Decent ref tonight

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

Thought it worth a mention about tonight’s ref, Dean Whitestone….particularly after that tosspot Stroud the other day.  Tbh it was a fairly straightforward match to ref (but then so was Burnley), but he was barely noticeable and it was absolutely not about him; the polar opposite to Stroud.

[dylanisabaddog 4,877]

He was good. The only thing I thought he got wrong was booking a Hull substitute for his first foul. 

[Helsinki canary 240]

Agreed, let the game flow, question mark over possible penalty, otherwise a good performance 

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

Yep superb refereeing, would like to see the penalty claim again,  but how he let the game flow was brilliant refereeing. 

Best for a long time, including in the Prem.

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

Yeh solid ref for a change, although it was nice to see Hull players not rolling around. Probably helped that they were chasing the game but no bs.

Last night was refreshing in every way 

[Worthy Nigelton 1,037]

If I was a Hull fan I'd say he was dreadful.  He was a proper homer IMHO.

[Satriales 630]

46 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

If I was a Hull fan I'd say he was dreadful.  He was a proper homer IMHO.

There are definitely some refs who would have given a foul during the buildup of our third goal. Think it was a tackle by Hanley? Stroud would have blown up for sure!

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

I think he was letting things go for both sides, as they are meant to this season. There were very few complaints from players for any decisions so he got most right, and that’s all you can ask. The pen would have been harsh, per a friend who was watching on Sky (though we’ve seen them given, particularly against us!).

I did think Hull seemed to have a good ‘attitude’ - something often missing; they didn’t (obviously) time waste at 1-1 and there were several times they lobbed the ball back to our player for a corner/throw in, when many wouldn’t.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Branston Pickle

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

34 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

I think he was letting things go for both sides, as they are meant to this season. There were very few complaints from players for any decisions so he got most right, and that’s all you can ask. The pen would have been harsh, per a friend who was watching on Sky (though we’ve seen them given, particularly against us!).

I did think Hull seemed to have a good ‘attitude’ - something often missing; they didn’t (obviously) time waste at 1-1 and there were several times they lobbed the ball back to our player for a corner/throw in, when many wouldn’t.

Yep, agree with this. Liam Rosenior always came across really well as a pundit, and was forever singing Norwich's praises on Quest's EFL coverage. Really hope he continues to do well with them. And agreed about the ref too – an easy game to ref by Championship standards, but wanted to let it flow and was extremely unfussy. Hadn't heard of Mr Whitestone before, but will keep an eye out for him.

[Monty13 2,229]

5 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

He was good. The only thing I thought he got wrong was booking a Hull substitute for his first foul. 

I’d disagree on that, it was a professional foul to stop an attack. I hate it when players deliberately foul someone than protest it was only their first like that’s a reasonable excuse personally.

Only thing I’d say was it was perhaps a little inconsistent considering he hadn’t brandished a single card up to that point I think.

[ron obvious 1,501]

38 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

I think he was letting things go for both sides, as they are meant to this season. There were very few complaints from players for any decisions so he got most right, and that’s all you can ask. The pen would have been harsh, per a friend who was watching on Sky (though we’ve seen them given, particularly against us!).

I did think Hull seemed to have a good ‘attitude’ - something often missing; they didn’t (obviously) time waste at 1-1 and there were several times they lobbed the ball back to our player for a corner/throw in, when many wouldn’t.

Yes, Sara tried to buy a penalty, but the ref. got it right; I also remember at least one bad decision against us. Their defender pulled out of the tackle that Gabby was expecting so fell over his feet. Bit naughty, but nothing more - he didn't roll around on the floor screaming & clutching his ankle like many I've seen

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

8 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Yes, Sara tried to buy a penalty, but the ref. got it right; I also remember at least one bad decision against us. Their defender pulled out of the tackle that Gabby was expecting so fell over his feet. Bit naughty, but nothing more - he didn't roll around on the floor screaming & clutching his ankle like many I've seen

…Grealish, anyone?!

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

Good ref. He gave Hanley a couple of free kicks which were never free kicks but that happens every game tbf 😂

[Yellow Wal 314]

Just as the better teams get promotion so do the referees. The poorer teams also get relegated but do the referees?. It just seems extremely hard to break down the old guard where the only removal from the top list seems to come about by retirement.

Let's face it, last night Mr Whitestone had to make the decisions, he was not backed up by a team of supporting referees from several miles away in a VAR studio. His decisions were quick and final, and usually correct. 

Which would you prefer?

I know which one I prefer and I wish Mr. Whitestone well, before the establishment gets at him and ruins a good referee.

 

[hogesar 9,618]

32 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Yes, Sara tried to buy a penalty, but the ref. got it right; I also remember at least one bad decision against us. Their defender pulled out of the tackle that Gabby was expecting so fell over his feet. Bit naughty, but nothing more - he didn't roll around on the floor screaming & clutching his ankle like many I've seen

With VAR, that would have 100% been a penalty

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I like a ref who realises it is a contact sport and that sometimes a good biggun will beat a good littleun. He allowed Hanley to use his strength and size to muscle players out and leave them on the ****. 

