DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 89101--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Palace v Millwall (FA)
DIR By: Acme Thunderer
Date: March 1, 2025, 8:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm in full agreement with the above posts, a terrible challenge
by the Millwall keeper which might have gone unpunished but for
VAR. An eventful first half for Oliver and team, with a Palace
goal ruled out and their second goal coming c/o VAR (I believe)
after the Millwall player quite clearly got the last touch
before it fell to the Palace forward to score. Fortunately
perhaps, the players got on with the game after Mateta had been
stretchered off to hospital and Michael had a less eventful
second half to cope with, for which I suspect he was glad. Not
the best performance from Michael, but he allowed the players to
play football in what turned out to be an entertaining game.
#Post#: 89113--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Palace v Millwall (FA)
DIR By: Lionator27
Date: March 1, 2025, 1:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the critique is harsh but I may be wrong. He clearly
hasn’t seen the head contact and is looking at the contact the
player has made with the ball. Because if he had seen it then he
would’ve given a red card. There’s also a possibility he thought
there was a potential advantage? As the ball fell to the feet of
a Palace player.
#Post#: 89117--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Palace v Millwall (FA)
DIR By: DublinRef
Date: March 1, 2025, 2:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the posters who criticise Oliver and team for not
seeing it on field without VAR intervention.
One official simply had to see this was a RC challenge. Oliver
was well positioned, I can’t see his view blocked at all and I
don’t think there is any excuse. Even forgetting Oliver, both
ARs or the FO should have been calling RC. I don’t often think
officials much further away should get involved - but this was a
case so blatant, so far beyond the RC threshold - unacceptable
on field call, very very poor.
Even the best make mistakes, I think sometimes excuses are
offered for, say, Oliver and Gillett that wouldn’t be offered
for, say, Salisbury or Bramall. I understand the thinking, these
top guys nearly always get the big calls right - but on this
occasion, I think Mr. Oliver might well be very disappointed.
I personally think Oliver has been over appointed in recent
weeks after some very high profile attention. I can’t say that
caused this mistake, however, I think better management would
help the odds of good performances consistently.
#Post#: 89143--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Palace v Millwall (FA)
DIR By: NRUReferee
Date: March 1, 2025, 6:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: magpie1892 link ---
>
> I'm wondering if his view was blocked and he's seen the ball
contact and thought its been cleared by the keeper, especially
if he is in line.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 89146--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Palace v Millwall (FA)
DIR By: El Referee
Date: March 2, 2025, 2:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Lionator27 link ---
>
> I think the critique is harsh but I may be wrong. He clearly
hasn’t seen the head contact and is looking at the contact the
player has made with the ball. Because if he had seen it then he
would’ve given a red card. There’s also a possibility he thought
there was a potential advantage? As the ball fell to the feet of
a Palace player.
>
--- End Quote ---
Unless they are about to knock the ball into an empty goal, you
do not play advantage after a challenge like this
#Post#: 89160--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Palace v Millwall (FA)
DIR By: TA_Ref
Date: March 2, 2025, 5:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DublinRef link ---
>
> I agree with the posters who criticise Oliver and team for not
seeing it on field without VAR intervention.
>
> One official simply had to see this was a RC challenge. Oliver
was well positioned, I can’t see his view blocked at all and I
don’t think there is any excuse. Even forgetting Oliver, both
ARs or the FO should have been calling RC. I don’t often think
officials much further away should get involved - but this was a
case so blatant, so far beyond the RC threshold - unacceptable
on field call, very very poor.
>
> Even the best make mistakes, I think sometimes excuses are
offered for, say, Oliver and Gillett that wouldn’t be offered
for, say, Salisbury or Bramall. I understand the thinking, these
top guys nearly always get the big calls right - but on this
occasion, I think Mr. Oliver might well be very disappointed.
>
> I personally think Oliver has been over appointed in recent
weeks after some very high profile attention. I can’t say that
caused this mistake, however, I think better management would
help the odds of good performances consistently.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think you sum it all up very well. Really disappointed that
our so called top official is not identifying such dangerous
acts as this a clear red card. He does have a good view of the
incident and I’ve absolutely no idea what is going through his
mind at that point. He clearly didn’t view it dangerous at the
first instant. And yes surely an AR or 4O must be spotting this
and communicating it to Oliver.
I think this is one of the poorest onfield decisions I’ve seen
in a while
#Post#: 89161--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Palace v Millwall (FA)
DIR By: TheThingFromLewes
Date: March 2, 2025, 5:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The FA will not be investigating the despicable behaviour from
Millwall fans towards Mateta when he was getting treatment.
High time the FA changed the bloody regulations so that they
can!
#Post#: 89163--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Palace v Millwall (FA)
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: March 2, 2025, 6:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TheThingFromLewes link ---
>
> The FA will not be investigating the despicable behaviour from
Millwall fans towards Mateta when he was getting treatment.
>
> High time the FA changed the bloody regulations so that they
can!
>
--- End Quote ---
Expecting the FA do do something positive to instil decency and
proper behaviour ? Now, that is the triumph of hope over
experience.
Has Millwall FC as a Club said anything by way of an apology for
the vile chants or is there only silence from that quarter ?
"No-one likes us, we don't care" Such chanting elicits neither
like nor dislike, merely contempt.
#Post#: 89439--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Palace v Millwall (FA)
DIR By: Joecphillips
Date: March 7, 2025, 11:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The ban has been extended to 6 games
#Post#: 89441--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Palace v Millwall (FA)
DIR By: Leggy
Date: March 7, 2025, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Joecphillips link ---
>
> The ban has been extended to 6 games
>
--- End Quote ---
Always going t happen after the influential Palace Chairman was
encouraged to emotionally pronounce unchallenged live on BBC
television. If that had been his goal-keeper, he would have
defended him ("not that sort of player", "only had eyes for the
ball", "no intent", etc. etc.).
Millwall are an easy team to scapegoat here. I very much doubt
that - had the offender been the Liverpool, Manchester City or
Arsenal custodian - the punishment would have increased.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page