Topic: Referee decisions and their impact in Liverpool games

[kennedy81]

What a ridiculous thing to say.

Even the best teams need to grind out results 1-0 sometimes. 

Exactly. How well we play and the decisions we get, are two separate arguments.

[telekon]

Posted earlier, here we have basically the exact same scenario awarded as a goal by the on-field ref, you can even see Koscielny's hands move to cover his face from being hit by the ball lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEYkqs1mPus

Ex-ref analysis after the game:

"It struck him and we are stuck with the rule where it has to be deliberate. People said his arms were up but that's because he used his arms for elevation.

"He has actually mis-kicked it, it has flown up and hit him, so it's not hand to ball, it's ball to hand. There is nothing wrong in the law with what happened."

That one is even "worse" as it's not sure if the ball would go in if it wouldn't have touched Koscielny's arms.

The question then is: does the lineman (or whoever changed the refs decision) not know the rules?

[penga]

Ok just to show I'm trying not to be biased, the same ex-ref has just said correct call on that one for Koscielny's goal but has now said correct call for Solanke's disallowed one because it was a "moral dilemma" so I'm going to have to change it to 50-50. He can't make his mind up.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11743/11170343/ref-watch-dermot-gallaghers-verdict-on-dominic-solankes-disallowed-goal

This again shows there is some bias from the ex-ref to more often give the benefit of the doubt to the actual ref decision which means when he says they get it wrong you usually 100% back the ex-ref.

[Chakan]

Reffing standards will never change in England as there is no reason for them to improve because there’s no oversight or punishment for bad reffing. The FA literally do sweet FA about it, because they answer to no one.

[Chakan]

Ok just to show I'm trying not to be biased, the same ex-ref has just said correct call on that one for Koscielny's goal but has now said correct call for Solanke's disallowed one because it was a "moral dilemma" so I'm going to have to change it to 50-50. He can't make his mind up.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11743/11170343/ref-watch-dermot-gallaghers-verdict-on-dominic-solankes-disallowed-goal

This again shows there is some bias from the ex-ref to more often give the benefit of the doubt to the actual ref decision which means when he says they get it wrong you usually 100% back the ex-ref.

And that right there is the problem in a nutshell, instead of applying the rules it’s now a moral dilemma. There is zero consistency. If Man United has struggled to score all game and the ball goes of off Pogbas arm into the goal suddenly their moral dilemma goes away.

[Anfield89]

A load of bollocks. If West Brom score a goal like Solankes and win the game this thread still gets started and it goes down as a decion that has gone against us.

[Alan_X]

What a ridiculous thing to say.

Even the best teams need to grind out results 1-0 sometimes. 

Why is it ridiculous? If a team is grinding out 1-0 wins then referee decisions are going to have a greater impact because the margins are tighter.

[kennedy81]

Ok just to show I'm trying not to be biased, the same ex-ref has just said correct call on that one for Koscielny's goal but has now said correct call for Solanke's disallowed one because it was a "moral dilemma" so I'm going to have to change it to 50-50. He can't make his mind up.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11743/11170343/ref-watch-dermot-gallaghers-verdict-on-dominic-solankes-disallowed-goal

This again shows there is some bias from the ex-ref to more often give the benefit of the doubt to the actual ref decision which means when he says they get it wrong you usually 100% back the ex-ref.

DERMOT SAYS: It did go off his arm and go in. There's no doubt about that because it changes direction. I think the problem for referees is the moral dilemma that it isn't acceptable to score with the hand or the arm. It just doesn't sit right.

I use the term 'moral dilemma' because in law a handball has to be deliberate, but it doesn't sit right for it to go in off the hand and it doesn't look right.

This is horseshit. He's basically saying that you can't get lucky. What about deflected goals? Mad OGs? Do they 'sit right'?

Just another ref talking shite in order to stick up for a colleague. Might as well just throw the rules out the fucking window and make it up as you go along.

It's not permissible to score with the hand anyway in law, so you are covered in that department.

Is this an actual rule? Maybe someone can show me the rule because I can't find it. And if it is, just fucking say so from the start and stop prattling on about 'moral dilemmas'.

Also, Arsenal v Burnley? How is that goal different? It was way more obvious than ours as it drastically changes the direction of the ball.

[vicar]

So is handballing a goal okay so long as it's not intentional?

More on topic: confirmation bias + not very good refs.

Well if you see the Arsenal Burnley game doing the rounds from a year ago, I think that hits both hands, they are raised and it goes in. It is given and later confirmed that it was the right decision. so yes!

My problem is that there is no consistency, not just in handball, but fouls, penalty decisions and when you have 3 on the run like we have had it feels biased.
I actually think its more to do with refs favour 'smaller' teams, or give them the benefit of the doubt, particularly when giving free kicks. I remember Crouch used to give away loads of free kicks when he played for us and much less when at Stoke. That may not be a good measure, but it doesn't feel right. Maybe they are trying to show they are not going to crumble in front of a big crowd.

[kennedy81]

Why is it ridiculous? If a team is grinding out 1-0 wins then referee decisions are going to have a greater impact because the margins are tighter.

Yeah, but it's a separate argument Al. If you're playing poorly, then it's the opposition who should be punishing you, not the officials.

I can understand getting an unlucky call now and then. That's football, and you're right, it's best to be in a position where unlucky calls don't effect you. But it can't always be the case. At the end of the day, you just want to see the rules applied correctly, or the whole exercise becomes farcical.

[Chakan]

Yeah, but it's a separate argument Al. If you're playing poorly, then it's the opposition who should be punishing you, not the officials.

I can understand getting an unlucky call now and then. That's football, and you're right, it's best to be in a position where unlucky calls don't effect you. But it can't always be the case. At the end of the day, you just want to see the rules applied correctly, or the whole exercise becomes farcical.

And if you can’t apply them correctly at least apply them consistently.

[Alan_X]

So is handballing a goal okay so long as it's not intentional?

More on topic: confirmation bias + not very good refs.

Yes:

HANDLING THE BALL

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.

The following must be considered:

    the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
    the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
    the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
    touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an offence
    hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an offence

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick.

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Which is why handball is a moral dilemma (like a lot of decisions that require intent) and there will never be 'consistency'. Technology is no help. It can tell whether a ball and hand/arm have come into contact but it requires judgement on the part of the referee to decide what was going on in the player's mind, or how their instincts affected their body.

[Chakan]

Yes:

HANDLING THE BALL

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.

The following must be considered:

    the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
    the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
    the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
    touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an offence
    hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an offence

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick.

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Which is why handball is a moral dilemma (like a lot of decisions that require intent) and there will never be 'consistency'. Technology is no help. It can tell whether a ball and hand/arm have come into contact but it requires judgement on the part of the referee to decide what was going on in the player's mind, or how their instincts affected their body.

Well the ref gave it a goal, the linesman on the other side of the pitch gave it as intentional handball.

[Suareznumber7]

Is VAR coming to the league next year?  Does anyone actually think these referees will change their minds after seeing video evidence?

[Stubbins]

Personally, I miss Clive Thomas.

[penga]

Is VAR coming to the league next year?  Does anyone actually think these referees will change their minds after seeing video evidence?

At least for offside goals and stonewall pens/reds.

There might be some chaos/debate that it causes regarding other decisions but at the end of the day probably not more than what we already see with no VAR.

[kennedy81]

Well the ref gave it a goal, the linesman on the other side of the pitch gave it as intentional handball.

Yet there was no yellow card. 

[Alan_X]

Here's a summary of some of the published studies used in "Referee Bias by Thomas Dohmen, University of Bonn, Maastricht University and Jan Sauermann of Stockholm University. Discussion Paper No.8857, dated February 2015:

Boyko et al. (2007):  Premier League, England (1992/93–2006/07)

Goals 1.51 (1.10) goals for the home (visiting) team; significant effect of referee fixed-effect on goal differential and goals of home team;

Penalties .10 (.06) penalties for the home (visiting) team; significant effect of referee fixed-effect on penalty differential, penalties for home and visiting team

Red cards .06  (.09)  red  cards  for  the  home  (visiting)  team;  significant  effect  of  referee fixed-effects for home and visiting team

Yellow cards 1.17 (1.62) yellow cards for the home (visiting) team; significant effect of referee fixed-effects for home and visiting team

Note:  yellow card and penalty differential can partly be explained by referee-fixed  effects;  they  note  that  results  are  not  consistent  over  time;  crowd  size affects outcome significantly in most cases, crowd density does not

Johnston (2008):  Premier League, England (2006/07)

