Final Score Brentford 1 (Janelt) Sunderland 1 (1 Viewer)

[badgerbee]

No, I think he gave a foul but VAR checked and agreed with him.

Ah, OK thanks.
Presumably another of his 'delayed' whistles/decisions then............

 

[WorcestershireBee]

That was the snow capped peak of their sh*t-housery!
Absolutely shameless, that one.

Sunderland are a good team, but also experts in the dark arts, so much so that I think we’re talking training ground lectures dedicated on how to cheat, how to feign injury and how to play a weak ref etc. the clown that keeps going on about our shirt pulling didn’t watch the same game that I did yesterday. 90% of Sunderland’s diving simulated pain and serious injury - when was the last time you saw anyone with a cracked skull, a broken leg or broken ankle as a consequence of a shirt pull?

 

[A Real Mysteron]

Sunderland are a good team, but also experts in the dark arts, so much so that I think we’re talking training ground lectures dedicated on how to cheat, how to feign injury and how to play a weak ref etc. the clown that keeps going on about our shirt pulling didn’t watch the same game that I did yesterday. 90% of Sunderland’s diving simulated pain and serious injury - when was the last time you saw anyone with a cracked skull, a broken leg or broken ankle as a consequence of a shirt pull?

It’s 100% coached.

 

[Boston Bee]

Sunderland are a good team, but also experts in the dark arts, so much so that I think we’re talking training ground lectures dedicated on how to cheat, how to feign injury and how to play a weak ref etc.

I would prefer we never ever become that. Even if we were to suffer results-wise, I would be embarrassed and disgusted if that was my team.

 

[Les Beeavinu]

It’s 100% coached.

Their left back spent the last 4 year at Atletico Madrid, he knows what he's doing.

 

[aawharris]

Painful to admit but all three were correct

Ballard's shot left Kelleher unsighted by the off side player. He might not have saved it even if he hadn't been unsighted but that's irrelevant.

Anthony kicked the ball out the keepers hands. I think TV replays confirm that.

The KLP block/stranglehold was stupid and unnecessary but clearly a foul. If he'd simply used his upper body strength to hold his ground rather than using his hands to wrestle his opponent then he wouldn't have been penalised.

The fact that two out those three went against us doesn't make them wrong!

Carefully read the ten words i wrote again

 

[BURFORD BEE]

Need a video which starts earlier but

View attachment 68747

Couldn't see it from where I was and the MOTD replays looked as if it was a pen but that clip suggests otherwise

 

[Greybeard]

Carefully read the ten words i wrote again

Well yes I did. Not sure what you're driving at unless you mean that the referee only got them all right by virtue of input from VAR in two of the three instances? In which case you would be correct of course.

Or perhaps you mean that two of three outcomes were wrong even after VAR? In which case I would respectfully disagree.

Finally perhaps you're referring to other instances which I didn't mention?

 

[guilly]

97 PL games played at G-Tech since promotion.
We've attacked West Stand in 2nd half in 79 of those, gaining 124 points at an average of 1.57 points per game
As yesterday, we've attacked the East Stand in 18 games, gaining 24 points at an average of 1.33 points per game.

So, extrapolating that, over a full season, if we attacked the West Stand in the 2nd half for every game we would 'expect' 30 points from our 19 home games. If we attacked the East Stand in the 2nd half for every game in the season, we would 'expect' 25 points. A not inconsiderable difference of 5 points over the season.........

Also, we've scored 90 goals when attacking the west Stand, and 73 attacking the East Stand.

HTH?

(Of course, none of the above takes into consideration which teams we were playing when attacking which end in the 2nd half).

The change of ends usually happens in the first couple of games, and the last of the season , depending on the sun at kick off time. During the rest of the season, is irrelevant, as the sun is lower and blocked by the West Stand.
I guess the stats confirm that can be a factor, would be nice to see if there was a side swap in any game under the lights for example, my guess is not

 

[aawharris]

Well yes I did. Not sure what you're driving at unless you mean that the referee only got them all right by virtue of input from VAR in two of the three instances? In which case you would be correct of course.

Or perhaps you mean that two of three outcomes were wrong even after VAR? In which case I would respectfully disagree.

Finally perhaps you're referring to other instances which I didn't mention?

Your first sentence is exactly what i mean.
Yesterdays amazing ref got 66% of the big decisions wrong, on top of probably 90% of the smaller ones.

 

[Edmundo]

Your first sentence is exactly what i mean.
Yesterdays amazing ref got 66% of the big decisions wrong, on top of probably 90% of the smaller ones.

The first big decision was disallowing their first goal. It was an offside decision but required VAR to get him to review it. Not really a mistake by the ref IMHO.

