Forest vs PGMOL | Vital Football

Forest vs PGMOL

LynxRed

LynxRed

Vital Squad Member
This one could run awhile, and probably needs its own thread doesn't it.

A statement from Forest posted on Twitter after full time yesterday;
"Three extremely poor decisions - three penalties not given - which we simply cannot accept.
We warned the PGMOL that the VAR is a Luton fan before the game but they didn’t change him.
Our patience has been tested multiple times. NFFC will now consider its options."

Another statement from Forest today, requesting the VAR audio. They're carrying on with the attack. Just wish they'd show this much fight on the bloody pitch.

"Nottingham Forest has today submitted a formal request to the PGMOL to release into the public domain the audio recordings between officials during yesterday’s match against Everton at Goodison Park.
The club has requested this be shared for three key match incidents - Ashley Young’s challenge on Giovanni Reyna (24th minute), Ashley Young’s handball (44th minute) and Ashley Young’s challenge on Callum Hudson-Odoi (56th minute).
We firmly advocate for the broader football community and supporters to have access to the audio and transcript for full transparency, ensuring the integrity of our sport is upheld."
 
My opinion, aside from the Forest drama unfolding, is that VAR, the processes and the conversations between match officials should absolutely be clear, open and transparent. The cloaks and daggers secrecy is ridiculous and makes the whole system untenable. Give us the audio in the stadium, tell us what's being looked for, and why decisions are upheld or overturned. Forest are, taking a bigger picture view, absolutely right to ask for the audio and to suggest the process should be open for the intergrity of the sport.
 
Very difficult for them to refuse this request when they allowed it for Liverpool.

Refusal would suggest that the content of the conversation involved something that needs hiding.

Which could be the case of course, but I suspect we'll get it and it will be fairly mundane.

My bet is that the audio will be inconclusive either way and just involve a cursary, half hearted look by Attwell with confirmation of the ref's decision without really any reason why given.

Enough for the media to shrug and say "fair enough" because it's only forest.

I keep coming back to that Isak penalty and how pathetic the contact there was, and comparing it to the first and third one yesterday
 
The system needs a complete overhaul, football is the only sport that I am aware of that uses video assistance that operates under this shroud of secrecy. Every other sport keeps its spectators fully informed as the process unfolds but not football. The way they are operating stokes the fires of the conspiracy theorists so things have to change.
Just put SSN for the first time and they are just repeating the ref watch bit, and there is an awful lot of closing of ranks going on. Mike dean & then Dermot Gallagher telling us what a wonderful VAR official Attwell is, he's done all the courses you know & is well respected across Europe (by who they didn't specify).
Gallagher says 1st one probably not enough contact, 2nd one could have gone either way, 3rd one penalty
 
Not enough being made of Olivers and Halseys posted opinions on why refs and officials cannot officiate in games featuring their preferred clubs or in games which could effect rivals against their preferred clubs.

That is the precedent in print, and its that which also needs an explanation from the PGMOL
 
LynxRed said:
This one could run awhile, and probably needs its own thread doesn't it.

A statement from Forest posted on Twitter after full time yesterday;
"Three extremely poor decisions - three penalties not given - which we simply cannot accept.
We warned the PGMOL that the VAR is a Luton fan before the game but they didn’t change him.
Our patience has been tested multiple times. NFFC will now consider its options."

Another statement from Forest today, requesting the VAR audio. They're carrying on with the attack. Just wish they'd show this much fight on the bloody pitch.

"Nottingham Forest has today submitted a formal request to the PGMOL to release into the public domain the audio recordings between officials during yesterday’s match against Everton at Goodison Park.
The club has requested this be shared for three key match incidents - Ashley Young’s challenge on Giovanni Reyna (24th minute), Ashley Young’s handball (44th minute) and Ashley Young’s challenge on Callum Hudson-Odoi (56th minute).
We firmly advocate for the broader football community and supporters to have access to the audio and transcript for full transparency, ensuring the integrity of our sport is upheld."
Click to expand...
The statement today is what I would have put out. Not the statement yesterday which was potentially defamatory

In cricket you actually hear and see how the third umpire makes up their mind
 
finbar70 said:
Not enough being made of Olivers and Halseys posted opinions on why refs and officials cannot officiate in games featuring their preferred clubs or in games which could effect rivals against their preferred clubs.

