Michael Salisbury (Lancashire) v Sunderland

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


Please only Rate the Ref if you attended the game and only do so, after the game has ended. Thank you

A 22
B 19
C 23
D 23

Can’t vote but he had a good match. Let a couple of early yellows go, 1 each side comms loved it I don’t if it’s a yellow it’s a yellow.

Watching in Tenerife on a stream i don't think he did very much wrong

22’s all round
Very good

Good game

A. 21
B. 22
C. 23
D. 23

A lot better than some of the window-lickers we'll undoubtedly get this season.

Thought he got the disallowed goal wrong although I’ve not seen it back. Overly picky first half but decent second half

A - 15
B - 15
C - 25
D - 20

15
15
20
20

A. Decision Making 10 no idea why Foster's goal was disallowed, VAR said it was for a trip, i can't see that myself
B. Consistency - 20
C. Fitness and Positioning - 22
D. Control and Authority - 18

He did ok, but the guy sitting next to me said Sky felt the disallowed goal was a travesty. Not sure.

Good game
A 15
B 15
C 15
D 15

19
20
19
19

A. 15
B. 20
C. 15
D. 9

Typical of modern refereeing. I can't fathom the high marks - the players ran the show. There was no authority on display at all.

Haven't seen the goal back but thought he got it wrong. I also think he fudged the decision completely.

If he thought it was a foul he should have blown up.

He let play go on, saw the goal scored and then disallowed it knowing full well the VAR will always back up a soft (incorrect but arguably ambiguous) decision. It's cowardly.

He deliberately using VAR to back him up.

If it was a real foul, he'd have blown up when it happened.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 23, 2025 9:01 pm

He deliberately using VAR to back him up.

Safe in the knowledge his decision will be rubber stamped either way.

A poor first 15 minutes or so but pretty good thereafter

19
19
19
19

A 16
B 20
C 20
D 18

No complaints 8 all round

Rumpelstiltskin wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 23, 2025 10:27 pm

No complaints 8 all round

8 out of 25?

jdrobbo wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 23, 2025 10:30 pm

8 out of 25?

Them's the rules!

Rowls wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 23, 2025 10:36 pm

Them's the rules!

Indeed, but if there were no complaints, I’d imagine 18s all round would be perhaps more fitting of the remark?

Just a couple of weird VAR checks

19
18
19
20

Hardly noticed him, which is always a good sign.
Got the big decision right, which is always important for both sides.
Easy to bang on about refs when they have a shocker, but credit where credits due.

17
18
18
17

Got just about everything right, including disallowed Foster's goal on field after it hit the net so VAR could double check.

Thought the way he dealt with Hannibal and Adingra in the first half when both were getting a bit overwrought was exemplary.

jdrobbo wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 23, 2025 10:30 pm

8 out of 25?

My mistake.Sorry.I confused ref ratings with player ratings

Rumpelstiltskin wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 9:51 am

My mistake.Sorry.I confused ref ratings with player ratings

My issue with the officials yesterday was them wearing black shorts and socks (the same as the away side).

Surely there must be an alternative if one of the sides is playing in all black?

Goody1975 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 9:59 am

My issue with the officials yesterday was them wearing black shorts and socks (the same as the away side).

Surely there must be an alternative if one of the sides is playing in all black?

I am old fashioned . Only refs should wear black

A) 15
B)17
C)22
D)21

Our goal would have counted for other teams. "Good use of strength by the striker, as players tried to block him. Took his chance well. That should ensure tge 3 points for...(anyone but Burnley)" That would have been the pundit tale.

TV ref - "There is a case for a foul, but the defender wasn't bear the ball and obstructing the striker, who just used his strength as he went past him"

Burnley? Oh sorry. "Striker clearly fouls the defender who has total control of the ball, until whacked from behind".

jdrobbo wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 23, 2025 10:30 pm

8 out of 25?

Looks like we have JD Robbo on VAR.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 9:51 am

My mistake.Sorry.I confused ref ratings with player ratings

No worries!

