Ref Jones stood down after Newcastle controversy - but he will be at Sunderland v Saints

Mike Jones

Mike Jones

First published in Football

Mike Jones will not referee in the Premier League this weekend - but he will be at the Sunderland v Saints game.

The Chester official took charge of Sunday's stormy clash between Newcastle and Manchester City, with a number of his decisions coming under scrutiny.

Newcastle's Cheick Tiote had a goal ruled out on a contentious offside call, while many felt the home side's Mapou Yanga-Mbiwa should have been sent off for a crude challenge on City's Samir Nasri.

There were other flashpoints during the game too, and, in the latest list of referee appointments issued by the Premier League, Jones is only named as the fourth official at Saturday's game between Sunderland and Saints.

Chris Foy takes charge of his third Saints match in 2013/14, having previously referereed the 1-1 draw at Stoke and the 3-2 home loss to Tottenham.

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:04am Tue 14 Jan 14

Jesus_02 says...

It's war!
It's war! Jesus_02
  • Score: 0

9:08am Tue 14 Jan 14

worried of n e hampshire says...

Stood down?
should of been put down!!!
Stood down? should of been put down!!! worried of n e hampshire
  • Score: 1

9:30am Tue 14 Jan 14

SouthLondonSaint says...

Chris Foy... Happy enough with that I think he's a decent ref.
Chris Foy... Happy enough with that I think he's a decent ref. SouthLondonSaint
  • Score: 4

9:42am Tue 14 Jan 14

Clever Dick says...

So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA Clever Dick
  • Score: 11

10:02am Tue 14 Jan 14

Rising_Son says...

Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
[quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they? Rising_Son
  • Score: 3

10:10am Tue 14 Jan 14

Saintsayer II says...

So he got a decision wrong Not the first or the last to do that

The biggest worry is that this starts the debate AGAIN about using technology Already it is being suggested that this cpuld have been avoided by using a video ref They say this after spending time looking at about 5 different camera angles So what do we the crowd do whilst thats happening? The arrmchair fan will probablt be given an advert to look at Well anything to make money
So he got a decision wrong Not the first or the last to do that The biggest worry is that this starts the debate AGAIN about using technology Already it is being suggested that this cpuld have been avoided by using a video ref They say this after spending time looking at about 5 different camera angles So what do we the crowd do whilst thats happening? The arrmchair fan will probablt be given an advert to look at Well anything to make money Saintsayer II
  • Score: 5

10:11am Tue 14 Jan 14

St Retford says...

This whole issue is getting a bit out of hand now, isn't it? We need to just play the game, not the ref.

Anyone here going om Saturday? Sunderland away gets you 10 points in the kudos stakes, not simply because it's so far away but also because it's a *right* old cackhole. Take care, people.
This whole issue is getting a bit out of hand now, isn't it? We need to just play the game, not the ref. Anyone here going om Saturday? Sunderland away gets you 10 points in the kudos stakes, not simply because it's so far away but also because it's a *right* old cackhole. Take care, people. St Retford
  • Score: 1

10:12am Tue 14 Jan 14

bigfella777 says...

His decisions could have caused a serious disturbance at St James Park, he totally lost control of the game, I think they should get that shan massey bird of the line and get her on the pitch, she's good.
His decisions could have caused a serious disturbance at St James Park, he totally lost control of the game, I think they should get that shan massey bird of the line and get her on the pitch, she's good. bigfella777
  • Score: 5

10:20am Tue 14 Jan 14

Clever Dick says...

What a bird reffing a game?..........oops sorry I thought I was Andy Gray for a minute there!!
What a bird reffing a game?..........oops sorry I thought I was Andy Gray for a minute there!! Clever Dick
  • Score: 2

10:29am Tue 14 Jan 14

Clever Dick says...

Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
[quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players. Clever Dick
  • Score: 2

10:34am Tue 14 Jan 14

JohnItaly says...

Clever Dick wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".
[quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.[/p][/quote]I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch". JohnItaly
  • Score: 7

10:51am Tue 14 Jan 14

warrens 76 says...

FiFA and EUFA allied with the big clubs will not allow technology to interfere with the 'rigged' game factor………

I assure all posters that back to Anderlecht V Saints in 77 quarter final we were denied a clear cut goal by Channon in the 8th minute..has a clear cut penalty turned down and Anderlech scred the winning 'goal' some 30 yards offside..Clough hated the 'old lady of Turin after Derby lost as semi final in the most blatant fashion indeed the Juventus manager was in the refs changing room at half time…

The corruption today IS still endemic on the continent and there is a propensity for big/accepted clubs to get the result….I have no time for Chelsea but Barcelona were completely favoroured over them 2 years running….

Technology will level the playing field and that is not want the big clubs and the corrupt bodies want at any cost.
FiFA and EUFA allied with the big clubs will not allow technology to interfere with the 'rigged' game factor……… I assure all posters that back to Anderlecht V Saints in 77 quarter final we were denied a clear cut goal by Channon in the 8th minute..has a clear cut penalty turned down and Anderlech scred the winning 'goal' some 30 yards offside..Clough hated the 'old lady of Turin after Derby lost as semi final in the most blatant fashion indeed the Juventus manager was in the refs changing room at half time… The corruption today IS still endemic on the continent and there is a propensity for big/accepted clubs to get the result….I have no time for Chelsea but Barcelona were completely favoroured over them 2 years running…. Technology will level the playing field and that is not want the big clubs and the corrupt bodies want at any cost. warrens 76
  • Score: 2

10:59am Tue 14 Jan 14

Folkestone Saint says...

Players cheat, ref's make mistakes, whether it's claiming for a throw-in that they know it the oppo's or diving for a pen it's all about conning the ref, oh and then there's clottenburk
Players cheat, ref's make mistakes, whether it's claiming for a throw-in that they know it the oppo's or diving for a pen it's all about conning the ref, oh and then there's clottenburk Folkestone Saint
  • Score: 1

11:00am Tue 14 Jan 14

IanRC5 says...

Warrens 76 it seems that it may not be confined to the continent now unfortunately
Warrens 76 it seems that it may not be confined to the continent now unfortunately IanRC5
  • Score: 2

11:04am Tue 14 Jan 14

Confucious says...

Saintsayer II wrote:
So he got a decision wrong Not the first or the last to do that

The biggest worry is that this starts the debate AGAIN about using technology Already it is being suggested that this cpuld have been avoided by using a video ref They say this after spending time looking at about 5 different camera angles So what do we the crowd do whilst thats happening? The arrmchair fan will probablt be given an advert to look at Well anything to make money
Technology is the answer here and Horace, my robot ref, is now well advanced and will be submitted to the FA in September.

I have decided to change his name to RoboRef as I think this has a lot more panache than Horace.

I have no doubt that referoids are the thing of the future and I already have the technology working to provide faultless and instant decision making in all circumstances.

My only concern at this stage is that RoboRef is so intelligent that he may develop human-like self awareness. This could be a problem. It would be a disaster, for example, if his mild taser (designed to administer retribution to argumentative players disputing decisions) was turned onto the crowd in response to fans chanting insults in his direction eg "Yer rusty old bustard!"

He might also develop ideas about his own social and legal rights - and for example, at some point, when duplicates are commonplace in the Prem, we could have a referoid declaring he is gay and then being abused from the stands before the government has had time to bring in legislation against gay robot discrimination.

We could also have serious problems if the Romanians or Bulgarians develop equally good but cheaper robots, which then come over here and put our robots out of work.

It's annoying, but in the modern world, solving the technical issues can be the least of the problems.
[quote][p][bold]Saintsayer II[/bold] wrote: So he got a decision wrong Not the first or the last to do that The biggest worry is that this starts the debate AGAIN about using technology Already it is being suggested that this cpuld have been avoided by using a video ref They say this after spending time looking at about 5 different camera angles So what do we the crowd do whilst thats happening? The arrmchair fan will probablt be given an advert to look at Well anything to make money[/p][/quote]Technology is the answer here and Horace, my robot ref, is now well advanced and will be submitted to the FA in September. I have decided to change his name to RoboRef as I think this has a lot more panache than Horace. I have no doubt that referoids are the thing of the future and I already have the technology working to provide faultless and instant decision making in all circumstances. My only concern at this stage is that RoboRef is so intelligent that he may develop human-like self awareness. This could be a problem. It would be a disaster, for example, if his mild taser (designed to administer retribution to argumentative players disputing decisions) was turned onto the crowd in response to fans chanting insults in his direction eg "Yer rusty old bustard!" He might also develop ideas about his own social and legal rights - and for example, at some point, when duplicates are commonplace in the Prem, we could have a referoid declaring he is gay and then being abused from the stands before the government has had time to bring in legislation against gay robot discrimination. We could also have serious problems if the Romanians or Bulgarians develop equally good but cheaper robots, which then come over here and put our robots out of work. It's annoying, but in the modern world, solving the technical issues can be the least of the problems. Confucious
  • Score: 8

11:06am Tue 14 Jan 14

Clever Dick says...

JohnItaly wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".
Well I played all my football under the old rule and at least everybody understood it. The fact is it has changed now and under the new interpretation the goal should have been allowed. If we are to go by the Bill Shankley method then every player is interfering with play no matter where they are on the pitch. If that is the case then any reference to "interfering with play" should be struck fm the rules.
[quote][p][bold]JohnItaly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.[/p][/quote]I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".[/p][/quote]Well I played all my football under the old rule and at least everybody understood it. The fact is it has changed now and under the new interpretation the goal should have been allowed. If we are to go by the Bill Shankley method then every player is interfering with play no matter where they are on the pitch. If that is the case then any reference to "interfering with play" should be struck fm the rules. Clever Dick
  • Score: 1

11:18am Tue 14 Jan 14

el caballo santos101 says...

JohnItaly wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".
I agree. look at shane long when he missed that sitter against us, he was `offside` all the way through the build up and only got back onside for the final ball, yes I know he didn't need to for the final ball because it was played sideways. the point is that he was in the middle of the goal mouth and inside the 6 yard line, so our defence and keeper would have had to take him into account during the build up and he is then interfering with play. there is a simple solution though, if you are in an offside position inside the penalty area then you should be given offside, interfering or not. you can then have the interfering rule for outside the box.
having said that I think the ref made a mistake with this decision, as the rules stand. the ref also made a mistake by not sending the Newcastle player off for the tackle on nasri. pardew has also got away with is touchline antics and foul mouth outburst again, shrek got banned for 2 games for swearing into a camera after scoring a goal. pardew must have known the cameras would be on him.
what really annoys me is that we have just got past the clutterbrain debate. after he made a series of howlers, just as bad as the Newcastle mistakes, against saints (not what he said to lalla) yet the FA don't take any action against him. why is a disallowed goal any different to a disallowed penalty or two? they both should also have sent a player off. so why has this ref been `dropped`?
[quote][p][bold]JohnItaly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.[/p][/quote]I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".[/p][/quote]I agree. look at shane long when he missed that sitter against us, he was `offside` all the way through the build up and only got back onside for the final ball, yes I know he didn't need to for the final ball because it was played sideways. the point is that he was in the middle of the goal mouth and inside the 6 yard line, so our defence and keeper would have had to take him into account during the build up and he is then interfering with play. there is a simple solution though, if you are in an offside position inside the penalty area then you should be given offside, interfering or not. you can then have the interfering rule for outside the box. having said that I think the ref made a mistake with this decision, as the rules stand. the ref also made a mistake by not sending the Newcastle player off for the tackle on nasri. pardew has also got away with is touchline antics and foul mouth outburst again, shrek got banned for 2 games for swearing into a camera after scoring a goal. pardew must have known the cameras would be on him. what really annoys me is that we have just got past the clutterbrain debate. after he made a series of howlers, just as bad as the Newcastle mistakes, against saints (not what he said to lalla) yet the FA don't take any action against him. why is a disallowed goal any different to a disallowed penalty or two? they both should also have sent a player off. so why has this ref been `dropped`? el caballo santos101
  • Score: 3

11:30am Tue 14 Jan 14

Mush On The Beach says...

Clever Dick wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
It was the linesman that advised the ref to make the decision.
The off-side rule has been made too complicated in what is meant to be a simple game. There were 3 players in off-side positions and I think at least one was close enough to Joe Hart to make it an acceptable if marginal decision. The new rule has led to this grey area to arise, I'm with the Bill Shankly contingent.
[quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.[/p][/quote]It was the linesman that advised the ref to make the decision. The off-side rule has been made too complicated in what is meant to be a simple game. There were 3 players in off-side positions and I think at least one was close enough to Joe Hart to make it an acceptable if marginal decision. The new rule has led to this grey area to arise, I'm with the Bill Shankly contingent. Mush On The Beach
  • Score: 3

11:49am Tue 14 Jan 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

el caballo santos101 wrote:
JohnItaly wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".
I agree. look at shane long when he missed that sitter against us, he was `offside` all the way through the build up and only got back onside for the final ball, yes I know he didn't need to for the final ball because it was played sideways. the point is that he was in the middle of the goal mouth and inside the 6 yard line, so our defence and keeper would have had to take him into account during the build up and he is then interfering with play. there is a simple solution though, if you are in an offside position inside the penalty area then you should be given offside, interfering or not. you can then have the interfering rule for outside the box.
having said that I think the ref made a mistake with this decision, as the rules stand. the ref also made a mistake by not sending the Newcastle player off for the tackle on nasri. pardew has also got away with is touchline antics and foul mouth outburst again, shrek got banned for 2 games for swearing into a camera after scoring a goal. pardew must have known the cameras would be on him.
what really annoys me is that we have just got past the clutterbrain debate. after he made a series of howlers, just as bad as the Newcastle mistakes, against saints (not what he said to lalla) yet the FA don't take any action against him. why is a disallowed goal any different to a disallowed penalty or two? they both should also have sent a player off. so why has this ref been `dropped`?
He is the fourth Official, if Chris Hoy is injured he would take over.
[quote][p][bold]el caballo santos101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JohnItaly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.[/p][/quote]I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".[/p][/quote]I agree. look at shane long when he missed that sitter against us, he was `offside` all the way through the build up and only got back onside for the final ball, yes I know he didn't need to for the final ball because it was played sideways. the point is that he was in the middle of the goal mouth and inside the 6 yard line, so our defence and keeper would have had to take him into account during the build up and he is then interfering with play. there is a simple solution though, if you are in an offside position inside the penalty area then you should be given offside, interfering or not. you can then have the interfering rule for outside the box. having said that I think the ref made a mistake with this decision, as the rules stand. the ref also made a mistake by not sending the Newcastle player off for the tackle on nasri. pardew has also got away with is touchline antics and foul mouth outburst again, shrek got banned for 2 games for swearing into a camera after scoring a goal. pardew must have known the cameras would be on him. what really annoys me is that we have just got past the clutterbrain debate. after he made a series of howlers, just as bad as the Newcastle mistakes, against saints (not what he said to lalla) yet the FA don't take any action against him. why is a disallowed goal any different to a disallowed penalty or two? they both should also have sent a player off. so why has this ref been `dropped`?[/p][/quote]He is the fourth Official, if Chris Hoy is injured he would take over. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 1

11:51am Tue 14 Jan 14

St Retford says...

bigfella777 wrote:
His decisions could have caused a serious disturbance at St James Park, he totally lost control of the game, I think they should get that shan massey bird of the line and get her on the pitch, she's good.
This is a good shout. If there's one group of people that footballers are almost guaranteed to respect it's women.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: His decisions could have caused a serious disturbance at St James Park, he totally lost control of the game, I think they should get that shan massey bird of the line and get her on the pitch, she's good.[/p][/quote]This is a good shout. If there's one group of people that footballers are almost guaranteed to respect it's women. St Retford
  • Score: 3

11:59am Tue 14 Jan 14

JohnItaly says...

Clever Dick wrote:
JohnItaly wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".
Well I played all my football under the old rule and at least everybody understood it. The fact is it has changed now and under the new interpretation the goal should have been allowed. If we are to go by the Bill Shankley method then every player is interfering with play no matter where they are on the pitch. If that is the case then any reference to "interfering with play" should be struck fm the rules.
"Interfering with play" is almost impossible to define and equally difficult to implement. In the case of the Newcastle incident who is to say that Hart caught out of the corner of his eye the Newcastle player standing very close to him, if so surely it can be argued he was "interfering with play". Equally the fact he had to move out of the way of the ball to avoid being hit (and therefore clearly offside) could also be argued as "interfering with play".
[quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JohnItaly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.[/p][/quote]I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".[/p][/quote]Well I played all my football under the old rule and at least everybody understood it. The fact is it has changed now and under the new interpretation the goal should have been allowed. If we are to go by the Bill Shankley method then every player is interfering with play no matter where they are on the pitch. If that is the case then any reference to "interfering with play" should be struck fm the rules.[/p][/quote]"Interfering with play" is almost impossible to define and equally difficult to implement. In the case of the Newcastle incident who is to say that Hart caught out of the corner of his eye the Newcastle player standing very close to him, if so surely it can be argued he was "interfering with play". Equally the fact he had to move out of the way of the ball to avoid being hit (and therefore clearly offside) could also be argued as "interfering with play". JohnItaly
  • Score: 2

12:12pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Clever Dick says...

Mush On The Beach wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
It was the linesman that advised the ref to make the decision.
The off-side rule has been made too complicated in what is meant to be a simple game. There were 3 players in off-side positions and I think at least one was close enough to Joe Hart to make it an acceptable if marginal decision. The new rule has led to this grey area to arise, I'm with the Bill Shankly contingent.
Don't agree. Obviously we won't be told who made the call. The lino did not raise his flag for offside. He may have confirmed to the ref that players were in "offside positions" but Jones made the call. That's why he has not been given a game this week
[quote][p][bold]Mush On The Beach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.[/p][/quote]It was the linesman that advised the ref to make the decision. The off-side rule has been made too complicated in what is meant to be a simple game. There were 3 players in off-side positions and I think at least one was close enough to Joe Hart to make it an acceptable if marginal decision. The new rule has led to this grey area to arise, I'm with the Bill Shankly contingent.[/p][/quote]Don't agree. Obviously we won't be told who made the call. The lino did not raise his flag for offside. He may have confirmed to the ref that players were in "offside positions" but Jones made the call. That's why he has not been given a game this week Clever Dick
  • Score: 1

12:19pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Seedhouse the Unrepentant says...

