canarydan23 4,060 Posted October 24, 2017 Fu(king farce. (unt of a ref. What''s the fu(king point? You might as well flip a coin and stay in the changing room. There was never any chance of us winning today with that absolute tw@t officiating.Waste of effort in a pre-determined "sporting" contest. Like WWF. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Making Plans 929 Posted October 24, 2017 Stonewall pen which would have been given at the other end no question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 24, 2017 Fuck me, he was fouled TWICE for the penalty. Pulled back AND tripped. Clearly going to get to the ball too, so it wasn''t one of those where the pundits could say "he wasn''t going to get to the ball, it would have gone out of play".Also, I''m not sure it was a red card; Oliveira would only have been about 8 yards clear of the Arsenal defence?Incredibly wasteful finishing though, refereeing should not have come into it.On the plus side: Maddison = absolute class, Gunn = the real deal, and Zimmerman left "French ponce" Giroud on his arse on several occasions. Great performance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted October 24, 2017 Odd how Watkins showing studs is sent off, whereas for Arsenal it was pretty much standard practice.The tackle on Maddison was ''studs showing'', even then the ref was reluctant to show a card. It should have been a red. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
K Lo 219 Posted October 24, 2017 The sooner they bring video reffing in the better. I''d like teams to be able to contest a decision as players can in tennis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crabbycanary3 994 Posted October 24, 2017 How can a Ref be that bad, and not face repercussions? I''m not advocating violence btw, just re-training and sanctions from his bosses. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Les 0 Posted October 24, 2017 players gave everything they could, definitely weak up front, saying that should have nailed the game early on in 2nd half.certainly done over by the officials tonight, should have been red card 1st half and a penalty for us near the end.lucky old arsenal. again!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KeiranShikari_2 0 Posted October 24, 2017 [quote user="Crabbycanary3"]How can a Ref be that bad, and not face repercussions? I''m not advocating violence btw, just re-training and sanctions from his bosses.[/quote]He was great, Arsenal got through. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 24, 2017 I usually laugh at the "big team" ref conspiracy theory, but you have to look at the game tonight and wonder how many tackles Arsenal can go into studs up (mostly on Maddison) without getting a booking.Absolutely spineless ref. I know they have a hard job, but he should be absolutely ashamed tonight. He should have a long, hard look at his career; I hear Arsenal are looking for a new mascot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rock bus 836 Posted October 24, 2017 Michael Bailey mentioning that arsenal may have broken subs rule..think you can only use fourth sub if 3 used in 90minutes (like we did).Even if that is the case mor chance of that ref giving a penalty against arsenal than the FA overturning the result, unfortunately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Les 0 Posted October 24, 2017 perhaps we''ll get awarded the game if subs rules have been broken. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Les 0 Posted October 24, 2017 straw clutching mucho. :)) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tired 102 Posted October 24, 2017 They could have 22 players on the pitch and the FA wouldn''t do anything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 24, 2017 And according to Bailey the ref doesn''t even know the rules. Did they just pull an Arsenal fan out of the crowd or something? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BroadstairsR 2,093 Posted October 24, 2017 If that''s true about the Arsenal sub being illegal then something has to be done to rectify it.Rules are rules, despite that referee not advocating that concept throughout the entire game. We must now appeal. The illegal substitution might have denied us an equaliser in some way or another. Fresh legs and all that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rock bus 836 Posted October 24, 2017 Even that stolen off us..rule tweaked a little while ago :( Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Les 0 Posted October 24, 2017 when? 2 minutes before their 4th sub???? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted October 24, 2017 [quote user="K Lo"]The sooner they bring video reffing in the better. I''d like teams to be able to contest a decision as players can in tennis.[/quote]Absolute nonsense ! ! !In tennis as in cricket the ball is dead therefore any checking does not impact on the play. With tennis and cricket the decisions are almost all objective, whereas in football most are subjective.To allow such idiocy anywhere the game would be a massive destructive force.And while to are mulling that over tell me if the ball was over the line for Geoff Hurst''s 3rd in ''66 - and how much time should have been allocated to deciding it ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snake-eyes 13 Posted October 24, 2017 Everything I have researched indicates there is no issue here.There is nothing in the rules to state you must have used all 3 subs in normal time, to be eligible to use the fourth in Extra Time. The only limitation is that no more than 3 subs are used in normal time.Shame http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun-forums/cs/emoticons/emotion-6.gifSnake Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron obvious 1,473 Posted October 24, 2017 Videos would give the officials a chance to objectively look at the events. It would reduce subjectivity in what are in reality objective facts by a large margin. It could be done in less than 30 seconds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 24, 2017 Great argument Rhubarb; would be even better if we didn''t now have video technology for "over the line" decisions in the top two tiers of British Football, and of course the top international tournaments.Why do you think football rules are subjective? Which ones?I would argue that all of them are objective, as they should be, just like in any sport. If you''re suddenly saying that the ref can whack their own opinions and emotions in, then I think it underlines why most people are frustrated with inconsistent decisions. Of course, the referee has to interpret the laws, but that is absolutely not the same as the rules being subjective. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 24, 2017 Agree Ron. Simple question is, if the technology was available when football was invented 150 years ago, would they have used it?It surely cannot be beyond the FA/FIFA to have a rolling video ref who is reviewing the relevant broadcast footage at all times, and can give a quick indication to the ref within a few seconds when the *REF IS NOT SURE*. Key factor.Let''s make the refs jobs easier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted October 24, 2017 [quote user="ron obvious"]Videos would give the officials a chance to objectively look at the events. It would reduce subjectivity in what are in reality objective facts by a large margin. It could be done in less than 30 seconds.[/quote]Absolute nonsense, again.Most questionable decisions are fouls, handball decisions which ARE subjective.The idea of having stuff referred is complete lunacy, never mind totally impracticalNo referee would either accept this or judge another refereeAnd look at how many times decisions are chewed over endlessly on MOTD, with still no conclusive agreement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted October 24, 2017 [quote user="Ian"]Agree Ron. Simple question is, if the technology was available when football was invented 150 years ago, would they have used it?It surely cannot be beyond the FA/FIFA to have a rolling video ref who is reviewing the relevant broadcast footage at all times, and can give a quick indication to the ref within a few seconds when the *REF IS NOT SURE*. Key factor.Let''s make the refs jobs easier.[/quote]oh dear there''s a disturbing thought that you actually belief this.just take a few minutes, get a grown up to help ie explain how totally impractical that would be - and it is not a lack of certainty eitheerIt is simply his or her jdgement, similarly this ''idiot in the sky'' you suggest would merely be giving their ''judgement'' as wellRidiculous nonsense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tetteys Jig 830 Posted October 24, 2017 [quote user="snake-eyes"]Everything I have researched indicates there is no issue here.There is nothing in the rules to state you must have used all 3 subs in normal time, to be eligible to use the fourth in Extra Time. The only limitation is that no more than 3 subs are used in normal time.Shame http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun-forums/cs/emoticons/emotion-6.gifSnake[/quote]The rule grants "an additional sub" not a 4th one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 24, 2017 I notice you sidestepped your totally balls-up about refereeing being subjective, eh, Rhubarb? Let me guess, you were frankly apoplectic about the back-pass rule being introduced; and as for that 3 points for a win rule - absolute insanity! Why do we stand for it?!I am a big fan of the referee lottery being a part of the game, but there is absolutely no reason why there could no be an extra official giving advice according to video footage. You claim that it would be "impractical", but the reality is that the game usually breaks for 60 seconds+ during controversial decisions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kick it off 1,927 Posted October 24, 2017 [quote user="Rhubarb"][quote user="ron obvious"]Videos would give the officials a chance to objectively look at the events. It would reduce subjectivity in what are in reality objective facts by a large margin. It could be done in less than 30 seconds.[/quote]Absolute nonsense, again.Most questionable decisions are fouls, handball decisions which ARE subjective.The idea of having stuff referred is complete lunacy, never mind totally impracticalNo referee would either accept this or judge another refereeAnd look at how many times decisions are chewed over endlessly on MOTD, with still no conclusive agreement.[/quote]Hate to break it to you, but the refs do accept and judge other refs over red cards - that''s who make up the review panel when clubs appeal.Your point assumes it has to be referred, which is not the case. Doesn''t necessarily have to be. Basketball refs review their own decisions via video for example.I don''t think many refs would have an issue with the opportunity to look at decisions they may not have seen clearly from additional angles, why would that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites