Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General Premier League Thread 2023-24 Mod Note in op 27/6/23 And 21/05/24

16869717374410

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,628 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    Yeah, it's been confirmed the FA gives them a green light for each expedition.

    As for why would they go - i'd say that's as simple as it's been offered, it's easy, and they've been allowed. That's a hard enough one to fix... even if you double their salary, if further easy income is offered they'll always take it if they're allowed. So exclusivity needs to be set, and a wage needs to be agreed upon that's considered "enough", which might be easier said than done. It does seem like their wage could be better given their level of importance though - but with any increased wage should come a far higher expectation of performance and professionalism.

    The whole culture around officiating in the UK seems really toxic and 'laddish' from everything thats come out between recordings and interviews. They remind me of the way players used to be in the 80s, and really need to step up to levels of dedication and professionalism that's expected across the rest of the industry now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 142 ✭✭Classic21


    Sorry to jump in on the “human error” angle. If this is the cause of this issue as a lot of posters have said then a sanction of the person/people involved is the way to address………. If the fix for this issue is clarifying or defining the communication protocol then the cause is not human error but a system/process error



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Yeah, it is a systems error as nobody thought to make process clearer. Like most big f*ck ups, obvious when looking back.

    Great spot by whoever copped the lads were over in Saudi Arabia. Another one that's pretty f*cking obvious.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,628 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    Was Dubai they were in (not that it makes a difference, but just for clarity)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,147 ✭✭✭theoneeyedman


    Work.... LOL.

    It was a fvckin jolly, we all know why they were in UAE, bought and paid for.....



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,628 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    Ah in fairness, this stuff doesn't help - there's actual fundamental structural problems within English reffing, and conspiracy stuff only serves to distract from the real issues that need to be fixed.

    It's hard to listen to that recording and imagine anything as intelligent as intentional fixing. It was a clown show, within a process that allows and encourages it to be a clown show. Meanwhile City themselves were screwed by an atrocious ref decision this week too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Did it go through the audio of the jones red card? What was there reasoning for the upgrade of the yellow or was it solely on the Diaz goal?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,628 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    Was just the Diaz goal. Maybe more was provided to the club, but the Diaz goal is all that's been made public.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    In normal circumstances is the audio provided to clubs when they are appealing a red card?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,628 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    I don't know actually... the place we've been hearing VAR conversations is in those selected cases on that Webb show "Mic'd Up". One would expect clubs would be able to get the audio on specific appeal cases, but who knows if they do.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    It’s something I have never thought of before. In these appeals is the burden of proof on the team to prove that it wasn’t a red (which I assume it is). Hugely important would be the way it was decided and the decision process. The veil on all this is going to be lifted which is obviously a good thing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Was I surprised when the referee was calling the VAR mate and vice versa? No

    Was I surprised at the self-congratulation of doing a good job? No

    It all speaks to the poor culture within PGMOL.

    You are at work in a formal situation, you act professionally, you don't refer to each other as mate, you don't self-congratulate, you use formal specific language. What if this had happened?

    Ref: There is a question about offside, can I award the goal?

    VAR (having examined the footage): The player is clearly onside, check complete, you may award the goal.

    There is no need for any other conversation, there is no need for people speaking above one another, there is no need for confusion, keep it formal, keep it clear, keep it specific.

    If we don't have that kind of reform, then sooner or later one of them is going to say "fancy a beer later, mate".

    More women, more Asians, more people of colour, more recruited from abroad, a new culture, all things needed to improve PGMOL.


    All of this has been evident for a while. There is nothing special about Liverpool being on the end of this latest VAR cock-up, the only pity is that they and their supporters are late to the party, though to be fair, they are the loudest complainants so far.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,315 ✭✭✭doc_17


    Was the Curtis Jones red really a “clear and obvious error” that required a VAR intervention? It wasn’t like the ref missed it, he was beside it, saw it in real time, saw contact with the ball, and decided to give a yellow. A 3 game ban for that? Mark my words, every team will tackle like City soon, as in there won’t be any tackling.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,589 ✭✭✭McFly85


    In fairness, the use of nicknames was an issue in this case. There was confusion as to whether Oli referred to Michael Oliver or Oli Kohout.

    Just asking for officials to use standard titles when referring to someone instead of a name or nickname should be an obvious update.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,476 ✭✭✭✭machiavellianme


    And here was me thinking that instead saying "check complete", say "award goal" or "offside" was the obvious update.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,589 ✭✭✭McFly85


    Well I think they should look at the whole process for language used. Anything that could cause confusion or sound ambiguous should be revised.

    One thing that stands out from the audio is the speed in which they’re trying to make these decisions which is all the more reason for absolute clarity in the language used - a split second of misunderstanding can end up causing the whole process to break down.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Jones red card appeal rejected. Serve 3 match suspension.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,567 ✭✭✭jacool


    You’re right there.

    In rugby, the communication is clear, even when they get things wrong.

    Game last weekend in RWC, where scrum collapses and referee awards penalty to Argentina. The scrum occurred over by the side-line, and the Chile complained because they should have got the decision, as the scrum went down on the other side from the ref and was caused by Argentina. The TV commentators saw this and had commented on it. The ref came round to that side of the scrum and said to the Chilean captain that he didn’t expect the linesman on that side of the scrum, a full pitch width away, to be able to see the foul, so “sorry, we play on”. He figured he might have got the call wrong and apologised but couldn’t change his call.

    We have so much time added these days, an extra minute here would have saved a world of woe.


    These are the other 14 apology scenarios:

    Crystal Palace vs Aston Villa (August 2022)         PGMOL apologised to Crystal Palace after referee Andy Madley changed his decision on a Palace penalty after looking at the monitor, despite a handball from Villa defender Lucas Digne.

    Chelsea vs West Ham (September 2022)            Jarrod Bowen saw a late equaliser for West Ham ruled out following a foul on Edouard Mendy, with PGMOL apologising for the foul awarding.

    Newcastle vs Crystal Palace (September 2022) Joe Willock was deemed to have impeded goalkeeper Vicente Guaita, meaning Newcastle's goal - an own goal by Palace defender Tyrick Mitchell - was ruled out. PGMOL subsequently apologised for the decision.

    Man Utd vs Arsenal (September 2022)                 Gabriel Martinelli saw a goal incorrectly ruled out by VAR after Arsenal captain Martin Odegaard was adjudged to have fouled Christian Eriksen. PGMOL apologised for awarding the foul.

    Fulham vs Aston Villa (October 2022)                  PGMOL apologised after the referee incorrectly showed Aston Villa midfielder Douglas Luiz a red card for an incident involving Aleksandar Mitrovic.

    Nottingham Forest vs Brentford (November 2022)         Brentford were incorrectly awarded a penalty against Nottingham Forest, with it later deemed that goalkeeper Dean Henderson had not fouled Bees attacker Yoann Wissa.

    Aston Villa vs Manchester United (November 2022)      Lucas Digne's free kick goal for Aston Villa should have been ruled out, as United's wall was positioned too far back than the requisite 10 yards by the referee.

    Brighton vs Liverpool (January 2023)                    PGMOL apologised for showing Liverpool's Fabinho a yellow card, rather than a red card, for a high tackle on Brighton's Evan Ferguson.

    Crystal Palace vs Brighton (February 2023)         VAR official John Brooks ruled out Pervis Estupinan a goal for Brighton for offside, but it later emerged that he had drawn the offside lines next to the wrong player and the goal should have stood.

    Arsenal vs Brentford (February 2023)        Ivan Toney's goal for Brentford stood after VAR official Lee Mason missed that Bees midfielder Christian Norgaard was in an offside position.

    Everton vs Man City (February 2023)        Everton were incorrectly denied a penalty when a handball by City midfielder Rodri wasn't given.

    Tottenham vs Brighton (April 2023)           Brighton were not awarded a penalty against Spurs after Pierre-Emile Hojbjerg was deemed not to have fouled Kaoru Mitoma, but PGMOL later apologised for the decision.

    Man Utd vs Wolves (August 2023)             Wolves were denied a late penalty when United goalkeeper Andre Onana wiped out Sasa Kalajdzic in the box. PGMOL later sent an apology to Gary O'Neil's side.

    For me, the worst 3 are Jarred Bowen, Pervis Estupinan and Luis Diaz, as they all had valid goals disallowed. After that Brentford’s “goal” standing. It’s a lot of f**k ups to be fair.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,476 ✭✭✭✭machiavellianme


    That's a lot of errors for a supposedly "safety net" to avoid mistakes. I thought Estupinian was the worst till Saturday since offsides had previously been infallible. The rest involved fouls and could always be subjective. Obviously human errors can happen, hence the need for second checks but to completely miss a player and draw the wrong lines was shocking.

    Diaz's took it to a whole new level as it wasn't an oversight, just poor communication.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,567 ✭✭✭jacool


    @blanch152 "All of this has been evident for a while. There is nothing special about Liverpool being on the end of this latest VAR cock-up, the only pity is that they and their supporters are late to the party, though to be fair, they are the loudest complainants so far."

    I don't think the Liverpool fans got too vocal when Harry Kane tried to cut Andy Robertson in half back in the day

    This is what VAR deemed "not a red card" back then.

    image.png

    Perhaps this s**t decision on Sunday was just the last straw. Perhaps.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,060 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Definitely. I don’t think it will help in the jones situation as I don’t think you can appeal an appeal.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    So Liverpool are asking for the game to be replayed? So what does every Liverpool fan here who called me absurd for saying the club want it replayed say? https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2023/oct/04/jurgen-klopp-calls-for-spurs-liverpool-replay-after-var-error



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 762 ✭✭✭Infoseeker1975


    He is winding you up, don't take the bait:)

    Like all good articles these days, read the full statement and work it out for yourself.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,607 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    so after all that, and all the Pool fans saying "of course we're not looking for a replay"... they're looking for a replay.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You can't replay the game because of a wrong refereeing decision..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 237 ✭✭DAngelo Bailey


    Klopp calling for a replay? What an embarrassment!!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,567 ✭✭✭jacool


    Here's the actual quote. "I say this not as manager of Liverpool but as a football person - I think the only outcome should be a replay. Probably will not happen."

    So its not Liverpool. That's his personal take.

    Personally, I think it won't, and can't happen. The IFAB rule about re-starting games is the only "grey area" that could be modified next Spring, but I doubt there would be any appetite for that, as where would you draw the line for a time allowed for going back in the play?

    The fix is inside the VAR booth. I await the next error.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Jaysus Liverpool fans must be scratching their heads after so vehemently saying we wouldn’t be as foolish as asking for a replay and only tinfoil hat people are looking for one. 😂😂😂



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Oh so Juergen klopp doesn’t manage or speak for Liverpool now. That’s a new one



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement