I interviewed Mark Halsey in the Christie Cancer Hospital. He’d had an aggressive tumour the size of an orange removed from his throat.
So I didn’t join in the chants of “You’re not fit to referee!” to Halsey at Carrow Road. I never do, because I couldn’t pass the rigorous physical tests our elite referees take every season, but it is worth remembering that Halsey’s personal odyssey to fitness had involved life-saving surgery, six courses of chemotherapy and three weeks of radiotherapy.
None of that means that he cannot be criticised, but Halsey’s story is a reminder that the men taking charge of City’s matches this season are just that: men.
They’re not automatons and they are not involved in some Machiavellian conspiracy against the club I care about.
Nor are they are responsible for the fact that we’re still waiting for the first win.
I don’t expect anyone – not one person – to agree with this column, but if I only write populist stuff on this site, I’d there would be no point in contributing. You can get your fill of one-eyed jingoism on message boards.
So let’s go through the big decisions in this season’s four matches to date.
At Wigan, Ritchie De Laet was caught in possession and, in his desperate dash to catch up with Franco Di Santo, made contact with the striker’s boots and legs, from behind, in our area. The assistant referee signalled a penalty. Referee Stuart Attwell decided it was not an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and so didn’t send off our Belgian.
Yet our fans criticised him for the penalty call and not the leniency towards De Laet.
Later in the same half, Atwell took no action against Russell Martin for what looked like a rash challenge in our box. That night, after the long journey home, TV confirmed my thought at the time that it should have been a penalty. But that memory is airbrushed away by Canaries conspiracists.
Against Stoke, Neil Swarbrick’s opinion that Leon Barnett had fouled Jonathan Walters inside our area was a shocker. But it was a foul. And it was an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and a sending off. That is why City didn’t appeal against the red card.
Swarbrick’s error was to award a pen and not a free-kick. But that blunder had no bearing at all on the result, because John Ruddy saved Walters’ spot-kick.
And, for those who think referees are not held to account by anyone, take note that Swarbrick has not refereed a Premier League game since making his howler against us.
On to Stamford Bridge, when the decisive moment arrived as Ramires powered through the middle and Ruddy brought him down. But did he? Mike Jones thought he did and so sent off Ruddy and awarded the penalty which gave Chelsea the lead.
As soon as Ruddy and Ramires collided, I thought, with heart-thinking sadness, that it was a pen and a red card. Later, super-dooper slow-motion showed that Ramires had seen the goal-keeper coming, toe ended the ball away, and then pushed his own shin into Ruddy’s arms.
Even so, in circumstances like that, referees argue among themselves whether it is a foul. And, let’s be honest, if any goalkeeper had ended the progress of one of our strikers like that, we’d all be convinced it was a heinous infringement.
And, according to the guidance given to refs, it was not a dive. If there is any contact, any at all, between an attacker and a defender, then the attacker is entitled to “make the most of it”. That might seem ridiculous. But – let’s be honest once more – it has benefitted our captain a few times, and that guidance is not the fault of Jones or any of his fellow referees.
Finally, the West Brom game. Halsey was wrong to give a penalty against Steve Morrison. But, again, that decision had no bearing on the result. Declan Rudd saved the spot-kick and, if anything, that galvanised our chaps.
Of course, there was one other moment for which Halsey will be criticised by his fellow referees when they next sit down together and look at Prozone analysis of their matches. It was the moment when Gabriel Tamas gave James Vaughan the elbow. Halsey didn’t see it. Nor did his assistant.
The problem for the match officials was that Vaughan was clobbered off the ball. Halsey was watching play. The assistant was following instructions and concentrating on players closest to him.
At the time, from high up in the Jarrold stand, I saw Vaughan go down but didn’t know why. When he stayed down, and then started spitting blood, it was obvious he’d been bashed. But referees cannot make penalty decisions based on guesswork.
And if we use refs as an alibi for our lack of points, then the real reason won’t be addressed.
And the real explanation is that our young, hungry wannabes are learning on the job in this unforgiving division. They need to learn fast. In fact they need to start doing everything more quickly – quicker than they have ever needed to before.
They need, above all else, to stop making careless contacts with opponents anywhere near our area.
