DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 45286--------------------------------------------------
Re: David Coote. Chelsea v Newcastle
DIR By: DublinRef
Date: March 13, 2022, 5:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Phil42 link ---
>
> [quote author=Comeonref link=topic=3465.msg45256#msg45256
date=1647187853]
> I don’t support either side. My post is really about the inept
performance of the referee. The whole 90 mins he just didn’t
seem interested. A non descript referee. His overall decision
making was poor throughout and he got the critical decisions
wrong. For me Havertz should have received a red card
endangering the safety of the player. He missed a clear penalty
for a double shirt pull on Murphy. As for VAR I will saying
nothing but I despair. To add insult to injury of course the
player who should not have been on the field scores the winner.
>
--- End Quote ---
"A non-descript referee". The perfect way to describe Coote (and
probably a few others - Bankes comes to mind). How on earth he
holds one of England's valuable FIFA badges is beyond me. I
can't wait for the day that there is an overhaul of the English
refs holding FIFA badges (Pawson another one) and those more
deserving are rewarded with one (Gillett). How many years before
this happens though is another question...
[/quote]
While I generally agree that appointments to the FIFA list from
England are not based fully on competence to say the least, I
disagree strongly on Pawson. A very safe pair of hands IMO and
after Oliver and Taylor the most active English referee in UEFA.
Indeed given his appointments UEFA seem to consider him one of
the stronger first group referees, although not a candidate for
elite.
On your general point though I am in full agreement. A FIFA
badge should be on loan for a year depending on performance (of
course you must give time to develop too) but it is bizarre to
me that you can get on the FIFA list at 35 or so, stay on for
ten years, make no progress and take up a place blocking other
referees with more time/potential and not be removed. Very odd
that this seems to be the general practice by the English FA.
#Post#: 45288--------------------------------------------------
Re: David Coote. Chelsea v Newcastle
DIR By: lincs22
Date: March 14, 2022, 3:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ajb95 link ---
>
> How Coote has got to the level he has is one of the great,
recent refereeing mysteries. I saw him once in the FL and
thought he was bang average and I have seen him many times in
the PL and have never been convinced. Next to no player
relationship, very card happy and little control.
> Clear red card and a clear penalty. Teams deserve better than
these poor officials in the middle and on VAR
>
--- End Quote ---
By being at the right level at the right time. He probably had a
good season in SG2, and was young enough to move up. The problem
is the better referees are becoming older, and therefore not
eligible for FIFA.
At time we do get a selection of poor referees at the top, due
to the lack of quality coming though,. Examples would be Durkin
and Riley in the late 1990's being the top referees, given what
preceded them Philip Don is USA (1994) and Poll in Japan (2002).
I think he has reached above the limit of his abilities, and
won't be able to develop.
#Post#: 45290--------------------------------------------------
Re: David Coote. Chelsea v Newcastle
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: March 14, 2022, 4:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jake the Peg link ---
>
> If the penalty incident had happened outside the box, would
Coote have blown for a free kick? Of course he would. Puts me
in mind of the blatant penalty Newcastle weren't given against
Man City when Edison wiped out Fraser. Everyone in the world
apart from the ref and Guardiola thought it was nailed on.
>
--- End Quote ---
Given your somewhat exaggerated claim over the Newcastle v
Everton game you will be able to easily answer the questions I
raised at the time which have so far remained unanswered.
--- Quote from: Microscopist link ---
> [quote author=Microscopist link=topic=3186.msg41560#msg41560
date=1640092198]
> I watched whilst facetiming with my sister and daughter and my
immediate response was "That should have been a penalty", and I
am surprised that it wasn't referred back for an on field review
on the monitor. There are one or two questions in my mind
however, which perhaps someone can answer for me. In these
circumstances how do we decide whether the goalkeeper has fouled
the forward or whether the forward has fouled the goalkeeper.
If Cancelo hadn't been involved at all it would have been
relatively straightforward - assuming there had been no
unreasonable action by either party, whoever played the ball
first would claim priority. So, had Ederson caught or parried
the ball away it would have been Fraser's responsibility to
avoid a collision; if Fraser had reached the ball first it would
have been Ederson's responsibility to avoid the collision. In
this case it seems both players were intent on getting to the
ball first and their combined momentum meant that there was a
collision. Do we judge Ederson's approach to be unreasonably
energetic? Do we guess who would have reached the ball first
had Cancelo not intervened? Also supposing Cancello had simply
allowed the ball to run through to Ederson and then held his
ground so Fraser collided with him (and quite likely Ederson,
with ball, then collided with both of them) what would have been
the decision?
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
#Post#: 45292--------------------------------------------------
Re: David Coote. Chelsea v Newcastle
DIR By: Acme Thunderer
Date: March 14, 2022, 4:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter Walton in today's Times:
Havertz should not have been on the field to score Chelsea's
winner. His elbow on Burn in the 1st half was dangerous play
with no regard for the safety of his opponent and it is
irrelevant that his eyes were on the ball....I was disappointed
that Coote awarded only a booking.... VAR did not intervene
after Newcastle's penalty shout as this was a subjective
decision, though the shirt-pull was an extended one. If Coote
had given a penalty, I doubt it would have been overturned".
#Post#: 45297--------------------------------------------------
Re: David Coote. Chelsea v Newcastle
DIR By: Leggy
Date: March 14, 2022, 5:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Acme Thunderer link ---
>
> Peter Walton in today's Times:
>
> Havertz should not have been on the field to score Chelsea's
winner. His elbow on Burn in the 1st half was dangerous play
with no regard for the safety of his opponent and it is
irrelevant that his eyes were on the ball....I was disappointed
that Coote awarded only a booking.... VAR did not intervene
after Newcastle's penalty shout as this was a subjective
decision, though the shirt-pull was an extended one. If Coote
had given a penalty, I doubt it would have been overturned".
>
--- End Quote ---
This confirms my belief that VAR is causing our top referees to
become much more hesitant about making the big calls.
By whatever system we use in England, these are the top 20ish
referees we have and their judgement in making the big calls
is/was a significant factor in them getting there. We now give
them VAR and they become hesitant and cease to trust that
judgement. If VAR only intervenes where a clear error has taken
place we end up with situations like the two that happened
yesterday.
This is not helping the game, it is not increasing the
percentage of correct decisions and - when contrasted with how
Rugby Union uses their TMOs - reflects incredibly badly on a
game that really does not need any further negative publicity.
#Post#: 45303--------------------------------------------------
Re: David Coote. Chelsea v Newcastle
DIR By: Jake the Peg
Date: March 14, 2022, 7:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Microscopist link ---
>
> [quote author=Jake the Peg link=topic=3465.msg45261#msg45261
date=1647190190]
> If the penalty incident had happened outside the box, would
Coote have blown for a free kick? Of course he would. Puts me
in mind of the blatant penalty Newcastle weren't given against
Man City when Edison wiped out Fraser. Everyone in the world
apart from the ref and Guardiola thought it was nailed on.
>
--- End Quote ---
Given your somewhat exaggerated claim over the Newcastle v
Everton game you will be able to easily answer the questions I
raised at the time which have so far remained unanswered.
--- Quote from: Microscopist link ---
> [quote author=Microscopist link=topic=3186.msg41560#msg41560
date=1640092198]
> I watched whilst facetiming with my sister and daughter and my
immediate response was "That should have been a penalty", and I
am surprised that it wasn't referred back for an on field review
on the monitor. There are one or two questions in my mind
however, which perhaps someone can answer for me. In these
circumstances how do we decide whether the goalkeeper has fouled
the forward or whether the forward has fouled the goalkeeper.
