ARTICLE: A first Burnley league game for referee Jones

[bfcmartin]

I enjoy intelligent discussion about a football match (and would prefer to talk sensibly about the refs decisions) but unfortunately all you get on here is whining and crying about bad refs and the whole world being against us.

The standard of comments on here about the ref are nothing short of childish so im just joining in and lowering myself down to everybody elses level. If some adult discussions take place then i'll happily readjust the content of my posting

The whining and crying as you put it was because the ref was poor, so I'll ask you did you think the ref had a good game?

[Rowls]

I enjoy talking about football sensibly but when everyone else is acting like big baby's there's not much else to do.

I mean the Pope tackle was a penalty all day long and whilst I was surprised the ref give their keeper the foul in truth Mee got nowhere near the ball and impeded the keeper who was going to reach it. Mee may have been going for the ball but its still a foul.

We’ve all got our hobbies and yours is stringently maintaining a persona on the Burnley board.

Fair play to you, it must be difficult to post like that all of the time.

[taio]

There people saying the ref is corrupt and has probably taken a bribe. Not sure how you have a sensible discussion with that kind of view

I'm not sure how you can have a sensible discussion with someone who is clueless by believing Mee was correctly penalised for a foul on the keeper.

[Devils_Advocate]

I’ll play, how is it a foul from Mee?

Mee has jumped for the ball, missed it and through his jump has blocked the keeper from reaching the ball. Even thought is not deliberate he's impeded their keeper which is a foul.

Now the fact the keeper has desperately come out a long way jumping through a crowd of players also gives for a bit of an argument that it was the keepers own fault and I am surprised the ref gave it. Had the goal been given I wouldnt have been saying it was a bad decision but it was one that could have gone either way but based on the replay I would give a free kick

[tiger76]

Even the commentators and Leeds fans think we were hard done to today, that's how bad this ref was, I have sympathy for whoever gets this grade A bellend next, how the heck did he make it to PL standard, I can accept losing, and I actually expected a narrow defeat today, so I'm not that fussed about the result, and our performance sounds decent enough, but to be blatantly cheated out of the points is tough to take.

[Devils_Advocate]

I'm not sure how you can have a sensible discussion with someone who is clueless by believing Mee was correctly penalised for a foul on the keeper.

And here it is, I try and give my serious view about the football and low and behold im called clueless. This is why I dont bother and have a bit of a laugh instead.

[Hapag Lloyd]

I enjoy talking about football sensibly but when everyone else is acting like big baby's there's not much else to do.

I mean the Pope tackle was a penalty all day long and whilst I was surprised the ref give their keeper the foul in truth Mee got nowhere near the ball and impeded the keeper who was going to reach it. Mee may have been going for the ball but its still a foul.

Whilst I don’t think it was a penalty but can see why it was given, you surely can’t be serious when you suggest Mee fouled the goalkeeper.

[taio]

And here it is, I try and give my serious view about the football and low and behold im called clueless. This is why I dont bother and have a bit of a laugh instead.

Yes on reflection you posting the Samaritan's image was more insightful than your view on our disallowed goal.

[Devils_Advocate]

The whining and crying as you put it was because the ref was poor, so I'll ask you did you think the ref had a good game?

He was pretty average and got a few decisions where he'd have been criticised by one set of fans no matter what he gave. Id probably give him a 6/10 or maybe a 5 as there were a few bits he got wrong for both sides.

I dont think he was anywhere near as awful and one sided as people on here are making out

[RalphCoatesComb]

Let’s hope it’s his last

The Premier League need to do something about this inept performance.

The "foul" by Ben Mee against their keeper was disgraceful

[MT03ALG]

Can we please have a collection for a white stick for Devil's Advocate ?!!

[bfcmartin]

He was pretty average and got a few decisions where he'd have been criticised by one set of fans no matter what he gave. Id probably give him a 6/10 or maybe a 5 as there were a few bits he got wrong for both sides.

I dont think he was anywhere near as awful and one sided as people on here are making out

Can you tell me which ones he got wrong for Leeds

[RMutt]

I don't think Mee knew much about it Devils- Advocate. Keeper charged out at him with a run up of a few yards. Nothing Mee could do about avoiding it. At a push you might argue that Pope was a little high with one leg which could be construed as reckless but I still don't think its a penalty. I suspect the ref didn't know he'd got to the ball first but it could have been overruled by VAR.

