Ref Review: Hull – Arsenal. An extraordinary performance by the referee.

26 Replies to “Ref Review: Hull – Arsenal. An extraordinary performance by the referee.”

1. I know I’m too much of an idealist on this issue but I don’t think it was strange at all that East wasn’t going to give Hull the pen. Not in the context of an individual decision, anyway.

   One of the replays- front on to the incident, similar to refs view- made it so clear that Mbokani had done that unnatural Rooneyesque tip forward while running at speed, point your feet and drag them against the player in front of you (suppose I should just call it a Roon special) to make contact.

   I know it’s not that simple an issue, with a good example of why coming when Remy hurdled a flying keeper, lost his balance and mucked up his shot (but that should have been solved anyway by the ref in awarding the pen after Remy had jumped and stumbled *).

   Still, though…I love it that a ref was prepared to call a dive a dive in that situation, as i think he was.

   For me, anytime you can avoid contact you do, and it’s as natural (until pro coaches and pressures are involved at least) on the field as breathing, whereas doing a Roon special always looks and is completely unnatural, based as it is upon the idea of what it would look like if someone clattered into you and you couldn’t avoid it, instead of being the real thing, which can’t quite be faked or replicated, as it involves laws of gravity and suchlike.

   Anyway, I know I’m unrealistic but still… can’t help dreaming, and it was as though East provided a glimpse of how the game could be but, alas, won’t be.

   He’s got one of the most inscrutable faces I’ve ever seen on a ref; would be great if behind it there’s a bit of a hero, instead of just another pgmol man who had an oddly excellent day.

   * I’m assuming that’s possible Walter as the shot he took was compromised by his loss of balance having hurdled a foul challenge.

2. A truly remarkable performance in the context of years gone by.

   I and a couple of others have said that on a superficial level, you know, just watching in real time, things have seemed much better this year. The fact that under the spotlight this feeling isn’t born out to quite the same extent doesn’t stop me from feeling just a tad optimistic as to what might happen for the rest of the season.

   Again, as I have said elsewhere a couple of times already, how the referee performs this weekend will be a big test as to where we really stand.

3. While watching, I thought he was having a good game – glad to have it borne out by you excellent reviewers!

   This weekend: – a) Martin Atkinson b) Anthony Taylor or c) Mike Dean

   I think Riley has been saving them serially for the tough games. If it’s someone else, I’ll begin to believe this might be our year…

4. Walter
   Here is Mark Halsey’s verdict on the Livermore red card, he doesn’t see it the same way as you (and me).

   ‘Mark Halsey’s Verdict
   Roger is correct to give the penalty but I believe he’s wrong in law on two counts. Has Livermore denied a goal or a goal scoring opportunity? There has to be doubt there because the goalkeeper was there and he had every chance of saving the shot. So in my opinion Livermore hasn’t denied a goal scoring opportunity so in law that decision is incorrect.’

   I disagree with Halsey’s assessment on the grounds that the fact the goalie MAY have saved the shot is irrelevant according to the wording of the law.
   Surely the handball denied the obvious chance of it being a goal scoring opportunity, therefore the red card was correct. I do not see where Halsey is coming from.

5. The Hull penalty could have been an instance of both Cech and Mbokani being shown a yellow. If Cech doesn’t contact Mbokani, there would be no card to Cech. At the point of contact, Mbokani is already in the act of diving. So the dive would be the first foul, the contact by Cech the second foul.

   But, I can live with what Walter suggests. If nothing else he has way more experience than me, and at higher levels. I am more pedantic than Walter.

   And Halsey and Walter are allowed to differ on opinion. The way the law is worded, it is possible for both people to be correct in some circumstances.

6. Excellent work guys. You have covered yourselves in glory with this one. PGMOL could use your skill, but I doubt if they will ever think of availing themselves of this excellent opportunity.

7. MickHazel

   “I disagree with Halsey’s assessment on the grounds that the fact the goalie MAY have saved the shot is irrelevant according to the wording of the law.”

