Forest away Build up Match day 27

[dom9]

The Refs want to be the story imo. They are more bothered about looking after themselves than the game.

As i don't follow cricket or rugby particularly I wonder if supporters groan when they see a particular Ref/Umpire like we do in football

I don't think they do.

I’m assuming there’s way less ambiguity in the rules there to prevent refs having to make subjective decisions

Rugby Union is full of subjective decisions.

And before hawkeye, LBW was total guesswork at times.

[baitman]

It could have easily been settled if the forest chairman had worn his gun when he stormed the pitch. Too late now...

[labourRed]

I'm probably going against the grain here, but this constant whingeing / bleating about referees on all sides, including our own, I'm just finding incredibly tedious.

It seems that people find it quite hard to accept that officials are human, operate in a massively stressful environment the likes of which none of us will never experience, and like people in all jobs, have varying levels of ability and competence.

Some of us are good at what we do, others less so. And we all **** up from time to time. Some of us more than others.

Instead, everything with football officiating is a conspiracy, and fans of every club are convinced that they are the victims of the great conspiracy to **** them over.

The media have a large part to play in this too. The BBC sport twitter feed, for example, jumps on the smallest contentious decision to harvest clicks. The pundits are even worse.

And yet in rugby, cricket and other sports, decisions are accepted without question. The referee's interpretation and decision is accepted as final.

Even this need "for greater consistency" is a fallacy. If a bunch of people in a TV studio can't agree on a decision, what hope is for the people who have to do it in real time, in the blink of an eye. I'm surprised they don't get more wrong tbh.

The decisions have a large element of subjectivity. Acknowledge that. And let them make their decision knowing that, and accept it.

It's all so boring.

Rugby is largely agreed as the gold standard of officiating in sport and yet Scotland wrote a letter of complaint following the France game a week ago.

I don't know about conspiracy as such but the data is pretty compelling. There is at the least gross incompetence in a sport with billions swashing around. It doesn't make sense to me.

We know for a red hard fact that Fergie intimated refs and as a result got favourable results. We know there was corruption in Italy and many questionable games.

I don't think it's beyond reproach at all to question the judgment of certain refs through unconscious bias or otherwise.

[labourRed]

Apparently that was correct, because the ball was still in Forest’s area when the whistle went.

Which would have been the same case for us had Tierney blown sooner when Konate got clattered.

Which just further shows what a pedantic little ‘controversy’ this is.

Fair enough. Yeah, in retrospect he should have blown when the 'head injury' was noticed.

[vlahka]

https://twitter.com/SteveCorbett64/s...10343835050143

Sure we can replay it. If we can replay the other 3 games we were absolutely screwed over this season.

[Paul12]

I'm probably going against the grain here, but this constant whingeing / bleating about referees on all sides, including our own, I'm just finding incredibly tedious.

It seems that people find it quite hard to accept that officials are human, operate in a massively stressful environment the likes of which none of us will never experience, and like people in all jobs, have varying levels of ability and competence.

Some of us are good at what we do, others less so. And we all **** up from time to time. Some of us more than others.

Instead, everything with football officiating is a conspiracy, and fans of every club are convinced that they are the victims of the great conspiracy to **** them over.

The media have a large part to play in this too. The BBC sport twitter feed, for example, jumps on the smallest contentious decision to harvest clicks. The pundits are even worse.

And yet in rugby, cricket and other sports, decisions are accepted without question. The referee's interpretation and decision is accepted as final.

Even this need "for greater consistency" is a fallacy. If a bunch of people in a TV studio can't agree on a decision, what hope is for the people who have to do it in real time, in the blink of an eye. I'm surprised they don't get more wrong tbh.

The decisions have a large element of subjectivity. Acknowledge that. And let them make their decision knowing that, and accept it.

It's all so boring.

I agree with the general message, but disagree with two points you make:

1 While I think 99% of the talk of conspiracies is rubbish, data and statistics CAN be used to identify things that are a bit odd-looking. This is of course what Tomkins is trying to do (though whether his data and methodology could stand up to a roper peer review I don't know). I DO though think he is right to say our matches are refereed differently to other matches sufficiently often that it can't be a fluke. I don't mean with a bias against Liverpool necessarily; but I do think we see more precedential but technically correct decisions that are not then carried through to other games, a different use of cards and so on.

2 On the need for greater consistency being a fallacy, i think if referees were able to achieve greater consistency, TV studio people would agree. I think there is loads of room for improved guidance that would result in greater consistency.

[banditos]

I agree with the general message, but disagree with two points you make:

1 While I think 99% of the talk of conspiracies is rubbish, data and statistics CAN be used to identify things that are a bit odd-looking. This is of course what Tomkins is trying to do (though whether his data and methodology could stand up to a roper peer review I don't know). I DO though think he is right to say our matches are refereed differently to other matches sufficiently often that it can't be a fluke. I don't mean with a bias against Liverpool necessarily; but I do think we see more precedential but technically correct decisions that are not then carried through to other games, a different use of cards and so on.

2 On the need for greater consistency being a fallacy, i think if referees were able to achieve greater consistency, TV studio people would agree. I think there is loads of room for improved guidance that would result in greater consistency.

Bias doesn't have to be conscious. When it comes to Manc refs and the prevalence of them, Tomkins stats could be the result of consistent unconscious bias not in our favour.

