Rate the Ref vs Doncaster Rovers - 26/09/15

[Punk Blade]

So if a professional ref "at this level" can get 8 out of 10 for what you describe as some poor decisions for both sides as well as a poor understanding of the advantage rule.... why do our professionally paid players who often make poor decisions "at this level" get 3's 4's and 5's in ratings.....

Good question, and not one I can answer easily as few people agree with my assessment of the ref and I tend not to be so harsh with 5s and lower for our players.

That said, I think the best explanation is that the referee, in my opinion, didn't influence the result with any poor decisions. I agree with the red card, Donny's free kick (and others they didn't score from) and the dive from Che. Sometimes our players make poor decisions that directly lead to goals being scored, and they would be marked down for that in the same way the ref would be marked down for getting big decisions wrong.

As for advantage, I think he understood the rule fine, it was just poor implementation. He may argue that we didn't really make the best of it by passing back to the goalkeeper. I would argue that unless there is a clear and numerically favourable break about to happen then there is never an advantage to having the ball in your own half over a free kick.

The only thing I think the ref 'got away with' was letting a few fouls on Flynn go in the build up to one of our first half goals. I didn't see him signal advantage, but we scored so I'm not complaining.

 

[blade too long]

looked at the sending off several times , and it is 10 times worse than what Kilgallon got sent off at hillñsborough for
was the lads 10th red card so he has form

 

[AlienBlade]

Good question, and not one I can answer easily as few people agree with my assessment of the ref and I tend not to be so harsh with 5s and lower for our players.

That said, I think the best explanation is that the referee, in my opinion, didn't influence the result with any poor decisions. I agree with the red card, Donny's free kick (and others they didn't score from) and the dive from Che. Sometimes our players make poor decisions that directly lead to goals being scored, and they would be marked down for that in the same way the ref would be marked down for getting big decisions wrong.

As for advantage, I think he understood the rule fine, it was just poor implementation. He may argue that we didn't really make the best of it by passing back to the goalkeeper. I would argue that unless there is a clear and numerically favourable break about to happen then there is never an advantage to having the ball in your own half over a free kick.

The only thing I think the ref 'got away with' was letting a few fouls on Flynn go in the build up to one of our first half goals. I didn't see him signal advantage, but we scored so I'm not complaining.

but that's what I mean, if you can mark a person 8 out of 10 despite clear irratic decisions (regardless of influence) and lack of implementaion of the rules (your words) then I cant see why he would drop just 2 marks (I mean a 6 would be the "standard" below this would be sub standard for me. with the first "advantage" the ball went back to Howard becuase the their was a player on the player it went to and he had no where else to play it. (thus this isnt advantage)

I am not sure that Che's decision was correct. I am awaiting someone like Bergen Blade to post some screen shots to show if there was contact.

if there was any contact then booking him for diving was incorrect, it may not have been a penalty, but momentum may have caused the player to fall/stumble to the deck. for me it looked a foul, and considering he could have easily have scored (rather than it be passed over for Billy to score had it been a pen) I would think that he wouldnt fall if it wasnt... but its all speculation (

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

The decision that shocked me was booking Adams, looked a cert from where I sit, he was past the defender so what reason was there for a dive ?

My thoughts and those of the people near me.

 

[Darthblade]

Well he was typical of the referees we usually get in this horrible Division in that he was incompetent rather than particularly biased, although he did seem to fall for the Donny player's prima donna diving on the floor quite a lot.

The red card was correct though as the foot / challenge was dangerously high with studs showing therefore even this poor referee couldn't get that one wrong. The Adams incident was a penalty as there was contact and sufficient to take Adams down in his stride as he was just shaping to shoot. I'm guessing that the referees flawed logic told him he would have to send the Donny player off if he gave the penalty so he booked Adams for supposedly diving instead.

Just because he was as bad as the referees we usually get in the league is no reason to mark him higher ...... the fact is that the vast majority of referees at this level are either incompetent or very poor and this is even more evidence ( if ever more were needed ) in support of video technology being used to enable the four officials to get some of the key decisions right for a change.

The game is generally too fast nowadays for the officials to be able to get the key decisions right even most of the time ...... they need help and soon !!
UTB & FTP

 

[Punk Blade]

but that's what I mean, if you can mark a person 8 out of 10 despite clear irratic decisions (regardless of influence) and lack of implementaion of the rules (your words) then I cant see why he would drop just 2 marks (I mean a 6 would be the "standard" below this would be sub standard for me. with the first "advantage" the ball went back to Howard becuase the their was a player on the player it went to and he had no where else to play it. (thus this isnt advantage)

I am not sure that Che's decision was correct. I am awaiting someone like Bergen Blade to post some screen shots to show if there was contact.

if there was any contact then booking him for diving was incorrect, it may not have been a penalty, but momentum may have caused the player to fall/stumble to the deck. for me it looked a foul, and considering he could have easily have scored (rather than it be passed over for Billy to score had it been a pen) I would think that he wouldnt fall if it wasnt... but its all speculation (

I think the difference is scoring the referee against a perfect refereeing performance and scoring the referee against the refereeing standard in League One. I chose the latter. I would be amazed if I deem any refereeing performance at this level more than two points better than Saturday's ref. Most refs in this league are 1/10 and he was much much better than the usual garbage.