worst ref in 35 years

[Saint Luke]

I must say that the ref was worse than my sons mini league ref on Saturday morning. Luckily he won 4-1 and won the league not allowing for the abysmal performance of the ref - but he was only about 16 years old.

[Victor]

I know everyone, including the Leeds radio commentary, agree the ref was appalling, but is it not just possible - looking at those photos - to conclude that Fonte has pulled the defenders arm around his neck and not let go until he tumbled in an attempt to win a penalty?

 

Just a thought.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I know everyone, including the Leeds radio commentary, agree the ref was appalling, but is it not just possible - looking at those photos - to conclude that Fonte has pulled the defenders arm around his neck and not let go until he tumbled in an attempt to win a penalty?

 

Just a thought.

 

Seriously?

[Saint_clark]

I know everyone, including the Leeds radio commentary, agree the ref was appalling, but is it not just possible - looking at those photos - to conclude that Fonte has pulled the defenders arm around his neck and not let go until he tumbled in an attempt to win a penalty?

 

Just a thought.

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Peter Walton was the ref conned into giving a penalty by Liverpool's Ngog when there was absolutely no contact.

There does not have to be contact for it to be a foul. 'Trip or attempt to trip'

[Saint_clark]

There does not have to be contact for it to be a foul. 'Trip or attempt to trip'

 

What a load of rubbish. So you're telling me the defender challenged, in his own area, with the intention of fouling him?

[Whitey Grandad]

What a load of rubbish. So you're telling me the defender challenged, in his own area, with the intention of fouling him?

That's perfectly possible. If that's not the case then there would never be any fouls because there would never be any intent. If the challenge is enough for the other player to take evasive action or to prevent that player from reaching the ball then that can be considered a foul.

[Saint_clark]

That's perfectly possible. If that's not the case then there would never be any fouls because there would never be any intent. If the challenge is enough for the other player to take evasive action or to prevent that player from reaching the ball then that can be considered a foul.

 

If the studs were showing or the boot was above knee level I would agree with you, but I am talking about a challenge where a player swings for the ball, misses but also misses the man. Are you telling me that could conceivably be given as a penalty? Nobody has the right to tell the defender that he deliberately tried to take the man in that situation, as nobody but the defender knows for sure.

[The9]

I have watched Saints for 35 years and have witnessed some poor ref decisions but that was quite honestly the worst ref i have ever seen. He was consistantly poor from the moment he stated the game.

 

I don't want to worry you with it but he was only excrutiatingly bad for about 45 minutes, he didn't cost us the game and he didn't give a lame penalty in the last 5 minutes against us. That wasn't even the worst refereeing performance I'd seen against Saints in 8 days- albeit only because the Tranmere ref was that much worse.

[The9]

Just seen the disallowed goal on the Football League Show. Feckin' 'ell, how can you see that as a foul AGAINST Leeds...

 

Block 41 in the Northam was the perfect place to watch the defender wrap his arms all over Fonte's neck as he ran towards the near post carrying the guy before getting dragged to the ground.

 

Ref blew for the penalty, we put the ball in the net, Leeds players desperately appealed for anything, ref had a think and changed his point to the halfway line for a goal to a point for a free-kick (not much of a change in signal, if any), and I still have absolutely no idea what he thought he'd seen - though I will say as I was so fixated on watching Fonte getting fouled (from before the ball even came in) I couldn't even tell you who put the ball in the net.

 

I haven't seen any pictures yet, but I know exactly what happened because that's all I was looking at. The Leeds guy was fouling him and pulling him back from before the ball was in play and Fonte couldn't have fouled him because he was behind him !

[The9]

I know everyone, including the Leeds radio commentary, agree the ref was appalling, but is it not just possible - looking at those photos - to conclude that Fonte has pulled the defenders arm around his neck and not let go until he tumbled in an attempt to win a penalty?

 

Just a thought.

 

Nope, watched the whole thing, the Leeds player walked up behind him and draped both arms over his shoulders and was pulling Fonte back even before he started running. The stupidest bit was the ref was looking straight at it (although there was a lot of activity around and probably briefly in his line of sight).

[The9]

wasn't that bad.......few wrong decisions possibly, but that's the same of any match.

 

Fonte was fouling the defender for our 'second' btw

 

And Antonio's rubbish, trollface.

[The9]

You must be posting for a reaction......go on admit it.

 

Hammond should have been sent off??? Gradel should have gone

 

Fonte fouling thier man??? What, by holding the mans arm with his neck

 

He's at least right that Hammond also should have been sent off, he bottled that one too, due to play continuing and him having the time to think about who'd fouled. Gradel was a straight red, at least a two handed push to the face, far worse than Schneiderlin was sent off for against MK at their place too.

[Greenridge]

i just laughed my nuts off at that.

 

I Was in the itchen north dead level with that and was absolutely gobsmacked when the goal was disallowed for a foul on a leeds man. I think for a moment all of us thought we'd been given a penalty!

