Match officials: Bent, incompetent or just trying to do their best.

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Shadydan said:
What a load of mental gymnastic waffle, all you've done is collated the last 2 pages of your nonsense in a load of paragraphs in one post.

I know you stubbornly won't let go of your point about how badly Forest have approached this but like I said 2 things can be true, at the end of the day no referee or VAR team member should be near a match which they can influence preceedings and no they can't make decisions but they can recommend that ref to look at an incident again.

This is where the issue lies, Forest had 3 legit pen shouts, even if you don't think 2 of them were pens then the 3rd one most definately was, the referee said that Young got the ball but in the replay it's clear he didn't touch it so it's a foul and a red card, this is where VAR normally come in and suggest that the ref watch it again, that's literally how the system is meant to fucking work.

If you watch the video release of our match against Chelsea to get a clear understanding of how the system works, Michael Oliver didn't see the Romero incident until his VAR team recommended him to watch it again on the monitor, now you tell me is that not an example of how they can influence an outcome of a match, yes or no?


View: https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1724525107605819561?t=jMh73Xod1f-UzvmVIZIdtA&s=19

Look how proactive VAR is here, they virtually give that pen and the red card to Romero themselves, now bearing in mind in the Forest/Everton match the ref didn't go to the screen not once.

Now do you realise how a VAR assistant who supports a direct rival can have an influence on things and direct an entire narrative of a football match? ...so the questions remain:

Why wasn't those decisions called despite clear evidence that the 3rd incident completely contradicted what the referees said?

Why is their a fan of a rival team who is on the VAR allowed to participate in a match and have a direct influence of how a match is called?

Is there little wonder why people think it looks like something fishy is going on and if not then it's general recklessness and rank incompetence to even think that there is nothing wrong with that.

I can't believe someone is sat on here outright defending the PGMOL to the hilt when they've been utter dogshit and an embarrassment since they've come into the PL, you're acting like that dog nonce Dermot fucking Gallagher just doing your best to ignore any shred of evidence put before you because it doesn't suit your anti Forest narrative, weird why someone would go to so much lengths to try and defend PGMOL.
Click to expand...

Well said, no chance of sky or any pundit stepping up with a cogent argument like that.
 
DJ Check Complete said:
There are a lot of weird owners in the PL, this guy seems to be right up there. Unfortunately, I can’t blame clubs for speaking out. It’s shameful behaviour from the club, I don’t like it, and they are risking some pretty severe consequences, but the standards are so poor, especially from VAR.

Regarding the Forrest game, 2nd penalty would have resulted in a soft handball, few really would have complained because they have been given already many times in recent years.

The first and third incidents should have been penalties, referees aren’t perfect, and mistakes like this are specifically why VAR was brought in. The first is soft but a foul, the third clear, yet no intervention. It’s like VAR officials in England are scared of contradicting these top referees who come across as members of an old boys club, immune from criticism, tweaking officiating precedents every year, changing their tune as the season progresses and often applying the rules to some, why allowing others to foul and cheat at will. If no one complains nothing is going to change.
Click to expand...
Every single decision is subjective, the laws of the game are subjective. That's why there are arguments every fucking week, that's why people disagree on what is or isn't something because they are interpreted differently and also interpreted with bias by fans. It's why VAR will NEVER fix anything because they might also interpret something differently.

I didn't watch the game but heard the commotion so searched for a clip of the cases, every single incident was contentious, and none, in my opinion, were clear cut, only the 3rd one looking remotely close to a pen. The handball is within the "proximity" boundaries as it was a yard or so away when the ball was kicked and the first one would have been a joke if it was given (and yes we have seen those given, that's because the laws are subjective.

Refs are humans so will also make mistakes, as too will those who operate in VAR, While all I hear is people acknowledging this fact they simply can't accept it when it happens and then subsequently go on rants about corruption!!! What a fucking joke. It's funny how literally every single supporter base in the country thinks the officials are corrupt, I mean for there to be remotely the possibility of this a club has to be favoured right, if so who? There's constant noise about wanting decisions sped but then equal noise about wanting perfection. Perfection isn't achievable.

