Match Thread [FT] Rangers 2 (Cerny 34', 58') - 0 St Johnstone

[yuddie 1,693]

21 hours ago, Uilleam said:

Funny that you should mention that, unless you are Martin Samuel of The Times' sports pages. I assume that you're not him, because he is, as far as I know. a West Ham man. Mind you......he is opinionated (his job, I shouldn't wonder) and is known to talk a lot of shite (his job, again, I shouldn't wonder), but maybe, sometimes, just sometimes, a coincidence is merely a coincidence. 😉

 

Today, Samuels has a piece on VAR, etc. and, one can only agree with him, that officialdom seems to be improvising, winging it, ie making it up as it goes along. 

He's right to be concerned, as should we, and moreso - this is the country where some officials are manifestly terrified of one particular football club, its influence in  League and Association, and its 'fans', generally, and within the media; where some officials manifestly undertake their professional duties with a view to redressing decades of 'grievances', real, and imagined (the latter, for the most part, frankly), in favour of that same particular football club; and where the rump of officials are, manifestly, no' very guid. 

 

Here is the piece, for your interest:

 

We appear to be entering the post-truth era of refereeing

By blindly backing officials who overlook foul play such as Virgil van Dijk for Liverpool against Crystal Palace, the Premier League is complicit in a charade that is undermining the game

Martin Samuel

Monday October 07 2024, 7.00am, The Times

 

We appear to be entering the post-truth era of refereeing (thetimes.com)

 

Everyone was smiling as the Liverpool defender Virgil van Dijk received his man-of-the-match award on Saturday. Jules Breach, TNT Sports’ post-match interviewer, beamed, Van Dijk grinned happily, as did his team-mate Cody Gakpo by his side. “Congrats, brother,” Gakpo said as he handed over the prize. And no one mentioned the penalty.

Would Van Dijk have been deemed the game’s star turn had Simon Hooper, the referee, correctly identified his tug on Crystal Palace’s Marc Guéhi in the 71st minute? Would he have been man of the match had Palace then scored from the spot and held on for the draw, with Liverpool dropping to third place only a few hours later, after Arsenal and Manchester City had won?

For that is what could, and maybe should, have happened. Liverpool were better than Palace and might have run out winners anyway, but the point is: we’ll never know. Once again the match officials failed to spot what was clear and obvious to most observers. But no matter. The Premier League has its own way of negotiating these moments now. It makes it up.

 

 

The league, and the PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Ltd), look supporters and viewers in the eye and tell them that what they saw is not what happened at all. Premier League statements explaining contentious calls should come with those blue pills offered in The Matrix. Continue experiencing the illusion, people. There was no pull, there was no foul. Van Dijk was faultless. Look, here is his player-of-the-match award. And see how happy we all are.

Referees make mistakes, and that’s fine. That’s football as it has always been. Calls are often subjective. A lot of decisions are just judgments, matters of opinion. All of this we accept. So Hooper didn’t think Van Dijk having two hands on Guéhi, pulling him backwards as he tried to attack the ball, was a foul. Yes, it’s frustrating, but unexceptional. David Coote, the VAR, must then have agreed, because he didn’t even suggest a check.

 

And as exasperating as it is that two referees appear not to know the rules, it isn’t the first time this has happened. Coote was the official who also didn’t see the Manchester United centre half Lisandro Martínez’s two-footed lunge towards Daichi Kamada as a red card at Selhurst Park last month. The locals will be familiar with the standard of his work and of the leniency famous names and famous clubs often receive. In United’s game away to Aston Villa on Sunday, Marcus Rashford stayed on the pitch courtesy of Rob Jones, the referee, because instead of a second booking for a deliberate foul, he received an indulgent verbal reprimand. As Erik ten Hag swiftly took him off, United retained 11 men throughout too.

 

Yet, back to Saturday’s game, and what appears to have changed this season is the way the league is now complicit in this pretence of competence. In rushing out statements to explain decisions that look controversial — or, to put it bluntly, wrong — it has committed to backing its officials, no matter the evidence. “The referee’s call of no penalty for the challenge by Van Dijk on Guéhi is checked and confirmed by VAR — deeming that the challenge was not sustained holding and had no impact on the play,” the league said. Feel the certainty in that statement. The unequivocal nature of its language.

