Premier Lg EPL Matchday 14 - On Optus Sport

Premier League Football

Remove this Banner Ad

After every f***ing game somebody wants to blame anyone but the players. If Haaland scores his two sitters then this is not even a discussion. All this does is shift blame. At least Pep was somewhat philosophical post game. Haaland needs to grow up. He's a petulant child who should be sat for a game or two by the FA for his embarrassing carry on both during and after the match.

Until that decision the game was referee'd impeccably. Now you have people on talkback radio and Twitter (X or whatever idiotboy Elon wants to call it) saying the guy should never referee another game. No thought to him having a mortgage and a family to feed? Of course not, just lame criticism from people who have never made a mistake in their jobs (sarcasm!).

This is what we have come to. Publicly shitting on officials every time they make a mistake.
People will criticise Haaland for his miss, players get criticised all the time. If you want to criticise Haaland for his misses yesterday, make a post about it. I' sure you'll get lots of support.

Why should be refuse to discuss a referee on a football message board on the other side of the world?

Talk of refs never being allowed to officiate again are ridiculous, but if you go on twitter you shouldn't be surprised to read a lot of ridiculous.

No one is losing their job as a result of that game.
 
Oct 9, 2006
22,507
29,206
Left of centre.
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
People will criticise Haaland for his miss, players get criticised all the time. If you want to criticise Haaland for his misses yesterday, make a post about it. I' sure you'll get lots of support.

Why should be refuse to discuss a referee on a football message board on the other side of the world?

Talk of refs never being allowed to officiate again are ridiculous, but if you go on twitter you shouldn't be surprised to read a lot of ridiculous.

No one is losing their job as a result of that game.

Did you watch the post match? Are you even reading this thread?

The story is the referee. Again.
 
Yeah, great idea. Let's have PGMOL publicly dissect every decision in every game, further exposing referees who are already being abused. Wonderful. :rolleyes:

How about we all just sat down, shut up and respected the referee's decision?
Again, why make out that anyone is suggesting PGMOL explain every decision.

No one is.

But for controversial decisions, why not? Would be a great idea, and imo would help the relationship between officials and supporters. Can't understand why anyone would be opposed.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Aug 29, 2010
60,086
83,449
Canada
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Winnipeg Jets
Yeah, great idea. Let's have PGMOL publicly dissect every decision in every game, further exposing referees who are already being abused. Wonderful. :rolleyes:

How about we all just sit down, shut up and respect the referee's decision?
Yeah it either has to be every decision or just keep it how it is cause then morons will be complaining why their decision isn't being explained while others are. Referees explaining decisions are ******* boring, "yeah I didn't pay the penalty because I didn't think it was one"

😱😱

What no way!!

Now I can sleep better because I thought it was a conspiracy before
 
Oct 9, 2006
22,507
29,206
Left of centre.
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
Again, why make out that anyone is suggesting PGMOL explain every decision.

No one is.

But for controversial decisions, why not? Would be a great idea, and imo would help the relationship between officials and supporters. Can't understand why anyone would be opposed.

Because all you do is set referees up for further abuse.

What is PGMOL going to say about yesterday that appeases you? That the ref got it wrong? We all know he got it wrong. Why pour oil on the fire?

For those decisions that are more 50/50 shall we say, do you really think PGMOL making a post match statement is going to change anybody's mind? If you do I have some magic beans to sell you.
 
Because all you do is set referees up for further abuse.

What is PGMOL going to say about yesterday that appeases you? That the ref got it wrong? We all know he got it wrong. Why pour oil on the fire?

For those decisions that are more 50/50 shall we say, do you really think PGMOL making a post match statement is going to change anybody's mind? If you do I have some magic beans to sell you.

What are PGMOL going to say to appease me?

I'd just like to hear what the process was behind the decision. That would be fine for me.
 
Oct 9, 2006
22,507
29,206
Left of centre.
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
What are PGMOL going to say to appease me?

I'd just like to hear what the process was behind the decision. That would be fine for me.

And how would they explain that? Can they read the mind of the referee? We can all see the process, the ref played advantage and changed his mind. Unless PGMOL can read his mind then they cannot possibly offer anything more than what we all saw with our own eyes.

Do you think any explanation PGMOL could give would take the heat off a referee who we all know made a mistake? Or is it just to help you sleep at night?

My opinion, and you may disagree is that stopping the abuse of officials is far more important than fans demanding satisfaction by way of explanation for decisions that they do not agree with. The abuse of officials is a cancer on the sport. When fans carry on like they do, and players carry on like they do then you will inevitably see that carry forward to future generations. Having PGMOL put referees under the spotlight because fans cannot handle themselves is absolutely counter intuitive. You cannot ask children to respect the referee whilst also demanding an explanation for every decision you don't like. It's absurd.
 
Dec 22, 2009
61,928
36,139
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
Again, why make out that anyone is suggesting PGMOL explain every decision.

No one is.

But for controversial decisions, why not? Would be a great idea, and imo would help the relationship between officials and supporters. Can't understand why anyone would be opposed.

In the scheme of things it's just an advantage call pulled back. This happens regularly. There's no need for explanations over routine stuff.

Leave that for red cards, penalties, goals & VAR interventions.
 
And how would they explain that? Can they read the mind of the referee? We can all see the process, the ref played advantage and changed his mind. Unless PGMOL can rad his mind then they cannot possibly offer anything more than what we all saw with our own eyes.

Do you think any explanation PGMOL could give would take the heat off a referee who we all know made a mistake? Or is it just to help you sleep at night?

My opinion, and you may disagree is that stopping the abuse of officials is far more important than fans demanding satisfaction by way of explanation for decisions that they do not agree with. The abuse of officials is a cancer on the sport. When fans carry on like they do, and players carry on like they do then you will inevitably see that carry forward to future generations. Having PGMOL put referees under the spotlight because fans cannot handle themselves is absolutely counter intuitive. You cannot ask children to respect the referee whilst also demanding an explanation for every decision you don't like. It's absurd.

I presume PGMOL will speak to the ref as part of their post match debrief.

And how many times are you going to insist that people are asking for an explanation for every decision when no-one is?
 
Oct 9, 2006
22,507
29,206
Left of centre.
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
I presume PGMOL will speak to the ref as part of their post match debrief.

And how many times are you going to insist that people are asking for an explanation for every decision when no-one is?

1) Of course PGMOL will speak to the ref. Why do you think that you should be privy to that conversation?

2) As I think it was Topkent who made the point that if you query one decision then you have to query almost all of them. You do understand that officiating football is quite often subjective? We all watch games from different points of view. What I think is a foul you might not think is a foul. What I think is abuse of a ref, you might not think is abuse of a ref. What I think is a yellow card, you might think is a red card. Or no card. Where is the line in terms of what you think PGMOL owes you an explanation for?
 
1) Of course PGMOL will speak to the ref. Why do you think that you should be privy to that conversation?

2) As I think it was Topkent made the point that if you query one decision then you have to query almost all of them. You do understand that officiating football is quite often subjective. We all watch games from different points of view. What I thin is a foul you might not think is a foul. What I think is abuse of a ref, you might not think is abuse of a ref. What I think is a yellow card, you might think is a red card. Or no card.

Why should I be privy to that conversation? I think it would be a good thing for the game, for the supporters and ultimately PGMOL.

As for point 2, I don't really care what Topkent says. And cheers for the patronising explanation on what a subjective decision is.
 
Oct 9, 2006
22,507
29,206
Left of centre.
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
Why should I be privy to that conversation? I think it would be a good thing for the game, for the supporters and ultimately PGMOL.

As for point 2, I don't really care what Topkent says. And cheers for the patronising explanation on what a subjective decision is.

Well you don't seem to understand that these things are not black or white and no statement from PGMOL will change the minds of most people.

You also must have missed the long held adage taught to most kids by good parents and coaches that the referee is always right. It seems that old mate 400k a week Erling was never taught that either.

