DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101005--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: TA_Ref Date: February 2, 2026, 3:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=PhiltheRef link=topic=7679.msg101002#msg101002
date=1770023441]
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
[/quote]
Whilst I did question to myself “did I think it met the
threshold of clear and obvious?” I disagree that it took
forensic levels of studying to see the foul. The foul was quite
clear in my opinion and I saw it on the first or second replay.
Like I said before, it was a difficult one to spot live because
of the bodies around it and how subtle it was but there’s no
denying, in my opinion, that Guehi was fouled so I can
understand Man City frustration with this decision.
#Post#: 101037--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: Microscopist Date: February 2, 2026, 11:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When I saw the advantage and yellow card for City’s first goal,
I thought “good we have referee acting in the spirit of the game
and setting the expected standard early on”. Then ‘this
happened:
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com/index.php?action=post;quote=100972;topic=7679.0;last_msg=101005
HTML https://x.com/GeronimoMorgans/status/2018258270289633668?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2018258270289633668%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=
No card, when I have seen players including Rhodri sent of for
much less violent violent conduct.
It was followed a few minutes later with a yellow card for
Kusanov for a marginally mistimed challenge feet low, almost got
the ball.
And I thought “Here we go again”.
I can understand Rhodri’s frustration in recent games we have
seen him, Doku and in this Cherki targeted by the opposition
whilst the referee takes a benevolent stance and VAR really
getting money for nothing.
From observation and comments on here I deduce that nobody knows
for certain:-
What handball is;
What offside is;
Where the boundaries are between a fair challenge and serious
foul play;
What is a holding offence is, or,
What DOGSO is.
But all is well because we all know that removing your shirt
after scoring a goal is a yellow card, so the really important
issues are covered.
#Post#: 101039--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: Leggy Date: February 2, 2026, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=arabref link=topic=7679.msg100982#msg100982
date=1769973562]
[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?
[/quote]
It depends on your definition of a promising attack. If the
player is fouled and the ball runs to a colleague (therefore
creating the advantage / play on situation) then it could be
argued that a promising attack has been stopped, but another has
been created. Even if the foul challenge fails to "down" the
attacker and they continue with the ball, the intent to stop a
promising attack is there. Attempting to strike is violent
conduct, perhaps attempting to stop a promising attack should
still be unsporting behaviour?
#Post#: 101043--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: El Referee Date: February 2, 2026, 12:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Leggy link=topic=7679.msg101039#msg101039
date=1770055159]
[quote author=arabref link=topic=7679.msg100982#msg100982
date=1769973562]
[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?
[/quote]
It depends on your definition of a promising attack. If the
player is fouled and the ball runs to a colleague (therefore
creating the advantage / play on situation) then it could be
argued that a promising attack has been stopped, but another has
been created. Even if the foul challenge fails to "down" the
attacker and they continue with the ball, the intent to stop a
promising attack is there. Attempting to strike is violent
conduct, perjhaps attempting to stop a promising attack should
still be unsporting behaviour?
[/quote]
But this is why you as the referee have to decide if playing
advantage is more of an advantage, or stopping play and issuing
a caution is. It used to be you could play advantage and go
back, now you can’t, unless you deemed the challenge to be
reckless etc
#Post#: 101058--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: Claretman Date: February 2, 2026, 4:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Leggy link=topic=7679.msg101039#msg101039
date=1770055159]
[quote author=arabref link=topic=7679.msg100982#msg100982
date=1769973562]
[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?
[/quote]
It depends on your definition of a promising attack. If the
player is fouled and the ball runs to a colleague (therefore
creating the advantage / play on situation) then it could be
argued that a promising attack has been stopped, but another has
been created. Even if the foul challenge fails to "down" the
attacker and they continue with the ball, the intent to stop a
promising attack is there. Attempting to strike is violent
conduct, perjhaps attempting to stop a promising attack should
still be unsporting behaviour?
[/quote]
Attempting to strike an opponent is violent conduct but landing
a blow or manhandling an opponent without significant force you
only get a yellow card with hmmm
#Post#: 101064--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: ajb95 Date: February 3, 2026, 1:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Microscopist link=topic=7679.msg101037#msg101037
date=1770054726]
When I saw the advantage and yellow card for City’s first goal,
I thought “good we have referee acting in the spirit of the game
and setting the expected standard early on”. Then ‘this
happened:
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com/index.php?action=post;quote=100972;topic=7679.0;last_msg=101005
HTML https://x.com/GeronimoMorgans/status/2018258270289633668?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2018258270289633668%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=
No card, when I have seen players including Rhodri sent of for
much less violent violent conduct.
It was followed a few minutes later with a yellow card for
Kusanov for a marginally mistimed challenge feet low, almost got
the ball.
And I thought “Here we go again”.
I can understand Rhodri’s frustration in recent games we have
seen him, Doku and in this Cherki targeted by the opposition
whilst the referee takes a benevolent stance and VAR really
getting money for nothing.
From observation and comments on here I deduce that nobody knows
for certain:-
What handball is;
What offside is;
Where the boundaries are between a fair challenge and serious
foul play;
What is a holding offence is, or,
What DOGSO is.
But all is well because we all know that removing your shirt
after scoring a goal is a yellow card, so the really important
issues are covered.
[/quote]
Any comments on Rodri being lucky to stay on the pitch with a
shocking tackle on a yellow and then another foul seconds later?
His disgraceful post match interview struck me as a calling the
kettle black when he’s a serial offender
#Post#: 101065--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: Joecphillips Date: February 3, 2026, 2:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=PhiltheRef link=topic=7679.msg101002#msg101002
date=1770023441]
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
[/quote]
Did it take an almost forensic level of study? I might be
misremembering but with the commentary it went oh did he kick
the player after 1 replay then every other replayed that
confirmed he had, if we set the bar for clear and obvious at do
you only spot it on a replay then we might as well get rid of
var
#Post#: 101070--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: Failed Ref Date: February 3, 2026, 4:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Watch Ref Watch. The first goal creates an interesting
discussion. Dermott feels the goal was correctly awarded and all
the City players were appealing for offside, not the foul. Jamie
O'Hara felt yesterday it was a foul but changed his mind during
the programme! Solanki was committed to the shot at goal, the
defender then steps across Solanki and Solanki catches the
defender after he touches the ball for the shot.
I think it's a goal, certainly not one for VAR to get involved
with. I do wonder if some observers have a problem with Jones
and aren't prepared to discuss the first goal on its merit.
I am amending this to add that the post match comments by City
were disgraceful and disrespectful. Imho they are getting big
club treatment by not being charged by the FA!! Tin hat on....
#Post#: 101074--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: Microscopist Date: February 3, 2026, 5:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
AJB95 - No you’ve already been going on and on and on about
Rhodri.
#Post#: 101442--------------------------------------------------
Re: R JONES - Spurs v Man City
By: Failed Ref Date: February 13, 2026, 9:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looks like Rodri will get his cumuppence. The FA has charged him
for his post match comments.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page