St Retford wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
His decisions could have caused a serious disturbance at St James Park, he totally lost control of the game, I think they should get that shan massey bird of the line and get her on the pitch, she's good.
This is a good shout. If there's one group of people that footballers are almost guaranteed to respect it's women.
It's an interesting one that. Sian Massey hasn't made a mistake in the games I've watched live or on the telly. There have been a couple of decisions where I thought she'd dropped a bollock but on the replay she was spot on. Let's see if they elevate her to ref. If they don't it's definitely discrimination because she's the best lino out there.
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: His decisions could have caused a serious disturbance at St James Park, he totally lost control of the game, I think they should get that shan massey bird of the line and get her on the pitch, she's good.[/p][/quote]This is a good shout. If there's one group of people that footballers are almost guaranteed to respect it's women.[/p][/quote]It's an interesting one that. Sian Massey hasn't made a mistake in the games I've watched live or on the telly. There have been a couple of decisions where I thought she'd dropped a bollock but on the replay she was spot on. Let's see if they elevate her to ref. If they don't it's definitely discrimination because she's the best lino out there. Seedhouse the Unrepentant
  • Score: 5

12:43pm Tue 14 Jan 14

JohnItaly says...

Whilst we are on the subject of the offside rule unless there has been a change of rule you are offside the moment the ball is played - not when you receive the ball - so my question is how can you be played onside? Perhaps those of you who are qualified referees could enlighten me.
Whilst we are on the subject of the offside rule unless there has been a change of rule you are offside the moment the ball is played - not when you receive the ball - so my question is how can you be played onside? Perhaps those of you who are qualified referees could enlighten me. JohnItaly
  • Score: 1

1:08pm Tue 14 Jan 14

worried of n e hampshire says...

the biggest mistake the ref made was not sending off the bloke who nailed Nasri, why? because he bottled it after his earlier mistake and was trying to make amends.
the biggest mistake the ref made was not sending off the bloke who nailed Nasri, why? because he bottled it after his earlier mistake and was trying to make amends. worried of n e hampshire
  • Score: 1

1:16pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Mush On The Beach says...

Clever Dick wrote:
Mush On The Beach wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
It was the linesman that advised the ref to make the decision.
The off-side rule has been made too complicated in what is meant to be a simple game. There were 3 players in off-side positions and I think at least one was close enough to Joe Hart to make it an acceptable if marginal decision. The new rule has led to this grey area to arise, I'm with the Bill Shankly contingent.
Don't agree. Obviously we won't be told who made the call. The lino did not raise his flag for offside. He may have confirmed to the ref that players were in "offside positions" but Jones made the call. That's why he has not been given a game this week
Fair point about the linesman's flag, however, I was going on the body language of the ref who looked like he was walking back to the centre circle to award the goal.
[quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mush On The Beach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.[/p][/quote]It was the linesman that advised the ref to make the decision. The off-side rule has been made too complicated in what is meant to be a simple game. There were 3 players in off-side positions and I think at least one was close enough to Joe Hart to make it an acceptable if marginal decision. The new rule has led to this grey area to arise, I'm with the Bill Shankly contingent.[/p][/quote]Don't agree. Obviously we won't be told who made the call. The lino did not raise his flag for offside. He may have confirmed to the ref that players were in "offside positions" but Jones made the call. That's why he has not been given a game this week[/p][/quote]Fair point about the linesman's flag, however, I was going on the body language of the ref who looked like he was walking back to the centre circle to award the goal. Mush On The Beach
  • Score: 2

1:22pm Tue 14 Jan 14

st1halo says...

Saintsayer II wrote:
So he got a decision wrong Not the first or the last to do that

The biggest worry is that this starts the debate AGAIN about using technology Already it is being suggested that this cpuld have been avoided by using a video ref They say this after spending time looking at about 5 different camera angles So what do we the crowd do whilst thats happening? The arrmchair fan will probablt be given an advert to look at Well anything to make money
The crowd will do the same as they do for a corner, a throw-in or injury. It rarely takes that long to replay these incidents nowadays. If these bad decisions keep occurring, and it seems most games are being affected, a video ref may become essential. Its impossible for refs to see everything so let's give them all the help we can to get things right whilst removng questions of bias and a further safeguard against corruption. There's too much resting on these decisions not to.

STID
[quote][p][bold]Saintsayer II[/bold] wrote: So he got a decision wrong Not the first or the last to do that The biggest worry is that this starts the debate AGAIN about using technology Already it is being suggested that this cpuld have been avoided by using a video ref They say this after spending time looking at about 5 different camera angles So what do we the crowd do whilst thats happening? The arrmchair fan will probablt be given an advert to look at Well anything to make money[/p][/quote]The crowd will do the same as they do for a corner, a throw-in or injury. It rarely takes that long to replay these incidents nowadays. If these bad decisions keep occurring, and it seems most games are being affected, a video ref may become essential. Its impossible for refs to see everything so let's give them all the help we can to get things right whilst removng questions of bias and a further safeguard against corruption. There's too much resting on these decisions not to. STID st1halo
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Tue 14 Jan 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

JohnItaly wrote:
Whilst we are on the subject of the offside rule unless there has been a change of rule you are offside the moment the ball is played - not when you receive the ball - so my question is how can you be played onside? Perhaps those of you who are qualified referees could enlighten me.
It's an awkard rule to implement, a player in an offside position that makes no attempt to get involved is often ignored, it's that confusion about interfering with play, Joe Hart would have been aware of the player standing just in front of him and that would have given him a problem about which way to go, nebulous but I can appreciate the Referees thought process.
[quote][p][bold]JohnItaly[/bold] wrote: Whilst we are on the subject of the offside rule unless there has been a change of rule you are offside the moment the ball is played - not when you receive the ball - so my question is how can you be played onside? Perhaps those of you who are qualified referees could enlighten me.[/p][/quote]It's an awkard rule to implement, a player in an offside position that makes no attempt to get involved is often ignored, it's that confusion about interfering with play, Joe Hart would have been aware of the player standing just in front of him and that would have given him a problem about which way to go, nebulous but I can appreciate the Referees thought process. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Saintsayer II says...

Confucious wrote:
Saintsayer II wrote:
So he got a decision wrong Not the first or the last to do that

The biggest worry is that this starts the debate AGAIN about using technology Already it is being suggested that this cpuld have been avoided by using a video ref They say this after spending time looking at about 5 different camera angles So what do we the crowd do whilst thats happening? The arrmchair fan will probablt be given an advert to look at Well anything to make money
Technology is the answer here and Horace, my robot ref, is now well advanced and will be submitted to the FA in September.