Good luck in your pursuit to have PGMOL explain human nature to you. :thumbsu:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ADL9798

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 18, 2009
14,445
16,854
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool
Haaland got booked for his protest, not sure if that was a factor.

As for the "telling the ref to * off", I've heard it was directed at Lo Celso not the ref.

As for the tweet I don't think there is much in it. But was happy to see him not tweet again for the rest of the night.

I mean, the pictures speak for themselves (for both incidents). I don't think you could claim that Haaland screaming in the referee's face was any less severe than what Van Dijk did. If the latter warranted a 1 game suspension + fine, it would be surprising to me if the former didn't also.

5f3be82cfbe047e6543bc92718259437

2786.jpg
 
I mean, the pictures speak for themselves (for both incidents). I don't think you could claim that Haaland screaming in the referee's face was any less severe than what Van Dijk did. If the latter warranted a 1 game suspension + fine, it would be surprising to me if the former didn't also.

5f3be82cfbe047e6543bc92718259437

2786.jpg
I don't know if it warranted it or not, I've only seen a still picture.

Just wondering if being given a yellow card at the time meant that he couldn't be punished further.
 
Sep 11, 2003
38,143
8,860
Slovenia
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Liverpool
Totally accept that refs make mistakes, I thought the ref made a mistake in the Liverpool match that cost us a goal. But I understood why the decision was made so didn't comment.

Personally I think this one is a bit different a d I think it would be great if PGMOL explained what the process behind the decision was.

I think it would be a good thing for the sport if they did more of that. In the absence of any explanation I can only go with what I saw with my own eyes.

If that's unacceptable criticism so be it. For me, it's one obvious talking point of the match that people seem to be offended is getting talked about.
Mate, I've watched it twice and haven't gone through it other than a quick glance but my thought would just be that he has wrongly assumed there was no advantage. Maybe he didn't see Grealish in the moment he looked down the field (obscured?), or maybe he didn't really look but he's made a split second decision that was wrong. If there was anything scandolous he wouldn't be calling the initial advantage in the first place.. but for whatever reason he's called advantage, looked up and blown the whistle.

In this scenario there's four possibilities:
1) he didn't see Grealish and interpret the advantage, thus blowing the whistle
2) he did see grealish but didn't interpret it as being an advantage, thus blowing the whistle
3) he really didn't look and based his decision on haaland kicking the ball as clearing it
4) he cheated and didn't want city to score
 
Well you don't seem to understand that these things are not black or white and no statement from PGMOL will change the minds of most people.

You also must have missed the long held adage taught to most kids by good parents and coaches that the referee is always right. It seems that old mate 400k a week Erling was never taught that either.

Good luck in your pursuit to have PGMOL explain human nature to you. :thumbsu:
I think we've seen some good examples where communication from PGMOL has been a positive thing. The Liverpool/Spurs, the Arsenal/Newcastle, Howard Webbs VAR review.

But I'm happy with my opinion on that, just as you are with yours. Not really worth engaging any further on the issue.
 
Mate, I've watched it twice and haven't gone through it other than a quick glance but my thought would just be that he has wrongly assumed there was no advantage. Maybe he didn't see Grealish in the moment he looked down the field (obscured?), or maybe he didn't really look but he's made a split second decision that was wrong. If there was anything scandolous he wouldn't be calling the initial advantage in the first place.. but for whatever reason he's called advantage, looked up and blown the whistle.

In this scenario there's four possibilities:
1) he didn't see Grealish and interpret the advantage, thus blowing the whistle
2) he did see grealish but didn't interpret it as being an advantage, thus blowing the whistle
3) he really didn't look and based his decision on haaland kicking the ball as clearing it
4) he cheated and didn't want city to score

Would be really interesting to hear which.

That's all.

For me, he saw the foul and went to blow the whistle. He didn't blow the whistle, maybe waiting to see if there was an advantage.

IMO he clearly played advantage. Then he changed his mind.

Would be really interesting to hear what the process was.
 
Sep 11, 2003
38,143
8,860
Slovenia
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Liverpool
I mean, the pictures speak for themselves (for both incidents). I don't think you could claim that Haaland screaming in the referee's face was any less severe than what Van Dijk did. If the latter warranted a 1 game suspension + fine, it would be surprising to me if the former didn't also.

5f3be82cfbe047e6543bc92718259437

2786.jpg
they're not exactly apples and apples and I haven't seen the vision of the Haaland stuff to know how pronounced it was or it went beyond your still image. the notable difference between your images is the finger in the face and the referee needing to move back. haaland's appears to just be yelling in his face.

neither are acceptable but they're not identical like you're suggesting unless haaland puts his finger in the referees face as well.
they're both abuse though.

also assume FA action is in some ways based on the referees report/interpreation.
 
Dec 22, 2009
61,928
36,139
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
I think we've seen some good examples where communication from PGMOL has been a positive thing. The Liverpool/Spurs, the Arsenal/Newcastle, Howard Webbs VAR review.

But I'm happy with my opinion on that, just as you are with yours. Not really worth engaging any further on the issue.

None of those were a referee pulling back an advantage.


Infact, I bet you cannot find a single example of PGMOL ever offering an explanation for why a referee pulled back play at the expense of the attacking team.

Leave the PGMOL stuff to key incidents (red card/goal/offside/penalties). It's that simple.
 
Dec 22, 2009
61,928
36,139
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
they're not exactly apples and apples and I haven't seen the vision of the Haaland stuff to know how pronounced it was or it went beyond your still image. the notable difference between your images is the finger in the face and the referee needing to move back. haaland's appears to just be yelling in his face.

neither are acceptable but they're not identical like you're suggesting unless haaland puts his finger in the referees face as well.
they're both abuse though.

also assume FA action is in some ways based on the referees report/interpreation.

Haaland did go on social media afterwards and complain about it. That's a pre-meditated action. We've seen plenty of players banned for complaining on social media about referees, managers also.

The PL have done City a huge favor by not banning Haaland IMO considering previous precedents.
 
None of those were a referee pulling back an advantage.


Infact, I bet you cannot find a single example of PGMOL ever offering an explanation for why a referee pulled back play at the expense of the attacking team.

Leave the PGMOL stuff to key incidents (red card/goal/offside/penalties). It's that simple.

I'm not really sure what the point would be of looking for examples. It's what I'd like to see happen, not what has happened in the past.
 
Haaland did go on social media afterwards and complain about it. That's a pre-meditated action. We've seen plenty of players banned for complaining on social media about referees, managers also.

The PL have done City a huge favor by not banning Haaland IMO considering previous precedents.
Has anyone been banned for criticising a decision on social media before?

Would have thought a fine is more standard.
 
Mate, I've watched it twice and haven't gone through it other than a quick glance but my thought would just be that he has wrongly assumed there was no advantage. Maybe he didn't see Grealish in the moment he looked down the field (obscured?), or maybe he didn't really look but he's made a split second decision that was wrong. If there was anything scandolous he wouldn't be calling the initial advantage in the first place.. but for whatever reason he's called advantage, looked up and blown the whistle.

In this scenario there's four possibilities:
1) he didn't see Grealish and interpret the advantage, thus blowing the whistle
2) he did see grealish but didn't interpret it as being an advantage, thus blowing the whistle
3) he really didn't look and based his decision on haaland kicking the ball as clearing it
4) he cheated and didn't want city to score
Or he thought the first whistle Spurs defenders stopped and therefore may have been disadvantaged
 
Dec 22, 2009
61,928
36,139
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
I'm not really sure what the point would be of looking for examples. It's what I'd like to see happen, not what has happened in the past.

It's appropriate to leave the PGMOL explanations to the key stuff. Red cards, penalties, offside, goals. And that's the end of it.


Them having to appease the Man City fan base over what is just a decision to pull back an advantage is quite ridiculous for me. As I said, if PGMOL were to do that, then another club will demand explanations as to why a corner wasn't given to their team etc etc. It's open season. Then another club will want clarification over other minor decisions.

There won't be any PGMOL explanation for this nor should any club expect there to be.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back