Jagielka stands by Atkinson comments ahead of cup reunion

by | 17/02/2016  92 Comments  [Jump to last]

Phil Jagielka will let bygones be bygones when Everton come up against Martin Atkinson in this weekend's FA Cup tie at Bournemouth but he stands by his criticism of the official following the Blues' disappointing exit from the Capital One Cup last month.

Atkinson, already no stranger to controversy when it comes to refereeing Everton matches, failed to spot that the ball had clearly crossed the byline in the lead-up to Manchester City's second goal in the decisive semi-final second leg at the Etihad Stadium.

When challenged by Jagielka over the incident, the official reputedly made a quip about the standard of Everton's defending on the night which left tempers simmering in Roberto Martinez's squad after the game.

Jagielka described Atkinson's conduct as "a little bit arrogant" in a post-match interview and while it's far from the "stinging criticism" that some media outlets have hyperbolically put it, his comments were unusually frank. The Blues' skipper is not backing down from that opinion, even if he says he will greet the referee as usual and get on with things on Saturday.

"There is nothing much we can do, is there?" Jagielka said in the Liverpool Echo. "We've had him before and we'll have him again.

"I stick by the things I said, especially in a semifinal game, but we'll get on with it, shake hands and deal with the day.

"He's been a good ref over the years but I said what I felt after the game and, to be honest, I did well to probably hold most of my emotions back.

"Everyone makes bad decisions but you have got to look at the context of the game. You have got to look at scorelines and you have got to adapt your mannerisms throughout the game.

"If someone is going to shout and bawl at you, by all means don't speak to them, but in the big games when things are on the line you have got to show the respect both ways.

"If he thinks I've over-stepped the line then pull me to the side and say 'That's it', that is fair enough. But it's difficult when you go out there and within two or three minutes of the game you're at that stage already, where you've not said or done anything, and some officials are like that.

"Whether you've got their back up from previous games, I don't know, but it is a difficult one."  


Reader Comments (92)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Armando Canaj
1 Posted 17/02/2016 at 08:08:02
Don't care. It's past now.

Just win the game Comfortably.

START WINNING GAMES.
Rick Tarleton
2 Posted 17/02/2016 at 08:14:50
The "big" referees, Atkinson, Clattenburg, Webb,Clive Owen, get to be top referees by making sure the contoversial decisions go the way of the big teams. That's exactly why the top teams get them for the big games and why they are popular with these teams.
James Hill
3 Posted 17/02/2016 at 08:18:40
Yes, Phil, but did he add time on at the weekend when Arsenal players did the exact same thing and run into the crowd? Would he have sent off an Arsenal player for the same offence as the Leicester player?

Referees want to be too much part the game. The worst thing that happened was allowing them to lead the teams out, a big mistake. They are never wrong, determine the outcome of games and are a big factor in who wins the Premier League.

Atkinson is a poor referee, and always has been, along with many others and ex-players don't help either when they condone cheating as being cute or drawing the foul. We just have foreign muck now.

I personally would rather win the FA Cup than be 4th in the Premier League as a loser to qualify in some crap competition like the Champions League. Yeah I know it's money. Bring with the European Cup, at least the real champions played for it not the also Rans.

Rick Tarleton
4 Posted 17/02/2016 at 08:20:09
Above should read Thomas , not Owen. Anno Domini and getting up early aren't helping the dementia.
Jim Bennings
5 Posted 17/02/2016 at 08:22:32
When all is said and done we know there are hardly any good referees out there now, we know they are arrogant, the last genuine good ref was probably Mark Halsey, who actually appeared to communicate and talk with players and treat people all like human beings.

That said I don't really think we would have stopped that Man City second goal even if the ball had stopped a fraction earlier it would have made no real difference to our defending of the cross.

All we can do is get on with our game and blot out who the referee is.

Ajay Gopal
6 Posted 17/02/2016 at 08:31:58
I didn't really get what he is saying here:

"But it's difficult when you go out there and within two or three minutes of the game you're at that stage already, where you've not said or done anything, and some officials are like that."

Did Atkinson say something to rile up Jags within 2-3 minutes of the start of the game? That is almost as bad as what Howard Webb did to us in the 2009 FA Cup Final – cautioning Tony Hibbert early on in the game, ensuring that he was walking a tight-rope all through the game. It is all rigged, I tell ya!

Andrew Ellams
7 Posted 17/02/2016 at 08:39:15
It's no coincedence that the names Atkinson and Clattenburg are never far away when controversey happens, you only need to look at some of the decisions that happened in the Arsenal and Spurs games at the weekend.
Jim Bennings
8 Posted 17/02/2016 at 09:01:28
No disrespect to Bournemouth who have played sone good stuff this season, but we really shouldn't need a referee's assistance to defeat these on Saturday.

You get the feeling Bournemouth's biggest priority is staying up this season and if the fans really are to believe this talk of the most talented Everton squad for 30 years and the so-called best you talent in Europe then we ought to be getting past Bournemouth.

Forget Atkinson or any ref, it's down to you Everton to steal the show.

Phil Walling
9 Posted 17/02/2016 at 09:01:34
Of course Atkinson shouldn't have said it but, for all that, he was right in what he said. Our defending IS crap!

I always refuse to believe referees have a conspiracy to do Everton down because bad decisions occur in virtually every game I watch in football across the world.

We tend to ignore those that go for us but you really do win some and lose some. We are all prejudiced in favour of our team whatever that might be although very few of us have ever 'waved the flag' let alone 'blown the whistle'. It ain't easy, believe me!

