VK on the referee

[Prefeot]

Some utter guff being spouted here. Watford did a job on us by and large and the ref was fine. We'd have helped ourselves by not going down with theatrics.

As for that Barnes yellow - we've been told how much of a menace he is for nipping, standing on feet etc for almost a decade. Barnes had two hands on their lads torso before he went down. Likely Ash did create that situation, after which Barnes was clearly looking to give the defender and ref a quandry by going to ground at will. It almost worked but with the quality in this team i'd sooner watch us try and play football rather than fall over.

The best shout for a pen looked to be the one on Tella before all that but the ongoing nonsence meant we didn't even see a replay of that particular incident.

Watford “did a job on us” because the ref did not control the game leading to the shamozzle by both teams .. he was very inconsistent (to put it politely)

[Vegas Claret]

You dont think they were up for it, those first 10 minutes?
Reckon they started to really get on his back around 20 mins. ( but i could be wrong as the beer was good )

difficult to generate an atmosphere when a team the size of Watford brought a bus load - the perceived bad decisions by the ref deffo galvanized the crowd. More importantly, glad you enjoyed your beer !

[what_no_pies]

But the ref then missed their player dragging ours to the floor on three separate occasions while we waited for the corner to be taken. Total lack of consistency but that seems to the the norm at this level.

He held Barnes on the next corner after Barnes had clearly pushed him. The one after that Barnes practically front flipped himself to make it look like he was thrown (Stevie Wonder wasn't fooled as easily as many biased Clarets). The general pattern contradicts your claim. Red was decent enough on a tough night.

[Sproggy]

The ref lost control after about 3 minutes. Early on there was a push on one of our players...50/50, ref didn't give it.

We called it straight away...is he going to be consistent..?

A minute later the same thing happened the other way round and he did give it.

That was the start of the end of any control he had of the game.

[Buxtonclaret]

difficult to generate an atmosphere when a team the size of Watford brought a bus load - the perceived bad decisions by the ref deffo galvanized the crowd. More importantly, glad you enjoyed your beer !

Heck.
Was the bus full ?

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

He held Barnes on the next corner after Barnes had clearly pushed him. The one after that Barnes practically front flipped himself to make it look like he was thrown (Stevie Wonder wasn't fooled as easily as many biased Clarets). The general pattern contradicts your claim. Red was decent enough on a tough night.

He then shoved Al-Dakhil in the face on the third go which amazingly was missed by the ref and linesman.

[what_no_pies]

He then shoved Al-Dakhil in the face on the third go which amazingly was missed by the ref and linesman.

I'd suggest the claret tint in your specs is strong. Don't lose that, but don't lose grasp of reality either. In isolation none of those are anything other than a bit of a hopeful claim. In a set of three they're quite embarrassibg for us frankly.

[Spike]

Not just the ref. All four officials clearly wanted to be home on Valentines. The fourth official let Bilic stray on the pitch at will and the technical area lines were invisible to him.
We have had better games but the unbeaten run continues

[dsr]

The problem with this ref was firstly, like so many other refs, he was determined to give as many free kicks as he could. If you stop play for every potential foul, then you can't get a controversial goal from it. There were very few times that a potential free kick wasn't given. Most fo the kicks in the first 20 minutes went to Watford which go the crowd's backs up.

As 2 Bee Holed pointed out, 85% of what the players do is play-acting. Which logically means that only 15% of the falling over should be given as a free kick - but refs persist in giving 85%. Until the powers that be accept that (1) players cheat, and (2) they should not be rewarded for cheating, then the play acting will continue.

As for the corner shenanigans, the ref again made a rod for his own back by booking Barnes. There is no doubt that Barnes touched their man, but if you're going to give a yellow card for touching someone before a corner comes in, there are going to be some very short-sided games. The ref (who certainly couldn't see though the approx 10 players including Barnes) to see what had happened, gave the booking on the basis of the defender's reaction. And once the players know that the ref is going to dish out unfair bookings purely based on the quality of the dive, then they are going to try bigger and better dives. Refs who give decisions that they haven't seen, based on players' reactions, are making trouble for themselves.

Ultimately it's down to the FA and Leagues. As long as they give tacit and even explicit assent to this sort of behaviour, then this sort of behaviour will carry on. If the FA and Leagues didn't want play acting, they would take action over it. They don't take action, which means they are happy for it to continue.