That is the precedent in print, and its that which also needs an explanation from the PGMOL
Click to expand...

Sky reporter who was stood outside city ground this morning explained that the written rule only applies to preferred club and then opponents in their vicinity. I.e. a declared Nottingham forest supporting ref would never be appointed to forest games or games for the likes of Derby.

It does not extend to clubs that may be involved in relegation/ championship defining fixtures that impact their supported team. It is that circumstance the rules apparently allow for the official to decline and remove them from the fixture if they think they can't be impartial or more likely can't be arsed putting themselves in this type of potential shit storm.
 
Sky love all this don't they must have filled an hour or two today. The presenter just said Nottingham Forest Have "accused" Atwell of being a Luton fan as if being a Luton fan is a criminal offence when they could have just sad that Forest pointed out to PGMOL that he was a Luton fan. Sky just love fanning the flames don't they
 
Barry Goldie said:
Sky reporter who was stood outside city ground this morning explained that the written rule only applies to preferred club and then opponents in their vicinity. I.e. a declared Nottingham forest supporting ref would never be appointed to forest games or games for the likes of Derby.

It does not extend to clubs that may be involved in relegation/ championship defining fixtures that impact their supported team. It is that circumstance the rules apparently allow for the official to decline and remove them from the fixture if they think they can't be impartial or more likely can't be arsed putting themselves in this type of potential shit storm.
Click to expand...
I think we need to get past the conspiracy and address the incompetence. These are professional people making stupid decisions that can cost a lot. Most professionals have insurance for fucking up in such a clear way. Maybe they should consider a similar insurance paid out at the end of the season depending on the ramification with an independant commission being asked to adjudicate on whether the mistake was sufficiently material to have been negligent and if it would have had a material effect on position in the table

Maybe that would get better performance
 
seasider red said:
Sky love all this don't they must have filled an hour or two today. The presenter just said Nottingham Forest Have "accused" Atwell of being a Luton fan as if being a Luton fan is a criminal offence when they could have just sad that Forest pointed out to PGMOL that he was a Luton fan. Sky just love fanning the flames don't they
Click to expand...
Seasider I agree with a lot of what you say but not sure you have this one right. By indicating they had warned PGMOL, what they are basically saying without saying it is that they think he cheated in his decision making because he was a Luton fan. Its the concept that they are putting in people's heads. An example Weejock's funny video. I think that was a fundamental mistake. Atwell might not do anything but if he wanted to mess about he could.
 
It appears that VAR is nothing more than another instrument designed to widen the gap between top and bottom.

There are zero excuses for getting decisions wrong; none whatsoever.

There was a bad decision in a Rugby game a couple of weeks back and there was total uproar.

Too much to hide in the PL for that kind of retrospective to take place.

The game has gone to the fucking dogs
 
toms said:
Seasider I agree with a lot of what you say but not sure you have this one right. By indicating they had warned PGMOL, what they are basically saying without saying it is that they think he cheated in his decision making because he was a Luton fan. Its the concept that they are putting in people's heads. An example Weejock's funny video. I think that was a fundamental mistake. Atwell might not do anything but if he wanted to mess about he could.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree I have probably not made myself clear, it wasn't meant as a comment on the rights & wrongs of what we've done, or what anyone else involved has or hasn't done. It was meant to point out the hyperbole of the SSN reporting, and how they love to fan the flames of whatever the controversy of the day is. Just saying their use of the word accused is a bit strong, when we just pointed it out to PGMOL beforehand and asked them to reconsider, which is not the same as accusing someone of something.
My gripe is with SSN, but I'm still daft enough to watch it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.