What worried me in the West Brom match was that Roy Hodgson had obviously detected a weakness at the heart of our defence. His players had been told to play balls down the channels between the centre-backs and the full-backs, or chip passes over the top.
The thesis seemed to be that De Laet and Barnett were vulnerable on the turn.
At the other end, their defenders pounced swiftly time and time again as Grant Holt or Chris Martin tried to work a shooting chance. Those defenders were also much quicker to every second ball.
It was the first time this season that I began to fret about our survival chances.
We outplayed Wigan for huge swathes of the match. We slugged it out toe-to-toe with a Stoke side who will finish in the top six. We unsettled a Chelsea team who are among the best in the whole of Europe.
But I thought Albion had more quality than us in most positions.
Yet – and here is the thing – City pinned them back in the last 20 minutes and, whipped on by the magnificent crowd, looked capable of seizing at least one point.
We CAN compete in this division. We can certainly earn enough points to finish above Swansea, Blackburn, Wigan and at least a couple of others .
I love the fact that Paul Lambert has deployed three different systems so far: the diamond at Wigan, three centre-backs at Chelsea and 4-4-2 against Stoke (who, without that system, would have murdered us on the flanks) and 4-4-2 again against West Brom.
Bradley Johnson is a real find. He demonstrated all afternoon against Albion that you need to press and harry to win possession in the Premier League and you need to be rapid and precise to use that possession.
Kyle Naughton is another excellent acquisition; everything he does is pure class.
Despite what Hodgson’s spies had told him, De Laet has sufficient speed of limb and mind to be one of the best defenders in the division.
And referees? Well, we’ll get some helpful decisions as we did last season on several occasions (remember Damien Delaney’s red card?).
But we’ll certainly get some calls that are hard to stomach. We can either emulate Kenny Dalglish and Arsene Wenger and rage against imagined iniquities or we can concentrate on those things we can influence rather than those we cannot.
As a fan, I vow to try to help make Carrow Road as intimidating as it was in the last 20 minutes against West Brom. It’s all I can do. It is what I shall do.
Keep the faith. OTBC.
Thank goodness for some common sense. The only point I would take issue with is that surely we didn’t appeal Barnett’s red because he would be missing MK Dons…an easy match !.
Otherwise love the analysis…I guess many away from message board hysteria would agree.
By having no players with Prem experience we are on a risky path. But it will be interesting….
0
Whilst I agree with your central thread, I noted Graham Poll’s comments (in your rival paper) that none of the penalties given against us in the matches with Wigan, Stoke & WBA would have been given against one of the “big clubs” in similar circumstances. So yes we need to improve, but media types (like your good self) need to highlight this bias rather than excusing it as something the “little clubs” just have to live with.
0
Can’t disagree with your comments. Mark Halsey is a good referee. I think now a days ref’s need more help from the linesmen, I’m not sure he really got it on Sunday. The lino running the line in front of the City Stand didn’t give us a thing in the first half, then suddenly realised that he had a flag in his hand and gave WBA a whole host of freekicks. Regarding the Vaughan incident, I too was in the Norwich and Peterborough Stand, and only saw him hit the deck, then stagger around spitting blood. It wasn’t until I got home and saw the replays that I realised how intentional it was. Amazing that his manager had seen a replay and still thought it was an accident. Maybe he is secretly related to a certain Arsenal manager!!
The reality is that we have to learn the ways of the Premier League…..and learn those ways very quickly.
0
‘Against Stoke, Neil Swarbrick’s opinion that Leon Barnett had fouled Jonathan Walters inside our area was a shocker. But it was a foul. And it was an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and a sending off. That is why City didn’t appeal against the red card.’
Watch it again. It was outside the box, a very dubious foul at best (as they were both level and had a ‘coming together’) and therefore cannot be an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. It was 20yds+ from the goal on the far corner of the box.
We didn’t appeal as the next game was only a cup game and not worth risking the random appeal process and risk him missing league games.
‘But that blunder had no bearing at all on the result’
Are you for real?? Of course it did, we lost a player unfairly and had to play with 10 men for 35 mins.
‘The problem for the match officials was that Vaughan was clobbered off the ball. Halsey was watching play.’