I have decided to change his name to RoboRef as I think this has a lot more panache than Horace.

I have no doubt that referoids are the thing of the future and I already have the technology working to provide faultless and instant decision making in all circumstances.

My only concern at this stage is that RoboRef is so intelligent that he may develop human-like self awareness. This could be a problem. It would be a disaster, for example, if his mild taser (designed to administer retribution to argumentative players disputing decisions) was turned onto the crowd in response to fans chanting insults in his direction eg "Yer rusty old bustard!"

He might also develop ideas about his own social and legal rights - and for example, at some point, when duplicates are commonplace in the Prem, we could have a referoid declaring he is gay and then being abused from the stands before the government has had time to bring in legislation against gay robot discrimination.

We could also have serious problems if the Romanians or Bulgarians develop equally good but cheaper robots, which then come over here and put our robots out of work.

It's annoying, but in the modern world, solving the technical issues can be the least of the problems.
Thanks Confusious You have made my day again I will now welcome the new technology with open arms Especially for the gay one
[quote][p][bold]Confucious[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saintsayer II[/bold] wrote: So he got a decision wrong Not the first or the last to do that The biggest worry is that this starts the debate AGAIN about using technology Already it is being suggested that this cpuld have been avoided by using a video ref They say this after spending time looking at about 5 different camera angles So what do we the crowd do whilst thats happening? The arrmchair fan will probablt be given an advert to look at Well anything to make money[/p][/quote]Technology is the answer here and Horace, my robot ref, is now well advanced and will be submitted to the FA in September. I have decided to change his name to RoboRef as I think this has a lot more panache than Horace. I have no doubt that referoids are the thing of the future and I already have the technology working to provide faultless and instant decision making in all circumstances. My only concern at this stage is that RoboRef is so intelligent that he may develop human-like self awareness. This could be a problem. It would be a disaster, for example, if his mild taser (designed to administer retribution to argumentative players disputing decisions) was turned onto the crowd in response to fans chanting insults in his direction eg "Yer rusty old bustard!" He might also develop ideas about his own social and legal rights - and for example, at some point, when duplicates are commonplace in the Prem, we could have a referoid declaring he is gay and then being abused from the stands before the government has had time to bring in legislation against gay robot discrimination. We could also have serious problems if the Romanians or Bulgarians develop equally good but cheaper robots, which then come over here and put our robots out of work. It's annoying, but in the modern world, solving the technical issues can be the least of the problems.[/p][/quote]Thanks Confusious You have made my day again I will now welcome the new technology with open arms Especially for the gay one Saintsayer II
  • Score: 3

2:56pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Saintsayer II says...

el caballo santos101 wrote:
JohnItaly wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".
I agree. look at shane long when he missed that sitter against us, he was `offside` all the way through the build up and only got back onside for the final ball, yes I know he didn't need to for the final ball because it was played sideways. the point is that he was in the middle of the goal mouth and inside the 6 yard line, so our defence and keeper would have had to take him into account during the build up and he is then interfering with play. there is a simple solution though, if you are in an offside position inside the penalty area then you should be given offside, interfering or not. you can then have the interfering rule for outside the box.
having said that I think the ref made a mistake with this decision, as the rules stand. the ref also made a mistake by not sending the Newcastle player off for the tackle on nasri. pardew has also got away with is touchline antics and foul mouth outburst again, shrek got banned for 2 games for swearing into a camera after scoring a goal. pardew must have known the cameras would be on him.
what really annoys me is that we have just got past the clutterbrain debate. after he made a series of howlers, just as bad as the Newcastle mistakes, against saints (not what he said to lalla) yet the FA don't take any action against him. why is a disallowed goal any different to a disallowed penalty or two? they both should also have sent a player off. so why has this ref been `dropped`?
It was Bill Nicholson os Spurs not Shankly who sid that if a player isn't interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage then he shouldn't be on the field

As for Long last Saturday he wasn't off side because he was behind the ball when it was last played Not because it was played sideways

I'm not sure how it's written nowadays but the OS rule was written in a way that said you were 'always offside except when' and then went on to list all those ie from a throw in etc
[quote][p][bold]el caballo santos101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JohnItaly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.[/p][/quote]I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".[/p][/quote]I agree. look at shane long when he missed that sitter against us, he was `offside` all the way through the build up and only got back onside for the final ball, yes I know he didn't need to for the final ball because it was played sideways. the point is that he was in the middle of the goal mouth and inside the 6 yard line, so our defence and keeper would have had to take him into account during the build up and he is then interfering with play. there is a simple solution though, if you are in an offside position inside the penalty area then you should be given offside, interfering or not. you can then have the interfering rule for outside the box. having said that I think the ref made a mistake with this decision, as the rules stand. the ref also made a mistake by not sending the Newcastle player off for the tackle on nasri. pardew has also got away with is touchline antics and foul mouth outburst again, shrek got banned for 2 games for swearing into a camera after scoring a goal. pardew must have known the cameras would be on him. what really annoys me is that we have just got past the clutterbrain debate. after he made a series of howlers, just as bad as the Newcastle mistakes, against saints (not what he said to lalla) yet the FA don't take any action against him. why is a disallowed goal any different to a disallowed penalty or two? they both should also have sent a player off. so why has this ref been `dropped`?[/p][/quote]It was Bill Nicholson os Spurs not Shankly who sid that if a player isn't interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage then he shouldn't be on the field As for Long last Saturday he wasn't off side because he was behind the ball when it was last played Not because it was played sideways I'm not sure how it's written nowadays but the OS rule was written in a way that said you were 'always offside except when' and then went on to list all those ie from a throw in etc Saintsayer II
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Costa Baz says...