   Exactly.

   Under any other circumstances once a player is through one on one with the keeper it is deemed a goal scoring opportunity.

   In cases where the player has only got the goalkeeper to beat there is never any consideration given to whether he may save it or not is there, so why should there be any given in this case ?

8. Max – it is Michael Oliver. Could have been a lot worse…

9. Pete

   Agree

   I really like Mr Oliver.

   Seeing him as the referee I am now pretty confident we will win.

   I will be truly gutted if he stitches us up.

10. OT: Corruption News

    There has been another data leak of financial records (like Panama). This time from the Bahamas. Will more football personalities be tripped up?

11. EFL draw selected ties.

    Arsenal v Reading

    Man City v Man Utd

    Liverpool v Spurs

    West Ham V Chelsea

12. Sorry

    Man Utd are at home, not that it will make any difference.

13. This is wonderful – wonderful! Please, referees, more of the same!

14. Okay Jambug, who is going to referee Man vs Man? Which Man is going to pay the referee more?

    —

    There were two news articles I seen this morning about potential referee corruption in Asia. Neither article mentioned any involvement of PGMO in training referees in that area. Hopefully it stays that way, we don’t need PGMO ruining football worldwide.

15. The interpretation of a hand ball, in the penalty area, or elsewhere is always the same:

    1) Was the hand moved to the ball in order to stop,redirect or slow it down,voluntarily?
    2) Was the player handling the ball so close to the shooter that he had no chance to move his hand out of the way, even if he moved it to the ball?
    3) Did the ball hit an immobile hand that was in an ordinary playing position or placed to protect the opponent from injury? Here the Law stipulates different areas that can legitimately be protected for men and women, but does not allow either to move the hand to the ball!
    4) Did the handball stop a clear goal scoring opportunity?
    5) Were there any fouls committed before the handball by either side?
    6) In the rare case where advantage is given because the goal is almost certain to be scored due to the deflection of the ball by the defender, then the foul can be delayed but the caution must be given, regardless.
    7) Keep in mind that the hand includes every moveable part of the arm, including the shoulder joint….thus making a simple call more difficult.

    I used to joke with players when there was a handball that I felt did not meet the criteria above…… I’d say that I hadn’t called the foul because the player only used one hand! I stopped doing that after I found that some players entirely lacked a sense of humour as .did some coaches and managers!
    The best handball expert I ever refereed was Beckenbauer. He would trap the ball on his shoulder joint and pop it over the opponent’s head, then running on to it after it landed a few feet away…..the League finally caught on and he got carded a few times…so he soon modified his technique!

16. This is an amazing score for Roger East considering the usual scores. However, there was a Hull fan on 606 on Saturday slating the ref something awful and saying that Hull never get the decisions against the big teams. Maybe a case of see what you want to see ?

17. I fear that the establishment including former English referees do not agree with your assessment. The “you are the ref” site that is normally insightful slates Mr East’s performance. Their match analysis is hardly complimentary. The discussion is only bearable due to the subtitles and the hackett article sums it up.
    http://you-are-the-ref.com/hacketts-blog-roger-east-needed-help-not-exposure/

18. Allan C

    With regards to this, it is no surprise a Hull City fan may have this view. There is no doubt some Arsenal fans will still think the Referee had a bad game. Every Club has fans who will just see what they want.

    That is human nature.

    The problem is the BBC saw it fit to air such an obviously distorted view.

    Another example of there biased agenda against Arsenal and I say this even with the possibility, as I didn’t hear it, that they put him right, which I very much doubt.

19. Robido
    Interesting to see Hacketts assessment.
    He says
    “It was not a denial of an obvious goal so should not have resulted in a sending off.”
    He has left out the
    “obvious goal scoring opportunity” which Walter uses and merely says “obvious goal”, which is not the same thing.
    I am now left somewhat confused as to which is the correct interpretation. Walter help please.