So to placate the noise IFAB or PGMOL or both then change the laws, the noise still there, so they change the laws again, the noise is still there, so they change the laws again and again and again. Now no one can remember what they've changed to, which makes everyone even noiser.

So the idea that no one complains is totally bogus, everyone complains and all of the time, it's incessant, it's all anyone talks about, the football is a near sideshow.

I'm not defending PGMOL or IFAB, far from it but fuck me this conspiracy nonsense is beyond a joke and truly embarrassing and for the Clubs to come out with a statement like Forrest has done only poors petrol onto the argument, maybe this is exactly what they want, maybe it clouds the fact they have been caught deliberately cheating FFP, maybe the owner is deflecting the fact that his management and actions will relegate the club, maybe it's better to ignite the fanbase and have them claim they get relegated due to a corrupt official sat in a room with four other colleagues who he hypnotised and turned them all into Luton fans. Or maybe the VAR officials saw what I did and didn't think they were penalties, or in the ridiculous guidelines as they are written didn't see an obvious error to overturn them.
 
Shadydan said:
What a load of mental gymnastic waffle, all you've done is collated the last 2 pages of your nonsense in a load of paragraphs in one post.

I know you stubbornly won't let go of your point about how badly Forest have approached this but like I said 2 things can be true, at the end of the day no referee or VAR team member should be near a match which they can influence preceedings and no they can't make decisions but they can recommend that ref to look at an incident again.

This is where the issue lies, Forest had 3 legit pen shouts, even if you don't think 2 of them were pens then the 3rd one most definately was, the referee said that Young got the ball but in the replay it's clear he didn't touch it so it's a foul and a red card, this is where VAR normally come in and suggest that the ref watch it again, that's literally how the system is meant to fucking work.

If you watch the video release of our match against Chelsea to get a clear understanding of how the system works, Michael Oliver didn't see the Romero incident until his VAR team recommended him to watch it again on the monitor, now you tell me is that not an example of how they can influence an outcome of a match, yes or no?


View: https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1724525107605819561?t=jMh73Xod1f-UzvmVIZIdtA&s=19

Look how proactive VAR is here, they virtually give that pen and the red card to Romero themselves, now bearing in mind in the Forest/Everton match the ref didn't go to the screen not once.

Now do you realise how a VAR assistant who supports a direct rival can have an influence on things and direct an entire narrative of a football match? ...so the questions remain:

Why wasn't those decisions called despite clear evidence that the 3rd incident completely contradicted what the referees said?

Why is their a fan of a rival team who is on the VAR allowed to participate in a match and have a direct influence of how a match is called?

Is there little wonder why people think it looks like something fishy is going on and if not then it's general recklessness and rank incompetence to even think that there is nothing wrong with that.

I can't believe someone is sat on here outright defending the PGMOL to the hilt when they've been utter dogshit and an embarrassment since they've come into the PL, you're acting like that dog nonce Dermot fucking Gallagher just doing your best to ignore any shred of evidence put before you because it doesn't suit your anti Forest narrative, weird why someone would go to so much lengths to try and defend PGMOL.
Click to expand...

If you disagree with me then by all means do so but if you could possibly manage to do that without being a cunt and getting personal with me then that would be just fine. Cheers.

There are FIVE people sitting in a VAR room reviewing the ref's decision together, FOUR of whom are totally focused on whether the original decision should be reviewed again by calling the ref to the monitor because they all agree that they've seen enough of the incident to recommend this to the ref.

He didn't go to the screen because the team of VAR officials didn't see enough reason to make that recommendation, my own personal view is having also seen each case I think they are right, all of them were NOT clear-cut pens, the only one IMO that could be reconsidered for the possibility to be reviewed by the ref on the pitch side monitor is the 3rd one where we've seen that given before. But we've probably seen more not given and not had a call for the ref to review it than seen VAR intervene and call the ref over (fans only ever compare that decision to examples that were given rather than others that weren't!!!).

This is the reason why he wasn't asked to go to the screen, not because he a fucking Luton fan.

I'm NOT defending PGMOL. I'm laughing at the notion that people agree with the Forrest nut job Chairman for suggesting that Atwell is a corrupt Luton fan for fuck sake.
 
