same old, same old

[LouTheBlade]

It's difficuly because we don't want Lowton to just let him take the ball in that situation and run up the pitch but there's just no need for the ferocity of the challenge in the first place. If he's committed himself then he needs to stay on feet and pull him back and take the yellow.

All easy to say as a spectator. I know from playing at high intensity that you have a split second to make a decision and sometimes you will get it wrong. The margin between winning the ball and not is so fractional at that level, it makes hindsight utterly irrelevant.

Those boys play at a tempo most people would have a heart attack trying to keep up with. Late challenges happen and it is up to a referee to use their discretion in determining whether there was any malice or intent. Sadly, most referees take on the job because they were useless players. You would have to be clueless to make some of the decisions they make!

 

[Micalijo]

All easy to say as a spectator. I know from playing at high intensity that you have a split second to make a decision and sometimes you will get it wrong. The margin between winning the ball and not is so fractional at that level, it makes hindsight utterly irrelevant.

Those boys play at a tempo most people would have a heart attack trying to keep up with. Late challenges happen and it is up to a referee to use their discretion in determining whether there was any malice or intent. Sadly, most referees take on the job because they were useless players. You would have to be clueless to make some of the decisions they make!

I agree with you re late tackles and I aint criticising Lowton as such, but don't you think there was an unecessary ferocity about Lowton's tackle? The main point I and I think Bergen was sort of getting at was that in Europe for example, I believe tackles like Lowton's, however unlucky was in terms of split second timings, are virtually non-existent because the game is not all about getting stuck in etc etc.

 

[Grecian2000]

You would have to be clueless to make some of the decisions they make!

Indeed there are many bad decisions made in most games.

However, yesterdday the red card was one of the easiest he had to deal with and he was spot on. I was more worried we had to rely on the lino to spot the obvious push when they had the goal dissallowed and we didn't get the blatant penalty seconds before we scored. How the ref missed both was beyond me.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Those boys play at a tempo most people would have a heart attack trying to keep up with. Late challenges happen and it is up to a referee to use their discretion in determining whether there was any malice or intent. Sadly, most referees take on the job because they were useless players. You would have to be clueless to make some of the decisions they make!

I don't agree, while intent does have it's place when a player makes a tackle like that there is no room for interpretation its a straight red.
I know exactly what Blackie means about getting Lowton to impose himself and that was obviously what he was trying to do. It's just one to put down to experience and you just move on.

Has his ban been confirmed, how long for and when does it start?

 

[HoodedClaw]

As with all leagues trying to gauge a season before 10 games is madness. Given the amount of games in this league I'm not going to form an opinion on us until 12 games have been played. I didn't see the point of some of the sunday newspapers printing tables after 1 match, wtf is that all about?

Utterly ridiculous, made me laff on Saturday morning my mate (Hornets Fan) going on about them being top of the league with the top goal scorer in one of the papers, I mean come on only them and norwich had played a game how can you get a table from that!?!?!

 

[LouTheBlade]

I agree with you re late tackles and I aint criticising Lowton as such, but don't you think there was an unecessary ferocity about Lowton's tackle? The main point I and I think Bergen was sort of getting at was that in Europe for example, I believe tackles like Lowton's, however unlucky was in terms of split second timings, are virtually non-existent because the game is not all about getting stuck in etc etc.

I totally see where you're coming from but I dont believe there was an ferocity in the challenge because there was no intent by the lad..........

Blackwell's account of events is fairly accurate IMO. In the sense that Lowton went at it full blooded (as did McNaughton) and his momentum carried him over the top of the ball. These things happen at times and when it is obvious there was no intent it shouldn't be punished with dismissal. I disagree with Bob's opinion that there is no room for interpretation as nearly every decision a referee makes comes down to their own interpretation.

Your point about european football is quite correct and I fear english football is going the same way. Call me old fashioned but I like the physical aggression associated with english football and I played with the same mentality myself. A tackle like Lowton's is indeed non-existent in europe because it was out-lawed decades ago but similarly aggressive tackles will be non-existent in this country soon due to the constant softening of the rules and that isnt a good thing in my eyes.