 

The Premier League’s justification for Van Dijk’s let-off against Palace beggars belief

ASHLEY WESTERN/REX/COLORSPORT

 

And now think about it. What is meant by “not sustained holding”? So — you can hold now? Is that what it is saying? Did anyone notice this rather important rule change? You can now just get hold of a player’s arm and impede his movement, as long as it is not sustained.

And what is meant by sustained? Are we measuring in time, or distance? How long can a non-sustained hold last; or for how many strides? In a sport in which the explosion of speed is crucial, when even one second seems a decent hold time, this is a significant shift. Grab an Olympic sprinter by the arm as he comes out of the blocks and see what impact that has on his race — it’s no different for a centre forward, or any player trying to reach the ball. That’s why holding has always been a foul.

As for having no impact on play, this is a body that struggles to spot a simple infringement in the penalty area but can, somehow, see the future. Yes, it would have been hard for Guéhi to get to Trevoh Chalobah’s pass, but we cannot say for certain that he would not have made it, or that his presence in the vicinity might not have forced a mistake out of Alisson in Liverpool’s goal. Instead the goalkeeper was allowed to collect the ball unchallenged. And that didn’t make a difference? We know this?

 

The same thing happened when Chelsea visited West Ham United last month. Wesley Fofana seized the arm of Crysencio Summerville to stop him running. The foul began outside the area and continued inside, where Summerville fell. Samuel Barrott, the referee, waved it away, and Stuart Attwell, the VAR, described it as “fleeting”. This would appear to be another word for non-sustained holding. Yet, for the foul to start outside the area and continue inside, it must have been sustained across a yard or two.

 

So will we now get a directive on this, so that defenders can work out how long they get to foul an opponent before the officials respond? It’s the not knowing that makes it so difficult. What is it? One, Mississippi? Two, Mississippi? Imagine conceding a penalty just because the defender wasn’t aware how long his legal foul could last?

It used to be that English football played a version of the rules. That a level of physicality viewed as unacceptable abroad was permitted here. It was why some of our more robust players — such as Mark Hughes — encountered problems when signing for foreign clubs. Yet, this is new. The idea that holding — and with both hands in Van Dijk’s case — must be sustained to constitute foul play appears to be a Premier League invention. Either that or we have entered the post-truth era of refereeing. And neither is encouraging, frankly.

 

 

 

I wouldn't listen to Samuel if he was telling me the formula to create gold out of thin air.

 

The blokes a shill for the middle east and was out of touch 10 years ago let alone now.

 

What is a more pertinent point from that Liverpool game and ours is both teams completely dominating yet being penalised like they're Pulis' Stoke City.

 

Liverpool didn't get a free kick until an hour in in that game.

 

We had 64% possession against STJ yet inexplicably conceded 22 fouls to their 12.

 

Now bias would be a big accusation but it does make you wonder - the leniency afforded to the smaller clubs when playing the bigger sides is very real.

 

Unless it is just a Rangers thing - I watch us play and end the game more often than not thinking we didn't get a 50/50 all game.

 

Maybe I'm howling at the moon though 🤷

 

 

[Graeme Ro55 759]

In both the Lyon and St Johnstone games we should have had penalties imo, so we seem to be getting the short end of the stick at home and abroad. My Dad reckons defenders would have to pull an axe out of their sock and scud big Cyriel on the head with it for us to get a penalty. I cannot disagree.

[alexscottislegend 2,318]

On 04/10/2024 at 16:28, Scott7 said:

Hacked perhaps by a pessimistic poster.

Cammy F - where were you on the 4th of Oct? You are not obliged to say anything but.......

[Devil's advocaat 1,541]

I think Cammy is in Florida atm, hopefully holed up somewhere safe!. 

[CammyF 8,079]

7 hours ago, Devil's advocaat said:

I think Cammy is in Florida atm, hopefully holed up somewhere safe!. 

Sitting in hotel room surrounded by "chips" and Root Beer. Just some heavy rain and a wee gust of wind, right? 

[CammyF 8,079]

20 hours ago, alexscottislegend said:

Cammy F - where were you on the 4th of Oct? You are not obliged to say anything but.......

I don't hack, that's for amateurs. Subliminal messages and Jedi mind tricks more my cup of tea.