The all-new Premier League thread Page 4480

  • Page

    of 5258 First / Last

  • Dougs 13 Jan 2014 12:40:38 66,713 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Maybe some are just because they are a bit shit at their job? I agree wholeheartedly that it's an impossible job etc, but sometimes (not necessarily this decision), some decisions are just so bad, it they wouldn't get away with it in any other job.
  • JYM60 13 Jan 2014 12:43:36 16,783 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    All bad decision are baffling until you make the leap to accepting that it was an honest mistake made by a fallible human being.
    I dunno it often seems to me that we get a reason like this a day or two after a shocking decision. It's almost like the refs have got together and tried to find some kind of excuse they can use to justify it.
    Why do you think they make mistakes then? Corruption? Team bias?
    City bias. According to Rodgers

    [8/10] http://www.youtube.com/lllBetterThanHalolll

  • kalel 13 Jan 2014 12:44:28 86,409 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Dougs wrote:
    Maybe some are just because they are a bit shit at their job? I agree wholeheartedly that it's an impossible job etc, but sometimes (not necessarily this decision), some decisions are just so bad, it they wouldn't get away with it in any other job.
    That's fair, but at the same time few people rise to the very top of their profession if they're utterly shit at their job, and I suspect most of the properly shit ones get weeded out long before they're allowed to ref in the PL. Not to mention the fact that there are systems in place that judge refs on far more reasonable and measurable criteria than the average completely biased fan, or pundit who needs a talking point tends to use.

    Some are better than others, and perhaps relatively speaking some are poor, but I think we're overly critical and frankly probably spoiled. I would venture that even the worst referee these days is a cut above the likes of David Ellery or Uriah Renny, let alone the refs from the real old days.
  • nickthegun 13 Jan 2014 12:48:52 58,851 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I quoted this stat the other week but, apparently, premiership referees get 92% of decisions right, rising to the upper 90s in the box and linesmen get 99.something% of decisions right, so there is fundamentally nothing wrong with the way the game is officiated.

    Its just, as has been said, a shit storm to sell papers.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Dougs 13 Jan 2014 12:51:26 66,713 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Comparatively shit is probably about right. Is that "ghost goal" ref still working?

    Edit: I guess I'd just like a bit more transparency from the PGMO or whatever they are called. Maybe not full on press conferences from refs after the game, but some justification/reasoning of any controversial incidents might help and stop people getting in a lather.

    Edited by Dougs at 12:53:20 13-01-2014
  • morriss 13 Jan 2014 12:51:49 70,911 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Also, let's not forget what a massive tit Pardew is.
  • kalel 13 Jan 2014 12:54:58 86,409 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    I quoted this stat the other week but, apparently, premiership referees get 92% of decisions right, rising to the upper 90s in the box and linesmen get 99.something% of decisions right, so there is fundamentally nothing wrong with the way the game is officiated.

    Its just, as has been said, a shit storm to sell papers.
    It must drive them nuts. Can you imagine if there was a player that scored 92% of the shots he took, and pundits and fans went mental every time he didn't score 1/10 times?

    Everyone else in football is entitled to be fallible apart from refs. I appreciate it's because the results of their mistakes mean that something "unfair" happens, but I'm still convinced that the tide has turned towards over-analysis of refs and their decision because coverage has become more lowest denominator and sensationalist. It's just easier to construct narrative around outrage and controversy.
  • TheSaint 13 Jan 2014 13:07:25 14,201 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    I quoted this stat the other week but, apparently, premiership referees get 92% of decisions right, rising to the upper 90s in the box and linesmen get 99.something% of decisions right, so there is fundamentally nothing wrong with the way the game is officiated.

    Its just, as has been said, a shit storm to sell papers.
    Where were these stats from just out of interest?
  • Shikasama 13 Jan 2014 13:09:48 6,625 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I'll never forgive Uriah Renny for giving Shearer the first red card of his career.

    Edited by Shikasama at 13:10:11 13-01-2014
  • kalel 13 Jan 2014 13:09:59 86,409 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    morriss wrote:
    Also, let's not forget what a massive tit Pardew is.
    Yeah, it is also entirely to the convenience of managers that refs can usually be made a scapegoat of whenever their team loses.

    And yes, Pardew is a bit of a lairy twat.
  • Deckard1 13 Jan 2014 13:12:34 27,220 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I believe the old saying goes, "Let those with Tim Sherwood as manager, not call any other a manager a cunt, as he you see he is a massive cunt himself."
  • TheSaint 13 Jan 2014 13:13:18 14,201 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    All bad decision are baffling until you make the leap to accepting that it was an honest mistake made by a fallible human being.
    I dunno it often seems to me that we get a reason like this a day or two after a shocking decision. It's almost like the refs have got together and tried to find some kind of excuse they can use to justify it.
    Why do you think they make mistakes then? Corruption? Team bias?
    Well I think they tend to favour the top five or six teams but hard to say if that is down to bias or just over caution as decisions involving these teams tend me be more scrutinised.

    Didn't the secret football claim that a ref had told him that they were told to do everything they could not to send off the top players? If that's true then you can definitely make an argument for some kind of bias.

    At the end of the day I think in marginal situations like this the decisions should always favour the attacking team.
  • morriss 13 Jan 2014 13:17:16 70,911 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Deckard1 wrote:
    I believe the old saying goes, "Let those with Tim Sherwood as manager, not call any other a manager a cunt, as he you see he is a massive cunt himself."
    You missed the "unless the other team's manager is Alan Pardew." Otherwise, yeah - our manager "bleeds blue and white" etc.

