Ask the referee

[oldishowl]

37 minutes ago, Plonk said:

But why did he do that? Can’t ever remember seeing that happen before. 

The 4th official had a better view.

It probably looks good to the assessor that he therefore talked to him.

However that doesn’t mean he made the decision.

Robinson could well have gone over and said he saw it as a yellow , what do you think.

The 4th official probably won’t go against that.

[Ian]

2 hours ago, bigthinrob said:

We were talking about this to break the stunned silence on the way home.

 

In American football, refs actually get sacked for making continuous bad decisions, because the clubs (franchises whatever you want to call them) will not tolerate bad decision making. 

 

Over here they are cosseted & protected & not questioned in any shape or form.

 

They should be made to watch any contentious decisions & explain WHY they made that decision. Their track record could be monitored on a weekly basis which would expose the pathetically poor ones over a longer period. 

 

Obviously the problem is the lack of numbers & therefore new ones coming through. The FA or whoever is responsible for them should start a program of recruiting young graduates where the rewards are large enough to make the proposition attractive. Because of the large financial rewards on offer, they could then make them much more accountable & open to proper scrutiny.

 

Tim Robinson has now made TWO of the worst decisions I have seen in years & years of watching football. That alone should be enough for him to have to answer to his critics & explain his decision making. I would also be tempted to ask him IF it is a coincidence that these horrendous decisions were both against SWFC?? 

Almost every part of your post is wrong

[bigthinrob]

33 minutes ago, Ian said:

Almost every part of your post is wrong

I bow to your obviously superior knowledge.       Mr Robinson

[Buddy Repperton]

If the EFL keep assigning Robinson to Wednesday matches - they won't need to deduct points from us anyway!

[fpowl]

5 hours ago, swinners said:

Something has just turned up again from an interview with Monk that makes my blood boil. 

"it was a red card, you'd have to ask the ref why he didn't give it" 

 

Thing is though, no one ever asks them do they?  Would Dom Howson ask? Who has access to them? They seem to get away with stuff like this without question. 

Mentioned it in another thread 

 

I’ve said it for years like managers and players alike referees should be interviewed after every game

 

there’s no hiding then and either we would have a better understanding into how they come to the baffling decisions or referees would surly get more consistent when these decisions are publicly documented and assess based on their assessments

 

referess are far too protected for the level of bloopers they drop every game let’s get their opinion on it 

[OhForAnotherShez]

5 hours ago, oldishowl said:

What was their opinion on it?

Sorry, i was hoping to find a link to programme for you to see.

 

the foul and punishment were mentioned after a few games.

 

i can't remember the actual words used by Holloway and the presenter but they seemed gobsmacked and horrified it wasn't red.

 

the foul was repeated a few times on TV also.

 

Good job Robinson didn't book Palmer for the good bollikin' he was getting from Liam before he attempted to stand up!

[Beauchief Owl]

23 hours ago, cowl said:

 

Still, as much as I felt he should've been sent off, I wasn't entirely disappointed he wasn't. 

Palmer could be out for weeks or months, it would have been nice to know that Hoillet was banned for three matches in the interim. Of course, it could also have helped us get an equalizer and take a point. 

[Guest]

23 hours ago, cowl said:

I thought it was a straight red, and seeing it back it seems obvious that it was. I've no idea what was said by the fourth official but he was even closer to the incident than Robinson.

 

Still, as much as I felt he should've been sent off, I wasn't entirely disappointed he wasn't. The game was frustrating enough as it was, and we were struggling to break Cardiff down, if they'd have gone down to 10 I don't doubt they'd have gone even more defensively. Could we have made the extra man count? I've seen us fail to do this far too many times down the years to feel a sending off for our opponents as an unmitigated positive; it's worked against us too often.

 

They played with 10 men behind the ball from kick-off 2nd half so a red card wouldn't have made them anymore defensive and would have deservedly got rid of one of their better outlets.

Palmer may well miss some games as a result of that tackle, Hoilett should be doing the same.

[cowl]

2 minutes ago, Beauchief Owl said:

Palmer could be out for weeks or months, it would have been nice to know that Hoillet was banned for three matches in the interim. Of course, it could also have helped us get an equalizer and take a point. 

 

The rest of my post (the part you chose not to quote for some reason) gives the rationale behind why I wanted Cardiff to keep 11 on the pitch. It was the view I took at the time in the hope of us still getting something from what had already been an extremely frustrating game. Obviously I'm not against Hoillet being banned for some games as punishment.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

The rest of my post (the part you chose not to quote for some reason) gives the rationale behind why I wanted Cardiff to keep 11 on the pitch. It was the view I took at the time in the hope of us still getting something from what had already been an extremely frustrating game. Obviously I'm not against Hoillet being banned for some games as punishment.

 

How did that work out for us?

[cowl]

4 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

How did that work out for us?

 

It was the view I took at the time.

 

Are you new to football or something?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

It was the view I took at the time.

 

Are you new to football or something?

 

No, thanks for asking.

 

I see you have conveniently ignored my previous point where I stated Cardiff could hardly get anymore defensive than they already were at that time and so making them play with fewer players by deservedly getting rid of their main outlet could only have helped us.

 

Your reasoning for not wanting them to go down to 10 men makes little sense in this instance. 

[cowl]

Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

 

No, thanks for asking.

