Results for Officials

Incompetent or cheats? Sherwood right to be furious

7:30 pm
I talked about officials deciding games of football after the Man City game when the linesman or are they still called assistant referees, denied Dawson a goal when there were 4 defenders plus a goalkeeper between him and the goal, later confirming the free-kick was given for Dawson being offside.

Danny Rose sending off rescinded
Danny Rose sending off rescinded
The same game saw the same linesman then flag for a penalty when Danny Rose didn't even touch Eden Dzeko. Rose was of course sent-off after 50 minutes and the game decided in that instance.

Yes Man City were better, yes we were up against it, but it should have been 1-1 with 11 men on the field and less than 45 minutes to play. With a ball on average out of play for 20 seconds every minute that meant there would have been a maximum of 26.66 minutes football.

Instead Man City were given 3 points, we were denied any, our goal difference is given a hammering and the players put under further pressure to achieve results in other games. That red card was obviously rescinded but Eden Dzeko faced no charge of bringing the game into disrepute. The officials got away with blatant and obvious errors, to put it politely.

Those Related Articles I Mentioned:
Are Officials simply incompetent or something worse?
Officials Talk - Part 2
Feigning Injury should be video reviewed
Officials Part 3 - Time for former players as Officials
Football is a 60 minute game

Roll forward to Chelsea and the officials do it again. This time it's Eto'o who, having time in Russia, has obviously been to the ballet because his dying swan act drew acclaim from the referee. Yet again the referee decides a game, he gives Chelsea a second goal and reduces us to 10 men. Our goal difference takes a hammering.

Younes Kaboul sending off rescinded
Younes Kaboul sending off rescinded
Yet again it was a blatantly wrong decision, as voiced by Gary Neville at the time on commentary. Even Eden Hazzard pointed at Eto'o after the penalty to say your dive made that, you get the credit!

Yet again Tottenham have to appeal referees incompetence and yet again the red card is rescinded or in other words, yet again it is admitted the ref was wrong and his incompetence is then simply brushed under the carpet.

Yes we may still have lost but that's not the point. The officials wrongly ended the contest because Michel Platini and Sepp Blatter don't want video replays to undermine officials.

Officials are undermining themselves. We have TV replays, every decision gets looked at from every angle anyway so there is simply no excuse not to use that technology to get the right decision at the time.

Last season officials, through their bias, relegated Wigan, the decisions they had to put up with week in week out were ridiculous. The futures of clubs, of managers, of players are being decided by at best incompetent officials.

Did the officials after the Man City game get investigated or given a ban for such an obvious and major mistake? No, they got away scott-free, they don't explain decisions to the media and players, managers are not allowed to tell the truth when discussing officials or they get a disrepute charge.

They are not allowed to criticise which smacks of dictatorship.

Will the referee at Chelsea get a Premier league 'rest,' no of course he won't, he can make whatever decisions he wants to determine the outcome of the games he wants.

With so much money at stake, game changing decisions simply have to be reviewed to ensure the correct decision. Football has so much it can learn from Rugby, such as the players not being allowed to talk to the ref.

The ref in Rugby has respect, his authority is not undermined at all by the players and not by replays either. Football needs to catch up. Cheating needs to be retrospectively dealt with, major decisions need to be reviewed, the game should continue if there is an injury, just as it used to be.

The captain should be the only one allowed to talk to the ref, players who make actions simulating showing cards to tell the ref to should be booked themselves. That law was actually brought in but hardly ever used.

The holding at corners has to be looked at, free-kicks are given for the most minor things in the middle of the field but a tussle in the area is simply ignored. The ref is bottling making a decision.

I remember the Champions League game between Celtic and Juventus where the Celtic centre-forward was held, pushed, thrown to the floor by the Italians so he hardly got a kick, especially from corners. All of it was illegal, there were two stone wall penalties as a result and the ref simply turned a blind eye to it all. He didn't want Celtic to win, Juventus were the bigger team, he and UEFA wanted Juventus to go through so made sure they did.

