Referee yesterday.

[Gazwag]

Didn't get a good view of the corner for the second goal but heard complaints. Should it have been a goal kick then? If so, he gave them a goal and denied us a penalty. Pretty big decisions!

We had the worst seats in the ground right against the wall so had a perfect view of the incident and there was no way the ball hit our player it went under his leg. The lineman who was closest didn't give a corner

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

We had the worst seats in the ground right against the wall so had a perfect view of the incident and there was no way the ball hit our player it went under his leg. The lineman who was closest didn't give a corner

The replay (replayed in slo-mo) looked as if no actual contact was made by Bennett's boot as the ball was going over the line , the commentator's called it wrongly by saying it was a corner. The ref decided it was a corner rather than the lino.

 

[Blues Rock DJ]

Is there a thread every week when the ref has been poor against Brighton? Not fishing at all here you are obviously on a poor run but compare to last season there is not much in it, just see this thread every week but it wont be around when you get form back

pray tell me where I say he was poor ??

 

[BensGrandad]

Unless it is a direct strike on goal or one on one there is no advantage greater than giving a penalty so in most cases advantage shouldnt be played.
Certainly not cos he might have a shot

 

[Eeyore]

When I saw the Lua Lua incident on a replay it looked as though the Bournemouth player had been pushed on to him. It looked like the correct judgement call.

 

[mreprice]

When I saw the Lua Lua incident on a replay it looked as though the Bournemouth player had been pushed on to him. It looked like the correct judgement call.

Without a doubt. The defender only touched Kaz because Texeira flattened him. It would have been the worst penalty ever had it been awarded.

 

[BensGrandad]

Without a doubt. The defender only touched Kaz because Texeira flattened him. It would have been the worst penalty ever had it been awarded.[/QUOTE


Why didnt they get a free kick?

 

[R. Slicker]

The replay (replayed in slo-mo) looked as if no actual contact was made by Bennett's boot as the ball was going over the line , the commentator's called it wrongly by saying it was a corner. The ref decided it was a corner rather than the lino.

I'm as partisan as the next man but the replay showed it bounce off Bennett's boot. Even if it didn't (which it did) it was close enough to not be a blatantly biased decision.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Be interested to do a quick straw poll amongst those on here who were born outside of Sussex to see which- if any- declare the slightest affinity with the local team in relation to their birthplace.

Me, I've got something of a soft spot for my "local" Kent non-league team, but wouldn't call myself a fan as such. And would I be biased if, in an imaginary situation, I found myself appointed as the referee for a Gillingham game? No.

Well, at least certainly not in their favour. I might give a few penalties against them by way of gaining small revenge for having to endure the disgusting facilities of the Pissfield for a couple of miserable seasons

Edna...agree,your'e not such an old tart after all x

 

[Reagulls]

Without a doubt. The defender only touched Kaz because Texeira flattened him. It would have been the worst penalty ever had it been awarded.

Along with the one awarded for Calderons inch perfect tackle that gave them one at our place then?

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Along with the one awarded for Calderons inch perfect tackle that gave them one at our place then?

Hardly because as BG pointed out, no foul had been given.

KLL was definitely impeded, whether it was caused as a result of somebody being pushed is completely irrelevant, as no foul had been given.

 

[Reagulls]

Hardly because as BG pointed out, no foul had been given.

KLL was definitely impeded, whether it was caused as a result of somebody being pushed is completely irrelevant, as no foul had been given.

So was Calderons perfect tackle not one of the worst penalty decisions awarded?

 

[Tarpon]

It honestly depends on the quality of the cross. A dangerous ball across the six yard box with two men running onto it is just as good a chance as a shot from twelve yards out. The advantage is the whole passage of play, it is about possession and goal scoring opportunities. We had four goal scoring opportunities from the advantage.

If we had scored we'd be complimenting a great advantage being played. If we were given a penalty and missed it we'd be complaining about the lack of advantage with Lualua in a great position to shoot or cross for someone to have a shot from 6 yards rather than 12.

