PGMO
-
- Posts: 617
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:31 pm
- Been Liked: 160 times
PGMO
Im not sure hiw this works but today the PGMOussued a statement at halftime saying why they didnt award Man City a penalty for handball.
Do they do this for every decision or is this big game basis?
Do we get these releases for every VAR decision in our games?
Do they do this for every decision or is this big game basis?
Do we get these releases for every VAR decision in our games?
-
- Posts: 8526
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
- Been Liked: 2472 times
- Has Liked: 2009 times
Re: PGMO
Whatever they said they were wrong. Justification being not an unnatural position is ********.
His arm was out at right angles, he wasn’t that close, it was a pen.
Game changing decision. 0-1 became 1-0.
His arm was out at right angles, he wasn’t that close, it was a pen.
Game changing decision. 0-1 became 1-0.
-
- Posts: 8367
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2977 times
- Has Liked: 2075 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: PGMO
Don't even know what PGMO is !!
-
- Posts: 67887
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32531 times
- Has Liked: 5277 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: PGMO
It’s PGMOL and it’s the refs company basically. Stands for Professional Game Match Officials Limited. Came into being in 2001 when refs first went professional.Funkydrummer wrote:Don't even know what PGMO is !!
This user liked this post: Funkydrummer
-
- Posts: 617
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:31 pm
- Been Liked: 160 times
Re: PGMO
Tony is this new thing or are all clubs treated the same?
-
- Posts: 8367
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2977 times
- Has Liked: 2075 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: PGMO
Cheers.
Never heard of it tbh.
Never heard of it tbh.
-
- Posts: 10974
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
- Been Liked: 5188 times
- Has Liked: 804 times
- Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo
Re: PGMO
I agree but doesn't it come off the City player's arm first to put it in the direction that it went?Tricky Trevor wrote:Whatever they said they were wrong. Justification being not an unnatural position is ********.
His arm was out at right angles, he wasn’t that close, it was a pen.
Game changing decision. 0-1 became 1-0.
-
- Posts: 18094
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3864 times
- Has Liked: 2073 times
Re: PGMO
Everton have had an apology off them recently for their VAR decisions.steve1264b wrote:Tony is this new thing or are all clubs treated the same?
Re: PGMO
Am sure that will settle all doubts about the dodgy decisions.... just what you need "An Apology"Quickenthetempo wrote:Everton have had an apology off them recently for their VAR decisions.
-
- Posts: 3962
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1240 times
- Has Liked: 491 times
Re: PGMO
There’s nothing professional about them tbh. Amateurish beyond belief tbh.
-
- Posts: 67887
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32531 times
- Has Liked: 5277 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: PGMO
It was the pen against Michael Keane v Brighton. No decisions decided by VAR in our games have been considered incorrect although that’s not something I agree with.Quickenthetempo wrote:Everton have had an apology off them recently for their VAR decisions.
-
- Posts: 67887
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32531 times
- Has Liked: 5277 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: PGMO
I was watching Sunday Supplement this morning and Henry Winter said one of the problems is Mike Riley thinking the game is all about him.
-
- Posts: 617
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:31 pm
- Been Liked: 160 times
Re: PGMO
Really? An apology? For me if you are the rule enforcer you cant treat individual concerned parties differently.
This user liked this post: Bosscat
-
- Posts: 617
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:31 pm
- Been Liked: 160 times
Re: PGMO
I would expect them to publish a full explanation of every VAR decision imediately afterwards from now on.
The conspiracy theorists would say they bottled it today, realised they got it wrong and rushed out a statement hoping it would dampen the fire.
The conspiracy theorists would say they bottled it today, realised they got it wrong and rushed out a statement hoping it would dampen the fire.
-
- Posts: 67887
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32531 times
- Has Liked: 5277 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: PGMO
They explain their decisions. We got to know about this one because it was live on tv. The Sky commentary team once again knew the decision before the players or fans in the ground.steve1264b wrote:I would expect them to publish a full explanation of every VAR decision imediately afterwards from now on.
The conspiracy theorists would say they bottled it today, realised they got it wrong and rushed out a statement hoping it would dampen the fire.
-
- Posts: 5792
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 1884 times
- Has Liked: 841 times
Re: PGMO
Think most of the refs enjoy being part of the limelight they’ll all have an eye on a place in the sky sports studio once they hang up the whistle.ClaretTony wrote:I was watching Sunday Supplement this morning and Henry Winter said one of the problems is Mike Riley thinking the game is all about him.
-
- Posts: 5365
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1650 times
- Has Liked: 404 times
Re: PGMO
I am assuming that the Arnold one, in being a subjective judgement call, was purely Oliver’s decision and nothing to do with VAR which would only come in if Oliver had no clear view?
The angle Oliver was at, side on to Arnold, may have been clear but not the best angle to see the arm get raised up just before the ball hit it.
The angle Oliver was at, side on to Arnold, may have been clear but not the best angle to see the arm get raised up just before the ball hit it.
