PENALTY

[WokinghamWhite]

Not one, but *two* slam-dunk penalties we should have had, Mr. Hooper waved play on both times. As GJ said in the commentary when Hooper waved play on after the foul on Johansen: "Stefan Johansen was taken down as clear as the nose on your face... the referee was looking directly at it... disgraceful".

[Twig]

We are all focussing, understandably, on Hooper but did the Lino flag for a foul on either occasion? Refs are heavily reliant on their linesmen and we should be asking why there was no flag for what seemed like two certain pens.  I think it is often lines officials who bottle it because they are closest to the crowd and the home manager (like Warnock).  They know they will get the grief and just look away.

[grandad]

How come the 4th Official didn´t get on his 2 way to Hooper & tell him he is a plonker. Everyone else in the stadium & the Cardiff players saw it as a pen.
We must have the opportunity of getting the refs say on it. No good him hiding behind the FA & the company who employ him.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Have you ever referee'd a game woolly? Because I have and believe me it is difficult when dealing with amateurs. When you are dealing with super fit professionals it is a different game and a lot faster. With more at stake. There are players in your ear all the time with the sole aim to put you off your job. Then you have the age of referees! Tell me woolly why do so few ex-pros become referees? Other sports produce referees from ex participants

Yes I am an active referee, and I have been one for over 40 years. So I am familiar with all the tricks of the trade on an amateur level. But a foul is a foul, a pen is a pen. Ungentlemanly conduct is exactly that, as is unsporting behaviour, continuous infringements of the laws of the game and reckless tackles, and of course dissent etc.
But you don't need to have any experience in refereeing, but it does help.
Referees get intimidated whether its on Wimbledon Common Extentions or Imber Court, I have seen referees bottle it at all levels.
As do Lino's, and they are closer to the crowd and the managers, and don't want to hear the stick etc, so the officials are all as bad as each other, I include the fourth official, nobody wants to take responsibility.
I can highlight my argument even further when FIFA introduced officials behind the goal, and despite them seeing infringements a yard away from where they are standing, they still take no action, leaving it to the referee. 
So this cheating sickness is world wide in Association Football, so many blatant cheats amongst the officials. A number get caught when they have been bribed, what about the ones that don't get caught.
I can forgive a referee for making an error of judgement, we all have done that, but cheating, that's a different ball game, it's corrupt.
Man management is important at every level, but one thing you never get respect for is bottling it, or should I say cheating one of the teams. The players will pick that up and never forget.
It's infuriating on a Sunday morning when they are being paid £35, but at a professional level when the referee has two qualified assistants and is paid handsomely to be fit to referee and all that goes with it.
Yet they still get it wrong, it's impossible for a referee to be that bad, he would not have reached that level if he was that bad.
So it's not rocket science to know what goes through an individual referees mind, especially on the big decisions.
Of course players do not help with their continued dissent and endless cheating diving, feigning injury, trying to get an opponent sent off and all taking turns to do it.
But if a referee cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Ex players prefer the easy life, a large percentage don't need the money, and unlike other major sports, has no real discipline from top to bottom, so players,  managers, coaches think they are a law until themselves, and I include some referees.
Far too much money in the game at the top levels, and the FA are much more interested in Political Correctness, diversity, quangos and jobs for the boys. I can bore you for hours, but it's not about me, your asking the wrong bloke.
It's about professional referees who need to grow a pair, and do not let the occasion get to you or loud mouth individuals on the pitch who are trying to undermine you.
It's like everything in life, you need social skills, man management skills, and charm and discretion.
A command of the laws of the game, because knowledge is power.
But most of all you need to have the courage of your own convictions, and grow a pair.
That way you have the moral high ground, and most of all you respect yourself, because if you cannot do that, then the players certainly will not.

[Andy S]

Woolly I know that went on a bit but I totally agree.

[grandad]

Looked again at the 90 mins. There were 2 stonewall pens denied plus on 82 mins Ojo was not offside with a clear 1 on 1 . That is not just poor judgement by the ref & assistants  but something more sinister.

