't actually matter. The game should either have been out of sight, or we should have shut up shot and kept them out, or even  changed our formation and tactics to make them have to adapt to what we have done, instead of the other way round.

No its not a penalty. A penalty is awarded when a foul has been committed. A brushing together of the leather of two football boots is NOT a foul.

No its not a penalty. A penalty is awarded when a foul has been committed. A brushing together of the leather of two football boots is NOT a foul.

No its not a penalty. A penalty is awarded when a foul has been committed. A brushing together of the leather of two football boots is NOT a foul.

No its not a penalty. A penalty is awarded when a foul has been committed. A brushing together of the leather of two football boots is NOT a foul.

No its not a penalty. A penalty is awarded when a foul has been committed. A brushing together of the leather of two football boots is NOT a foul.

No its not a penalty. A penalty is awarded when a foul has been committed. A brushing together of the leather of two football boots is NOT a foul.

Contact isn't a foul though.  I could shake your hand and it would be contact.  It's not a foul though is it?

Agreed. Once again the cheating Ref couldn’t give the penalty quick enough . Most penalties against in EFL . Surely the blind faith , head in the clouds brigade who don’t agree that we get unfairly officiated can’t defend it anymore. Time for the Allez Allez song to be replaced with RUCK THE EFL on loop . 

White made contact. Benefit of doubt to the attacker? 
It was a penalty.

Yes. If, when Sibley got absolutely clattered on the touchline, he had rolled around holding his leg, maybe the ref might have reacted differently. I know if Sibley had gone in on the Plymouth player in the same way, he may well have been red-carded! 

I was fuming at the end of the match last night. I went to bed straight away because I had to get up at 4am for work, but took ages to go to sleep! But I felt it better to give my comments on the match after I had calmed down, so here I am - just a 10 hour shift today, so a relative part-timer!
The referee decided the outcome of that match. Of that I have no doubt. But before anyone starts shooting me down in flames, I will explain myself in due course. I watched Paul Warne's interviews on both Sky and Rams TV, and thought he was pretty darned good, because he put everything in the right perspective. In the end, Plymouth didn't win the match last night, neither did the ref hand it to them on a plate. We lost that match. 
At half-time I was satisfied, but curiously unsatisfied. We had done a good job on Plymouth, been on the front foot and contained them pretty well. But at the same time, our play wasn't that impressive. I don'[t know whether it is since Bird was injured, but we seem to have adopted a more basic style of play - perhaps more towards the style we expected (or feared when Warne was first appointed), and it has co-incided with our drop in form. Some of it is that Warne's game plan involves putting the ball out into the channels to create the chance of crosses into the box, but all our play has migrated to the longer ball (not route one or hoofball) style of game. In recent games where we have struggled, we have scored after getting the ball on the floor and playing football with it. And our first half last Saturday was entirely as a result of playing football instead of channel-hopping. Similarly when the ball is in the air in midfield, our lads seem to think that what they have got to do is head it back up into the air, as if playing a head-tennis version of keepy-uppy. Sadly, where the ball might drop after the latest cranial launch doesn't seem to matter, and it inevitably goes to an opposition player who can start an attack with it - by getting the ball down on the floor and playing football with it. We have got the players who can do this, but it is almost as if they are not allowed to do it!