 

I see you have conveniently ignored my previous point where I stated Cardiff could hardly get anymore defensive than they already were at that time and so making them play with fewer players by deservedly getting rid of their main outlet could only have helped us.

 

Your reasoning for not wanting them to go down to 10 men makes little sense in this instance. 

 

I've seen the opposition going down to 10 men not work out for us enough times before to not see it entirely positively.

 

Millwall away immediately springs to mind - and quite aptly so because similar to yesterday we were already a goal down, chasing the game, and it was an important attacking outlet for them in Jed Wallace that was sent off.

 

We had all the possession still in that game, but just kept trying the same things to unlock a Millwall team that by going down to 10 seemed to make defending their single purpose for the remainder of the afternoon. The other obvious similarity between those games was that Harris was the opposition manager.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

I've seen the opposition going down to 10 men not work out for us enough times before to not see it entirely positively.

 

Millwall away immediately springs to mind - and quite aptly so because similar to yesterday we were already a goal down, chasing the game, and it was an important attacking outlet for them in Jed Wallace that was sent off.

 

We had all the possession still in that game, but just kept trying the same things to unlock a Millwall team that by going down to 10 seemed to make defending their single purpose for the remainder of the afternoon. The other obvious similarity between those games was that Harris was the opposition manager.

 

I get your point but disagree with it in this case.

 

Unlike Cardiff, MIllwall would have attacked us a little more during that game had they stayed with 11 men - the red card saw them change their approach. Cardiff had already gone to 5 at the back and weren't entertaining attacking for much of the second half. Had they been playing with a bit more intent to make it a 2-goal margin and were giving us some space to get at them then I would agree that them going down to 10 might not have been a great advantage but this wasn't the case. We barely had a shot on target 2nd half so it was hardly going to get any worse for us in that respect if he was sent off.

 

Far point on Harris being the manager but we had Bullen in charge that day and tactical approach is the main reason he wasn't given the job long-term.  

[cowl]

21 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

I get your point but disagree with it in this case.

 

Unlike Cardiff, MIllwall would have attacked us a little more during that game had they stayed with 11 men - the red card saw them change their approach. Cardiff had already gone to 5 at the back and weren't entertaining attacking for much of the second half. Had they been playing with a bit more intent to make it a 2-goal margin and were giving us some space to get at them then I would agree that them going down to 10 might not have been a great advantage but this wasn't the case. We barely had a shot on target 2nd half so it was hardly going to get any worse for us in that respect if he was sent off.

 

Far point on Harris being the manager but we had Bullen in charge that day and tactical approach is the main reason he wasn't given the job long-term.  

 

Cardiff had more shots in the 2nd half than they did in the 1st. And with a team that's so defensively shaped the plan that you can turn attack into defence and catch them out when maybe they have a player out of position becomes all the more unlikely if they aren't venturing into the opposition half at all (as was the case when we played Millwall and they went down to 10).

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

Cardiff had more shots in the 2nd half than they did in the 1st. And with a team that's so defensively shaped the plan that you can turn attack into defence and catch them out when maybe they have a player out of position becomes all the more unlikely if they aren't venturing into the opposition half at all (as was the case when we played Millwall and they went down to 10).

 

They had shots on the break because they had an outlet.

 

How many shots on target did we have 2nd half? That number would not have reduced had they gone down to 10 men. The outcome and the course and pattern of play in the 2nd half would not have got any worse for us if Hoilett had been rightly dismissed. 

[cowl]

2 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

They had shots on the break because they had an outlet.

 

How many shots on target did we have 2nd half? That number would not have reduced had they gone down to 10 men. The outcome and the course and pattern of play in the 2nd half would not have got any worse for us if Hoilett had been rightly dismissed. 

 

Yes, that's my point! When they attack there's the possibility that a man will be out of place allowing us to take advantage of it if we are able to counter.

 

If they don't attack, there can be no counter, and it's on the counter that you're most likely to find the holes in what is otherwise a very well organized defence.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

Yes, that's my point! When they attack there's the possibility that a man will be out of place allowing us to take advantage of it if we are able to counter.

 

If they don't attack, there can be no counter, and it's on the counter that you're most likely to find the holes in what is otherwise a very well organized defence.

 

I know I said I can see your point but it didn't apply on Sunday because we had no hope of catching them on the counter when they had 5 men at the back all 2nd half. They used Hoilett as an outlet to give them some possession, it didn't leave them open to a counter attack at any point. If they had less men they would have had less of an outlet.

 

How many shots on target did we have 2nd half? This would not have got any worse against less players.

[Lawrie Madden]

On 30/12/2019 at 10:12, swinners said:

Something has just turned up again from an interview with Monk that makes my blood boil. 

"it was a red card, you'd have to ask the ref why he didn't give it" 

 

Thing is though, no one ever asks them do they?  Would Dom Howson ask? Who has access to them? They seem to get away with stuff like this without question. 

As ive just posted in the other thread it was the 4th Official who told Robinson it was a definite Yellow as Robinson said he didn't have a clear view of it 

Bizarrely the 4th official also told Robinson that in his opinion Palmer was playacting a bit .My brother was stood right at the side of where the conversation took place waiting to stretcher off Palmer if needed and heard it clearly (Ambulanceman )

[Howards back]

On 30/12/2019 at 14:05, TodwickOwl said:

He actually went to the 4th official as it was bang in front of him - and they still decided on a yellow

 

Complete joke

The decision or the fourth official?