[ron obvious 1,501]

47 minutes ago, hogesar said:

With VAR, that would have 100% been a penalty

I don't know what VAR would have said but, having just watched it in slo mo on the youtube highlights, my opinion hasn't changed.

[sgncfc 1,223]

Best referee I've seen for some time. Gave the offside immediately - no arguments. Waved away the pen appeal immediately - no arguments. The pen was one you can look at 20 times and not know. You just need a ref to make the decision as quickly as possible and move on.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

9 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

Yep, agree with this. Liam Rosenior always came across really well as a pundit, and was forever singing Norwich's praises on Quest's EFL coverage. Really hope he continues to do well with them. And agreed about the ref too – an easy game to ref by Championship standards, but wanted to let it flow and was extremely unfussy. Hadn't heard of Mr Whitestone before, but will keep an eye out for him.

I was asked by a friend today about the ref Dean Whitestone. I’d never heard of him. 

Looks like he moved up to the championship in 19/20 and has been a regular on the chumps ever since . Never been on the Prem but must be considered - been consistent on Chumps for 3 years. Thought he looked good (ie didn’t notice him) - loved how he overruled the Lino on a most obvious corner . 
Unlike my new best friend Mr Froud who is stuck in the Championship having been sacked off the Prem years ago, this guy is moving in the right direction. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Graham Paddons Beard

[AJ 1,218]

18 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

He was good. The only thing I thought he got wrong was booking a Hull substitute for his first foul. 

Stopping a promising attack is a yellow card by the rules so he got it spot on, doesn't matter if it's your first foul or not. Likewise a two footed lunge is a red if it's in the first 30 seconds or the last 30. A foul is a foul. 

[canarybubbles 1,915]

10 hours ago, sgncfc said:

Best referee I've seen for some time. Gave the offside immediately - no arguments. Waved away the pen appeal immediately - no arguments. The pen was one you can look at 20 times and not know. You just need a ref to make the decision as quickly as possible and move on.

Which is something that VAR makes impossible. Despite some of the awful referees we have had to endure this season, I still prefer them to the killjoy that is VAR.

(I also think the standard of refereeing is getting worse due to VAR because refs are no longer ultimately responsible for their decisions during the game. Yes, I know they get called over to the screen, but how often do they go against the VAR god in the sky when this happens? I don't think this loss of responsibility is a conscious process, but just imagine that you know that everything you do in your job is going to get checked later by a higher authority - could you hand-on-heart say that part of you wouldn't get a bit more sloppy, even if you did your best to be totally professional?)

[The Raptor 1,199]

21 hours ago, hogesar said:

With VAR, that would have 100% been a penalty

Only for some clubs!

[Capt. Pants 4,202]

We win and the ref is good, we lose and he's crap.

The best thing I can say is that I didn't notice him, which is as it should be.

If you want to be pedantic there looked to be a foul in the build up to our 3rd. 

It was an easy game to ref; no bad fouls or **** housery, just 2 teams just wanting to get on and play the game.

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

14 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

We win and the ref is good, we lose and he's crap.

The best thing I can say is that I didn't notice him, which is as it should be.

If you want to be pedantic there looked to be a foul in the build up to our 3rd. 

It was an easy game to ref; no bad fouls or **** housery, just 2 teams just wanting to get on and play the game.

Nah, I don't buy that. A lot of people wear the yellow-and-green blinkers when it comes to refs, but there are plenty of people who can see through that and be a bit more objective. Keith Stroud was bloody awful in the Burnley match, but it had no bearing on the outcome of the match as we gifted them their three goals. Similarly, if we'd lost 3-1 on Tuesday night it would still have been a good performance from the ref and I'd have called it as such.

A lot of the most aggressive anti-referee invective comes from people who have never refereed, and are looking for the first opportunity to jump down the officials' throats. As an ex-ref I'd say the overall standard of refereeing we've seen in our Championship matches has been poor this season, and I don't think VAR is helping matters.

It cannot be beneficial to the development of referees at the top level to have to referee completely differently once they get to the top level. We've seen this past week that VAR is still eminently fallible, and referees and assistants are having to hedge their bets in live play to allow the match to continue despite their better judgement, knowing that the decisions made by the people in the booth can wind up being every bit as arbitrary due to when and how they draw the lines, interpret the contact and so on.

As far as I'm concerned, they should throw the whole bloody thing in the bin and allow the game to be decided by human decisions, rather than an awkward hybrid of human decisions and subjective interpretation of fallible technology. An acceptable compromise might be to bin off the VAR offsides (assistants generally don't get many decisions wrong by a significant margin anyway), and for the threshold for 'clear and obvious error' on red cards/penalties to be much more heavily weighted in favour of letting the on-field decision stand. I'd still prefer them to bin the lot, though.

[Yellow Wal 314]

2 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Nah, I don't buy that. A lot of people wear the yellow-and-green blinkers when it comes to refs, but there are plenty of people who can see through that and be a bit more objective. Keith Stroud was bloody awful in the Burnley match, but it had no bearing on the outcome of the match as we gifted them their three goals. Similarly, if we'd lost 3-1 on Tuesday night it would still have been a good performance from the ref and I'd have called it as such.

A lot of the most aggressive anti-referee invective comes from people who have never refereed, and are looking for the first opportunity to jump down the officials' throats. As an ex-ref I'd say the overall standard of refereeing we've seen in our Championship matches has been poor this season, and I don't think VAR is helping matters.

It cannot be beneficial to the development of referees at the top level to have to referee completely differently once they get to the top level. We've seen this past week that VAR is still eminently fallible, and referees and assistants are having to hedge their bets in live play to allow the match to continue despite their better judgement, knowing that the decisions made by the people in the booth can wind up being every bit as arbitrary due to when and how they draw the lines, interpret the contact and so on.

As far as I'm concerned, they should throw the whole bloody thing in the bin and allow the game to be decided by human decisions, rather than an awkward hybrid of human decisions and subjective interpretation of fallible technology. An acceptable compromise might be to bin off the VAR offsides (assistants generally don't get many decisions wrong by a significant margin anyway), and for the threshold for 'clear and obvious error' on red cards/penalties to be much more heavily weighted in favour of letting the on-field decision stand. I'd still prefer them to bin the lot, though.

Fully agree.

And by doing this it would quite quickly be shown who the better referees are and allow the better ones promotion to the better leagues and matches and relegate those who do not perform to a reasonable standard.

At the moment too much emphasis is given to referee's off field qualities and not enough to the performances on field.

Because VAR allows lesser referees to have a second chance they are not assessed correctly.

Perhaps the media should try highlighting the multi millionaire striker's missed sitter as much as they highlight a referee's error.

Or better still do not make either the centre of discussion but concentrate more on the overall match.

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

Absolutely I’m not in the ‘blame the ref’ camp - they are human and make mistakes, but some are far better/worse than others.  We were fortunate that Stroud didn’t actually impact the result, that was purely down to us (missed penalty decision apart).

VAR in the World Cup was pretty good - clear decisons that were explained, sadly the use in the FPL has been pretty poor - taking an age to make the wrong decision is just not good enough.

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

2 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

Nah, I don't buy that. A lot of people wear the yellow-and-green blinkers when it comes to refs, but there are plenty of people who can see through that and be a bit more objective. Keith Stroud was bloody awful in the Burnley match, but it had no bearing on the outcome of the match as we gifted them their three goals. Similarly, if we'd lost 3-1 on Tuesday night it would still have been a good performance from the ref and I'd have called it as such.

A lot of the most aggressive anti-referee invective comes from people who have never refereed, and are looking for the first opportunity to jump down the officials' throats. As an ex-ref I'd say the overall standard of refereeing we've seen in our Championship matches has been poor this season, and I don't think VAR is helping matters.

It cannot be beneficial to the development of referees at the top level to have to referee completely differently once they get to the top level. We've seen this past week that VAR is still eminently fallible, and referees and assistants are having to hedge their bets in live play to allow the match to continue despite their better judgement, knowing that the decisions made by the people in the booth can wind up being every bit as arbitrary due to when and how they draw the lines, interpret the contact and so on.

As far as I'm concerned, they should throw the whole bloody thing in the bin and allow the game to be decided by human decisions, rather than an awkward hybrid of human decisions and subjective interpretation of fallible technology. An acceptable compromise might be to bin off the VAR offsides (assistants generally don't get many decisions wrong by a significant margin anyway), and for the threshold for 'clear and obvious error' on red cards/penalties to be much more heavily weighted in favour of letting the on-field decision stand. I'd still prefer them to bin the lot, though.

The biggest problem with VAR is that the Laws get rewritten with that as a fall-back option. The net result is that they become absolutely impractical at grassroots level.

Best of luck applying the offside rule with no neutral assistant referees!

[AJ 1,218]

3 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

The biggest problem with VAR is that the Laws get rewritten with that as a fall-back option. The net result is that they become absolutely impractical at grassroots level.

Best of luck applying the offside rule with no neutral assistant referees!

It's a completely impossible task as a grassroots referee. You just have to give what you can see as 90% of the time you cannot trust the assistants 

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

29 minutes ago, AJ said:

It's a completely impossible task as a grassroots referee. You just have to give what you can see as 90% of the time you cannot trust the assistants 

Exactly. If the Law is written such that it is impossible to apply at grassroots level, the Law is crap.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,783]

6 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

We win and the ref is good, we lose and he's crap.

That's just a coincidence, I'm sure...