Mush On The Beach wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
Mush On The Beach wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
It was the linesman that advised the ref to make the decision.
The off-side rule has been made too complicated in what is meant to be a simple game. There were 3 players in off-side positions and I think at least one was close enough to Joe Hart to make it an acceptable if marginal decision. The new rule has led to this grey area to arise, I'm with the Bill Shankly contingent.
Don't agree. Obviously we won't be told who made the call. The lino did not raise his flag for offside. He may have confirmed to the ref that players were in "offside positions" but Jones made the call. That's why he has not been given a game this week
Fair point about the linesman's flag, however, I was going on the body language of the ref who looked like he was walking back to the centre circle to award the goal.
I think the ref just bottled it.
He was perfectly placed to see that players were offside, without the need to consult with the linesman.
When he realised that Joe Hart was unhappy about it, he then consulted with the linesman, who was no better placed to see if any player was impeding the keeper, and decided to favour the bigger team.
Unfortunately for him, most people think he was wrong, including every professional pundit that has commented on it, making him look a little bit silly.
Returning this rule to how it was, would make it easier to interpret, by fans and officials alike, then incidents, like at SMS where Long was initially offside, would be flagged as such, instead of them being allowed to "goal hang" and gain an advantage from their deliberate breach of the offside law.
[quote][p][bold]Mush On The Beach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mush On The Beach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.[/p][/quote]It was the linesman that advised the ref to make the decision. The off-side rule has been made too complicated in what is meant to be a simple game. There were 3 players in off-side positions and I think at least one was close enough to Joe Hart to make it an acceptable if marginal decision. The new rule has led to this grey area to arise, I'm with the Bill Shankly contingent.[/p][/quote]Don't agree. Obviously we won't be told who made the call. The lino did not raise his flag for offside. He may have confirmed to the ref that players were in "offside positions" but Jones made the call. That's why he has not been given a game this week[/p][/quote]Fair point about the linesman's flag, however, I was going on the body language of the ref who looked like he was walking back to the centre circle to award the goal.[/p][/quote]I think the ref just bottled it. He was perfectly placed to see that players were offside, without the need to consult with the linesman. When he realised that Joe Hart was unhappy about it, he then consulted with the linesman, who was no better placed to see if any player was impeding the keeper, and decided to favour the bigger team. Unfortunately for him, most people think he was wrong, including every professional pundit that has commented on it, making him look a little bit silly. Returning this rule to how it was, would make it easier to interpret, by fans and officials alike, then incidents, like at SMS where Long was initially offside, would be flagged as such, instead of them being allowed to "goal hang" and gain an advantage from their deliberate breach of the offside law. Costa Baz
  • Score: 2

2:56pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Costa Baz says...

Mush On The Beach wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
Mush On The Beach wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
It was the linesman that advised the ref to make the decision.
The off-side rule has been made too complicated in what is meant to be a simple game. There were 3 players in off-side positions and I think at least one was close enough to Joe Hart to make it an acceptable if marginal decision. The new rule has led to this grey area to arise, I'm with the Bill Shankly contingent.
Don't agree. Obviously we won't be told who made the call. The lino did not raise his flag for offside. He may have confirmed to the ref that players were in "offside positions" but Jones made the call. That's why he has not been given a game this week
Fair point about the linesman's flag, however, I was going on the body language of the ref who looked like he was walking back to the centre circle to award the goal.
I think the ref just bottled it.
He was perfectly placed to see that players were offside, without the need to consult with the linesman.
When he realised that Joe Hart was unhappy about it, he then consulted with the linesman, who was no better placed to see if any player was impeding the keeper, and decided to favour the bigger team.
Unfortunately for him, most people think he was wrong, including every professional pundit that has commented on it, making him look a little bit silly.
Returning this rule to how it was, would make it easier to interpret, by fans and officials alike, then incidents, like at SMS where Long was initially offside, would be flagged as such, instead of them being allowed to "goal hang" and gain an advantage from their deliberate breach of the offside law.
[quote][p][bold]Mush On The Beach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mush On The Beach[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.[/p][/quote]It was the linesman that advised the ref to make the decision. The off-side rule has been made too complicated in what is meant to be a simple game. There were 3 players in off-side positions and I think at least one was close enough to Joe Hart to make it an acceptable if marginal decision. The new rule has led to this grey area to arise, I'm with the Bill Shankly contingent.[/p][/quote]Don't agree. Obviously we won't be told who made the call. The lino did not raise his flag for offside. He may have confirmed to the ref that players were in "offside positions" but Jones made the call. That's why he has not been given a game this week[/p][/quote]Fair point about the linesman's flag, however, I was going on the body language of the ref who looked like he was walking back to the centre circle to award the goal.[/p][/quote]I think the ref just bottled it. He was perfectly placed to see that players were offside, without the need to consult with the linesman. When he realised that Joe Hart was unhappy about it, he then consulted with the linesman, who was no better placed to see if any player was impeding the keeper, and decided to favour the bigger team. Unfortunately for him, most people think he was wrong, including every professional pundit that has commented on it, making him look a little bit silly. Returning this rule to how it was, would make it easier to interpret, by fans and officials alike, then incidents, like at SMS where Long was initially offside, would be flagged as such, instead of them being allowed to "goal hang" and gain an advantage from their deliberate breach of the offside law. Costa Baz
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Saintsayer II says...

JohnItaly wrote:
Whilst we are on the subject of the offside rule unless there has been a change of rule you are offside the moment the ball is played - not when you receive the ball - so my question is how can you be played onside? Perhaps those of you who are qualified referees could enlighten me.
The term 'played on side' refers to either the fact that a defender has not pushed up as quickly as the rest of the defence and therefore plays the attacker on side
OR When the ball is played it is intercepted by a defender who has automatically played all the attackers on side because you cannot be OS if the ball is last played by an opponent This applys only if the defender controls the ball .....not if it bounces off him
[quote][p][bold]JohnItaly[/bold] wrote: Whilst we are on the subject of the offside rule unless there has been a change of rule you are offside the moment the ball is played - not when you receive the ball - so my question is how can you be played onside? Perhaps those of you who are qualified referees could enlighten me.[/p][/quote]The term 'played on side' refers to either the fact that a defender has not pushed up as quickly as the rest of the defence and therefore plays the attacker on side OR When the ball is played it is intercepted by a defender who has automatically played all the attackers on side because you cannot be OS if the ball is last played by an opponent This applys only if the defender controls the ball .....not if it bounces off him Saintsayer II
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Tue 14 Jan 14

worried of n e hampshire says...

clear as mud!
clear as mud! worried of n e hampshire
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Saintsayer II says...

worried of n e hampshire wrote:
clear as mud!
If its like that just reading it imagine how difficult it can be for the officials especially in a fast moving game
[quote][p][bold]worried of n e hampshire[/bold] wrote: clear as mud![/p][/quote]If its like that just reading it imagine how difficult it can be for the officials especially in a fast moving game Saintsayer II
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Tue 14 Jan 14

angus mc coatup says...