The second big decision was to disallow Anthony's goal. He got that right first time and VAR backed him up. Again no mistake by the ref.

The third big decision was their penalty and much as we might think it was soft, it really wasn't a mistake by the ref.

No way did he get 66% of the big decisions wrong, unless there were another six big decisions that I missed.

 

[Windmill Rd Bee]

97 PL games played at G-Tech since promotion.
We've attacked West Stand in 2nd half in 79 of those, gaining 124 points at an average of 1.57 points per game
As yesterday, we've attacked the East Stand in 18 games, gaining 24 points at an average of 1.33 points per game.

So, extrapolating that, over a full season, if we attacked the West Stand in the 2nd half for every game we would 'expect' 30 points from our 19 home games. If we attacked the East Stand in the 2nd half for every game in the season, we would 'expect' 25 points. A not inconsiderable difference of 5 points over the season.........

Also, we've scored 90 goals when attacking the west Stand, and 73 attacking the East Stand.

HTH?

(Of course, none of the above takes into consideration which teams we were playing when attacking which end in the 2nd half).

Genuinely fascinating, thank you!

 

[mhead bee]

Painful to admit but all three were correct

Ballard's shot left Kelleher unsighted by the off side player. He might not have saved it even if he hadn't been unsighted but that's irrelevant.

Anthony kicked the ball out the keepers hands. I think TV replays confirm that.

The KLP block/stranglehold was stupid and unnecessary but clearly a foul. If he'd simply used his upper body strength to hold his ground rather than using his hands to wrestle his opponent then he wouldn't have been penalised.

The fact that two out those three went against us doesn't make them wrong!

Yeah, I agree, all 3 correct.

My gripe is the 15 fouls he gave them for pathetic dives, the amount of times they chased the ref and harangued him in his face and the 4/5 clear fouls he never gave us. He also let them time waste, spend as long as they liked on goal kicks and throws and block our quick free kicks and several times they blocked the keeper trying to release the ball quickly.

That added up to a breathtakingly one sided ref display to the naked eye,

 

[Greybeard]

The first big decision was disallowing their first goal. It was an offside decision but required VAR to get him to review it. Not really a mistake by the ref IMHO.

The second big decision was to disallow Anthony's goal. He got that right first time and VAR backed him up. Again no mistake by the ref.

The third big decision was their penalty and much as we might think it was soft, it really wasn't a mistake by the ref.

No way did he get 66% of the big decisions wrong, unless there were another six big decisions that I missed.

Quite.

The one thing I would add is that VAR isn't there to catch referees out or to show up their incompetence. It's there as a tool to assist and advise. No referee can be flawless because all sorts of factors interfere, such as players blocking their line of sight. Accepting and evaluating the input before making a final decision is good refereeing. And it is up to the referee to make that final decision.

In the two VAR instances here it would have been very hard for the referee to get it right unaided because of pitch geography. It seems very unfair to criticise him for using the tools at his disposal to ultimately make the right decision.

 

[Untouchable]

The one thing I would add is that VAR isn't there to catch referees out or to show up their incompetence.

Hmmm…if a referee is continually being told to go to the monitor because of a clear and obvious error, the consequence may well be the conclusion they are incompetent.

VARs shouldn’t be afraid to recommend reviews simply because they don’t want to embarrass their colleagues. There is already enough suggestion that junior VARs don’t want to challenge senior referees such as Michael Oliver.

 

[Isleworth_Bee]

Putting the s***t show of a ref performance to one side........................

Sunderland first half played very well. We couldn't get close for some reason. The whole team especially the midfield was 5 yards short of everything. And we weren't pressing with pace, it was all half hearted. Very odd.

Im keen to understand this as it was strange to watch us set up like that or do we just call it one of those days? Our passing and shape was non existent from the Leeds and Spurs game. I've said it on his thread, Kayode was very frustrating, didnt once get close to his man. Dango have him no support and gave the ball away in some shocking areas.

Second half much better but still not quite on it. So in the end a fair result. KA made the right call to make early changes and thats good to see.

Think we are missing Jensen.

Defence is going to have to be top form in the next two games. No Collins will be interesting to see how we react. Would be more then happy with two points.

Frustrating day at the Gtech.

 

[mhead bee]

Quite.

The one thing I would add is that VAR isn't there to catch referees out or to show up their incompetence. It's there as a tool to assist and advise. No referee can be flawless because all sorts of factors interfere, such as players blocking their line of sight. Accepting and evaluating the input before making a final decision is good refereeing. And it is up to the referee to make that final decision.

In the two VAR instances here it would have been very hard for the referee to get it right unaided because of pitch geography. It seems very unfair to criticise him for using the tools at his disposal to ultimately make the right decision.

