By Walter Broeckx
Thanks to a great link Phil sent to me we can have a further look at the PGMOL and the referees. The article itself can be found here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17668965 and it really is an interesting article where former world cup referee Clive Thomas is very critical about the standard of refereeing. Clive if you read this, just join our team by sending me a little note or send it to Tony who will send it to me.
Mr. Thomas is very critical and also points at the fact that he thinks many referees are simply not at the right spot to make a good decision. This is indeed something that one of our ref reviewers also highlighted in one of his reviews. I think it should come online shortly if it has not already, and yes our ref reviewers have seen the same thing as this former top ref. I will take this as a big compliment for my ref reviewers.
Now of course the media give the chance to the PGMOL to defend themselves against this critical attack. And in doing so the PGMOL revealed some costly information. They have said how they get the numbers that are quoted by Mike Riley, head of the PGMOL.
You know the statistics that says that 99% of the offside decisions correct and most of all the 92% of the major decisions correct.
Of the offside decisions I have already said that we only come to 90% of the offside decisions being correct and that is based on only 50% of the decisions being verifiable. But I will leave this alone for now but will come back to it at the end of the season when we get all our reviews done.
So what did the PGMOL said through the mouth of their spokesman Phil Dorward : “As he [Thomas] should know all too well, sometimes officials make human errors but the truth is that standards in officiating have never been higher.
“The Match Delegates report – compiled by former players and managers and which the clubs provide feedback on after every Premier League match – show that referees get over 92% of major decisions right.”
About the first part I do agree when it comes to making human errors. Sad thing is when those errors have the same teams benefiting or being on the receiving end it becomes difficult to keep believing in “human errors”.
And then Mr. Dorward claims that standards have never been higher. And how do we know this? Ah, because of the Match Delegates report.
And what is this Match Delegates report? Well apparently it is a report (which is kept secret from the public of course) and from these reports they get the 92% correct decisions.
And please do take a seat before I put the next question and give you the next answer as it really knocked me off my chair.
And who makes these reports? Former players and managers. If must repeat this as it really is shocking : FORMER PLAYERS AND MANAGERS.
So basically what the PGMOL is saying is that they base their numbers on what former players say. So an Alan Hansen, a Gary Linneker, an Alan Shearer could be having their say about the refs and those reports.
With all respect for their playing careers and ability how on earth can you ask a former player to judge if a ref made the right call or not? If you hear them talking and explaining the rules at times in MOTD they mostly just show that they know nothing about the rules. Most players in fact don’t know the rules very well (as Alan Smith, the former Arsenal forward and now pundit on Sky and reporter for the Telegraph admitted on air a couple of years back) . The rubbish you hear about the rules on a football field is only surpassed by the rubbish you hear from some supporters. And some supporters know the rules better than some players. Let alone some managers.
Now I have taken just a few names because those are known for analysing the games in MOTD and how miserable they are in explaining the rules and showing their not existing knowledge in how to apply the rules. It could well be that Roy Keane is doing this. Being a former player and manager? Imagine that for a second! Why don’t they invite Joey Barton to do this job after his career?
I think it is shocking in a way that they use people who probably never have refereed a game in their live to make up these reports. Believe me, despite having played the game for a long time, having been a fervent spectator of the game it doesn’t make you an expert of the rules. I remember when I went for my courses as a ref I expected to waste my time because I knew it all. I didn’t. I learned a lot about the game I thought I knew.
And yet the PGMOL is relying on such persons to judge the refs. And further more they pat themselves on the back when those persons say what great refs we have.
So thanks for the link to the BBC article Phil. It was an eye opener. So now we know where the PGMOL gets their number of 92% of the important decisions correct. Based on the opinion of former players and managers. Jezus Christ, if it wasn’t so outrageous it would be funny….
It is in a way…who can take such an organisation serious? Who can take their leader serious? The trouble is that they are ruining the game, that they are ruining our sport. They should be removed from football and never be allowed to have anything to do with it again. Such incompetence…
—————————-
New update on Woolwich Arsenal’s definitive history
Transform your life: Become a professional writer
We’re on Twitter @UntoldArsenal
————————————————————————
Latest Untold Ref Reviews…
Man City 2 Chelsea 1 – another poor show from Dean
Blackburn 0 Manchester United 2
Manchester City 3 Sunderland 3
———————————-
On the Arsenal History site: the Bertie Mee decade – latest stories
Peter Storey – the man to whom I would most like to say thank you.
