Standard of Refereeing

[paul_e]

I disagree on the Tielemans one, I think that's an awful decision, he's not shirt pulling or holding an arm or something, he's got an arm wrapped around him, there's no interpretation of the laws that make that ok. It was a clear penalty for me and could easily have been a 2nd booking for Johnson as well.

[London Villan]

I’d love to know why it wasn’t a foul?

[Nev]

Each decision was subjective but the approach was the issue for me.

Each one was checked and summarily dismissed in a matter of seconds as if clear cut and the game restarted. Compare that with multi angle replays and endless pouring over of the decision in other games Now, I don't want to see that every game but where or what are the parameters? The lines weren't used in the Woolwich offside last week, it was tight but why not? We barely saw a replay to make our own judgement.

I'll come back to my point about the game last week, the officials apply the rules with a subconscious bias and to avoid intense scrutiny. Or in the case of last night, it's only Palace v Villa, who cares?

[garyellis]

We have the best competition in the world, no other leagues come close.
It’s time to ensure the officials are of the necessary standard.
The current PGMOL set up is certainly nowhere near.

[Exeter 77]

The penalty decision, which was given, in the Newcastle v Leeds game looked very similar to one in our game which wasn't. Consistency from game to game is appalling.

[dcdavecollett]

You can wave play on/advantage, by all means; it doesn't mean you can't go back and book a thuggish tackle by Hughes, who would then rightly be 'on watch' for the rest of the game

[dave shelley]

You can wave play on/advantage, by all means; it doesn't mean you can't go back and book a thuggish tackle by Hughes, who would then rightly be 'on watch' for the rest of the game

Correct.

[Ian.]

The penalty decision, which was given, in the Newcastle v Leeds game looked very similar to one in our game which wasn't. Consistency from game to game is appalling.

Surely the managers, referees and the PGMOL need to meet regularly to look over matches played, maybe spot check certain games. If pundits, fans and managers are noticing so many inconsistencies it's about time this was under some kind of regular review, not just to be critical, but to try and get all referees, authorities, players and managers on the same page as consistently as possible.

I get that so many decisions are subjective, but its the different outcomes to the same play that bothers me most.

[lovejoy]

I think the refs are generally ok.
The big issues for me is consistency. Specifically the Sky 6 vs everyone else.
There are instances which are by the letter of the law fouls but often not given. This degree of subjectivity is a huge issue and enables favouritism. the refs don't necessarily explicitly want the big teams to win but they don't want to piss them off as they'd be precluded from doing these "big games" in the future and also face a media backlash. It seems to me the Sky6 get them in their favour each time.

For example - not giving yellows if its a second yellow, letting the game flow (see above), not being a clear and obvious error, 5cm rule pulled from nowhere, grabbing in the penalty area, the handball law fiasco.

Now I possible strive for an impossible level of consistency, which I can accept is impossible. But  if these subjective decisions were "evening out over the season" then I would agree but they are almost always in favour of the Sky6.

[garyellis]

I think the refs are generally ok.
The big issues for me is consistency. Specifically the Sky 6 vs everyone else.
There are instances which are by the letter of the law fouls but often not given. This degree of subjectivity is a huge issue and enables favouritism. the refs don't necessarily explicitly want the big teams to win but they don't want to piss them off as they'd be precluded from doing these "big games" in the future and also face a media backlash. It seems to me the Sky6 get them in their favour each time.

For example - not giving yellows if its a second yellow, letting the game flow (see above), not being a clear and obvious error, 5cm rule pulled from nowhere, grabbing in the penalty area, the handball law fiasco.

Now I possible strive for an impossible level of consistency, which I can accept is impossible. But  if these subjective decisions were "evening out over the season" then I would agree but they are almost always in favour of the Sky6.

I agree with all that but fail to see how you conclude the refs are generally ok?

[The Edge]

We have the best competition in the world, no other leagues come close.
It’s time to ensure the officials are of the necessary standard.
The current PGMOL set up is certainly nowhere near.

We could start by using top officials from across Europe. Moneys no object so they could be flown in on match days. At least that would cut out the notion of bias in favour of the top English clubs.

[Smithy]

The penalty decision, which was given, in the Newcastle v Leeds game looked very similar to one in our game which wasn't. Consistency from game to game is appalling.

Surely the managers, referees and the PGMOL need to meet regularly to look over matches played, maybe spot check certain games. If pundits, fans and managers are noticing so many inconsistencies it's about time this was under some kind of regular review, not just to be critical, but to try and get all referees, authorities, players and managers on the same page as consistently as possible.

I get that so many decisions are subjective, but its the different outcomes to the same play that bothers me most.