 

After Walton delayed the corner kick to tell off the naughty squabbling boys you just knew he was going to give a free kick as soon as the ball was played into the box. An awful performance, the only thing that probably went in our favour was not sending off Puncheon after what looked like a clear straight arm to the head of the Leeds lad who ended up going off. Not read the whole thread but I assume Walton is now reffing League 1 as he's had a host of poor performances in the higher leagues?

[The9]

And having now seen the photos I can actually see why the ref thought there was a foul by Fonte - obviously for the holding of the Leeds player's arm. It was still a penalty 10 times before that happened, but I now at least know what he THOUGHT he saw.

 

And he couldn't have played advantage even if he saw it in our favour as he'd already blown just before the ball went in - which makes me think he'd decided to give the foul against us immediately, rather than my initial instinct that he'd changed his mind.

 

Doesn't mean he wasn't crap though. But still not as bad as the Tranmere ref last week who was as bad for longer and cost us the game.

[krissyboy31]

He's at least right that Hammond also should have been sent off, he bottled that one too, due to play continuing and him having the time to think about who'd fouled. Gradel was a straight red, at least a two handed push to the face, far worse than Schneiderlin was sent off for against MK at their place too.

 

Agree with that. Was amazed that Hammond got away without a second yellow, although I'd given up trying to second guess the ref at that point. Gradel should have been been given a straight red only seconds after he had come on.

[Norm]

I have just posted the following on the http://www.refworld.com site (have to register first)

 

Peter, can I ask you for an honest answer? How do you think you performed last Saturday, Southampton V Leeds? What did the Assessor write in his report?

I've been watching football since 1956 and I think your performance was below the standard required for the Football League.

Norman ..............

[Saint_clark]

I have just posted the following on the www.refworld.com site (have to register first)

 

Peter, can I ask you for an honest answer? How do you think you performed last Saturday, Southampton V Leeds? What did the Assessor write in his report?

I've been watching football since 1956 and I think your performance was below the standard required for the Football League.

Norman ..............

 

Don't hold your breath on a reply.

[saint_stevo]

And Antonio's rubbish, trollface.

 

He is rubbish. Been doing much better since he stopped getting a look in.......

 

HTH

[The9]

He is rubbish. Been doing much better since he stopped getting a look in.......

 

HTH

 

Gimp.

[Lets B Avenue]

From memory the person who would review a Ref performance at the FA was Keith Hackett.

 

However this article at the FA web site implies that KH was replaced by Mike Riley in Jan.

http://www.thefa.com/GetIntoFootball/Referee/NewsAndFeatures/2009/RileyAppointed.aspx

 

If true, the bad news is that MR is a leeds supporter (I think).

 

p.s. I also think Walton was truly shocking yesterday, the worst I've seen in over 40 years watching Saints.

 

Even worse than "The Cheating Toseland" Brighton 81? We even drove round Lutterworth the following season, trying to get his address from the phone box.

[Whitey Grandad]

If the studs were showing or the boot was above knee level I would agree with you, but I am talking about a challenge where a player swings for the ball, misses but also misses the man. Are you telling me that could conceivably be given as a penalty? Nobody has the right to tell the defender that he deliberately tried to take the man in that situation, as nobody but the defender knows for sure.

Absolutely, if it prevents the other player form reaching the ball. It doesn't have to be deliberate, just careless. If it impedes the other player, slows them up, buys time for the goalkeeper, prevents the other player from having a clean attempt at the ball, then it can be considered a foul. The important thing is not so much whether there is contact with the other player but whether there is contact with the ball, and it must be ball before player.

[saint_stevo]

Gimp.

 

That's as good as an admission that i am right.........

 

Congratulations, btw

[The9]

That's as good as an admission that i am right.........

 

Congratulations, btw

 

Actually I was just calling you a gimp.

 

Now I'm being pressed to counter your rubbish argument about Antonio, I'll just say that just because other players are better, doesn't mean he's not good.

 

Puncheon has been at or near our best player in most of his games, but that doesn't mean Antonio didn't take MK Dons to pieces on his own on two occasions, score a great goal up at Bristol Rovers or look like a threat in pretty much every match I've seen him play (except Wycombe away).

 

As for the other thing, shhhhh, not on here... :cool:

[saint_stevo]

Actually I was just calling you a gimp.

 

Now I'm being pressed to counter your rubbish argument about Antonio, I'll just say that just because other players are better, doesn't mean he's not good.

 

Puncheon has been at or near our best player in most of his games, but that doesn't mean Antonio didn't take MK Dons to pieces on his own on two occasions, score a great goal up at Bristol Rovers or look like a threat in pretty much every match I've seen him play (except Wycombe away).

 

As for the other thing, shhhhh, not on here... :cool:

 

He did not take them to pieces in the JPT. No no no. He was awful, put it into teh crowd a lot and then scored a good goal. That was it. Anyway......

[eelpie]

Agree with that. Was amazed that Hammond got away without a second yellow, although I'd given up trying to second guess the ref at that point. Gradel should have been been given a straight red only seconds after he had come on.

 

So, we have to feel some comfort that the ref's inept performance hasn't resulted in Hammond being banned for for three games.

