Ref Watch ............. Bristol Rovers H

[Mick]

Tonight's referee is Tim Robinson from Bognor Regis (not to be confused with the cricket umpire of the same name).

He is in just his second season as a League referee and has progressed well and has already been given a couple of Championship matches this season.

His only previous appearance at Roots Hall was his first ever League match and our 1-0 home defeat to Accrington at the start of last season. A forgettable match, like most of Sturrock's home games last season. He cautioned Prosser and a couple of theirs and whilst he wasn't wonderful, I am sure he has improved.

His card count is low; just 15 yellows from 6 games (and 6 of those came in one match) and no reds.

He has also refereed Bristol Rovers just the once, co-incidentally a 1-0 home defeat to Accrington, this time at the end of last season.

Assistants are the normally competent Dave Bushell from London and the very experienced (i.e. old) Steve Rubery from Ilford. Stuart Butler from Maidstone is 4th official.

 

[Fiftyone]

Penalty or not a penalty?.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Thought he did ok apart from a couple of things....

1. What looked like a stonewall penalty when Jack Payne was brought down in the 1st half

2. Letting O'Toole stay on the pitch, guy should have been sent off 1st half for some truly awful tackling, ref needed to take a firmer hand with their tackling all round

3. That "head wound" to O'Toole when we were in a strong attacking position - that whole rule needs looking at, it's a travesty that we could be penalised in that position and lose possession to the opponents. There was nothing wrong with him

 

[bazzashrimper]

What about the shocking tackle from Prosser that got a yellow card? That should have got him 2 reds

 

[Shrimperforlife]

What about the shocking tackle from Prosser that got a yellow card? That should have got him 2 reds

Agree with this... Prosser was very very lucky

 

[OldBlueLady]

What about the shocking tackle from Prosser that got a yellow card? That should have got him 2 reds

Can't say I saw it as being that bad from where we sit, care to explain?

 

[Mick]

Can't say I saw it as being that bad from where we sit, care to explain?

He lunged into the back of the opponent, studs first, out of control and with zero chance of getting the ball. An irresponsible (not to mention, nasty) challenge given that we were already a centre half light.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

So it's a witch hunt against Prosser is it? It doesn't seem to matter what Prosser does, he will always be slagged off. He was in a position he isn't used to, trying to win the ball for the team to get a chance to score and win the game. He showed passion and commitment, something which most of the team seem to be lacking in. Prosser is always vocal, shouting orders to the team when everybody else seems to not have a voice. Carry on the good work Luke.

 

[Firestorm]

So it's a witch hunt against Prosser is it? It doesn't seem to matter what Prosser does, he will always be slagged off. He was in a position he isn't used to, trying to win the ball for the team to get a chance to score and win the game. He showed passion and commitment, something which most of the team seem to be lacking in. Prosser is always vocal, shouting orders to the team when everybody else seems to not have a voice. Carry on the good work Luke.

Prossers challenge was dreadful
That said I thought he was our best player once Phillips went off .
I noticed the vocal thing too , but I am not sure he does this when there is a more senior pro alongside him.

 

[OldBlueLady]

He lunged into the back of the opponent, studs first, out of control and with zero chance of getting the ball. An irresponsible (not to mention, nasty) challenge given that we were already a centre half light.

Prossers challenge was dreadful
That said I thought he was our best player once Phillips went off .
I noticed the vocal thing too , but I am not sure he does this when there is a more senior pro alongside him.

Ok, fair enough, like I said, I couldn't see it from where we sit. There are some for whom Prosser can do no right, he does do the vocal stuff when Phillips is there, Phillips isn't very vocal or commanding of the defence at all, it's generally Prosser calling it for keeping the back line tight.

Possibly if O'Toole had been sent off earlier, as he deserved to be, then Prosser might have gone too. For the ref to produce a red then though would have been grossly unfair considering how much Brizzle had got away with - I saw countless studs up challenges and players "going through" others.

 

[Mick]

That "head wound" to O'Toole when we were in a strong attacking position - that whole rule needs looking at, it's a travesty that we could be penalised in that position and lose possession to the opponents. There was nothing wrong with him

How would you re-word the guidelines to referees (there are no rules as such) in respect of apparent head injuries?

How would you explain away a serious complication incurred by a player because he was denied urgent medical attention to a head injury?

O'Toole went down directly as a result of the challenge. He would not have known whether we were attacking or they were.

I do think the restart procedures could be modified though; possession by our goalkeeper is poor recompense for losing a promising attack at the other end.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

How would you re-word the guidelines to referees (there are no rules as such) in respect of apparent head injuries?