Goals No effect of variation in attendance in explaining goal differential; no effect of referees on goal difference;

Page and Page (2010a):  English competitions (1994–2007)

Goals  Controlling for attendance and difference in team quality, their results suggest that there are still large difference in home bias between referees

Dohmen (2008):  Bundesliga, Germany (1992/93–2003)

Goals 95.05% (95.99%) of home (visiting) team goals are correctly granted

Penalties 65.20% (72.57%) of home (visiting) team penalties are correctly awarded

Sutter and Kocher (2004):  Bundesliga, Germany (2000/01)

Penalties  81% (51%) of home (visiting) team penalties found to legitimate

Dawson et al. (2007):  English Premier League (1996–2003)

Yellow/red cards More disciplinary actions towards underdogs than to favorites; more sanctions in balanced games and games at the end of the season; evidence for variation of home team bias between referees

Buraimo, Forrest, and Simmons (2010):  Premier League, England (2000/01–2005/06)

Yellow/red cards Underdog teams playing at home have a lower probability of receiving yellow and red cards

Buraimo, Forrest, and Simmons (2010):  Bundesliga, Germany (2000/01–2005/06)

Yellow/red cards Underdog teams playing at home have a lower probability of receiving yellow and red cards; in games with tracks, home teams have an increased probability of being awarded with a yellow card

Dawson and Dobson (2010):  UEFA a-tournaments, Europe (2002/03–2006/07)

Yellow/red cards More yellow/red cards awarded for visiting team; stadiums with track and referee’s nationality affects referee’s behavior

Buraimo et al. (2012):  Primera Division, Spain (2003/04 and 2006/07)

Yellow/red cards Crowd effects larger in stadiums with running track; greater crowd size is related to stronger home bias

Buraimo et al. (2012):  UEFA’s Champions League (2003/04 and 2006/07)

Yellow/red cards Crowd effects larger in stadiums with running track

Downward and Jones (2007):  FA Cup, England (1996/97-2001/02)

Yellow cards Crowd size affects the probability of home team being awarded; effect is attenuated by games with largest crowds

Reilly and Witt (2013):  English Premiership League (2003/04–2007/08)

Red Cards No evidence for social pressure effects

Goumas (2014):  Champions League and Europa League (2009/10-2010/11)

Yellow cards Crowd density, not crowd size affects referee bias

Pettersson-Lidbom and Priks (2010):  Serie A and B, Italy (2006/07)

Yellow cards .61–.68 fewer yellow cards for home teams in games with spectators

Red cards .07–.08 fewer red cards for home teams (hardly significant)

Fouls 4.36–4.56 fewer fouls for home teams
Note:  Comparing games with and games without spectators

Nevill et al. (2002):  laboratory study

Fouls 15.5% fewer fouls awarded to home team with crowd noise

Note:  they  analyse  tackling  scenes  from  the  game  between  Liverpool  (home) and Leicester City (visiting) (1998/99); referee experience matters for awarding fouls

Boeri and Severgnini (2011):  Serie A, Italy (2004/05)

Game outcomes Use information on match rigging to detect rigging in previous seasons; rigging is also apparent in balanced matches

Torgler (2004):  FIFA Football Worldcup (2002)

Game outcome Having a referee from the same region increases probability of winning; language does not have an effect

I assume we've all read it?

On Goals:

An alternative approach is to directly assess the correctness of decisions to award goals.  Dohmen (2008) evaluates expert judgements on the correctness of referee decisions and finds that goals awarded to the home team were significantly less likely awarded correctly.  Moreover, an analysis of all situations in which a goal was scored, reveals tentative evidence that referees grant the visiting team fewer disputable goals, and significant evidence that the home side is granted more illegitimate goals than the visiting side.  However, there is no evidence that referees award the visitor fewer legitimate goals than the home team

Penalty Kicks:

Evidence of home biased refereeing with respect to penalty kick decisions is more clear cut.  Dohmen (2008) finds that a larger fraction of awarded penalty kicks is either wrongly awarded or disputable when the home team is one goal behind.  Evaluating all critical situations in the penalty kick area, he also finds that home teams are significantly more likely to be awarded a penalty kick in situations that are rated as disputable by experts who assess the correctness of these decisions after each match based on video recordings.

