His reputation preceedes him!?

[Le Chacal]

Whaddapie is missing my point but you're right i should use another example as he was given the peno immediately, he didnt really have time to react.
Im talking about Suarez' reactions when hes not given a penalty or a foul and im sorry but the waving arms still happens these days...

 

[Oncy]

Whaddapie is missing my point but you're right i should use another example as he was given the peno immediately, he didnt really have time to react.
Im talking about Suarez' reactions when hes not given a penalty or a foul and im sorry but the waving arms still happens these days...

No it doesnt.
And you are missing the screamingly obvious point that rules are rules and a players reaction has nothing to do with it. That is to say if the game is based upon rules and not 'performance art'

If Suarez overreacts when he is fouled, it makes no difference IF he is fouled.
The rules dont allow for opinion or speculation, and if referees are interpreting things based upon their perception of any player as an individual they ought be brought to task about it and in my opinion slung out of the league.

A foul is a foul is a foul.

 

[Le Chacal]

Its a foul if the referee says its a foul. This is slightly different.
If Suarez thinks its a foul but ref says its not a foul, its not a foul. Hence he should stop waving his arms
Why are we hardly hearing about referees at Rugby? England could have won the WC in 2007, ref made a game-changing decision...SA won and nobody talked about the incident.
The main problem is players and managers not referees

 

[Whaddapie]

Its a foul if the referee says its a foul. This is slightly different.
If Suarez thinks its a foul but ref says its not a foul, its not a foul. Hence he should stop waving his arms
Why are we hardly hearing about referees at Rugby? England could have won the WC in 2007, ref made a game-changing decision...SA won and nobody talked about the incident.
The main problem is players and managers not referees

This is wrong, mate...

The ref awards or does not award the penalty, but he does not decide what constitutes a foul... That's defined for him in the rule book. The fact that a penalty was not given at Anfield two weeks back or at Carrow Road last week does not mean that fouls were not committed. It means that the refs made the wrong decisions, because on each occassion, as defined by the rules of the game, Suarez was fouled.

 

[Judge Jules]

It's a foul if the rules say it's a foul. They stand independently of the referee's decision, which is sometimes demonstrably wrong, as it was last weekend. And Luis HAS stopped waving his arms.

There was plenty of discussion of that decision in the World Cup Final in 2007 but it didn't last long, for the simple reason that everybody could see the decision was the right one. I happen to agree that football could learn a lot from attitudes in rugby, but the two reffing decisions aren't comparable. One turned out to be right, whereas the other was flat wrong and obviously so from the beginning.

 

[Oncy]

Its a foul if the referee says its a foul. This is slightly different.
If Suarez thinks its a foul but ref says its not a foul, its not a foul. Hence he should stop waving his arms
Why are we hardly hearing about referees at Rugby? England could have won the WC in 2007, ref made a game-changing decision...SA won and nobody talked about the incident.
The main problem is players and managers not referees

No its not a foul if the referee 'says its a foul'
Its a foul if it breaks the rules of the game as written.
And it doesnt matter if Suarez 'Thinks its a foul' either.
The point is IF a referee is making decisions FOR a player because he is not known for diving or AGAINST a player because he is known for diving and NOT because he SAW a foul it is bullshit.

And rugby has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Oncy]

This is wrong, mate...

The ref awards or does not award the penalty, but he does not decide what constitutes a foul... That's defined for him in the rule book. The fact that a penalty was not given at Anfield two weeks back or at Carrow Road last week does not mean that fouls were not committed. It means that the refs made the wrong decisions, because on each occassion, as defined by the rules of the game, Suarez was fouled.

Is the RIGHT answer.

 

[Oncy]

'Its only a foul if the ref gives it' is a lazy fucking broadcast media junket and i hate it.

 

[Le Chacal]

Haha...you can argue about the rules as much as you want guys...😀
Bottom line, its always down to referee's interpretation. Thats what UEFA and FIFA want and its not about to change.

 

[Whaddapie]

Haha...you can argue about the rules as much as you want guys...😀
Bottom line, its always down to referee's interpretation. Thats what UEFA and FIFA want and its not about to change.

The ref decides if he feels that a foul was committed, as defined in the rules, mate, yes... Not what constitutes a foul, which is what you said earlier.

 

[gene hughes]

Jesus is crying his eyes out reading this.

 

[Whaddapie]

He's got FAR more important things to worry about... If he's reading this, he's lost the plot.

 

[nealmac]

Never mind Jesus, I'm in fucking floods here.

 

[gkmacca]

Haha...you can argue about the rules as much as you want guys...😀
Bottom line, its always down to referee's interpretation. Thats what UEFA and FIFA want and its not about to change.

But they do punish refs when they are found to have made major mistakes and that's also why some decisions are rescinded.

 

[Hansern]

Halsey hasnt gotten any punishment for his performance I'm guessing, and neither has Mike Jones for some of his decisions.

The quality of the referees in the Premier League is horrendous though. It beggers belief that in the worlds richest league assistant referees are still part timers that earn 600 £ a game.

