Ref Watch ...... Gillingham

[Onion_Bag_Dave]

If you applied that criteria to players, most of our squad would have been forced into retirement years ago.

ha!
'Most of the squad' though, really?

 

[Mick]

ha!
'Most of the squad' though, really?

oh, okay. All of the squad.

I'm sure they can't be a player around who hasn't played badly for half a game. (as opposed to Gordon Connelly who only ever played well for half a game!)

 

[Onion_Bag_Dave]

oh, okay. All of the squad.

I'm sure they can't be a player around who hasn't played badly for half a game. (as opposed to Gordon Connelly who only ever played well for half a game!)

Ahh I see what you mean now, apologies!

 

[Mick]

So to sum up your posts 17 & 18 he will be told he did a good job and carry on in the same way in future.

No wonder referees, on the whole, are so poor.:thumbdown:

No that's not quite what I said. There would hopefully be some element of criticism of some of his second half decisions. But as I said, the lowest marks go to those referees whose mistakes have an adverse effect on the result. I don't think Mr Phillips falls into that category. The dismissal of Mohsni was down to Mohsni and Sturrock in equal measure although the manner of it when it inevitably happened was a little unsatisfactory.

The main reason why referees are so poor is the behaviour of the players, coaches and managers.

 

[fbm]

No that's not quite what I said. There would hopefully be some element of criticism of some of his second half decisions. But as I said, the lowest marks go to those referees whose mistakes have an adverse effect on the result. I don't think Mr Phillips falls into that category. The dismissal of Mohsni was down to Mohsni and Sturrock in equal measure although the manner of it when it inevitably happened was a little unsatisfactory.

The main reason why referees are so poor is the behaviour of the players, coaches and managers.

Agree 100%.

I'd like, as part of their training, EVERY pro footballer to do the referees course and maybe even have to referee a certain number of matches per season at youth or local level. It would enable them to see the game from a totally different viewpoint. That would be the most effective boost to the Respect campaign I can think of.

 

[Somerset Ex-TTB]

No that's not quite what I said. There would hopefully be some element of criticism of some of his second half decisions. But as I said, the lowest marks go to those referees whose mistakes have an adverse effect on the result. I don't think Mr Phillips falls into that category. The dismissal of Mohsni was down to Mohsni and Sturrock in equal measure although the manner of it when it inevitably happened was a little unsatisfactory.

The main reason why referees are so poor is the behaviour of the players, coaches and managers.

Dont understand this Mick, a referee can have a really poor game as on Tuesday, and would get a better mark than a referee who makes 99% of decisions correctly, plays the advantage well, has a good rapport with the players, and correctly books players where necessary, but get a penalty decision wrong that changes the result?

Total madness if you ask me, maybe that is where they are going wrong?

 

[canveyshrimper]

No that's not quite what I said. There would hopefully be some element of criticism of some of his second half decisions. But as I said, the lowest marks go to those referees whose mistakes have an adverse effect on the result. I don't think Mr Phillips falls into that category. The dismissal of Mohsni was down to Mohsni and Sturrock in equal measure although the manner of it when it inevitably happened was a little unsatisfactory.

The main reason why referees are so poor is the behaviour of the players, coaches and managers.

Spot on, and add to that so called tv pundits & experts, who will have the benefit of around 15 different camera angles before deciding the ref may have been wrong in giving a decision, when the ref has one look at about 100mph such is the speed that some games are played at.

I'd love to see some of these "experts" try and referee a game and take them out of the comfort zone of their nice warm studio.

 

[Hawkwell Blue]

You know you're not doing a great job when all four sides of the ground are chanting "You don't know what you're doing!

Hall's booking was an appalling decision, the keeper appeared to have no problem with it and just carried on - as most players do in League 2 which is why it's so much better than the premiershi**

If only refs were allowed a bit of common sense. When I used to play the referee would come into the changing room before the game and tell us what he would and would not stand for. I know its an old argument but footballlers should look at Rugby players and the way they respect the referees.

 

[Maldon Blues]

Wouldn't be the best move for my career to email Mr Knight!

You say the Referee played advantage well, but I'd be interested to know what you mean by that? For me, one of the more irritating things is referees playing too many advantages. There's 'letting the game flow', but then there's denying teams a much better goalscoring opportunity by not awarding them a free-kick.

These days most fouls in the centre of the pitch will result in an advantage resulting in the attacking side finding themselves in a nothing position. Give them a free-kick and the chance to get bodies into the penalty area and they have a much better chance of creating an opportunity. I think advantages should only be gven when there is an obvious advantage to the attacking team.

Maybe time has come for the attacking side to be given the chance of declining an advantage and opting for the free-kick.

 

[fbm]

Wouldn't be the best move for my career to email Mr Knight!

You say the Referee played advantage well, but I'd be interested to know what you mean by that? For me, one of the more irritating things is referees playing too many advantages. There's 'letting the game flow', but then there's denying teams a much better goalscoring opportunity by not awarding them a free-kick.

These days most fouls in the centre of the pitch will result in an advantage resulting in the attacking side finding themselves in a nothing position. Give them a free-kick and the chance to get bodies into the penalty area and they have a much better chance of creating an opportunity. I think advantages should only be gven when there is an obvious advantage to the attacking team.

Maybe time has come for the attacking side to be given the chance of declining an advantage and opting for the free-kick.

How the hell do refs deal with that one?

FWIW, I felt his advantage playing was excellent in the first half, not as much so in the second and in time he lost the plot. I always prefer advantage to be played.

 

[Maldon Blues]

I think advantages should only be played when it's leading to an absolutely obvious goalscoring opportunity, just like it used to be until a few years ago before referees began to become over-assessed.

More often than not, needless advantages lead to nothing in the centre of the pitch. Where's the punishment for the defending team here? Almost makes it worthwhile committing niggly fouls.

 

[Mick]

I think advantages should only be played when it's leading to an absolutely obvious goalscoring opportunity, just like it used to be until a few years ago before referees began to become over-assessed.

More often than not, needless advantages lead to nothing in the centre of the pitch. Where's the punishment for the defending team here? Almost makes it worthwhile committing niggly fouls.

Can't agree at all. When it's an "absolutely obvious goalscoring opportunity" the player is probably going to go down anyway and the red card will ensue. Your approach would have resulted in about an extra 15 free-kicks on Tuesday night, all of which the defences would be organised and ready for. Playing advantage whenever clear possession is retained gives teams the chance to break at the opposition and allows the game to flow; the last thing we want to see is a stop/start match made up of a succession of free-kicks.