I agree about the no bottle bit -but think the problem for the ref on Tuesday was the opposite. Had he given a penalty- th eReading player should have been sent off by the letter of the law. I think this puts weak refs off making that decision sometimes.
A ref with no bottle. If it's not a penalty (according to the ref) then church should have been sent off for diving. It's not a "nothing" situation is it, a clear foul or dive occurred in the penalty box.
Speaking generally, unfortunately it's not always that clear cut though is it if they collide simultaneously 'a coming together'. Or did the player lose his footing or clip his own heel? The ref can only give what he sees and he has to be 100% certain otherwise he shouldn't give a pen.
If the ref says it wasn't a pen, it wasn't a pen. Two players chasing a 50/50 had a coming together and one fell over. In normal time looks a pen, good decision by the ref who in my opinion is a twat because I support Charlton.
If the ref says it wasn't a pen, it wasn't a pen. Two players chasing a 50/50 had a coming together and one fell over. In normal time looks a pen, good decision by the ref who in my opinion is a twat because I support Charlton.
Quite easy to collide with a player when it suits you too - a bit of reading of the situation has to be required as well as using one's eyes.
Although I can't prove it, my guess is that there would be absolutely no evidence to support the 'big clubs win more penalties' theory. Didn't Spurs go nearly an entire year without a penalty? How does that work? Were they only playing the four teams above them?
Well most times we've played at Old Trafford, Anfield, Highbury/Emirates, Stamford Bridge, White Hart Lane, we've had loads of decent shouts & hardly had a sniff. They get them at the drop of a hat.
Funny how Man U hadn't had a penalty against them at OT for, what was it 1 year, 2 years ?
That's because big clubs spend far less time defending in their own area. They're a big club who can afford defenders who don't give away many penalties. Midfielders who have so much possession, the opposition rarely get into the United penalty area. It's far more likely that supporters connect incidents they remember to create a 'poor us' theory, than referees being heavily influenced by the home crowd.
So good, that they're 9th.
Shittest post of the day that I've read. Good one.
Would have to top nearly all of yours. Saying Man U don't give penalties away solely because they have brilliant defenders (when they actually have Johnny Evans and the erratic, shirt-pulling Vidic at the back) is laughable. The penalty Ashley Young won against Palace earlier this season, for example, was a joke. Would he have won that if he was playing for Palace? Would he shite.
Similarly the penalty Chelsea "won" AT HOME to West Brom. The pen that never was. When was the last time you saw one of these go against the big teams? When was the last time Southampton or Stoke won a last-minute, questionable pen at Old Trafford, Emirates or Stamford Bridge?
Your comment about "midfielders having so much possession opposing teams rarely get into their half" is a joke, surely. Do you mean (again using Man United's midfield as the example) the midfield duo of Tom Cleverley and Phil Jones, who have been widely criticised this season for not playing many incisive or even forward passes? Did you see the possession stats in the game against Everton yesterday? Do your homework before making stupid comments and making up facts.
Ahhhh, I get it now. You have completely and utterly missed the point.
Person A said "big teams concede fewer penalties than small teams".
Person B suggested that maybe it's more than that. That there are other factors at play - not so much the size of the stadium or crowd, but, by definition, the fact that that team is BETTER than smaller teams, therefore less likely to concede a penalty and more likely to be awarded one, if indeed, a better team spends more time in the opposition's penalty area.
Might or might not be true, but certainly worth considering that there's more to the issue than an arm chair fan's perception of bias. You apparently only need to see a single incident of controversy to reaffirm your original belief.
The original reference was to United's avoidance of penalties at home for over a year. I think that was around the early to mid-2000s, although I could be wrong, but if so, any references to last night, Phil Jones, Jonny Evans and co. are completely and utterly irrelevant. You've taken it too literally.
Having done a quick Google, I found this useful paragraph (admittedly on a website I don't know very well):
"Since August 2006, United have conceded nine penalties in Premier League home games, more than seven other teams who have remained in the league during that period, including Fulham."
Also:
"Away from home, Aston Villa have been awarded more penalties than anybody else with 32 in the last 10 years, followed by Liverpool on 27 and Blackburn on 23."
So there's some stats for you. Aston Villa and Blackburn, two teams who have spent a large amount of time in relegation areas in the last few seasons, have been awarded more penalties on away grounds than anybody else between 2002 and 2012.
What I am saying is, I don't think the theory is true that bigger teams avoid penalties through refereeing bias. But the onus is not on me to disprove that theory - to make a claim like that, you need facts. I didn't make a single fact up as, you suggested, but you haven't raised any either. And it's your theory, so go ahead... prove it.
Practically every person at a football match is biased and have emotion attached to the game and its participants. They want to see their team win. This brings a skewed approach to how and why decisions are given. We plead with the ref to book the opposition red who wastes time but laugh when Hamer does it. We appeal for a throw that clearly isn't ours and smile smugly when given. We see a coming together in the box as a foul when we attack and as a fair challenge when we defend. 'Seen them given ' we say.
There are a handful of non biased people at a game and they are the officials. They are the worst paid people involved in the game at most professional levels. They make the most decisions in a game. Their 'opinion', and remember it is their opinion they are giving when making a decision is analysed and judged and then we all form a view on their competency or bias.
Yet, they get more decisions right in a game than the players do. They take abuse from players, management and fans. They are demonised in the press and on TV.
All players cheat. They try to bully, harangue and influence the ref by their words and actions. They claim a throw when it isn't theirs. They steal yards at free kicks. They do all sorts of sly, sneaky tactics that fly in the face of any fair play or respect campaign. And this is all 'part of the game' . It is 'cute'. But the ref makes a poor decision and he is a cheat.
Managers are allowed to practically slander a ref after a game. It means they don't have to accept that their players were poor or they got their tactics wrong. Player errors are skirted over. A keeper who lets a ball slip through his hands is allowed a couple of those a season. A penalty taker skying a ball is unlucky. But a ef who fails to spot some shirt pulling in the area should be hung, drawn and quartered. 'Wells done, ref. you got 87 out of the 90 decisions you made today correct but we wish to focus on the ones you got wrong. Would you accept that in your job?
Having said that, I can't f*****g stand Andy D'Urso!
Perhaps glasses will help, or a better understanding of the Laws of the Game, or both.
The problem with refs is that they understand the laws but don't understand the game. Church was in front of the defender, of course the defender was going to try to make it look like an accidental collision - at pace, not a great contact was needed- and to somebody who hasn't played the game it might fool them. It seems to have fooled you!
Interesting that all the ex pros in the Sky sports studio were amazed it wasn't given. They could see it for what it was.
Perhaps glasses will help, or a better understanding of the Laws of the Game, or both.
The problem with refs is that they understand the laws but don't understand the game.
Very harsh and, in my view, an entirely unrealistic assessment of what's going on. The standard of refereeing today is probably better than its ever been, but it's simply impossible to avoid mistakes. They are inevitable.
If we want to reduce controversies of this kind the only answer is to use technology. It's hard to understand why FIFA is so reluctant to do so. If they weren't so retarded the question they'd be addressing is not whether to use video during matches, but how. Ultimately, that conundrum will probably be resolved through trial and error, but a good place to start might be with some kind of decision review system or challenge.
In recent weeks I've attended big games in three different sports (NFL, Rugby Union and Rugby League) and in all three video technology was used. It wasn't in any way disruptive and, if anything, added to the excitement. Moreover, there was no "it's all the Ref's fault" during or after the game.
Football will get there in the end, but I'm not holding my breath.
Practically every person at a football match is biased and have emotion attached to the game and its participants. They want to see their team win. This brings a skewed approach to how and why decisions are given. We plead with the ref to book the opposition red who wastes time but laugh when Hamer does it. We appeal for a throw that clearly isn't ours and smile smugly when given. We see a coming together in the box as a foul when we attack and as a fair challenge when we defend. 'Seen them given ' we say.
There are a handful of non biased people at a game and they are the officials. They are the worst paid people involved in the game at most professional levels. They make the most decisions in a game. Their 'opinion', and remember it is their opinion they are giving when making a decision is analysed and judged and then we all form a view on their competency or bias.
Yet, they get more decisions right in a game than the players do. They take abuse from players, management and fans. They are demonised in the press and on TV.
All players cheat. They try to bully, harangue and influence the ref by their words and actions. They claim a throw when it isn't theirs. They steal yards at free kicks. They do all sorts of sly, sneaky tactics that fly in the face of any fair play or respect campaign. And this is all 'part of the game' . It is 'cute'. But the ref makes a poor decision and he is a cheat.
Managers are allowed to practically slander a ref after a game. It means they don't have to accept that their players were poor or they got their tactics wrong. Player errors are skirted over. A keeper who lets a ball slip through his hands is allowed a couple of those a season. A penalty taker skying a ball is unlucky. But a ef who fails to spot some shirt pulling in the area should be hung, drawn and quartered. 'Wells done, ref. you got 87 out of the 90 decisions you made today correct but we wish to focus on the ones you got wrong. Would you accept that in your job?
Having said that, I can't f*****g stand Andy D'Urso!
Comments
Person A said "big teams concede fewer penalties than small teams".
Person B suggested that maybe it's more than that. That there are other factors at play - not so much the size of the stadium or crowd, but, by definition, the fact that that team is BETTER than smaller teams, therefore less likely to concede a penalty and more likely to be awarded one, if indeed, a better team spends more time in the opposition's penalty area.
Might or might not be true, but certainly worth considering that there's more to the issue than an arm chair fan's perception of bias. You apparently only need to see a single incident of controversy to reaffirm your original belief.
The original reference was to United's avoidance of penalties at home for over a year. I think that was around the early to mid-2000s, although I could be wrong, but if so, any references to last night, Phil Jones, Jonny Evans and co. are completely and utterly irrelevant. You've taken it too literally.
Having done a quick Google, I found this useful paragraph (admittedly on a website I don't know very well):
"Since August 2006, United have conceded nine penalties in Premier League home games, more than seven other teams who have remained in the league during that period, including Fulham."
Also:
"Away from home, Aston Villa have been awarded more penalties than anybody else with 32 in the last 10 years, followed by Liverpool on 27 and Blackburn on 23."
So there's some stats for you. Aston Villa and Blackburn, two teams who have spent a large amount of time in relegation areas in the last few seasons, have been awarded more penalties on away grounds than anybody else between 2002 and 2012.
What I am saying is, I don't think the theory is true that bigger teams avoid penalties through refereeing bias. But the onus is not on me to disprove that theory - to make a claim like that, you need facts. I didn't make a single fact up as, you suggested, but you haven't raised any either. And it's your theory, so go ahead... prove it.
http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/58231/back-to-the-future-no-forward-to-the-past#latest
Fossdeneboy needs to talk trams with him.
There are a handful of non biased people at a game and they are the officials. They are the worst paid people involved in the game at most professional levels. They make the most decisions in a game. Their 'opinion', and remember it is their opinion they are giving when making a decision is analysed and judged and then we all form a view on their competency or bias.
Yet, they get more decisions right in a game than the players do. They take abuse from players, management and fans. They are demonised in the press and on TV.
All players cheat. They try to bully, harangue and influence the ref by their words and actions. They claim a throw when it isn't theirs. They steal yards at free kicks. They do all sorts of sly, sneaky tactics that fly in the face of any fair play or respect campaign. And this is all 'part of the game' . It is 'cute'. But the ref makes a poor decision and he is a cheat.
Managers are allowed to practically slander a ref after a game. It means they don't have to accept that their players were poor or they got their tactics wrong. Player errors are skirted over. A keeper who lets a ball slip through his hands is allowed a couple of those a season. A penalty taker skying a ball is unlucky. But a ef who fails to spot some shirt pulling in the area should be hung, drawn and quartered. 'Wells done, ref. you got 87 out of the 90 decisions you made today correct but we wish to focus on the ones you got wrong. Would you accept that in your job?
Having said that, I can't f*****g stand Andy D'Urso!
Interesting that all the ex pros in the Sky sports studio were amazed it wasn't given. They could see it for what it was.
If we want to reduce controversies of this kind the only answer is to use technology. It's hard to understand why FIFA is so reluctant to do so. If they weren't so retarded the question they'd be addressing is not whether to use video during matches, but how. Ultimately, that conundrum will probably be resolved through trial and error, but a good place to start might be with some kind of decision review system or challenge.
In recent weeks I've attended big games in three different sports (NFL, Rugby Union and Rugby League) and in all three video technology was used. It wasn't in any way disruptive and, if anything, added to the excitement. Moreover, there was no "it's all the Ref's fault" during or after the game.
Football will get there in the end, but I'm not holding my breath.
Superb post and sums it up beautifully.