 

[gkmacca]

Refs have probably been helped by the fact that, aside from the dreaded Howard Webb, the age of the would-be celeb ref have receded somewhat. When some absolute dolt like Uriah Rennie gets it wrong time and time again, his prominence becomes an embarrassment to the officials as a group and they were thus not unhappy about dumping him. The problem now, in a way, is that most refs are so banal and non-descript it's quite hard to remember who did what. They all blend into a large black smog of mediocrity. Maybe they are punished in terms of who gets what game, but no one would notice.

 

[Hansern]

Good point Macca. I'm guessing its only Clattenburg (to a certain degree mind) that comes into that category today.

 

[gkmacca]

Ah, you're right, forgot about him - thank god!

 

[mark1975]

Maybe they are punished in terms of who gets what game, but no one would notice.

Heh, it seems the 'punished' are getting all our games then!

 

[nealmac]

Haha, was just thinking the same thing mark.

 

[Sunny]

I notice Chris Foy, who reffed the Scum game against Spurs, which they lost will be refereeing Acrington Stanleys game at the weekend

#fergieconspiracytheorynumber8732

 

[Leo]

The Truth is Out There - The Dim in Beirut

 

[Ryan]

No it doesnt.
And you are missing the screamingly obvious point that rules are rules and a players reaction has nothing to do with it. That is to say if the game is based upon rules and not 'performance art'

If Suarez overreacts when he is fouled, it makes no difference IF he is fouled.
The rules dont allow for opinion or speculation, and if referees are interpreting things based upon their perception of any player as an individual they ought be brought to task about it and in my opinion slung out of the league.

A foul is a foul is a foul.

The continued repetition of that line is doing my head in.

Of course you know it's a foul after you've seen the replay 35 fucking times, but what about the ones that aren't that fucking black and white? That aren't that clear cut? And judging by the reaction of this site, it's fair to say that most people were and still are split on that decision.

So there are hundreds of decisions like that every weekend where the referee has to make a split second decision on something he isn't certain of, that isn't black or white, and he doesn't have the benefit of the replay.

In those circumstances where it's not nailed on, if you don't think the referee is dissuaded from giving something to the striker cos of his fucking history of throwing himself on the ground - then you're being ridiculously naive or hopelessly obtuse. It's a major factor.

 

[nealmac]

Well in that case, he shouldn't award the penalty, ie, if he's not 100% sure.

So he shouldn't have awarded Valencia's.

 

[ILD]

RE: Your last paragraph.

But that shouldn't be the case Ryan. If it's a foul it should be giving. The player in question shouldn't come in to it. Certain player don't help their cause by going down easy, (Suarez is now the boy who cried wolf in certain eyes) but if they are genuinely fouled they should get their decision.

The Norwich incident was ridiculous. That was a clear penalty.

 

[Ryan]

RE: Your last paragraph.

But that shouldn't be the case Ryan. If it's a foul it should be giving. The player in question shouldn't come in to it. Certain player don't help their cause by going down easy, (Suarez is now the boy who cried wolf in certain eyes) but if they are genuinely fouled they should get their decision.

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW IF IT WAS A FUCKING FOUL DAVE, THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT.

Every single time there is a game of football anywhere in the world, there are decisions that the referee isn't certain about. The game is played at 1 million miles an hour, 2 players come togethor in the box, there's minimal contact, and the striker goes down. It's not certain one way or the other, so in those circumstances - the referee does take into account the history of that little Uruguayan throwing himself everywhere.

It happens.

 

[Modo]

The continued repetition of that line is doing my head in.

Of course you know it's a foul after you've seen the replay 35 fucking times, but what about the ones that aren't that fucking black and white? That aren't that clear cut? And judging by the reaction of this site, it's fair to say that most people were and still are split on that decision.

So there are hundreds of decisions like that every weekend where the referee has to make a split second decision on something he isn't certain of, that isn't black or white, and he doesn't have the benefit of the replay.

In those circumstances where it's not nailed on, if you don't think the referee is dissuaded from giving something to the striker cos of his fucking history of throwing himself on the ground - then you're being ridiculously naive or hopelessly obtuse. It's a major factor.

This times a million.

 

[ILD]

I'm just talking about the one at the weekend. The one in question was verging on assualt. There was not mininal contact and it wasn't something that should have been up for dispute. It was clear cut. I think that's why people are up in arms over it.

"BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW IF IT WAS A FUCKING FOUL DAVE", If the ref, didn't know or spot that it was a foul last Saturday then he need's a new job. I'd have no problem giving a ref the benefit of the doubt if it was 50/50 or mininal contact was made but we didn't get the pen solely due to the fact it was Suarez. His card is marked. If it's a foul like the one Saturday then a pen has to be given. Suarez hasn't gotten a penalty due to his rep already this season but Saturday was taking the piss.

 

[Modo]

If Suarez get's tackled in the penalty area, blatantly. I'm mean the defender just sweeps both his legs and doesn't get the ball. If the ref who's standing about 5 yards away still doesn't give it, I'll start believing in conspiracies against us.
We missed like 35 penalties last season so I'm not that bothered by the decisions.
How about we just move on and score five goals like we did against Norwich?

 

[ILD]

I haven't read back through the thread. Are we talking about the Norwich decision or fouls in general?

I'm talking about the incident Saturday. It was clear cut.