Frank McLintock, brought in after great success at Leicester
Jezus Christ is right Walter! But what is easier, cleaning house to remove all the buffoons from the FA or the PGMOL, or to make the buffoons’ job easier with video technology?
Video technology is probably a better long term solution. Here across the pond, we have added video tech to pretty much every major sport. And yes, the games are less fluid as a result, but that is the trade off. On the positive side, the standard is higher and there is less controversy, which means more fans and more money! Not only that, but each year the leagues streamline the process and make it better and less intrusive.
The sooner world football starts using video technology, then the sooner it will figure out the optimal way to use it.
Walter,
I was indeed shocked to hear that ex players and managers are writing the reports. You can imagine how unbiased that could be.
The Refs and Assitants have put the game in total disrepute!
Look at the numerous ‘OBVIOUS’ biased calls that have been given for BIG NAME TEAMS and their MASTER!
Its just atrocious!
‘FAIR PLAY’ bannered and displayed ….. for only players?
What about THESE REFEREES & THEIR ASSISTANTS!
They are the ones to ENSURE FAIR PLAY IS FOR ALL AND SUNDRY …. with them taking the lead!
Could someone with a twitter account send him links to various pages on this website, Debatable Decisions and Toro (another fantastic site) and ask him to explain what the questions that Walter has raised? I’d do it myself but I don’t have a twitter account.
hmm, I thought I already posted that link
http://blog.emiratesstadium.info/archives/20258/comment-page-1#comment-154619
wow? seriously? former players and managers? just wow and just when i thought it wouldnt get any more pathetic than it is..so you are telling me the likes of fat sam and Pubis might be the ones assessing the refs? so much for being unbiased and clean
It kind of reminds me of the climate wars. The climatologists and other scientists say burning fossil fuels is killing the planet, so the oil companies hire their scientists to release propaganda to state the opposite.
I think that video technology is the way to go.
If we had that technology since fergusson took over at ManUre they would have lost about 33 to 50% of the championships they have won. Heck the invincibles mightbe still on that run 🙂
Everyone knows the PGMOL is a disgrace but when will it change ?
Just look at this video and the explanation that Ruud Gullit gives in the favor of the last penalty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PENQDQ52SOY
‘He should give a penalty for a handball only if the hand is used to block a shot on target.’ Well done, so according to him you can block any cross with hand as it’s not an attempt on goal.
If these kind of pundits help the PGMOL, then I am surprised that only 92% decisions are correct. It could easily have been 99 just like in the case of offside.
Walter, wasn’t there supposed to be a Prozone review of each match? Would this mean that the Prozone reviewers and the Match Delegates are one and the same? Or are their two reports? Hmmm….
In any case, the PGMOL is steaming like the Titanic toward a rising iceberg of its own making. The next revelation from the Hives of Riley (aka The Vomitorium) will surely have us find out that there is no bar to currently anonymous Match Delegates (if they do exist) reviewing their own former teams’ matches. If the report is to be of real value, then how can how many review each game? Are these live reviews? Are there reviews of game tapes? Both? Is there an large pool with “Delegates” appointed by each club? Is there any right or procedure for a club to impose an appointment or to veto one?
Is there an appointment process at all? Or is it just anything goes, by whomever appoints the Match Delegates? Is it a rotation among say, three people per side? Is it the same group every week? every season?
Again is there REALLY such a Report? How would anyone ever know? On PGMOL’s say so? Or have they just created the illusion of a report? A pacifier-concept to keep the callow beliervers believing. Perhaps someone with integrity inside AFC (or PGMOL or anywhere) would consider whether to “surface” such a report; this so that honest fans could know whether it exists and, if it does, could understand even one iota of why the so-called level of refereeing (an oxymoron if there ever was one) has scraped last weekend’s bottom of the pit, and with no forseeable prospect of resurrection.
