Referees

[angieram]

1 minute ago, ossieram said:

Yet he saw the handball!

Exactly! If it was so hard to see it, how did he see it? 🤷‍♀️

He guessed.

[kevinhectoring]

52 minutes ago, ossieram said:

Yet he saw the handball!

Yep and I thought I did as well. As did any number on here  Goalie spreading himself like an eagle etc etc … 

[kevinhectoring]

5 hours ago, angieram said:

Exactly! If it was so hard to see it, how did he see it? 🤷‍♀️

He guessed.

As Jack Nicholson said, when the young girl asked him if he wanted to dance : ‘wrong verb’

[ossieram]

5 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Yep and I thought I did as well. As did any number on here  Goalie spreading himself like an eagle etc etc … 

And you were all wrong.

[Walkley Ram]

7 hours ago, angieram said:

Exactly! If it was so hard to see it, how did he see it? 🤷‍♀️

He guessed.

Got to remember that refs don't have the advantage of slow motion replays from every angle like we do during/after the game.

When we watch it back we're looking in minute detail at whether Joe handles it. The ref doesn't know he's about to make a decision on a handball in the moment. I can totally understand the ref making a mistake here. It's rubbish on us, but it happens.

[ilkleyram]

25 minutes ago, oodledoodle said:

Got to remember that refs don't have the advantage of slow motion replays from every angle like we do during/after the game.

When we watch it back we're looking in minute detail at whether Joe handles it. The ref doesn't know he's about to make a decision on a handball in the moment. I can totally understand the ref making a mistake here. It's rubbish on us, but it happens.

I can’t. He gave himself time to think about the decision - which is good - by going over to the lino.  In itself that suggests he didn’t have a clear view and therefore couldn’t be certain that Joe had handled the ball and therefore he couldn’t send him off (or give a foul).

The lino had the better angle of sight. If he saw a handball (which clearly he could not have done) then he could have said so when they conferred. What he should have said to the ref was either that he didn’t see it and was looking elsewhere (not unreasonable) or that he saw it clearly and no handball. If he said that he saw it hit Joe’s arm then he was wrong.

As @angieram says, they both guessed. Wrongly. We may still have lost but we also may have won or drawn. Our chances of either of the latter two options were significantly reduced by his decision.

One other minor point. If you look how the ball bounces off and away from Joe it’s clear that it hits a solid part of his body. If it had hit his hand it would more than likely have bounced down given the angle of his arm. The ref should have reflected on that in his decision making - they were fresh out of half time, not tired and should have been well attuned to the game so had no excuse. 

[bcnram]

2 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

I can’t. He gave himself time to think about the decision - which is good - by going over to the lino.  In itself that suggests he didn’t have a clear view and therefore couldn’t be certain that Joe had handled the ball and therefore he couldn’t send him off (or give a foul).

The lino had the better angle of sight. If he saw a handball (which clearly he could not have done) then he could have said so when they conferred. What he should have said to the ref was either that he didn’t see it and was looking elsewhere (not unreasonable) or that he saw it clearly and no handball. If he said that he saw it hit Joe’s arm then he was wrong.

As @angieram says, they both guessed. Wrongly. We may still have lost but we also may have won or drawn. Our chances of either of the latter two options were significantly reduced by his decision.

One other minor point. If you look how the ball bounces off and away from Joe it’s clear that it hits a solid part of his body. If it had hit his hand it would more than likely have bounced down given the angle of his arm. The ref should have reflected on that in his decision making - they were fresh out of half time, not tired and should have been well attuned to the game so had no excuse. 

In the heat of the moment in real time it looked like it had hit his hand. I would think the conversation with the Lino was more about was it a clear goal scoring opportunity. 
These things happen, that is just the way it is. 🤷🏽

[kevinhectoring]

4 hours ago, ossieram said:

And you were all wrong.

Yep. But we’re not cheats 

[ilkleyram]

22 minutes ago, bcnram said:

In the heat of the moment in real time it looked like it had hit his hand. I would think the conversation with the Lino was more about was it a clear goal scoring opportunity. 
These things happen, that is just the way it is. 🤷🏽

Oh, I agree. These things happen when humans are involved.

But that doesn’t mean that we should shrug our shoulders (as per your emoji) and excuse a guy (who has previous with us) who not only got this major decision wrong but also 3 others, each of which would/could have changed the scoreline in our favour

And, it might have looked like handball from 100 yards away up the other end of the pitch but he was 10 yards away at most, albeit with a slightly obscured view; the lino was 20 yards away with no obscured view, and the laws say they can only give the freekick and send Joe off if they saw what happened, and they didn’t.  
If they saw the incident they saw it wasn’t handball; if they didn’t see it they can’t give it. And the whole point of training referees is to get them to get the big decisions in a game correct.

[kevinhectoring]

2 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

If they saw the incident they saw it wasn’t handball; if they didn’t see it they can’t give it

And if they saw it and thought it was handball (like most people who were watching)…?
 

It’s been said elsewhere: big defensive error when the attackers have an overload - it’s right that the refs give the benefit of any doubt to the attackers. 

[uttoxram75]

17 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

And if they saw it and thought it was handball (like most people who were watching)…?
 

It’s been said elsewhere: big defensive error when the attackers have an overload - it’s right that the refs give the benefit of any doubt to the attackers. 

If the ref did not see handball how can he give it? No matter how you try to twist it to suit your agenda it was a pisspoor decison based on at best guesswork or at worst a bias against us.

 

 

[ilkleyram]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

And if they saw it and thought it was handball (like most people who were watching)…?
 

It’s been said elsewhere: big defensive error when the attackers have an overload - it’s right that the refs give the benefit of any doubt to the attackers. 

If they saw it and thought it was handball then they were wrong and unlike 99% of the people watching they were a) close to the action and b) have gone through significant amounts of training to help them make the right decision 

They have to be certain - nothing to do with the attackers having an overload or giving the benefit of the doubt to them otherwise he should have given the 3 other clangers he made in our favour (which the crowd also saw). The ref clearly wasn’t certain otherwise why go to the lino? And if the lino saw the incident he would/should have seen it wasn’t handball. If he didn’t see it then they shouldn’t have given the free kick nor send Joe off. 

[ram59]

We talk about potential points lost in individual matches, but what about the effect of these decisions on the season as a whole?

Us fans now go into games thinking about 'what's the ref going to give them today?", It's only natural that this feeling is shared by the players also.

It's up to the coaching staff to stop the players thinking this, but human nature being what it is, that's easier said than done.

The trouble is, you get one early decision wrongly given against you and you get the negative mindset of here we go again, which has a detrimental affect on the rest of your performance.

 

[ossieram]

12 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Yep. But we’re not cheats 

And you're not paid to make the right decision. 

These calls can cost clubs millions at the end of the season if they fail to get promoted or are relegated by a couple of points.

 

[WystonRam]

14 hours ago, bcnram said:

In the heat of the moment in real time it looked like it had hit his hand. I would think the conversation with the Lino was more about was it a clear goal scoring opportunity. 
These things happen, that is just the way it is. 🤷🏽

This is correct, his card was overturned as it was deemed that Wildsmith did not deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity. No mention of handling the ball outside the area was made by the FA review statement. The issue is as the statement is so woolly we do not really know what he was originally dismissed for.

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, ossieram said:

And you're not paid to make the right decision. 

These calls can cost clubs millions at the end of the season if they fail to get promoted or are relegated by a couple of points.

 

That's why VAR was bought in. How does that work?

[MadAmster]

Seen several people online saying the verdict was he didn't prevent a goalscoring opportunity and there was no mention of hands. On this forum too.

The question then is... what did he do (or did they think he did) to prevent a goalscoring opportunity? It can only be hands as nothing else he did was against the Laws of the game. I'd like those people to explain how he was deemed to have prevented... ? If it wasn't handball, what was it?

[WystonRam]

1 hour ago, MadAmster said:

Seen several people online saying the verdict was he didn't prevent a goalscoring opportunity and there was no mention of hands. On this forum too.

The question then is... what did he do (or did they think he did) to prevent a goalscoring opportunity? It can only be hands as nothing else he did was against the Laws of the game. I'd like those people to explain how he was deemed to have prevented... ? If it wasn't handball, what was it?

This is exactly my point, the FA have not been clear in how the red card was overturned by stating “did not deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity”. Was it the tackle ? Was it the  “handball”? The FA statement does not explain clearly. 

[Blondest Goat]

15 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

Oh, I agree. These things happen when humans are involved.

But that doesn’t mean that we should shrug our shoulders (as per your emoji) and excuse a guy (who has previous with us) who not only got this major decision wrong but also 3 others, each of which would/could have changed the scoreline in our favour

And, it might have looked like handball from 100 yards away up the other end of the pitch but he was 10 yards away at most, albeit with a slightly obscured view; the lino was 20 yards away with no obscured view, and the laws say they can only give the freekick and send Joe off if they saw what happened, and they didn’t.  
If they saw the incident they saw it wasn’t handball; if they didn’t see it they can’t give it. And the whole point of training referees is to get them to get the big decisions in a game correct.

What good does keep going on about it do?

Edited September 8, 2023 by Blondest Goat

[ilkleyram]

4 minutes ago, Blondest Goat said:

What good does keep going on about it do?

Please could you let me know what the maximum number of comments we’re allowed to make on any one topic is? I can’t find the number in the t’s and c’s

Edited September 8, 2023 by ilkleyram
Missing word