You would think the whole point of Var is to help get more decisions right. It seems to have morphed into a tool to prove the ref was right the first time round. Only selected hideous errors are changed and they are going with his decision as much as they can, even through it is blatantly wrong and causing awful inconsistency which is the one thing that drives everyone mad.

If you are looking at it anyway, rather than them say, well, he was 30% right so we will just leave it, just get it right.

It’s a tool that nobody knows how to administer properly and it’s just a total car crash game after game.

 

[jonnamanuk]

A facet of our attacking 3 is … the possibility of getting played through in midfield. We like to “stretch the pitch” eg, have wide men on touchlines. Etc.
in a game where possession keeps being lost, we are then exposed in the middle.

 

[Banana]

You would think the whole point of Var is to help get more decisions right. It seems to have morphed into a tool to prove the ref was right the first time round. Only selected hideous errors are changed and they are going with his decision as much as they can, even through it is blatantly wrong and causing awful inconsistency which is the one thing that drives everyone mad.

If you are looking at it anyway, rather than them say, well, he was 30% right so we will just leave it, just get it right.

It’s a tool that nobody knows how to administer properly and it’s just a total car crash game after game.

Correct. It's being used for the wrong ends

As fans (and players) we want CONSISTENCY. We want the same event to lead to the same outcome. However the powers that be think we want the stupid ref that makes a poor decision to be correct.

I've said many times on here that the USA has this correct and refers decisions to "New York" where a panel of refs make a decision rather than one other ref deciding if he knows better than his mate.

 

[maddogging]

Correct. It's being used for the wrong ends

As fans (and players) we want CONSISTENCY. We want the same event to lead to the same outcome. However the powers that be think we want the stupid ref that makes a poor decision to be correct.

I've said many times on here that the USA has this correct and refers decisions to "New York" where a panel of refs make a decision rather than one other ref deciding if he knows better than his mate.

This has to happen, maybe not in Syracuse, but a central spot where all incidents go to the same group

 

[N5022N122]

Is there any film of what Collins was claiming I guess as a pen at the start of the game not in the highlights I've seen.

 

[w6bee]

Correct. It's being used for the wrong ends

As fans (and players) we want CONSISTENCY. We want the same event to lead to the same outcome. However the powers that be think we want the stupid ref that makes a poor decision to be correct.

I've said many times on here that the USA has this correct and refers decisions to "New York" where a panel of refs make a decision rather than one other ref deciding if he knows better than his mate.

Yes, decisions should be cut and dried eg, “Player x stood on player y’s foot and impeded him - that is a penalty”. That is how VAR should work.

They then bring in Clear and Obvious error which brings a large amount of subjection and confusion as to when VAR can intervene.

 

[badgerbee]

Is there any film of what Collins was claiming I guess as a pen at the start of the game not in the highlights I've seen.

Still waiting for the Full Match Replay to be available on the OS to have a look....

 

[Untouchable]

Correct. It's being used for the wrong ends

As fans (and players) we want CONSISTENCY. We want the same event to lead to the same outcome. However the powers that be think we want the stupid ref that makes a poor decision to be correct.

I've said many times on here that the USA has this correct and refers decisions to "New York" where a panel of refs make a decision rather than one other ref deciding if he knows better than his mate.

We’re now at a point where the reasonably informed football fan can no longer see an incident and be confident of the outcome.

Eg:

No penalty:


No penalty:


No penalty:


Penalty:



Decisions are made entirely on the mood of the official on any given day. No consistency. No accountability. No consequence for poor performance.

 

[Kingston Bee]

We’re now at a point where the reasonably informed football fan can no longer see an incident and be confident of the outcome.

Eg:

No penalty:
View attachment 68780

No penalty:
View attachment 68782

No penalty:
View attachment 68781

Penalty:
View attachment 68783


Decisions are made entirely on the mood of the official on any given day. No consistency. No accountability. No consequence for poor performance.

Totally agree, no consistency is the key issue. Starts to wear a bit thin when we appear to be on the wrong end of these decisions more often than not due to inconsistent reffing.

 

[Les Beeavinu]

Watching the disallowed goal back, Ballard clearly impedes KLP to get his shot away. Shouldn't have even needed to check offside, clear foul.

 

[Sheerwater Bee]

A point won, not 2 dropped. We move on and still undefeated.

 

[Greybeard]

Hmmm…if a referee is continually being told to go to the monitor because of a clear and obvious error, the consequence may well be the conclusion they are incompetent.

VARs shouldn’t be afraid to recommend reviews simply because they don’t want to embarrass their colleagues. There is already enough suggestion that junior VARs don’t want to challenge senior referees such as Michael Oliver.

VAR isn't there to challenge anyone. It's offers advice to referees to assist them.