Worse ref ever

[Bordeauxclaret]

Some difference to his game at Huddersfield, he missed a penalty then but at least that was understandable.

[beddie]

Interesting that he booked Cork for what I term to be an innocuous tackle yet Bartley goes through the back of Jay from which the ref had clear vision of it and doesn’t even give a free kick. I really hope his assessor goes through these points with him.

[Top Claret]

Can't believe people blaming the ref when we give Albion a goal and miss a couple of sitters, we were our own worse enemy

[Bordeauxclaret]

If only it was possible to highlight our own failures as well as the referees.

[Lancasterclaret]

Its the challenge on JBG that has really annoyed me tbf

Any refs first job is to make sure players don't get injured by wild challenges, and unless he missed it, that is almost certainly a red

[dougcollins]

Its the challenge on JBG that has really annoyed me tbf

Any refs first job is to make sure players don't get injured by wild challenges, and unless he missed it, that is almost certainly a red

The guy knew it as well, the WBA player - did you see his face straight after?

[nil_desperandum]

Can't believe people blaming the ref when we give Albion a goal and miss a couple of sitters, we were our own worse enemy

Has anyone on here attempted to do that?
(Of course the result may have turned out differently if he'd got some big calls correct, but I think everyone has acknowledged the point that you make).
It's fine letting the game flow, (I'm all for it), but he let some dangerous stuff go, and missed some blatant stuff, and he was quick to card our players for relatively innocuous stuff.
The tackle on Gudmundsson could easily have put him back long term on the treatment table.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

The guy knew it as well, the WBA player - did you see his face straight after?

He definitely knew what he was doing the West Brom player. Cowards challenge.

[Dark Cloud]

How many times have we said "the ref was awful, but at least he didn't cost us the points"? Well last night he was beyond awful and he DID cost us the points.

[quoonbeatz]

Its the challenge on JBG that has really annoyed me tbf

Any refs first job is to make sure players don't get injured by wild challenges, and unless he missed it, that is almost certainly a red

If its the one that caught JBG on the follow through then it's not a foul, for me. Haven't seen it since last night but I thought he cleared the ball and then caught him. Very much like the Tarkowski/Richarlison one from last year.

[RVclaret]

If its the one that caught JBG on the follow through then it's not a foul, for me. Haven't seen it since last night but I thought he cleared the ball and then caught him. Very much like the Tarkowski/Richarlison one from last year.

Can’t agree with that.

Tarkowski was feet on the floor, a strong but not dangerous tackle.

Last night on JBG was a lunge, two feet off the floor with the follow through. If he’d caught JBG fully it could have been a really bad injury.

[quoonbeatz]

As I said, haven't seen it since last night but it didn't look that bad at the time.

[AGENT_CLARET]

The ref was terrible and missed the hardball for a penalty but surley the penalty we got awarded wasn't one, the keeper got the ball before Tella or am I missing a new rule change

[Belgianclaret]

If only it was possible to highlight our own failures as well as the referees.

This thread is about the ref, plenty of other threads discussing our own performance

[quoonbeatz]

The ref was terrible and missed the hardball for a penalty but surley the penalty we got awarded wasn't one, the keeper got the ball before Tella or am I missing a new rule change

He touched the ball but he didn't win it and he stopped Tella putting it in the net. Still a foul.

[elwaclaret]

A lot on here asking VAR or no VAR, like that is the only option.

I wanted VAR…
I wanted VAR scrapped…
Now I realise I still want VAR, but the VAR we were promised not the one we got.

Serious referring errors, and clear off sides that are missed.
Not VAR for promoting referee’s into the game masters and celebrity judges…
A VAR that acts for the game not that becomes the game.

[ICL]

A lot on here asking VAR or no VAR, like that is the only option.

I wanted VAR…
I wanted VAR scrapped…
Now I realise I still want VAR, but the VAR we were promised not the one we got.

Serious referring errors, and clear off sides that are missed.
Not VAR for promoting referee’s into the game masters and celebrity judges…
A VAR that acts for the game not that becomes the game.

^This

The ref was shocking last night, but people saying the answer is VAR, assume that it will correct the errors. The evidence from the Premiership, is that it makes plenty of errors itself; Cornet’s disallowed goal today, being the latest example.

[scamander]

^This

The ref was shocking last night, but people saying the answer is VAR, assume that it will correct the errors. The evidence from the Premiership, is that it makes plenty of errors itself; Cornet’s disallowed goal today, being the latest example.

Good points, though often the issue is that people eirher don't know the laws of the game or how VAR is used. I haven't seen the Cornet goal but the intention of VAR is to whittle down the mistakes (for example the Coady goal ruled correctly offside). VAR tends to only get negative coverage as opposed to when it works. An exanple, in a different context, is the goal line technology. Managers used to be able to spot whether the ball crossed the line or didn't, since the technology came in they've all lost that unique skill oddly enough but you stopped hearing about that type of controversy.

But then Sky/BT love 'talking points' which don't relate to tactical analysis and VAR is just another clickbait option for them.

[Rileybobs]

I’d still take the odd poor referee over VAR any day. After all the VAR is just another official who is susceptible to making poor decisions. Having every goal forensically examined before being awarded completely drains the enjoyment from the game, and the absence of this has contributed greatly to my enjoyment of this season so far.

[tiger76]

Can't be bothered reading the whole thread, but even if the ref was poor, we should still have seen that game out, or indeed have put it to bed earlier given our clear-cut chances.

And for those thinking VAR would solve these problems, just look at the diabolical decisions in the PL today at Chelsea and Newcastle with VAR.

[Nonayforever]

A lot on here asking VAR or no VAR, like that is the only option.

I wanted VAR…
I wanted VAR scrapped…
Now I realise I still want VAR, but the VAR we were promised not the one we got.

Serious referring errors, and clear off sides that are missed.
Not VAR for promoting referee’s into the game masters and celebrity judges…
A VAR that acts for the game not that becomes the game.

VAR was only brought in by the TV companies for mid game advertising which will start in the forthcoming World Cup. It was never intended to improve the game.

[Bordeauxclaret]

This thread is about the ref, plenty of other threads discussing our own performance

No **** Sherlock.

[dsr]

Good points, though often the issue is that people eirher don't know the laws of the game or how VAR is used. I haven't seen the Cornet goal but the intention of VAR is to whittle down the mistakes (for example the Coady goal ruled correctly offside). VAR tends to only get negative coverage as opposed to when it works. An exanple, in a different context, is the goal line technology. Managers used to be able to spot whether the ball crossed the line or didn't, since the technology came in they've all lost that unique skill oddly enough but you stopped hearing about that type of controversy.

But then Sky/BT love 'talking points' which don't relate to tactical analysis and VAR is just another clickbait option for them.

Coady was only ruled offside because VAR has changed the laws on offside. Under the old laws, he was level and it would have been a good goal. And yes, I know there is a school of thought that says the "level" rule was a bad rule and the game is all the better for Coady's goal being disallowed, but I think it's a pretty rubbish school of thought to be honest. I thought the change of law so that "level" became onside instead of offside - a law specifically brought in to give the forward an extra edge and to lead to more goals - was a good law.

If the new VAR offside law had been used to allow more goals rather than less, then it might have a case. But it is specifically and deliberately being used to disallow goals like Coady's that were legal in the past.

It may also be true that VAR adds suspense to the game because it allows a couple of minutes tension before you can celebrate a goal. Again, I don't think this is a good thing. Others presumably do.

Again, suspense in football is heightened by the linesman delaying putting up his flag because it is clearly impossible for him to judge offsides like Coady's. Under the old rules, he could make an assessment and get it right most of the time. Now, it's a 50-50 guess so he has to wait. This adds to the excitement of seeing a chance being created without actually knowing whether play has notionally stopped. Again, I would disagree with those who think it's a good thing.

(It is also important to forget that VAR can't judge to less than a three inches whether the man is offside or not, because of the limitations of technology, and also that the laws don't specify whether the moment the ball is played covers the instant the ball first touches the boot, the instant the ball leaves the boot, the whole time between those instants, or any single time between those instants. This makes incidents like Coady's completely spurious because it was too close to call.)

It all depends what the VAR people think is important. If the strict and logical correct application of VAR is what it's all about and football is secondary, then keep it as it is. But if it is generally held that the fans pay to watch football rather than the application of VAR, then all they need do is explain to the VAR man that the law hasn't changed, that level is onide and that level is judged by the human eye, and that if he can't say the linesman was wrong in 5 seconds of looking at a still photo with no lines drawn, then the linesman was right.

(And before anyone asks, I know that the law has not formally changed by VAR, the theory has not changed. but it obviously has changed in practice. Linesmen in our division do not attempt to assess whether one man's eyelash is ahead of another man's bootlace.)

[dsr]

I’d still take the odd poor referee over VAR any day. After all the VAR is just another official who is susceptible to making poor decisions. Having every goal forensically examined before being awarded completely drains the enjoyment from the game, and the absence of this has contributed greatly to my enjoyment of this season so far.

I agree completely. I didn't actually realise how much enjoyment I was losing by having to wait and see whether we'd scored. I would prefer to lose the odd points like on Friday ahead of having VAR back as it is now used. If it was up to me I would scrap it entirely and set up a new committee to try and work out how it can be used without spoiling the game.

[superdimitri]

I think today's game was an example of why VAR is needed. Doesn't wreck any enjoyment for me. There are no way two refs could make as many mistakes as the one did today. Not sure I've seen such a terrible refereeing performance as last night.

[nil_desperandum]

I think today's game was an example of why VAR is needed. Doesn't wreck any enjoyment for me. There are no way two refs could make as many mistakes as the one did today.

Have you watched Match of the Day?

[superdimitri]

Have you watched Match of the Day?

No, our game wasn't on Match of the Day.

[CrosspoolClarets]

The answer is the VAR we were promised (as in the Euros) not the VAR we got.

No constant stopping the game, refs and linos give decisions as they see them, VAR is only for rare and obvious errors. Not line measuring in millimetres, not incidents like today. It is for things like a really bad tackle that was missed or a handball that was missed, not for something that was seen but the ref chose not to give it.

[nil_desperandum]

No, our game wasn't on Match of the Day.

Obviously not, but I'm referring to how the PL games today were influenced and ruined by VAR.

[superdimitri]

Obviously not, but I'm referring to how the PL games today were influenced and ruined by VAR.

No doubt it did, but that's not the argument here. If VAR was used in our game there's no doubt it would have worked in our favour today.
Other games aren't really relevant.

And yes, I'm a fan of VAR, but I certainly know it needs to be implemented better than it currently is. As already mentioned in the thread.

[RVclaret]

Rather than the money spent on VAR, what if they spent the money on refereeing development? They simply need to have better quality refs.

[SouthLondonexile]

I have to agree with this suggestion.
We might of won despite him, but -
How on earth was there 8 minutes extra time.

[Belgianclaret]

Apart from the ridiculous extra time: if the ref had given us a foul for the blatant elbow on JBG in the phase immediately before the goal, the game would have been virtually over and done with