Tony J Williams
10 Posted 17/02/2016 at 09:19:44
The fact that Twattenfuck has blag hair confirms how egotistical the prick is.
Erik Dols
11 Posted 17/02/2016 at 09:27:00
Rick Tarleton #2, wouldn't make much difference, apparantely Clive Owen (the actor) is a LFC fan...
Abhishek Saha
12 Posted 17/02/2016 at 10:04:28
September 2010: Atkinson was handed a one-week demotion to the role of fourth official after his time-keeping episode with Moyes. We scored two injury-time goals to make the score 3–3 against the Manure, but Atkinson blew his final whistle while we were midway through an attack with a chance of a winner.

October 2011: Atkinson sent off Jack Rodwell, just after 20 min against the RS at Goodison, and we lost 2-0. The whole world saw that Rodwell won the ball cleanly and safely from the nibbling pup but Atkinson thought Rodwell had committed a foul worthy of a straight red.

This year against Man City, he allowed that cross to stand which took away the Cup from us. Anyone watching it on TV, even real time, would bet that the ball was out.

Now this clown dressed as a ref, comes for our FA cup tie.

Does the FA have any personal vendetta against us??

James Marshall
13 Posted 17/02/2016 at 10:09:17
I think all referees make good and bad decisions – the point isn't really about whether they'er any good, it's more to do with their attitude towards players (as Jags says).

I played football for years at amateur level, and I totally agree with him (and other pros) when they talk about the way refs interact with players.

Top level pro football is played at such a pace, that's it's absolutely impossible for referees to get every single decision correct – even more so when you consider the non-contact-nature of FIFA's rules these days.

Referees get loads of stick for making mistakes – but they're human beings and football thrives on the human element. The issue is still purely about communication and refs not being arrogant dicks.

Dean Peamum
14 Posted 17/02/2016 at 10:13:12
Rick, you were right, both are chancers. You would think that with any controversy and so recently too that the powers that be would not give Atkinson any EFC game for a while. Bet you if it was a 'big' club he wouldn't be there.

The decision was not even debatable it was clearly out of play and seen by everyone except the ref and his assistant.

Jags said he would shake his hand – I would tell all the players not to, just to make a point. We can do with all the points we can get.

Peter Roberts
15 Posted 17/02/2016 at 10:24:50
I see what they have done here...

Atkinson will be ridiculously fair and maybe even favourably towards us in this game. It's a TV game and in front of millions of viewers and the powers that be will be giving him the opportunity to show what a good honest ref he is.... poor Bournemouth.

Now forgive me for being a cynic, if it wasn't poor old Bournemouth we were playing and it was Man United instead then Atkinson wouldn't be the ref – they wouldn't allow Man United to be the fall guys of such a crass publicity stunt.

Bournemouth fit the bill – we shouldn't need any help from him but I can see them having a silly goal disallowed, a player sent off and then he can go back to being a fair and just ref – ready to shaft us in a big game again.

Robert Elliott
16 Posted 17/02/2016 at 10:34:39
Funny thing about Atkinson is that, when we won 1-0 at Man Utd a few years ago, I thought he had a really good game! There was none of the usual in-built bias you used to get from the ref at Old Trafford, and if anything, he gave a lot of the 50-50 decisions to us.

I thought at the time maybe it was just Moyes he hated! However, after the Man City semi-final, I'm now convinced he's not biased against anyone, just plain incompetent!

Andy Riley
17 Posted 17/02/2016 at 10:41:25
What I dislike is the way all referees are inconsistent and play percentages. Take the West Brom goalie on Saturday; he should have been booked for time wasting after about 20 minutes which would have solved the problem but given the ref one in that he'd have had to look towards a red card at some point so what does he do – delay any booking till the last 15 minutes.

Likewise the ref in the Newcastle game had an easy decision for the second penalty and the red card in the last minute. Would he have made the same decision in the first half with the scores level or a one-goal deficit? Definitely not.

Is this sort of decision making the reason why all current referees are awful?

Kevin Elliott
18 Posted 17/02/2016 at 11:14:03
I think its high time to introduce video evidence to the game.

It will cut out bias, cheating and human error – and make the playing field a lot more even.

Frank Thomas
19 Posted 17/02/2016 at 11:30:11
I think refs have a very difficult job with not enough help from the linemen and technology. This lack of technology was down to Blatter's decision 'why do we need to change the way we play the game'. Now that he has been disgraced we are seeing trialling of more technology next season. Nothing more frustrating than losing a game when bad decisions have been a major influence,

However maybe we need to change the rules anyway. How many times have we seen a professional foul made purely to stop a goal? Barry did it last week and I was not proud of him for that. Lucas did it to Barkley because he was moving into an unopposed shooting position. Last week it happened a few times to break up attacks on WBA's goal.

In all cases a yellow card was given but maybe a 'sin bin' could be used were the player is sent off for 15 minutes. That would have the effect of reducing professional fouls. Also maybe it is time to fine the Manager when a professional foul is committed – Fergie and Rodgers would have working for nothing.

Stephen Ashton
20 Posted 17/02/2016 at 13:08:55
Kevin (#16),

And pretty soon a 90-min game will last 3 hours. One thing that should happen is that there should be a completely independent time keeper, absolutely no logical reason why the referee should have this task as well.

David Hallwood
21 Posted 17/02/2016 at 13:13:11
Agree with Kevin (#16) technology must be introduced. I'm sure they could use the technology that's used in tennis for on-the-line calls, in addition offsides could be referred given that the ball will almost certainly be dead.

But on to Twatkinson. I have an irrational hatred of the man who reminds me of David Ellery, public school master with a messianic complex.

Thing is him and his namesake Twattenberg are top class refs which makes their erm, erm, 'lapses' somewhat curious...

