RATE THE REF - Graham Scott v Southampton

[jdrobbo]

Graham Scott (Oxfordshire) v Southampton

How to Score
A. Decision Making (including use of advantage) - out of 25
B. Consistency - out of 25
C. Fitness and Positioning - of 25
D. Control and Authority - out of 25

[tarkys_ears]

is there going to be any point in doing this any longer? (serious question)

[DCWat]

Not that I do it, but all of the rating criteria remain relevant, with it without VAR

[jdrobbo]

A 13
B 12
C 16
D 14

[ClaretTony]

A. 10
B. 10
C. 14
D. 10

This bloke really is woeful

[andyh]

A. 5
B. 5
C. 7
D. 5

This bloke really is woeful

He isn’t that good.

[Bosscat]

Graham Scott a big fat Zero (oh no thats Jon Moss .... has he had the baby yet?)

5
5
7
5

[Aclaret]

Graham Scott on the elite referees list

[Beagleheart]

A. 11
B. 12
C. 17
D. 13
Hopefully we won't see him for a while since we got him first up.

[Devils_Advocate]

Not sure what he looked like live but on the TV seemed a decent performance with no dramas

[SalisburyClaret]

13
13
15
10

[Tricky Trevor]

Got very little wrong and kept his cards in his pocket.

[MDWat]

A - 10
B - 10
C - 10
D - 10

[damo_whitehead]

A 10
B 12
C 17
D 10

[Local cricketer]

A. 11
B. 12
C. 17
D. 13
Hopefully we won't see him for a while since we got him first up.

Bet we have him by the end off September

[Leisure]

Not sure what he looked like live but on the TV seemed a decent performance with no dramas

So you didn't make the game?

[Leisure]

Got very little wrong and kept his cards in his pocket.

Really?

[Devils_Advocate]

So you didn't make the game?

Nah cant afford the Twix's on the turf

[dpinsussex]

Sorry guys. I am staggered at the low Mark's. He from,extended highlights I admit dis not put a foot wrong. Managed thegame without cards. Used VAR where appropriate. Always up,with play. Decision making was absolutely spot on .

Well done Graham Scott very good performance

God knows what you need to get some real kudos from claret fans.

[nil_desperandum]

Have to say that like dp above I'm surprised by the low marks. I was there today and watched the full match on SKY this evening. Didn't think he got much wrong in v difficult conditions, was generally up with play and was consistent in letting the game flow rather than constantly blowing up. (I note (e.g.) that he only awarded 6 free-kicks against us even though we were pretty physical, and this was correct as we were hard but fair).
Should probably have sent Adams off, but his challenge went to VAR, and they said no, so i'm not sure we can criticise him for that.

[DAVETHEVICAR]

Also surprised by very low marks.He tried to keep the game going in awful conditions and handled the VAR well.

A 16
B 16
C 20
D 20

[Stproc]

15
15
15
15
Certainly not the worst we’ve had, let quite a bit go in terms of tough tackles but there were no ma)or mistakes today.

[mdd2]

I think VAR will make many a sows ear ref into a silk purse

[Elizabeth]

In view of the supportive comments about this ref's performance yesterday I only think it's fair that the posters who have given him very low marks and derisory comments come back with their reasons .
Otherwise it's looking like this thread is just an excuse for a witch hunt against certain refs.
I know my remarks will not go down well with some but I feel they are justified.

[MACCA]

16
18
18
18

[bfcmik]

A. 18
B. 14
C. 21
D. 21

[Cleveleys_claret]

How can you offer a view of a referees performance after watching extended highlights?

[nil_desperandum]

How can you offer a view of a referees performance after watching extended highlights?

They showed the full match on SKY on Sat evening, but you are only supposed to give marks if you actually attended the game.

[Cleveleys_claret]

They showed the full match on SKY on Sat evening, but you are only supposed to give marks if you actually attended the game.

Dpinsussex is taking humbrage at CT's and a few others' opinion of the refereeing performance yet states himself that he only watched extended highlights. How can he even have a view if he has only watched highlights. Yes the big decisions he got right but there was so much more than what would be shown in extended highlights

[IanMcL]

POST REMOVED: This ratings thread is not to counterbalance another poster you disagree with.

[ClaretTony]

Dpinsussex is taking humbrage at CT's and a few others' opinion of the refereeing performance yet states himself that he only watched extended highlights.

He criticised me partly because he said I was in the stand while Scott was closer to the action. From that, I'd assumed he'd have had to be on the pitch, not watching the extended highlights. And for fairness, I thought the clearest and most obvious yellow card not given should have been shown to Jack Cork. I hadn't seen any TV highlights when I posted my ratings, those are the rules, but I don't think not carding anyone and not giving things is good refereeing.

[nil_desperandum]

POST REMOVED: This ratings thread is not to counterbalance another poster you disagree with.

From the post:

However, apart from the keeper handling, when he had to rely on a lino, he did ok.

He's allowed to handle inside the area, which he was.

[nil_desperandum]

Not from my very nice view on high!

That's why it can actually be beneficial to attend the match and watch the whole game but also to check the details on the TV later, before awarding scores, though as I pointed out a few posts ago, it's really meant to be just on what you see at the game.
VAR will now bring an extra complication to these rate the ref threads, and what we actually mark the ref on.
e.g. the red card decision was totally wrong IMO, but that was a VAR decision. Having said that though, Scott could have given a red or yellow for the initial incident, so are we saying that the VAR decision vindicated Scott not awarding a card, or is it a case that 2 wrongs don't make a right?. (i.e both Scott and VAR were wrong)

[lancastrian]

It always amuses me when scores for Referees are given. How many have refereed a match on Towneley let alone a Premier league match. May I suggest that you join Burnley Referees Association or your local RA, take and pass the exam and start to referee matches.Then you may have an idea on how to score.

[IanMcL]

That's why it can actually be beneficial to attend the match and watch the whole game but also to check the details on the TV later, before awarding scores, though as I pointed out a few posts ago, it's really meant to be just on what you see at the game.
VAR will now bring an extra complication to these rate the ref threads, and what we actually mark the ref on.
e.g. the red card decision was totally wrong IMO, but that was a VAR decision. Having said that though, Scott could have given a red or yellow for the initial incident, so are we saying that the VAR decision vindicated Scott not awarding a card, or is it a case that 2 wrongs don't make a right?. (i.e both Scott and VAR were wrong)

That's why he only got 80% Mark's.

[Rileybobs]

It always amuses me when scores for Referees are given. How many have refereed a match on Towneley let alone a Premier league match. May I suggest that you join Burnley Referees Association or your local RA, take and pass the exam and start to referee matches.Then you may have an idea on how to score.

Should people become professional footballers to partake on the player rating threads? Should we direct movies and write novels to allow us to critique them?