Ref Watch

[Tokyo Blue]

Aren't these extra officials supposed to be on the other side of the goal from the linesman?

[Wonderwall]

Aren't these extra officials supposed to be on the other side of the goal from the linesman?

That's sounds common sense? Can't say I have thought about it before but it's how it should be imo.

[zuricity]

Aren't these extra officials supposed to be on the other side of the goal from the linesman?

About two paragraphs in . Says he is supposed to be opposite the linesman. May have changed since 2009 and this introduction.


http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2 ... t-referees

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

Globalbollox wondered why the UEFA stats don't tally... Well, if there's enough of an outcry from everyone, UEFA was finally forced to look at the match official discrepancies & correct one of them!

Opta Stats from the match:
http://www.goal.com/en-us/match/borussi ... ID=MP_MS_4

Here's a sampling of reactions to the CL refereeing, from around the world:

Jonathan Pearce's very accurate match commentary, for Fox Sports, demanding the need for goal line technology. Here are clips for all the controversial moments:
http://soccer.nbcsports.com/2015/09/30/ ... -cl-hopes/?

Fox Australia was equally outraged by the match officiating:
http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/pr ... 7552224815

BT Sports says that it looked suspiciously like Raffael dived, to get the penalty kick... thankfully, justice was served & Joe saved!
https://sport.bt.com/video/hart-deliver ... 4008192466

Rio Ferdinand, of BT Sport, also slams UEFA, for not adding goal line technology:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... rrors.html

This video caption from UEFA's own site on Sept 30th, wrongly lists MDM's goal, as a Christensen own goal... By the following day, they edited their UEFA website, to imply that the officials had awarded the Demichelis goal, right away!
http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague ... 88728.html?

[Moonchesteri]

Just saw the highlights from yesterday and boy we were lucky. they had a perfectly good goal called offside at 1-0. could've been very different game

about time that we get a shocking decision FOR us tho

[Foreverinbluedreams]

Just saw the highlights from yesterday and boy we were lucky. they had a perfectly good goal called offside at 1-0. could've been very different game

about time that we get a shocking decision FOR us tho

We were lucky, I wouldn't say the decision was shocking though, Mangala just about played them onside.

[Original Dub]

Just saw the highlights from yesterday and boy we were lucky. they had a perfectly good goal called offside at 1-0. could've been very different game

about time that we get a shocking decision FOR us tho

Wtf?

[Foreverinbluedreams]

Just saw the highlights from yesterday and boy we were lucky. they had a perfectly good goal called offside at 1-0. could've been very different game

about time that we get a shocking decision FOR us tho

Wtf?

[Original Dub]

Cheers for that.

Someone is on the weed.

[Beefymcfc]

I thought I was missing something there, he was off by 2 yards.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

I thought I was missing something there, he was off by 2 yards.

The attacker in question is the one on the wing as the two in the centre aren't interfering ( according to the rules ), Mangala is JUST playing him on, we got away with that one but it's a tight call.

[mr_nool]

The ball was played to Janmaat who wasn't offside. He then dribbles it to the line and passes it backwards, which effectively rules out offside.

That the two Newcastle players in the middle are in offside position when the ball is played to Janmaat is irrelevant.

[Tokyo Blue]

The ball was played to Janmaat who wasn't offside. He then dribbles it to the line and passes it backwards, which effectively rules out offside.

That the two Newcastle players in the middle are in offside position when the ball is played to Janmaat is irrelevant.

The one a moment later that Hart had to save was comfortably offside, but not flagged. Perhaps it is easy to mistake this one for that one.

[mr_nool]

The ball was played to Janmaat who wasn't offside. He then dribbles it to the line and passes it backwards, which effectively rules out offside.

That the two Newcastle players in the middle are in offside position when the ball is played to Janmaat is irrelevant.

The one a moment later that Hart had to save was comfortably offside, but not flagged. Perhaps it is easy to mistake this one for that one.

That one was indeed clearly offside. Despite what Shearer might say.

[Tokyo Blue]

Anyone think Anita should have walked for the challenge on Zabaleta?

[freshie]

Anyone think Anita should have walked for the challenge on Zabaleta?

Yes

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

Anyone think Anita should have walked for the challenge on Zabaleta?

When I saw it at the ground I thought so, but seeing it on a replay I thought not.

[Original Dub]

I thought the Animals challenge was a red in real time but in the replay, you can see him pull back with no studs showing, so yellow was bang on imo

[gillie]

The ball was played to Janmaat who wasn't offside. He then dribbles it to the line and passes it backwards, which effectively rules out offside.

That the two Newcastle players in the middle are in offside position when the ball is played to Janmaat is irrelevant.

The one a moment later that Hart had to save was comfortably offside, but not flagged. Perhaps it is easy to mistake this one for that one.

I was sat right in line with that and he was easily offside.Shearer is a fuckin clueless tosspot.

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

Martin Samuel of the DM recently wrote about UEFA's dirty attempts to cover up all their mistakes, that nearly cost City this recent Champions League match, against Borussia M.
Here's the relevant portion:

"Just another Platini cover-up
UEFA slipped the news out, quietly, on Thursday night. Martin Demichelis, not Nicolas Otamendi, had scored Manchester City's first goal against Borussia Monchengladbach.
It seems a mere detail, an irrelevance to all but long-shot gamblers, fantasy football obsessives and anoraks. Actually, it encapsulates the official and administrative incompetence at the top of the modern game. How can Demichelis have scored City's goal when the referee, Clement Turpin of France, did not give it?

Had Otamendi not possessed the presence of mind to keep playing rather than surrounding the officials in protest like many of his team-mates, the score would have remained Borussia Monchengladbach 1, Manchester City 0.

Now consider the wider implications here. We are always told that retrospective action is impossible in football, that we cannot re-referee the game. It does not matter that the television audience knows within seconds that a tackle deserved a red card. It does not matter if bones are broken, or the course of the match is altered. If the referee has seen the incident, and dealt with it — no matter how inadequately — further rulings are not permitted. Now this. Turpin most certainly saw Demichelis' attempt at goal. He dealt with it, too, by not giving it.

Yet on this occasion, UEFA have no qualms about altering the facts of the match. They are pretending the officials were competent — and all to protect the reputation, such that exists, of president Michel Platini.

His pitch as a FIFA reformer in tatters, Financial Fair Play fallen at the first legal hurdle, all that remains for Platini's dwindling fan club is his standing as a purveyor of big ideas. And one of his biggest is additional assistant referees — the two men that stand at each end of the pitch, on the by-line, to aid the main official. Except they don't. They fail, just as he does, because they are human, too. And the solution to human error has never been extra humans."

The rest of this relevant feature is here, but mixed in with other topics:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z3npmX66GG