el caballo santos101 wrote:
JohnItaly wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".
I agree. look at shane long when he missed that sitter against us, he was `offside` all the way through the build up and only got back onside for the final ball, yes I know he didn't need to for the final ball because it was played sideways. the point is that he was in the middle of the goal mouth and inside the 6 yard line, so our defence and keeper would have had to take him into account during the build up and he is then interfering with play. there is a simple solution though, if you are in an offside position inside the penalty area then you should be given offside, interfering or not. you can then have the interfering rule for outside the box.
having said that I think the ref made a mistake with this decision, as the rules stand. the ref also made a mistake by not sending the Newcastle player off for the tackle on nasri. pardew has also got away with is touchline antics and foul mouth outburst again, shrek got banned for 2 games for swearing into a camera after scoring a goal. pardew must have known the cameras would be on him.
what really annoys me is that we have just got past the clutterbrain debate. after he made a series of howlers, just as bad as the Newcastle mistakes, against saints (not what he said to lalla) yet the FA don't take any action against him. why is a disallowed goal any different to a disallowed penalty or two? they both should also have sent a player off. so why has this ref been `dropped`?
The Shane long incident shows us everything about the wrong interpretation of the " new " offside rule. Surely from his first position, behind our back four. He is gaining a unfair advantage as he is nearer the goal when the cross comes in.
[quote][p][bold]el caballo santos101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JohnItaly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.[/p][/quote]I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".[/p][/quote]I agree. look at shane long when he missed that sitter against us, he was `offside` all the way through the build up and only got back onside for the final ball, yes I know he didn't need to for the final ball because it was played sideways. the point is that he was in the middle of the goal mouth and inside the 6 yard line, so our defence and keeper would have had to take him into account during the build up and he is then interfering with play. there is a simple solution though, if you are in an offside position inside the penalty area then you should be given offside, interfering or not. you can then have the interfering rule for outside the box. having said that I think the ref made a mistake with this decision, as the rules stand. the ref also made a mistake by not sending the Newcastle player off for the tackle on nasri. pardew has also got away with is touchline antics and foul mouth outburst again, shrek got banned for 2 games for swearing into a camera after scoring a goal. pardew must have known the cameras would be on him. what really annoys me is that we have just got past the clutterbrain debate. after he made a series of howlers, just as bad as the Newcastle mistakes, against saints (not what he said to lalla) yet the FA don't take any action against him. why is a disallowed goal any different to a disallowed penalty or two? they both should also have sent a player off. so why has this ref been `dropped`?[/p][/quote]The Shane long incident shows us everything about the wrong interpretation of the " new " offside rule. Surely from his first position, behind our back four. He is gaining a unfair advantage as he is nearer the goal when the cross comes in. angus mc coatup
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Tue 14 Jan 14

el caballo santos101 says...

Saintsayer II wrote:
el caballo santos101 wrote:
JohnItaly wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".
I agree. look at shane long when he missed that sitter against us, he was `offside` all the way through the build up and only got back onside for the final ball, yes I know he didn't need to for the final ball because it was played sideways. the point is that he was in the middle of the goal mouth and inside the 6 yard line, so our defence and keeper would have had to take him into account during the build up and he is then interfering with play. there is a simple solution though, if you are in an offside position inside the penalty area then you should be given offside, interfering or not. you can then have the interfering rule for outside the box.
having said that I think the ref made a mistake with this decision, as the rules stand. the ref also made a mistake by not sending the Newcastle player off for the tackle on nasri. pardew has also got away with is touchline antics and foul mouth outburst again, shrek got banned for 2 games for swearing into a camera after scoring a goal. pardew must have known the cameras would be on him.
what really annoys me is that we have just got past the clutterbrain debate. after he made a series of howlers, just as bad as the Newcastle mistakes, against saints (not what he said to lalla) yet the FA don't take any action against him. why is a disallowed goal any different to a disallowed penalty or two? they both should also have sent a player off. so why has this ref been `dropped`?
It was Bill Nicholson os Spurs not Shankly who sid that if a player isn't interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage then he shouldn't be on the field

As for Long last Saturday he wasn't off side because he was behind the ball when it was last played Not because it was played sideways