But PGMOL will happily keep pretending it doesn't exist, like these refs are bloody cyborgs or something.

[bacon]

How is it ok for a football club to employ an ex-ref in this way out of interest? No doubt he’ll have ‘off the record’ channels open with pgmol & the refs themselves

It's not OK, it's dodgy. It allows the manager to purposely sidestep any potential sanction as he just "no-comments" any controversial ref stuff and deflects to this consultant .. who can stir it up by saying what the **** he wants

[SB]

It's not OK, it's dodgy. It allows the manager to purposely sidestep any potential sanction as he just "no-comments" any controversial ref stuff and deflects to this consultant .. who can stir it up by saying what the **** he wants

[Exiled_red]

I'm probably going against the grain here, but this constant whingeing / bleating about referees on all sides, including our own, I'm just finding incredibly tedious.

It seems that people find it quite hard to accept that officials are human, operate in a massively stressful environment the likes of which none of us will never experience, and like people in all jobs, have varying levels of ability and competence.

Some of us are good at what we do, others less so. And we all **** up from time to time. Some of us more than others.

Instead, everything with football officiating is a conspiracy, and fans of every club are convinced that they are the victims of the great conspiracy to **** them over.

The media have a large part to play in this too. The BBC sport twitter feed, for example, jumps on the smallest contentious decision to harvest clicks. The pundits are even worse.

And yet in rugby, cricket and other sports, decisions are accepted without question. The referee's interpretation and decision is accepted as final.

Even this need "for greater consistency" is a fallacy. If a bunch of people in a TV studio can't agree on a decision, what hope is for the people who have to do it in real time, in the blink of an eye. I'm surprised they don't get more wrong tbh.

The decisions have a large element of subjectivity. Acknowledge that. And let them make their decision knowing that, and accept it.

It's all so boring.

I get what you are saying and largely I agree. IMO the perspective has been skewed by the introduction of VAR and not for the better. Before VAR there were still discussions about **** refereeing and perceived bias, but it was much easier to accept human error and inconsistency when it was just one person who had one chance to see things in real time. VAR was brought in on a promise to stop referees getting the big decisions wrong, but it now opens up the question of what are big decisions what can it look at etc Now that many decisions are reviewed and there is a team of people in the VAR room looking at things you expect greater consistency and we really haven't had that. If anything it only really serves to highlight that it can't/doesn't intervene in and magnifies any errors or inconsistencies that it makes. Of course the broadcasters love that, a controversy gives them loads more coverage.

Had it not been for this dropball situation the would have stopped caring about our result by the time the Sunday games kicked off.

The one view on the decision that I don't thing I have seen mentioned really is probably one of the most relevant, that is the ball is in the air in the box travelling at speed, the distance it has travelled between when the intents to blow his whistle and when he actually does (probably about a second) is the difference between the Forest player touching the ball and not so having possession or not. IMO the ball is in the air he sees Konate is down looking that way he blows his whistle, as far as he is aware the ball is in the air, when he turns around the Forest player had the ball but he has no idea when in relation to the whistle being blown he gets it. The Forest player has the ball for about a second, which is probably shorter or about the same time it takes for the ref to blow his whistle and turn around, he should also rightly be focused on the player with a head injury For me it's probably too tight to call without video as to where the ball was so it's a genuine mistake.

[Fuzzy]

Why is everyone who's fuming over incorrect refereeing ignoring the fact that correct refereeing would signal a high boot on Konate anyway?

[S-RED]

Why is everyone who's fuming over incorrect refereeing ignoring the fact that correct refereeing would signal a high boot on Konate anyway?

because oppo fans & Sky don't want facts, just controvesy

[Exiled_red]

because oppo fans & Sky don't want facts, just controvesy

[dom9]

Rugby is largely agreed as the gold standard of officiating in sport and yet Scotland wrote a letter of complaint following the France game a week ago.

I don't know about conspiracy as such but the data is pretty compelling. There is at the least gross incompetence in a sport with billions swashing around. It doesn't make sense to me.

We know for a red hard fact that Fergie intimated refs and as a result got favourable results. We know there was corruption in Italy and many questionable games.

I don't think it's beyond reproach at all to question the judgment of certain refs through unconscious bias or otherwise.

Fine, but don't don't resort to childish conspiracy theory bleating as the first response. I'm not talking about you specifically, but people generally of all clubs.

It's like the spirit of Chris has possessed everyone. It's become endemic.

[dom9]

I agree with the general message, but disagree with two points you make:

1 While I think 99% of the talk of conspiracies is rubbish, data and statistics CAN be used to identify things that are a bit odd-looking. This is of course what Tomkins is trying to do (though whether his data and methodology could stand up to a roper peer review I don't know). I DO though think he is right to say our matches are refereed differently to other matches sufficiently often that it can't be a fluke. I don't mean with a bias against Liverpool necessarily; but I do think we see more precedential but technically correct decisions that are not then carried through to other games, a different use of cards and so on.

2 On the need for greater consistency being a fallacy, i think if referees were able to achieve greater consistency, TV studio people would agree. I think there is loads of room for improved guidance that would result in greater consistency.

Sorry, but I can't take Tompkins seriously at all.

On point 2, I think you've kinda missed my point. This stuff is subjective a lot of the time. If you can accept that you can accept that achieving a mythical consistency is impossible.