As a player I was brought up to play the game hard, but fair and to throw everything ive got into a tackle. If either I or the opponent got hurt.....tough shit, get up (if you can) and get on with it! If we are to accept that yesterday's challenge was a definate straight red, then I and many players have played against should have been sent off hundreds of times!

Lets not forget.....McNaughton actually gestured to get up until he saw the referee's reaction and then went to ground again holding his leg. If the tackle was as bad as people are saying, McNaughton would have gone down and stayed down.

 

[LouTheBlade]

I don't agree, while intent does have it's place when a player makes a tackle like that there is no room for interpretation its a straight red.
I know exactly what Blackie means about getting Lowton to impose himself and that was obviously what he was trying to do. It's just one to put down to experience and you just move on.

Has his ban been confirmed, how long for and when does it start?

But the referee HAS interpreted it. He has either deemed it to be wreckless (I dont believe it was) or has deemed it to be malicious (I dont believe it was). I agree its one to write off as there isnt anything we can do about it now. Lowton will certainly learn from it yes, he's learned that you cant throw everything into a tackle with full commitment as the officials dont allow it anymore. It will become a non-contact sport eventually.

I would imagine he'll get the 3 games starting from next saturday.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

I just think it was a certain and deserved sending off, it has nothing to do with going in hard or making a good challenge. His missed the ball by a mile and then planted his studs halfway up someones leg. I don't see the grey area it's wreckless to use your terminology but you can be sent off for dangerous play, which is would also fall into. I'm all for "going in hard" (whey hey) but you've got to get the ball, he wasn't in the same postcode as it.

 

[LouTheBlade]

I just think it was a certain and deserved sending off, it has nothing to do with going in hard or making a good challenge. His missed the ball by a mile and then planted his studs halfway up someones leg. I don't see the grey area it's wreckless to use your terminology but you can be sent off for dangerous play, which is would also fall into. I'm all for "going in hard" (whey hey) but you've got to get the ball, he wasn't in the same postcode as it.

So essentially you believe a mis-timed tackle, regardless of intent or anything else, should be a straight red?

"Planted" is a bit of an exaggeration IMO but each to their own.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

A mistimed sliding tackle when you have no control of your momentum which ends up with your taking a player off just under the knee when the ball isn't even close to being played is a red card every time yes IMO. It's dangerous and reckless.

 

[JohnDenver]

A mistimed sliding tackle when you have no control of your momentum which ends up with your taking a player off just under the knee when the ball isn't even close to being played is a red card every time yes IMO. It's dangerous and reckless.

It is indeed. Lowton's only defence was that he approached from an angle meaning the tackle was clearly mistimed, not malicious. A head-on approach would have chopped the bloke in two.

It reminded me of Paul Scholes' red card for England after Keegan told him to "drop some hand grenades". Ie following managerial instructions to be tougher when that's not your normal game...

 

[wakeyblade]

Can't keep the ball, rushing everything, Evans and then Boggy unable to control or keep hold of the ball hoofed up to them.
No point in signing an alleged passer of the ball if that's not the 'aim' of our game.
Usual kudos for attitude - Ward outstanding in particular - but we need more than effort.

what you expect we bought howard one of best midfilders and passers and blackwell bypassed him

 

[Nick Jansky]

I agree with you re late tackles and I aint criticising Lowton as such, but don't you think there was an unecessary ferocity about Lowton's tackle? The main point I and I think Bergen was sort of getting at was that in Europe for example, I believe tackles like Lowton's, however unlucky was in terms of split second timings, are virtually non-existent because the game is not all about getting stuck in etc etc.

I am genuinely looking forward to your analysis of how an admittedly rash challenge by a young player demonstrates the sheer crapness of Blackwell's managerial ability. Come on Mic, don't let us down on this.....

 

[LouTheBlade]

A mistimed sliding tackle when you have no control of your momentum which ends up with your taking a player off just under the knee when the ball isn't even close to being played is a red card every time yes IMO. It's dangerous and reckless.

To be fair Bob, ive looked at it another couple of times since these posts and it does look a little reckless. I still maintain that there was no intent but it is a dangerous tackle. The more you watch it the worse it looks. I dont think Lowton's intentions were to have his feet so high though. The momentum and force simply took him over the top of the ball making it look worse than it was but he does have to be careful I can concede that.

Having played most of my time as a defender I am used to being involved in similar tackles so the danger is aspect is probably something I dont think too much about. I am and always have been very physical as a player which is probably why I took such a sympathetic view towards Lowton at first. Your account of it and watching it again has changed my opinion slightly though so I am happy to admit I was wrong for the most part.

Fair play.

 

[Micalijo]

I am genuinely looking forward to your analysis of how an admittedly rash challenge by a young player demonstrates the sheer crapness of Blackwell's managerial ability. Come on Mic, don't let us down on this.....

Very, very poor Jansky. Either ignore me or read my posts properly.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

To be fair Bob, ive looked at it another couple of times since these posts and it does look a little reckless. I still maintain that there was no intent but it is a dangerous tackle. The more you watch it the worse it looks. I dont think Lowton's intentions were to have his feet so high though. The momentum and force simply took him over the top of the ball making it look worse than it was but he does have to be careful I can concede that.

Having played most of my time as a defender I am used to being involved in similar tackles so the danger is aspect is probably something I dont think too much about. I am and always have been very physical as a player which is probably why I took such a sympathetic view towards Lowton at first. Your account of it and watching it again has changed my opinion slightly though so I am happy to admit I was wrong for the most part.

Fair play.

Nicely played Lou, I would totally agree that there is no malice in the challenge. More inexperience than nasty but it ain't pretty

Anyway lets hope he learns and moves on, I think he could be a cracking little player for us if given the chance.

 

[Darthblade]

To be fair Bob, ive looked at it another couple of times since these posts and it does look a little reckless. I still maintain that there was no intent but it is a dangerous tackle. The more you watch it the worse it looks. I dont think Lowton's intentions were to have his feet so high though. The momentum and force simply took him over the top of the ball making it look worse than it was but he does have to be careful I can concede that.

Having played most of my time as a defender I am used to being involved in similar tackles so the danger is aspect is probably something I dont think too much about. I am and always have been very physical as a player which is probably why I took such a sympathetic view towards Lowton at first. Your account of it and watching it again has changed my opinion slightly though so I am happy to admit I was wrong for the most part.

Fair play.

It looked to me, from the replays, that Lowton was looking to play the ball up the line, Cardiff player nicked it away from him and his follow through ended up on the Cardiff players shin. You could tell from Lowtons reaction that there was no intent, it was simply a question of two players going for the same ball.
What we saw was a Premiership referee who doesnt like to see physical contact, doesnt understand the game, and over reacted to the situation.
The synical side of me would also venture to suggest that we (United) are still being punished for daring to take on Wet Sham (and by default Perm League and FA) in the courts for cheating. I believe that Brooking and Richards have put the word out to referees to make life as hard as they can for us. I an absolutely certain though that at the end of the season we will think back to dozens of tackles af a more dubious nature than this one, that will only have been punished with a yellow card ........... probably many of them against us.
I feelsorry for the lad, harshly dealt with.
UTB

 

[LouTheBlade]

It looked to me, from the replays, that Lowton was looking to play the ball up the line, Cardiff player nicked it away from him and his follow through ended up on the Cardiff players shin. You could tell from Lowtons reaction that there was no intent, it was simply a question of two players going for the same ball.
What we saw was a Premiership referee who doesnt like to see physical contact, doesnt understand the game, and over reacted to the situation.
The synical side of me would also venture to suggest that we (United) are still being punished for daring to take on Wet Sham (and by default Perm League and FA) in the courts for cheating. I believe that Brooking and Richards have put the word out to referees to make life as hard as they can for us. I an absolutely certain though that at the end of the season we will think back to dozens of tackles af a more dubious nature than this one, that will only have been punished with a yellow card ........... probably many of them against us.
I feelsorry for the lad, harshly dealt with.
UTB

I think it was more a case of trying to get to the ball before McNaughton so that he couldnt charge up our right hand side with the ball. Lowton had to commit to it in order to deny him possession. I think to start beating the referee with the West Ham stick is becoming a bit tiresome if I'm honest. I certainly don't think we're a favoured club amongst officials but thats because we never have been. It has nothing to do with the West Ham/Tevez fiasco and with all due respect I think some Blades are too quick to point to that every time we dont get a decision..........

Having said that you could be right but I highly doubt its a mitigating factor. I don't think we're even in the PL's thoughts anymore and they would have been happy to see the back of us and McCabe (they're not used to having anyone challenge them).

I agree with you that United often get the rough end of decisions and as I said to Bob earlier, having looked at the tackle again I can see why the referee would deem it dangerous and worthy of a red. I'm putting it in the context of modern day football and the fact that the game has changed over the last 20 years. You cant tackle like that anymore sadly but we have to accept it. If I had been the referee in that situation..........I would probably have yellowed him for being a bit late and given him a ticking off. A red seemed a little harsh as I feel intent should be taken into account, but some will show a red and some wont..........

To summarise it, Lowton was unfortunate but we cant have too many complaints about it.

 

[frechyblade]

Mr Walton has come in for a bit of criticism over is officiating for the game. I manage a junior football team and we are being asked to mark referees out of 100 using the following criteria:

"The mark awarded by a club must be based on the referee’s overall performance, It is most
important that the mark is awarded fairly and not based upon isolated incidents or previous
games. The referee’s performance should be determined by the table below which should act
as a guide for the overall mark which should fall within the mark range for each standard of
performance.

91-100 The referee was extremely accurate in decision making and very
successfully controlled the game using management and communication
skills to create an environment of fair play, adding real value to the game.
81-90 The referee was very accurate in decision making and successfully
controlled the game using management and communication skills to create
an environment of fair play.
71 - 80 The referee was accurate in decision making and controlled the game well,
communicating with the players, making a positive contribution towards fair
play.
61-70 The referee was reasonably accurate in decision making, controlled the
game quite well and communicated with players, establishing a reasonable
degree of fair play.
51-60 The referee had some shortcomings in the level of accuracy of decision
making and control, with only limited success in communicating with the
players resulting in variable fair play.
50 and below The referee had significant shortcomings in the level of accuracy of decision
making and control with poor communication with the players which resulted
in low levels of fair play

How to Decide on the Referee’s Mark
The following questions focus on the key areas of a referee’s performance. They are intended
as an "aide memoire", are not necessarily comprehensive and need not be answered
individually. It is, however, worth considering them before committing yourself to a mark for
the referee.
CONTROL AND DECISION MAKING
• How well did the referee control the game?
• Were the players’ actions recognized correctly?
• Were the Laws applied correctly?
• Were all incidents dealt with efficiently/effectively?
• Were all the appropriate sanctions applied correctly?
• Was the referee always within reasonable distance of incidents?
• Was the referee well positioned to make critical decisions, especially in and around
the penalty area?
• Did the referee understand the players’ positional intentions and keep out of the way
accordingly?
• Did the referee demonstrate alertness and concentration throughout the game?
Mark Range Comment
• Did the referee apply the use of the advantage to suit the mood and temperature of
the game?
• Was the referee aware of the players’ attitude to advantage?
• Did the referee use the assistants effectively?
• Did the officials work as a team, and did the referee lead and manage them to the
benefit of the game?
COMMUNICATION AND PLAYER MANAGEMENT
• How well did the referee communicate with the players during the game?
• Did the referee’s level of involvement/profile suit this particular game?
• Did the referee understand the players’ problems on the day – e.g. difficult
ground/weather conditions?
• Did the referee respond to the changing pattern of play/mood of players?
• Did the referee demonstrate empathy for the game, allowing it to develop in
accordance with the tempo of the game?
• Was the referee pro-active in controlling of the game?
• Was the referee’s authority asserted firmly without being officious?
• Was the referee confident and quick thinking?
• Did the referee appear unflustered and unhurried when making critical decisions?
• Did the referee permit undue questioning of decisions?
• Did the referee deal effectively with players crowding around after
decisions/incidents?
• Was effective player management in evidence?
• Was the referee’s body language confident and open at all times?
• Did the pace of the game, the crowd or player pressure affect the referee negatively?
Final Thoughts
• Always try to be objective when marking. You may not obtain the most objective view
by marking immediately after the game.
• Judge the performance over the whole game. Don’t be too influenced by one
particular incident.
• Don’t mark the referee down unfairly because your team was unlucky and lost the
game or some disciplinary action was taken against your players."

Using that as a guide what score would you give Mr Walton? I think I'd be somewhere in the 51 - 60 range.

UTB