I'm not sure how it's written nowadays but the OS rule was written in a way that said you were 'always offside except when' and then went on to list all those ie from a throw in etc
you are correct that long was behind the ball when it was played, it was played sideways though. but thats irrelative, my point was that throughout the entire build up to his effort he was in an offside position until a second before the cross was made. h was in the 6 yard box and centre to the goal. being in that position he must surely be interfering with play, if not only because AB in goal has to change his thought process and position to compensate for long being there. as I said his is where the rule is a joke. I`m sure ive seen a goal where a player, in an obvious offside position, lifted his foot for the ball to go under and e wasn't given offside, how the hell is that not interfering with play?
the offside law is totally wrong in the way its written and implemented. technology is not the answer, for those saying that it only takes a few seconds to get the correct decision it doesn't. when you see replays on tv they always take a while to come up and sometimes several different angles are needed. this doesn't always get the correct decision either, as proved in other sports, and decisions are subjective to the refs interpretation. you cant have a tv ref overruling the on field ref as the on field ref will become redundant and will just leave decisions to the tv ref. as I said before, in cricket the umpires hardly ever give run outs and refer to the tv umpire, even when its clear that a batsman is in or out. again this can take several seconds and angles to get the correct decision, sometimes incorrect decision. teams also abuse the replay system in a manner totally against its intended use. will we see that in football? of course we will, managers will use anything they can to gain an advantage. the replay system in American football can take so long that tv companies fit in adverts. replays will ruin the game of football and you have to remember that once the genie is out of the bottle you cant put him back.
[quote][p][bold]Saintsayer II[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]el caballo santos101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JohnItaly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.[/p][/quote]I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".[/p][/quote]I agree. look at shane long when he missed that sitter against us, he was `offside` all the way through the build up and only got back onside for the final ball, yes I know he didn't need to for the final ball because it was played sideways. the point is that he was in the middle of the goal mouth and inside the 6 yard line, so our defence and keeper would have had to take him into account during the build up and he is then interfering with play. there is a simple solution though, if you are in an offside position inside the penalty area then you should be given offside, interfering or not. you can then have the interfering rule for outside the box. having said that I think the ref made a mistake with this decision, as the rules stand. the ref also made a mistake by not sending the Newcastle player off for the tackle on nasri. pardew has also got away with is touchline antics and foul mouth outburst again, shrek got banned for 2 games for swearing into a camera after scoring a goal. pardew must have known the cameras would be on him. what really annoys me is that we have just got past the clutterbrain debate. after he made a series of howlers, just as bad as the Newcastle mistakes, against saints (not what he said to lalla) yet the FA don't take any action against him. why is a disallowed goal any different to a disallowed penalty or two? they both should also have sent a player off. so why has this ref been `dropped`?[/p][/quote]It was Bill Nicholson os Spurs not Shankly who sid that if a player isn't interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage then he shouldn't be on the field As for Long last Saturday he wasn't off side because he was behind the ball when it was last played Not because it was played sideways I'm not sure how it's written nowadays but the OS rule was written in a way that said you were 'always offside except when' and then went on to list all those ie from a throw in etc[/p][/quote]you are correct that long was behind the ball when it was played, it was played sideways though. but thats irrelative, my point was that throughout the entire build up to his effort he was in an offside position until a second before the cross was made. h was in the 6 yard box and centre to the goal. being in that position he must surely be interfering with play, if not only because AB in goal has to change his thought process and position to compensate for long being there. as I said his is where the rule is a joke. I`m sure ive seen a goal where a player, in an obvious offside position, lifted his foot for the ball to go under and e wasn't given offside, how the hell is that not interfering with play? the offside law is totally wrong in the way its written and implemented. technology is not the answer, for those saying that it only takes a few seconds to get the correct decision it doesn't. when you see replays on tv they always take a while to come up and sometimes several different angles are needed. this doesn't always get the correct decision either, as proved in other sports, and decisions are subjective to the refs interpretation. you cant have a tv ref overruling the on field ref as the on field ref will become redundant and will just leave decisions to the tv ref. as I said before, in cricket the umpires hardly ever give run outs and refer to the tv umpire, even when its clear that a batsman is in or out. again this can take several seconds and angles to get the correct decision, sometimes incorrect decision. teams also abuse the replay system in a manner totally against its intended use. will we see that in football? of course we will, managers will use anything they can to gain an advantage. the replay system in American football can take so long that tv companies fit in adverts. replays will ruin the game of football and you have to remember that once the genie is out of the bottle you cant put him back. el caballo santos101
  • Score: -1

7:13pm Tue 14 Jan 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
el caballo santos101 wrote:
JohnItaly wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Clever Dick wrote:
So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA
In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?
I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.
I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".
I agree. look at shane long when he missed that sitter against us, he was `offside` all the way through the build up and only got back onside for the final ball, yes I know he didn't need to for the final ball because it was played sideways. the point is that he was in the middle of the goal mouth and inside the 6 yard line, so our defence and keeper would have had to take him into account during the build up and he is then interfering with play. there is a simple solution though, if you are in an offside position inside the penalty area then you should be given offside, interfering or not. you can then have the interfering rule for outside the box.
having said that I think the ref made a mistake with this decision, as the rules stand. the ref also made a mistake by not sending the Newcastle player off for the tackle on nasri. pardew has also got away with is touchline antics and foul mouth outburst again, shrek got banned for 2 games for swearing into a camera after scoring a goal. pardew must have known the cameras would be on him.
what really annoys me is that we have just got past the clutterbrain debate. after he made a series of howlers, just as bad as the Newcastle mistakes, against saints (not what he said to lalla) yet the FA don't take any action against him. why is a disallowed goal any different to a disallowed penalty or two? they both should also have sent a player off. so why has this ref been `dropped`?
He is the fourth Official, if Chris Hoy is injured he would take over.
That would only happen if he fell off of his bike, pay attention you lot, the Referee is Chris Foy, the last time he dropped a clanger, Sir Chris was inundated with abusive tweets!
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]el caballo santos101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JohnItaly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clever Dick[/bold] wrote: So if he gets left out for making a diabolical decision why wasn't Clutterbrain also stood down for making an equally bad one by not giving a 100% nailed on penalty in the Everton game? Typical double standards yet again by the FA[/p][/quote]In my opinion, he was right with the offside decision, which is probably why he's being stood down. After all, they wouldn't want a ref to get things right, would they?[/p][/quote]I'd say you are are in a pretty small minority there. Three players in offside positions and none of them obscuring the keeper's view. This would clearly be offside under the old ruling but not so under the new one. In any casre the ref ws not ina position to judge that either way as he didn't have line of sight as he as stood well to the left of the players.[/p][/quote]I'm of the Bill Shankly school - "if he is not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch".[/p][/quote]I agree. look at shane long when he missed that sitter against us, he was `offside` all the way through the build up and only got back onside for the final ball, yes I know he didn't need to for the final ball because it was played sideways. the point is that he was in the middle of the goal mouth and inside the 6 yard line, so our defence and keeper would have had to take him into account during the build up and he is then interfering with play. there is a simple solution though, if you are in an offside position inside the penalty area then you should be given offside, interfering or not. you can then have the interfering rule for outside the box. having said that I think the ref made a mistake with this decision, as the rules stand. the ref also made a mistake by not sending the Newcastle player off for the tackle on nasri. pardew has also got away with is touchline antics and foul mouth outburst again, shrek got banned for 2 games for swearing into a camera after scoring a goal. pardew must have known the cameras would be on him. what really annoys me is that we have just got past the clutterbrain debate. after he made a series of howlers, just as bad as the Newcastle mistakes, against saints (not what he said to lalla) yet the FA don't take any action against him. why is a disallowed goal any different to a disallowed penalty or two? they both should also have sent a player off. so why has this ref been `dropped`?[/p][/quote]He is the fourth Official, if Chris Hoy is injured he would take over.[/p][/quote]That would only happen if he fell off of his bike, pay attention you lot, the Referee is Chris Foy, the last time he dropped a clanger, Sir Chris was inundated with abusive tweets! OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 1

3:02am Wed 15 Jan 14

andoru says...

You never know, he might have something against the North East, in which case he could be good for us and do to Sunderland what he did to their neighbours.
You never know, he might have something against the North East, in which case he could be good for us and do to Sunderland what he did to their neighbours. andoru
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree