DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 52298--------------------------------------------------
Re: Michael Salisbury - Newcastle v Palace
DIR By: Acme Thunderer
Date: September 4, 2022, 5:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm biased but I thought there was a foul on the Palace goalie.
Not malicious and maybe not intentional, but the goalie was
prevented from getting the ball as a result. But then I'm to the
Palace what Shearer is clearly to the Magpies. I'll get my tin
hat!
#Post#: 52300--------------------------------------------------
Re: Michael Salisbury - Newcastle v Palace
DIR By: RCG
Date: September 4, 2022, 6:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As I put elsewhere, if you ignore how the attacker got where he
did, it was a foul.
However, it is so blatantly a push by a badly placed defender.
#Post#: 52306--------------------------------------------------
Re: Michael Salisbury - Newcastle v Palace
DIR By: ajb95
Date: September 4, 2022, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If he’s going to rule out the goal then surely it’s a penalty
for Newcastle for the push by Mitchell into willock into the
goalkeeper!?
#Post#: 52312--------------------------------------------------
Re: Michael Salisbury - Newcastle v Palace
DIR By: Boggle
Date: September 4, 2022, 8:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If we’ve reached the stage where you can be awarded a free kick
for shoving an opposition player into your own goalkeeper, we
may as well give up. The only feasible decisions were goal or
penalty to Newcastle. Somehow Salisbury and Mason came up with a
third, entirely incomprehensible outcome.
#Post#: 52320--------------------------------------------------
Re: Michael Salisbury - Newcastle v Palace
DIR By: jacksback
Date: September 4, 2022, 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Lee Mason - say no more. Should be nowhere near Premier League
football
#Post#: 52370--------------------------------------------------
Re: Michael Salisbury - Newcastle v Palace
DIR By: keith h
Date: September 5, 2022, 1:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How Lee Mason ever got to the status of a Premier League
official is one of life's biggest mysteries
#Post#: 52382--------------------------------------------------
Re: Michael Salisbury - Newcastle v Palace
DIR By: TVOS
Date: September 5, 2022, 4:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bluekipper link ---
>
> I had a lot of sympathy for Michael Salisbury who I thought
got the decision right only to be thrown under a bus by Lee
Mason.
>
> To make matters worse we had Mr Sensible Alan Shearer and
Danny Murphy suggesting that ex-pros should be in charge of VAR
because "they know the game". It would help their cause if they
had even a smattering of knowledge of the LOTG.
>
--- End Quote ---
They didn't say ex-players should be in charge of VAR; they
suggested getting them involved which, in my opinion, shouldn't
be dismissed outright.
Those who do know the LotG will always have the ultimate say,
but would it be such a bad thing to get some input from other
suitable, knowledgeable parties?
The majority of Match Delegates, for example, are articulate,
intelligent ex-players (Peter Vincenti from my club and Richard
Jobson also performed that role - both players are graduates, I
believe), so I don't think investigating whether they could get
some to help out with VAR should be completely dismissed out of
hand.
And let's face it, those currently running it aren't giving such
a shining example, are they?
#Post#: 52394--------------------------------------------------
Re: Michael Salisbury - Newcastle v Palace
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: September 5, 2022, 7:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RCG link ---
>
> Given technically that the GK is fouled you cannot play
advantage so correct decision is "no goal, penalty"?
>
--- End Quote ---
Actually this was Dermot Gallagher's opinion on Ref Watch and I
can understand the rationale for it. Most of the reaction from
pundits and fans has been that the goal should have been allowed
as the Newcastle player was pushed which forced the collision
with the GK. Nevertheless the GK was impeded as a result.
Newcastle may well have scored from the penalty of course, but
not a given. On the other hand, some might still argue that a
collision is not necessarily a foul.
What I think we can agree on is that the decision reached by VAR
and referee was wrong.
#Post#: 52396--------------------------------------------------
Re: Michael Salisbury - Newcastle v Palace
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: September 5, 2022, 7:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's perhaps a bit unfortunate for Salsbury in particular that
this happened to be on the same day as Michael Oliver stuck with
his decision at the monitor, as people naturally compare the
two. But of course Oliver's approach was quite rare for PL
referees and I guess probably easier for someone of Oliver's
status/experience to take.
Hopefully Webb will improve communication and also give referees
a bit more freedom to stick with their original decision where
appropriate.
#Post#: 52426--------------------------------------------------
Re: Michael Salisbury - Newcastle v Palace
DIR By: rustyref
Date: September 5, 2022, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TVOS link ---
>
> [quote author=Bluekipper link=topic=3947.msg52288#msg52288
date=1662282578]
> I had a lot of sympathy for Michael Salisbury who I thought
got the decision right only to be thrown under a bus by Lee
Mason.
>
> To make matters worse we had Mr Sensible Alan Shearer and
Danny Murphy suggesting that ex-pros should be in charge of VAR
because "they know the game". It would help their cause if they
had even a smattering of knowledge of the LOTG.
>
--- End Quote ---
They didn't say ex-players should be in charge of VAR; they
suggested getting them involved which, in my opinion, shouldn't
be dismissed outright.
Those who do know the LotG will always have the ultimate say,
but would it be such a bad thing to get some input from other
suitable, knowledgeable parties?
The majority of Match Delegates, for example, are articulate,
intelligent ex-players (Peter Vincenti from my club and Richard
Jobson also performed that role - both players are graduates, I
believe), so I don't think investigating whether they could get
some to help out with VAR should be completely dismissed out of
hand.
And let's face it, those currently running it aren't giving such
a shining example, are they?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, in the very same program Danny Murphy suggested
that an offside shouldn't have been given because the ball was
played backwards, so his credibility is shot to pieces just as
much as the match officials was last weekend.
No problem in ex-pros being involved in focus groups to make VAR
better, but they can't be anywhere near the match day process.
Decisions would take at least a minute longer as the actual
qualified VAR officials would have to educate them on the laws.
"Yes Danny, he was the last man but that isn't the law". "No
Alan, it can't be a penalty as the corner hadn't been taken when
the player was wrestled to the ground". And so on, pretty much
every weekend a pundit or studio guest says something that isn't
correct in law.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page