 

I am getting a little concerned about the number of yellow cards that key players are accumulating - some from dubious refereeing decisions - which may mean some having to sit out games for crucial matches.

[Deanovski]

He did not take them to pieces in the JPT. No no no. He was awful, put it into teh crowd a lot and then scored a good goal. That was it. Anyway......

 

ohai thurrr stalker, my turn to troll you.

You are wrong, as usual you should just hush.

[saint_stevo]

ohai thurrr stalker, my turn to troll you.

You are wrong, as usual you should just hush.

 

Stalker? wtf.

 

How's them JPT tickets?

[The9]

He did not take them to pieces in the JPT. No no no. He was awful, put it into teh crowd a lot and then scored a good goal. That was it. Anyway......

 

He probably could have retired Lewington in the League at St Mary's and at Stadium MK, we used him over and over and he was always there and always got the better of his marker. He created most of our chances in the first half away and gave us an outlet to prevent them attacking us for a few minutes at a time, though he hesistated when clean through on the best chance we got. The goal was alright, neither here nor there really though, his role as a pacy outlet was the key that night and in the League match.

 

The home leg was his worst performance against them, mainly because we didn't play it to him much.

[eurosaint]

So, we have to feel some comfort that the ref's inept performance hasn't resulted in Hammond being banned for for three games.I am getting a little concerned about the number of yellow cards that key players are accumulating - some from dubious refereeing decisions - which may mean some having to sit out games for crucial matches.

 

Sorry to be pedantic but 2 yellows = 1 match ban, it would not have been straight red !

Also at this time of the season you need 10 yellows to incur a ban (5 until Jan, I think!) so I doubt we won't suffer on that score !

[Fan The Flames]

The ref was ****, his performance was petty at times and very poor the rest. I can see why people would want to run on the pitch and smash his face in.

[Saint Fan CaM]

Got to agree with most on here - the Ref was diabolical. And there were many around me in the Kingsland who were going apoplectic at some of the decisions (e.g. Fonte's throat tackle and the ninja kick on Harding). And as someone has mentioned, either he was completely incompetent or he was on a cheating bung, but either way he should be sacked for that performance.

 

Regarding Fonte, even if there it was 50-50, Jaidi's goal should have stood - there was no other infringement that I could see.

[Clifford Nelson]

We have seen many inept and incompetent refs and we will see many more this season. This one was different in that he was so biased. I don't suggest that there was any irregularities, but he couldn't have performed better for Leeds if he had been given encouragement. I worried that he would give a penalty to Leeds as soon as they got into our box in the end, although luckily they were mainly reduced to shooting from distance.

 

Is it happening that they are so intimidated by a full or nearly full SMS that they decide to show their bravery and independency by given umpteen unpopular decisions?

 

This was the pits, but sadly Mr Leeds in the black kit will referee again next week.

[Upton72]

As said above, Mike Riley is the top assessor, a referee who knew the rules but didn't know the game. Still, that places him one better than Walton who apparently knows neither.

Agree with other posters that Puncheon should have gone for the elbow which seemed to be right in front of the ref and hammond was lucky not to get a second yellow.

[Jimmy_D]

Blimey, is this thread still going?

 

That said, the ref was shocking...

 

Worst I've ever seen at any rate.

[Norm]

Don't hold your breath on a reply.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh ye of little faith!

 

 

 

Dear Mr ..............

 

Thank you for your email.

 

We receive numerous queries and complaints regarding individual referee's decisions and their overall performance. Although we are unable to respond on each individual incident, we can advise that the performances of all officials are constantly monitored by way of club and assessor reports, the match video or DVD and, at some grounds, the Prozone statistics. The match is also analysed by the Referees' Manager, a referees’ coach and the referee and, despite the perception of some, match officials are most accountable for their performance.

 

Referees make their decision based on years of training and experience and what they see at that moment in time, from a position different from anyone else in the ground - he can only act on what he sees, assisted by the other match officials and not everyone will agree with the decisions he takes.

 

Contrary to expectations, the Referees' Manager will not attempt to support a referee out of sheer loyalty. It is his responsibility through Professional Game Match Officials to identify training needs of not only individual referees but also of all National Group officials.

 

The Manager also works with his group in a bid to constantly improve standards in a game which has become faster and more frenetic over recent years. Every match is recorded and referees are under closer scrutiny than ever before.

 

We trust that this highlights to you the procedures in place designed to improve performances and thank you for contacting us with your comments.

 

Regards

 

Nick Jones

Customer Services Officer

The Football League Ltd

Email: njones@football-league.co.uk

www.football-league.co.uk

[Jez]

Not gonna get any answers to your questions then I see!!

[benjii]

As said above, Mike Riley is the top assessor, a referee who knew the rules but didn't know the game. Still, that places him one better than Walton who apparently knows neither.

Agree with other posters that Puncheon should have gone for the elbow which seemed to be right in front of the ref and hammond was lucky not to get a second yellow.

 

Great description.

 

He was one of my least favourite referees. Didn't appear to have any idea of a player's thought processes or understanding of what was going on in some situations.

 

Gave some terrible performances when refereeing us.