DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 100980--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: JR712 Date: February 1, 2026, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Really poor performance for me, lots of inconsistency. Let down
by VAR on the first spurs goal. Wonder if we have a new grey
area of rugby tackling the threat from corners on the run up of
the taker?
#Post#: 100981--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: Leggy Date: February 1, 2026, 1:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=El Referee link=topic=7679.msg100979#msg100979
date=1769971210]
[quote author=TheThingFromLewes
link=topic=7679.msg100974#msg100974 date=1769967249]
[quote author=El Referee link=topic=7679.msg100971#msg100971
date=1769964478]
Agreed it was a fantastic advantage. The kind in which you’re
preying they score!
Although, what would you be cautioning for? Or in this case,
what has Jones cautioned for?
[/quote]
Haaland was charging into the box and Bissouma took him out…
[/quote]
At best you could caution for breaking up a promising attack.
But once you play advantage, that goes…..
I do struggle with the cancelling of a caution if advantage is
played. The subsequent advantage has no bearing on the foul
comitted and the player comitting that foul. If the foul
warrants a caution, then it warrants a caution. What am I
missing here?
[/quote]
#Post#: 100982--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: arabref Date: February 1, 2026, 1:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Leggy link=topic=7679.msg100981#msg100981
date=1769973375]
[quote author=El Referee link=topic=7679.msg100979#msg100979
date=1769971210]
[quote author=TheThingFromLewes
link=topic=7679.msg100974#msg100974 date=1769967249]
[quote author=El Referee link=topic=7679.msg100971#msg100971
date=1769964478]
Agreed it was a fantastic advantage. The kind in which you’re
preying they score!
Although, what would you be cautioning for? Or in this case,
what has Jones cautioned for?
[/quote]
Haaland was charging into the box and Bissouma took him out…
[/quote]
At best you could caution for breaking up a promising attack.
But once you play advantage, that goes…..
I do struggle with the cancelling of a caution if advantage is
played. The subsequent advantage has no bearing on the foul
comitted and the player comitting that foul. If the foul
warrants a caution, then it warrants a caution. What am I
missing here?
[/quote]
[/quote]
If you play advantage then the promising attack hasn’t really
been stopped, has it?
#Post#: 100983--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: TA_Ref Date: February 1, 2026, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was a bit of a scruffy performance by Jones. It
felt he was really undecided on whether he wanted to let contact
go and let it be physical or did he want to keep on top of it
and give fouls for very little. In the end, he did both and it
made it an inconsistent performance at times.
I agree with Adam on the disallowed goal - I’m not sure you
should be able to kick through a defender’s calf in order to
score a goal. I called foul on the first replay and I was
surprised to see no OFR. Did Gillett think he would be
overanalysing if he sent Rob to the screen? Only he knows.
Personally, I don’t attach much blame to Jones for that because
that was very easy to miss and difficult to see in the situation
but you have to look at VAR for that one.
Rodri most definitely should’ve walked. The one on Gallagher was
bad - which he played advantage for - and then another foul a
minute later.
It just wasn’t a clean performance and it had its flaws at times
but he did contribute to a decent game of football, especially
second half.
#Post#: 100984--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: El Referee Date: February 1, 2026, 1:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Leggy link=topic=7679.msg100981#msg100981
date=1769973375]
[quote author=El Referee link=topic=7679.msg100979#msg100979
date=1769971210]
[quote author=TheThingFromLewes
link=topic=7679.msg100974#msg100974 date=1769967249]
[quote author=El Referee link=topic=7679.msg100971#msg100971
date=1769964478]
Agreed it was a fantastic advantage. The kind in which you’re
preying they score!
Although, what would you be cautioning for? Or in this case,
what has Jones cautioned for?
[/quote]
Haaland was charging into the box and Bissouma took him out…
[/quote]
At best you could caution for breaking up a promising attack.
But once you play advantage, that goes…..
I do struggle with the cancelling of a caution if advantage is
played. The subsequent advantage has no bearing on the foul
comitted and the player comitting that foul. If the foul
warrants a caution, then it warrants a caution. What am I
missing here?
[/quote]
[/quote]
If the foul on its own is worthy of a caution, it’s still a
caution. The law only says that if the caution is for stopping a
promising attack, it can’t be a caution if it doesn’t stop
one…..
#Post#: 100985--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: HChip Date: February 1, 2026, 2:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think next weekend for the major hitter they’ll most likely
revert to Taylor, Oliver or Kavanagh. Trying a new face hasn’t
exactly worked today unfortunately.
#Post#: 100987--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: Microscopist Date: February 1, 2026, 2:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=JR712 link=topic=7679.msg100980#msg100980
date=1769971327]
Really poor performance for me, lots of inconsistency. Let down
by VAR on the first spurs goal. Wonder if we have a new grey
area of rugby tackling the threat from corners on the run up of
the taker?
[/quote]
Great counter to Arsenal corners, flatten all the Arsenal
attackers as the corner taker runs up to take the kick.That
would quickly get the interpretation of the law changed.
#Post#: 100989--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: ajb95 Date: February 1, 2026, 3:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Adam link=topic=7679.msg100976#msg100976
date=1769970174]
Rodri is today's cat with nine lives, he should've walked just
there for 2nd YC or if not for that then previously with a high
challnege a few mins before!
[/quote]
That's been the highlight of his career? How many times on this
site have posters said "Rodri got away with a yellow, or why has
Rodri not walked for that"
Jones again poor for me. He doesn't ooze that same authority
that the likes of Oliver and Brooks do. His positioning is
shocking at times too. He should be nowhere near a big game like
this.
#Post#: 100996--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: flipmode Date: February 1, 2026, 5:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What is the point of VAR if not for the incident of Solanke's
first goal? I concede that on first viewing it looked like a
clear goal, but on closer inspection, and the very point VAR was
introduced, showed that it was a clear and obvious error as
Guehi was fouled.
Where is the line in the sand if not for this very type of
incident?
There's a lot of things I could say about that decision and many
of those before it, but I'll hold my tongue.
#Post#: 101002--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: PhiltheRef Date: February 2, 2026, 3:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute
How can it have been CLEAR AND OBVIOUS when it took almost
forensic levels of studying the replay(s) to confirm it one way
or other
We are surely heading towards re refereeing games via VAR if we
are following the path of doing this, nobody wants that and
that's not what it's there for.
In literally hundreds of grounds without the benefit? of VAR,
there wouldn't have been an eyebrow raised. Goal given, get on
with it
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page