For the first Plymouth goal, there has been a lot of  criticism of White for his lack of a firm tackle. Actually the scorer had only just come onto the pitch, so maybe we weren't clear as to who should pick him up, so he was able to roam free on the right hand side. But actually as the attack was flowing forwards, I noticed Hayden Roberts jogging back into position. Plymouth had caught us on the break, which is how the get a lot of their goals, but if Roberts was in position, the Plymouth striker wouldn't have been free and unmarked, so possibly wouldn't have scored.
There is also the impression from  some of the criticism of our play that we were absolutely mullered last night, but the stats tell a different story, with honours fairly even. Plymouth played way better than we did in the second half, and moved the ball really well, but actually didn't threaten us that much. A 1 - 1 draw would have been a fair result with it being a game of two halves. Re tired players, some of it is playing a high energy game with a small squad, because there aren't enough players to rotate properly, and we don't have much variety within the squad. But Paul's penchant for like-for like substitutions might hark back to something he said just after he arrived. He wanted his players to give their all, and if they "gas out" (a favourite phrase of his) it is not a problem, he would simply bring a sub on. Almost saying "Oh, this player is worn out, I'll get another one", expecting them to do the same thing as the broken model, which then points at Warne's approach being rather one-dimensional. Which brings us to his lack of adapting to the opposition changing their tactics, ass per last night, when Plymouth changed their formation 3 times in the second half.
Re the penalty - any contact was the rubbing together of the leather of two boots side by side for a split second. The player then flicked his feet backwards, and arched his back like he had been shoved in the back. It was sooooo obvious only a buffoon, or an EFL referee would buy it. VulcanRam quite rightly says that this sort of event shouldn't be a match-decider. We shouldn't put ourselves in that position, and once it has happened, we should have big enough balls to shake ourselves down and say "Right. Let's sort this out for ourselves", and take the match by the scruff of the neck. Instead, our heads go down. They shouldn't, but although we have virtually a completely different squad to previous seasons, having bad decisions go against us seems pretty incessant, so "Oh no. Not again" is the response. Come on Derby County - MAN UP!!
There was an interesting stat given by Sky last night - Most penalties conceded in League 1. It should read "Most penalties awarded against". I know we only had 3 penalties against us last season (thanks, VulcanRam), so should we be slagging the refs off as much as we do? (Yes, me included!). Well yes, once you factor all the blatant, nailed on, stonewall penalties we weren't given last year, and it was a fair few of them! WE had two good shouts turned down on Saturday, which may have overcome the dodgy penalty awarded against us, of course.
Let's hope that Paul Warne's hairdryer has found a new use, and we get a good response on Saturday.