[Leisure]

Mee has jumped for the ball, missed it and through his jump has blocked the keeper from reaching the ball. Even thought is not deliberate he's impeded their keeper which is a foul.

Now the fact the keeper has desperately come out a long way jumping through a crowd of players also gives for a bit of an argument that it was the keepers own fault and I am surprised the ref gave it. Had the goal been given I wouldnt have been saying it was a bad decision but it was one that could have gone either way but based on the replay I would give a free kick

Well of course you would, just to be controversial if nothing else! Anyway well done, as at least you seem to have achieved your regular desire/need to rile people!

[dsr]

Mee has jumped for the ball, missed it and through his jump has blocked the keeper from reaching the ball. Even thought is not deliberate he's impeded their keeper which is a foul.

Now the fact the keeper has desperately come out a long way jumping through a crowd of players also gives for a bit of an argument that it was the keepers own fault and I am surprised the ref gave it. Had the goal been given I wouldnt have been saying it was a bad decision but it was one that could have gone either way but based on the replay I would give a free kick

So are you saying that the keeper didn't impede Mee from going for the ball, or are you saying that he did impede Meed but it's not a foul when the keeper does it?

[Devils_Advocate]

Can you tell me which ones he got wrong for Leeds

Nope I dont keep a diary of all the decisions but like always some decisions go one way and some the other.

The problem a lot of baised fans have is when he gives your side a decision its just the right decision but when he gives the other side a decision its a bad decision. When you see the match in this way its impossible not to end up thinking every bad decision was against your side

[Rowls]

Can we please have a collection for a white stick for Devil's Advocate ?!!

He doesn’t need a white stick. He needs ignoring or for people to understand he’s a “character” poster.

[bfcmartin]

Nope I dont keep a diary of all the decisions but like always some decisions go one way and some the other.

The problem a lot of baised fans have is when he gives your side a decision its just the right decision but when he gives the other side a decision its a bad decision. When you see the match in this way its impossible not to end up thinking every bad decision was against your side

Thought not cause neither can I

[dsr]

I don't think Mee knew much about it Devils- Advocate. Keeper charged out at him with a run up of a few yards. Nothing Mee could do about avoiding it. At a push you might argue that Pope was a little high with one leg which could be construed as reckless but I still don't think its a penalty. I suspect the ref didn't know he'd got to the ball first but it could have been overruled by VAR.

I think the point is that Bamford and Opoe both went for the ball, they both touched the ball, they both met in the middle, they both fell over. The argument against Pope is based on the idea that when the forward is running with the ball you cannot tackle him, whether you win the ball or not, because it stops him from scoring and makes him fall over. It's a new rule on me.

Doubly ironic because it was probably the only time a Leeds man fell over a genuine tackle, and if VAR had done its job, it would have been the only time a Leeds man fell over and didn't get a free kick.

To be fair, he gave free kicks almost every time a Burnley man fell over. It really is "refereeing made easy". If a man falls over, blow your whistle; if he screams in agony, wave the yellow card. No need to actually make a decision, let the players have whatever they ask for.

[Devils_Advocate]

So are you saying that the keeper didn't impede Mee from going for the ball, or are you saying that he did impede Meed but it's not a foul when the keeper does it?

Yes, Mee had already jumped and not reached the ball whereas the keeper was jumping towards the ball. I saw you have this silly view about the Wolves penalty but the person who is either in control of the ball or the only one able to get the ball is the one who will be seen as being impeded.

Now had Mee been able to reach the ball it would have just been a 50/50 and no foul as both had a chance of getting it so were challenging each other. He didnt though so its a foul.

Just to repeat, I dont think this is clear cut and dont think Leeds would have had grounds to complain had the foul not been given but if I was making the decision based on the replay I would just give a foul

[Claret]

I wish people would stop saying the ref cheated or was given a bribe. It might be being said in jest but some plonkers on here might actually believe it.
It's a difficult job and mistakes are made, and yes, there were some howlers today, but "cheat"? "On the take?" Come off it

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Thanks a lot Ref...On a level playing field we would have taken home at the very least one point...More probably three...You made sure it was anything but a level playing field !

[ceborame]

He was pretty average and got a few decisions where he'd have been criticised by one set of fans no matter what he gave. Id probably give him a 6/10 or maybe a 5 as there were a few bits he got wrong for both sides.

I dont think he was anywhere near as awful and one sided as people on here are making out

When are you lot going to realise that this guy thrives on your responses ?

The only effective way to deal with him is IGNORE

He'll soon go away

[Devils_Advocate]

I don't think Mee knew much about it Devils- Advocate. Keeper charged out at him with a run up of a few yards. Nothing Mee could do about avoiding it. At a push you might argue that Pope was a little high with one leg which could be construed as reckless but I still don't think its a penalty. I suspect the ref didn't know he'd got to the ball first but it could have been overruled by VAR.

I agree about Mee not being able to avoid it but if you impede someone, even if its accidental its still a foul. A close call but just a foul for me

With regards Pope the tackle for starters was a bit reckless but also although he got the ball he didnt knock it out of Bamfords reach and had he not cleaned him out afterwards Bamford still had a chance of getting the ball so a clear penalty. Had Pope made a solid contact and knocked the ball forwards to the edge of the area then taking out Bamford would have been irrelevant although the ref still could have seen it as a bit reckless

[Leisure]

“character” poster.

Is that an alternative description of a Richard head?

[dsr]

Nope I dont keep a diary of all the decisions but like always some decisions go one way and some the other.

The problem a lot of baised fans have is when he gives your side a decision its just the right decision but when he gives the other side a decision its a bad decision. When you see the match in this way its impossible not to end up thinking every bad decision was against your side

But in this match, he was first and foremost a bad ref, but also he gave two specifically bad decisions that resulted in net +2 goals in Leeds' favour. I could understand an argument that the Mee-Keeper incident was no foul either way, and I could understand an argument that the Pope-Bamford penalty incident looked like a foul to someone that hadn't seen the replay that clearly showed Pope got the ball. I wouldn't necessarily agree the argument, but I could understand it.

Are you sure you're argument isn't more on the lines of "I want some attention, I will say something stupid"?

[Rowls]

I wish people would stop saying the ref cheated or was given a bribe. It might be being said in jest but some plonkers on here might actually believe it.
It's a difficult job and mistakes are made, and yes, there were some howlers today, but "cheat"? "On the take?" Come off it

Agreed.

Sadly, what you’ve said here is the nicest thing that can be said about the ref today without being dramatic.

[Rowls]

Are you sure you're argument isn't more on the lines of "I want some attention, I will say something stupid"?

The clue is in the username!

[Targetman]

Nope I dont keep a diary of all the decisions but like always some decisions go one way and some the other.

The problem a lot of baised fans have is when he gives your side a decision its just the right decision but when he gives the other side a decision its a bad decision. When you see the match in this way its impossible not to end up thinking every bad decision was against your side

It's best just to ignore this poster and not keep giving him the attention he seeks. He loves to be contraire and in fact seems to be well versed at it.

[Devils_Advocate]

When are you lot going to realise that this guy thrives on your responses ?

The only effective way to deal with him is IGNORE

He'll soon go away

I dont, I put up just a bit of a jokey comment cos I didnt feel I could discuss it properly with people. But after getting called out by a few people I gave my honest opinion and to completely prove my point all Ive had is people having a go at me.

If you want to know the reason I post the way I do on a lot of Burnley topics then just take note of the way people have reacted to my honest opinion.

[dsr]

I saw you have this silly view about the Wolves penalty but the person who is either in control of the ball or the only one able to get the ball is the one who will be seen as being impeded.

That's just fatuous. In consecutive posts you've said that it was a penalty because Pope couldn't reach the ball, and that it was a penalty because Pope did reach the ball but didn't kick it hard enough.

[dsr]

The clue is in the username!

No, there's no clue int he username. The job of the actual Devil's Advocate is to put forward sensible reasons why the proposed Pope shouldn't get the job, in order to properly test the suggestion of appointing him. The detail being that the Devil's Advocate has to make sense, not just be random burblings for the sake of controversy.

[arise_sir_charge]

The biggest issue with the penalty to Bamford is that if the ref doesn’t give it, VAR wouldn’t then say “you’re wrong it’s a penalty”......similarly because he does give it they don’t say “you’re wrong it’s no penalty”.

So all things considered despite pro refs and state of the art tech you’ve got two different outcomes to the exact same incident thus rendering VAR absolutely pointless.

As for the foul by Mee, if you genuinely feel that’s a foul by Mee and not the other way round you must never have kicked a ball in your life.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

One of the most inept performances at this level for a long time throughout the game and even with VAR managed to get the two big decisions wrong. I don’t think we’ll be seeing him again for a while.

[Rowls]

No, there's no clue int he username. The job of the actual Devil's Advocate is to put forward sensible reasons why the proposed Pope shouldn't get the job, in order to properly test the suggestion of appointing him. The detail being that the Devil's Advocate has to make sense, not just be random burblings for the sake of controversy.

A fair point but I don’t think a true devils advocate has to put forward a sensible point.

I’ve always been of the belief that one simply has to argue a perspective that isn’t a truly held belief.

We can’t ever know whether he’s being sincere, only that he is self-evidently ridiculous.

[Devils_Advocate]

That's just fatuous. In consecutive posts you've said that it was a penalty because Pope couldn't reach the ball, and that it was a penalty because Pope did reach the ball but didn't kick it hard enough.

I think i've only posted once on why I think the Pope foul was a penalty so not sure about this consecutive thing but i'll explain again for you and for this discussion I'll ignore the reckless aspect of Pope's challenger

So Pope lunges for the ball and makes contact with the ball so that bit of the play is not a foul. Because Pope doesnt make a great contact with the ball then the ball is still in Bamfords path and Bamford can continue and has a chance of reaching the ball. Pope however cleans out Bamford after kicking the ball and this stops Bamford from getting the ball so that is a foul.

If Pope kicks the ball in the other direction and Bamford hasnt any chance of getting the ball then Pope's follow through doesnt impede Bamford in any way from getting the ball so not a foul

Now excuse me whilst I go and pull some teeth

[Rowls]

Now excuse me whilst I go and pull some teeth

Yes. A bit of Devils_Dentistry will give us all a break.

[RMutt]

I agree about Mee not being able to avoid it but if you impede someone, even if its accidental its still a foul. A close call but just a foul for me

With regards Pope the tackle for starters was a bit reckless but also although he got the ball he didnt knock it out of Bamfords reach and had he not cleaned him out afterwards Bamford still had a chance of getting the ball so a clear penalty. Had Pope made a solid contact and knocked the ball forwards to the edge of the area then taking out Bamford would have been irrelevant although the ref still could have seen it as a bit reckless

If a player goes through another player to try to get the ball, then, anywhere else on the field, that's a foul to the player who's been gone through. In fact its similar to what you were saying Pope was guilty of for their penalty.

[tiger76]

One of the most inept performances at this level for a long time throughout the game and even with VAR managed to get the two big decisions wrong. I don’t think we’ll be seeing him again for a while.

Bleeding well hope not, but if he does wangle another PL gig, I'll have a wager he doesn't get a big fixture, i.e. one involving 2 big 6 teams, can you imagine the meltdown from Klopp, Ole, or Pep if they had just witnessed that display of incompetence.

[Devils_Advocate]

Pop your email address on here Rowls and i'll send you a free members pass to my fan club site for 2021. You seem to have it bad for me today so its the least I can do

[dsr]

A fair point but I don’t think a true devils advocate has to put forward a sensible point.

I’ve always been of the belief that one simply has to argue a perspective that isn’t a truly held belief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate

No, the Devil's Advocate is appointed by the Church to ensure a candidate's qualifications (for sainhood, not popehood, apparently) are properly tested. See the Wikipedia example about Mother Theresa - they could have appointed someone to say "she picked her nose in school and she wasn't very pretty" but they actually appointed a scholar and atheist who would make a genuine case.

[arise_sir_charge]

I think i've only posted once on why I think the Pope foul was a penalty so not sure about this consecutive thing but i'll explain again for you and for this discussion I'll ignore the reckless aspect of Pope's challenger

So Pope lunges for the ball and makes contact with the ball so that bit of the play is not a foul. Because Pope doesnt make a great contact with the ball then the ball is still in Bamfords path and Bamford can continue and has a chance of reaching the ball. Pope however cleans out Bamford after kicking the ball and this stops Bamford from getting the ball so that is a foul.

If Pope kicks the ball in the other direction and Bamford hasnt any chance of getting the ball then Pope's follow through doesnt impede Bamford in any way from getting the ball so not a foul

Now excuse me whilst I go and pull some teeth

That’s a change in the rule I wasn’t aware of. I was always of the understanding getting the ball means no foul unless the tackle itself was say dangerous or you got the man before the ball.

By the way, I’m not convinced Bamford would have still got the ball either. It was certainly heading away from goal.

[IWOODLOVETT]

Disgraceful referee - all of his marginal decisions decisions favoured Leeds and we collected dubious yellows for complaining. He should be investigated because this performance stinks and it greatly influenced the result.

Imagine the same scenarios in a Burnley/ ManU game ? De Gea on Barnes for the penalty given. Pope on MacGuire for the penalty/goal denied ???

[Rowls]

Pop your email address on here Rowls and i'll send you a free members pass to my fan club site for 2021. You seem to have it bad for me today so its the least I can do

I’m just flagging you up for the benefit of others.

My email is:

bfc-rowls-1964@gmail.com

Look forward to hearing from you.

[Devils_Advocate]

If a player goes through another player to try to get the ball, then, anywhere else on the field, that's a foul to the player who's been gone through. In fact its similar to what you were saying Pope was guilty of for their penalty.

But Mee wasnt competing for the ball. Ive already said had Mee had a chance of reaching the ball it would have been different or had Mee just been stood there and not jumped then no foul.

As I keep saying I think this one is quite 50/50 cos the keeper has come a long way through some bodies but I do think Mee has impeded the keeper.

When I saw it live I thought never a foul and even on the replay I was surprised the ref gave it in real time but my opinion is on viewing the replay that although a tight call it was a foul on the keeper

[Devils_Advocate]

That’s a change in the rule I wasn’t aware of. I was always of the understanding getting the ball means no foul unless the tackle itself was say dangerous or you got the man before the ball.

By the way, I’m not convinced Bamford would have still got the ball either. It was certainly heading away from goal.

Its a tough one to explain on here but Ill try and use a more obvious example but with the same principle that winning the ball doenst always mean no foul.

So Jay Rod is put through on goal and the defender slides in to tackle the ball. The defender gets a toe on the ball but just pushes it in the same direction so Jay Rod can run on to it still through on goal. As part of the defenders slide after getting a toe on the ball he then goes through Jay Rod who but for being cleaned out would have still been able to go after a ball. That is a foul because although he initially played the ball his follow through took out a player who was still on their feet and able to go after the ball

In the above scenario I have no doubt the people on here would be screaming for a foul

[burnleymik]

Interesting:

EqQL3H-XYAIz3Iv.jpg (83.41 KiB) Viewed 3064 times

[Goodclaret]

D_A - you just don't see how ridiculous your "clear" explanations of both of the result changing decisions are? Pope was reckless but their keeper wasn't? You can't say that and be taken seriously. That's why you have been targeted as just being antagonistic on this thread. I won't be arguing with you as I have better things to do with my time but accusing other posters of being childish then you are sticking to such a clear bit of nonsense yourself is very ironic.

[arise_sir_charge]

Its a tough one to explain on here but Ill try and use a more obvious example but with the same principle that winning the ball doenst always mean no foul.

So Jay Rod is put through on goal and the defender slides in to tackle the ball. The defender gets a toe on the ball but just pushes it in the same direction so Jay Rod can run on to it still through on goal. As part of the defenders slide after getting a toe on the ball he then goes through Jay Rod who but for being cleaned out would have still been able to go after a ball. That is a foul because although he initially played the ball his follow through took out a player who was still on their feet and able to go after the ball

In the above scenario I have no doubt the people on here would be screaming for a foul

That’s new to me then as for years I’ve heard pundits etc say “he got a toe to the ball” or “he gets a touch on the ball”......perfect example being the Fulham and Liverpool one. That was deemed by many pundits as not a pen as Fabinho got a touch on the ball even though in my opinion he never touched the ball. It was however the ‘touch’ that saw him get away with it.

As I said above, the biggest frustration is if Jones doesn’t give it VAR would not then give it.

[NewClaret]

Mee has jumped for the ball, missed it and through his jump has blocked the keeper from reaching the ball. Even thought is not deliberate he's impeded their keeper which is a foul.

Now the fact the keeper has desperately come out a long way jumping through a crowd of players also gives for a bit of an argument that it was the keepers own fault and I am surprised the ref gave it. Had the goal been given I wouldnt have been saying it was a bad decision but it was one that could have gone either way but based on the replay I would give a free kick

Glad you’re not a PL ref then mate. He comes miles out, knees Mee in the back as he climbs over him ;impeding Mee) and wipes him out in the process. If you think that’s a FK you see the game very differently to me.

Ref should’ve let the game flow and then allow VAR to clear anything up that ensued. But having blowed, VAR should have overturned as a clear and obvious error.