The ball was crossed in and went past Vaughan and Tamas as the elbow came in. If the ref was watching the play he would have seen it as the ball was passing in the same area as the incident at the time. You might not have seen it from the Jarrold, but most of the Barclay spotted it and the ref was on the edge of the box. Same thing for Reid’s WWF impression on Morrison, from which we got a free-kick. High tackles aren’t allowed in rugby, in football it’s meant to be a red card. The same tough guy falls pathetically in our area and wins a penalty. I hope you spotted that from the Jarrold?
Ref’s aren’t popular because they are inconsistent (for both sides). Halsey deserved the criticism because he applied his interpretation of the rules in a different way to similar events. He’s not alone in doing that.
Perhaps your articles aren’t popular because you equally apply your opinions in an inconsistent way?? It’s got nothing to do with being populist.
0
Hi Mick, I agree with you that it is a personal tragedy when you go through such a period of having cancer, I know it from my own family, and I’m very happy for him that he beat the cancer but I think it has nothing to do with his (bad) performance on the pitch. If he’s not good enough anymore, like a lot of referee’s ‘smile’, he should not be in charge of an important match in the Premier League. You can also blame the linemen in some cases but overall he made the mistakes and was poor, espially if you are a Norwich fan like us and everybody inside Carrow Road. OTBC! Cheers
0
Finally, someone talks some sense! Mick I agree with your every word (apart from De Laet possibly being one of the best in the division). I was shocked to see some comments on facebook on Sunday all moaning about being in the premier league and how hard done by we are. The fact is we haven’t quite cut it yet, I’m sure we will and when we do it will be because we deserve to not on the basis of disputed refereeing decisions, please don’t let us become clones of Arsenal, blaming everything other than simply being beaten. We’re only four games in with two points……we’re not down yet!!! come on people its a marathon not a sprint (had to get one footballing cliche in)
0
Fair comments in this article,i was annoyed at the ref for being a bit biased but he only gives what he can see, never in a million years was it a pen but young rudd saved brilliantly. I guess I was annoyed as I know city are much better than that and they do need to get on the ball rather quickly in this league, lets never give up and the wins will eventually come….otbc
0
Hence the argument for video technology…
0
Mick,
Another interesting article and unlike those on MOTD I accept your constructive criticism because you actually know something about our club.
I’ve been to all the City games this year apart from Wigan, and I’m more frustrated by the dramatically increased level of gamesmanship in the PL v The Championship than by the clear mistakes of referees. Your insight into refereeing says more about Football’s inability to improve its own game and its lack of tools for officials to use. I’m a qualified hockey umpire and I want to share how hockey would have deal with 3 situations at Carrow Road this season.
1) Barnetts Sending Off – Hockey umpires would have been instructed to give a card but use their own discretion as to what colour. The Ref clearly made a mistake awarding a penalty but the instruction that the offence must receive a red made a bad situation worse. The foul clearly wasn’t deliberate and wouldn’t have deserved a red card anywhere else on the pitch. The vast majority of hockey umpires would have given a yellow card (and a 5 minute sin bin). On the balance of play at that point, I doubt Stoke would have got a point if City had 11 players for the last 20 minutes.
2) The Vaughan incident – Hockey umpires are taught to work in teams and not only watch the ball but also areas of the field where incidents are more likely to happen (i.e. any area where players are concentrated in small spaces) . Clearly the authorities are not teaching referees to spot these offences or work with linesman to increase the overall field of vision. I saw the Vaughan getting elbowed because if a cross is overhit there is a short moment where watching the ball doesn’t reveal anything. One other thought – TV replays, Used in both codes of Rugby and Hockey but football remains in the stone age.
3) WBA’s consistent time wasting – Ok Halsey made a mistake for the penalty – he’s human but from early in the 1st half WBA were time wasting and I was amazed that Halsey did not give at least 8 mins injury time. Again, a hockey umpire could have penalised Foster’s very slow goal kicks with a corner but Football only has a yellow card option (slowing the game further).
I don’t understand why Football insists on keeping referees as some kind of pantomime villain, but it reflects how the so called guardians of the game at Wembley and Zurich care more about cash than actually improving it for the future.
0
Only going to say that if it was a penalty for WBA then it has to be one when Vaughan it felled.
