Mark Halsey points to outside influence from PGMOL?

[VanGaalEra]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VanGaalEra]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Adam-Utd]

Read this on twitter. Very worrying but not surprising.

 

[Ballache]

Well if he's seen it and not called it then isn't that a sign of incompetence? That makes this a bigger issue than just this particular incident. This means that refereeing on the highest level of football is subpar.

 

[duffer]

The only surprising thing is him being honest about it now.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

Glad to see Neville involved, should be easier to bring it all to light.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I must be if this is such an issue) but I'm absolutely certain they changed the rules on the seen it/didn't see it requirements at the start of last season so it no longer matters?

 

[JinnerJamie]

Football. Corruption. Shocker.

 

[duffer]

Well if he's seen it and not called it then isn't that a sign of incompetence? That makes this a bigger issue than just this particular incident. This means that refereeing on the highest level of football is subpar.

You can see something in real time and interpret it differently than if you have the benefit of numerous replays. I don't think it's always necessarily incompetence.

The whole "ref saw it so we can't do anything" rule just invites refs to lie.

 

[bubbles_]

Its probably something that should be discussed but i can't believe Aguero elbowing someone in the throat is the reason why

 

[ZupZup]

They need a change in the rules... the referee needs the option of being able to say that they saw an incident but in hindsight, their interpretation of it was wrong. We know referees make mistakes with incidents they see during games regularly... the inability to punish players retrospectively for violent conduct in these instances is the real problem. All down to a silly stipulation that is of no benefit to anyone besides the offending player.

 

[Someone]

I don't think it's corruption, it's case of a ref seeing an incident but didn't have the balls to call it or maybe even chocked in the moment, asking him to say he didn't see it is just a way to protect him from ridicule. I mean how could a ref come out and say i've seen this but i've decided to ignore it anyway?

 

[Skills]

Why does it matter? Ideally the culprit should be punished on the spot, but surely it's better to get the issue further investigated and have action taken retrospectively rather than them getting off free.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Well if he's seen it and not called it then isn't that a sign of incompetence? That makes this a bigger issue than just this particular incident. This means that refereeing on the highest level of football is subpar.

Precisely.

If he was told not to say that he saw an incident, they manupulated a stupid rule to ensure the right thing was done.

The fact that a referee is seeing a violation anf still doesn't penalise it it, is the real problem.

 

[Ballache]

You can see something in real time and interpret it differently than if you have the benefit of numerous replays. I don't think it's always necessarily incompetence.

The whole "ref saw it so we can't do anything" rule just invites refs to lie.

It's a shit rule, the FA should be able to change the decision anyway. Something needs to be done about the whole refereeing problem, we need two main refs one for each side of the pitch. It's not realistic having 40-50 year olds running behind world class athletes in their prime and expect them to be flawless.

 

[Aporkalypse]

I'm sure this will provoke a calm and rational response from the usual suspects.

Wonder how many league titles they'll want taken away from us.

 

[horsechoker]

Has this become a -gate yet?

 

[krazyrobus]

For sure Gill and SAF told the refs to not see anything.

 

[welshwingwizard]

It's a shit rule, the FA should be able to change the decision anyway. Something needs to be done about the whole refereeing problem, we need two main refs one for each side of the pitch. It's not realistic having 40-50 year olds running behind world class athletes in their prime and expect them to be flawless.

Exactly. They talk about bringing the game into disrepute but ultimately if players avoid punishment for violent conduct then this brings the game far more into disrepute than anything players say.

Remember the zidane World Cup thing. Didn't the officials miss that then having seen it on a replay lie to send him off? To me that was the right call. Yes it was bending rules but him staying on pitch in World Cup final would have been far more aggregious.

 

[SirAF]

Precisely.

If he was told not to say that he saw an incident, they manupulated a stupid rule to ensure the right thing was done.

The fact that a referee is seeing a violation anf still doesn't penalise it it, is the real problem.

Exactly my thinking too.

 

[Wumminator]

He said the exact same thing on talksport about a week ago.

 

[Sigma]

Why don't just change the rule (which they already have) to say that even if the ref saw it, they can take retrospective action. Seems like a pointless rule

 

[Rightnr]

It's just a stupid rule that if the ref's seen it, you cannot get a punishment. If someone does something so obviously wrong in the gwme, they should be punishable within reasonable time i.e. until the next match day.

Having said that, this just reinforces how idiosyncratic rules in football are and strengthens the case for video replays.

 

[Nick7]

It's a stupid rule, designed simply to protect referees from their own feck ups. They need to get rid and just have a dangerous play committee. I mean they have a dubious goals committee. Why the difference?

 

[Rafateria]

Sounds more like common-sense than corruption (absolutely the wrong term to use) to me. A way of overruling the referees without it being done in the spotlight of the press/public. And justice is done.

Do away with the stupid regulation that the FA can not rule on anything the referee has seen and the issue is not longer an issue anyway.

 

[Vashu]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Corruption that serves to right the wrongdoings of referees from the time when those incidents happened. We should rage about it. Everyone. Together. Right?

 

[Mrs Smoker]

You don't have to.

 

[Untied]

Football. Corruption. Shocker.

Ref in whistleblowing shocker.

 

[Sam M]

Nonsense.

 

[Tarrou]

Don't agree the problem is refs didn't give the appropriate punishment at the time. It's possible to be looking at an incident and not spot the foul in real time. Sometimes us fans can't even agree on decisions we see from 10 different angles.

That's why they are assessed and the ones who make the least mistakes rise through the ranks, while the ones who consistently get stuff wrong don't.