Manager Nuno told BBC Sport that Forest "feel they are taking away things from us so it's difficult", while Williams said "top-six sides would get all three penalties".

errr, last time I looked we were in the top six.... we've had one penalty all year mate.
 
Guido 🇺🇦 said:
If you disagree with me then by all means do so but if you could possibly manage to do that without being a cunt and getting personal with me then that would be just fine. Cheers.

There are FIVE people sitting in a VAR room reviewing the ref's decision together, FOUR of whom are totally focused on whether the original decision should be reviewed again by calling the ref to the monitor because they all agree that they've seen enough of the incident to recommend this to the ref.

He didn't go to the screen because the team of VAR officials didn't see enough reason to make that recommendation, my own personal view is having also seen each case I think they are right, all of them were NOT clear-cut pens, the only one IMO that could be reconsidered for the possibility to be reviewed by the ref on the pitch side monitor is the 3rd one where we've seen that given before. But we've probably seen more not given and not had a call for the ref to review it than seen VAR intervene and call the ref over (fans only ever compare that decision to examples that were given rather than others that weren't!!!).

This is the reason why he wasn't asked to go to the screen, not because he a fucking Luton fan.

I'm NOT defending PGMOL. I'm laughing at the notion that people agree with the Forrest nut job Chairman for suggesting that Atwell is a corrupt Luton fan for fuck sake.
Click to expand...

So now you're acknowledging that the VAR do have an influence in the match, now there's progress at least, so if you now acknowledge that the VAR can influence matches the question is why they didn't recommend the referee to go to the screen, looking at the incidents it's a perfectly fair question to ask.

It's also completely fair to question why there is a Luton fan in the VAR team for reasons I already stated, do you know why it can be questioned because there's potentially grounds for foul play or corruption. Not before you say that I'm accusing them of that, I'm not...I'm just saying to remove any avoidance of doubt then you don't need a rival fan in the VAR team because it's just general incompetence and something I'd expect the PGMOL to pick up on.

This is the actual problem though, if you are part of an organisation that are meant to be impartial then why aren't these things being checked and stamped out, surely that's an obvious thing to anyone with half a brain.

Because this fallout is what happens when you don't do your basic checks, no-one can accuse you of anything if you get your own house in order first, you'd expect that from any half decent organisation, conflict of interest is such a thing in the working world.

Laugh it off all you want but do you think the PGMOL are perfect? Do you think the PGMOL have done some inexplicable fuck ups and wonder why? Sorry but I don't live in your world and ignore general incompetence just because I think the person who raises the issue is a nutjob or whatever, that doesn't mean they don't have grounds for a general complaint about an incapable organisation.

Sorry and on your first paragraph but maybe you should check your energy seeing as you're the one who started being condescending in this exchange, not me, all I've done is match your energy. I've said nothing personal to you unless you're actually fucking Dermot Gallagher then of course your defensive stance makes sense ;)
 
Video assistance is great. It's the human ref part that sucks ass.

Get rid of that clear & obvious shit to begin with...an error is an error.

Stop it with drawing stupid lines for toenail offsides...it's 2024, we have the tech for fully automated offsides, no need to debate about kick point and such.

Have ex players (just not thundercunts like Terry or Rio) on the VAR panel to make proper informed decisions...yes, he meant to hurt the guy on that tackle/not, yes he meant to handball it out the way...

Keep fans inside the stadium and at home in the loop NFL style.

A ref/VAR still fucks up? No more backing each other up old boys club style and dishing out fines to managers & players like freedom of speech ain't a thing. Refs, VAR, PGMOL and co the ones who get investigated & punished.

Enough of those incompetent and in some cases corrupt (at least very biased) muppets. It's the biggest, richest game on the planet and we have morons running (and ruining) it. Proper embarrassing. Far more than that statement from Forest.
 
Shadydan said:
So now you're acknowledging that the VAR do have an influence in the match, now there's progress at least, so if you now acknowledge that the VAR can influence matches the question is why they didn't recommend the referee to go to the screen, looking at the incidents it's a perfectly fair question to ask.

It's also completely fair to question why there is a Luton fan in the VAR team for reasons I already stated, do you know why it can be questioned because there's potentially grounds for foul play or corruption. Not before you say that I'm accusing them of that, I'm not...I'm just saying to remove any avoidance of doubt then you don't need a rival fan in the VAR team because it's just general incompetence and something I'd expect the PGMOL to pick up on.

This is the actual problem though, if you are part of an organisation that are meant to be impartial then why aren't these things being checked and stamped out, surely that's an obvious thing to anyone with half a brain.

Because this fallout is what happens when you don't do your basic checks, no-one can accuse you of anything if you get your own house in order first, you'd expect that from any half decent organisation, conflict of interest is such a thing in the working world.

Laugh it off all you want but do you think the PGMOL are perfect? Do you think the PGMOL have done some inexplicable fuck ups and wonder why? Sorry but I don't live in your world and ignore general incompetence just because I think the person who raises the issue is a nutjob or whatever, that doesn't mean they don't have grounds for a general complaint about an incapable organisation.

Sorry and on your first paragraph but maybe you should check your energy seeing as you're the one who started being condescending in this exchange, not me, all I've done is match your energy. I've said nothing personal to you unless you're actually fucking Dermot Gallagher then of course your defensive stance makes sense ;)
Click to expand...
VAR is FOUR people + a 5th Tech Video operator = It's NOT ONE person, they work together to arrive at a recommendation, you posted evidence of this process in action, therefore the fact that one of those individuals is a Luton fan has no bearing on influencing the outcome of recommending the ref to review a penalty or not. It's that simple.

PGMOL Already actively manage what official refs a game based entirely on who they support, I copied and pasted this extract from a very good article in the Athletic:

The rules governing these issues exist because, plainly, it would not be a good look for the referees’ organisation, the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL), if it appointed, say, a Liverpool fan to officiate a match at Anfield.

Every referee has to declare their allegiances, or any possible conflicts of interest, before the start of each season. Kevin Friend, for example, always had to comply with two restrictions. One, he was never allowed to referee Leicester City matches because he lived in the city. And, two, he was kept off Bristol City because they were the team he supported.

This week, though, it took a new twist when James Bell, a referee from Sheffield, was taken off Ipswich Town’s game against Charlton Athletic because the PGMOL could see a possible controversy looming.

Bell is a fan of Sheffield Wednesday, who are involved in a promotion fight with Ipswich in League One. And the internet never forgets.

In May 2021, he showed a yellow card to Ryan Lowe, then Plymouth Argyle’s manager, for angrily disputing a decision on the touchline. Lowe, a former Wednesday player, was critical of him in the Plymouth Herald newspaper and, in the process, mentioned that Bell had told him before the match that he used to sing his name from the stands at Hillsborough.

The article was spotted last week by TWTD, an online message board for Ipswich fans, whose members decided something had to be done about it and started encouraging each other to email the people at the top of the club. Mark Ashton, Ipswich’s chief executive, raised the issue with the relevant authorities. A new referee was appointed and Bell switched to Stevenage’s game against AFC Wimbledon. Ipswich won 6-0.

Was this process fair? The PGMOL clearly thought it was the right thing to do, rather than put one of its employees in a position where his integrity might come under scrutiny. Maybe the decision-makers thought he might, even subconsciously, be vulnerable to accidental bias. Or maybe they just wanted to protect him if every key decision was going to be viewed in that context. A bit of everything, perhaps.

As I've already said I assume this vetting happens for the matchday on-pitch officials, not those in VAR but that makes sense because as I've said above VAR is not ONE person, it's a team of people, it's therefore a massive stretch to assume that one of these can influence everyone else in that room whilst under the pressure of reviewing a penalty decision. - Maybe if this is the case perhaps they will change it going forward, to replace what they do for matchday officials to placate a paronid fanbases of all clubs dreaming up conspiracy theories.

If they did then here we have yet another example of a weak PGMOL implementing further changes on the back of noisy fans and Clubs piggybacking on this sentiment to mask their own failings and misdemeanours. (There've been numerous changes to laws e.g. handball where every year it's changed to a point whereby most fans and pundits have lost sight of what is and what isn't handball anymore, but ironically fans can now moan at this too).

Where the fuck have I said PGMOL are perfect? They are far from it, they are weak, they make and implement far too many changes, I hate VAR, and now that it's in I hate the overturn of the decisions based on what is a "clear and obvious error" this doesn't help those watching the screens as what we think is a clear and obvious error differs to VAR's threshold - but here in lies another fuck up with VAR because everyone was moaning about it's interference, so the PL instructed PGMOL to raise the bar for what is a clear and obvious error so that there are fewer reviews, but now we are upset that the bar is so high - the tail is wagging the dog.

All I've done so far is to point out that they already have a policy in place a policy about ref selection based as a direct consequence of who the officials support is in place and has been for some time - there were people on here who didn't know about this, but they do now.

Forest's tweet, sent moments after the full-time whistle was a premeditated act, with Forest seemingly ready to act if a decision went against them. Every club is within their rights to complain and highlight refereeing issues, but there are acceptable ways to do it.

Forest said they had "warned the PGMOL that the VAR is a Luton fan before the game but they didn't change him," yet no request was made for Attwell to be replaced nor did they lodge a protest against his appointment. Mark Clattenburg, Forest's refereeing consultant, reportedly spoke to Howard Webb, the head of officials in the Premier League, yet he did not raise an issue with Attwell in the VAR hub.

There are valid questions about appointing Attwell, who supports relegation rivals Luton Town, and that controversy would have been avoided had a different referee been used. It gave Forest an opening should anything go against them.

In the past referees have been changed when a possible conflict of interest has been raised. Last season James Bell was due to referee the League One game between Ipswich Town and Charlton Athletic, but it emerged he is a supporter of Sheffield Wednesday, who were Ipswich's promotion rivals. After a complaint was made, Bell was replaced, yet Forest didn't go down the same route with Attwell.
 
Guido 🇺🇦 said:
VAR is FOUR people + a 5th Tech Video operator = It's NOT ONE person, they work together to arrive at a recommendation, you posted evidence of this process in action, therefore the fact that one of those individuals is a Luton fan has no bearing on influencing the outcome of recommending the ref to review a penalty or not. It's that simple.

PGMOL Already actively manage what official refs a game based entirely on who they support, I copied and pasted this extract from a very good article in the Athletic:

The rules governing these issues exist because, plainly, it would not be a good look for the referees’ organisation, the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL), if it appointed, say, a Liverpool fan to officiate a match at Anfield.

Every referee has to declare their allegiances, or any possible conflicts of interest, before the start of each season. Kevin Friend, for example, always had to comply with two restrictions. One, he was never allowed to referee Leicester City matches because he lived in the city. And, two, he was kept off Bristol City because they were the team he supported.

This week, though, it took a new twist when James Bell, a referee from Sheffield, was taken off Ipswich Town’s game against Charlton Athletic because the PGMOL could see a possible controversy looming.

Bell is a fan of Sheffield Wednesday, who are involved in a promotion fight with Ipswich in League One. And the internet never forgets.

In May 2021, he showed a yellow card to Ryan Lowe, then Plymouth Argyle’s manager, for angrily disputing a decision on the touchline. Lowe, a former Wednesday player, was critical of him in the Plymouth Herald newspaper and, in the process, mentioned that Bell had told him before the match that he used to sing his name from the stands at Hillsborough.

The article was spotted last week by TWTD, an online message board for Ipswich fans, whose members decided something had to be done about it and started encouraging each other to email the people at the top of the club. Mark Ashton, Ipswich’s chief executive, raised the issue with the relevant authorities. A new referee was appointed and Bell switched to Stevenage’s game against AFC Wimbledon. Ipswich won 6-0.

Was this process fair? The PGMOL clearly thought it was the right thing to do, rather than put one of its employees in a position where his integrity might come under scrutiny. Maybe the decision-makers thought he might, even subconsciously, be vulnerable to accidental bias. Or maybe they just wanted to protect him if every key decision was going to be viewed in that context. A bit of everything, perhaps.