Similarly, Sutter and Kocher (2004), who use journalists’ reports on referees’ performance, find that during the 2000/01-Bundesliga season home teams were awarded 81 percent of all  penalty  kicks  that  should  have  been  legitimately  awarded,  while  visiting  teams  are awarded only 51 percent of all penalties that should have been awarded.  This differential referee treatment is statistically significant.  Corroborating suggestive evidence on biased penalty kick decisions is also provided by Boyko et al. (2007) who show that home teams in the English Premier League receive significantly more penalties than their model predicts.
Using the same approach that they used to judge referee bias in awarding goals, they find significant referee fixed-effects, which suggests that referees are biased in awarding penalty
kicks.

I will keep looking for the study that showed bias towards bigger clubs over smaller clubs.

The bottom line seems to be that referee bias is there but it's generally a result of being at home with a large boisterous home crowd. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

Other effects are that second-half extra time is typically a bit longer if the home team is a goal behind.

[Alan_X]

Well the ref gave it a goal, the linesman on the other side of the pitch gave it as intentional handball.

And? That's why you have the linesman.

[dramared]

This is too funny, Dermot Gallagher labeling it a moral dilemma that overrides the rules of the game because it doesn't look right or sit right with people if a goal goes in off a hand or arm.
He said " It left the ref with no choice but to disallow the goal"
 
The truth is the ref had another choice which was to follow the rules of the game!

Everybody complains about inconsistencies with refs yet they have rules that are broken by refs morales.
Why does the rule not say" goals cant be scored with the arm or hand"

[liverpool185]

Meh looks like people trying to use the referee's to mask our poorness in some of those games, simple fact is we haven't been good enough in the last two games, been bang average.

[telekon]

And? That's why you have the linesman.

That's a funny one though. The linesman can veto a ref decision, but not the other way around?

Also if it was a linesman on the other half of the pitch, that's plain ridiculous.

[dramared]

Meh looks like people trying to use the referee's to mask our poorness in some of those games, simple fact is we haven't been good enough in the last two games, been bang average.

Not really mate, I think everybody accepts it was a stinker of a performance but would be nice to have a bit of ref decision luck to help out!

[Chakan]

And? That's why you have the linesman.

It's just funny that the linesman can tell clear intent from the side of the pitch but the ref can't from his position. They both know it hit his hand but the linesman is 100% certain on intent.

[telekon]

Meh looks like people trying to use the referee's to mask our poorness in some of those games, simple fact is we haven't been good enough in the last two games, been bang average.

Sigh. Those are still two different things.

And no one in the thread is blaming the refs that we've been shit.

[Alan_X]

Not really mate, I think everybody accepts it was a stinker of a performance but would be nice to have a bit of ref decision luck to help out!

So you want the ref to fuck West Brom over to compensate for our poor performance? I'm happy with that but that's not the ref being consistent is it?

[telekon]

So you want the ref to fuck West Brom over to compensate for our poor performance? I'm happy with that but that's not the ref being consistent is it?

According to the handball rule you posted, allowing the goal would be the correct decision, i.e. not fucking West Brom over?

[El Lobo]

Ok just to show I'm trying not to be biased, the same ex-ref has just said correct call on that one for Koscielny's goal but has now said correct call for Solanke's disallowed one because it was a "moral dilemma" so I'm going to have to change it to 50-50. He can't make his mind up.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11743/11170343/ref-watch-dermot-gallaghers-verdict-on-dominic-solankes-disallowed-goal

This again shows there is some bias from the ex-ref to more often give the benefit of the doubt to the actual ref decision which means when he says they get it wrong you usually 100% back the ex-ref.

Yeah just read that

Absolutely fantastic. Its the right decision to disallow it, because there's no reason to disallow it but.....he should just disallow it because it doesn't sit right. Great. Imagine that. 'I know Suarez scored a screamer late on to win the game, but remember when he bit that bloke. Just doesn't sit right that a bloke like that scores a winner, so its the right call to disallow the goal.'

[dramared]

So you want the ref to fuck West Brom over to compensate for our poor performance? I'm happy with that but that's not the ref being consistent is it?

But he wouldn't be fcking them over by following the rules, since it clearly wasn't intentional handball.
My gripe is that the rules are not followed by refs and therefore causes confusion and frustration.
Pretty much everybody in football has a moral issue with goals being scored with hands or arms, Maradonna drove that one home for us.
So why not change the rules to fit how decisions are made.
No goals scored with arms or hands, end of.

