mr atkinson

[nose]

sorry to have to come back to him but in Liverpool's game yesterday he got another straightforward penalty decision wrong. Once again favouring the partisan supporters of the home team.

his error yesterday bordered on scandalous because any contact like that 'nowadays' is always given, but apparently not by him. Is he useless or does he just lean towards the home side?

[grandad]

Something really has to be done about refs & their inconsistency. The quality is getting worse every season.

[alfie]

sorry to have to come back to him but in Liverpool's game yesterday he got another straightforward penalty decision wrong. Once again favouring the partisan supporters of the home team.

his error yesterday bordered on scandalous because any contact like that 'nowadays' is always given, but apparently not by him. Is he useless or does he just lean towards the home side?

I agree with the Liverpool pen, but I maintain my original stance on our game, he saw what we all saw and that was handball by Kallas, i think people should be honest with their view of our pen, I am sure no one saw that sneaky little punch live, it took me a couple of looks on the replay.

[jarv]

yep.  Hard to tell these days, what is a foul and what isn't?? I find it very annoying to watch, his display against Reading was appalling.

[bog]

I saw that. Big club little club syndrome rides again on a wild stallion.  :031:

092.gif

[Woolly Mammoth]

Yes I haven't been impressed by referees displays of recent years, especially the so called big decisions that favour the home side, especially if it's one of the usual suspects in the top 5 or 6 teams.
But players cheating all the time encouraged by certain managers, has made the referees job even more difficult.

[Andy S]

Its down to the speed of the game, inexperience of officials as well as the cheating from players. We were even complaining about it in the prem. I fear Technology is the only answer. Clubs should be charged on behalf of the players The trouble is it is getting a big foot hold in the game now

[nose]

sorry to have to come back to him but in Liverpool's game yesterday he got another straightforward penalty decision wrong. Once again favouring the partisan supporters of the home team.

his error yesterday bordered on scandalous because any contact like that 'nowadays' is always given, but apparently not by him. Is he useless or does he just lean towards the home side?

I agree with the Liverpool pen, but I maintain my original stance on our game, he saw what we all saw and that was handball by Kallas, i think people should be honest with their view of our pen, I am sure no one saw that sneaky little punch live, it took me a couple of looks on the replay.

I do understand our penalty issue was unusual and had to be seen from the correct camera angel. no problem with that. But as refs always told and continue to tell me they can only give what they see and from my estimation of where atkinson was at reading, he couldn't see what happened and he gave, IMO, what he thought happened, and that is totally wrong.

For what it worth, we all know that was still a tricky one but what I am struggling with is the Reading forward clearly infringed the rules big time, not cheeky IMO, especially because of the stakes, and he gets away with it scot free.  nd in the use of the term scott I recall an incident from when Wales played scotland in a world cup qualifier, joe jordan himself intentionally punched the ball in the penalty area, the referee adjudged that a wales player had committed the foul,  a penalty was awarded and as a result wales eliminated.

Jordan got away with that too. I do feel video retrospective action is needed.

further, that was also a case of a referee awarding what he thought had happened, not what he saw.

[Arthur]

... joe jordan himself intentionally punched the ball in the penalty area, the referee adjudged that a wales player had committed the foul,  a penalty was awarded and as a result wales eliminated.

Jordan got away with that too. I do feel video retrospective action is needed.

further, that was also a case of a referee awarding what he thought had happened, not what he saw.

The referee saw what the other players, the two managers, and 56 000 spectators saw: an arm blatantly and - without any shred of doubt - deliberately punch the ball. Of that, he would have been 100% certain. What the referee evidently didn't know for certain (because he got it wrong) was whose arm he had seen.

As someone who refereed in my earlier years (albeit park football), I would like to think I have enough of an understanding of the pressures involved to tell you that, in a game of such magnitude (whereby the winners qualified for the World Cup at the expense of their opponents), there is not a referee in the world who would have waved play on in that situation. Why? Because to let the game continue - when everybody has seen such a deliberate handball in the penalty area - would have appeared even more baffling, even more incredulous, even more ludicrous than to award a spot kick.