As I've already said I assume this vetting happens for the matchday on-pitch officials, not those in VAR but that makes sense because as I've said above VAR is not ONE person, it's a team of people, it's therefore a massive stretch to assume that one of these can influence everyone else in that room whilst under the pressure of reviewing a penalty decision. - Maybe if this is the case perhaps they will change it going forward, to replace what they do for matchday officials to placate a paronid fanbases of all clubs dreaming up conspiracy theories.

If they did then here we have yet another example of a weak PGMOL implementing further changes on the back of noisy fans and Clubs piggybacking on this sentiment to mask their own failings and misdemeanours. (There've been numerous changes to laws e.g. handball where every year it's changed to a point whereby most fans and pundits have lost sight of what is and what isn't handball anymore, but ironically fans can now moan at this too).

Where the fuck have I said PGMOL are perfect? They are far from it, they are weak, they make and implement far too many changes, I hate VAR, and now that it's in I hate the overturn of the decisions based on what is a "clear and obvious error" this doesn't help those watching the screens as what we think is a clear and obvious error differs to VAR's threshold - but here in lies another fuck up with VAR because everyone was moaning about it's interference, so the PL instructed PGMOL to raise the bar for what is a clear and obvious error so that there are fewer reviews, but now we are upset that the bar is so high - the tail is wagging the dog.

All I've done so far is to point out that they already have a policy in place a policy about ref selection based as a direct consequence of who the officials support is in place and has been for some time - there were people on here who didn't know about this, but they do now.

Forest's tweet, sent moments after the full-time whistle was a premeditated act, with Forest seemingly ready to act if a decision went against them. Every club is within their rights to complain and highlight refereeing issues, but there are acceptable ways to do it.

Forest said they had "warned the PGMOL that the VAR is a Luton fan before the game but they didn't change him," yet no request was made for Attwell to be replaced nor did they lodge a protest against his appointment. Mark Clattenburg, Forest's refereeing consultant, reportedly spoke to Howard Webb, the head of officials in the Premier League, yet he did not raise an issue with Attwell in the VAR hub.

There are valid questions about appointing Attwell, who supports relegation rivals Luton Town, and that controversy would have been avoided had a different referee been used. It gave Forest an opening should anything go against them.

In the past referees have been changed when a possible conflict of interest has been raised. Last season James Bell was due to referee the League One game between Ipswich Town and Charlton Athletic, but it emerged he is a supporter of Sheffield Wednesday, who were Ipswich's promotion rivals. After a complaint was made, Bell was replaced, yet Forest didn't go down the same route with Attwell.
Click to expand...
That's not entirely true. We've seen countless times that the second VAR guy contributes next to nothing and rarely even gets involved other then to agree with the main person on VAR.

Also the bit about the Sheffield wednesday supporting ref is laughable. Why does the PGMOL need a complaint being made in order to take action when the referees have already informed them what team they support? so PGMOL had no problem allowing a Sheffield Wednesday fan to officiate a game involving their direct rivals for promotion until a complaint was made? so if Ipswich were not aware of this (and the only reason the club became aware is because their fan base dug up an old quote from a another manager who stated the referee told him this) then they (and the referee in question) would have been perfectly fine for this to happen.
 
Last edited:
kingdawson said:
That's not entirely true. We've seen countless times that the second VAR guy contributes next to nothing and rarely even gets involved other then to agree with the main person on VAR.

Also the bit about the Sheffield wednesday supporting ref is laughable. Why does the PGMOL need a complaint being made in order to take action when the referees have already informed them what team they support? so PGMOL had no problem allowing a Sheffield Wednesday fan to officiate a game involving their direct rivals for promotion until a complaint was made? so if Ipswich were not aware of this (and the only reason the club became aware is because their fan base dug up an old quote from a another manager who stated the referee told him this) then they (and the referee in question) would have been perfectly fine for this to happen.
Click to expand...

This is my point, I can't believe he's trying to defend it, it's so basic man.

Laughable excuses are being made for these guys, I honestly just give up.
 
kingdawson said:
That's not entirely true. We've seen countless times that the second VAR guy contributes next to nothing and rarely even gets involved other then to agree with the main person on VAR.