[kennedy81]

So you want the ref to fuck West Brom over to compensate for our poor performance? I'm happy with that but that's not the ref being consistent is it?

It was our good play and WB's bad play that led to the chance to begin with. Why don't we get the benefit of the doubt? Don't strikers get the benefit of the doubt on close offside calls?

Clearly the ref thought it wasn't deliberate (there was no yellow card), so why should Solanke get punished for something he had no control off, an unlucky bounce of the ball?
Why can't you just admit we got a shitty call?

[Alan_X]

It's just funny that the linesman can tell clear intent from the side of the pitch but the ref can't from his position. They both know it hit his hand but the linesman is 100% certain on intent.

The ref was behind and the linesman was up with play and would have had a view of Solanke as he turned his body towards the ball and it hit his arm.

[kennedy81]

Yeah just read that

Absolutely fantastic. Its the right decision to disallow it, because there's no reason to disallow it but.....he should just disallow it because it doesn't sit right. Great. Imagine that. 'I know Suarez scored a screamer late on to win the game, but remember when he bit that bloke. Just doesn't sit right that a bloke like that scores a winner, so its the right call to disallow the goal.'

You really have to laugh. It's such absolute fucking twaddle.

[El Lobo]

You really have to laugh. It's such absolute fucking twaddle.

That's his justification as well. It doesn't sit right. That's it.

[kennedy81]

That's his justification as well. It doesn't sit right. That's it.

You have to sympathize with these refs. Up all night not being able to sleep, tossing and turning over a call that just didn't sit right. I wonder is there a counseling service for those refs who made bad calls and can never live with the guilt.

[clinical]

Why is it ridiculous? If a team is grinding out 1-0 wins then referee decisions are going to have a greater impact because the margins are tighter.

Yeah i think you should read what you wrote again. You make it sound like we should be beating teams by more than 1 anyway. That doesn't work. To win titles you need 1-0 wins and decisions to go for you.

[Suareznumber7]

At least for offside goals and stonewall pens/reds.

There might be some chaos/debate that it causes regarding other decisions but at the end of the day probably not more than what we already see with no VAR.

What about the calls in our last two games?  The pen against Everton and the disallowed goal from last night.  Does anyone think those calls would have been reversed if the ref had the ability to view the play from different angles?

[Alan_X]

I'll leave you lads to it. We didn't win last night because we weren't quite good enough and an 82nd minute disallowed goal doesn't change that.

I'd rather focus on the things we can change rather than moan about the things we can't.

[hesbighesred]

I'll leave you lads to it. We didn't win last night because we weren't quite good enough and an 82nd minute disallowed goal doesn't change that.

But had that goal been allowed it would have been a 1-0 win, and then we would have won despite not being good enough, right? I do take your point, and for fucking sure Klopp will be telling the team to focus on the controllables, as he will be himself.

But in a game of such fine margins, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a moan about it when those margins go against you! (Though of course you're not saying it's unreasonable, just that it ain't your bag, baby. And good on you!)

As an actual discussion question...

Are we too nice? I mean, it's been brought up in this thread and elsewhere, but should Klopp and the players try to game the system more? Be more angry, more aggressive towards refs, waste more time ourselves?

Let me give one example -

Why was Sam Fields allowed to get hold of the ball yesterday anyway? Why don't we have ballboys all round Anfield who make damn sure that the ball is recycled extremely quickly when it goes off?

[Alan_X]

Yeah i think you should read what you wrote again. You make it sound like we should be beating teams by more than 1 anyway. That doesn't work. To win titles you need 1-0 wins and decisions to go for you.

To win titles you need to be scoring more than 1 goal a game. End of story. Of course it's good if decisions go for you but the bottom line is if you only score 38 goals in a season you aen't going to win the league. And just to be clear - I couldn't give a fuck about consistency. I want every decision to go our way whether it's right or wrong.

[hesbighesred]

What about the calls in our last two games?  The pen against Everton and the disallowed goal from last night.  Does anyone think those calls would have been reversed if the ref had the ability to view the play from different angles?

In all honesty, I think both of them would have been 'referee's decision stands', unfortunately. I think the same would have been the case for Mane's red and Mignolet's potential red - all are within the scope of interpreting the existing rules.

But the Watford goal would have been disallowed and we would have had a penalty against Burnley, for sure. No interpretation there - those were just outright bad calls.