Inconsistent reffing

Really annoys me. How can fat man Dowd give two handballs when he couldn't even see what happened? The players had their backs to him so he had no chance other than to guess and he guessed wrong. It's so easy to make those calls when not in the penalty area. Oliver couldn't even get them right when he had a clear view.

Unfortunately, until we stop the play and allow the 4th official to view video evidence on major decisions, inconsistent refereeing decision will continue.

Sometimes, it's simply a lack of bottle to give pens. Dowd said he couldn't see the penalty incident clearly yet he could see through a player on at least two occasions to give a handball that wasn't  handball anyway. They give so many free kicks for innocuous stuff outside the box yet you have scythe someone down in the box to give a penalty away.

Oliver bottled out three times on Sunday because he had already sent off Smalling and the second was on the stroke of half time so he took the easy way out. Not a single pundit or sports writer has said anything other than they were all stonewall penalties and he was in a good position to see them all yet gave none of them. 2 of them were committed by Fellaini on Aguero and he was lucky to stay on the park given all his other fouls.

He bottled it because of the pens he gave the week before Stoke v Swansea. He was totally annihilated in the press & by Managers & pundits alike. It was obvious this week he would take a different view if there was a smidgeon of doubt. Each time a penalty decision had to be made although twice it appeared he had an obstructed view it was on the inside foot fellaini & the 2nd half penalty Carrick. In the rojo case he appeared in line but could well have been obstructed by the united players in front of the incident.

But if that was the case oz, then maybe he shouldn't have been given such a big game as the Manchester Derby in the first place.

At the end of the day and regardless of what happened the week before, if he thinks it's a penalty he should have given it.....he obviously never thought they were. If that's the case then he should be told to explain why he never thought they were to the referees committee.

skyblueoz wrote:He bottled it because of the pens he gave the week before Stoke v Swansea. He was totally annihilated in the press & by Managers & pundits alike. It was obvious this week he would take a different view if there was a smidgeon of doubt. Each time a penalty decision had to be made although twice it appeared he had an obstructed view it was on the inside foot fellaini & the 2nd half penalty Carrick. In the rojo case he appeared in line but could well have been obstructed by the united players in front of the incident.

See my Clough video on the Noel v Gary post.

I honestly don't think he could see the 'clips' made on Aguero, and tbf, Rojo got the ball first, so it was a correct decision. Just so happens he was perfectly placed for Rojo's, but not the other two.

Read Graham Poll yesterday, saying too many refs stand in the middle of the pitch, rather than getting wider where they could see more - and that he thinks it's down to the pace of the game and some of them not being able to keep up.

It must be hard - refs will have to become 'super-athletes' a la footballers if they are to keep up with play all of the time...even footballers don't do that.

Rojo's was not a perfect tackle irrespective of winning the ball. The tackle from behind is outlawed. Hence the fact it was a definite pen. If it had been outside the box I guarantee that would have been a free kick without a second thought.

Didn't Rojo have to 'go through' Yaya to get the ball?
Fellani on Aguero the second time looks obvious especially after the face Fellani pulls knowing he's given a pen away.

I thought Rojo's was a pen first time around - but when you watch it, he clips the ball from between TLF legs.

The other 2 were clear penalties....but both were not tackles a la Smallings on Milner...they were tiny kicks/trips in a crowded box.

I'm beginning to think you're a dirty Rag here blue

He had to go through Toure to get to the ball. Whether he got the ball or not, he impeded the giant Ivorian and it should have been a penalty. That's a statement of fact. All the pundits said so. And they are more highly qualified to give their opinion on it.

All the pundits said so. And they are more highly qualified to give their opinion on it.
...................

All the pundits? Not sure all the pundits agreed in the studio Dawg. Nor did an ex World Cup referee in Graham Poll.

Think you need a little more objectivity to your argument.

You can't use Poll as the authority for the Rojo challenge and then ignore him for the Fellani challenge on Aguero (the first one). Poll says the Fellani challenge was a clear penalty and the what Fellani did afterwards was disgraceful. About the Yaya incident, he says that if Oliver had any doubt because he couldn't see it properly, then he was right not to give a penalty.

'From Oliver’s central position, while Rojo’s follow-through certainly caught Toure, it was almost impossible to determine if he caught the Ivorian before he played the ball. As doubt existed, Oliver was right not to give the penalty. Had it been a foul, it would have been a red card as well.'

So what's your argument?

That you are inconsistent Mr Blueboy.

Had it been a foul, it would have been a red card as well.'

..........................

There's my argument.

I believe that he is claiming that the ref couldn't see properly so he couldn't give it as a foul. Had he given it as a foul (if he'd been able to see), then it would have been a red card as well.

Semantics.

As the bald fat waiter would say...FACT!!!