Too be fair though,the refs have been the same in the championship for the last 3 seasons,it has got to be some kind of vendetta against us as it seems to happen every game,whether it be something simple as a foul against us or the constant b******* penalties we have had against us this season,in my eyes teams like Reading who are guilty of the same stuff as us never get any of this s**** thrown at them like we do!!???

Not as tiresome as the endless sh*t decisions we keep getting

I was fuming at the end of the match last night. I went to bed straight away because I had to get up at 4am for work, but took ages to go to sleep! But I felt it better to give my comments on the match after I had calmed down, so here I am - just a 10 hour shift today, so a relative part-timer!
The referee decided the outcome of that match. Of that I have no doubt. But before anyone starts shooting me down in flames, I will explain myself in due course. I watched Paul Warne's interviews on both Sky and Rams TV, and thought he was pretty darned good, because he put everything in the right perspective. In the end, Plymouth didn't win the match last night, neither did the ref hand it to them on a plate. We lost that match. 
At half-time I was satisfied, but curiously unsatisfied. We had done a good job on Plymouth, been on the front foot and contained them pretty well. But at the same time, our play wasn't that impressive. I don'[t know whether it is since Bird was injured, but we seem to have adopted a more basic style of play - perhaps more towards the style we expected (or feared when Warne was first appointed), and it has co-incided with our drop in form. Some of it is that Warne's game plan involves putting the ball out into the channels to create the chance of crosses into the box, but all our play has migrated to the longer ball (not route one or hoofball) style of game. In recent games where we have struggled, we have scored after getting the ball on the floor and playing football with it. And our first half last Saturday was entirely as a result of playing football instead of channel-hopping. Similarly when the ball is in the air in midfield, our lads seem to think that what they have got to do is head it back up into the air, as if playing a head-tennis version of keepy-uppy. Sadly, where the ball might drop after the latest cranial launch doesn't seem to matter, and it inevitably goes to an opposition player who can start an attack with it - by getting the ball down on the floor and playing football with it. We have got the players who can do this, but it is almost as if they are not allowed to do it!
For the first Plymouth goal, there has been a lot of  criticism of White for his lack of a firm tackle. Actually the scorer had only just come onto the pitch, so maybe we weren't clear as to who should pick him up, so he was able to roam free on the right hand side. But actually as the attack was flowing forwards, I noticed Hayden Roberts jogging back into position. Plymouth had caught us on the break, which is how the get a lot of their goals, but if Roberts was in position, the Plymouth striker wouldn't have been free and unmarked, so possibly wouldn't have scored.
There is also the impression from  some of the criticism of our play that we were absolutely mullered last night, but the stats tell a different story, with honours fairly even. Plymouth played way better than we did in the second half, and moved the ball really well, but actually didn't threaten us that much. A 1 - 1 draw would have been a fair result with it being a game of two halves. Re tired players, some of it is playing a high energy game with a small squad, because there aren't enough players to rotate properly, and we don't have much variety within the squad. But Paul's penchant for like-for like substitutions might hark back to something he said just after he arrived. He wanted his players to give their all, and if they "gas out" (a favourite phrase of his) it is not a problem, he would simply bring a sub on. Almost saying "Oh, this player is worn out, I'll get another one", expecting them to do the same thing as the broken model, which then points at Warne's approach being rather one-dimensional. Which brings us to his lack of adapting to the opposition changing their tactics, ass per last night, when Plymouth changed their formation 3 times in the second half.
Re the penalty - any contact was the rubbing together of the leather of two boots side by side for a split second. The player then flicked his feet backwards, and arched his back like he had been shoved in the back. It was sooooo obvious only a buffoon, or an EFL referee would buy it. VulcanRam quite rightly says that this sort of event shouldn't be a match-decider. We shouldn't put ourselves in that position, and once it has happened, we should have big enough balls to shake ourselves down and say "Right. Let's sort this out for ourselves", and take the match by the scruff of the neck. Instead, our heads go down. They shouldn't, but although we have virtually a completely different squad to previous seasons, having bad decisions go against us seems pretty incessant, so "Oh no. Not again" is the response. Come on Derby County - MAN UP!!
There was an interesting stat given by Sky last night - Most penalties conceded in League 1. It should read "Most penalties awarded against". I know we only had 3 penalties against us last season (thanks, VulcanRam), so should we be slagging the refs off as much as we do? (Yes, me included!). Well yes, once you factor all the blatant, nailed on, stonewall penalties we weren't given last year, and it was a fair few of them! WE had two good shouts turned down on Saturday, which may have overcome the dodgy penalty awarded against us, of course.
Let's hope that Paul Warne's hairdryer has found a new use, and we get a good response on Saturday.