    :(
  • kalel 13 Jan 2014 13:23:53 86,409 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    @TheSaint

    Yeah, I do think there is a bit of a problem with refs tending to favour top team, although I do believe it's mostly unintended. If a decision can go either way then they're likely to choose the path of least resistance i.e. the path that doesn't result in Man U losing the league and having Fergie call you a bellend in every conceivable outlet.

    But I think for the most part, and in this particular case, it's just pure human error. Again, I'm convinced he thinks it takes a deflection off the Newcastle player.
  • nickthegun 13 Jan 2014 13:32:46 58,851 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    Where were these stats from just out of interest?
    I read it in the guardian a while ago

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2012/mar/03/referees-winning-percentage-game-managers

    The 'in the box' one came from somewhere else I cant remember..

    Edited by nickthegun at 13:33:39 13-01-2014

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Shikasama 13 Jan 2014 13:45:47 6,625 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @morriss High cholesterol that
  • Trowel 13 Jan 2014 13:46:57 17,447 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I've been a linesman enough times to know that the real solution is to ban replays ;)
  • TheSaint 13 Jan 2014 13:52:26 14,201 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    Where were these stats from just out of interest?
    I read it in the guardian a while ago

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2012/mar/03/referees-winning-percentage-game-managers

    The 'in the box' one came from somewhere else I cant remember..
    Refs organisation say that refs get 92% of decisions right. Convenient that they don't provide any of the stats used to come to that conclusion.
  • TheSaint 13 Jan 2014 13:59:22 14,201 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Talking of refs we had Howard Webb on Saturday and for the most part I was really impressed. I know he's had some stick but he was far better than the ones I've seen at recent games. He let the game flow and was fairly consistent with bookings etc.

    What really bothered me though was his attitude to time wasting. WBA and Foster in particular were time wasting from the first five minutes taking and age to take any sort of set piece (I think it even got mentioned on MotD). Webb kept pointing to his watch and signalling to hurry up which seemed fair enough, until the board goes up at half time and shows only a single minute of added time. I could think of at least a couple of goal kicks where they had wasted double that.

    Time wasting is so bloody annoying and could be so easily stamped out if refs ever added on more than two minutes at half time.
  • Youthist 13 Jan 2014 14:02:24 10,010 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Seems to me there is more likely to be more scrutinised penalty box talking points with the top 5 as they are more likely to have the ball in the opponents penalty box on a more frequent basis. In the absence of any better theories outside of "they favourz united / city coz they support them / are scared of them" I am sticking with mine for now.

    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise half of them are stupider than that

  • Mr_Sleep 13 Jan 2014 14:07:41 16,852 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Dougs wrote:
    Comparatively shit is probably about right. Is that "ghost goal" ref still working?

    Edit: I guess I'd just like a bit more transparency from the PGMO or whatever they are called. Maybe not full on press conferences from refs after the game, but some justification/reasoning of any controversial incidents might help and stop people getting in a lather.
    I used to think this was a good idea but I'm pretty sure the media would just use this occasion as an excuse to bash the referees or twist their words to get more column inches. The press will use any excuse to stoke a fire.

    Also, it's about time they brought in citing for things that clearly contravene the rules. That lash out at Nasri was a straight red card and this sort of thing should be looked at after the game and punishments handed out accordingly. It's hard for anyone to argue it wasn't a sending off.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Trowel 13 Jan 2014 14:15:25 17,447 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Youthist wrote:
    Seems to me there is more likely to be more scrutinised penalty box talking points with the top 5 as they are more likely to have the ball in the opponents penalty box on a more frequent basis. In the absence of any better theories outside of "they favourz united / city coz they support them / are scared of them" I am sticking with mine for now.
    It's just more interesting/controversial for the audience owing to the relative importance of those decisions and the fan bases of those clubs. No one's going to keep SSN on while they spend 20 analysing a debatable foul on the halfway line during Norwich vs West Brom.
  • Dougs 13 Jan 2014 14:19:47 66,713 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Yeah, citing would be good. But should be just for violent conduct or whatever. Thin end of the wedge if they start reviewing everything
  • Syrette 13 Jan 2014 14:23:25 43,107 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    captbirdseye wrote:
    Hehe, Jamie Redknapp comapring Bentaleb with Xavi...guy is a tool!
    Jesus wept man, bit early for that.

    Not that Redknapp is biased or anything though...

  • Mr_Sleep 13 Jan 2014 14:23:25 16,852 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Dougs wrote:
    Yeah, citing would be good. But should be just for violent conduct or whatever. Thin end of the wedge if they start reviewing everything
    Aye, I meant specifically for violent conduct.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Zomoniac 13 Jan 2014 14:26:05 7,802 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Also does "decisions in the box" not also include whether to award a corner or goal kick? Which is usually blindingly obvious.
  • kalel 13 Jan 2014 14:27:22 86,409 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    They have now changed the rule about ref's decisions being final btw. These things can be reviewed and changed. It still has to be clear-cut error though.

    I'm not convinced the Nasri tackle was necessarily a straight red frankly.
  • Bremenacht 13 Jan 2014 14:28:37 17,613 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Youthist wrote:
    Seems to me there is more likely to be more scrutinised penalty box talking points with the top 5 as they are more likely to have the ball in the opponents penalty box on a more frequent basis. In the absence of any better theories outside of "they favourz united / city coz they support them / are scared of them" I am sticking with mine for now.
    That's.. completely reasonable. Begone!
  • nickthegun 13 Jan 2014 14:28:58 58,851 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Which one: the knee or the scythe?

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • kalel 13 Jan 2014 14:29:40 86,409 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Oh, I wasn't aware of a knee.
  • Page

    of 5258 First / Last

Log in or register to reply