The real problem is this ridiculous rule designed to protect referees. They shouldn't be afraid to say "I made a mistake", because it makes them look worse to have to defend an obvious feck-up, or say they haven't seen something when they were looking directly at it.

 

[spwd]

They need a change in the rules... the referee needs the option of being able to say that they saw an incident but in hindsight, their interpretation of it was wrong. We know referees make mistakes with incidents they see during games regularly... the inability to punish players retrospectively for violent conduct in these instances is the real problem. All down to a silly stipulation that is of no benefit to anyone besides the offending player.

Very good post, the whole idea of refs is to make sure it's a fair contest and get decisions correct and having a stupid rule that allows dangerous incidents to go unpunished is laughable.

So what if the ref did or didn't see it at the time, the point is "player x" kicked someone in the face for instance and should not be allowed to get away with it, everyone including the refs miss lots of stuff in the match AND get things ridiculously wrong at times in the heat of the match so it would make sense to have a way of punishing serious incidents, not just basically ignoring it because the ref got it wrong, if it's serious it needs reviewing other than the heat of the moment.

 

[marukomu]

The problem is if they send someone off and it was a wrong decision. That team loses the game because of that decision and then the ref says he made a mistake. There will be claims for compensation or appeals to replay the game.

 

[R'hllor]

Who needs cyborgs or video tech,leave it to the refs,protect the corrupted flow of the game,yay.

 

[Kill 'em all]

It's not corrupt, FA and referees just trying to save face. If he has seen that deliberate elbow and not deemed it as a sending off, his judgement as a referee would be very questionable.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

Corruption is a form of dishonest or unethical conduct by a person entrusted with a position of authority.

It fits.

 

[GimmeAKitKat]

Sadly things like this that are technically considered corrupt are necessary when the rules are so poorly written.

Take out the bollocks about not being able to punish things a ref has seen and we're all far better off.

If someone elbows someone else in the face purposely, it shouldn't matter what the ref saw or thought at the time, it should simply be punished. If the ref see's it and gives a yellow, it doesn't simply stop being assault on a football pitch.

This policy of compounding bad decisions with even further bad decisions is ludicrous. Deliberate elbow is a 3 game ban, dont care if the ref saw it or was busy looking at a fecking Unicorn at the time. It should get a 3 game ban.

 

[BobbyManc]

Sounds more like common-sense than corruption (absolutely the wrong term to use) to me. A way of overruling the referees without it being done in the spotlight of the press/public. And justice is done.

Do away with the stupid regulation that the FA can not rule on anything the referee has seen and the issue is not longer an issue anyway.

The trouble is this presumes the people at the PGMOL are acting impartially. One time they might tell the referee to lie, another time they might say just leave it. Who determines when this occurs? It's obviously a problem if this is the case. It leads me to think the whole 'trial by media' could actually have more credence than people want to accept. The PGMOL presumably are more likely to intervene when the incident is high-profile in order to retain an image of competence, that is ensuring incidents like the Aguero elbow do not go unpunished. As you say the solution to the problem is to just scrap the rule and allow the FA to rule on any incident that happened in a game, irrespective of the referee's judgement at the time.

 

[GiddyUp]

Every week there are more incompetent performances than good ones with the refs of this league, they are like a bunch of Mr. Beans. Fair play to Mike Dean though, the only ref this season with some balls, still shite though.
With all the cash in the league now I suggest that referees are taken from their parents at birth. They will be raised in the art of refereeing, their reactions fine tuned. They will undergo cutting edge eye surgery that will expand their peripheral vision to 182degrees and also be rendered color blind. They will never be allowed look at a map and will be blindfolded up to and after 90 minutes. They will also be programmed to issue a red card for every Sturridge celebration.

 

[Ducklegs]

The standard of in the PL is shocking.

We see potential leg breakers we see time wasting, yard stealing, goal keepers handling the ball outside the area on goal kicks, kicking the ball away, shirt pulling, blatent holding and diving in the box, elbows, hair pulling, kicking out etc all go unpunished.
Yet we see cards given for absolutely nothing, and we see one standard of refereeing for one side in a match, and the other team held to an often lower standard of behaviour without punishment.

I fully understand that it's impossible to see every incident, what I don't accept is their "interpretations" of the laws of the game.
They are laws, they are quite clear in the punishments and consequences for different actions and events on the pitch, it's not up to the referee to decide whether he enforces those laws or not, it's up to him to ensure the game is played within those laws (not rules, laws).
A yellow for one player on one side is a yellow for an opposition player doing the same thing, that's the point of having the laws and a referee.

We have this ludicrous situation where a player can be yellow carded in the first few seconds of a match, and then literally spend the next 90 minutes bludgeoning the opposition every chance he gets yet he goes unpunished so that it doesn't "spoil the spectacle".
feck the spectacle, enforce the laws.

 

[welshwingwizard]

It's not corrupt, FA and referees just trying to save face. If he has seen that deliberate elbow and not deemed it as a sending off, his judgement as a referee would be very questionable.

Not sure it's that simple though. I watched it a few times in the replay and I don't think it would have been clear at the time that it was intentional.

Only when slowed down can you see he first looks behind to check where the player is, clenches his fist (which someone said was a give away that someone was consciously using their arm for damage rather than instinctively for stability) and steps forward to throw elbow.

In real time even looking at it you wouldnt get any of that and it is unfair to expect referees to pick up on stuff others need slow motion to see. We really need a 4 official that can watch replays and inform referee in real time after incident like in rugby really although that is a big topic.