You know what I would like to see, is a panel of Refs locked in a room on a Saturday afternoon, so they can't see or hear any results.  Then, that evening, they're each shown a dozen incidents from across the games, that were either penalties, not penalties, VAR reviews (not offside, obv) and so on, and see what level of consistency we get.  They all see the same incidents, with the same angles.  If they all agree on every decision, then fair enough, we have to hold our hands up and say maybe they're not that different.

But if there ARE discrepancies, particularly over the award/denial of penalties, then it would show that we need to discuss them in the open so fans and teams alike can get some clarity on these things. 

My personal bugbear is things that are fouls all over the pitch, being 'let go' because they're in the area and would result in a penalty.  I don't think there is anything in the laws of the game about there being a 'higher' standard for a penalty, but clearly there is.  If Johnson did to Youri what he did in the box, but on the halfway line while we were trying to break, he'd get booked - no question.

[LeeS]

The penalty decision, which was given, in the Newcastle v Leeds game looked very similar to one in our game which wasn't. Consistency from game to game is appalling.

Surely the managers, referees and the PGMOL need to meet regularly to look over matches played, maybe spot check certain games. If pundits, fans and managers are noticing so many inconsistencies it's about time this was under some kind of regular review, not just to be critical, but to try and get all referees, authorities, players and managers on the same page as consistently as possible.

I get that so many decisions are subjective, but its the different outcomes to the same play that bothers me most.

You know what I would like to see, is a panel of Refs locked in a room on a Saturday afternoon, so they can't see or hear any results.  Then, that evening, they're each shown a dozen incidents from across the games, that were either penalties, not penalties, VAR reviews (not offside, obv) and so on, and see what level of consistency we get.  They all see the same incidents, with the same angles.  If they all agree on every decision, then fair enough, we have to hold our hands up and say maybe they're not that different.

But if there ARE discrepancies, particularly over the award/denial of penalties, then it would show that we need to discuss them in the open so fans and teams alike can get some clarity on these things. 

My personal bugbear is things that are fouls all over the pitch, being 'let go' because they're in the area and would result in a penalty.  I don't think there is anything in the laws of the game about there being a 'higher' standard for a penalty, but clearly there is.  If Johnson did to Youri what he did in the box, but on the halfway line while we were trying to break, he'd get booked - no question.

I love the idea of locking up referees. But wouldn’t this idea just prove that there is always an element of subjectivity and judgment. By definition that means you can’t get consistency. If a pen could be given or not be given then we can talk about it all day long -  you’ll still end up with one ref giving it and another not giving it.

[LeeB]

The penalty decision, which was given, in the Newcastle v Leeds game looked very similar to one in our game which wasn't. Consistency from game to game is appalling.

Surely the managers, referees and the PGMOL need to meet regularly to look over matches played, maybe spot check certain games. If pundits, fans and managers are noticing so many inconsistencies it's about time this was under some kind of regular review, not just to be critical, but to try and get all referees, authorities, players and managers on the same page as consistently as possible.

I get that so many decisions are subjective, but its the different outcomes to the same play that bothers me most.

You know what I would like to see, is a panel of Refs locked in a room on a Saturday afternoon, so they can't see or hear any results.  Then, that evening, they're each shown a dozen incidents from across the games, that were either penalties, not penalties, VAR reviews (not offside, obv) and so on, and see what level of consistency we get.  They all see the same incidents, with the same angles.  If they all agree on every decision, then fair enough, we have to hold our hands up and say maybe they're not that different.

But if there ARE discrepancies, particularly over the award/denial of penalties, then it would show that we need to discuss them in the open so fans and teams alike can get some clarity on these things. 

My personal bugbear is things that are fouls all over the pitch, being 'let go' because they're in the area and would result in a penalty.  I don't think there is anything in the laws of the game about there being a 'higher' standard for a penalty, but clearly there is.  If Johnson did to Youri what he did in the box, but on the halfway line while we were trying to break, he'd get booked - no question then a load of just fed pigeons thrown in as well.

[paul_e]

For me the biggest issue is that the 'what if I'm wrong?' question that comes up on big/important decisions.

If you make a bad call against Arsenal it's going to be huge story in the press for ages, you'll probably get taken off games, etc.
If you make the same call against Bournemouth it's a footnote to the story and nothing much happens.

That means the threshold to give a red card for a clear 2nd booking is higher for some than it is for others and that's the inconsistency that we all hate.

On top of that you then also have the club/player reputation. Newcastle right now have a reputation for being aggressive which means refs go into their games knowing there's going to be challenges that the opposition will be upset about and that fore-knowledge sits there and has the ref thinking that if he's too card happy he'll lose control so he lets a few go and it means they keep kicking people until he eventually reaches for a card. This is exactly why Hughes got away with his clear yellow on McGinn the other night.

Forest and Wolves seem to have decided that they were going to try to 'solve' this by whining and, given it has worked to a degreee I can see us starting to follow their lead a little. We've definitely been a little more willing to call things out since Man U one.