Four penalties against us in 4 games. If that had happened to Man Utd, fergie would have been hauled in front of the league for his comments. Fair play to Paul Lambert for keeping his undoubted anger to himself.
we will be ok this season
0
Fundamently I don’t disagree with your arguement about not saying Halsey isn;t fit to referree but I do disagree with your view of the referees decisions.
Contact by De Laet was outside the box and was certainly not more of a goal scoring oppitunity than Carragher on Walters or Pennant on Suarez. Usually the view would be that De Laet was stonger, it wasn’t a trip. Santos was weak and fell. The ref did even it up as Martin should have conceeded a spot kick.
Barnett’s was very similar to De Laet, not only did it look more like Walters fell over the ball rather than the player is was still a considerable distance from goal. Again less of an oppitunity than Carragher on Walters or Pennant on Suarez where neither saw red. 30 minutes down to 10 men makes a huge difference especially with Norwich being on top.
Chelsea penalty I accept but with Ramires over hitting the ball, heading away from goal and with defenders covering it was not a clear chance. Again you can compare with Carragher on Walters or Pennant on Suarez where it was only yellow.
You can also compare Carragher on Walters to numerous incidents against West Brom where there was far more contact than Morision on Reid. The Tamas elbow was a poor miss by the ref.
Now lets look at Stoke. Stoke top 6? Well they’re lucky to be there at the moment.
They have been on the receiving end of bad decisions helping them.
Liverpool – questionable penalty given to them, obvious hand ball not given against them. 3 points gained when it could have been 0
Norwich – already covered, lucky to get 1 point.
West Brom – won 1-0 thanks to kicking the ball out of Fosters hands.
That 6 points they’ve gained from bad decisions, that’s the differnce between currently 4th and 19th.
As for last season, remember Grant Holt’s red card against Reading when Norwich were comfortable? You hope decisions even themselves out over a season. I doubt they will this year.
I can;t find much correct in this article which only leaves me with the conclusion that you think no one is going to agree with you because you know you’re wrong. Even basic facts about why Norwich didn’t appeal Barnett’s red card are wrong.
0
This is not the first time in the last few days I’ve heard “you’re not fit to referee” being taken out of context. Clearly nobody’s disputing his physical fitness in light of his battle with cancer – moreso his bad decision(s) on the pitch.
e.g – “you’re not fit to drive” doesn’t generally mean the person in question is physically unabled; it means that they make poor decisions that would put others at risk. Sorry to press the point but your opening statement doesn’t, I feel, justify the reason for the chanting and reflects poorly on fans of the club.
0
I did read Graham Poll’s on-line piece. In fact, I discussed it with him before he sent it. I have co-written three books with him and we are mates.
I accept his point that, against ‘bigger clubs’, refs might hesitate for a micro second and, once you have hesitated, you don’t give the pen.
But I contend that there have been only two outright errors against us — the pen for a foul outside the box and the pen for Morrison barely touching someone. Both were saved. Neither had any impact on the result.
In my honest opinion, as someone who loves Norwich and would love all decisions to go our way, the Barnet foul was a foul and a denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, so a red card.
Halsey and his assistant didn’t see the Tamas elbow. They made a mistake.
Of course refs are inconsistent. They react as humans to a variety of different circumstances.
But De Laet and Rudd made a mistake in the third minute which cost us a goal. Those are the mistakes we can cut out.
But, as I said, I didn’t expect agreement.
0
I take the points you are making, but if just one or two of the bad/marginal decisions had gone our way, we could be well up the table with six or seven points, and not beginning to lose hope.
With best will in the world, we should have had a penalty after the Vaughn incident for instance.Ihave sympathy for the ref but the fact that he did not see it was because he was not up with the play. On two other occasions our players were aguably wrestled to the ground. If Halsey is struggl;ing to keep up with play, then surely the assiatant at the relevant end could be asked to cover for him. It may be fine for Nelson to claim that he saw no signal, but it is not enough for referees to claim, “I didn’t see it”. There are three of them on the pitch, or just off!
0
You forgot the Torres incident that could have changed the Chelsea game before the Ramieres incedent. Has Torres gone of and the fact that we were on top for large parts of the game I think we may have gone on to get something out of that game as well.
Lets not forget the Shawcross incident where he should have been sent off as well and again we were on top for large parts of the game and should have been able to hold on to win against 10 men.
Just a thought.