Andrew Ellams
22 Posted 17/02/2016 at 13:22:00
Atkinson and Clattenburg have both been selected to referee in the Euros this summer.
Kevin Elliott
23 Posted 17/02/2016 at 13:30:07
Stephen @18.

A ridiculous exaggeration. 2/3 calls per team each half just like they have in tennis.

Personally I wouldn't have minded watching another 15 minutes against City if it meant going to Wembley for a cup final or indeed collecting 3 points instead of 1 or 0. Would you?

Ste Traverse
24 Posted 17/02/2016 at 13:30:16
I do believe this bloke Atkinson does have a dislike for us because after the Rodwell incident he refused to rescind the red card after we appealed, but the FA went over his head so Jack didn't get a ban.

I think it enraged and embarrassed Atkinson and he's given us nothing since.

Peter Roberts
25 Posted 17/02/2016 at 13:48:11
I have a very cynical and maybe unfair view of the background of a football referee.

1. They were useless at football – harboured a massive need to be in the school team and despite creeping round the PE teacher and getting good grades they only got the odd sub appearance.

2. They detested the scallies who were immense at football and behaved terribly in class. These scallies nutmegged them for fun.

3. Despite not being very good at football, they tried to get in the local footy teams and, by the process of needing to play where they could get a game, they played for the local whipping boys.

4. After realising they couldn't get a game or a footballing career, they cited injury as a reason for not playing anymore and instead took up officiating....

5. They love rules, they love applying rules, they love questioning rules, they love to be right.

All those years of hurt just remain when they see the likes of Wayne Rooney, Ross Barkley as the school scallies that made them so angry at football. When those fans get on their backs? Oohh it's just retribution, they are in control at long last.

Gary Drain
26 Posted 17/02/2016 at 13:54:56
Straight red for Jags on Saturday then! :)
Tony Abrahams
27 Posted 17/02/2016 at 14:07:48
Ste 22, the fact that Everton had to appeal that decision showed how little shame this fella, has actually got. Jagielka calling him arrogant was 100% right, I think everyone can see this anyway.

I think his dislike for us might have started with Moyes, but the fact that we had to appeal that Rodwell red card, was a total embarrassment for everyone concerned, especially Mr Martin Atkinson.

Peter Laing
28 Posted 17/02/2016 at 14:16:01
Interesting psycho-analysis Peter #23. Clattenburg revels in his 'celebrity' status, he appears very narcissistic with the exaggerated hand gestures for the issuing of cards, perma-tanned appearance and Julius Caesar like hair transplant. Atkinson is not far behind and there are one or two others such as Kevin Friend who appear to enjoy the limelight associated with officiating in the English Premier League.

The introduction of professional refereeing, coupled with the training facilities at St George's really should have raised the standard of officiating. The game may have got faster and the camera angles and coverage more sophisticated. The game is also seriously suffering from the stains of corruption in the form of Blatter and Plattini and the use of video technology is in my opinion much needed.

Tony Abrahams
29 Posted 17/02/2016 at 14:25:34
Peter (#23), I don't think I've ever felt that bad about a referee, but in the modern game they have too much power.

Imagine Atkinson, making that decision for Man City, against a Ferguson or Mourinho team. No way would he have been reffing an FA Cup tie at Anfield live on TV, 3 days later. No way.

They make me paranoid, but I've watched Clattenberg ref long enough, to feel he can be very personal against certain teams or players.

I honestly feel that an independent panel could highlight and shame the inconsistencies of all of these elite refs, but it wouldn't be good for football though, would it?

Even Graham Poll, said Clattenberg guessed on Sunday, which is unforgivable really, when you consider the magnitude of the game, and what is at stake.

Peter Cummings
30 Posted 17/02/2016 at 14:37:27
What gets me most about our useless FA is their hypocrisy regarding TV evidence, while they continue to ignore the use of instant replay on incidents that can affect a result, they then use TV to either punish or clear players at 'hearings'.

Similarly not only refs are to blame for mistakes, we now have four 'officials' so the ball crossing the byline for City's second goal should have been clearly spotted and as for assistant refs how often do we see offsides being given when they are clearly not? Obviously we can't use 'instants' in cases of things like throw ins petty fouls etc but there is definitely a use for them to view major incidents.

I think most fans in the game would welcome 'sin bins' instead of yellows for up to 5-15 mins, and reds only issued for brutal fouls causing injury. as for Jags comments on Atkinson, team captains (only), are allowed to approach refs with comments yet we still see them being 'swarmed' by players who don't like their calls, being an arrogant sob I don't see Atknson taking kindly to Jags telling it like it is.

i
Stephen Ashton
31 Posted 17/02/2016 at 14:48:42
Kevin #21 - OK so a bit over the top, but I would be seriously opposed to anything that interrupted the flow of the game. If it can be instantaneous then fair enough but otherwise forget it.

One of the joys of football is its' continuity.

I seem to remember not that long ago Bolton having a 'goal' not given against us, that had clearly crossed the line. If technology had been in place we would have been playing Championship football the next season.
John Hughes
32 Posted 17/02/2016 at 15:09:46
Stephen (29) – I think you'll find that was the start of the 1997-98 season; so quite a long time ago, nearly twenty years in fact! Nonetheless, doesn't alter the point you are making.

James Stewart
33 Posted 17/02/2016 at 15:25:35
Big calls shouldn't be left up to one man in a split second. Technology is good enough now for it not to be an issue. Goals create a natural pause in play anyway so it would take nothing for a 4th official to watch it and make the call.
Tony J Williams
34 Posted 17/02/2016 at 15:38:35
Andy 17

The second he was booked, he went worse because he knew he would never receive the second yellow.