It's high time something was done, the simple changes outlined and discussed before need to happen and sooner rather than later.

Recent Posts:
The fly in the Louis Van Gaal ointment
Poll: Sherwood or Baldini
Sherwood's spanner gives Levy a dilemma
Levy moves to put right the £100 million mistake

Incompetent or cheats? Sherwood right to be furious Incompetent or cheats? Sherwood right to be furious Reviewed by THBlogNews on 7:30 pm Rating: 5

Has Sherwood been reading THBN?

9:30 pm
Regular readers of THBN - Tottenham Hotspur Blog News will know we have been looking at officials and how they can be helped to get more decisions right and no decide the result of games themselves through bad decisions and sending offs.

The consequences in the money game of football today are simply too dramatic to ignore. Officials can cost Champions League places, cause relegation, set club development back years quite apart from managers losing their jobs and the financial implications their wrong decisions have.

Both codes of rugby, cricket and tennis have all introduced video replays into their sport without negative effects on the crowd, the watching TV audience, the players, the officials or the game, so clearly the time is right for football to follow suit.

Part of our review was to highlight simulation and suggest that the video review panel who sit in judgement of the cards dished out should be tasked with reviewing simulation, or diving and cheating as it should rightly be referred to. We also incorporated into that feigning injury with players these days the biggest wimps the game has ever seen it would seem.

Feb 2nd - Feigning Injury Should Be Video Reviewed

So what has Tim Sherwood come out with today, only that players play-acting should be retrospectively punished. I am delighted to know you are reading Tim and I hope you are taking note of my selection suggestions, lol.

Andy Carroll was sent off for a flailing arm which West Ham appealed against and lost. Sherwood said:

"I think it makes it clear that Andy Carroll is vitally important to West Ham's future.

"They don't want to lose him for this period of time, but I think you've had to take every incident in isolation.

"West Ham feel aggrieved that it hasn't been overturned. We made an appeal with Danny Rose and we got that one overturned and I think that was unanimous.

"One thing I would say, not just on that incident but about what we have been seeing recently, is the feigning of injury from players, which is something we want to keep out of the game.

"Retrospectively I would go back and punish the player who is diving around more than the player causing the offence.

"I think that is the only way you are going to ever cut it out, to go back and give them a higher punishment."

THBN - Tottenham Hotspur Blog News is obviously in wholehearted agreement.

Subscribe to THBN
Has Sherwood been reading THBN? Has Sherwood been reading THBN? Reviewed by THBlogNews on 9:30 pm Rating: 5

Football is a 60 minute game

10:10 am
Good morning one and all, I trust you are all well.

Over the last few posts we have looked at what can best be described as dubious officials, the potential use of video technology in the Premier League, using the video review panel to look at players feigning injury or tackles and suggested the FA, Premier League and Football League should start a campaign to encourage ex-footballers to become officials.

If you have not read the four articles to date or have missed one you can find them on the links below:
Is it time for a former players as officials campaign?
Feigning injury should be video reviewed
Officials Talk - Part Two
Are officials simply incompetent or something worse

The whole idea is not to denigrate officials but to face up to the problems and potential pitfalls and look at what solutions could be put in place to support them and make their job a little easier.

We have discussed the use of video technology in the Premier League and how it would assist officials to get decisions right and not as is often happening take the the result of games out of the players hands.

Now it may surprise you to know, because it certainly did me, that most football bets revolve around how a game is going to be stopped and how it is going to be re-started.

Armed with that knowledge that makes the potential for betting rings to be involved in the game huge and the officials are in control of the outcome of these bets far more than the players opening the door to the potential for wrong doing. There certainly need to be checks in place they this isn't happening and that games aren't being influenced and manipulated in this way. The danger is that when on that slippery slope it could lead to something far worse which is influencing the outcome of game and knowingly or unknowingly that is happening.

