Match Thread: vs Bolton (A)

[Ram-Alf]

9 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Thanks for the advice. I would never have guessed. You do realise of course that no one ever gets everything right all the time? Least of all football officials making decisions in real time.

You're welcome ☺️

[Ramarena]

2 hours ago, jameso said:

I think I'm struggling to understand this argument so let me double-check:

I think you're saying that guessing isn't the same as a mistaken belief... right?

So he "saw" the ball hit Wildsmith's arm/hand (even though it would appear that it did not) and sent him off, but he wasn't guessing because he was... certain? reasonably certain? a bit certain?... that Wildsmith had handled it?

I suppose if the ref saw that then yes, he wasn't guessing. He just maybe needs to consider another career, because if he was certain that Wildsmith handled it then other video evidence indicates he was wrong, so he's not very good at the thing he needs to be good at. And if he wasn't certain, then surely the benefit of the doubt has to lie with Wildsmith?

He was also certain Smith fouled their player in the box. But it was outside the box and the player fell into the box.

I don’t particularly like hammering refs, but this guy was at best having an absolute shocker.

[Rambalin]

6 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

He was also certain Smith fouled their player in the box. But it was outside the box and the player fell into the box.

I don’t particularly like hammering refs, but this guy was at best having an absolute shocker.

Ref obviously has eyesight issues he was the same Ref who gave Plymouth a pen at Home Park last season

[Guest]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

This one clearly should get given if VAR is involved.

Linking to the running discussion with @Tamworthram, it seems reasonable to deduce that the officials either believed this did not hit a hand (or did but in such a way as not to implicate the handball laws), or could not be certain that it did hit a hand in order to give it.

Again, there are two options here: (1) the ref is certain but wrong and needs to give up his career as a ref; or (2) the ref is not certain so errs on the side of caution by not penalising the (alleged) offending player.

If it's (2), he only needs to apply the same (perfectly reasonable) logic to Wildsmith and we don't have a problem.

If it's (1)... see previous agreed solution!

[DavesaRam]

Re the Bolton penalty: the rules about what constitutes a penalty have changed, and IIRC correctly if a foul occurs outside the penalty area but continues into it, the a penalty should be awarded. That would explain why the peno was given. Also, as explained by VulcanRam, if the ball hits a hand being used by a player to stabilise himself, then it is not a penalty. ALL the other big decisions he got wrong, including the red card. That video from the opposite angle makes it clear, and as Angie says you can see the shirt billow from the impact of the ball. I suspect there was a red welt on Wildsmith’s chest from the impact of the ball, but if he’d raised his shirt to show the ref he would probably have been booked for removing his shirt!

With snything like decency and justice we would have won that match 3 - 2! Another wind up came from AngieRam when she informed us that this was the ref from the away match at Plymouth last season, who gave a total non-penalty against us, then denied two absolutely blatant penalty offences within seconds of each other. You would expect a better degree of leniency because of that, but because there wasn’t it is clear that he us still an EFL stooge.

The big debate now is to ask whether he made as many officiating mistakes as Paul Warne did tactically?

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, DavesaRam said:

Re the Bolton penalty: the rules about what constitutes a penalty have changed, and IIRC correctly if a foul occurs outside the penalty area but continues into it, the a penalty should be awarded. That would explain why the peno was given.

I'll admit I'm being lazy and not instantly researching your claim but my first thought is that this leaves the situation wide open for a big mess.

My interpretation of that rule, given in your words, brings to mind a situation where it's an ongoing tussle, e.g. shirt-pulling which starts outside and carries on inside. In the case of Smith it was one attempted tackle; it didn't continue into the box even if Dempsey's well-executed landing did.

If I'm wrong and the Smith-Dempsey incident can count as "continuing into the box" then I expect to see situations where an attacker who is barely touched outside the box manages to channel his momentum into a hop-skip-jump-and-fall into the area and then the massive grey area about whether that counts. Even I can't believe the authorities would allow that, and for that reason I am skeptical that the Smith tackle and Dempsey's fall could possibly be given as a penalty under any rules... but I will check. Probably.

EDIT: I just checked. Is this the rule you're referring to? - "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

In which case, surely doesn't apply in this case.

Edited September 3, 2023 by jameso
bothered to research the point I was responding to 🤣

[Foreveram]

6 hours ago, angieram said:

I voted Christmas in the poll, although it's difficult to separate the emotion you feel at the matches from the rationale of giving him time. And yesterday's result could have been so different,  even with ten men.

But he HAS to start putting into practice what he says, and use some of the pace he says he craves.

I was disappointed yesterday when he waited so long after the sending off ( 25 minutes)  to make his tactical  substitutions, especially ones that would have seen John Jules up against their defence.

When he did eventually come on he won three free kicks in quick succession and looked the brightest player on the pitch. Closely followed by Fornah, once he'd put him in a position that actually suits his game.

I'd have loved to have seen JJ get a run at that bulky centre half on the break while Bolton were camped in our half, but by then, Bolton had a lead to defend and had dropped in.

Even then, we had chances, but they all fell to Collins, who can't do anything right at the minute. 

Bolton were jittery; their fans told us pre-game they have no midfield. Strange how we made them look like prime Manchester City there by completely surrendering that territory. 

There are comments on here (I think initiated by the hysterics on Radio Derby) that Mendez-Laing wasn't trying. Well, his play improved significantly when he had something up front to aim at. 

The last fifteen minutes of the game gave me hope because we do have the tools to complete the task. Whether Warne knows how to use them, I have my doubts.

The trouble with making the substitutions earlier was we were already forced into two substitutions with the Rooney injury and the Wildsmith sending off, so we only had one more opportunity for substitutions. If we made them too early and then had another injury we would have been down to nine men.

[Tamworthram]

53 minutes ago, jameso said:

This one clearly should get given if VAR is involved.

Linking to the running discussion with @Tamworthram, it seems reasonable to deduce that the officials either believed this did not hit a hand (or did but in such a way as not to implicate the handball laws), or could not be certain that it did hit a hand in order to give it.

Again, there are two options here: (1) the ref is certain but wrong and needs to give up his career as a ref; or (2) the ref is not certain so errs on the side of caution by not penalising the (alleged) offending player.

If it's (2), he only needs to apply the same (perfectly reasonable) logic to Wildsmith and we don't have a problem.

If it's (1)... see previous agreed solution!

I think we'd soon run out of refs if they all gave up when they gave a decision that they believed to be correct which is subsequently proved to be wrong. 😀

[MackworthRamIsGod]

Paul Warne told me everything I needed to know with Brown.

One of the highlights of pre-season, somewhat of an unknown and surely a better prospect than some on offer.

Would have been great to give him some minutes.. but nowhere to be seen.

He prefers proven championship and league 1 players with skills and attributes enough to get out of this division...

He then coaches them to death, injects his tactical ineptness and we have the mess we currently see.

I bet Barkhuizen can't wait to be fully fit and get 10 minutes here and there.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I think we'd soon run out of refs if they all gave up when they gave a decision that they believed to be correct which is subsequently proved to be wrong. 😀

I'm not splitting hairs, honest, but that's not what I said.

My point is that he couldn't have been certain (because the thing didn't happen) so he was actually going with what he thought probably happened - yet he didn't apply the same logic in the case of the handball by the Bolton defender. He also gave the benefit of the doubt to the team claiming foul in the case of Wildsmith, but against the team claiming foul in the case of the Bolton defender's handball.

If I'm wrong, and he was certain, then he's seeing things, and maybe needs to visit a doctor.

If I'm right, and he wasn't certain, then he gave the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team despite not being sure he'd seen Wildsmith handball it.

I realise it's possible that the linesman convinced him, which would mean the linesman is the weak link and the ref was at a disadvantage having incompetent assistants. (Although I must say that his overall performance makes me think the main problem was the ref!)

Edited September 3, 2023 by jameso

[Tamworthram]

18 minutes ago, jameso said:

I'm not splitting hairs, honest, but that's not what I said.

My point is that he couldn't have been certain (because the thing didn't happen) so he was actually going with what he thought probably happened - yet he didn't apply the same logic in the case of the handball by the Bolton defender. He also gave the benefit of the doubt to the team claiming foul in the case of Wildsmith, but against the team claiming foul in the case of the Bolton defender's handball.

If I'm wrong, and he was certain, then he's seeing things, and maybe needs to visit a doctor.

If I'm right, and he wasn't certain, then he gave the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team despite not being sure he'd seen Wildsmith handball it.

I realise it's possible that the linesman convinced him, which would mean the linesman is the weak link and the ref was at a disadvantage having incompetent assistants. (Although I must say that his overall performance makes me think the main problem was the ref!)

I think the things is, it's very difficult to be 100% certain in the heat of the moment and without the benefit of VAR.

You are saying he went with what he thought probably happened. How about he went with what he believed he saw in that split second and then applied the same principle with the Bolton "hand ball"? I'm sure they're the sort of decisions referees have to make all the time. With our Potentially biased view we seem to think the officials nearly always get it wrong to our detriment.

I guess if all the refs that did make a wrong call had to resign it would create some vacancies for folk on this forum (and no doubt other clubs foums) who know they would never get it wrong could step in.

[Tyler Durden]

What would be the reaction if the ref wasn't 100% sure of the ball hitting Wildsmiths arm and didn't give a red card but after the subsequent protracted over analysis of the footage it was shown that actually it did hit his arm?

What then would the reaction be on here if the boot was on the other foot and it was the Bolton goalie not Wildsmith involved?

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, jameso said:

I'll admit I'm being lazy and not instantly researching your claim but my first thought is that this leaves the situation wide open for a big mess.

My interpretation of that rule, given in your words, brings to mind a situation where it's an ongoing tussle, e.g. shirt-pulling which starts outside and carries on inside. In the case of Smith it was one attempted tackle; it didn't continue into the box even if Dempsey's well-executed landing did.

If I'm wrong and the Smith-Dempsey incident can count as "continuing into the box" then I expect to see situations where an attacker who is barely touched outside the box manages to channel his momentum into a hop-skip-jump-and-fall into the area and then the massive grey area about whether that counts. Even I can't believe the authorities would allow that, and for that reason I am skeptical that the Smith tackle and Dempsey's fall could possibly be given as a penalty under any rules... but I will check. Probably.

EDIT: I just checked. Is this the rule you're referring to? - "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."

In which case, surely doesn't apply in this case.

if the ref made a mistake, it was dwarfed by Smith’s mistake. Oh and if we’d been on the other end of the Wildsmith incident, in real time, we’d all have said it was a red card all day long

(If I’d been officiating I’d have given Wildsmith a medal for a tackle Bobby Moore would be proud of and for two fabulous saves )

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

What would be the reaction if the ref wasn't 100% sure of the ball hitting Wildsmiths arm and didn't give a red card but after the subsequent protracted over analysis of the footage it was shown that actually it did hit his arm?

What then would the reaction be on here if the boot was on the other foot and it was the Bolton goalie not Wildsmith involved?

[I realise these are rhetorical questions]

Reaction to the first: we got away with one there - fortunate for us that the ref was incompetent

Reaction to the second: anything from disappointment to outrage regarding the incompetence of the ref

(Either way the problem is the ref).

Rightly or wrongly there will always be situations in which the referee fails to deliver justice. (One I never understood was a few years ago when Danny Batth was last man and took out Darren Bent... we got a free-kick (so it was a foul) but he didn't even see yellow. How?)

Maybe it isn't appropriate to apply the principles of either "innocent-until-proven-guilty" or "acquitted doesn't necessarily mean innocent" to a game of football but I don't see how you can send a player off unless you're certain they did the thing they're supposed to have done.

Initially I was only arguing for consistency between the two decisions (i.e. if the ref is doubtful about either, he can't give it) but on reflection I think there's more to it than that: he isn't sure he saw a handball foul, so he doesn't give a penalty, even though a penalty is not an automatic goal and (as I understand it) he wouldn't have had to red card the player even if he'd given the pen. But he does send off Wildsmith for something he couldn't have seen because it didn't happen, thereby reducing the alleged offender's team to 10 men for most of the second half?

In other words, it's not just that he should err on the side of caution, it's that when he decided not to do that, we were penalised even more than Bolton could have been for one of the other ones he got wrong.

And we haven't even started on how he didn't think it was a foul for Bradley being wrestled to the floor! What was he looking at for that one?

Ah, another Saturday in League One... 🤦‍♂️

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I think the things is, it's very difficult to be 100% certain in the heat of the moment and without the benefit of VAR.

You are saying he went with what he thought probably happened. How about he went with what he believed he saw in that split second and then applied the same principle with the Bolton "hand ball"? I'm sure they're the sort of decisions referees have to make all the time. With our Potentially biased view we seem to think the officials nearly always get it wrong to our detriment.

I guess if all the refs that did make a wrong call had to resign it would create some vacancies for folk on this forum (and no doubt other clubs foums) who know they would never get it wrong could step in.

To be fair I think the refs are just wretched generally (at our level anyway). (Maybe you get the refs your play deserves? 😬)

Maybe everyone has an exaggerated sense of his/her own fairness but I think I'm pretty objective when it comes to refs making bad decisions. We've definitely got away with a few over the last year and a bit, but I think other teams have got away with more! I genuinely don't know why that is (except where other teams are "cuter" - I don't think Bolton were, particularly) and I'm not implying anti-DCFC conspiracy. Definitely fans of any club will fixate on the howlers that went against them.

Rather than suggesting I could do any better, I'm making the perennial complaint of the football fan regarding refs: oh for some consistency!

[RoyMac5]

These things happen. But we were crap too.

 

[VulcanRam]

5 hours ago, Bald Eagle's Barmy Army said:

Surely if a keeper handles it outside of the box the play stops instantly, not “let’s see if they score in the next 5 seconds and if not we will then bring it back”. 
 

Also, if he has to talk to the linesman he isn’t 100%. If he is 100%, the red card comes out straight away. 

The advantage rules are there for a reason. If the Bolton player drills it into the goal as the ref blows up then he is clearly disadvantaging the attacking team, which by the way he did to us, but fortunately we scored from the peno. Imagine another situation, and we have seen it, where a keeper handballs or fouls yet the attacking player is still clean through to walk the ball into the net - the ref isn’t going to pull the play back to give a free kick. 

Funnily enough if the Bolton player scores then it’s a yellow for Joe, or even if he he takes a touch or two, gets his shot away and it goes over, by then the ref has spent too long allowing play to continue and advantage would have deemed to have been given (in that he took the shot), so it’s a goal kick and a yellow. As soon as he calls the foul then I’m afraid it’s always going to be a red. 

I don’t agree with the second bit. It’s a massive call. It’s on the assistant’s side, he’s right to take his time, get the assistants take, and make sure in his own mind he’s got the decision right. For all we know the assistant has called him over. If the assistant says to him it 100% didn’t hit the keepers arm then it might change his decision. Then again it might not! 

[ben_dcfc]

27 minutes ago, jameso said:

To be fair I think the refs are just wretched generally (at our level anyway). (Maybe you get the refs your play deserves? 😬)

Maybe everyone has an exaggerated sense of his/her own fairness but I think I'm pretty objective when it comes to refs making bad decisions. We've definitely got away with a few over the last year and a bit, but I think other teams have got away with more! I genuinely don't know why that is (except where other teams are "cuter" - I don't think Bolton were, particularly) and I'm not implying anti-DCFC conspiracy. Definitely fans of any club will fixate on the howlers that went against them.

Rather than suggesting I could do any better, I'm making the perennial complaint of the football fan regarding refs: oh for some consistency!

I think it's pretty simple, he didn't think the Bolton player handled the ball, he thought Wildsmith did. Consistency doesn't come in to it because the incidents aren't the exact same. Just the same as if he'd given us the penalty and then the Wildsmith incident had happened and he didn't think Wildsmith handled it, he wouldn't send him off just to be consistent.

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

12 minutes ago, VulcanRam said:

The advantage rules are there for a reason. If the Bolton player drills it into the goal as the ref blows up then he is clearly disadvantaging the attacking team, which by the way he did to us, but fortunately we scored from the peno. Imagine another situation, and we have seen it, where a keeper handballs or fouls yet the attacking player is still clean through to walk the ball into the net - the ref isn’t going to pull the play back to give a free kick. 

Funnily enough if the Bolton player scores then it’s a yellow for Joe, or even if he he takes a touch or two, gets his shot away and it goes over, by then the ref has spent too long allowing play to continue and advantage would have deemed to have been given (in that he took the shot), so it’s a goal kick and a yellow. As soon as he calls the foul then I’m afraid it’s always going to be a red. 

I don’t agree with the second bit. It’s a massive call. It’s on the assistant’s side, he’s right to take his time, get the assistants take, and make sure in his own mind he’s got the decision right. For all we know the assistant has called him over. If the assistant says to him it 100% didn’t hit the keepers arm then it might change his decision. Then again it might not! 

They did have a second shot that Wildsmith saved after the referee let play go. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ben_dcfc said:

I think it's pretty simple, he didn't think the Bolton player handled the ball, he thought Wildsmith did. Consistency doesn't come in to it because the incidents aren't the exact same. Just the same as if he'd given us the penalty and then the Wildsmith incident had happened and he didn't think Wildsmith handled it, he wouldn't send him off just to be consistent.

Not consistency of decision: consistency of whether you should give the benefit of the doubt to the alleged offender if you're not certain what has happened.

If he'd given us the penalty it should be because he saw the handball, otherwise he can't give it.

By the same token, he should have sent off Wildsmith because he saw him handball it, which he couldn't have.