It is only viewed as a poor decision because we didn't score. The thought behind the decision by the ref is perfect sound. It was the right decision in a situation where there is more than one right decision and whichever one you choose can potentially seem wrong with hindsight.

In these circumstances Albion would have taken the penalty option every time: angle was tight, keeper well set, and defenders in the box etc

Not sure the ref indicated advantage was played either did he? + he didn't blow for the Tex 'foul' either so he effectively let Kaz make the decision for him by staying on his feet. I don't think there were any player complaints either. Sadly Kaz needed to hit the deck and chose not to.

 

[Acker79]

The replay (replayed in slo-mo) looked as if no actual contact was made by Bennett's boot as the ball was going over the line , the commentator's called it wrongly by saying it was a corner. The ref decided it was a corner rather than the lino.

Just had a quick look at the replay.

The ball makes a rather notable change of direction, from going almost along the line to suddenly out of play. It definitely[/i] went out off of Bennett.

I also looked at the 'penalty' claim. I'm now coming down on the side that it wasn't a foul, more a coming together of bodies. Also, the ball doesn't bounce around, Lualua steadies himself, plays a dangerous ball across the goal that Baldock and Forster-Caskey both should have put away, before it lands at Gardner's feet. He should have at least got the shot on target, but he didn't he skied it. None of the players called for a penalty.

If you're not sure it's a foul, and the attacking team get three or four goal scoring opportunities, and none of the players are claiming a foul, you can't really give a penalty.

 

[BensGrandad]

Just had a quick look at the replay.

The ball makes a rather notable change of direction, from going almost along the line to suddenly out of play. It definitely[/i] went out off of Bennett.

None of the players called for a penalty.

If you're not sure it's a foul, and the attacking team get three or four goal scoring opportunities, and none of the players are claiming a foul, you can't really give a penalty.

What has the players claims got to do with the ref making a decision? He is the judge and shouldnt be influenced by players appeals.

 

[Acker79]

What has the players claims got to do with the ref making a decision? He is the judge and shouldnt be influenced by players appeals.

Referees are human beings. If they see something and aren't sure if it was a foul or not, they will notice player reactions, and may use that to reassure/question their own view. If they see it and think 'I don't know if that's a foul or not' a) they shouldn't give it if they're not sure, b) will feel more confident about not giving it if the 'victims' are acting like there was nothing doing (even if that is on a sub-conscious level).

This isn't some new point I'm making, it's something that has been highlighted lots of times by pundits and commentators over the years.

 

[Jim_AFCB]

Cook should have been sent off for his superb rugby tackle which he would have got man of the match at Twickenham!!

So how would you justify a sending-off in law? Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity? No. Serious foul play or violent conduct? No.
Not condoning what Cook did as it was utterly cynical, but I probably would have done the same had I been in his shoes. But a yellow was as far as the ref could go.

Agree with those saying that Richie should have been booked for that early tackle. Got away with that one.
We have been on the rough end of a number of major decisions earlier in the season, guess these things even out in the end...

Watched the game back on Sky, thought the ref had a reasonable game, thought he perhaps let some fouls go at the time, didnt get the benefit of replays for those incidents though. Pugh (IIRC) possibly fouled in the lead up to your second before Baldock was put through.

Thought he got both the major talking points on this thread right (corner and penalty).

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

So was Calderons perfect tackle not one of the worst penalty decisions awarded?

Err yes.

Just read your original post, it was the post you responded to, I should have also replied to. Apologies

 

[Jim_AFCB]

Referees are human beings. If they see something and aren't sure if it was a foul or not, they will notice player reactions, and may use that to reassure/question their own view. If they see it and think 'I don't know if that's a foul or not' a) they shouldn't give it if they're not sure, b) will feel more confident about not giving it if the 'victims' are acting like there was nothing doing (even if that is on a sub-conscious level).

This isn't some new point I'm making, it's something that has been highlighted lots of times by pundits and commentators over the years.

And referee instructors! When I did my training course some years ago, we were encouraged to take note of the players' body language and just hold back with the whistle or signal - it can sometimes help if your vision was blocked for example.

 

[BensGrandad]

So if every player screams penalty you give one.