15
15
20
15


I had to think and then rethink before awarding Mr Salisbury a few half decent marks.


With some of the jokers we get at the Turf it’s a challenge to get out of single digit marks. Usually I’m foaming at the mouth and screaming at the limp efforts at refereeing that we have witnessed but on this occasion (especially in second half) I barely noticed him which is always a good sign.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 23, 2025 9:01 pm

A. 15
B. 20
C. 15
D. 9

Typical of modern refereeing. I can't fathom the high marks - the players ran the show. There was no authority on display at all.

Haven't seen the goal back but thought he got it wrong. I also think he fudged the decision completely.

If he thought it was a foul he should have blown up.

He let play go on, saw the goal scored and then disallowed it knowing full well the VAR will always back up a soft (incorrect but arguably ambiguous) decision. It's cowardly.

He deliberately using VAR to back him up.

If it was a real foul, he'd have blown up when it happened.

Have to say I think your 9 out of 25 for control has to be a joke.

As for the disallowed goal, and I believe it could have gone either way, how quickly do you want him to blow? The best referees always give themselves time, the worst referees blow too quickly.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 24, 2025 10:35 pm

Have to say I think your 9 out of 25 for control has to be a joke.

As for the disallowed goal, and I believe it could have gone either way, how quickly do you want him to blow? The best referees always give themselves time, the worst referees blow too quickly.

Hello CT

You always take issue with my marks, even though I’ve already justified them.

I’m always consistent with my marks. I’m regularly marking down referees for a lack of control because it is endemic in the game.

Players were constantly standing in front of free kicks, taking free kicks and throw ins wherever they wanted. Constantly in the referees ear.

If we followed the letter of the law there would be multiple second yellows each and every game. That this never happens means referees have to pick and choose which rules to enforce properly.

First it erodes the authority of the referees. Then they start picking and choosing which laws to implement and which to ignore. Eventually it even erodes their ability to get decisions correct because they’re busy worrying about the consequences of a correct but unpopular decision.

When this all happens, you end up with a spineless culture whereby the game is effectively bossed by the players. Eventually, justifying bad decisions is more of a priority than getting decisions correct.

This is where we are now.

We have a tool (VAR) that could easily -in the right hands and with some moral courage and fortitude- get the vast majority of decisions right. But it doesn’t happen. Why?

Take three recent decisions: the penalty we didn’t get at spurs, the handball against Tarky at Leeds and then the disallowed goal for Foster vs Sunderland. Ok, there is a degree of subjectivity in all of these decisions but I think the majority of fans and pundits agree they’ve all been called incorrectly but given a whiff of authority by having them all rubber stamped by VAR.

It’s a cess pit of moral ineptitude masked by a quick squirt of febreeze.

No single referee is solely to blame for this moral decrepitude and yet being a part of it, they all share some of the blame.

They’re all part of the culture. They’re all part of the problem.

Is it really beyond the wit of every single person at the PGMOL to realise that VAR reviews need to be done blind, so that poor decisions arent the weighted default?

Any confident institution truly concerned with getting decisions correct would come to this obvious conclusion in a couple of minutes.

So yes, I do judge them poorly but I judge them consistently, so my marks aren’t going to skew or distort anything.

You ask how quickly I want to referee to blow. I say he should blow immediately if he thinks there is a foul. He is the authority on the pitch. If he gets a decision wrong in good faith that is far better than abrogating the decision entirely and picking the least problematic decision, which is what I suspect truly happened on Saturday.

I had my eyes firmly on the referee as foster was celebrating on Saturday: that was not the body language of a man who had seen a foul but allowed play to go on in good faith, so that VAR could double check his firm belief. No, that was a man getting harangued by Sunderland defenders who didn’t know what to do.

A man who truly believed it was a foul would have had two occasions to blow up. First would be the instant he thought the ‘foul’ occurred. The second would have been the second the ball hit the net - a loud curt peep that indicated, “sorry lad, I have to let play go on just in case, but it’s beyond my doubt you committed a foul and it isn’t a goal.”

Take a look at it again yourself. That’s not a man in authority. It’s a man cowed by the whole experience who doesn’t know what to do, so picks the path of least resistance.

VAR isn’t there to review the decision. It’s there to get him out of his purgatory in the quickest, easiest way possible.

Why else does he let the celebrations go on so long? Why doesn’t he clearly indicate it isn’t going to stand?

Obviously, I can no more claim to know what was going on in the ref’s head than anybody else. I’m just pointing out his body language isn’t that of man with authority, his body language as the ‘foul’ happens isn’t somebody who is letting play go on for the sake of integrity and his giant pause after the goal was scored doesn’t point to somebody who with any form of decisiveness or authority. It all ponts to a man making it up as he goes along.

It is shameful moral cowardice and it permeates top flight refereeing in this country. Strangely, this problem of authority is worse the higher up the leagues we go. Because it’s driven by the culture of the elite players.

In this lower leagues the referees are noticeably worse but at least there is more integrity to the decisions.

I challenge anybody to watch the Foster goal again and tell me that it shows a man with authority. You’ll see a man wracked with nerves attempting to negotiate a match through “consensual refereeing”. They’re letting the players run the show. All of them, to a man.

An absolutely perfect summary of refereeing of our games so far, and the referee's VAR safety blanket.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 12:26 am

Hello CT

You always take issue with my marks, even though I’ve already justified them.

Not sure I've ever taken issue with them before but your explanation doesn't justify it at all. I know it's opinion, but that mark is a nonsense for me, that's the sort of mark you would give a shocker of a referee. I can see no justification for suggesting he didn't have control.

John Brookes was on VAR, a person who seems to get more things wrong than right when he's involved in a Burnley game in some capacity for whatever reason

Herts Clarets wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 23, 2025 5:45 pm

Watching in Tenerife on a stream i don't think he did very much wrong

Watched in Tenerife too but in a bar next to our hotel!

Quite a diatribe Rowls, however, the majority of things which you complain about have been prevalent in top football for many years now.
PLayers not retreating 10 yards at free kicks, foul throws, throws and free kicks taken somewhere in the vicinity etc.
Don't blame referees for not clamping down because this is the way they are being told to officiate. Those in control, and it is debatable whether it is the PGMOL or those running the PL, in England don't want loads of whistle they want the game to flow and this is why lots of petty things are ignored.
Interpretation of THe Laws of the Game are constantly being changed by IFAB, mostly to accommodate VAR etc.

The only way to get back to the game which I once loved is to enforce the Laws but the hierarchy and lots of modern fans don't want this to happen.
The officials are the ones who take the stick, however, they have to adhere to how they are being told to officiate -----late whistles, no flag for offside etc., etc.

THey should get back to using three officials scrap VAR but keep goal line technology. The game would be better, you wouldn't have managers and coaches or subs being given yellow cards because the 4th official has reported their observations about a decision ---let's face it ---what difference does it make giving them a card of any colour --it won't stop them.
Lots of football is played in England in the Pyrmaid system and they do not have all the problems to contend with as those at the top level and yet games are played, misdemeanours are dealt with by the officials and any disciplinary actions are then taken.

Let's face it, the game at the top level has become a circus and all because those running it at the top level think that they will find the 'perfect game of football' ------how delusional are they?

Transfer Window Circus and VAR Circus are possibly the two worst things to happen to football in the modern era and it is those fans who attend games and pay good money who are suffering because of it.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 9:22 am

Not sure I've ever taken issue with them before but your explanation doesn't justify it at all. I know it's opinion, but that mark is a nonsense for me, that's the sort of mark you would give a shocker of a referee. I can see no justification for suggesting he didn't have control.

That's all fair enough.