I was fuming at the end of the match last night. I went to bed straight away because I had to get up at 4am for work, but took ages to go to sleep! But I felt it better to give my comments on the match after I had calmed down, so here I am - just a 10 hour shift today, so a relative part-timer!
The referee decided the outcome of that match. Of that I have no doubt. But before anyone starts shooting me down in flames, I will explain myself in due course. I watched Paul Warne's interviews on both Sky and Rams TV, and thought he was pretty darned good, because he put everything in the right perspective. In the end, Plymouth didn't win the match last night, neither did the ref hand it to them on a plate. We lost that match. 
At half-time I was satisfied, but curiously unsatisfied. We had done a good job on Plymouth, been on the front foot and contained them pretty well. But at the same time, our play wasn't that impressive. I don'[t know whether it is since Bird was injured, but we seem to have adopted a more basic style of play - perhaps more towards the style we expected (or feared when Warne was first appointed), and it has co-incided with our drop in form. Some of it is that Warne's game plan involves putting the ball out into the channels to create the chance of crosses into the box, but all our play has migrated to the longer ball (not route one or hoofball) style of game. In recent games where we have struggled, we have scored after getting the ball on the floor and playing football with it. And our first half last Saturday was entirely as a result of playing football instead of channel-hopping. Similarly when the ball is in the air in midfield, our lads seem to think that what they have got to do is head it back up into the air, as if playing a head-tennis version of keepy-uppy. Sadly, where the ball might drop after the latest cranial launch doesn't seem to matter, and it inevitably goes to an opposition player who can start an attack with it - by getting the ball down on the floor and playing football with it. We have got the players who can do this, but it is almost as if they are not allowed to do it!
For the first Plymouth goal, there has been a lot of  criticism of White for his lack of a firm tackle. Actually the scorer had only just come onto the pitch, so maybe we weren't clear as to who should pick him up, so he was able to roam free on the right hand side. But actually as the attack was flowing forwards, I noticed Hayden Roberts jogging back into position. Plymouth had caught us on the break, which is how the get a lot of their goals, but if Roberts was in position, the Plymouth striker wouldn't have been free and unmarked, so possibly wouldn't have scored.
There is also the impression from  some of the criticism of our play that we were absolutely mullered last night, but the stats tell a different story, with honours fairly even. Plymouth played way better than we did in the second half, and moved the ball really well, but actually didn't threaten us that much. A 1 - 1 draw would have been a fair result with it being a game of two halves. Re tired players, some of it is playing a high energy game with a small squad, because there aren't enough players to rotate properly, and we don't have much variety within the squad. But Paul's penchant for like-for like substitutions might hark back to something he said just after he arrived. He wanted his players to give their all, and if they "gas out" (a favourite phrase of his) it is not a problem, he would simply bring a sub on. Almost saying "Oh, this player is worn out, I'll get another one", expecting them to do the same thing as the broken model, which then points at Warne's approach being rather one-dimensional. Which brings us to his lack of adapting to the opposition changing their tactics, ass per last night, when Plymouth changed their formation 3 times in the second half.
Re the penalty - any contact was the rubbing together of the leather of two boots side by side for a split second. The player then flicked his feet backwards, and arched his back like he had been shoved in the back. It was sooooo obvious only a buffoon, or an EFL referee would buy it. VulcanRam quite rightly says that this sort of event shouldn't be a match-decider. We shouldn't put ourselves in that position, and once it has happened, we should have big enough balls to shake ourselves down and say "Right. Let's sort this out for ourselves", and take the match by the scruff of the neck. Instead, our heads go down. They shouldn't, but although we have virtually a completely different squad to previous seasons, having bad decisions go against us seems pretty incessant, so "Oh no. Not again" is the response. Come on Derby County - MAN UP!!
There was an interesting stat given by Sky last night - Most penalties conceded in League 1. It should read "Most penalties awarded against". I know we only had 3 penalties against us last season (thanks, VulcanRam), so should we be slagging the refs off as much as we do? (Yes, me included!). Well yes, once you factor all the blatant, nailed on, stonewall penalties we weren't given last year, and it was a fair few of them! WE had two good shouts turned down on Saturday, which may have overcome the dodgy penalty awarded against us, of course.
Let's hope that Paul Warne's hairdryer has found a new use, and we get a good response on Saturday.

Yes. If, when Sibley got absolutely clattered on the touchline, he had rolled around holding his leg, maybe the ref might have reacted differently. I know if Sibley had gone in on the Plymouth player in the same way, he may well have been red-carded! 

Of course it hurts, but, for one decision that went against us that would have been a creditable away point. Just going to have curse rage and what not, then move on to Saturday. 

I think it was a bad decision and we've had a couple this year. I don't think it's our biggest problem and it's not what I'd personally choose to focus on. It doesn't explain why we are where we are, why we can't close games out, and why when other teams step up the tempo we tend to collapse. 
Last year, when the EFL apparently hated us and wanted us out of existence, we conceded three penalties. Three. All season. 
My issue with blaming the refs is that it is just a way of avoiding the fact there are plenty of other more pertinent factors that much better explain why we are where we are. 
Edit: having watched Warne's interview, I'm basically agreeing with him. Good teams rise to adversity. We tend to collapse. It might be tiredness and a small squad. It might be that we aren't yet as good as we need to be, and other teams are simply better. Either way that's the thing we need to face and address. 

Ooohh. The ref has apologised to White in case he got the peno decision wrong.
Warne’s response on Sky was excellent. 

You are right that we are struggling, in part because we have such limits on the squad, and we are looking leggy because Warne has us playing a high energy game without the size of squad to keep us fit enough. But if you want to think we get the same number of bad decisions against as every other club, you can.