Refereeing incompetence.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

7 minutes ago, Mike w said:

It was a penalty and red card all day long but we shouldn't use it as an excuse for not getting three points.  Better performance but need to be more clinical. It is not the foul that cost us 3 points.

I agree, and I didn't say anything to the contrary. The failure to give a penalty/red card was only one factor, we created more than enough chances to have won the match without the need for refereeing intervention.

Still positive that we can create that many changes with Nunez having only trained with us for two days, Sara only playing a few minutes at the end, Hayden not featuring at all, and Ramsey now in the building too. It's obvious that Smith has placed a lot of stock in getting the midfield balance right, and our season will succeed or fail largely based on the success (or otherwise) of those signings.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,273]

23 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

VAR and we get 2 pens and a red card. I absolutely hate this fckuin **** league and we're only 2 games in.

Hernandez didn't help our cause though, it will wind refs up.

Everyone hates VAR… until it’s needed 🤣

[sgncfc 1,227]

Given that we have had two incompetent referees so far, I'd still rather have human error than VAR. Swearing about refs is a huge part of the enjoyment of football and castigating them afterwards for us not winning (when we have had 22 shots and only 4 on target - bit of a giveaway there as to why we really didn't win) is also fun.

VAR is destroying football. Just like social media is destroying society and Love Island is destroying romance.

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

30 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

Given that we have had two incompetent referees so far, I'd still rather have human error than VAR. Swearing about refs is a huge part of the enjoyment of football and castigating them afterwards for us not winning (when we have had 22 shots and only 4 on target - bit of a giveaway there as to why we really didn't win) is also fun.

VAR is destroying football. Just like social media is destroying society and Love Island is destroying romance.

And Gordon Ramsey is destroying cooking 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, sgncfc said:

Given that we have had two incompetent referees so far, I'd still rather have human error than VAR. Swearing about refs is a huge part of the enjoyment of football and castigating them afterwards for us not winning (when we have had 22 shots and only 4 on target - bit of a giveaway there as to why we really didn't win) is also fun.

VAR is destroying football. Just like social media is destroying society and Love Island is destroying romance.

The great thing about football is that issues like that tackle will get us through to the Cup game. I think even the dyed in the wool Wigan supporters know they got away with one. But we tend to forget we would still have had to score the penalty. And as you point out, we weren't very accurate with our shooting. Yo be honest, we know a volley isn't the easiest but I thought Dimi's effort was poor. It looked set up for a dipper over the keeper.

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

Seen that the nobody of a manager at Wigan has been saying how it was never a penalty?
Holes in Maxi's leg says other wise.
How the hell can anyone stand by that tackle, lucky he didnt shatter his leg.

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

55 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

The great thing about football is that issues like that tackle will get us through to the Cup game. I think even the dyed in the wool Wigan supporters know they got away with one. But we tend to forget we would still have had to score the penalty. And as you point out, we weren't very accurate with our shooting. Yo be honest, we know a volley isn't the easiest but I thought Dimi's effort was poor. It looked set up for a dipper over the keeper.

Well their manager apparently doesn’t think they got away with anything at all. https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/canaries-ncfc-wigan-leam-richardson-reaction-9195600 …we went down easily apparently - though I think he might ‘go down’ if he’d had a studs-up challenge to his shin that left as big a gash.  There were several shouts that definitely weren’t pens, but he ought to be big enough to admit when they’ve got away with one.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[Newtopia 517]

28 minutes ago, Nexus_Canary said:

Seen that the nobody of a manager at Wigan has been saying how it was never a penalty?
Holes in Maxi's leg says other wise.
How the hell can anyone stand by that tackle, lucky he didnt shatter his leg.

I would like to hear from the ref, he had a clear view, and although I think it was reckless, perhaps the ref saw it differently.  I did wonder if he thought Max kicked the defenders foot?

[Greavsy 2,413]

7 minutes ago, Newtopia said:

I did wonder if he thought Max kicked the defenders foot?

Which is exactly what Max did, imo, as I stated in my post yesterday. 

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

13 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Which is exactly what Max did, imo, as I stated in my post yesterday. 