Also what winds me up no end is when the ref goes to talk to someone for time wasting but doesn't book them... ultimately he's doing their job for him. It takes 30 seconds / a minute to talk to them but he doesn't book him or add it on at the end. What's the point then?

Paul Kossoff
35 Posted 17/02/2016 at 15:51:10
I'm sure certain refs have it in for players and teams. I played in the Manx league in the IoM, and there was a ref I dreaded, he was the local postman and two years before I argued with him over his late deliveries and called him a fat twat.

Every time he refereed a game I played in, he would do everything to upset me, disallow perfectly good goals or send me off, he was the Manx Twattenberg.

I got my own back on him by putting cat shit in his boots.

James Marshall
36 Posted 17/02/2016 at 16:04:19
Video technology for everything would over-sanitise the game, and remove many of the reasons the game is loved by millions. I'm 100% against anything other than goal-line decisions (but only because they're already here – I'd rather we didn't have those either.

I like the elements of doubt, which raise discussion among supporters, and create folk-law which lasts forever in the game.

As soon as you remove all that, you take part of the soul of the game away. Fuck that. Football is a simple game. Anyone can play it, you just need a football.

It's already been ruined by too many stupid rules.

Stephen Ashton
37 Posted 17/02/2016 at 16:16:20
Thanks John Hughes.

AMEN James Marshall

Brian Harrison
38 Posted 17/02/2016 at 16:21:26
The sooner video evidence is used when a penalty is given or a goal is scored, the better. Why is it that every other sport embraces video technology yet supposedly the most watched sport doesn't?

How anyone can argue against it, I don't know; why would you not want the right decision to be made. The standard of refereeing is getting worse season after season, so far better to take were possible the critical decisions out of there hands.

I hear some people saying it would spoil the game and reduce talking points, well I would rather technical evidence be used rather than rely on some of the refs we have today. I would add that it would definitely stop the main decisions often giving the big name team a distinct advantage with some refs.

Peter Roberts
39 Posted 17/02/2016 at 16:23:41
Here's the hilarity of it all....

A player can get retrospectively banned for an elbow or whatever.

Players are actually called in over their opta stats - they have a heatmap, how many sprints etc etc

Yet the referees are deemed "good enough" to make accurate calls with the best integrity despite all the technology required to assist them ignored whilsy it is being used for far smaller means....

Eddie Dunn
40 Posted 17/02/2016 at 16:37:22
Technology has to come in because the game is made to look ridiculous. The Stirling cross from over the line was seen by millions of viewers within 5 seconds, an official watching a monitor can tell the ref in his earpiece that it was out. This would have been done before the game restarted, so no problem with making the match longer.

Also the timekeeping is getting confusing. Managers now regularly make substitutions in added time (Pulis did so on Saturday) leaving it up to the ref to remember to add on 30 secs more. As soon as the 5 mins were up Pullis was going mad pointing at his watch (along with his whole coaching staff).

In rugby union the ref tells the timekeeper to turn the time off and on, and when the clock goes red we all know it is the last play.

As for Atkinson, I have never thought he was a top ref, and have seen him make mistakes in many games, not just ours.
I am sure that refs feel pressure from the Pl hierarchy, to favour the Sky5, even if it is subconscious .

The "Brand" is more saleable if the big teams do well, and even if there is no obvious corruption, the promotion of certain refs to the top posts is most likely done on a nod and a wink.

One only to note that that chinless wonder Mike Riley is the supremo for these guys. He hated us, and was a terrible ref, but he probably licked the right arseholes on his merry way.

Rumoured to be a Man Utd fan, his appointment was criticised by Moyes before the 2009 FA Cup semi with Utd, and the FA took no action against our former boss.

Peter Lee
41 Posted 17/02/2016 at 16:39:58
Paul, we all have stories about refs in amateur games. I'm not sure that too many had it in for individuals but one ref, an administrative sergeant in the MP, used to take particular pleasure in penalising one of our centre-backs, a chief inspector in the same force.

One of my best/worst stories concerned a game played on the IOM at Marown in atrocious conditions. We started a man short and against all the odds scored early and held out until 2 minutes from time. Our centre-half, a kid of 19 at the time who usually played in the second team, rose to again head clear a cross and was shoved in the back by the frustrated CF as he did so. As he went down face-first into the mud he shouted "Jesus Christ". The ref blew, we supposed for our free kick as the Marown players moved away. He pointed to a place in the morass where he supposed the penalty spot was and he shouted "Blasphemy, penalty."

Turned out he was a Methodist lay preacher.

Two sendings off later the equaliser was duly slotted from the spot.
Peter Roberts
42 Posted 17/02/2016 at 16:50:10
James Marshall – why would you not have technology to get the decisions right?

You can't over sanitise a game that is clearly in need of ridding its "conspiracy" tag. The whole FIFA scam has highlighted that people at the highest level are corruptable.

The speed it takes to make a decision at a critical stage of the game would be seconds. How many games have been ruined by bad decisions?

Relevant to the amount of minutes played in a game – the amount of time taken to make the right call is minimal, yet the impact of a bad decision can last a lot longer.

There needs to be limits to it but seriously... I mean the advertisement hoardings can flash "out" when a ball goes out of play for a throw-in or corner, its not even an issue.

James Hughes
43 Posted 17/02/2016 at 17:03:37
If a goal is scored and play is stopped anyway why can't it be reviewed?

Fifa used to argue that the game was the same for all levels and that was why technology was ruled out. Again another blatant lie from FIFA. Other sports do not have an issue with technology at elite level – why should football?

I doubt it would have changed the end result at our game in the semi-final but who knows??

Eugene Ruane
44 Posted 17/02/2016 at 17:22:15
There is one bit of technology I would love to see applied.

