Worst ref performances involving Saints

[Whitey Grandad]

53 minutes ago, Turkish said:

One of these goals was disallowed for impending the goalkeeper the other one was given. If you didn't know better which one would you think was given?

 

Totally different circumstances and different referees.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

Yeah, agree that's how the (flawed) VAR system operates.... I was more interested in the scenario from an academic point of view, rather than whether the on field decisions were right or wrong.

My question is simple: according to the laws of the game, was Ramsdale fouled? Yes or no? (I am genuinely interested in the laws of the game here, not trying to make a point)

Ramsdale came out and pushed Mateta who pushed back. It should not have been Ramsdale who was trying to get the opponent out of his way. One of his colleagues should have done it. 
 

If you think it was a foul on Ramsdale then you also have to consider that it was a foul on Mateta. Six of one and half a dozen of the other I’m afraid.

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

One of these goals was disallowed for impending the goalkeeper the other one was given. If you didn't know better which one would you think was given?

 

No, the first one was disallowed for interfering with play, which Armstrong obviously was, not 'impeding the goalkeeper'. Yesterday's goal gets disallowed 99 times out of 100 but Armstrong's was rightfully disallowed.

[ErwinK1961]

2 hours ago, Harry_SFC said:

My issue isn't necessarily that it was/wasn't a foul. The problem is, that'll happen again next week to someone else and it'll be disallowed. The consistency is at an all time low.

Absolutely spot on. Our disallowed goal at Brighton is another example.

Think someone said it already, but that fact we’re stinking the joint out and rock bottom must make it easier for refs to not give us decisions, on a subconscious level.

[trousers]

23 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Ramsdale came out and pushed Mateta who pushed back. It should not have been Ramsdale who was trying to get the opponent out of his way. One of his colleagues should have done it. 
 

If you think it was a foul on Ramsdale then you also have to consider that it was a foul on Mateta. Six of one and half a dozen of the other I’m afraid.

Asking me what I think is missing the point of my question....I'm asking a question about the laws of the game because I've no idea whether or not it was a foul on Ramsdale... It doesn't matter what I or anyone else "thinks" (in order to answer my question)... I'm just interested in what the actual laws state. Was Ramsdale fouled (according to the laws of the game)? That's all I'm interested in, not mine or anyone else's opinion or interpretation...

(P.s. if the laws state that Ramsdale fouled Mateta first, then I assume it should have been a penalty?)

Edited 30 December, 2024 by trousers

[Yozzman]

33 minutes ago, trousers said:

Asking me what I think is missing the point of my question....I'm asking a question about the laws of the game because I've no idea whether or not it was a foul on Ramsdale... It doesn't matter what I or anyone else "thinks" (in order to answer my question)... I'm just interested in what the actual laws state. Was Ramsdale fouled (according to the laws of the game)? That's all I'm interested in, not mine or anyone else's opinion or interpretation...

(P.s. if the laws state that Ramsdale fouled Mateta first, then I assume it should have been a penalty?)

He was pushed so that is foul anywhere on the pitch for me. If it was shoulder to shoulder then it would be different. 

Glasner said it was a foul anywhere in Europe but not England. For me that was him saying he thought it was a foul. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Ramsdale came out and pushed Mateta who pushed back. It should not have been Ramsdale who was trying to get the opponent out of his way. One of his colleagues should have done it. 
 

Yep, we were very poor in highlighting to the referee what was going on. I was at a Wessex league game Saturday, during a break in play one of the keepers came up to the Lino who was near where I was stood and was telling him how one of the opposition was holding him during corners and impending him, “help the referee “ he was saying “watch out for it”. We seemed to let Palace put a bloke on our keeper and didn’t make a fuss. Ridiculous in this day and age. 
 

The other thing that pissed me off was Ramsdale’s reaction. He fell against the post , he should have made a meal of it. Held his head, milked it. It’s what Martinez would have done. You can’t tell me the VAR wouldn’t have been influenced by the medical team running on, the Saints players going nuts and the thought that they maybe allowing a goal in which the keeper got shoved against the post and injured. Obviously not sporting, but we’re not Corinthian-Casuals. Other teams would have done it. Soft as shite, again. 

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

If you think it was a foul on Ramsdale then you also have to consider that it was a foul on Mateta. Six of one and half a dozen of the other I’m afraid.

That's a weird take. Ramsdale was simply trying to get to the ball, and Mateta was making no effort to do that and was just trying to stop him. That is 100% a deliberate foul.

The ref should have been watching and blown up before the cross was even met, but he simply allowed Mateta to blatantly cheat, and VAR bottled out of correcting it.

Edited 30 December, 2024 by Sheaf Saint

[Osvaldorama]

It was an obvious, obvious foul. 
 

Especially in the context of a season where keepers are overprotected.  We were mugged off again. 
 