Also the bit about the Sheffield wednesday supporting ref is laughable. Why does the PGMOL need a complaint being made in order to take action when the referees have already informed them what team they support? so PGMOL had no problem allowing a Sheffield Wednesday fan to officiate a game involving their direct rivals for promotion until a complaint was made? so if Ipswich were not aware of this (and the only reason the club became aware is because their fan base dug up an old quote from a another manager who stated the referee told him this) then they (and the referee in question) would have been perfectly fine for this to happen.
Click to expand...
VAR works as a collective, the fact the "2nd bloke" didn't disagree with the 1st bloke isn't an example of them not working together, if he agrees with him what else do you want to hear from him? I don't get your example, what does it show?

Because where does it end? The permutations change from week to week throughout a season, but moaning about a decision to change an official is bonkers, it shows that they are willing to do it if a club shows their concerns. Again, I don't understand your concern by challenging this example when the example is demonstrating that they listen to the Club's concerns and were happy to change the official, this is the desired outcome for the Club raising the concern and I guess the supporters of that club too. Had Forest raised the issue maybe Atwell would have been changed too (Again, I am not sure if this actually specifically applies to someone working VAR, I'm assuming it doesn't but I don't know for sure, so that's an assumption).

Above all of the selection process of officials, there is supposed to still be the notion/idea that officials have enough integrity to carry out their job without bias regardless of who they support. The ref's decision has always supposed to be taken as the final word and should be accepted, that doesn't mean they have made the correct decision, they are human and will make a mistake. But in the world we now live in everything is pushed to extremes, nothing is accepted as a mistake, and the infrance now is always corruption when a mistake has been made, every supporter base, almost every decision, it's utter madness. Now, for those that actually believe in the corruption theories let's have an example of the corruption to back it up, seeing as it's so blatant, so widespread and claimed every week by every supporter of each club, there has to be a ton of evidence to support it.........I'll wait.
 
harry7 said:
To make progress, the next stage seems clear.



  1. Appoint an independent review of each game to assess the performance of the match officials.
  2. Set clear KPIs to ensure they are within acceptable standards.
  3. Set appropriate punishments for officials that are in breach.
  4. Punish players/teams for clear breaches of on field rules that were not correctly officiated. For example, bans/suspensions for players committing serious foul play.


Essentially, you might get away with it in the game, but there will be consequences after the fact.
Click to expand...
REFs are reviewed, used to be in person but now remotely. No transparency in kpi or punishment

www.telegraph.co.uk

Beleaguered referees are judged by a remote system loaded against them

There will be a respite of kind for the beleaguered elite referees of English football this weekend, not because the FA Cup fourth round will mean any less scrutiny but because they will not be subject to the official Premier League assessment system that is grinding so many of them down.
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
Jaynola said:
Video assistance is great. It's the human ref part that sucks ass.

Get rid of that clear & obvious shit to begin with...an error is an error.

Stop it with drawing stupid lines for toenail offsides...it's 2024, we have the tech for fully automated offsides, no need to debate about kick point and such.

Have ex players (just not thundercunts like Terry or Rio) on the VAR panel to make proper informed decisions...yes, he meant to hurt the guy on that tackle/not, yes he meant to handball it out the way...

Keep fans inside the stadium and at home in the loop NFL style.

A ref/VAR still fucks up? No more backing each other up old boys club style and dishing out fines to managers & players like freedom of speech ain't a thing. Refs, VAR, PGMOL and co the ones who get investigated & punished.

Enough of those incompetent and in some cases corrupt (at least very biased) muppets. It's the biggest, richest game on the planet and we have morons running (and ruining) it. Proper embarrassing. Far more than that statement from Forest.
Click to expand...

I suspect that when automated offside kicks in next season, players will be deemed offside for even less than a toenail.
I still can't fathom why nobody asks the stakeholders of football, IE the people that pay the money to make it what it is, what we want to see.
I want more goals.
I want less time wasted with dickhead refs looking for a reason to chalk great goals off. (narcissism IMO)
I want time wasters booked and time wasting stopped, not 20 minutes of time added on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom