What is it with Phil Dowd?

[Clark W Griswold]

The bloke is a big fat fucking fuck, but he wasn't responsible for yesterday's performance.

[LeeB]

He was at no way to blame for yesterday, but it is no coincidence that at City and Chelsea, the refs have given every single possible 50-50 to the money-bags teams. It sounds very bitter, but as soon as I saw Dowd was ref when they were 1-0 up I said to my wife it will be 6 with 2-3 pens and a fair few free kicks around the edge of the box. If the decisions went the same way the other end fine, but they are ignored the other end. A fundamental part of the reason I don't love the game the way I did as a kid is the continual struggle of clubs outside the favoured few to get any sort of parity in decisions.

He set his stall out with the free kick he gave them straight from the kick off.

I think making the refs professional has played straight into the hands of the big clubs, the likes of Ellery and co weren't shitting themselves that they were going to lose their jobs if they upset Fergie and friends.

[Matt Collins]

I'm not sure any of the decisions were wrong were they? Which ones.

I agree he's a shit ref though.

[chrisf]

I'm not sure any of the decisions were wrong were they? Which ones.

Fat Phil got the first penalty wrong.

I can't see in Law 12 below where it says that bumping into someone who stops abruptly even if you leave your leg out causing the celebrated 'contact'.

If you were to ask Fat Phil he'd have to go away and look up the rules and probably come back claiming that Chris Herd kicked him. But he didn't.
The Chelsea player dived on feeling 'contact' from behind and should have been booked.

Law 12 - fouls and misconduct
Direct free kick (or presumably a penalty)
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent

[fredm]

I'm not sure any of the decisions were wrong were they? Which ones.

Fat Phil got the first penalty wrong.

I can't see in Law 12 below where it says that bumping into someone who stops abruptly even if you leave your leg out causing the celebrated 'contact'.

If you were to ask Fat Phil he'd have to go away and look up the rules and probably come back claiming that Chris Herd kicked him. But he didn't.
The Chelsea player dived on feeling 'contact' from behind and should have been booked.

Law 12 - fouls and misconduct
Direct free kick (or presumably a penalty)
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent

I think Herd put his arm slightly around him which enabled him to tumble to the ground.

[paul_e]

I'm not sure any of the decisions were wrong were they? Which ones.

I agree he's a shit ref though.

They were all 50-50 ones that sometimes get given and sometimes don't.  The problem with Dowd is whichever team he's favouring on the day gets given everything like that and the other team get nothing.

I guarantee if you watched 2-3 games of his and compared fouls he's given to things he's waved away you'd find plenty of incidents that are similar that he's given in some cases and not in others, you can also see that he clearly picks a favourite.

[Clampy]

The likes of Alan Hansen don't help, who on MOTD this weekend more or less gave the ok for players to go down with the slightest of contact. He even had a dig at Kone for not going down under a challenge against Arsenal.

[ktvillan]

Clampy that's been happening for ages, the more idiotic and lazy pundits and commentators almost have "there was contact" as a mantra, completely ignoring the fact that football was always a contact sport.  Until the authorities decided to allow refs to punish the merest touch with a free kick that is.  It's slowly destroying the game a s a physical contest and spectacle.

[paul_e]

Clampy that's been happening for ages, the more idiotic and lazy pundits and commentators almost have "there was contact" as a mantra, completely ignoring the fact that football was always a contact sport.  Until the authorities decided to allow refs to punish the merest touch with a free kick that is.  It's slowly destroying the game a s a physical contest and spectacle.

The one that annoys me more is when someone rides the tackle and tries to play on and you get pundits saying they should've gone down and taken the free kick.  That attitude was the starting point for the problems we see now with dives and play acting.

[nigel]

Clampy that's been happening for ages, the more idiotic and lazy pundits and commentators almost have "there was contact" as a mantra, completely ignoring the fact that football was always a contact sport.  Until the authorities decided to allow refs to punish the merest touch with a free kick that is.  It's slowly destroying the game a s a physical contest and spectacle.

The one that annoys me more is when someone rides the tackle and tries to play on and you get pundits saying they should've gone down and taken the free kick.  That attitude was the starting point for the problems we see now with dives and play acting.

This is where the rugby advantage rule would work, a player can try and carry on but if nothing comes then the ref brings it back to the initial offence.
If implemented properly it would/should encourage players to try and carry on, even in a penalty situation, as a penalty is still a 50/50

[paul_e]

Clampy that's been happening for ages, the more idiotic and lazy pundits and commentators almost have "there was contact" as a mantra, completely ignoring the fact that football was always a contact sport.  Until the authorities decided to allow refs to punish the merest touch with a free kick that is.  It's slowly destroying the game a s a physical contest and spectacle.

The one that annoys me more is when someone rides the tackle and tries to play on and you get pundits saying they should've gone down and taken the free kick.  That attitude was the starting point for the problems we see now with dives and play acting.

This is where the rugby advantage rule would work, a player can try and carry on but if nothing comes then the ref brings it back to the initial offence.
If implemented properly it would/should encourage players to try and carry on, even in a penalty situation, as a penalty is still a 50/50

Absolutely, have the ref raise an arm to indicate they've 'given' the free kick but let play go for a couple of seconds and see what happens.

The problem then though is that there are far too few referees who have the required knowledge of the game to implement the rules properly.  Rugby fast tracking ex players to referee at the highest level helps it massively.  Granted there's more potential for 'skullduggery' (great word) in rugby which inexperienced refs just don't see, but even in football there's a lot of foul play which is accepted because the refs don't know any better and the great fonts of knowledge on TV all back the decisions.

Shearer is always the best example, he very rarely jumped for a header without placing his elbow across the face of his marker, never given because he wasn't swinging an arm at them dangerously but it meant they couldn't challenge him at all.   A ref who'd played at a decent level and knew the game would probably view that differently than someone who just knows the rules about swinging elbows.

[LeeB]

Clampy that's been happening for ages, the more idiotic and lazy pundits and commentators almost have "there was contact" as a mantra, completely ignoring the fact that football was always a contact sport.  Until the authorities decided to allow refs to punish the merest touch with a free kick that is.  It's slowly destroying the game a s a physical contest and spectacle.

The one that annoys me more is when someone rides the tackle and tries to play on and you get pundits saying they should've gone down and taken the free kick.  That attitude was the starting point for the problems we see now with dives and play acting.

This is where the rugby advantage rule would work, a player can try and carry on but if nothing comes then the ref brings it back to the initial offence.
If implemented properly it would/should encourage players to try and carry on, even in a penalty situation, as a penalty is still a 50/50

Absolutely, have the ref raise an arm to indicate they've 'given' the free kick but let play go for a couple of seconds and see what happens.

The problem then though is that there are far too few referees who have the required knowledge of the game to implement the rules properly.  Rugby fast tracking ex players to referee at the highest level helps it massively.  Granted there's more potential for 'skullduggery' (great word) in rugby which inexperienced refs just don't see, but even in football there's a lot of foul play which is accepted because the refs don't know any better and the great fonts of knowledge on TV all back the decisions.

Shearer is always the best example, he very rarely jumped for a header without placing his elbow across the face of his marker, never given because he wasn't swinging an arm at them dangerously but it meant they couldn't challenge him at all.   A ref who'd played at a decent level and knew the game would probably view that differently than someone who just knows the rules about swinging elbows.

It doesn't help that to become a top-class referee you would need to be starting at about 14-15, thus ruling out anyone who as actually played the men's game.

[paul_e]

Exactly.  The standard of refereeing in rugby (and cricket) is much higher because the people involved have a bigger connection to the game and have experienced it to a high standard.

[nigel]

Spurs first goal was a classic example of this.
Delph was fouled, ref played advantage, but we lost the ball immediately, they run down and score within 10 seconds of the foul on Delph. Some advantage!!

[E I Adio]

Question: How does he continue to get away with this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/dec/27/alex-ferguson-avoids-punishment-mike-dean

Answer: Because the ref didn't mention it in his report.

Must have forgotten I suppose.