andy d'urso

[TheMajor]

booing him before kick off, disgraceful

we are quick to criticize refs when they have a bad game and don't give them the praise they deserve when it goes well for them

i thought yesterday was one of the better displays we have seen from a referee and probably the best d'urso has ever refereed so

Ever considered that the booing made him up his game from the off?

 

[briref]

When a physio comes on to the pitch to treat a player(s), that player has to go off before the game is restarted. D'Urso didn't even get that right.

His performance was laughable, but we won 3-0 despite him. He isn't biased, he doesn't bear a grudge, there is nothing dishonest about him. He's just a dire referee.

not correct - if two players from same team receive treatment together, neither have to leave the pitch

 

[pork pie]

He is a Ref! Enough said!

 

[briref]

yea i watch football a lot and seen d'urso referee plenty of games - not just at brighton.
and in my opinion he is one of the worst - i just thought yesterday he was very favorable towards us, maybe making amends for the past

 

[kevo]

booing him before kick off, disgraceful

Have you completely forgotten the blatant 'basketball' handball pen he missed against Derby?

He is a shocking referee.

 

[briref]

Two of their players were injured at the same time. Both were treated. Should they have gone off?

nope

 

[public school boy]

such as Lopez should have got a second yellow when he kicked the ball away.

I was amused when he shook hands with Spanish Dave as SD was being substituted.

 

[briref]

Have you completely forgotten the blatant 'basketball' handball pen he missed against Derby?

He is a shocking referee.

i agree he is shocking - never said he werent

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Technically correct but common sense prevailed. The two players could have stood by the east stand, drop ball to Blackburn who hoof it down to Kusczcak and as the ball is in the air D'Urso waves the two players on. Having said that he is one of the most inconsistent referees who is in the 'look at me, I'm running this game' camp of refereeing.

Yesterday wasn't bad because there wasn't really anything for him to do.

Common sense means nothing, it is a really simple rule which he didn't obey and will have been marked down for.

Two of their players were injured at the same time. Both were treated. Should they have gone off?

Obviously, yes. If they have to go off after getting treatment then both who got treatment should have gone off. Simple as that. He couldn't even get that right.

not correct - if two players from same team receive treatment together, neither have to leave the pitch

Prove it. That smells to me. The rule is stupid and vacuous but it is there. If your suggestuon is true, then the rulemakers are thick as goalposts.

 

[briref]

Common sense means nothing, it is a really simple rule which he didn't obey and will have been marked down for.



Obviously, yes. If they have to go off after getting treatment then both who got treatment should have gone off. Simple as that. He couldn't even get that right.



Prove it. That smells to me. The rule is stupid and vacuous but it is there. If your suggestuon is true, then the rulemakers are thick as goalposts.

"Exceptions to this ruling are to be made only when:
• a goalkeeper is injured
• a goalkeeper and an outfi eld player have collided and need immediate
attention
• players from the same team have collided and need immediate attention
• a severe injury has occurred, e.g. swallowed tongue, concussion, broken leg"

 

[Ninja Elephant]

"Exceptions to this ruling are to be made only when:
• a goalkeeper is injured
• a goalkeeper and an outfi eld player have collided and need immediate
attention
• players from the same team have collided and need immediate attention
• a severe injury has occurred, e.g. swallowed tongue, concussion, broken leg"

Absurd. Utterly absurd. Their players didn't "collide". Besides, if you break a leg you aren't coming back on. The 4th point is mute.

 

[briref]

Absurd. Utterly absurd. Their players didn't "collide". Besides, if you break a leg you aren't coming back on. The 4th point is mute.

the laws of our beautiful game

 

[severnside gull]

Thought he had a good game.
Did nothing that either side could complain about. Allowed play to flow when he could. Didnt book players uneccesarily which resulted in 11 v 11 where some jobsworths might have done otherwise.
I think some people are moaning about the person and not the performance.

 

[essbee]

To the original poster: you don't know what you're doing either.

 

[briref]

To the original poster: you don't know what you're doing either.

well obviously i do

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

"Exceptions to this ruling are to be made only when:
• a goalkeeper is injured
• a goalkeeper and an outfi eld player have collided and need immediate
attention
• players from the same team have collided and need immediate attention
• a severe injury has occurred, e.g. swallowed tongue, concussion, broken leg"

Firstly I don't remember them colliding together my recollection was they got injured in the same passage of play but not simultaneously.

Secondly isn't it odd that the official laws of the game state an impossibility, apart from cutting it off and shoving it down your throat, you can not swallow your tongue.

 

[stss30]

He was atrocious yet again, he really is a woeful referee.

 

[drew]

Firstly I don't remember them colliding together my recollection was they got injured in the same passage of play but not simultaneously.

Secondly isn't it odd that the official laws of the game state an impossibility, apart from cutting it off and shoving it down your throat, you can not swallow your tongue.

Think they did!

 

[Baldseagull]

I feared the worst when I saw he was Reffing, I was pleasantly surprised though and thought he had a reasonable game.

 

[One Love]

i thought yesterday was one of the better displays we have seen from a referee and probably the best d'urso has ever refereed

i just thought yesterday he was very favorable towards us, maybe making amends for the past

So you thought he reffed it well and he was biased to us. How does that work in your expert opinion?