The video review is an essential tool to prevent that. One of the arguments against video technology in the Premier League being introduced is that it would interrupt the flow of the game so I thought I'd look up a few statistics to see if the evidence supports this view.

In Premier League games on average there are over 100 restarts per game, comprising of 45 throw-ins, 26 free kicks, 18 goal kicks, 11 corners, 3 kick-off after a goal. The start of each half is separate.

On average each stoppage lasts 20 seconds so in every minute you are only getting 40 seconds of football. Equate that over the match and you are getting around an hour football per 90 minutes, you are losing a third of the time.

If you lose 20 seconds for each stoppage, there is little difference for at certain points in the game stopping to look at a video review. It happened in the rugby at the weekend in the France England game I watched, did it ruin the game, not a bit of it.

So the potential is there in the natural stoppages in the game itself for a video replay not to have a negative effect. There seems little reason in this day and age not to include it with so much money in the game and the future of players, managers and clubs resting on the shoulders of the officials.

Introducing it would create huge media interest, fans interest, would raise talking points and help to keep the Premier League as a huge marketing vehicle. There are so many benefits and so few downsides that it has to happen, it will happen, the question is simply when.

Let's help officials out, let's stop living in the past and  introduce video technology into the Premier League as soon as possible.

Subscribe to THBN
Football is a 60 minute game Football is a 60 minute game Reviewed by THBlogNews on 10:10 am Rating: 5

Officials Part 3 - Is it time for a former players as officials campaign?

7:31 pm
Why is refereeing crowded in secrecy and what can be done to assist them to get more of their decisions right?

We have discussed over the last few articles referees or more correctly officials and the effect they can have on a game. A wrong decision for whatever reason and you penalise one teal while handing an advantage to another. The culmination at the end of the season can mean a club not getting Champions league and the vast riches and club development that go with it or at the other end relegation and the dismantling of a team to start rebuilding again.

Money dictates now, the game is awash with it and players are quite frankly paid vast sums of money they don't deserve. We have cameras in place at every ground in the Premier League so showing major decisions when the game has stopped on the big screen for a video review is perfectly possible and wouldn't cost an added fortune.

Yes it takes media talking points out of the game but it adds new talking points and coverage, fans talk simply moves on to a new topic.

The general argument is that rules should not be introduced into the Premier League that can not be replicated throughout the remainder of the football league, but why?

Why can a screen not be used in the top league in the land, all clubs would know, all players would know, cheating is simply not allowed, get up and get on with the game, stop falling over as if you have been shot when you have merely been blown a kiss. Quite how some of these players would get on on a game of Sunday morning football goodness knows, mind you Iv'e watched some of that recently and nobody tackles anymore in that either.

I fail to see why officials can embrace it as an aid, as both codes of rugby, cricket, tennis has as opposed to the antiquated 'he's only human' argument. Yet humans are con artists, they are dishonest, they cheat. To simply say these are officials therefore they are incapable of having any negative traits is absurd.

So apart from the essential screen what else can be done?

Well let me take you over to cricket. People play cricket because they love it, professional players play because they love it and do you know what many of them do when they retire from playing? They become umpires, they become under the scrutiny of the video replay. Does that diminish their standing, does that diminish their responsibility, not a bit of it.

Players accept an umpire does his best, technology shows many right decisions, some wrong and many borderline where the doubt has to benefit a certain team, they are the rules. You send Danny Rose off for instance if you are 100% sure, not if there is an element of doubt. In cricket, that decision would have been overturned and everyone would simply accept that and move on.

I don't remember ever hearing of a campaign by the FA, the Premier League, the Football League or any other organisation to get ex-footballers to become officials. Why? Surely there must be an element who would do it. I appreciate footballers earn to much money and don't need to work when they finish playing but that is generally the Premier League players.

There are 4 divisions of players, 5 if you count the conference. Are you telling me that not a single one of them wants to become an official? If not, again you have to ask why? Is it because they get to much abuse, well apart from the match itself they are shielded from the public, kept locked away to be wheeled out the following week or midweek.

If you want to make refereeing easier, simply stop players surrounding the ref. Again I take you to rugby, you are not allowed to, you will be penalised. The ref is in charge and only the captain can speak to him. Why can not the same thing be introduced into football?

The game becomes easier to referee, video replays help you get the decisions right, the game is enhanced, cheating reduced. Are there any negatives?

The FA, Premier League and Football League should start a campaign to attract former players, they should be asking players publicly why they don't want to become officials because that tells you what is wrong and what needs to be put right. Is this not basic management of a situation? To keep head continually buried in the sand is incompetence, it's mismanagement.

If we want to attract former players to stay in the game and I think we should then these two simple measures would go a long way to making the proposition more attractive. I for one wouldn't question a referee of a former club taking one of their rivals games when it could have an affect on his former teams outcome. Everything is in the public eye, the video screen is there, he couldn't afford to do anything shady.

Quite frankly the people running our game are living in the dark ages.

Subscribe to THBN
Officials Part 3 - Is it time for a former players as officials campaign? Officials Part 3 - Is it time for a former players as officials campaign? Reviewed by THBlogNews on 7:31 pm Rating: 5

Feigning injury should be video reviewed

2:17 pm
Acting is a fine profession culminating in the Oscars with all it's glitz, glamour, joy and heartbreak but do we have to have auditions every week.

Today's footballers are a protected species where tackles are almost banned compared with the 70's when every team had a hard man to kick the opposition and stop them playing. I had a brief look for Ron 'Chopper' Harris's tackle on Eddie Gray at the instruction of his manager but couldn't find it so Eddie McCreadie on Leeds hard man Billy Bremner will suffice.

Whilst on this occasion he went for the ball, missed and took Bremner's head out, the referee simply played on. If that happened today there would be absolute uproar. As an aside it was good to hear Brian Moore on commentary again.

Micheal Platini is the man who has wanted to cut tackling out of football as far as possible, so now we have actors rolling around clutching injuries and screaming in pain when they haven't even been touched.

The video panel look at sending-offs, yellow cards or off the ball incidents. Why can they not look at cheating, diving or simulation as we are supposed to call it? Why can they not look at all the feigning injury we see every single game and punish those guilty?

If trainers wish to show they have no morals are pretend they are treating fake injuries that's up to them but cameras from every angle now can show players hardly touched or not touched at all, clutching parts of the body that haven't even been affected.

The game now is about trying to get an opponent sent off but the incompetent FA who bow to whatever the Premier League say do nothing about it, they pretend it doesn't happen. Any organisation that runs a campaign to kick racism out of football and then continues to employ an England manager who makes an inappropriate racist remark can not be trusted.

Any organisation that looks at context for their own employees but not context for Spurs fans chanting Yid are guilty of double standards and you therefore have to question the suitability of the men running it.

Cheating, if you'll forgive the pun, needs to be 'stamped out,' and simply ignoring it is not going to make it go away,

Football is not a sport anymore, it is a business, football is merely the product of that business and big business at that. The rewards for losing now are massive. Simply by finishing fourth you earn a fortune in extra gate receipts, TV revenue, appearance and prize money, you attract a better standard of player, bigger sponsorship, you can invest in infrastructure, it advances a club so much quicker than if you are missing out.

With all that money at stake surely incompetent officials deciding managers, players and clubs future should be scrutinised for any wrong doing. Players who for instance get a player sent off when they have dived or feigned injury should receive a ban themselves. Quite what you do about the affect the cheating has on the individual game I don't know but surely using video evidence as successfully used in other sports is becoming a must.

Using video evidence would be a major step but surely bringing in the video panel to look at feigning injuries is simple to do. Let's face it anyone who has ever been hurt knows what it feels like, they know how you react, what you do.

You don't hold the wrong leg, you don't hold your head, you don't roll over and over, you don't sneak looks to see if the ref is watching and you don't get up and start running around when the ref ignores you. Simulating an injury is unprofessional conduct which is a yellow card offence but you don't see referees produce them for fake injuries.

It's about time somebody put their foot down and tried to cut out the cheating culture that pervades football and quite frankly society, where standards seem to slip with each generation.

A solution is already in place and at your finger tips so use the video panel to clamp down.

Subscribe to THBN
Feigning injury should be video reviewed Feigning injury should be video reviewed Reviewed by THBlogNews on 2:17 pm Rating: 5

Officials talk - Part Two

12:01 pm
Well well well I had expected to be lambasted for daring to suggest a level of favouritism and officials actually deciding what outcome they would prefer but in general most people agree it seems.

If you haven't read the piece you can familiarise yourself here:
Are Officials simply incompetent or something worse?

You have two options, you forget about it or 'get over it' as Patrick says which is brushing it all under the carpet or you speak up about it and start to persuade public opinion towards taking the matter more seriously.

Tim makes the point that many of us are now thinking, a way needs to be found to incorporate technology at times because there is so much money in the game now that bad decisions have 'huge ramifications' for players, teams, managers, owners and supporters.

I agree with Beano111's point that the 'FA is full of has-been's' when you consider some of the England managerial appointments and Under 21 appointments as opposed to the people they have not appointed. You never hear of the selection committee being sacked!

We all except as Thetruthisouthtere says that officials 'have a difficult job' to perform and that mistakes will occur when we have a diving, sorry simulation, culture. Players these days seem incapable of standing on two feet and when brushed by a passing feather in the wind go screaming down in pain to roll over and over clutching a non existent injury.

Flipper points out that 'officials can clearly potentially get away with match fixing' and Ness Spurs concurs asking 'Are match officials in a better position to 'fix' results that players?'

They are but it is not an easy thing to do. A player for instance can always get himself sent off or booked which is all certain fixing would need. I'm not sure we have gone that far although there have been incidences of it.

Influencing the outcome of spread betting on bookings and red cards are within the officials grasp, mainly the referee though. Flipper also asks 'why are officials not punished' but surely more importantly why do they not have to answer for their decisions and publicly explain them?

Why is a manager not allowed to publicly criticise officials, why are the officials not interviewed after the game? Why is everything hidden, brushed under the carpet, why the secrecy?

Is it because bringing their impartiality or ability into question weakens their authority or because they have something to hide. Surely if we had video replays at certain times their authority would be enhanced, the players would have nothing to argue about.

Nobody criticises rugby referees or cricket umpires, their authority has not been weakened so why would it weaken football officials, what makes them so special?

If you think back to Stoke City away when Adebayor had 2 perfectly good goals disallowed, one when he was yards onside. Those dropped points cost us a Champions League place and put the club development back a few years.

The general argument is that these things even themselves out over a season, but do they? Do blatantly bad decisions even themselves out? I have serious doubt that they do and I'm convinced for smaller sides they do not. Wigan last season seemed to get bad decision after bed decision week after week.

You have to ask questions why.

Subscribe to THBN
Officials talk - Part Two Officials talk - Part Two Reviewed by THBlogNews on 12:01 pm Rating: 5

Are officials simply incompetent or something worse?

10:09 am
The FA Statement is simple but brushes everything under the carpet but the damage has been done.

"Danny Rose's one-match suspension has been withdrawn with immediate effect after the Tottenham player's wrongful dismissal claim was upheld by an Independent Regulatory Commission."

That FA statement hides a wider concern, do officials decide the outcome of games? Now Spurs may well have lost to Man City with 11 men but the point is they were not given the chance. The match was taken out of their hands and that simply raises the question of by accident or by design.

I appreciate that is a bold question and raises impartiality issues but quite frankly with some decisions that are given it's a justifiable question, especially with betting rings in sport. A sending off for instance is worth a certain number of points and you can bet above or below a predetermined points level in a game.

Spurs went 1-0 down and scored a perfectly good goal with Michael Dawson clearly having 4 players plus the goalkeeper between him and the goal. A player under today's complicated rules is not offside until he touches the ball and Adebayor, who was marginally offside, didn't so can't therefore be deemed offside.

The linesman who should be in line with the last defender can see with the ball on the far side where everyone is when it is kicked. In this case Dawson wasn't even close to being offside and at no point during the play did he remotely look offside or even close to offside, so why did the official give it?

Does he actually know the rules, is he incompetent or something worse? Is his eyesight really that bad?

At 1-1 the game is a different game but that is denied to us. Then the same official compounds his error by deciding the outcome of the game once and for all.

He makes another, at best, incompetent decision that brings into question his ability and suitability to continue at Premier League level, when he awards Man City a penalty for a perfect challenge.

The linesman remember had a perfect unobstructed view. The ball was not masked by layers, it was in clear sight to him. For him not to have seen Danny Rose play the ball from what 20 yards away means he shouldn't be allowed to drive a car, with defective eyesight he is a danger to other road users.

It looked at the time as if Dzeko dived with no contact and replays showed that to be the case. Again the incompetent official has had a clear view of this. However he decides what the outcome of the game should be there and then.

Danny Rose gets sent off for a perfect tackle, Spurs have 10 men and Man City go 2-0 up, game over.

Now that official has not only cost potentially 3 points but has affected our goal difference to. The FA in deciding to overturn the red card have shown that Rose did not commit a foul so why has Edin Dzeko not been awarded a yellow card for simulation?

What happens to the 4 goals the official has 'given' Man City, 5 if you count not giving the Dawson goal.

One man on the sideline has decided the outcome of the game, not the players on the pitch. How now do you rectify the wrong he has done, how do you repair the damage. The current system simply brushes it under the carpet, laughs it off.

We have goal line technology, we have goal line officials in Europe, not that they actually make ant decisions and do anything and we have cameras at every game. This is a major incident that turns a game, should it not be in the games best interests to get it right. The game has stopped the ball is out of play.

In rugby the ref would ask for a video replay and the 4th official to review it, which they do on the big screen so everyone can see. In cricket they do it when the captain can appeal 1 or 2 decisions depending upon the game. The umpire calls for a review and he can call for one for any other decision he chooses, the 4th official looks at it again on the big screen so everyone can see.

It adds to the drama and it gets the decision right. Why when the game has stopped, can the same not happen in football. Cricket and rugby have embraced the fact that sometimes the official gets it wrong yet football authorities don't want anything that would show an official to be wrong.

Just imagine if Spurs were to lose out on Champions League football by a goal difference of 2. That official would effectively be responsible for the immediate future of the club, for millions in revenue, for the ability to attract better players, the downside of getting these decision wrong is enormous.

Apart from the unforgettable Pedro Mendes goal at Old Trafford from which the only conclusion you can draw from the evidence was blatant cheating, Newcastle Chelsea springs to mind a couple of years ago. A Newcastle player through with no one apart from David Luiz within 5.6.7 yards of him and Luiz simply takes him out from behind without getting anywhere near the ball. The ref awards a free kick and incredibly David Luiz remains on the field. The guy was about to enter the penalty area 2 yards off centre with only the keeper to beat.

That can not simply be classed as incompetence, the ref must know the rules so why did he decide Chelsea should not be penalised then? Why were they allowed to pick up a point I think it was when losing at the time they would probably have finished with none.

Decisions like those two are entirely unacceptable, they cost points which have an effect on finishing positions at the end of the season. More points eases the pressure on you and puts it on others, less points puts it on you and eases it on others. The effects are multiplied.

If Spurs have been penalised 5 goals, as they in effect have, should they no therefore be given a 5 goal start next time they play Manchester City?

Subscribe to THBN
Are officials simply incompetent or something worse? Are officials simply incompetent or something worse? Reviewed by THBlogNews on 10:09 am Rating: 5
Powered by Blogger.