0
I agree with your general sentiment that ref’s are ‘just a man’ & therefore its inevitable they will make mistakes. But, Craig Flemming (RNorfolk sat) is right that it would be much better if Refs were former players with real game experience. The balance of the consequences riding on their decisions is not reflected in the investment in Refs.
There is real frustration that retrospectively Tamas will be banned, which implies it would have been a pen for us (& arguable resulted in a draw), but we won’t see any benefit from that disciplining.
I agree that we, or rather our team, has to up its game & not make the mistakes that lead to several of these situations.
I also think that we should put our feet back on the ground. Much of the recent comment on Refs comes from us knowing that these result (nearly wins, or nearly draw against WBA), will be vital come May. The stress of situations feed off that angst in us all.
I’m not expecting us to survive this year. Its not because I’m a pessimist, its just that its a huge ask for us to stay up with the resources we have (& that’s not criticism either). Having said that, at this point last year, I would have settled for mid table mediocrity. One thing I do know for certain – PL is an excellent manager & if anyone can do it, its him.
IPLWT &, absolutely right, keep the faith!
0
Having just returned from a days work and people commenting on Norwich results I read something which gives me hope. I will be at the Manu game I will support my team what ever. You never know miracles can happen. Enjoyed article very much
0
As usual the truth is somewhere in between. WE have made mistakes and not been quite good enough. But we have also been done by referees. Sunday’s was clearly wrong. But you’ve missed the point in the Chelsea game – the crucial decision wasn’t the pen and red card, but the decision not to send Torres off when we were in the ascendancy. You’d imagine one of our players would have gone off for the same offence. It’s not all the refs fault that we haven’t won, but had they applied the rules we would certainly had more points than we have now.
0
Good article, though I might not agree with every point 100%. Still think the biggest ref issue at the moment is consistency, and sometimes that works in our favour, sometimes not.
0
It’s interesting how we all see and interpret games differently, whether objectively or through a prejudiced filter.
I thought Halsey was poor : missed lots, too easily conned, and lost authority – WBA took the proverbial as they sussed out that he was weak. Refereeing is in crisis in my opinion and there needs to be a review of how it can be improved – but by who?
I disagree about the supposed tactical flexibility. PL is learning to the point of floundering. He doesn’t seem to know who and how to play. Hopefully, and I’m optimistic about this, he’ll soon stop experimenting. The irony is that he could not have assembled this squad if we were still in the Championship, yet that is where the experimenting with these players would be better carried out. Indeed the seven year plan envisaged a relegation at the first attempt, and we may need just that- although I hope not.
As for Sunday : I don’t share the widespread criticism of Surman. Playing left and centrally he showed his usual intelligence and vision. It was the other two in midfield who lacked quality despite their frenetic workrate. Johnson had his best game yet but lacked any invention and like Crofts his decision making was generally laboured and poor.
Workrate, just like “pace”, at this level is no substitute for a football brain, and I reckon PL believes that too. Hence Surman and Holt and Martin starting. The really odd decision was not starting Wes and then leaving it too long before bringing him on, and taking Surman rather than Crofts off. And then they hardly managed to give the ball to Wes and get any benefit, just as they had failed to use Bennett fully in the first half.
And my last criticism is for the kamikaze substitution gambit that usually worked in the last two seasons, but just won’t do at this level. What was needed was a consistent intelligent pattern of play, not lumping it hopefully at two new hardly warmed up strikers. What was the point of having put Wes on if the final throw is just blood ( literally, sadly ) and thunder.
Tactical flexibility is a risk that needs to be balanced against continuity and a preferred starting eleven who gel, develop and improve through regular games together. We lack that, and PL needs to sort that ASAP and decide on whether he wants intelligence or pace or workrate to be the major criterion.
For me the critical factor on Sunday was not the defensive error and the several near scrapes, nor the alleged lack of striker pace, but was the unimaginative and cautious play in midfield and from the back. Without a central Wes we are too mundane, slow and predictable.
However, last season we were magnificent away at Leicester, and dreadful at home to Derby even if we got away with it. This division is much more unforgiving but there’s still hope, I hope!
But at the end of the day, relegation would not be a disaster, just a disappointment.
0
Interesting read fro a Baggie perspective. A team that has been on the receiving end of shocking decisions for years (we couldn’t buy a penalty in our first season up, in spite of Sol Cambell literally wrestling Jason Roberts to the floor at the Hawthorns) but was fortuitous on Sunday.
I thought Halsey was inconsistent throughout. Minor decisions in the first half (I remember Long being penalised for a shoulder charge on one side of the ground, but not getting the reverse decision 5 mins later) but major ones in the second.
Holt and Martin spent the entire afternoon going to ground too easily in our box. None of them were penalties yet Reid’s wasn’t a penalty either. It was however a stupid challenge and not too dissimilar to the Holt/Martin incidents.
The Tamas incident was easy to miss as the ball was travelling some 5 yards above them. I didn’t catch it live but was embarrassed to see the replays. There is absolutely no place for that sort of behaviour in this game. Albion fans (and Hodgson) claiming it was an accident are wearing blue tinted specs. It was clearly retribution as Tamas felt he was caught by Vaughan 5 mins before when he received treatment.
As for the fellas above who feels Reid should have been sent off. You’re pushing things a bit far with that one, mate. Really?
Good luck for the rest of the season. You deserved a point on Sunday and hopefully your luck will turn in the coming weeks.
Cheers
0
Mick,
You forget to mention the following in your article…
1) Pilkington was on the line at Chelsea so we had a man covering back. Why was Ruddy sent off?
2) Why was Torres not sent off for a clear bookable offence BEFORE Chelsea made it 1-1?
3) De Laet bought down Di Santo OUTSIDE the box at the DW Stadium. The Linesman was in line yet still gave a pen!
4) My anger is not so much with Halsey. Moreso his inept “Assistant” on the Jarrold side who would have been looking DIRECTLY across the 6-yard box action the elbow incident. Refs are miked up so even the 4th official could have shouted to Halsey in his ear-piece. That’s 4 officials who have decided to take no action, 1 of them must have seen something.
0
I certainly feel for you guys. As many have stated, Premiership football is driven by fine margins. Fine margins with a team’s play, fine margin’s with refereeing decisions. Had Halsey the benefit of a replay, he wouldn’t have given the penalty to West Brom (in his defence, it was a clumsy challenge, probably looked like a pen from behind, and Reid made the most of it to say the least). At the other end, you should have had a penalty for Tamas’ despicable elbow on Vaughan. Fine margins that would have likely changed the result and certainly your sense of injustice.
But fine margins on the field have and will account for Norwich losing points. I haven’t seen West Brom play this badly for 3 or 4 years and yet you rarely troubled us. Some neat build up play, some decent balls into the box, but few clear cut chances (though you created more than that anti-football team called Stoke). You huffed, you puffed, but rarely looked like blowing our rather fragile house down.
That being said, the major difference between the two sides was probably Odemwingie and Olsson. A little bit of quality at both ends. While Norwich’s players take time to adapt to life in the Prem, we are fortunate to have these two who are often the difference between winning and losing.
I’d love to tell you things will be fine. But in all honesty, the refereeing decisions won’t get much better and you will continue to be punished for individual errors. That’s not to say you will get relegated; I really hope you don’t. You’ve just got to hope that the defence learns quickly and Vaughan proves to be an excellent acquisition.
And this is in no way meant to sound patronising; West Brom’s goal for the season is to avoid relegation also. We’ve just seen it all before – the refereeing decisions, the neat football, the lack of a cutting edge – hence can speak from experience.
Good luck and we look forward to seeing you at the Hawthorns.
0
Mick Dennis continues to entertain us with his blogs. It is quite absurd to suggest that you cannot offer criticism to someone if you could not do better yourself. I do not need to be able to run fast to point out that someone else is running slowly. If you don’t possess the qualities that your job requires then you shouldn’t be doing it. Fortunately, football journalism seems to be open to all, so I look forward to Mick’s next posting.
0
Look can we just all calm down!!! 4 games in and we look like a premier league side capable of challenging for safety. Yes our players are nieve and yes this league si different BUT who cares WE ARE PREMIER LEAGUE and I for one am loving every second win, loose or draw!