Re: PGMO
Didnt look a penalty to me.Tricky Trevor wrote:Whatever they said they were wrong. Justification being not an unnatural position is ********.
His arm was out at right angles, he wasn’t that close, it was a pen.
Game changing decision. 0-1 became 1-0.
Not deliberate and arm didn’t appear to make his body unnaturally bigger.
-
- Posts: 3962
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1240 times
- Has Liked: 491 times
Re: PGMO
The main problems they create are easily avoidable if you use an ounce of common sense...
You start penalising attackers for unintentional handball because it leads to a goal it provokes the following:
What if the handball leads to a penalty (or what should be a penalty like in today’s game)?
Should the game be stopped? Is it a no pen decision because it was handled by the attacker first? Should the VAR not immediately signal the ref to stop the game (certainly within say 10 seconds) if they see something he has missed (like the attackers handball today). Oh but it did not lead to a goal, so it is just play on, so if it is play on the pen should be given.....it is just a shambles.
Why are attackers and defenders being treat differently for the same incident? Is stopping a goal by unintentional handball, on the line for example, not effectively the same as scoring one with the help of unintentional handball. You just can’t have rules applied differently in attack to defence....
There has been incidents where both teams have been fouling from a corner (I think at Everton the other week) and a goal from a corner was cancelled out but the Striker was fouled before a different defender was fouled. The Var did nothing to award a clear pen but were happy to disallow a goal when the attacker fouled after the defender. This is a bit like the Mee goal where if he is fouled first surely the goal stands. Did VAR not check this?
Don’t get me started on the clear and obvious nonsense. VAR will not work until the refs either use monitors themselves to get to the right decision or they get direct decisions from the VAR irrespective of what the original decision is...so no threshold needed. The threshold nonsense ensures that we will always have similar decisions getting different outcomes all because of the initial refs interpretation....
You start penalising attackers for unintentional handball because it leads to a goal it provokes the following:
What if the handball leads to a penalty (or what should be a penalty like in today’s game)?
Should the game be stopped? Is it a no pen decision because it was handled by the attacker first? Should the VAR not immediately signal the ref to stop the game (certainly within say 10 seconds) if they see something he has missed (like the attackers handball today). Oh but it did not lead to a goal, so it is just play on, so if it is play on the pen should be given.....it is just a shambles.
Why are attackers and defenders being treat differently for the same incident? Is stopping a goal by unintentional handball, on the line for example, not effectively the same as scoring one with the help of unintentional handball. You just can’t have rules applied differently in attack to defence....
There has been incidents where both teams have been fouling from a corner (I think at Everton the other week) and a goal from a corner was cancelled out but the Striker was fouled before a different defender was fouled. The Var did nothing to award a clear pen but were happy to disallow a goal when the attacker fouled after the defender. This is a bit like the Mee goal where if he is fouled first surely the goal stands. Did VAR not check this?
Don’t get me started on the clear and obvious nonsense. VAR will not work until the refs either use monitors themselves to get to the right decision or they get direct decisions from the VAR irrespective of what the original decision is...so no threshold needed. The threshold nonsense ensures that we will always have similar decisions getting different outcomes all because of the initial refs interpretation....
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
- Been Liked: 4384 times
- Has Liked: 15117 times
Re: PGMO
I'd take anything a journalist says with a Large pinch of salt....He probably meant mason anyway.ClaretTony wrote:I was watching Sunday Supplement this morning and Henry Winter said one of the problems is Mike Riley thinking the game is all about him.
Re: PGMO
There was a paradox here - if the ref decides that the handball was accidental and no p[enalty, then play goes on; but Liverpool scored as a result, and if a goal is scored from a handball - even an accidental one - it should be a direct free kick to the defence. So under one rule it was no penalty because it was accidental, and under the other it was a penalty because it lead to a goal. So they either had to make a decision, or else the game would be stuck in a permanent loop as VAR continually allowed and then disallowed the penalty.
-
- Posts: 3155
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:53 am
- Been Liked: 836 times
- Has Liked: 544 times
Re: PGMO
Mike Riley of Nelson and Colne College Mike Riley. Maurice would have been a better ref!
Re: PGMO
Yesterdays decisions probably won them the title.
Liverpool got a pen that hit a spurs players arm pit, they also got a dubious 1 v Leicester apparently too in the very last minute.
They have been very fortunate so far with VAR, but just shows how poor it is when you're asking for 2 peoples opinion on the same incident.
If it's taking VAR upto 4 minutes to make a decision , it is too close to call and should stand with the on field officials, or to save time, let the referee ( and his team if need be ) use the screen at the side of the pitch, surely it wouldn't take 4 minutes!
Liverpool got a pen that hit a spurs players arm pit, they also got a dubious 1 v Leicester apparently too in the very last minute.
They have been very fortunate so far with VAR, but just shows how poor it is when you're asking for 2 peoples opinion on the same incident.
If it's taking VAR upto 4 minutes to make a decision , it is too close to call and should stand with the on field officials, or to save time, let the referee ( and his team if need be ) use the screen at the side of the pitch, surely it wouldn't take 4 minutes!