[Siberian Spireite]

BurySpireite, on 13 January 2016 - 02:49 PM, said:

In that footage he does look level, but to be fair in the alternate away day footage it shows the view from the sidelines and he's clearly offside. However, the 2nd disallowed goal should've been given and the first 'dive' was a foul for sure, 2nd one inconclusive I'd say but possibly a dive.

Aye, fair enough, though I thought Novak seemed offside for the second disallowed one.

On the subject of refs having to do things like automatons, by the book, D'Urso style, to get ahead, look at the new bloke who did Swansea v Sunderland last night. His lack of common sense seemed daft (his liners didn't help him) but Riley was probably creaming his pants.

[JonB]

Siberian Spireite, on 14 January 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

On the subject of refs having to do things like automatons, by the book, D'Urso style, to get ahead, look at the new bloke who did Swansea v Sunderland last night. His lack of common sense seemed daft (his liners didn't help him) but Riley was probably creaming his pants.

It wasnt so much a lack of common sense as much two awful decisions for the penalty and red card. Following that they maybe got one of the Defoe goals wrong but the other two were correct and they correctly gave Rangel offside for one Swansea had disallowed so the linesmen didnt do to bad. Only seen the MotD highlights so not sure of his overall performance but he got the two big decisions massively wrong.

[Tha Knows...]

BurySpireite, on 13 January 2016 - 02:49 PM, said:

In that footage he does look level, but to be fair in the alternate away day footage it shows the view from the sidelines and he's clearly offside. However, the 2nd disallowed goal should've been given and the first 'dive' was a foul for sure, 2nd one inconclusive I'd say but possibly a dive.

First one a foul as you say, I think second one was a falling from the momentum of collision rather than a dive. Another ref and he wouldn't even have got one yellow. As someone said earlier, if the ref was aware he had awarded a penalty for a dive in his previous game he might have been trying to show he was on top of this kind of incident, but went too far in the other direction and got it hopelessly wrong again.

[Siberian Spireite]

JonB, on 14 January 2016 - 10:10 AM, said:

It wasnt so much a lack of common sense as much two awful decisions for the penalty and red card. Following that they maybe got one of the Defoe goals wrong but the other two were correct and they correctly gave Rangel offside for one Swansea had disallowed so the linesmen didnt do to bad. Only seen the MotD highlights so not sure of his overall performance but he got the two big decisions massively wrong.

The sending off was the one where the ref clearly saw an opportunity to make his name. Naughton's challenge was arguably not even a foul but the ref couldn't wait to make a 'name' for himself, in the eyes of the assessors, at least.

[boot]

Siberian Spireite, on 14 January 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:

The sending off was the one where the ref clearly saw an opportunity to make his name. Naughton's challenge was arguably not even a foul but the ref couldn't wait to make a 'name' for himself, in the eyes of the assessors, at least.

Objective achieved - but not in a good way. His performance was 2 out 10 !

[JonB]

Siberian Spireite, on 14 January 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:

The sending off was the one where the ref clearly saw an opportunity to make his name. Naughton's challenge was arguably not even a foul but the ref couldn't wait to make a 'name' for himself, in the eyes of the assessors, at least.

The Naughton challenge was one of those you often see given as a foul on the continent and in European games by foreign refs and even they dont give red cards for it just a foul for foot up although sometimes i wonder how they've decided who to give it against when both players have their foot up.

[Siberian Spireite]

boot, on 14 January 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:

Objective achieved - but not in a good way. His performance was 2 out 10 !

Was that an official assessor's mark? Aren't they confidential?

[boot]

Siberian Spireite, on 14 January 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

Was that an official assessor's mark? Aren't they confidential?

-
No mate - not official but just my way of saying how poor I thought he was. The sending off was seemingly based on how loud the Sunderland player screamed. My own belief is that referees should be required to have played the game to a good standard. Too many seem to know the laws but not the game.

[The Rev.]

boot, on 14 January 2016 - 05:57 PM, said:

-
No mate - not official but just my way of saying how poor I thought he was. The sending off was seemingly based on how loud the Sunderland player screamed. My own belief is that referees should be required to have played the game to a good standard. Too many seem to know the laws but not the game.

An excellent point well made.