So, yes, the referee did give what he thought had happened, but I'd wager he saw the punch as did everyone else, and I - or you - faced with same dilemma and just a split second in which to make a decision, would do exactly the same: blow the whistle and hope to call it correctly.

[alfie]

sorry to have to come back to him but in Liverpool's game yesterday he got another straightforward penalty decision wrong. Once again favouring the partisan supporters of the home team.

his error yesterday bordered on scandalous because any contact like that 'nowadays' is always given, but apparently not by him. Is he useless or does he just lean towards the home side?

I agree with the Liverpool pen, but I maintain my original stance on our game, he saw what we all saw and that was handball by Kallas, i think people should be honest with their view of our pen, I am sure no one saw that sneaky little punch live, it took me a couple of looks on the replay.

I do understand our penalty issue was unusual and had to be seen from the correct camera angel. no problem with that. But as refs always told and continue to tell me they can only give what they see and from my estimation of where atkinson was at reading, he couldn't see what happened and he gave, IMO, what he thought happened, and that is totally wrong.

For what it worth, we all know that was still a tricky one but what I am struggling with is the Reading forward clearly infringed the rules big time, not cheeky IMO, especially because of the stakes, and he gets away with it scot free.  nd in the use of the term scott I recall an incident from when Wales played scotland in a world cup qualifier, joe jordan himself intentionally punched the ball in the penalty area, the referee adjudged that a wales player had committed the foul,  a penalty was awarded and as a result wales eliminated.

Jordan got away with that too. I do feel video retrospective action is needed.

further, that was also a case of a referee awarding what he thought had happened, not what he saw.

Understand completely about the cheating, but he did not give what he thought happened, he gave a pen for what we all saw a clear hand ball by TK. The Reading player new very well what he was doing, down right cheating, I guess he must be very proud, of course on the other hand if that had been the other way round, we all would be screaming for a pen, I guess that's football.

[Fulhamerica23]

For what it's worth, I think he was spot on yesterday on the Rhodes penalty decision. Rhodes stopped playing the ball and flung into the defender and went down. Not a penalty from me. Had he continued to make and honest attempt at the ball, I think the Liverpool defender tumbles him over and it's a penalty.

[nose]

For what it's worth, I think he was spot on yesterday on the Rhodes penalty decision. Rhodes stopped playing the ball and flung into the defender and went down. Not a penalty from me. Had he continued to make and honest attempt at the ball, I think the Liverpool defender tumbles him over and it's a penalty.

i agree with what you say, except in any game in the prem, any week, that is considered a penalty and would be given.

personally i do not think it should be but the way the game is nowadays ot is almost always given unless you are a mega team usually playing at home.

[nose]

sorry to have to come back to him but in Liverpool's game yesterday he got another straightforward penalty decision wrong. Once again favouring the partisan supporters of the home team.

his error yesterday bordered on scandalous because any contact like that 'nowadays' is always given, but apparently not by him. Is he useless or does he just lean towards the home side?

I agree with the Liverpool pen, but I maintain my original stance on our game, he saw what we all saw and that was handball by Kallas, i think people should be honest with their view of our pen, I am sure no one saw that sneaky little punch live, it took me a couple of looks on the replay.

I do understand our penalty issue was unusual and had to be seen from the correct camera angel. no problem with that. But as refs always told and continue to tell me they can only give what they see and from my estimation of where atkinson was at reading, he couldn't see what happened and he gave, IMO, what he thought happened, and that is totally wrong.

For what it worth, we all know that was still a tricky one but what I am struggling with is the Reading forward clearly infringed the rules big time, not cheeky IMO, especially because of the stakes, and he gets away with it scot free.  nd in the use of the term scott I recall an incident from when Wales played scotland in a world cup qualifier, joe jordan himself intentionally punched the ball in the penalty area, the referee adjudged that a wales player had committed the foul,  a penalty was awarded and as a result wales eliminated.

Jordan got away with that too. I do feel video retrospective action is needed.

further, that was also a case of a referee awarding what he thought had happened, not what he saw.

Understand completely about the cheating, but he did not give what he thought happened, he gave a pen for what we all saw a clear hand ball by TK. The Reading player new very well what he was doing, down right cheating, I guess he must be very proud, of course on the other hand if that had been the other way round, we all would be screaming for a pen, I guess that's football.

if it was the other way round, and I do mean this sincerely, I would have been very upset and disapointed it would have totally spoiled the occasion. it is not just about winning, it is aboutt attempting to win properly.

we shall have to agree to differ on what the ref did. having watched the clips over and over, the referee clearly was not sure and hesitated before favouring the home team. Iam prejudiced, I never thought much of atkinson before and his two most recent outings give me no pleasure especially as he is cracked up to be a top ref.

[toshes mate]

Too many free kicks and penalties are awarded on the basis of what officials 'think' they see and yet this doesn't appear to even itself out during one match let alone a season.  The criticisms about referees favouring top clubs still carries on after decades of complaints and there is no smoke without fire.  And it isn't about angles of view because matches covered by five on field officials are little different to those covered by three.   It's time for video replays and/or better training and regulation of officials so that they all at a reasonable and realistic standard of neutrality, and better match postmortems so that cheats can be suspended after games and points deducted.  It is only when you get tough on something that you start to see improvements and football needs to start punishing all cheating and gamesmanship.  The spirit of the game should be sacrosanct. 

[toshes mate]

I agree with you, nose, Atkinson does appear to hesitate and then respond to Kermorgant's gesture of handball which is why I think it was an outrageous decision. 

[HatterDon]

there's a TV replay that's EXACTLY the view that Atkinson has. ALL he can see is the ball rolling down our guy's arm. Why fault the guy because he called what he saw? And if he's got a history in favoring the famous clubs, I think it's fair to say that Fulham are a lot more famous than Reading.

We lost the tie because we didn't score enough. You want to blame somebody for that, blame al Habsi. He's the reason we're not going to Wembley.

[e4b]

Well said Hatter

[toshes mate]

there's a TV replay that's EXACTLY the view that Atkinson has. ALL he can see is the ball rolling down our guy's arm. Why fault the guy because he called what he saw? And if he's got a history in favoring the famous clubs, I think it's fair to say that Fulham are a lot more famous than Reading.

We lost the tie because we didn't score enough. You want to blame somebody for that, blame al Habsi. He's the reason we're not going to Wembley.

'Exactly Atkinson's view', HatterDon? Now you really are having a laugh.  Was he wearing a camera and was it in stereoscope? We will never know what he thought he saw let alone what he blew his whistle for.

[nose]

there's a TV replay that's EXACTLY the view that Atkinson has. ALL he can see is the ball rolling down our guy's arm. Why fault the guy because he called what he saw? And if he's got a history in favoring the famous clubs, I think it's fair to say that Fulham are a lot more famous than Reading.

We lost the tie because we didn't score enough. You want to blame somebody for that, blame al Habsi. He's the reason we're not going to Wembley.

If you read all my comments, the one that pains me most is not their goalkeeper but our inability in two games to put away our chances. If we had of done that then the penalty would be accademic. as it is, we lost to two goals that were to say the least dubious. mr atwell has been one of my least favorites for years and atkinson has not been top of the pops with me either (although I cannot quite recall why).

Within a moment of the decision, I had a text saying it was wrong, clearly at the away end we didn't have a clue, but what was for certain was the referee hesitated and I do not believe he really saw the incident properly.

it's all gone now, i have put it in the past. not as bad as the derby game all those years ago.

[FFC1987]

sorry to have to come back to him but in Liverpool's game yesterday he got another straightforward penalty decision wrong. Once again favouring the partisan supporters of the home team.

his error yesterday bordered on scandalous because any contact like that 'nowadays' is always given, but apparently not by him. Is he useless or does he just lean towards the home side?

I agree with the Liverpool pen, but I maintain my original stance on our game, he saw what we all saw and that was handball by Kallas, i think people should be honest with their view of our pen, I am sure no one saw that sneaky little punch live, it took me a couple of looks on the replay.

My two pence and logic on it was this. Why would Kallas handle a ball in a wide position when in front of his man? He gets little to no advantage in doing so in a meaningless area of the pitch. It was a poor decision and without the fulham tinted glasses on, its proven to be a poor decision. I seriously think ref's need additional help on the pitch and assistive technology is required.