I know you enjoy watching old football like the Big Match on itv4 etc - look out for what happens if a player dares to dive, kick the ball away or stop a free kick being taken back then. The crowd literally go bonkers.

It only happens rarely, because it's so frowned upon, but when it does the opprobrium is shocking (to a modern eye).

Nowadays, it's so commonplace that people evidently don't even notice it. But if you look, it's everywhere. I'll discipline and a complete dearth of refereeing authority.

We've become inured to it.

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 10:50 am

Quite a diatribe Rowls...

(Quote snipped for brevity)

Thank you Ashington

Yes, as you say much of it has been prevalent for decades now. The omni-cheating rolls on!

The only slight issue I take with your post is the culpability of referees. I grant that we can't hold them individually responsible and that the PGMOL must take more of the flak but the PGMOL isn't a sentient being; it's an organisation made up of ... individual referees!

What we have is "institutional collapse". It's sounds like something structural, like a building falling down but the answer is for the referees to all start take personal responsibility for implementing the laws of the game as they are written as opposed to how the players might want them to be or along the path of least resistance.

So yes, it is an "institutional" problem but the solution is individual. It needs strong men of real character to stand up, take the flak and to say, "No, this is wrong" and implement the laws properly.

It would help if the entirety of the media and the PFA pundits backed up referees too. The excuse they give is that enforcing rules properly is "petty" rather than correct.

If the players want a new rule which says, "Players may prevent a free kick being taken by standing in front of the ball for at least 5 seconds" then they ought to announce it via the PFA.

If they want it made official that the game stops immediately whenever one of them flops to the ground, they ought to announce it via the PFA. We'll get a LOT of 0-0 draws.

Until these rules are brought in, or the correct laws properly enforced football will exist in this quasi-anarchic state whereby half of the decisions are dictated by the players.

I absolutely agree with all of that Rowls (apart from the small bit about blowing as soon as its a foul - I'd happily give the refs a few seconds, 3 or 4 fine, to think about the big decisions where a goal is possibly imminent)

9/25 is quite a generous score

As you say, what proportion of the time so they ensure that they are stopping players from dictating the rules themselves. Hardly ever. Sometimes they get away with it, and people think they have authority because they don't dish out yellow cards everywhere and the players decide not to have a brawl. But that's not because the ref has authority.

Remember that it is the Premier League who are dictating to the FA and PGMOL just how the game should be played and administered and, as long as the officials are under their control, they will have to do as they are told in order to continue in their jobs. It is a sad state of affairs, however, when a young referee penalised the wrestling in the box by giving a penalty, he was told in no uncertain terms that he should not have done what he did.
This was over 15 years ago and it appears that very little has changed.

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 6:36 pm

Remember that it is the Premier League who are dictating to the FA and PGMOL just how the game should be played and administered and, as long as the officials are under their control, they will have to do as they are told in order to continue in their jobs. It is a sad state of affairs, however, when a young referee penalised the wrestling in the box by giving a penalty, he was told in no uncertain terms that he should not have done what he did.
This was over 15 years ago and it appears that very little has changed.

PGMO (there is no L now) are definitely not being dictated to by the Premier League. They have to use the laws as laid down by IFAB but at least make some positive attempt to use common sense.

I'm still a bit staggered by the idea that the Foster disallowed goal wasn't pretty routine and uncontroversial. The defender was between Foster and the ball, had the ball under control (I think he'd taken a touch, but in any event the ball was in a position where he could do what he wanted with it if not impeded) and Foster made contact with the back of the defender's leg.

I'd expect that to be given as a foul in that position 9 times out of 10, particular when it leads to a goal, and especially when the defender hits the deck. There may not be loads of contact by Foster but there's more than enough.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 25, 2025 8:00 pm

PGMO (there is no L now) are definitely not being dictated to by the Premier League. They have to use the laws as laid down by IFAB but at least make some positive attempt to use common sense.

Very good Tony, however, perhaps somebody should let this lot know!

https://www.premierleague.com/en/referees