I’ll remember that one if I ever run over someone in my car.  The tackle was studs up, a big “no”, about a foot off the ground, also a big “no” as it means you’re out of control. It is what caused the clash and the injury; Aarons was of course moving, he wasn’t playing ‘statues’ and it is pretty much irrelevant given the other points. If that’s not a foul then I don’t know what is any more.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

27 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Which is exactly what Max did, imo, as I stated in my post yesterday. 

Well I have watched the clip over and over again, pausing it as I did, it is a definite red card. Max did not kick the defenders foot. The defenders tackle was high, his foot clipped the top of the ball before smashing into Max's shin, the large still photo n this thread demonstrates that perfectly...........

[Mason 47 1,379]

It's an interesting snapshot of officiating today. On social media, each side is making their case with a still image moments apart, Norwich people with the shot of  an outstretched foot halfway up Aarons leg, Wigan folk milliseconds before when the defender contacted the ball. Herein lies the dangers of VAR.

Hucks on Twitter has argued against a penalty, Sutton has argued for a red and a spot-kick. Funny how this is such a divisive issue.

Having looked at it multiple times now, to the letter of the law he has won the ball and that cannot be argued- however, simply touching the ball first does not absolve the challenge of being foul. IMO the defender is using excessive force and is not in control of his momentum at all, and with an ever-so-slightly adjusted position of his foot or Aarons and that leg is snapped in half.

As I said on my earlier post, there's a pretty inoffensive block-tackle available here that does the job and doesn't scythe another player down. Wigan have absolutely gotten away with this one.

[Greavsy 2,413]

8 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

Well I have watched the clip over and over again, pausing it as I did, it is a definite red card. Max did not kick the defenders foot. The defenders tackle was high, his foot clipped the top of the ball before smashing into Max's shin, the large still photo n this thread demonstrates that perfectly...........

You can't see movement in a still. 

[Mason 47 1,379]

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play

From the official rulebook, for reference. 

For those saying it, no, it doesn't excuse the rest of the performance, but it is still a baffling decision and I wouldn't be surprised to see us get a soft pen at Hull the weekend.

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

Interesting Hucks reckons it’s not a foul, but then he wasn’t above winning pens by diving.  I very much doubt he’d have come to the same conclusion if the challenge had been on him. 

Edited August 7, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[Greavsy 2,413]

1 minute ago, Branston Pickle said:

Interesting Hucks reckons it’s not a foul, but then he wasn’t above winning them by diving. 

Ex pro, even with green and yellow specs on, says no foul. I'll take that. 

Case closed! 😊 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

23 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Ex pro, even with green and yellow specs on, says no foul. I'll take that. 

Case closed! 😊 

Not at all, it just means you both are wrong, and Hucks needs a new pair of green and yellow specs.................

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

2 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Which is exactly what Max did, imo, as I stated in my post yesterday. 

But that simply doesn't happen. Max doesn't kick anything but air as his shin is attacked by the defender and forcibly pushed back and then he's falling to the ground.

Yes the defender gets the ball but it's a leg breaking tackle if Max wasn't in the process of shooting. It then becomes a reckless tackle endangering the opponent = a red card.

[Greavsy 2,413]

13 minutes ago, Fiery Zac said:

But that simply doesn't happen. Max doesn't kick anything but air as his shin is attacked by the defender and forcibly pushed back and then he's falling to the ground.

Yes the defender gets the ball but it's a leg breaking tackle if Max wasn't in the process of shooting. It then becomes a reckless tackle endangering the opponent = a red card.

Max misses the ball  because the defender cleared it, which I agree doesnt mean it isn't a foul, but max then attempts a shot, and his leg goes into the botton of the boot. Which I agree is high, as evidenced from where max's shin shows impact,  but that is due to him attempting a shot. It happens quickly so no way he would have time to abort his shot, but my point it Aarons leg strikes the defenders boot to cause the impact, not the other way round. Hence no foul imo.

[Newtopia 517]

8 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Which is exactly what Max did, imo, as I stated in my post yesterday. 

Possibly, although I am not sure that negates the fact his tackle was reckless, it would good to hear from the ref.

[HB1989 27]

Back in the day it was a great tackle and never a pen as he got the ball first. These days with the laws how they are it is a penalty and a red card.

