Seems the referees are conspiring against Fulham

[Southcoastffc]

There's none so blind as those who will not see.   Watch MotD.

[the nutflush]

Thread of the year.  Lol.  Yeah was the refs what did it. 

[Woolly Mammoth]

It's the same old song, but with a different meaning since you've been gone...................

Levi Stubbs who sung that, accompanied by 3 of his associates, was it not.

[MikeTheCubed]

The referee excuse can't be used to deflect attention away from our performances, but Nick is absolutely right that Marriner has a long history of stitching Fulham up and yesterday didn't produce any surprises.

The penalty decision is one of those which is open to interpretation, sometimes they are given but most often they are not. The Bournemouth player was looking to win the penalty, the contact from FM was minimal and he even made the faintest of a touch to the ball. Marriner consistently gives these "90/10", "80/20", "70/30" type decisions against Fulham. His statistics in our Premier League games is drastically different to Fulham's average statistics.

Incidentally the games where Marriner's been favourable to Fulham have come against QPR and Chelsea. Perhaps he just doesn't like West London?

[gang]

I though the ref missed a few for us and for them but they always do.
I'm also convinced kamara was lucky not to join mcdonald .
I'm miffed by this "there was contact"
It's a contact sport a touch by an opponent doesn't warrant a penalty. I thought there pen was a mild touch and a big dive.

Football is becoming a farce today with inexplicable and inconsistant decisions across the weekend - the media is part of the problem covering it up and the supporters are being slowly brainwashed to normalising it.

As one said, we have issues, such as no width as we had last season with Targett and Richards supplying crosses for Mitro, but our task is made nigh impossible to turn around when Fulham get a penalty conceded EVERY MATCH!
[/

Regarding the penalty unless the rules have changed since I played.
It is an offense to kick or attempt to kick an opponent.
It is an offense to trip or attempt to trip an opponent.
Therefore contact does not necessarily have to be made for a penalty or a free kick to be awarded.

[bobbo]

I though the ref missed a few for us and for them but they always do.
I'm also convinced kamara was lucky not to join mcdonald .
I'm miffed by this "there was contact"
It's a contact sport a touch by an opponent doesn't warrant a penalty. I thought there pen was a mild touch and a big dive.

Football is becoming a farce today with inexplicable and inconsistant decisions across the weekend - the media is part of the problem covering it up and the supporters are being slowly brainwashed to normalising it.

As one said, we have issues, such as no width as we had last season with Targett and Richards supplying crosses for Mitro, but our task is made nigh impossible to turn around when Fulham get a penalty conceded EVERY MATCH!
[/

Regarding the penalty unless the rules have changed since I played.
It is an offense to kick or attempt to kick an opponent.
It is an offense to trip or attempt to trip an opponent.
Therefore contact does not necessarily have to be made for a penalty or a free kick to be awarded.

please note it also has to or should be deemed to be intentional.

[gang]

I though the ref missed a few for us and for them but they always do.
I'm also convinced kamara was lucky not to join mcdonald .
I'm miffed by this "there was contact"
It's a contact sport a touch by an opponent doesn't warrant a penalty. I thought there pen was a mild touch and a big dive.

Football is becoming a farce today with inexplicable and inconsistant decisions across the weekend - the media is part of the problem covering it up and the supporters are being slowly brainwashed to normalising it.

As one said, we have issues, such as no width as we had last season with Targett and Richards supplying crosses for Mitro, but our task is made nigh impossible to turn around when Fulham get a penalty conceded EVERY MATCH!
[/

Regarding the penalty unless the rules have changed since I played.
It is an offense to kick or attempt to kick an opponent.
It is an offense to trip or attempt to trip an opponent.
Therefore contact does not necessarily have to be made for a penalty or a free kick to be awarded.

please note it also has to or should be deemed to be intentional.

That's correct, obviously the referee deemed it to be intentional.

[Woolly Mammoth]

I have in the past criticised Referees and rightly so. But on this occasion I cannot see very much to criticise. In fact Kamara can breathe a sigh of relief that he was not dismissed from the field of play, for his indiscreet second yellow card offence.
In fact " Luck is an explanation for someone else's success ".

[Forever Fulham]

I thought the ref and linesman favoured our opponents.  Yeah, Kamara dived.  But as for the rest of it, it looked like bias to me.  I normally don't go there, making such claims.  All I'm saying is that it LOOKED like favouritism, that's all.  Went to Arsenal's away game at Palace today, and Atkinson just made bad calls favouring both sides.  Like gifting two PKs to Palace, one of which was clearly not merited.  Refs are human and fall for dives and other exaggerations that happen so suddenly they have a split second to process it all and get it right.  Still, over the course of the whole game, I think the refs were favouring our opponents.   

[Woolly Mammoth]

You make good points, and you are probably right about favouring opponents. I would like to know what Fulham have done or not done to deserve it.
But I have to say again that although I have been very critical in the past on referees.
If players and managers did not deliberately cheat, then referees would not be put in the thankless task of not making the right decisions.
But I would very much like to know why we do not appear to receive impartial decisions, that others clubs do.
It's no coincidence that there is a pattern here.

[RaySmith]

"The penalty decision is one of those which is open to interpretation, sometimes they are given but most often they are not. The Bournemouth player was looking to win the penalty, the contact from FM was minimal and he even made the faintest of a touch to the ball."

Completely agree Mike.

[Facts Not Fiction]

This idea of bias is absolute BS.

We were rubbish, and we 2nd best the whole game.

[MikeTheCubed]

This idea of bias is absolute BS.

We were rubbish, and we 2nd best the whole game.

The fact that Fulham were 2nd best and the suggestion that the referee was biased are not mutually-exclusive to eachother. It is possible for both statements to be true.

These things do happen though and when they do the team can't let their heads drop.

[gang]

2nd best is an exaggeration I saw some children playing in Bishops Park that were better than us.

[JoelH5]

Firstly it was a stone wall penalty. Secondly Kamara blatantly dived and should have been booked. Thirdly, Kmac was undoubtedly a yellow card as it was sinical so had to go. Stop making excuses Bateman

[the nutflush]

This idea of bias is absolute BS.

We were rubbish, and we 2nd best the whole game.

+1.  This bias crap is all in the head.  We stink. That's all.

[toshes mate]

The OP is a reasonably accurate description of affairs.  There are very few decent referees and officials in the game today.  You can sometimes see the difference a good official makes even if their decision making is still in the two out of three correct decisions bracket the evidence suggests is the best we can hope for.  There is large scale difference in match consistency over many issues and the more matches you watch the greater the glare from inconsistency is.  Particularly contentious are cards shown for simulation, penalty awards, and unsporting conduct (like kicking the ball away).  If there were consistency then the problems would go away (players would simply get the message that any foul or suspicious activity will get punished).

The comments about Saturday defending the referee and instead highlighting our inept performance are irrelevant.  Referees probably make as many, if not more, mistakes than players and cameras do lie.

[alfie]

Sometimes I wonder about the thinking of football supporters, why is it when a ref makes a decision that we as supporters don't agree with it immediately means that the ref was biased towards the other team. What we forget on a lot of occasions is we may have a completely different view of an event than the ref,what looks a fair challenge to us looks completely different from the refs view, he gets a split second to decide, and I believe they make an honest decision at the time.

[bobbo]

I would say with great conviction that refs are definitely not bias , they just can't be.
But some are not up to it for sure, especially getting tricked by devious players.

[Twig]

It was a penalty. It was an embarrassing dive.  In the two incidents highlighted Mariner was only doing his job.  The officials did get a few less critical calls wrong but not the ones mentioned in the OP. It is nonsense.