How would you explain away a serious complication incurred by a player because he was denied urgent medical attention to a head injury?

O'Toole went down directly as a result of the challenge. He would not have known whether we were attacking or they were.

I do think the restart procedures could be modified though; possession by our goalkeeper is poor recompense for losing a promising attack at the other end.

True, but in this instance this was our fault for not contesting the drop-ball.

 

[OldBlueLady]

How would you re-word the guidelines to referees (there are no rules as such) in respect of apparent head injuries?

How would you explain away a serious complication incurred by a player because he was denied urgent medical attention to a head injury?

O'Toole went down directly as a result of the challenge. He would not have known whether we were attacking or they were.

I do think the restart procedures could be modified though; possession by our goalkeeper is poor recompense for losing a promising attack at the other end.

I've no idea, there should be some kind of retrospective "cheating" penalty applied......for all types of things, simulation, feigning injury....the Torres sending off is a prime example.

 

[Jam_Man]

So it's a witch hunt against Prosser is it? It doesn't seem to matter what Prosser does, he will always be slagged off. He was in a position he isn't used to, trying to win the ball for the team to get a chance to score and win the game. He showed passion and commitment, something which most of the team seem to be lacking in. Prosser is always vocal, shouting orders to the team when everybody else seems to not have a voice. Carry on the good work Luke.

Wow you are getting us defensive about Prosser as Neil 25 with Smithy. :)

It was a bad challenge and he was lucky to stay on the pitch.

No one has said anything other than that, the rest of the game he did well.

 

[The General]

Prosser was very lucky to stay on ... i turned away at the time as was in shock how bad it was and it was totally reckless and stupid.

 

[Mick]

I've no idea, there should be some kind of retrospective "cheating" penalty applied......for all types of things, simulation, feigning injury....the Torres sending off is a prime example.

You were talking about stopping play for head injuries. It's difficult for referees to know for sure how serious something is; they can't take a chance.

You now deviate to other matters. Yes, simulation should be dealt with retrospectively and until the punishments outweigh the potential benefits of cheating it will continue to blight our game. Those in charge (FIFA, UEFA, the FA) have shown no appetite to rid the game of this dreadful practice which gets more prevalent the higher up you go in football.

Now Torres' sending off. I assume you mean yesterday's. He was not sent off for something he should have been sent off for but he was sent off for something he shouldn't have been sent off for. However Torres is the winner here - a one match ban instead of three. (Just imagine the outrage and pious indignation that would have occurred if Suarez had done that girly scratch !). There is no mechanism for dealing with something retrospectively if the match official has dealt with it at the time. Torres was cautioned for that incident so it cannot be revisited retrospectively. This should change.

 

[OldBlueLady]

No, Mick, I was talking about cheating in general. O'Toole forced play to be stopped to our detriment on Friday, there was nothing wrong with him but the ref had to apply the guidelines about acting on a head injury. That's what I mean. It was a farce and all kinds of simulation need stamping down on.

 

[Mick]

No, Mick, I was talking about cheating in general. O'Toole forced play to be stopped to our detriment on Friday, there was nothing wrong with him but the ref had to apply the guidelines about acting on a head injury. That's what I mean. It was a farce and all kinds of simulation need stamping down on.

How do you know there was nothing wrong with him? I thought he went down after a challenge and probably had little idea who, if anyone, was attacking.

 

[Mick]

There is no mechanism for dealing with something retrospectively if the match official has dealt with it at the time. Torres was cautioned for that incident so it cannot be revisited retrospectively. This should change.

Although if he was actually cautioned for a trip, they could review the scratching incident retrospectively, as may happen.

 

[londonblue]

How would you re-word the guidelines to referees (there are no rules as such) in respect of apparent head injuries?

How would you explain away a serious complication incurred by a player because he was denied urgent medical attention to a head injury?

O'Toole went down directly as a result of the challenge. He would not have known whether we were attacking or they were.

I do think the restart procedures could be modified though; possession by our goalkeeper is poor recompense for losing a promising attack at the other end.

Agreed. All the ref got wrong in my opinion is the restart. He should have restarted with a proper drop ball from where the ball was when he blew the whistle.

That said, I don't think O'Toole was as innocent as you believe. I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

For the penalty I think the ref looked at his linesman who did nothing. I think the ref's view was obstructed, so can't really blame him. However, after the game BBC Essex were saying it was debatable whether the challenge was inside or outside the area, so it might not have been a penalty anyway. I hope the incident is on the highlights...

Edit: Ok, the Sky highlights didn't show it...