0
In response to a couple of the comments here – the ironic thing about comment of having former players as refs is that Mark Halsey did play the game for a number of years at non-league level (realisitcally we’re never going to see many Premier League or Championship players becoming a ref). It is certainly something we’d like to see more of but this has been said for so many years now & I can’t say I’ve seen much progress. I don’t know what view of the elbow incident Halsey had but my first thought was that the linesman should’ve spotted it, but of course there were plenty of players in the area & his view could easily have been blocked. Sometimes it just comes down to luck & unfortunately thats against us at the moment.
For professional fouls, it doesn’t seem so long ago that the definition included the word ‘deliberate’ & an honest attempt for the ball like Ruddy’s or an unfortunate coming together like Barnett’s would have been a yellow at worst. I guess theres too much room for interpretation & inconsistency with that though so red card for all it is (or should be in the case of Kieran Richardson). Pilkington being on the line is irrelevent unfortunately – we wouldn’t question a red card when the last defender brings down a striker with just the keeper to beat, having someone on the line who can’t use his hands is an even bigger goalscoring opportunity.
0
Good article as usual, my only comment would be that referees need to start acknowledging their mistakes and saying sorry to the fans and players in public. I think they would gain a lot more respect if they started doing this and appear less aloof and detached. Those decisions spolied my day on Sunday.
0
Excellent article. Fans putting refs under pressure and post match reaction is, in a sense, part of the game. Build up a head of steam that we’ve been wronged and somewhere in the ref’s (or next ref’s) subconscious may be a desire to right that wrong. Look at Dalglish, City fans think the Liverpools of this world get the decisions but there is method in his outburst. Same too Ferguson, how many points gained at old trafford from bad decisions. We won’t expect the rub of the green when we go to Old Trafford, paranoia?, probably, but there is also good evidence to back it up. Refs don’t have an agenda but they do need to be stronger.
0
I think it is just a case at the moment that we’re not getting the rub of the green. Nothing more than that, no conspiracies, no biased refs, just a bit of bad luck. Sure, our defence has displayed some contributory negligence to our four penalties, but I would argue that the only clear cut foul in the box was Russell Martin at Wigan.
I would also point out the number of late winners we scored last season as evidence that there we had a favourable rub of the green. Again, the fitness and belief in the team contributed to the late shows, but there were elements of fortune involved too. Jacko’s midriff goal v Derby, Crofts’ equaliser v Burnley that arguably could have been handball, our equaliser at home to Leeds where Schmeichel was flattened etc.
They say luck evens itself out, which always seems rubbish as we remember more vividly occasions of bad luck, bad decisions etc and lightheartedly laugh off and forget refereeing incompetence in our favour. The fact remains that if we are good enough to stay up, and I think we are, that come May we will do.
0
An interesting article. I don’t agree with much of what you say Mick but i guess at least these columns are thought provoking. A few comments:
1. Personally I didn’t think that the challenges by either De Laet or Barnett were even fouls. That I guess we can argue about til the cows come home but thats my view for what its worth. Given this I don’t think Barnett should have been sent off against stoke and to say that decision did not impact on the game is madness.
2. As has been commented upon above by others for me the key decision against chelsea was Torres staying on the pitch when he should have been sent off. Instead the ref had a little laugh and a joke with us before proceeding 5 minutes later to royally screw us over by sending off Ruddy. That was i think was a penalty. Although I think Ramires played for it you can’t expect to get away with the keeper making contact in that situation. Again though i think a red was extremely harsh and I find myself wondering at what point did we suddenly find ourselves thrust into this word when any penalty conceded by a keeper appears to be an automatic red card? It wasn’t so long ago that a penalty was seen as sufficient punishment. Who is it that decided this was no longer the case? In Ruddy’s case, Ramires has poked the ball away from goal and it was going off the pitch. The Ref should take that into account.
3. For me, the linesman simply must see the Vaughan incident. if he doesn’t he is incompetent. Fair play to Halsey for coming out and saying he missed it but its no real consolation to us – in fact we get a double whammy as Tamas now misses games v Swansea and Fulham!
I agree with you that we need to wise up. I agree with you that individual mistakes are contributing to our downfall. However i also genuinely believe that with fair refereeing decisions we would have 3 or 4 more points this season (just as Stoke should have 6 less). If that was the case we would all be feeling a lot less anxious about how this season might pan out than many of us are feeling right now!