[Lowbankclaret]

The problem with this ref was firstly, like so many other refs, he was determined to give as many free kicks as he could. If you stop play for every potential foul, then you can't get a controversial goal from it. There were very few times that a potential free kick wasn't given. Most fo the kicks in the first 20 minutes went to Watford which go the crowd's backs up.

As 2 Bee Holed pointed out, 85% of what the players do is play-acting. Which logically means that only 15% of the falling over should be given as a free kick - but refs persist in giving 85%. Until the powers that be accept that (1) players cheat, and (2) they should not be rewarded for cheating, then the play acting will continue.

As for the corner shenanigans, the ref again made a rod for his own back by booking Barnes. There is no doubt that Barnes touched their man, but if you're going to give a yellow card for touching someone before a corner comes in, there are going to be some very short-sided games. The ref (who certainly couldn't see though the approx 10 players including Barnes) to see what had happened, gave the booking on the basis of the defender's reaction. And once the players know that the ref is going to dish out unfair bookings purely based on the quality of the dive, then they are going to try bigger and better dives. Refs who give decisions that they haven't seen, based on players' reactions, are making trouble for themselves.

Ultimately it's down to the FA and Leagues. As long as they give tacit and even explicit assent to this sort of behaviour, then this sort of behaviour will carry on. If the FA and Leagues didn't want play acting, they would take action over it. They don't take action, which means they are happy for it to continue.

What I dont understand

I think I have heard lots of pundits say you cannot give a penalty as the ball is not in play.

But you can yellow card a player when the balls not in play.

If that’s correct, how is that fair

[dsr]

What I dont understand

I think I have heard lots of pundits say you cannot give a penalty as the ball is not in play.

But you can yellow card a player when the balls not in play.

If that’s correct, how is that fair

It's certainly correct. When the ball is dead, it's dead and nothing any player can do can change its status.

I presume you wouldn't want decapitation to be completely unpunished just because the corner hadn't been taken, so I suppose the alternative is that a penalty can be given whether the ball is dead or not. It's a valid viewpoint - in rugby league, for example, if the ref gives a decision but then someone does something worse while the ball is in play, then he can upgrade it to a penalty - or even reverse it and give a penalty to the other team.

You aren't going to persuade any ref to do that at a corner, though!

[Lowbankclaret]

It's certainly correct. When the ball is dead, it's dead and nothing any player can do can change its status.

I presume you wouldn't want decapitation to be completely unpunished just because the corner hadn't been taken, so I suppose the alternative is that a penalty can be given whether the ball is dead or not. It's a valid viewpoint - in rugby league, for example, if the ref gives a decision but then someone does something worse while the ball is in play, then he can upgrade it to a penalty - or even reverse it and give a penalty to the other team.

You aren't going to persuade any ref to do that at a corner, though!

Barnes got booked when the ball was not in play.

[dsr]

Barnes got booked when the ball was not in play.

Yes. That was your original point that I was answering. It is correct that Barnes could be booked for an offence in the penalty area, but the ball (being dead and waiting for a corner) remains dead, and the corner is still a corner. Barnes could have detached the crossbar and laid about him leaving players in heaps all over the penalty area, but it would still be a corner when the bodies had been cleared away.

[Lowbankclaret]

Yes. That was your original point that I was answering. It is correct that Barnes could be booked for an offence in the penalty area, but the ball (being dead and waiting for a corner) remains dead, and the corner is still a corner. Barnes could have detached the crossbar and laid about him leaving players in heaps all over the penalty area, but it would still be a corner when the bodies had been cleared away.

But if the defender kills Barnes you’re saying a penalty cannot be given.

Seems unfair in the rules.

[RammyClaret61]

I watched on tv. Lots of confusion at his decisions. The Brownhill booking, commentators had know idea where there was a foul, let alone a yellow. One live ticker I saw said it was for handball?

The barnes booking, yes he touched the player, but lighter than anything you see all the time. Watford player chucked himself on the floor.

A couple of others. The Watford players got in between Burnley player and ball, they just slowed right down, waited for any slight contact, and went down.

Ref fell for everyone that Watford played for. But then he missed several thst were blatant fouls by both sides.

[Hipper]

Also, I would love to know how the ref, from well outside the penalty area, can see Barnes supposedly nip the lad, yet didn't see the same lad backhand Al-Dakil in the face. He was at it at every corner and Barnes got dragged into it, but he (the Watford lad) should have at least have a yellow card tonight.

I thought Al-Dakil was play acting as on TV I didn't see any hit on the face. Tella too was getting silly but we know he does that sometimes. Barnes of course was our ringleader.