[davew]

Woolly you need to come back out of retirement and hopefully referee some of our matches, I know you will act as a neutral, impartial and not cheat. I will gladly contribute to you getting a PFA card but I won't be able to help you with the physical training, sorry m8!

[Arthur]

Bad decision.  Football's riddled with them.  There's no obvious answer that would improve matters without massively slowing the game down and making football a game of events rather than a game of flow.  I take comfort that Wolves are clearly the best team in the league, Birmingham clearly the worst, so the table probably has everyone else in pretty much the right position.

I don't think Refs in the Championship cheat.  They just make bad decisions. Players do both.

Good post.

Certainly I don't believe the referee was cheating to prevent us winning the game. If he had been trying to do so, there were many other opportunities to influence the outcome in Cardiff's favour that he could have taken. It seems to me that the only sense in which he could have been cheating by not awarding the penalty was if he were in some way pandering to the 'bet-in-play' market. What can't be seen from the camera angle, however, is that the referee does look across to the linesman - who keeps his flag firmly by his side.

What I find interesting about this is that, whenever television shows a referee to have awarded a penalty incorrectly, pundits (and fans on social media) often spout the cliché about 'the need to be 100% certain for such an important decision'. I wouldn't be at all surprised were it the case that yesterday's referee thought that it probably was a penalty, but that he wasn't absolutely sure - hence his taking his cue from the linesman (similarly lacking in conviction). A clear lack of 'bottle', yes, but not cheating.

[davew]

Maybe not cheating, just match fixing the result or trying to, well he didn't manage it yesterday!!! Hope we don't see him again in the future refereeing our matches in fact I am going to start a petition to the FA, anybody willing to sign it?? If I can get 1/2million, Parliament will have to discuss it!

[Woolly Mammoth]

Woolly I know that went on a bit but I totally agree.

👍⚽️

[Woolly Mammoth]

Bad decision.  Football's riddled with them.  There's no obvious answer that would improve matters without massively slowing the game down and making football a game of events rather than a game of flow.  I take comfort that Wolves are clearly the best team in the league, Birmingham clearly the worst, so the table probably has everyone else in pretty much the right position.

I don't think Refs in the Championship cheat.  They just make bad decisions. Players do both.

Good post.

Certainly I don't believe the referee was cheating to prevent us winning the game. If he had been trying to do so, there were many other opportunities to influence the outcome in Cardiff's favour that he could have taken. It seems to me that the only sense in which he could have been cheating by not awarding the penalty was if he were in some way pandering to the 'bet-in-play' market. What can't be seen from the camera angle, however, is that the referee does look across to the linesman - who keeps his flag firmly by his side.

What I find interesting about this is that, whenever television shows a referee to have awarded a penalty incorrectly, pundits (and fans on social media) often spout the cliché about 'the need to be 100% certain for such an important decision'. I wouldn't be at all surprised were it the case that yesterday's referee thought that it probably was a penalty, but that he wasn't absolutely sure - hence his taking his cue from the linesman (similarly lacking in conviction). A clear lack of 'bottle', yes, but not cheating.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but bottling is cheating. Because the referee is deliberately denying justice to the team that is on the receiving end of a clear and concise direct free kick in the penalty area.
You should not keep making excuses for weak gutless officials who cannot be relied upon to make an impartial decision, and prefer to look the other way, because they are afraid of their own shadows, dissenting players and managers.
They would rather upset Jok than upset Warnock and 20,000 Cardiff fans. That's cheating, and that is also the last time I can give you the benefit of my free qualified consultations. 
The next one will be in the form of an invoice.
Goodnight and Thank You. 💤💤

[Barrett487]

Stef's was a cert.... Kebano's was a solid shout............

Jim & Jamie's observations about bias were not without foundation.

[Arthur]

A clear lack of 'bottle', yes, but not cheating.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but bottling is cheating.

To 'cheat' means to 'behave in a dishonest way in order to get what you want' (Cambridge Dictionary).