0
Totally agree, Mick. Self pity will get us nowhere in this league. Time to “man-up” and get on with the job in hand. That way, we might actually start to see some of those bad calls go in our favour.
0
Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. As some have said, we could all argue about some of the decisions for weeks.
I’d just add that an accidental “coming together” is often still a foul. There does not have to be any intent for a challenge to be illegal. Guidelines say the player behind the attacker (De Laet, Barnett) has a duty of care to ensure he doesn’t clip the player in front of him, even accidentally.
That is not my interpretation, it is in a UEFA booklet given to our top refs.
The other area in which I would disagree with some respondents here is whether the assistant referee “should” have seen the elbow on Vaughan. The point is that he didn’t. He was following instructions and watching those players on his side of the area. If he’d seen it, we’d have got our penalty and our point, but the assistant is just a guy doing his best — and he will have had to prove that he’s damn good over many seasons to make the Premier League.
Some of the replies on here accuse me of all sorts of things, which is the point of allowing responses of course, but I just ask you all to believe that I was as hurt as anyone else, but that the opinions expressed here are my honest view — coloured, I must admit, by the fact that, despite my great age, I still referee under-18 games each week “for fun”.
OTBC
0
There was a worrying similarity in the Stoke and West Brom penalties, or to be precise in the non-penalties. Careful scrutiny on the slow-mo seems to show that in both cases the opponent makes a deliberate move to make contact with the defender and having done so then hits the deck. Hey presto …the ref sees a coming together, sees the forward do the dying swan stuff and then makes the assumption – wrongly – that a foul has been committed. Theirs is almost the impossible job and I wouldn’t hang Halsey on that decision but someone, somehow, somewhere has to make referees alert to the frequency of these dark arts because it is yet another assault on the integrity of the game. If there’s any doubt – and there must have been from Halsey’s position – then the ref can’t give the penalty decision and to heck with the notion of “erring on the side of the attacking team”. The Barnett decision was even worse than the Morison one and to then show a red card was adding insult to injury. Another non-penalty to add to the mix …the so-called Jamie Carragher foul on Jonathan Walters (yep, him again) last weekend. Exactly the same scenario – forward initiates the contact, forward goes down, forward wins the pen, forward’s team take all 3 points. An injustice or what.
Keep the faith
0
No, Trev. If I run across your path and you, as a defender, kick the back of my shins, it’s a foul. And, according to the directions given to refs, you are entitled to go down. I am not saying those directions are fair or sensible, but those are the directions under which games must be refereed. Yesterday’s pen was a pen, I am afraid, as well. But this time it didn’t matter.
0
All I am saying is look at who makes the initial move into the opponent – Walters and Reid. Why do that when the ball is there to be won unless it’s to try and con the referee? They’re not running across the path of the opponent – they are deliberately making contact with him to win a penalty. There was certainly no kick from Barnett. Yes Morison was a tad clumsy but I believe he’s going for the ball. Because Reid moves towards Morison contact is inevitable as Morison attempts to win the ball. I admire your defence of referees and all right-minded people would agree it is the impossible job but so many important decisions across all the divisions are being given incorrectly. Agree with you about Saturday’s penalty and we should have had another one given against us at Wigan. But hey ho, we’re up and running so let’s rejoice. Life is sweet.
0
It’s always good to read something that promotes so much discussion.
My opinion of the pelanties and non-pelanties you talk about above, with my yellow and green tinted view is that they are all dubious decisions at best. In reality it is that on any given day the ref’s could go either way (and therin lies a whole new discussion on ref consistancy). However your point in the last few comments suggests that any contact between defender and forward is a foul. This then makes football a non-contact sport (according to the UEFA directives you refer to above) at least in both pelanty areas. I would argue that Barnett’s ‘foul’ for the pelanty against Bolton was clumsy but contact with the ball was made simultaneously with the forward if not before. On the opposite side Tierney’s going to ground for the sending off is not something I want to see us doing but it might be a case of needs must as I’m sure that Tierney would have been sent off if Klasnic had stuck his face in Tierney’s and then gone down, which has been seen many times in the Premier League.
Graham Poll’s article on the ref’s biasing bigger teams is also an interesting read and you both agree that the refs are only human but from differing viewpoints on the incidents involoved and this is why we all love the game so much.
0