The honorable purported “Match Delegates” who issue the purported reports sounds like a bunch of cartoonish characters out of an old Marx Brothers movie! In today’s weekly laughing nightmare, these men get to inflict serious damage against the quality of our game (sorry, their content) by rubber-stamping a chronically woeful result. Perhaps a brave MP would call for a hearing for the purpose of ensuring transparency. Surely the widening public understanding that this product is seriously flawed or faked would give courage to someone with the power to bring hearings – inside or outside of parliament – to protect consumers interests.
This week we have had Arsene’s call for video technology or Walter/Phil’s spotlighting of Dorward’s slip of the tongue (if it is that). Surely, going forward, we deserve far better than a game protected by the Invocation of a purported Match Delegates Report that allegedly delivers with 90+ percent accuracy. HA!
Now, to be honest: it would seem that AFC is also a participant in this system, if the system exists. Perhaps someone in AFC – which has now gone completely public with Arsene’s call for video technology, a call that has been featured on yesterday’s AFC Homepage – will, in this same truth-seeking spirit, let us know whether the Report exist, who reports, who decides who will report, and what impact these purported reports may have on who gets selected or is barred from refereeing the matches.
Note current players and managers cant criticise the ref in fear off fines imposed .Passed players and managers are bias to their old clubs and most off all the laws are updated by years since they were in the game no wonder we don’t move with the modern times and standards, and by the PGMOL terms of reference their happy to rate Bias out date TV ,Radio presenters be their rule of thumb as being correct so why have the PGMOL all all if someone else is doing their work for them so stupid.
Good morning Gooners!
EXTRA! EXTRA! There is nothing wrong.
Indeed, Manchester Guardian’s football department now finally have produced a major article (Saturday, nearly one week later) that addresses (in their way) The Crisis in ref decisions. It’s an article by Louise Taylor with a WHITEWASH TITLE/Subtitle: “Premier League referees look to emulate clubs’ no excuses culture. Officials are under fire after a spate of controversial decisions but their preparations could hardly be more thorough.” And it features many quotations from a “PGMOL coach” (and former ref Alan Wiley) and from Phil Dorward (billed as the Premier League’s “PR manager for the PGMOL”!
We are told this: “Bad errors like last weekend’s offsides at Chelsea are really disappointing,” concedes Alan Wiley, a PGMOL coach and former Premier League referee. “But the fact is that there are VERY FEW bad mistakes like that nowadays.”
We are told that Prozone helps them massively: “Like footballers, referees constantly make important decisions running at speed,” says Wiley. “But Prozone has REALLY HELPED with positioning and assessing situations from the best angles.”
We are told that professionalization will do nothing to help the already brilliant work of the assistant referees: “Dorward doubts their present 99.3 % accuracy would be bettered by professional status. “There’s A LIMIT TO WHAT MORE THEY CAN DO,” he says.
We are told that the PGMOL periodically seeks managers’ opinions: “On a Monday or a Tuesday the delegate seeks opinions from the two managers. “By then they’ll have analysed things and often say the referees made the correct decisions,” says Hibbitt. “Officials are human but MISTAKES HAPPEN LESS THAN YOU THINK.”
We are told there is no ref awareness (let alone bias) of which teams are playing: “You’re so focused it just becomes red shirts v blue shirts,” he says. “YOU DON’T THINK ABOUT WHO YOU’RE GIVING DECISIONS AGAINST.”
We are told that they are fit: “[P]rofessional referees train daily with the details of such exertions recorded on heart monitors and downloaded by Riley’s sports science staff.
We are told that refs are channeled away from places like Untold Arsenal: “We DISCOURAGE them from looking at internet forums, Twitter and, sometimes, newspapers,” says Wiley
We are told that there is relentless quality control: “Though referees may be twice the age of certain players, they often cover more ground than box-to-box midfielders and need to be comfortable with repeated high-intensity 10-yard sprints.” But no worries, because even though “Like footballers, referees constantly make important decisions running at speed,” says Wiley, “Prozone has REALLY helped with positioning and assessing situations FROM THE BEST ANGLES.”
Indeed, “Once a fortnight the entire, 16-strong, Premier League officiating select group meets in the Midlands for two or three days where they receive Prozone analysis of performances along with advice from fitness coaches, nutritionists, podiatrists and sports psychologists.”
And, rest easy fans, as it all ends in a soothing irony: “The strange thing is English referees seem to be very highly regarded everywhere except England.” You don’t believe it? Well, there’s Roy Hodgson as Da – the only manager who gets quoted – to tuck us in and say g’nite: “Our refereeing is probably the best in Europe… Of course, one will make a mistake now and again, especially when you view a situation 100 times in slo-mo, but…” – in a Triumphal Moment in Western Logic- “players make them as well.”
Hope you slept well everyone. Now do wake up and smell the coffee…
The article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/apr/14/premier-league-referees-no-excuses
Thanks Bob for the link to the article. They think that people are idiots and believe whatever they say. what I don’t understand is that why is there no comments section on any such article which mentions the referees???
This deleting the comment thing itself indicates something fishy about the article.
In a game where one single decision changes the entire course of the game, I don’t understand this logic of 90% and 92% to start with. In what little stats I learnt in my college they take a standard deviation of 5% maximum and anything above 5% shows there exists a bias. May be someone should go and educate Riley on the same.
Thanks Bob, the PGMOL says everything is all right, the media confirms it and so…everything must be all right. LOL.
With all that we could find out about them, who can still take them serious.
Walter,
The article cited above is an example of how imo, stenography too often becomes a substitute for real journalism. It’s really a cut-and-paste job composed of the typist’s (Louise Taylor’s) dictation notes by the PR trio of Dorward, Wiley and Hibbert. With a cherry on the sundae to top it off (saving ‘the best’ for last) by Roy Hodgson (surely an audition for a return to upper table glory from his Siberiade at WBA).
p.s. sorry, meant Dorward, Wiley and Hibbett. [btw, seems funny how the names Wiley and Riley sound so alike… 🙂 ]
Arun,
Yes!, you’re so right on the comments section. Shard pointed out a couple of days ago another absent comments section for a Guardian article on a ref-focused article. When it comes to ref stories, it’s surely a sign of Respekt at work to exclude public commentary. HA!
p.s., Arun, I forgot to thank you for your Weekend Preview comment that reminds us that Wayne (Divemaster) Rooney has yet to be booked this season. Surely a sign of the 90 percent accuracy by PGMOL referees. Do you think they discuss this as an example of what a high standard looks like at their bi-weekly meetings conducted by Prozone?
After watching MOTD part of Norwich-Manchester City:
What was Foy thinking, when he has given in 9th minute the yellow card to Tevez for diving(he was obviouly fouled)? ” I’m helping my loving MU for XX title again”.
I’m so glad Mac City outplayed Norwich so much, that Foy’s antics were funny.
Anyone else see the ref assistance Barca were given last night? They had been 1-0 down to Levante, but ended up winning 2-1 due to the most suspect pen you will see. Jose M may have a point, and he knows a thing or two about influencing refs.
A non competitive, official enhanced duopoly will eventually kill the game in Spain.
And so the “Pacification Campaign” begins. There’s been a large number of atrocious decisions in favour of the usual clubs over the last few weeks. Completely predictable, for people like those who visit here regularly. Before it began, I was telling my manure supporting girl that it’s almost that time of the season when “repairs” need to be done to the league table. There were a few teams that were out of place, due to their lack of form, etc and the table needed re-adjusting. I went as far as telling her which teams needed adjusting. And sure enough, we watched several games of the darling teams in question, including her team, and I could predict many of the “mistakes” before they happened, especially in tough games where penalties were “required” to “fix” the table. For example, who watched the last chel$ki vs manure game? Who of you couldn’t tell there wold be a flurry of penalties once chel$ki went 3 nil up?
This happens every season, but most people & fans seem to have such short memories, they fail to realize this a repeat (again). Unless of course, your team has been targeted to get screwed each time, to prevent it from “damaging” the table. That tends to enhance memory in some fans (apart from AAA).
this season, we’ve simply refused to allow it to stop us, mostly due to scoring the type goals that can’t really be disputed, or disallowed by some phantom offside or foul (thank you, RVP). The fact that we’ve only had 5 penalties all season (2 of which were in the FA Cup) says a lot. And I was shocked when AW said in an interview that we’ve 0 penalties at home all season. I looked it up, and it’s true. So all that crap about refs giving decisions to the home teams is pure garbage. Right next to the crap about decisions evening out.
We need to counter this “Pacification Campaign”, it’s there to try and hide the “table fixing” that has been and is still in progress. Of course there’s been prioritization of the repairs being done to the table. The most important being the adjustment of manure’s position, which is almost complete. There’s also been some major repairs done for chel$ki, and I saw a tiny t’s game against Norwich in which attempts at repairs were made, but failed (3 blatant pen decisions not awarded to Norwich). I think the tiny t’s were supposed to finish above us for the first time in aeons, to provide more talking points for the Arsene Out Campaign, but it looks like we’ve messed up that bit of the plan.
At UA, these things are addressed and brought to the attention of the fans, and I’d like to thank everyone involved for that. I’d be really happy if the BBC picked up on it again, and challenged the Worthless Hives of Riley (WHOR) to respond to what has been documented here. There was a guy who published an article for BBC featuring UA’s work some time ago – is he still working there? In the unlikely event that he’s still employed there, can we get in touch with him and ask him to publish a follow up article disputing the lies, damn lies and statistics which the WHOR is spewing regularly nowadays?
Dogface,
Just curious. Is there a way to express the statistical probability of ZERO cards for Wayne Rooney (as Arun reminds us) this season and ZERO penalty kicks at home (as AW and C4 remind us) this season? And, just for kicks, the probability of both happening in the same season?
@Bob,Walter and all
the fact that PGMOL have become all defensive lately says a lot really..they are afraid of getting caught out and exposed and so they use the media to try and convince the masses that all is well when infact nothing is..they know their referees are shit and its not only down to incompetence but also being bent and biased so they come up with the BS numbers which they get from biased eyes of former players and managers to tell us all is well…sorry PGMOL unlucky for you we have Walter,ref reviewers and untold to tell us exactly how it is.. CONSTANT VIGILANCE
Mahdain,
Yes, Constant Vigilance is the way. Here’s another kindred example of the reason we need to keep the Untold Media watch:
In case you ever might wonder why the Guardian football department is actually the Manchester Guardian’s, try this out for size:
Yesterday, their online story reports that there’s now a controversy and investigation in Portugal over the transfer in and out of their 3-game bust, named Bebe, with no account of what happened to the transfer fees. In that article, Don Fungus was quoted as saying he never really paid much attention to the boy, and that he bought him on reputation alone, and that it was an “impulse buy.”
In today’s account, that article has been altered to remove any such quotation from Don Fungus on this case. Instead, we get this SILENT TREATMENT: “There is no need to comment at this stage because no one is alleging any wrongdoing by us,” a United spokesman said.
Imo, this “abbreviated version,” the Manchester Guardian’s football department has erased history. What a shameful performance.
Does the Manchester Guardian have an ombudsman? any quality control over its run-amok football department? How can a newspaper that is otherwise so substantial allow for so unprofessional (to be polite) performance by its ca$h cow? Oh, sorry, did I say ca$h cow? Well, that que$tion an$wer$s it$elf. For $hame!
Who is the editor there, and what has happened to the fair-minded (Arsenal-liking) Amy Lawrence of late? Disappeared. Has Louise Taylor with her mendacious RefSwipe (with no disrespect to Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe) and the previous week’s attack on Liverpool and “Conspiracy Theory” by What’s-Her-Name (their roving culture vulture, taken over (away from Amy Lawrence) the tiny number of football commentary spaces that women are allotted there? My working hypothesis – until proven wrong, and I don’t mind – is that Amy is either on a deserved vacation or has been taken off the Arsenal beat. This is pure speculation. But then again, what’s been left in her wake is pure ManUre.
p.s. Amy, please consider writing an expose of the inside bias at the Manchester Guardian’s football department. Your book sales will more than make up for the sacking that will follow. In either case, your voice is currently sorely missed.
p.s. For any who might be interested in the media-watch, the author of the “abbreviated” coverage that no longer has the quotation from Don Fungus on the Bebe transfers is one of their senior foot-ballers, (the erstwhile Arsenal-hating) Paul Wilson. Such writers pretend to be the moral gatekeepers of the sport. But their writing, this season, serves only to perfume the stench of the Rednose XX.
Ok, ok, One last comment on this (as it seems to be greeted with a yawn 🙂 ), the Manchester Guardian’s football department headline for Wilson’s article is this: “Manchester United refuse to comment on investigation into Bébé transfer” and their sub/headline is this:
“• Portugese police reported to be investigating Bébé transfer
• Manchester United refuse to comment on reports”
The Guardian’s yesterday’s version of this news story quoted Don Fungus who acknowledged an “impulse buy” and stated that he hadn’t paid much attention to boy, but Ok’d the buy based on reputation alone.
This aspect is no longer there in the version of this story that appears under Paul Wilson’s byline (also dated Saturday). Why two versions of this story, one with Don Fungus being quoted and the other without that quote/comment. And, in spite of all this, the next story is run with the headline above – that (correctly) mentions ManUre’s anonymous spokesman’s REFUSAL to comment – while covering up the fact that Don Fungus has ALREADY COMMENTED.
Is this journalism? Whether or not Paul Wilson wrote it, the headline writer has used his byline to distort the actual record. Surely there will be a place for writers who render such services at the Coronation-to-be, the Anointment of Lord Football, which you will surely cover with rapturous prose. (Perhaps, as a senior contributor to Rednose XX, he’ll be rewarded with a clear senior editor post at Der Sun. He has already passed the audition.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/apr/14/manchester-united-bebe-transfer-probe
@bob
Have you tried looking in the Google cache for this article? They could have edited the file, or they changed the title slightly and “unlinked” the old copy. In the latter instance, it might be in the cache.
site:www.guardian.co.uk “manchester united” bebe
With that search, you might ask Google to sort on date, and look at the newest articles.
For articles that are “old”, another place to go looking is the Wayback Machine. It occasionally crawls selected websites and caches content.
Well, it is 12 vs 11 in the ManU game.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17720773
> 1609: GOAL Man Utd 1-0 Aston Villa – Wayne Rooney (pen, 7 mins) Stand by for more controversy over Ashley Young and how he dives to win penalties. He checks inside Ciaran Clark inside the Villa box and dives over the defender’s leg. Yes, there is contact, but Young’s reaction is theatrical.
> I’m amazed referee Mark Halsey gives a penalty, but he does. Wayne Rooney tucks it away and Manchester United lead.
> 1608: PENALTY to Manchester United
Does Halsey try to even up the goal difference as well?
The Arsenal ladies are 0-0 versus Frankfurt at half time. It’s a home game for Arsenal.
Another day, another dive, another ManU penalty..
This years league has become a joke. Ashley Young’s patheticly obvious dive and penalty award being the latest outrage. The corruption is painfully plain to see.
@shard another Rooney goal…9 penalties at home this season while we have ZERO…this league is beyond a joke
The only thing funny about the joke is how poor ManU actually are, and commentators have to struggle to make us believe how good they are. Europe was just because they are in transition, some of the young kids have improved, and they are top of the league because they have such quality, and know-how.. You won’t beat that old fox, Sir Alex in mind games, blah blah blah.. It’s pathetic. ManU, once a proud club, are a pathetic joke.
@Walter can you please can you tell me what contact warrants a penalty cos according to manure fans any contact equals a penalty..since when did that rule come into existence? so you are not allowed to touch an opponent in the box? funny considering teams actually hack our players in the box and the Deans,the Webbs,the Proberts,the Dowds,the Atkinsons etc wave them away
Another very odious dive from Young and another penalty for Rooney the Runt. United and the PGMOL have really undermined the spirit of the game.
“Don’t worry it will even out in the end.” – Just after watching this shit for the last few weeks, if anyone still believes in the above statement then the media has done an excellent of job of brainwashing.
This time about the corruption in Spain, 6 barca players were a booking away from missing the el-clasico. And the football is fixed guy predicted that they will be booked if they commit a foul and thus miss the madrid game. Guess what, only 1 foul was committed by these 6 players and he got a booking meaning that barca will have no left back against Madrid. Well done, refs.
@Adam Guess you haven’t heard of “climategate” then?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
While I appreciate the efforts of those who write these articles, one must realise that there is a level of corruption in the world that exceeds football and reaches into life threatening territory.
Since however this is a football site I won’t go into all that.
Anyway thanks for these articles which go a little way to letting people know that those in power don’t give a **** about anyone but themselves.
For your viewing pleasure.. Behold.. A typical ManU penalty.
http://i.imgur.com/WqQ3Q.gif
@Shard
Wow just, wow..
Incredible Shard, he should be sanctioned for that. A real shame the Villa manager will not publicise this ineptitude/ bias / cheating in the way Wenger has done in the past, and Jol and Martinez have done recently. The more managers that highlight this, the more likely something will be done………one day
oh shit Atkinson is the ref for the semi final..i was hoping it was going to be Dean as that would rule him out of next week vs Chelsea..they wont send him again you say? well this is PGMO and i wont be suprised one bit if its actually Dean for the 6th time when ref appointments come out tomorrow.. speaking of which apparently Webb has been appointed to ref Bayern vs Madrid..UEFA really love bent officials dont they?
Shard, All,
Kudos! What baautiful screen capture/animation you delivered! And your timing impeccable. You/we are doing OUR OWN VIDEO REPLAY – and, of course, FIFA/UEFA don’t know FA (yes, FA) about introducing video technology? In how many languages can we now say: Bollocks! Bullshit! Liars! to that line of sheer rot.
And, Mandy Dodd, perhaps we should write in to Aston Villa and affiliated blogs and encourage the manager to speak out – at whatever time – against this shameful run-in to the “business end” of Rednose XX.
DER SKRIPT is UPON US. But we have our own, “The Great Turnaround” to protect, project and prevail with. Down with the Queen Bee and his Hives! Down with Don Fungus! Reign on the Rednose XX, aka the Fake Ending.
It would appear that the EPL isnt the only place where a Ref’s impartiality is being questioned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17721320
@Arun
I saw what that site said about the Barça match and put a small bet on Levante to win and also on the Asian handicap which paid off as Barça only won by one goal. The ref gave Levante a somewhat debatable penalty, but later in the match the linesman gifted Barça a penalty for what looked like a normal challenge by Arsenal loanee, Pedro Botelho.
That site also hinted that WBA would beat QPR yesterday, and they did.
Thanks for the link.
What can you say.. it is United…it is Old Trafford.. it is another Webbalty (copyright Untold Arsenal)
Johnny Deigh,
WBA wins after Roy Hodgson tells the football world on Friday that the EPL referees are tops (and the Manchester Guardian’s defense of the realm feature quotes him as its take-away, climax). Perhaps the ref reviewer will find something dodgy in the match, but I would be vigilant about a payoff to Old Roy for his service to his Don.
yet another blunder from Hives of Riley this time its Atkinson..how was that a goal? horrendous decision
It’s surely all over for totts (4-1). The 2nd chelsea goal was a horrendous error but why was Cech not sent off for the totts goal ??? He denied adebayor when he was through on goal by fouling him. Please correct me if I am wrong.
@Bob & others who are fed up with the pro press articles on refs, for me, it’s again perception management at work. which is a good sign. If they were not worried they would not give statements to say all is ok. People that can effect change, please keep plugging away.
The ref played advantage and Tottenham scored immediately. It’s not really denying a goal if the team scores, but I still think Cech should have got a yellow card for it.
Exactly Adam, by trying to rewrite the story it is clear they are starting to feel some pressure coming from the internet. It this in that way that the dictators have been thrown of their throne in the last years.
We will not stop and when you see the total shit again today I feel more determined to carry on.
Johnny, yeah you are right.
They scored so he should not be given a red card. A yellow should have been given as it was a clear foul.
In fact it was the same thing that the ref should have done in the CL final in 2006. Barca scored a goal and Lehman should have received a yellow. Now he gave a free kick and a red card and Arsenal had to play for almost a whole game with 10 men.
So it was a good advantage from Atkinson in this case.
Sigh. Walter, why’d you have to bring up the Champions League final. To lose to an offside goal, maybe two offside goals, after putting up a heroic performance, is actually more painful now than it was then. Maybe because it’s just become so common for us to not win because of incorrect decisions.
Now the Manchester Guardian’s and the Manchester’s Most Guarded (aka Don Fungus) have teamed up to whitewash the misbehaviors of Young and Rooney. You see The Don is now the go-to-source of judgment upon his players behaviors to the media. As the stenographers duly take note, Fungus issues two slaps on the wrist: one for what he calls he “dramatic” behavior of Young; and another for the “careless” play of Rooney.