No consistency from the officials which is so frustrating, but not as frustrating as VAR.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

7 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Max misses the ball  because the defender cleared it, which I agree doesnt mean it isn't a foul, but max then attempts a shot, and his leg goes into the botton of the boot. Which I agree is high, as evidenced from where max's shin shows impact,  but that is due to him attempting a shot. It happens quickly so no way he would have time to abort his shot, but my point it Aarons leg strikes the defenders boot to cause the impact, not the other way round. Hence no foul imo.

The defender is lunging in at speed with his studs raised. Irrespective of whether he plays the ball, he has to bear responsibility for the impact, as it's only dangerous due to aforementioned speed and raised studs.

One of the 'fouls' that really annoys me is when a defender clears the ball, and an attacking player sticks his foot in to try to block the clearance, and the defender kicks through it and catches the attacking player's boot as he clears it. You often see a yellow card given for those, when the attacking player is merely 'hanging a leg' in the direction of the ball with no forward momentum and no raised studs.

In this instance, however, the defender flies into Max – admittedly with no intent to do anything other than play the ball, which he does initially – but the speed at which he flies in means he has no control over the follow-through, and the fact his studs are raised means there is a high degree of danger, as evidenced by the fact he nearly snaps Max's leg in two!

We just got really unlucky on the day with a shocking decision. Ask 100 top-level referees to adjudicate that decision with the benefits of replays, and 100 of them will tell you it's a red card (including our on-field ref from Saturday). With the way the laws of the game are at the moment, there is simply no other interpretation.

Edited August 8, 2022 by Feedthewolf

[horsefly 4,298]

The rules are pretty clear on this. It is not a defence that a player performing a reckless challenge (e.g. a studs up, off the ground lunge) manages to contact the ball before he contacts the opponent. Case closed:

[vos 155]

As see it - if it was the other way round we would have all be shouting "he took the ball ref". I would accept that taking the real time view it should have been a penalty.

[yellowrider120 762]

The ref simply bottled giving a penalty and (probably) a red card. As Air Rons said afterwards..............'if that 'tackle' happens in the centre circle it's a red card all day long'.

The refs incompetence was apparent very early on when the Wigan defender had his arms clearly wrapped round Pukki's waist to prevent movement, just before one of our corners. Even the dead sheep in the River End briefly roused themselves to express displeasure. The ref went and spoke to the Wigan guy who then proceeded to totally ignore said 'warning' and simply repeated his fouling. That happened at more than one corner thereafter. The useless ref should have stamped it out by issuing a yellow and then   a red for persistent misconduct but wimped out.        

[nutty nigel 7,533]

28 minutes ago, vos said:

As see it - if it was the other way round we would have all be shouting "he took the ball ref". I would accept that taking the real time view it should have been a penalty.

Spot on VOS.

In real time if anybody was not appealing for a pen they let us down. 'you're not fit to referee' seemed to come from all parts of the ground and I doubt anyone was shouting 'great decision referee'. Of course the ref didn't change his mind and didn't look to 'put it right' on the day. But we may even the scores next time he visits because he will surely get a hard time. That's part of home advantage, something VAR has taken away for the more neutral TV audience. 

On Monday morning I can see maybe he got the ball first but anywhere else on the pitch that's a free kick and a red card all day long.

[yellowrider120 762]

3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Spot on VOS.

In real time if anybody was not appealing for a pen they let us down. 'you're not fit to referee' seemed to come from all parts of the ground and I doubt anyone was shouting 'great decision referee'. Of course the ref didn't change his mind and didn't look to 'put it right' on the day. But we may even the scores next time he visits because he will surely get a hard time. That's part of home advantage, something VAR has taken away for the more neutral TV audience. 

On Monday morning I can see maybe he got the ball first but anywhere else on the pitch that's a free kick and a red card all day long.

OMG!! For once Edward, we are in 100% agreement! Keep up the good work.

[Greavsy 2,413]

9 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

maybe he got the ball first

Even if he did, it doesnt mean it isn't a foul / free kick / pen. (which in my opinion it wasn't, as previously posted, but not because of that!) 

[Sooty57 403]

Player tackled - my team....... Player tackling - opposition.......... Penalty all day long

Player tackled - opposition...... Player tackling - my team........... No foul

 

[Canary dwarf 221]

Ref watch is on at 11.30 this morning on sky , Dermot Gallagher ex referee analyses dubious ref decisions from the weekend,it will be interesting to hear what he has to say about the max Arron's challenge, unless they only focus on prem games.🤔