Referees

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, David said:

Just catching up from yesterday in the match thread and here.

Quite clear we are still some way from acceptance of women in the men's game.

Be it studio or on the pitch with a flag or whistle.

Had it been a male ref yesterday, wouldn't be nearly as many posts commenting on the performance.

Females should be able to be criticised in the same way males are, however until the sexist undertones are eradicated, it's hard to be critical without being thrown into the sexist box that has the old school mentality that men's game should be just men.

It will be another decade or two before we see any progress with general acceptance.

Nah, the referee didn’t really get much wrong unlike Derby County who got a lot wrong and Wycombe wanderers who just play football wrong. 

[Ram-Alf]

52 minutes ago, May Contain Nuts said:

...because it disrupts the flow of the game and allows the team wasting time to control the tempo, making it harder for the other team to build up any momentum, something which can play a crucial part in a good performance.

Burnley under Eddie Howe all those years ago, We couldn't get going and there was no added time for all those stoppages like there is today 🙄

[Dcfcsr92]

52 minutes ago, Returning ram said:

In your opinion, which is fair enough, but for me she got everything spot on, including pen.

Thats fair enough, i will agree to disagree 

[Sufferingfool]

56 minutes ago, Returning ram said:

In your opinion, which is fair enough, but for me she got everything spot on, including pen.

Agreed, like any ref she may have made a couple of contentious calls but mostly she suffered from a home crowd unhappy that she rightly booked a number of Derby players early doors. So many supporters don’t know the rules re making an injured player leave the field…if they are injured because of a tackle that warrants a caution then they do not have to go off! She was getting loads of criticism for this when she was right!

[europia]

11 hours ago, Crewton said:

Certainly any sexist abuse needs to be stamped on but if women are going to be referees in the men's game they will have to learn to deal with vociferous, often antagonistic crowds. They may have aspirations to referee in European competition too and if that's the case they'll encounter much bigger, noisier, dinosaurs than any at Pride Park. To imagine that will ever be different is optimistic.

Totally agree with that. However, meeting diversity targets shouldn't take precedence over ability, regarding the promotion of match officials. 

[ilkleyram]

11 hours ago, Sufferingfool said:

Agreed, like any ref she may have made a couple of contentious calls but mostly she suffered from a home crowd unhappy that she rightly booked a number of Derby players early doors. So many supporters don’t know the rules re making an injured player leave the field…if they are injured because of a tackle that warrants a caution then they do not have to go off! She was getting loads of criticism for this when she was right!

She might have been right but it’s still daft that a caution has to be issued to avoid having to go off. The principle should be that the innocent team and player shouldn’t be disadvantaged especially now they have to wait an extra 30 seconds - if you get injured by a foul against you then you shouldn’t have to go off at all after treatment, caution or not. 

[LazloW]

1 minute ago, ilkleyram said:

She might have been right but it’s still daft that a caution has to be issued to avoid having to go off. The principle should be that the innocent team and player shouldn’t be disadvantaged especially now they have to wait an extra 30 seconds - if you get injured by a foul against you then you shouldn’t have to go off at all after treatment, caution or not. 

Agree. Probably the stupidest rule they have ever come up with.  Love to know what difference a booking makes; yes, I guess more likely to be truly hurt perhaps with a foul that brings a booking, but that suggests that you can’t be truly hurt from something innocuous.   Also, what about something like an accidental ‘clash of heads’ or some such.  Complete accident, not your fault, but off you go, making your team weaker through no fault of your own.  It is madness. 

[Sufferingfool]

13 minutes ago, LazloW said:

Agree. Probably the stupidest rule they have ever come up with.  Love to know what difference a booking makes; yes, I guess more likely to be truly hurt perhaps with a foul that brings a booking, but that suggests that you can’t be truly hurt from something innocuous.   Also, what about something like an accidental ‘clash of heads’ or some such.  Complete accident, not your fault, but off you go, making your team weaker through no fault of your own.  It is madness. 

Yep agreed, however the ref is not at fault for implementing the rule.  Few supporters seem to be aware of it and on Saturday the refs correct implementation of it caused widespread but unjustified criticism.

[Srg]

25 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

She might have been right but it’s still daft that a caution has to be issued to avoid having to go off. The principle should be that the innocent team and player shouldn’t be disadvantaged especially now they have to wait an extra 30 seconds - if you get injured by a foul against you then you shouldn’t have to go off at all after treatment, caution or not. 

But that would mean teams like Wycombe would have to be honest when they're injured and need treatment or when they're not and just want to waste time... see the reason that isn't the case?

[ilkleyram]

37 minutes ago, Srg said:

But that would mean teams like Wycombe would have to be honest when they're injured and need treatment or when they're not and just want to waste time... see the reason that isn't the case?

But that - faking injury - is a different issue. And football has always had an issue with footballers feigning injury to get an advantage. In these days of H and S worries referees (rarely medically trained) are always going to err on the side of caution, which is why a player kicked on the ankle will always fall down clutching their head nowadays

[DRBee]

20 hours ago, jimtastic56 said:

I don’t understand why fans get hysterical over the opposition wasting a bit of time . It all gets added on at the end , that’s why we are having 100 minute games . What is annoying is pro players hoofing crosses into the crowd when you just have to keep the ball for a few more minutes.

But did the 6 minutes at the end reflect the amount of time wasting? There was only 1 min at end of 1st half when delay from injury easily covered that.

[Crewton]

18 hours ago, tinman said:

There probably wouldn’t have been as many posts if her previous games at PPS hadn’t been so good. You become used to the s*** refs in this league. 
But the fall in performance from her was huge. 

Spot on. 

A few comments here have been  misogynistic unfortunately (and no doubt there were worse examples at the game) but most criticism has, if anything, been more measured than would have been the case if, say, Keith Stroud or Bobby Madley had been reffing. Meanwhile, those claiming that every decision was given correctly are over-compensating. 

But the poster claiming that "most referees favour the home team" clearly hasn't watched many of our home games over the last 10 years!

[jono]

For me it was a 5 or 6 out of ten performance. Simply because she was, like many refs at this level, inconsistent. She did not penalise players play acting, or a player ignoring an instruction. I don’t know what the yellow count was between the two teams but I doubt it reflects the true ratio of offences committed by each team

[Ram-Alf]

27 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

which is why a player kicked on the ankle will always fall down clutching their head nowadays

You've seen these instances too?...this takes me back too...this😁

 

[Returning ram]

1 hour ago, ilkleyram said:

She might have been right but it’s still daft that a caution has to be issued to avoid having to go off. The principle should be that the innocent team and player shouldn’t be disadvantaged especially now they have to wait an extra 30 seconds - if you get injured by a foul against you then you shouldn’t have to go off at all after treatment, caution or not. 

It's been brought in through to reduce the number of players time wasting. I like it to be honest, as many now just jump on and get on with it.

[Ram-Alf]

12 minutes ago, jono said:

For me it was a 5 or 6 out of ten performance. Simply because she was, like many refs at this level, inconsistent. She did not penalise players play acting, or a player ignoring an instruction. I don’t know what the yellow count was between the two teams but I doubt it reflects the true ratio of offences committed by each team

We won 5-3 👍

[ilkleyram]

57 minutes ago, Returning ram said:

It's been brought in through to reduce the number of players time wasting. I like it to be honest, as many now just jump on and get on with it.

Don’t get me wrong I don’t like time wasting any more than you do, but the new tougher regulations this season - bookings for kicking the ball away, long periods of extra time etc - don’t appear to have done too much to stop something that is as old as football itself. Professionals have just worked out other ways, pushing referees as far as they can go (metaphorically). Goalies still fall over when catching the ball, still take an age over goal kicks, still have to clean their boots on the goalpost; players still roll around clutching their head at the drop of a hat, still move the ball away (just not so far) if they think they can get away with it, still ignore the ball as it rolls past them when the opposition want it back, still feign the seriousness of an injury to break up play or give their colleagues a break. Apparently it’s being professional as if being paid to play allows you to do all those things and more without rebuke.

But I still don’t see the fairness in penalising a team and player hurt in a tackle which was a foul against them but didn’t warrant a yellow card, by making them leave the pitch and not allowed to come back on for 30 seconds or whatever, when the perpetrator of the tackle stays on and their team is at full strength. It’s a nonsense. In that 30 seconds a goal could be scored. 

[Srg]

1 minute ago, ilkleyram said:

Don’t get me wrong I don’t like time wasting any more than you do, but the new tougher regulations this season - bookings for kicking the ball away, long periods of extra time etc - don’t appear to have done too much to stop something that is as old as football itself. Professionals have just worked out other ways, pushing referees as far as they can go (metaphorically). Goalies still fall over when catching the ball, still take an age over goal kicks, still have to clean their boots on the goalpost; players still roll around clutching their head at the drop of a hat, still move the ball away (just not so far) if they think they can get away with it, still ignore the ball as it rolls past them when the opposition want it back, still feign the seriousness of an injury to break up play or give their colleagues a break. Apparently it’s being professional as if being paid to play allows you to do all those things and more without rebuke.

But I still don’t see the fairness in penalising a team and player hurt in a tackle which was a foul against them but didn’t warrant a yellow card, by making them leave the pitch and not allowed to come back on for 30 seconds or whatever, when the perpetrator of the tackle stays on and their team is at full strength. It’s a nonsense. In that 30 seconds a goal could be scored. 

But while it's a club doctor and not an independent physio/doctor, players will always feign injury to help their team. So, the rule is a good one.

The extending of time makes sense, but players have waited it out and now realise it's not being implemented as it was at the start of the season. Saturday a prime example, just 1 minute in the first half? That's what it would have been in years gone by, it shouldn't have been this week. They were doing it harshly for about 2 weeks then got bored, and players are back to the time wasting they've always done.

[YorkshireRam]

My issue with most referees aren't the calls themselves, but the complete inconsistency between similar decisions in the same game. Some officials are more lenient than others and there's always an element of subjectivity that's left at the referee's discretion. So when we get 5 bookings in the first half, the implication is that punishments are going to be severe, even for minor infractions of the rules ie. kicking a ball away... fair enough.

So I've no issue with any of the bookings. But when she forgets to book their player at the dodgy advantage situation, lets Taylor completely ignore both the rules and her subsequent instructions, and does the square root of naff all to dissuade Wycombe timewasting; then it's understandable why the team that have been more harshly treated feel aggrieved. 

Many of these rules have been brought in to try stop time-wasting and other ''dark arts'' that have been previously alluded to on here. Her actions didn't stop this to any degree, and on the balance of the decisions, actually punished the team trying to play properly far more harshly than the ones actively trying to waste time whenever given the opportunity. And that's why it was an utter failure on her part, as the enforcement of the rules was the complete wrong way round for what they're trying to achieve...

[DavesaRam]

It is the inconsistency that is the consistent problem with refereeing. I could accept all the yellow cards if she had been even handed, but I will protest Sibley’s, who’s  shot at goal was inconsequential because a Wycombe player had already done a kuck-away without punishment, and they did 3 more before Vikes finally got a card - which shouldn’t have been his first. He dived in the area and did a Haaland at her when she turned his claim down, which should have been a card for simulation, and another for dissent. He also should have had a yellow for kicking Bradley in the face.

The penalty was a good call, as was ours bring turned down for NML. But the one where JJ was clattered off the pitch at the edge of the 6 yard box and the free kick given to Wycombe was a poor call, as was ignoring Bird being thrown to the floor in the area. I hadn’t seen the foul on Cashin that Mad Amster pointed out. She also missed a defender jumping into the back of JJ where his knees hit JJ’s shoulder blades.

I have said that we drooped the points because of poor play and poor tactics, because the ref effectively neutering our midfield would have mattered if we’d used them in the middle of the pitch. But we didn’t.