• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Fulham 3-2 Wolves: Verdict Thread

Just shows we've got to take care of ourselves out on the pitch. Can't be making those type of tackles in none dangerous areas irrespective of whether you win the ball or not and Kilman has to hit the deck.
 
Well there is a surprise. The issue YET again is clear and obvious. That needs to bloody go.
 
So was Webb telling porkies the other week when he said that referees should be advised to go to the monitor when incidents like Sheffield United and Newcastle occur? For me the first thing to look at in each of those 3 incidents is whether or not the player is falling prior to any perceived contact. It would tell you everything you need to know rather than take 5 minutes not finding evidence that contact was made.
 
Sniffer said:
So was Webb telling porkies the other week when he said that referees should be advised to go to the monitor when incidents like Sheffield United and Newcastle occur?
Click to expand...
This surprises you? It's just a cosy excuse laden chat with the interrogating collosus that is Michael Owen. They highlight 1 mistake per session and then make something up to say it won't happen again, which Sky Sports then lap up. The weekend after that the same referee as we had a Newcastle gave a ropey penalty to City against Chelsea and wasn't asked to have a look, it was only ever bullshit for the moment, a soundbite for the tele.
 
Last edited:
Tony Towner said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1730487569429762392
Click to expand...
you have the player concerned openly admitting to going down on contact, which obv wasn't sufficient to knock him over and in this instance was the ball, and the panel still think a penalty award was ok (ie don't overturn it). its not simply bizarre, its a disgrace.

we may as well start training players in simulation since that's what the collective of football administrators are rewarding.
 
Last edited:
nimrod said:
you have the player concerned openly admitting to going down on contact, which obv wasn't sufficient to knock him over and in this instance was the ball, and the panel still think a penalty award was ok (ie don't overturn it). its not simply bizarre, its a disgrace.

we may as well start training players in simulation since that's what the collective of football administrators are rewarding.
Click to expand...
Webb has come in and actually made VAR worse than it was under Riley. That's some effort
 
Sniffer said:
Headbutting is OK then as long as its a soft one and the bloke on the receiving end doesn't fall to the ground. They just make up bollocks as they go along.
Click to expand...
It could be argued Cook's butt on Hwang at Bournemouth was even "softer", he got a straight red..
 
Tony Towner said:
This surprises you? It's just a cosy excuse laden chat with the interrogating collosus that is Michael Owen. They highlight 1 mistake per session and then make something up to say it won't happen again, which Sky Sports then lap up. The weekend after that the same referee as we had a Newcastle gave a ropey penalty to City against Chelsea and wasn't asked to have a look, it was only ever bullshit for the moment, a soundbite for the tele.
Click to expand...

Guilty as charged and you can refer to me as Grouse the Gullible from this day forward. I genuinely believed the purpose of him reviewing decisions was to ensure that standards rise and that errors aren't repeated.
 
Hwang's reaction to Cook's butt was embarrassing but got the red, Kilman reacted how most men away from a football pitch would in that situation and got nothing, sad but not at all surprising
 
Tony Towner said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1730487569429762392
Click to expand...
So we have refs making subjective calls in the moment about whether something is or isn't a penalty / red card etc etc.

We then have another ref applying a subjective view to see if the first decision is correct.

We then have the same other ref making a subjective call as to whether something crosses an undefined (undefinable?) threshold into being "clear and obvious or not".

I don't get why a threshold is needed for something which is important and has such an influential impact on a game, a tiny mistake is still a mistake. Having a process that acknowledges a mistake, but it's only a small mistake so we'll stand by the mistake just seems odd. I'd much prefer that things like penalties, red cards etc are correct. WRT off-sides I'd regard a toe-nail / armpit etc as being trivial, but I'm not sure how that would be codified.

Imho "clear and obvious" should only apply to things which tend to be more trivial, but then VAR doesn't tend to get involved in those anyway.
 
Lupo said:
Hwang's reaction to Cook's butt was embarrassing but got the red, Kilman reacted how most men away from a football pitch would in that situation and got nothing, sad but not at all surprising
Click to expand...
Infuriating isn’t it. I was critical of hwang reaction. However it looks as if it’s necessary to get the correct decision. Pretty sad state of affairs
 
AndyWolves said:
So we have refs making subjective calls in the moment about whether something is or isn't a penalty / red card etc etc.

We then have another ref applying a subjective view to see if the first decision is correct.

We then have the same other ref making a subjective call as to whether something crosses an undefined (undefinable?) threshold into being "clear and obvious or not".

I don't get why a threshold is needed for something which is important and has such an influential impact on a game, a tiny mistake is still a mistake. Having a process that acknowledges a mistake, but it's only a small mistake so we'll stand by the mistake just seems odd. I'd much prefer that things like penalties, red cards etc are correct. WRT off-sides I'd regard a toe-nail / armpit etc as being trivial, but I'm not sure how that would be codified.

Imho "clear and obvious" should only apply to things which tend to be more trivial, but then VAR doesn't tend to get involved in those anyway.
Click to expand...
With the ‘clear and obvious’ line, you’re just adding another layer of subjectivity to an already subjective decision. You want to keep it as simple as possible. Do you think it’s a foul? Yes. Tell ref to have a look at monitor. It’s not that bloody hard. If the ref then goes and looks and decides ‘no, I’m happy with my decision’ then that’s more excusable/acceptable as we know who’s made the decision.

The line of you they don’t want the game to be in effect ‘re-refereed’. That’s inevitable if you have to power to over ride decisions/tell ref he’s basically made a mistake.
 
Carsy said:
Infuriating isn’t it. I was critical of hwang reaction. However it looks as if it’s necessary to get the correct decision. Pretty sad state of affairs
Click to expand...
That means the authorities are positively encouraging simulation, thought they were supposed to be against that shit?
 
sycophantia said:
That means the authorities are positively encouraging simulation, thought they were supposed to be against that shit?
Click to expand...
I'd rather Lockyer, Hwang, Bellegarde, Vinicius and Cook were all booked. 3 for their petulance and 2 for rolling around, but that's not the way the game is. Kilman doesn't win a prize for 'doing the right thing' and Wolves don't get morality points. He needs to be smarter
 
Tony Towner said:
I'd rather Lockyer, Hwang, Bellegarde, Vinicius and Cook were all booked. 3 for their petulance and 2 for rolling around, but that's not the way the game is. Kilman doesn't win a prize for 'doing the right thing' and Wolves don't get morality points. He needs to be smarter
Click to expand...
I think the officials need to be smarter tbh, Kilman needs to be more cheaty. It shouldn't be down to the players to buy advantages.
 
Tony Towner said:
I'd rather Lockyer, Hwang, Bellegarde, Vinicius and Cook were all booked. 3 for their petulance and 2 for rolling around, but that's not the way the game is. Kilman doesn't win a prize for 'doing the right thing' and Wolves don't get morality points. He needs to be smarter
Click to expand...
Spot on that is.
 
sycophantia said:
I think the officials need to be smarter tbh, Kilman needs to be more cheaty. It shouldn't be down to the players to buy advantages.
Click to expand...
Thing is, they’re not.

Ideal world Ofcourse is you don’t have to role around on the floor. But we’re not in that ideal world. I’d rather we rolled around on the floor (no matter how crap I think it is) rather than getting punished for doing the ‘right thing’
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top