Anyone who says there's no contact seriously needs to get their eyes checked! He kicks his leg (foul) which puts him off balance and causes him to slip
In real time from behind the goal I thought Church slipped.
Looking at the video there was some contact and I can only assume that the referee / linesman considered that there was no intent as both players were committed to going for the ball.
To be fair to ref it was a back pass wasn't goalmouth action no need for him to be that close. Keeper kicks long he's way out go position. That's what his assts there for they lethim down or one of em did.
Also , maybe being harsh, thought church stays on feet he taps it 'in
I just don't think its clear cut and is difficult to judge
For me, Church doesn't actually look like winning the ball. He's running past for a block. The keeper has eyes on the ball and is swinging a leg to kick it - he isn't intentionally kicking church to bring him down.
I'm sure he was trying to win the ball but that's irrelevant. He's missed, taken the player out and denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. Red and a penalty.
In real time from behind the goal I thought Church slipped.
Looking at the video there was some contact and I can only assume that the referee / linesman considered that there was no intent as both players were committed to going for the ball.
Intent means nothing if there's contact, surely most fouls committed are not intended.
Also those not seeing contact, what are you viewing it on??? A 6 inch mobile of laptop/computer. Only ask as I had benefit of first seeing it from a laptop, it's only just occured to me while debating with someone to look at it on a mobile in which it's a whole lot less clearer.
I sit in the north lower and it was a clear a penalty as you could wish for. Not the refs fault for not giving it but the Lino for not flagging it. To be honest, if that was Liverpool or Man utd then the ref would have given it
In real time from behind the goal I thought Church slipped.
Looking at the video there was some contact and I can only assume that the referee / linesman considered that there was no intent as both players were committed to going for the ball.
Intent means nothing if there's contact, surely most fouls committed are not intended.
Absolutely this - as my qualified referee mate is always telling me "there is nothing in the laws about intent".
What this debate does prove is why video technology should never, ever be used for anything other than factual decisions - that being whether a ball has crossed a line or not. Everything else is down to opinion, so we might as well leave it to the bloke in charge. If they do seem to be getting it wrong more often these days, that is down to high quality cameras, and views from angles we would not have had even five years ago, such as this one.
The ref didn't even have the decency to ask the linesman, and the linesman didn't have the courage to call the ref over. It was a clear penalty to me in the NE stand, the linesman should have seen the same view. Worst decision since Artis and Poll vs Fulham which also cost us 2 points.
In real time from behind the goal I thought Church slipped.
Looking at the video there was some contact and I can only assume that the referee / linesman considered that there was no intent as both players were committed to going for the ball.
Intent means nothing if there's contact, surely most fouls committed are not intended.
Absolutely this - as my qualified referee mate is always telling me "there is nothing in the laws about intent".
What this debate does prove is why video technology should never, ever be used for anything other than factual decisions - that being whether a ball has crossed a line or not. Everything else is down to opinion, so we might as well leave it to the bloke in charge. If they do seem to be getting it wrong more often these days, that is down to high quality cameras, and views from angles we would not have had even five years ago, such as this one.
Ref's still a to**er for missing it though...
;-)
We could easily bring replays in for the officials only. It could be limited to a set amount of appeals per half or game with the captain deciding how to use them. Even with decisions that require an opinion, it works brilliantly in other sports. Look at the NFL, cricket, tennis and rugby.
Fat and lazy. He bottled the pen decision as well as a couple of others. The rare times he did venture out of the centre circle to do his job, he kept getting in the way of Charlton's passing. Standard of officials in this division is dreadful, considering what is at stake.
"looking at the video, it was so clearly a penalty"
1.Exactly, unfortunately referees don't have the luxury of looking at videos. 2. Why mention a referees size; they are not selected on Body Mass Index (BMI). They do however need to pass a fitness test at the beginning of each season, based upon both speed and stamina.
Because he was a fat bastard who clearly could not keep up with play And should not be officiating on a game of this standing! Refs should be built for speed not comfort this bloke was no stranger to his local Greggs . Disgraceful in this day and age.