I hope we learn to dive and cheat more under Jurić. I agree that Rambo should have gone down clutching his face. All our players just naively accept decisions. We need to be dirty and cheat like everyone else. 
 

 

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

That's a weird take. Ramsdale was simply trying to get to the ball, and Mateta was making no effort to do that and was just trying to stop him. That is 100% a deliberate foul.

The ref should have been watching and blown up before the cross was even met, but he simply allowed Mateta to blatantly cheat, and VAR bottled out of correcting it.

Why haven’t you shown the sequence before that freeze-frame? That would have shown Ramsdale pushing Mateta first. He was more worried about getting Mateta out of the way than he was about meeting the cross. Had he concentrated on that and then been blocked then he wouldn’t have had a much stronger case.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Yozzman said:

He was pushed so that is foul anywhere on the pitch for me. If it was shoulder to shoulder then it would be different. 

Glasner said it was a foul anywhere in Europe but not England. For me that was him saying he thought it was a foul. 

Shoulder to shoulder is no longer allowed. Glasner implied that it isn’t a foul in England.

[Tommy Mulgrew]

1 hour ago, Osvaldorama said:

I hope we learn to dive and cheat more under Jurić. I agree that Rambo should have gone down clutching his face. All our players just naively accept decisions. We need to be dirty and cheat like everyone else. 

What a sad and sorry state the beautiful game has become.

That and our recent and present plight is why football rarely gives me real pleasure any more.  I have almost, but not quite, given up hope that Juric can rescue some hope and pride from this clusterfuck of a season.

If only we could have appointed him instead of Jones after Ralph was sacked we might have been spared the nightmare of the last two years.  I’d gladly have given up the joy of the playoffs for that.

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, trousers said:

Asking me what I think is missing the point of my question....I'm asking a question about the laws of the game because I've no idea whether or not it was a foul on Ramsdale... It doesn't matter what I or anyone else "thinks" (in order to answer my question)... I'm just interested in what the actual laws state. Was Ramsdale fouled (according to the laws of the game)? That's all I'm interested in, not mine or anyone else's opinion or interpretation...

(P.s. if the laws state that Ramsdale fouled Mateta first, then I assume it should have been a penalty?)

There’s quite a list. The key here is “in a manner considered by the referee” and “to be careless, reckless or using excessive force”. It was a tussle between Ramsdale and Mateta, something that you don’t really want your goalkeeper to be doing. That’s someone else’s job.

Law 12,

1. Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

• a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official
• throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object

 

[Tommy Mulgrew]

5 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

•  
•  
•  
• pushes

 

5 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

• a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact

IMO Mateta was not careless or reckless and did not use excessive force but he did impede Ramsdale with contact; and Ramsdsle was not careless or reckless and neither used excessive force nor impeded Mateta with contact.

[Sheaf Saint]

29 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Why haven’t you shown the sequence before that freeze-frame? That would have shown Ramsdale pushing Mateta first. He was more worried about getting Mateta out of the way than he was about meeting the cross. Had he concentrated on that and then been blocked then he wouldn’t have had a much stronger case.

Because whatever jostling had gone on before it, while the ball was dead, is irrelevant. Once the corner was taken, Ramsdale was solely concentrating on watching the flight of the ball and trying to get to it. Whereas Mateta had no interest in trying to play the ball whatsoever, and literally pushed Ramsdale out of the way to stop him from getting to it. 

It's a foul. It's a very obvious, cynical, deliberate foul.

[Turkish]

14 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Because whatever jostling had gone on before it, while the ball was dead, is irrelevant. Once the corner was taken, Ramsdale was solely concentrating on watching the flight of the ball and trying to get to it. Whereas Mateta had no interest in trying to play the ball whatsoever, and literally pushed Ramsdale out of the way to stop him from getting to it. 

It's a foul. It's a very obvious, cynical, deliberate foul.

you never see Whitey disagree with Refs, this was an obvious a foul as you'll see, goalkeepers get free kicks for far, far less every single game.

[trousers]

52 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

There’s quite a list. The key here is “in a manner considered by the referee” and “to be careless, reckless or using excessive force”. It was a tussle between Ramsdale and Mateta, something that you don’t really want your goalkeeper to be doing. That’s someone else’s job.

Law 12,

1. Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

• a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official
• throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object

 

You see, this is the problem I have.... This particular law (and probably others) seem to be written so they are purposely open to interpretation and thus controversy. Why can't they be written in a clear and concise way? For example: "If you push the goalkeeper then you have committed a foul". Why on Earth can't it be that simple and definitive?

Edited 30 December, 2024 by trousers

[bangkoksaint]

Ah yes the freeze frame or selective images…….reminds me of the CCTV of the GMP officers allegedly kicking a passenger in the head over the summer at Manchester airport. Those passengers have just been charged with criminal offences. I agree there’s no consistency but that’s football or pretty much any sport at any level.