If Cancelo hadn't been involved at all it would have been
relatively straightforward - assuming there had been no
unreasonable action by either party, whoever played the ball
first would claim priority. So, had Ederson caught or parried
the ball away it would have been Fraser's responsibility to
avoid a collision; if Fraser had reached the ball first it would
have been Ederson's responsibility to avoid the collision. In
this case it seems both players were intent on getting to the
ball first and their combined momentum meant that there was a
collision. Do we judge Ederson's approach to be unreasonably
energetic? Do we guess who would have reached the ball first
had Cancelo not intervened? Also supposing Cancello had simply
allowed the ball to run through to Ederson and then held his
ground so Fraser collided with him (and quite likely Ederson,
with ball, then collided with both of them) what would have been
the decision?
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
[/quote]
Exaggerated to make a point, not to be literal. If you look at
the film you will see Edison brings Fraser down with his arms.
Fraser does not change his run at all and does not raise his
feet. Edison makes no attempt to get his arms out of the way,
does not get anywhere near the ball and clearly brings Fraser
down. As far as I'm concerned, the position of the ball is
irrelevant - Guardiola said Fraser did not have control of the
ball so it couldn't be a pen. Surely that is not the case? If
it was you could drag a bloke to the floor while a corner was
coming over and it wouldn't be a penalty. The question we need
to ask is if the attacking player had been Sterling and the
keeper had been Dubravka what would the decision have been? I
want someone to do an analysis of how many dodgy VAR decisions
go in favour of the "big" team. I offer Rhodri's handball not
given against Everton as further evidence!!
#Post#: 45308--------------------------------------------------
Re: David Coote. Chelsea v Newcastle
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: March 14, 2022, 9:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Getting back to the Chelsea v Newcastle game, it was interesting
on Ref Watch today that Dermott and both pundits felt the YC for
Havertz was ok, citing that his eyes were on the ball, no
malice, and both players were jumping for the ball with arms
raised. They offered the view that an elbow needn't
automatically mean a RC. Surprisingly perhaps, it conflicts with
the opinion of Peter Walton in the Times that AT quotes.
#Post#: 45310--------------------------------------------------
Re: David Coote. Chelsea v Newcastle
DIR By: Ashington46
Date: March 14, 2022, 10:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref Fan link ---
>
> Getting back to the Chelsea v Newcastle game, it was
interesting on Ref Watch today that Dermott and both pundits
felt the YC for Havertz was ok, citing that his eyes were on the
ball, no malice, and both players were jumping for the ball with
arms raised. They offered the view that an elbow needn't
automatically mean a RC. Surprisingly perhaps, it conflicts with
the opinion of Peter Walton in the Times that AT quotes.
>
--- End Quote ---
We have an onfield referee not considering that the action was
enough to warrant a red card, we have an ex-referee and two
pundits (whatever their view is worth) saying that a yellow was
the correct decision. However, their view differs to that of
aonther ex-referee who thought that it should be red.
Yet, we are all expecting that the introduction of VAR should be
able to sort this out when, all things taken into consideration,
the VAR is operated by a human being who will also have their
own opinion, just as we all do.
Football is a simple game, made difficult by the vast amounts of
money which are available and the quest to have the perfect
game.
#Post#: 45363--------------------------------------------------
Re: David Coote. Chelsea v Newcastle
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: March 14, 2022, 5:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jake the Peg link ---
>
> [quote author=Microscopist link=topic=3465.msg45290#msg45290
date=1647249200]
> [quote author=Jake the Peg link=topic=3465.msg45261#msg45261
date=1647190190]
> If the penalty incident had happened outside the box, would
Coote have blown for a free kick? Of course he would. Puts me
in mind of the blatant penalty Newcastle weren't given against
Man City when Edison wiped out Fraser. Everyone in the world
apart from the ref and Guardiola thought it was nailed on.
>
--- End Quote ---
Given your somewhat exaggerated claim over the Newcastle v
Everton game you will be able to easily answer the questions I
raised at the time which have so far remained unanswered.
--- Quote from: Microscopist link ---
> [quote author=Microscopist link=topic=3186.msg41560#msg41560
date=1640092198]
> I watched whilst facetiming with my sister and daughter and my
immediate response was "That should have been a penalty", and I
am surprised that it wasn't referred back for an on field review
on the monitor. There are one or two questions in my mind
however, which perhaps someone can answer for me. In these
circumstances how do we decide whether the goalkeeper has fouled
the forward or whether the forward has fouled the goalkeeper.
If Cancelo hadn't been involved at all it would have been
relatively straightforward - assuming there had been no
unreasonable action by either party, whoever played the ball
first would claim priority. So, had Ederson caught or parried
the ball away it would have been Fraser's responsibility to
avoid a collision; if Fraser had reached the ball first it would
have been Ederson's responsibility to avoid the collision. In
this case it seems both players were intent on getting to the
ball first and their combined momentum meant that there was a
collision. Do we judge Ederson's approach to be unreasonably
energetic? Do we guess who would have reached the ball first
had Cancelo not intervened? Also supposing Cancello had simply
allowed the ball to run through to Ederson and then held his
ground so Fraser collided with him (and quite likely Ederson,
with ball, then collided with both of them) what would have been
the decision?
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
[/quote]
Exaggerated to make a point, not to be literal. If you look at
the film you will see Edison brings Fraser down with his arms.
Fraser does not change his run at all and does not raise his
feet. Edison makes no attempt to get his arms out of the way,
does not get anywhere near the ball and clearly brings Fraser
down. As far as I'm concerned, the position of the ball is
irrelevant - Guardiola said Fraser did not have control of the
ball so it couldn't be a pen. Surely that is not the case? If
it was you could drag a bloke to the floor while a corner was
coming over and it wouldn't be a penalty. The question we need
to ask is if the attacking player had been Sterling and the
keeper had been Dubravka what would the decision have been? I
want someone to do an analysis of how many dodgy VAR decisions
go in favour of the "big" team. I offer Rhodri's handball not
given against Everton as further evidence!!
[/quote]
Never wise to deliberately exaggerate to make a point as folk
might think that you are doing it elsewhere as well [emoji5].
Next sentence - Iooked at two angles on video, going frame by
frame, and don't see any contact with Ederson's right arm, which
is breaking his fall. Ederson's left arm is tucked across his
chest as his chest / arm make contact with Fraser's side.
Fraser's right leg gets caught under Ederson's hip as Ederson
falls. Neither of these contacts seems to me to be likely to
cause both of Fraser's feet to come off the ground
simultaneously. (Sentence four) Difficult to see what else he
could do with his arms in the circumstances.
Third sentence - is it perhaps strange that Fraser doesn't make
any effort to change his run to follow Cancello and the ball?
Fifth sentence - I would have thought the ball was always
relevant. If you say that what happened to the ball isn't
relevant then you seem to be effectively saying that Ederson
wasn't entitled to commit to trying to intercept the ball. If
the ball had continued on its flight and Ederson had missed it
so that the contact prevented Fraser from attempting to reach
the ball then, even though the collision was accidental, it
would have been a penalty. Fraser was no more trying to play
the ball than Ederson and arguably had the better opportunity to
change direction to avoid a collision.
The question you ask about Sterling can only be answered with an
opinion, so achieves nothing.
I'm not answering for Guadiola but there is something of a
difference between this collision where two players are
committed to reaching a ball which his subsequently taken away
by a third player and a bloke being dragged down whilst a corner
is coming over. I would add that decisions for penalties being
awarded for blokes being dragged down at corners seem to be a
bit of a lottery.
I would go for Trent Alexander-Arnold's handball against City a
couple of seasons ago where Liverpool went down the other end
and scored when City should have had a penalty as a better
example but that probably reflects our respective biases.
#Post#: 45375--------------------------------------------------
Re: David Coote. Chelsea v Newcastle
DIR By: Jake the Peg
Date: March 15, 2022, 7:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You have too much time on your hands, mate.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page