A clock - one that stops when the play stops and starts when it starts again.

So that basically we get the 90 mins football we've paid for.

At the moment, supporters (who are being charged like a wounded Rhino to watch games) are being robbed blind by teams like WBA, who must have wasted close to 15 mins of Saturday's game.

Not content with the traditional wasting time for the last couple of minutes, it seems many sides have now added time-wasting into their actual game plan/tactics.

It is absolutely the case that if the clock stops when the action stops, it will be the end of time-wasting as there will simply be no point.

It will be the end of 25 seconds for one of these..

Link
And 40 seconds for one of these..

Link
And 10 fucking minutes for one of these..

Link

Eugene Ruane
45 Posted 17/02/2016 at 17:31:39
Stupid interwebnet!

First link - a feller not arsed-ily taking a throw-in.

Second link, a feller not arsed-illy (not) taking a goal-kick.

url me hole!

Michael Williams
46 Posted 17/02/2016 at 17:32:22
At the top university level, all scoring plays in American Football – those that are televised which is almost all – are reviewed by the refs using replay. Takes about one minute and it works. I have not seen an incorrect scoring call stand since then.
Robin Cannon
47 Posted 17/02/2016 at 17:45:15
@Eugene (44) - While that sounds like a good idea, it would likely be disastrous for the flow of the game.

Mean "in play" time for the Premier League is about 55 minutes (and that's inclusive of injury time), so you'd be adding at least 35 minutes in play time, plus providing the scope for each stoppage to last longer (...and, then...because that happens...maybe commercial breaks).

Ray Roche
48 Posted 17/02/2016 at 17:55:36
Robin, I've banged on about time wasting, my pet hate, on numerous occasions in ToffeeWeb and agree with ER, it must be stopped. I don't know where you get your figure of 55 minutes from but if that's accurate then it's a disgrace. With the ever increasing cost of tickets football is a poor example of value for money especially if you have to watch crap like WBA or Villa every week.
Mike Price
49 Posted 17/02/2016 at 17:59:03
The 'big' clubs are not screaming for technology because they know that human error and bias is always going to favour them over a season. Fairer for everyone is bad for them.

Referees are clearly biased towards bigger teams and there is a clear pecking order. To make it not so obvious, they give decisions for smaller teams when it doesn't really affect the result. When it matters though, it's rare a smaller team gets a controversial one against a bigger team.

Technology is the only thing that can help the situation.

James Hughes
50 Posted 17/02/2016 at 18:01:19
Robin please watch a bit of rugby union - I am a part time fan and only watch the Internationals.

Rugby took the brave decision to 'bite the bullet' and involve technology. It may be a stop and start game but benefits at top level. include when there is an injury the ref says 'Time off' . Stops the clock and they can waste as much time as they want. Clock will resume when play resumes.

Ray Roche
51 Posted 17/02/2016 at 18:07:09
Clattenberg..?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/mark-clattenburg-the-man-in-black-with-a-bmw-x5-and-lifestyle-close-to-controversy-8231575.html

Roger Helm
52 Posted 17/02/2016 at 18:14:19
Other sports are different to football as the decisions are binary - was the ball on the line, did the player put a foot in touch, was there a knock-on, did the ball touch the bat etc.

Other than the rare did-the-ball-cross-the-line business, most football decisions are subjective; was the player in control as he tackled, was the offside player interfering with play, was the handball intentional, was the contact strong enough to make the player fall, did the fouled player have a good scoring chance, and so on.

For these reasons I don't think video technology would be helpful in football. I think it would just waste time.

Eugene Ruane
53 Posted 17/02/2016 at 18:14:52
Robin - 'While that sounds like a good idea, it would likely be disastrous for the flow of the game.'

The point of wasting time so early in the game, from teams like West Brom (and I seem to remember Swansea did the same at Goodison) appears to be two-fold.

One, to give them less time to have to defend a lead or (at 0-0) less time for the opposition to attack them.

Two, to fuck up the flow of the game - which it does (so I'm not buying 'disasterous for the flow of the game').

However it's tackled, it deffo needs addressing.

To see a bunch of fellers earning tens of thousands a week to play football, take to the field and basically go out of their way not to play football (or to play as little actual football as they can) is imo a complete fucking disgrace.

As I say, we can all live with a bit of time-wasting in the last few mins, but if the FA/UEFA/FIFA just ignore the tactical time-wasting I've seen in the past 2 or 3 seasons, the game is truly fucked.

Robin Cannon
54 Posted 17/02/2016 at 18:21:06
@Ray (48) - It's from here - http://www.soccermetrics.net/team-performance/effective-time-in-football.

@James (50) - There's nothing inherently wrong with that model. The issue comes when you try and capture everything.

If you enforced a 90 minutes "in play" time then it would fundamentally change the game, to the point where every match would be the equivalent of a full match inclusive of extra time. While time wasting is an issue, we're not talking about a situation where in the past the ball was in play for 90 minutes and only in recent years has it dropped massively; my guess would be that "in play" time hasn't massively varied in the past several decades.

A middle ground is reasonable enough, though. Stop the clock for injuries, substitutions, time between a goal being scored and a restart. Essentially formalize and make transparent what is currently left to the referee to judge for "injury time".

Ste Traverse
55 Posted 17/02/2016 at 18:36:36
If we used technology it doesn't mean we'd always get the correct decision.

Given my dad is from St Helens, I watch a bit of Rugby League plus I'm a massive cricket fan, two sports that have long since embraced it and have seen too many incidents were the video ref or the 3rd umpire have got things extremely wrong despite the evidence right in front of them which they can watch over and over before making a decision.

Steavey Buckley
56 Posted 17/02/2016 at 18:45:20
Technology has been introduced into cricket and both codes of rugby and made them better and more exciting. Even horse racing depending on the result rely upon video evidence.

Unfortunately, those who run football are stuck in their ways, who still rely upon referees to get it right all of the time, except for much needed and wanted goal line decisions, they are decided by technology. So why not the rest?

Eric Holland
57 Posted 17/02/2016 at 18:49:28
The average time the ball is in play in a Premier league match is 55 min. I go with the "let's get 90 min what we paid for" brigade. And let's not get cheated out of a perfectly good goal or shit decision.
Philip Yensen
58 Posted 17/02/2016 at 19:09:33
How long will we wait to see a ref punch the air after a goal against us or, even score for the opponents? So we'll have to play against 12 men – let's get on with it. COYB
Gavin McGarvey
59 Posted 17/02/2016 at 19:28:38
If the average match is 55 minutes in play, let's start it at 60 minutes or whatever and see how that goes?

As for Atkinson, I thought his decision in the City game was a cowardly disgrace. He could clearly see the ball was over the line but lacked the balls to call it. That he then had the cheek to mouth off to Jagielka, when he knew he was in the wrong, shows the measure of the man.

Rob Hooton
60 Posted 17/02/2016 at 19:35:17
Mike (#49) – I'd agree but would change it from 'big' clubs to 'rich' clubs as they are the swines who line the pockets that little bit more for Sudamore and co at the behest of the not so rich clubs!

Just my humble conspiracy theory mind?

Mark Andrews
61 Posted 17/02/2016 at 20:11:04
All this talk of conspiracies hides the awful truth. We just need to defend properly, something we've struggled at for the best part of the Martinez reign.
James Marshall
62 Posted 17/02/2016 at 20:15:59
Peter@42

You say those games have been ruined by bad decisions, but so called 'bad' decisions are GOOD for one team, aren't they?

This is exactly the point – a bad decision for one team, is a good one for the other and it gives us something to debate about – men (and women of course) have sat around for hours debating and discussing refereeing/linesmans decisions and I for one actually enjoy that aspect of the game immensely.

To my mind it would become like American sports, or cricket where there's no doubt, no crowd reaction, no response to good or bad decisions. You'd lose all the baiting from the crowd when referees made bad decisions, the atmosphere at grounds would change immeasurably and nobody would again have the chance to sing, "the referees a wanker" because the referee would no longer be totally in charge.

I'm all for football continuing to be held in the hands of the ref – technology making all the decisions would be dull, soulless, even boring as far as I'm concerned.

Tony Abrahams
63 Posted 17/02/2016 at 20:48:25
James I would have agreed with you when I was younger, but not anymore. A bad decision does usually benefit one team, but it can to often ruin the game though.

If you like the debate, I understand, but it's a part of the game that often gets on my nerves now. Some people seem to hang off every word these so called experts say now, and too many of these phonies are on good wages, just to try and tell us a load of bollocks.

When people dive now, they are not really cheating anymore? and maybe the game has become too fast for the man in the middle not to be given any help.

I keep going on like a bore, but if we got a third eye, im sure referee's would be forced to show more consistency to both teams, which I just don't think they do at the minute.

James Marshall
64 Posted 17/02/2016 at 21:01:42
Tony – at what point do we hand it all over to technology? How do we decide to go to the video ref? Does the ref himself choose?

As someone said above; football is far too subjective, unlike things like rugby and cricket so that would mean referees not having any conviction in their decisions any more, no trust in their own judgement.

It's not like rugby when all they have to look for is a foot in touch, or a ball being properly grounded. There's so much more; intent for example is not a case for technology, but an opinion.

I honestly believe that it would be to the detriment of the game, so we'll have to politely agree to differ. :)

Grant Rorrison
65 Posted 17/02/2016 at 22:06:20
Any technology available that would improve decision making processes should be used.

I don't think we played particularly well in the second half against Man City and probably deserved to lose the game, if not the tie, but there is no argument that the second goal was illegal and any measures that could be introduced to improve the quality of officiating should definitely be introduced.

Tony Abrahams
66 Posted 17/02/2016 at 22:19:41
So we can't even look at straight red cards James? What about when the ball goes out of play, and then the other team scores? Rather than go straight to the half way line to restart, maybe we could start with a goal kick.

Give a team three chances a game to call out a decision and award points on how many decisions the ref calls correctly. It never used to bother me, but the most powerful man on the pitch, is getting it wrong too much for co-incidence, or maybe their judgement might just be in need of some help!

James Marshall
67 Posted 17/02/2016 at 23:06:38
By that standard, we could look at the foul on Sterling in the last minute against Man City in the league game, which we would then have likely lost 1-0.

I'm dead against it for the reasons I've stated above. I understand why you would like technology implemented, I just think it detracts from what makes football, football.

Are officials really getting things wrong more often than they used to? Can anyone back that up? Or is there just more exposure now? More replays, more camera angles, better technology, more hours and hours of pundits going over and over things – us lot all going on about it online for hours on end – does that mean there are more wrong decisions, or are we just made to think that?

It's a bit like people thinking there are more murderers, or child killers or terrorists – it's just exposure in the media that makes it seem that way as far as I can tell.

Either way, I firmly believe football should leave technology alone as much as possible.

Jamie Crowley
68 Posted 17/02/2016 at 23:27:59
All the way back to Eugene @45,

I agree 100% with a clock that actually stops.

Here in the sunny state of Florida, USA, my son plays high school soccer. They implement a 40 minute per half clock that STOPS for injury, free kicks, and substitutions via signal from the ref to the time keeper or any other reason the ref deems it appropriate.

It's gold. There's never, ever the controversy of added time.

I'd think the refs would like it as well – a lot less pressure on them.

I fully recognize many would see this as overly "American", but in my opinion it is wonderful and completely negates a hell of a lot of bullshit time wasting.

It makes for a much more "gentlemanly" competition as well.

James Marshall
69 Posted 17/02/2016 at 23:35:26
Controversy. Gentlemanly.

I like gamesmanship. I like controversy too.

Time-out clock my arse.

You lot just want the game made dull by the sounds of things. You'll end up sitting at games in silence half the time while they fanny about watching replays and you wait for the graphic on the big screen to flash up with the results. Still, at least you'll know exactly when to tell the wife to expect you home to the nearest second.

What a crock. Leave the game alone – it's been fine for a hundred-odd years without people dicking about with replays. You've all been brainwashed by your Sky+ box.

Jim Hardin
70 Posted 17/02/2016 at 23:39:42
Jamie,

I agree with the stopping the clock as I find it to be more accurate than the English system. Not to further Americanize the game but why can't soccer institute the three referee system to triangle the field.

Leave the current ARs to call offsides and out of bounds calls, but get three sets of eyes and legs on the pitch. One referee cannot adequately do the job anymore.

If basketball needs three refs over here, then why can't soccer use it too? It isn't that hard for the refs to develop a rhythm so one is not calling things the other two are not.

James Marshall
71 Posted 17/02/2016 at 23:44:43
3 referees? That would just cause chaos. 1 is fine. It's all fine. There's nothing wrong with things as they are! Football is subjective, let's leave it that way.
Jamie Crowley
72 Posted 17/02/2016 at 23:53:26
Jim,

The ARs do just that here in Florida at the high school level and it's much, much better in my opinion. I agree with you 100%.

James Marshall -

What's this? A radio? Why the hell would I sit around listening to people all night talk to me out of thin air?

What? A phone? If I want to talk to you I'll do it in person?

WHAT? THE INTERNET?? Get outside and do something!!!

Life was just fine before all these technological advancements! Leave it alone already!

Dicking about with replays will make the game better... or do you prefer blatant balls out of bounds to result in goals (Man City)? Or the John Terry goal to stand (Chelsea)? Or diving baffoons who draw red cards and PKs against opponents (specific example missing...)?

The problem with soccer is all the malarkey that COULD be rectified and ISN'T.

The only viable option to not advancing technology to make the game better is to just keep it the way it is and allow fighting, hockey-style.

Let the players work it out on the pitch. See who dives after they get pummeled for doing so.

James Marshall
73 Posted 17/02/2016 at 23:59:26
Football is fine as it is.

If you go back up the thread and read my earlier comments on this, perhaps you'll understand my point of view.

Every example you've used is a negative for Everton V there are no doubt plenty of times we've benefitted from so called 'wrong' decisions by officials as well.

I'm not going to bother explaining my point again V it's all above. I don't think I can explain it any further to be honest.

Eugene Ruane
74 Posted 17/02/2016 at 00:03:09
Be good to get some clear, analytical, cut-through, non-repetitive, non-shouty first-thought thinking on this, based on what would be best for the game and supporters and looking at the bigger picture.

So James Marshall, I'd be interested in getting your thoughts?


Darren Hind
75 Posted 18/02/2016 at 00:21:52
James,

For years I supported the warts-n-all argument, but I can't support it any more, the honest referees seem to have trouble keeping up with the game and the dishonest ones don't want to.

If the past 10 years have taught us anything, it's that every establishment in this two-faced country has been proven to be corrupt or immoral. Why on earth should we believe the referees are any different from the Bizzies, the Judges, the priest and vicars, the DJs, the Athletics Association, the newspapers...

We have the technology to eliminate errors, especially the deliberate ones. Let's use it.

Tony Hill
76 Posted 18/02/2016 at 00:24:55
Fuck technology and objectivity. What is mildly pleasing is to hear Jagielka not taking the easy Everton option and saying that it it has all been a dreadful misunderstanding and that he is donating a month's salary to some charity for disabled referees.

It's a pretty garbled effort from our captain but, at long last, he's standing up for himself and the team against gobshites like Atkinson.

It's a start of sorts and if we're ever to become winners it's the type of thing we must do, more and more.

James Marshall
78 Posted 18/02/2016 at 12:21:11
Sorry, Eugene but I'm not rising to you. Please don't attempt to engage/enrage me further. My Dad's bigger than your Dad etc.

To the rest of you - I don't like the thought of technology as mentioned above. It's just my opinion, and I'm sure over time old father FIFA will agree with you and have 3 referees, replays for everything, time-out clocks installed at every ground, referees who run about doing the 'time-out signal', and it'll all be very cut & dried.

Then everyone can go back to the pub and talk about the decision the computer made when that player went down in the box, and nobody has anything to discuss anymore. Can you imagine how short these ToffeeWeb threads will become? Lyndon & Michael will have a lot less work to do, I suppose.

Nick Entwistle
79 Posted 18/02/2016 at 12:44:01
The idea that the game simply stops when the ball isn't in play is not 100% accurate. Organising your wall, making a run, retaining your shape etc etc all go on.

The Refs are putting the game in a bad situation however when 'antics' happen as they don't have the balls to tell a player to stop being so soft and he's not getting a free kick, let alone getting the physio on.

As top flights refs are picking up 6 figures a year – and more if they are recommended to Uefa / Fifa – they end up toeing the line, removing common sense from their officiating.

Eugene Ruane
80 Posted 18/02/2016 at 14:10:36
James (77) - 'Sorry, Eugene but I'm not rising to you. Please don't attempt to engage/enrage me further"

Fine, I won't engage you, but only if you guarantee not to repeat the same post 6 times - fair?

I mean ffs this is mental...

36 - 'I'm 100% against anything other than goal-line decisions (but only because they're already here – I'd rather we didn't have those either'

62 - 'I'm all for football continuing to be held in the hands of the ref – technology making all the decisions would be dull, soulless, even boring as far as I'm concerned.'

64 - 'I honestly believe that it would be to the detriment of the game,

67 - 'I'm dead against it for the reasons I've stated above'

71 - ' It's all fine. There's nothing wrong with things as they are!'

77 - ' I don't like the thought of technology as mentioned above. It's just my opinion,'

At least 6 posts all saying 'I prefer this' - get a grip.


Jamie Crowley
81 Posted 18/02/2016 at 14:19:32
Time outs? Computer decisions? Replays for everything?

That's the most disingenuous post I've read.

Eugene Ruane
82 Posted 18/02/2016 at 14:33:23
Interesting, Jamie: you believe posters who suggest there might be some benefit in some/all of these things, aren't being honest and are pretending to be naive. That they're deliberately affecting a position of ignorance for some reason?

Shane Corcoran
83 Posted 18/02/2016 at 14:39:15
Imagine if there was technology. Who could we say are conspiring against us?
Paul Kossoff
84 Posted 18/02/2016 at 15:43:03
Peter 41, Yes a lot of the officials in the Manx league were holier than thou, and professed to be men of God while cheating on there better half's and on the football field.
I once scored four at Morown in conditions so bad that players were wishing for the ref to be struck dead so we could all survive the weather.
I don't want me Twatkinson to die, but just to break something so we get a decent ref for Saturday.
Jamie Crowley
85 Posted 18/02/2016 at 15:57:51
Eugene -

I'm not exactly sure how to respond... not sure if you're being critical or quasi-agreeing with my stance. The internet is difficult to assess tone.

My point was no one really said anything about time-outs. I mean that in the NFL type of way - literally stopping play to give players a rest and go over "tactics".

Computer decisions - not having any human involvement is what I took from that - weren't really "on the table."

Replays for everything was not mentioned either.

Ergo, disingenuous...

I disagree with James but fully recognize he's an excellent contributor to TW - not to be the the arbiter of who's "good" and who's "not"... please take the point.

Perhaps my reference to technology was too harsh towards James. I truly believe with some peripheral thinking there's changes that could be made that will improve the game. Whereas it would take some folks out of their comfort zone a bit as change often is resisted, I think it'd help.

Eugene Ruane
86 Posted 18/02/2016 at 16:14:34
Jamie - I agree.
John Daley
87 Posted 18/02/2016 at 16:26:03
"...everyone can go back to the pub and talk about the decision the computer made when that player went down in the box, and nobody has anything to discuss anymore"

Maybe then they might be able to...I don't know....talk about the actual football witnessed instead? If the bulk of any post-match conversation in the boozer inevitably revolves around the performance of the bloke in the middle, then doesn't that suggest it's become something of a problem?

I was always brought up believing the best referees were those you barely notice. Now, they're given their own newspaper column, practice knocking out autographs (apparantly Clattenburg was on the cusp of changing his name to a symbol, like Prince, to make his signature a bit snazzier, but finally relented when his scribbled 'rocket ship' kept being mistaken for something else), and seemingly revel in the reflected glory rubbing shoulders with high profile players brings. The fact the decision making in football is still so subjective enables them to stroke their ego far too easily.

Then again, given how resistant Fifa have been to the implementation of technology over the years (instead electing for extra officials and blokes behind the goals with binoculars etc) I'd actually be quite interested to see what other half-measure alternatives they might conjure up. Probably something like every inividual player running around with a fucking wee little, whistle puffing, pygmie strapped to their back would be preferable in their book.

James Marshall
88 Posted 18/02/2016 at 16:27:43
I don't think football needs further technology to be introduced. It's fine as it is.

This is obviously just my opinion.

Clearly. Only an opinion on a forum.

No technology.

No more.

We have enough.

I like football.

Jamie Crowley
90 Posted 18/02/2016 at 18:20:24
Honestly Eugene, the witticism is so damn sharp on this website and the "British humor" can be a bit foreign to me so...

I walk on eggshells at times.

Dave Abrahams
91 Posted 18/02/2016 at 19:13:22
John (86) I agree that it was considered a good referee was one you hardly noticed, a good few years ago one of the best was named Fussey, can't think of his first name, he was an excellent referee who got on with the game, kept it flowing, no looking for attention, although he did have an habit of giving his decision and then running very quickly away from the scene of the incident, maybe to stop players from arguing with him.
Darren Hind
92 Posted 18/02/2016 at 19:28:42
"Then everyone can go back to the pub and talk about the decision the computer made when that player went down in the box, and nobody has anything to discuss anymore"

Never realised that all those Rugby fans who pack the alehouses for hours after their games, never have a fucking word to say to each other.

Eugene Ruane
93 Posted 18/02/2016 at 19:55:22
Part of the problem now is that if you run on, give the ref a good 'oul jostle and threaten him along the lines 'al kick thee fuckin' 'ead off' coss thars a reet cheatin' twat!!' you'd be looking at a lifetime ban.

No such worries back in the early 1970s - Link

James Marshall
97 Posted 18/02/2016 at 22:45:53
Interesting that in the commentary on that link, he talks about how "that decision will be talked about for years".

Well I think it's interesting anyway!

I wonder how many years we'd talk about decisions overruled by video replays?

Darren - read the thread above in reference to rugby replays. It's a very different game to football with regard to replays.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.


About these ads

© ToffeeWeb