The Don, you see, floats above all criticism because he has so magnanimously critiqued his own lads; when no one else dares to do so. Oh what a man. More than a man. He tells the press what everyone has already seen and by casting an aspersion (in victory, mind you) he provides cover for the Killer Bee Pitch Patrol from the (Worthless) Hives of Riley who will not card Young for his mendacity. Surely a man like this should be canonized; a man most worthy of becoming Lord Football.
Behold the eyewashing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/apr/15/ashley-young-sir-alex-ferguson
Yet again, no comments section.
p.s. full disclosure: the phrase “Worthless Hives of Riley” is the basis for C4’s juicy new acronym (WHOR) for the PGMOL.
Arun,
It’ll surley be worth noting when/where The Manchester Guardian’s football department allows Comments and when/where it does not. Especially these daze. Cheers 🙂
amazing how the media have all jumped on the technology bandwagon just cos it was their darlings who suffered but the same media have called Wenger a number of names and made fun of him while he was advocating for it for years now…we only need the same to happen to united,Barca and Madrid and maybe Bladder and Platinum will finally see sense..one can hope
Mahdain,
I have this terrible feeling that they will use Atkinson’s “failure” to see the NON-goal today will be used as a reason to bring in TRUE SALVATION – “goal line technology” – when goal line miscalls have NOT been anything approaching a minor problem – that is, not UNTIL TODAY. Goal line technology is the fake cure – except for the contractors’ bottom lines as well as kickbacks in envelopes to come to the “decision makers” – for an all too real disease.
Finally, someone on sports talk radio here in NYC mentions football (“soccer”) — but in a negative way. He says Americans don’t like soccer because there is so much faking. To quote: “Fooling the official can be part of the game and expectable to an extent; but it cannot be CENTRAL to the game.” His real target in saying this was not really soccer, but professional ice hockey which has now entered its playoffs. His complaint is that hockey is becoming too much about fakery and it will kill the league’s popularity (which is 4th behind football, basketball and baseball). I don’t know how much he really knows about soccer/football, but it is of some concern that a guy who can reach hundreds of thousands of ears is able to make a remark about the centrality of cheating in soccer and, alas, it is become too close to something true to be something good.
@Bob
There are more than one kind of simulation at work.
1) Simulation of being a recipient of violent conduct. Headbutting, punching, etc. The best test here is a note in the match report, and 24 hours later (+/- 12 hours) the recipient shows up at a doctor indicated by The FA for examination for contusions. No contusions, issue a retroactive red card to the “supposed” recipient. If there are contusions, did the attacker get red carded? Deal with attacker as needed. Note: FIFA does not call simulating the reception of violent conduct, a red cardable offence. To them, it is just yellow. Spitting on someone is also violent conduct, but to look for that requires skin swabs at the moment (and DNA tests of the swabs later). No time should be wasted in getting those swabs, if this is deemed a problem (faking getting spit upon). Spitting is serious for the same reason shin guards are needed, some diseases are transmitted via body fluids, with hepatitus C being of major concern.
2) The attacker initiating contact with a defender in the process of falling. This is a video replay at high speed/resolution problem. Getting a good point of view can be a problem.
3) Various miscellaneous kinds of simulation.
(Baseball is not a sport. It is a past-time played by athletes to entertain observers. You can add various kinds of smileys to that, if needed. A person will never become athletic by (only) playing baseball.)
=== Note to BBC ===
Hello.
I suppose trying to fend off why a goal in football is worth 1 point is a valid reason to make it so difficult to actually ask real questions about football.
FIFA, under the advisement of the IFAB (which is mostly composed of people from the UK) decides on the laws of football. Most of the advise with respect to the laws of football come from the UK.
Recently, it was reported that most of the feedback or quality control as to officiating in the English Premier League, is provided by ex managers and players of clubs in the English Premier League.
Is the English Premier League operating on laws outside of those FIFA mandates? Why?
The opinions of ex-managers and ex-players should at best be a miniscule input to how the game is officiated.
===
I submitted no URL on that comment. It was accepted. Will a response ever come? Will it be meaningful?
As Mahdain feared it is Mike Dean for the Chelsea game. What a shamelessly disgraceful dishonest lot at the PGMOL.