[123EasyasBFC]

Still don’t understand what the ref booked roberts for early on, watched it back and still don’t see him doing anything wrong.

Ref so inconsistent, didn’t give Maatsen a foul for a nudge in the back but soon as their cb fell over 5 min after in the same position he gave a foul

[Lancasterclaret]

It was poor that Barnes (whose been exemplary in avoiding that part of this game in his good spell) and then most of the rest of the team couldn't work out that Watford were doing all the stuff to knock us off our stride

It was a lesson that I hope has been learnt, as we shouldn't react to it

Saying that, the ref did allow it to go on, and thats not ideal either

[martin_p]

The problem with this ref was firstly, like so many other refs, he was determined to give as many free kicks as he could. If you stop play for every potential foul, then you can't get a controversial goal from it. There were very few times that a potential free kick wasn't given. Most fo the kicks in the first 20 minutes went to Watford which go the crowd's backs up.

As 2 Bee Holed pointed out, 85% of what the players do is play-acting. Which logically means that only 15% of the falling over should be given as a free kick - but refs persist in giving 85%. Until the powers that be accept that (1) players cheat, and (2) they should not be rewarded for cheating, then the play acting will continue.

As for the corner shenanigans, the ref again made a rod for his own back by booking Barnes. There is no doubt that Barnes touched their man, but if you're going to give a yellow card for touching someone before a corner comes in, there are going to be some very short-sided games. The ref (who certainly couldn't see though the approx 10 players including Barnes) to see what had happened, gave the booking on the basis of the defender's reaction. And once the players know that the ref is going to dish out unfair bookings purely based on the quality of the dive, then they are going to try bigger and better dives. Refs who give decisions that they haven't seen, based on players' reactions, are making trouble for themselves.

Ultimately it's down to the FA and Leagues. As long as they give tacit and even explicit assent to this sort of behaviour, then this sort of behaviour will carry on. If the FA and Leagues didn't want play acting, they would take action over it. They don't take action, which means they are happy for it to continue.

This.

The ref seemingly hadn’t got the memo about letting more physical contact go. Once Watford realised that the ref would give a foul for the slightest touch they made the most of it and it made the game very bitty. Doughty failed to exert any control throughout the game which made the farcical situation the the Watford penalty area more likely. He did a lot of instructing of players, to move the ball back, to get on with the game, etc but the players knew there’d be no come back if they ignored him so they did. I seem to remember a lack of control in the Rotherham match he reffed as well so it came as no surprise.

[Stayingup]

I was at the game and thought the referee was poor. Lost control. Gave fouls for next to nothing, mainly against us, and missed a couple of big calls.

[claretspice]

The ref was absolutely fine. We lost our heads snd got drawn into the niggling battle that Watford wanted in the second half.

If he'd let more go we'd be complaining he had allowed us to be bullied.

No ref sees everything or gets everything right but in a ref both sides made difficult to referee, he did fine.

[burnleymik]

I thought Al-Dakil was play acting as on TV I didn't see any hit on the face. Tella too was getting silly but we know he does that sometimes. Barnes of course was our ringleader.

His hand was definitely up to Dakhil's face, how much contact there was I am not sure, but his hand didn't need to be up there at all. The fact he booked Barnes for an incident there is no way he could have seen and then didn't reciprocate when this guy is throwing his arms about off the ball, is where my issue lies.

[Darnhill Claret]

Roberts left his position at right back to go up close and personal with the ref who was conducting affairs around the ball waiting for Watford to take their free-kick. That's when the ref showed Roberts the yellow card. I can only assume Roberts was therefore carded for dissent.

[claretspice]

His hand was definitely up to Dakhil's face, how much contact there was I am not sure, but his hand didn't need to be up there at all. The fact he booked Barnes for an incident there is no way he could have seen and then didn't reciprocate when this guy is throwing his arms about off the ball, is where my issue lies.

What if, because of everything going on in the goalmouth, he didn't see it?

[agreenwood]

The problem with Doughty is that he sets his stall out to let everything flow. It wasn’t just last night, it was the same at home to Rotherham when he took an inexplicable 67 minutes to award us our first free kick.

In theory a ref wanting the game to flow is great, but only if you’ve got two sides wanting it to. If not, you end up with players taking the **** and the ref doing nothing about it.

[claretspice]

Interesting thing is, there's plenty of comments saying the opposite AG - he made a rod for his own back by giving "cheap" free kicks early. Both can't be true- I thought more like you but actually I thought he got the balance about right.

Ultimately, the ref can only ref what's in front of him. If the players want to ruin the flow of the game, that's.not his fault.

[burnleymik]

What if, because of everything going on in the goalmouth, he didn't see it?

How does he see Barnes supposedly nip Hoedt? No way he possibly could have done, but still gave Barnes a yellow. The inconsistency is my issue.

[agreenwood]

Interesting thing is, there's plenty of comments saying the opposite AG - he made a rod for his own back by giving "cheap" free kicks early. Both can't be true- I thought more like you but actually I thought he got the balance about right.

Ultimately, the ref can only ref what's in front of him. If the players want to ruin the flow of the game, that's.not his fault.

For me he has a tendency to let too much go. All that does is a) rile the crowd and b) (more importantly) rile the players on the receiving end, who feel they have to take matters into their own hands. Then you end up with a situation like last night when 20-odd minutes is spent just talking to players and sorting out nonsense - all of which resulted in very little in the way of free kicks or yellow cards. He basically lost control.

[ClaretTony]

Still don’t understand what the ref booked roberts for early on, watched it back and still don’t see him doing anything wrong.

Ref so inconsistent, didn’t give Maatsen a foul for a nudge in the back but soon as their cb fell over 5 min after in the same position he gave a foul

Booked Roberts for handball which, having seen it back, I still find astonishing.

[agreenwood]

Interesting thing is, there's plenty of comments saying the opposite AG - he made a rod for his own back by giving "cheap" free kicks early. Both can't be true- I thought more like you but actually I thought he got the balance about right.

Ultimately, the ref can only ref what's in front of him. If the players want to ruin the flow of the game, that's.not his fault.

There’s no better evidence of his extreme approach than the Rotherham game. We’re a skilful, attacking side who dominate possession and yet we didn’t get a free kick for the first 2/3rds of the game. That just doesn’t stack up.

[ClaretTony]

There’s no better evidence of his extreme approach than the Rotherham game. We’re a skilful, attacking side who dominate possession and yet we didn’t get a free kick for the first 2/3rds of the game. That just doesn’t stack up.

Doughty was downright shocking against Rotherham; last night, at times I don't think he knew what was going on.

He did eventually give us four free kicks against Rotherham who received four yellow cards (one becoming a red).

[123EasyasBFC]

Booked Roberts for handball which, having seen it back, I still find astonishing.

Frightening decision, looked like a ref who had been told he’s being watched for potential promotion to the prem and was trying to hard to be controlling

[quoonbeatz]

As I said on the other thread, if people genuinely believe that performance was 'fine' it shows how low standards are.

Seeing less and less shocking referees mainly because they're all so bad it's more of a shock when we get a good one.

[ClaretTony]

As I said on the other thread, if people genuinely believe that performance was 'fine' it shows how low standards are.

Seeing less and less shocking referees mainly because they're all so bad it's more of a shock when we get a good one.

Watching it on TV is very different and there were a lot of decisions that clearly upset the crowd that he got right. But he was never in control of then game, was never consistent and was a major contribution to the mess that ensured.

I'll agree totally with you that anyone thinking that was fine has very low standards of refereeing.

[123EasyasBFC]

Roberts left his position at right back to go up close and personal with the ref who was conducting affairs around the ball waiting for Watford to take their free-kick. That's when the ref showed Roberts the yellow card. I can only assume Roberts was therefore carded for dissent.

That’s not true, the ref had to call roberts over from right back, the ref felt like he saw something that nobody else saw

[Colburn_Claret]

Not the reason we’re losing though. Only got ourselves to blame.

He was shocking, but he didn't keep giving the ball away.
We had a couple of dives that were embarrassing, and when any players cheat, it's bound to make any referees job harder.

[gc14]

A shocking performance again from this ref .. A lot of decisions can be perceived as 50/50 depending on positioning
etc and didn't seem to get any help from the liners .. For me the worst of the night when the full back rolled back into
play to stop a quickly taken throwing and he let that go without a card ..

[NRC]

NRC wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 5:48 pm
ref got most decisions right, but didn't control the game, which played to Watford's advantage and we got suckered into it

I don’t follow this logic

the decisions he had to make he tended to get right, but they banked up, and he didn't prevent them banking up in the first place by taking control through bookings and having a word with captains. For a game that was so niggly there were only six bookings? On the rate the ref thread CT has said pretty much the same thing (edit: and I see here too a couple of posts above)