Unfeasible as it may be, what every referee ideally wants (assuming they haven't been bribed) is to get every decision correct. However inexcusable a referee's call, 'bottling it' does not achieve this intention and does not, therefore, satisfy the definition of cheating.

I'll leave it with you.

[Woolly Mammoth]

A clear lack of 'bottle', yes, but not cheating.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but bottling is cheating.

To 'cheat' means to 'behave in a dishonest way in order to get what you want' (Cambridge Dictionary).

Unfeasible as it may be, what every referee ideally wants (assuming they haven't been bribed) is to get every decision correct. However inexcusable a referee's call, 'bottling it' does not achieve this intention and does not, therefore, satisfy the definition of cheating.

I'll leave it with you.

By bottling it, the referees know themselves that not only have they not got a spine, but they know that they are dishonest and have denied the victims justice, and they have cheated themselves, because they can never ever restore that or change that dishonest act, the dye is cast.
If they have half a brain, they know in their heart that they have cheated and been dishonest, and they appear to be quite happy to live with that, as they will no doubt commit the offence again.
Obviously they do not possess a conscience either.
So their impartiality is lower than a snakes belly.
This in itself tells you more about the character of the referee more than of the player that committed the offence.
Whichever way an apologist for these dishonest individuals, massages the issue and the facts, the basic fact is that the referee has knowingly cheated. That is an act of dishonesty, and that is cheating.
Shame on them.
Therefore " Cheating " as defined in the English, Oxford, Collins Dictionary.....is finding an uneasy way out of an unpleasant situation by dishonest means.
" Dishonest " as defined in the English, Oxford, Collins Dictionary..... deceitful ness, fraud, deception, corruption, no integrity, evading the truth, deliberately violating the rules. In other words it is an instance of rule breaking.
Anyone making excuses or attempting to defend the indefensible is no more or less than an accomplice. 

[Arthur]

To 'cheat' means to 'behave in a dishonest way in order to get what you want' (Cambridge Dictionary).

Unfeasible as it may be, what every referee ideally wants (assuming they haven't been bribed) is to get every decision correct. However inexcusable a referee's call, 'bottling it' does not achieve this intention and does not, therefore, satisfy the definition of cheating.

I'll leave it with you.

By bottling it, the referees know themselves that not only have they not got a spine, but they know that they are dishonest and have denied the victims justice, and they have cheated themselves, because they can never ever defeat themselves, the dye is cast.
If they have half a brain, they know in their heart that they have cheated, and they appear to be quite happy to live with that, as they will no doubt commit the offence again.
Obviously they do not possess a conscience either.
So their impartiality is lower than a snakes belly.
This in itself tells you more about the character of the referee more than if the player that committed the offence.
Whichever way an apologist massages the issue, the basic fact is that the referee has knowingly cheated.
Shame on them.

You have merely used the word 'cheated' where you ought to have written 'bottled it'. This no more makes them synonyms than are, say, 'draw' and 'win' if I were to write of our '4-2 draw over Cardiff following a 2-1 draw against Barnsley'.

To resort, moreover, to describing me as an someone who 'massages the issue' is laughable. That's you!

Having quoted me, I expected your post to respond to what I've written. And yet it doesn't; it's just a rehash of your previous rhetoric. What is conspicuous by its absence is any reference on your part to the connection between a cheat 'getting what he wants' and a referee not having the courage to award a penalty.

Maybe it's the time of night...

[Woolly Mammoth]

No the time of night does not effect me as I work nights, and I am working tonight. So I am wide awake.
You are clearly in denial, and so be it.
It will not change my views, you can play with words as much as you like, as I do.
But these referees are guilty as charged.
My only regret is that there is no real form of punishment, which gives them a licence to commit the offence again and again under the flag beyond reasonable doubt.
Rather like saying prisons are full of innocent people.
I have just been called out on a mission, I am working after all. So you will have to excuse me as I cannot stay and keep you company.
We can continue this debate the next time a referee cheats, ( I mean the next time a referee does not see a blatant infringement, because he must loaf around with his eyes shut), which will probably be some time this Saturday no doubt.
Goodnight and thank you.

[Arthur]

You are clearly in denial, and so be it.
It will not change my views...

Goodnight and thank you.

A comment of the type, 'You are clearly in denial' is cheap talk. Similarly in your previous post, I was an 'apologist'. Emotive words, and yet nowhere do you actually pinpoint anything that I've written that could contribute to these conclusions; this, I would suggest, has been the difference between us: unlike you, WM, I've been prepared to counter specific points with (what I perceive to be) relevant analysis.

You also seem to have forgotten (or have chosen to overlook) that it was you who sought initially to inform me that I have the wrong opinion. I have no greater expectation of shifting your view than you would have of changing mine. I might only have hoped that you would acknowledge that my opinion, whilst at odds with yours, was nonetheless based on a coherent line of thinking. Alas, it wasn't to be.

I do, however, note and appreciate your courtesy when signing off. Goodnight and thank you to you also.

[Whitesideup]

We have identified  two stonewall penalties, an offside against Ojo when clean through (that one down to the lino though) and what about the foul given against Kebano when played through late in the second half? He was going past the defender who tried to obstruct him. Rather than go down get the foul and red card, he continued his run as he would obviously have a one-on-one with the keeper.  Yes the defender made contact with Kebano's arm, but it was his desperate attempt to stop him, not the other way around. When the ref blew I thought he had given us the foul  rather than the advantage, itself a shocking decision, but it was worse. Now, I haven't seen the replay, but everything else has been as bad as it looked live.

Each of these decisions could have cost us. Thank God they didn't. But I am convinced that the club should be demanding an enquiry. I cannot recall a match with so many really big, really easy decisions going against us. And don't forget the persistent fouls against Cearney which the ref did nothing about until the very end of the game. I counted a minimum of 9 and there at least two more not given

[Whitesideup]

Bad decision.  Football's riddled with them.  There's no obvious answer that would improve matters without massively slowing the game down and making football a game of events rather than a game of flow.  I take comfort that Wolves are clearly the best team in the league, Birmingham clearly the worst, so the table probably has everyone else in pretty much the right position.

I don't think Refs in the Championship cheat.  They just make bad decisions. Players do both.

Good post.

Certainly I don't believe the referee was cheating to prevent us winning the game. If he had been trying to do so, there were many other opportunities to influence the outcome in Cardiff's favour that he could have taken. It seems to me that the only sense in which he could have been cheating by not awarding the penalty was if he were in some way pandering to the 'bet-in-play' market. What can't be seen from the camera angle, however, is that the referee does look across to the linesman - who keeps his flag firmly by his side.

What I find interesting about this is that, whenever television shows a referee to have awarded a penalty incorrectly, pundits (and fans on social media) often spout the cliché about 'the need to be 100% certain for such an important decision'. I wouldn't be at all surprised were it the case that yesterday's referee thought that it probably was a penalty, but that he wasn't absolutely sure - hence his taking his cue from the linesman (similarly lacking in conviction). A clear lack of 'bottle', yes, but not cheating.

Arthur  - I have to take issue with this. First of all in a game of football there may never be such a thing as 100% certaintity. Secondly there is no "probably" about it. The player's late lunge meant that he didn't even need to have made contact with the player for it to be a foul. Thirdly it was 100% certain that the player made contact with Johansen with the ball an absolute minimum of 2 yards away. The referee had a great view .. he doesn't need a linesman who is further away to make his decision.

Now the penalty against Kebano not given .. the defender is holding him round the waist in a rugby-type challenge with both Kebano and the ball being goal-side of him. Now please, what element of doubt can there be?

I have often argued with Woolly and like to think refs make genuine mistakes, often through bottling it. On this game I agree with him.

[davew]

I agree with Woolly on this 1, calling the ref acheat is a polite description, had we not won I would have added thief, liar and 1 other word I cannot post on here!