If you want to understand why some people are not cut out to be officials - some Lifers have a video and still can't see it was a pen! Now they are fans not officials so not being critical but they clearly wouldn't make great officials - and some officials don't either because they can't spot things like this - but it is their job and this was a poor miss by the lino - even the apologisers for officials must have to admit this. In real time I didn't just think it was a penalty, I knew it was - I couldn't believe it when it was not given - I still find it amazing some can't see it!
Really have to wonder at the speed some people's brains are clocked at if it takes replays and repeated watching. One look at normal speed and it is apparent that church nicked the ball away (not that his control of the ball is in any way relevant) and that in swinging for the ball Bogdan makes inadvertent contact with Church's planted foot, causing it to come up, and him to fall.
Like the system in Germany where official asks the player and accepts his word. If it is subsequently found that the player lied he can look forward to a lengthy ban
Fat and lazy. He bottled the pen decision as well as a couple of others. The rare times he did venture out of the centre circle to do his job, he kept getting in the way of Charlton's passing. Standard of officials in this division is dreadful, considering what is at stake.
Agree 100% and the lino and ref should get a public 3 match ban for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
Fat refs should not be allowed. They are paid well as professionals nowadays not some part timers. If you can't stay fit then go be a teacher or something which does not involve running FFS.
Except only the 18 so-called select refs for the Premier League are really full-time professionals. Sure, the other Level One refs on the national list get a nice match fee plus expenses but I don't think you could live on it and most (all?) have regular employment. Brendan Malone, the fat git in question, for example is a clerk for royal mail and starts his day job at 4am.
(The only precise figure I could find for fees was for the FA Cup rounds. It's £375. That's from the 3rd round right up to the final. I think the select refs get a basic of around £40k and a match fee of £1k for Premier League games.)
Guess who this quote is from: "I trusted what I had seen, the 'keeper took out the opponent," he recalled. "But it was a massive call, especially on such a big stage and so early on. It was easy to give but it was as if my hand had got stuck. I couldn't give it. All things go through your head. Have I got it right? But I gave it and it was right. Thank heavens for that."
This might be controversial but I thought he was the best ref we've had down there for a long time. Fat (he's got a bigger belly than me ffs) notwithstanding.
He should have given the penalty but from his angle I suspect he couldn't see the contact - the linesman had no such excuse. The throw in immediately afterwards I thought he got right, flicked off our boot.
It's the luck of a bottom of the table side. Was it that that cost us the game or the same old inability to shoot past the keeper?
I hope we are not sent down by a poor lino - remember Fulham. I know they call it as they see it, but can't these useless ones realise they are not cut out for the job and resign. I hate the thought that he might be having a good day today, ambivalent to the damage his incompetence may have done us.
In real time from behind the goal I thought Church slipped.
Looking at the video there was some contact and I can only assume that the referee / linesman considered that there was no intent as both players were committed to going for the ball.
Intent means nothing if there's contact, surely most fouls committed are not intended.
Absolutely this - as my qualified referee mate is always telling me "there is nothing in the laws about intent".
What this debate does prove is why video technology should never, ever be used for anything other than factual decisions - that being whether a ball has crossed a line or not. Everything else is down to opinion, so we might as well leave it to the bloke in charge. If they do seem to be getting it wrong more often these days, that is down to high quality cameras, and views from angles we would not have had even five years ago, such as this one.
Ref's still a to**er for missing it though...
;-)
We could easily bring replays in for the officials only. It could be limited to a set amount of appeals per half or game with the captain deciding how to use them. Even with decisions that require an opinion, it works brilliantly in other sports. Look at the NFL, cricket, tennis and rugby.
All games with natural breaks in play, unlike football.
Of course replays would be for officials only, who else would make the decision - the tea lady - LOL...
It works brilliantly with other sports, except where it doesn't - how many times have you seen it take five minutes and eight different angles for no-one to know whether the ball is grounded or a foot is out of play in rugby? The replay has now become the first option in run out decisions in cricket, they call for a replay when the runner is past the bloody stumps when the bails come off. And even in those games, the appeals are limited to certain plays, where would you draw the line in football, throw ins, offsides (given and missed), penalties (given and missed) and so on? Yesterday is a good case in point, the pen not given, play could then go on for five minutes without a break, do you then wipe out five minutes of play?
If you give a limited number of appeals the next one will always be the controversial one, and the media will be calling for an increase in the number of appeals as soon as one of their little favourites is apparently hard done by. And of course, there will still be exactly the kind of debate we have going on here where some people will swear the decision was completely wrong...
The number of cameras available at any one ground and the quality of the operators will create an imbalance - imagine if Arsene Wenger was a cameraman, how many times would he "miss" a controversial incident involving the opposition?
It's not right that an incident like this could end up causing us to be relegated. It's time to start using video technology for such crucial decisions.
Why do refs seem to have the opinion that teams at the bottom of the table deserve no benefits of the doubt and that they must,because of their position,be cheating all the time? And why do teams at the top always get the rub of the green? Recall us getting stuff all the time in League One when it was a marginal call.We've had very little this season.Is this a ref's mentality(assuming they have a brain)or are they instructed accordingly?
It's not right that an incident like this could end up causing us to be relegated. It's time to start using video technology for such crucial decisions.
I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave some moments ago... :-)
Comments
Looking at the video there was some contact and I can only assume that the referee / linesman considered that there was no intent as both players were committed to going for the ball.
A typical pub team ref that rarely ventured out of the centre circle....................
Also , maybe being harsh, thought church stays on feet he taps it 'in
What this debate does prove is why video technology should never, ever be used for anything other than factual decisions - that being whether a ball has crossed a line or not. Everything else is down to opinion, so we might as well leave it to the bloke in charge. If they do seem to be getting it wrong more often these days, that is down to high quality cameras, and views from angles we would not have had even five years ago, such as this one.
Ref's still a to**er for missing it though...
;-)
And should not be officiating on a game of this standing!
Refs should be built for speed not comfort this bloke was no stranger to his local Greggs .
Disgraceful in this day and age.
Sure, the other Level One refs on the national list get a nice match fee plus expenses but I don't think you could live on it and most (all?) have regular employment. Brendan Malone, the fat git in question, for example is a clerk for royal mail and starts his day job at 4am.
(The only precise figure I could find for fees was for the FA Cup rounds. It's £375. That's from the 3rd round right up to the final. I think the select refs get a basic of around £40k and a match fee of £1k for Premier League games.)
Guess who this quote is from: "I trusted what I had seen, the 'keeper took out the opponent," he recalled. "But it was a massive call, especially on such a big stage and so early on. It was easy to give but it was as if my hand had got stuck. I couldn't give it. All things go through your head. Have I got it right? But I gave it and it was right. Thank heavens for that."
Yep, that's right, same official, different game.
He should have given the penalty but from his angle I suspect he couldn't see the contact - the linesman had no such excuse. The throw in immediately afterwards I thought he got right, flicked off our boot.
It's the luck of a bottom of the table side. Was it that that cost us the game or the same old inability to shoot past the keeper?
Genuine question, who the hell would have taken it if had been given?
Of course replays would be for officials only, who else would make the decision - the tea lady - LOL...
It works brilliantly with other sports, except where it doesn't - how many times have you seen it take five minutes and eight different angles for no-one to know whether the ball is grounded or a foot is out of play in rugby? The replay has now become the first option in run out decisions in cricket, they call for a replay when the runner is past the bloody stumps when the bails come off. And even in those games, the appeals are limited to certain plays, where would you draw the line in football, throw ins, offsides (given and missed), penalties (given and missed) and so on? Yesterday is a good case in point, the pen not given, play could then go on for five minutes without a break, do you then wipe out five minutes of play?
If you give a limited number of appeals the next one will always be the controversial one, and the media will be calling for an increase in the number of appeals as soon as one of their little favourites is apparently hard done by. And of course, there will still be exactly the kind of debate we have going on here where some people will swear the decision was completely wrong...
The number of cameras available at any one ground and the quality of the operators will create an imbalance - imagine if Arsene Wenger was a cameraman, how many times would he "miss" a controversial incident involving the opposition?