Referees and (in particular) Jack Grealish

[Steve67]

In his last 40 odd league games he's been fouled over 210 times.

If that's the case I guess we are lucky he hasn't been injured even more than he has. Shocking treatment.

[ADVILLAFAN]

As soon as Grealish picks up his england cap he won't need protection from the ref anymore. He'll be playing in a bubble just like Rooney, Scholes and Gerrard used to. With no one allowed to go near them.

Scholes was the one kicking opposition players, not bring kicked.

A right dirty bastard.

[dcdavecollett]

Yeah, I remember a 4-0 defeat at OT under O'Neill where Scholes did three high and late challenges. The ref called Scholes over, presumably to tell him that one more of those and he might get booked.

F*ck Me!!

[OzVilla]

It still staggers me that that Kevin Friend thought he dived at Palace. I'm still pissed off about it.  I keep adding the extra point on we should have had. #letitgo

[passitsideways]

I think it's part of a broader issue, rather than just relating to our Jack, which of course it does - Eden Hazard definitely received the same kind of persistent fouling, and even though there was every reason for him to be treated as some sort of sacred cow, I can't really remember any particular action being taken. Who knows, maybe it'll be different when it's an England international involved and the press starts bleating.

[cdbearsfan]

It still staggers me that that Kevin Friend thought he dived at Palace. I'm still pissed off about it.  I keep adding the extra point on we should have had. #letitgo

I'm doubly pissed off because I still hate the referee and now I have that stupid Frozen song stuck in my head, too.

[Ad@m]

For example, if Grealish had been fouled by three different players, the referee should then book the next player to commit a foul against him regardless of whether it's a (usual) bookable offence or not.

Isn't that what happened with Maguire in the first half?  It was his first offence but the ref had had enough of it overall by then.  I thought the ref had a pretty good game.

I saw it that way.

I was a ref in local leagues for a few years, and I adopted the view that if a team persistenyly fouled, I'd either book the next player to do it following a warning, or I'd book the team captain. Amazing how effective it was, particularly if the captain got it.

How the hell do you book a player for something another player did? I don't recall anything in the rules which states the captain's responsible for anything anyone else does.

[dave shelley]

For example, if Grealish had been fouled by three different players, the referee should then book the next player to commit a foul against him regardless of whether it's a (usual) bookable offence or not.

Isn't that what happened with Maguire in the first half?  It was his first offence but the ref had had enough of it overall by then.  I thought the ref had a pretty good game.

I saw it that way.

I was a ref in local leagues for a few years, and I adopted the view that if a team persistenyly fouled, I'd either book the next player to do it following a warning, or I'd book the team captain. Amazing how effective it was, particularly if the captain got it.

How the hell do you book a player for something another player did? I don't recall anything in the rules which states the captain's responsible for anything anyone else does.

TBH I let that slide.  The first thing I, as a player would do is to ask for a personal hearing to appeal it.  The referee wouldn't have a leg to stand on.  He's commited no offence.

The thing about talking to team captains during the game about his players conduct, and I know it happens a lot, I have done it myself, is, you are delegating your responsibility and diluting it.  As a referee you have the wherewithal to deal with situations, a notebook, a pen and two cards, use them.

Another problem a referee can make for himself by talking to the captain is: if the ref says he's going to do something if errant behaviour continues, then doesn't he's made a rod for his own back and is in trouble.

The referee on Sunday wasn't too bad but, if he'd nailed the Manure player that clattered Jack in the first minute then he knew he would have to continue in the same vein with every bookable offence throughout the game on any player which he didn't and he would have been aware of this.  It should have no bearing on how he handles the match, a foul is a foul and if it warrants a caution then it should be given.  The refereeing heirarchy wouldn't be best pleased though.

[Hookeysmith]

If it is a foul and worse, a sending off offence then it should not matter if it is the first or the 90th minute.

I do however think that certain bookings should be reviewed and rescinded such as Freddies - it was not a foul as such merely a coming together of legs as the player ran away

[Drummond]

For example, if Grealish had been fouled by three different players, the referee should then book the next player to commit a foul against him regardless of whether it's a (usual) bookable offence or not.

Isn't that what happened with Maguire in the first half?  It was his first offence but the ref had had enough of it overall by then.  I thought the ref had a pretty good game.

I saw it that way.

I was a ref in local leagues for a few years, and I adopted the view that if a team persistenyly fouled, I'd either book the next player to do it following a warning, or I'd book the team captain. Amazing how effective it was, particularly if the captain got it.

How the hell do you book a player for something another player did? I don't recall anything in the rules which states the captain's responsible for anything anyone else does.

That's my point, it should be in the rules, as it is in rugby union.

[Somniloquism]

The referee on Sunday wasn't too bad but, if he'd nailed the Manure player that clattered Jack in the first minute then he knew he would have to continue in the same vein with every bookable offence throughout the game on any player which he didn't and he would have been aware of this.  It should have no bearing on how he handles the match, a foul is a foul and if it warrants a caution then it should be given.  The refereeing heirarchy wouldn't be best pleased though.

I can understand on the first foul based on your explanation, but according to the match text on Sunday, Perrera caught Jack three of four times in the space of the first 20 minutes. Obviously it is arbitrary on how many and what types are called but I have seen one of ours booked for three (pointed to by the ref) on different players, so that many on one should have been called on at the time. I don't think he got booked at all either.

[dave shelley]

The referee on Sunday wasn't too bad but, if he'd nailed the Manure player that clattered Jack in the first minute then he knew he would have to continue in the same vein with every bookable offence throughout the game on any player which he didn't and he would have been aware of this.  It should have no bearing on how he handles the match, a foul is a foul and if it warrants a caution then it should be given.  The refereeing heirarchy wouldn't be best pleased though.

I can understand on the first foul based on your explanation, but according to the match text on Sunday, Perrera caught Jack three of four times in the space of the first 20 minutes. Obviously it is arbitrary on how many and what types are called but I have seen one of ours booked for three (pointed to by the ref) on different players, so that many on one should have been called on at the time. I don't think he got booked at all either.

Any subsequent fouls by Perrera after the first is persistent infringement and should be punished as such, serious foul play or violent conduct  notwithstanding as they warrant dismissal.  Perrera should have been cautioned without any shadow of a doubt.

[dcdavecollett]

He didn't.

[dave shelley]

He didn't.

I know he didn't if you mean Perrera not being booked.  My point is he should have been from the first minute onwards.  Had he been, his subsequent tackles would have seen him dismissed obviously.

[The Edge]

Things havn't changed much since Liverpool became the first club to get preferential treatment in the 70's/80's. And that's a sad indictment on football in this country especially the referees cartel. Unfortunately i can't see it changing.