20. Robido

    Thanks for the link…..I think ?

    Just been and had a look. What an absolute joke.

    All this goes to show is just how much the media are hating how Arsenal are seeming to get a fairer crack of the whip from the Referees.

    Stopping the ball heading for goal with the hand IS without any doubt the denial of a clear goal scoring opportunity.

    It’s a ‘one-on-one’ ball versus goalie in the same way a player through on goal is a ‘one-on-one’ player and ball versus goalie. The fact the keeper may or may not have saved it, is equally irrelevant in both cases.

    To suggest that East got this so catastrophically wrong as to suggest he needs suspending is utter bollocks:

    “I felt for Roger East last weekend because you could see that his confidence was low. For his own sake, as much as anyone else’s, he needed to take a break.”

    He got it right FFS.

    Okay he made a technical error with the player exiting the pitch. An poor miss no doubt but hardly a hanging offence. One thing I’m sure of is, had he spotted it and allowed a retake from which we scored, he would of got stick for that.

    He didn’t get the penalty call initially correct, who knows why, but the team of officials got it right in the end, surely a reason for at least a little praise.

    What Mr East has to realise is that whatever he does, when it comes to doing anything that favours Arsenal, he will never be right.

    The thing is I have seen far far worse performances from Clattenberg and was rewarded with FA and European Cup finals.

    But the difference was the mistakes where in favour of Manchester United, therefore just part and parcel of the refereeing landscape we are all expected to embrace.

    All we can do is hope the referees are starting to referee as per the rules of the game rather than as per the wishes of these numb sculls in the media, but it seems the pressure on them is being cranked up and up and up, on a daily basis.

21. Jambug
    Good post and I agree but Hackett didn’t use the phrase “obvious goal scoring opportunity” he said “obvious goal”.
    So is Hackett re-writing the relevant law to suit his own (or someone else’s) agenda because I have never heard “obvious goal” used before, have you?

22. MickHazel

    No I haven’t. I believe you have asked Walter for clarification on this. I will be very interested to see what he says.

    As I said, it seems to me the media are getting themselves in a right old pickle. They are seeing Arsenal get a fair shake from the refs and realise just how positively it impacts on our results, and they hate it.

    The penalties alone, all of which are 100% correct, have earned us points, and could of earned us more had the one against Liverpool been converted.

    As I have said a few times, this weekend will be a big indicator as to where we stand.

    If Oliver puts in the decent performance I hope, and fully expect him to do, I think we will win, but more than that I will be at least hopeful for the future.

23. Mike Hazel and Jambug- here is a clarification about denying an obvious or clear goal scoring opportunity as per my point 4 in my earlier response:

    1) Since NO goal scoring opportunity is 100% certain in Football, the Laws use the word opportunity rather than certainty.

    2) Basically the Law envisions a situation where a player would be denied a clear and almost certain goal because of an adversary(other than the keeper in his penalty area) voluntarily or inappropriately blocking the ball with his hand,arm etc.

    3) The problems with interpretation come from what represents a CLEAR goal scoring opportunity. However, that does not affect the handball decision but is rather used to determine if the player is cautioned and the freekick(penalty) awarded.

    4) Most officials are told to initially ignore where the handball occurred but rather to decide quickly whether it was in fact a foul, based on the 7 points in my previous post. IF the official decides that all the criteria are met, then he or she has to award a direct free kick if outside the penalty area or a penalty, if the offense was committed by a defender(other than the keeper) in his or her penalty area AND caution the player as well..

24. Thanks omgarsenal
    Having reread the rule quotes in the review and your clarification I can see no evidence to support Hackett’s and Mark Halseys interpretation that East was wrong by issuing a red card.

25. omgarsenal

    As I thought, it’s utter bollocks.

    It’s actually quite funny seeing what a tizzy they’re all getting themselves in over this.

26. I guess if it had been united or the other big Clubs…then nothing would have been said!