Strett
Vital Football Hero
Yet on the SKY commentary, they clearly said VAR review over.
There is something of a kipper whiff about this.
Forest vs PGMOL
- Thread starter LynxRed
- Start date
Yet on the SKY commentary, they clearly said VAR review over.
There is something of a kipper whiff about this.
Strett
Vital Football Hero
During the match, at 55'16" the Sky commentator says of the challenge on CHO " VAR has already looked at it & already decided for the 3rd time today in Ashley Young's favour"
Remember, Commentators, SKY, TNT have a direct link to the audio as it happens.
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
Remember, Commentators, SKY, TNT have a direct link to the audio as it happens.
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
I wonder who Watfords nearest rivals are. Luton.
Papers report that he is a known Luton supporter and that is why he never refs Luton games. Early in his career, before it was known he supports Luton he refereed an FA cup game at Norwich. Norwich we’re then in Premier League. Luton were not in League. Biggest upset in history. Non League Luton beat Norwich. Nothing to look at here?
Phatnovice
Vital 1st Team Regular
Only watched the first 10 mins so far but he's going to town so far.
seasider red
Vital 1st Team Regular
I think there has been a misinterpretation of terminology here I believe what is meant is that Atwell checked it but then did not ask is buddy Taylor to review it. If that is the case then it’s still a monumental cick up but if it’s not the case & he just didn’t bother looking at it at all then there there is a whiff of fishy mess about it
weejockmcplop
Vital Champions League
He's an absolute fucking tool though.
Phatnovice
Vital 1st Team Regular
Like many but all tools have their uses.
sherwood
Vital Reserves Team
From the commentary the linesman seems to signal goal and Atwell agrees. Strange incident - not a player or fans appealing for a goal and still given.
Ironically this is exactly the kind of "mistake" that VAR was brought in for is it not?
stenroach
Vital 1st Team Regular
That only deepens the problem.
The ref clearly indicated that Young got the ball.
If he watched there is no way on earth he couldn't see that was not the case, its clear as day a foul, he didn't get the ball.
So why would he not bring it to the refs attention?
He must have checked it, that's what he's there for.
So he neither told the ref or he didn't.
If he did, the ref chose to overrule it ala the drop ball against Liverpool.
If he didn't, then that's very concerning, however concerning nothing will come of it.
Most referees would officiate a club once or twice a season. Attwell has refereed Shef Utd 4 times. We know the outcome of those games. He also refereed Burnley at Villa resulting in Burnley outplaying Villa, having two stonewall penalties denied and sending off a Burnley player but not sending off Villa player for similar incident. He refereed Forest once and we are aware of the dodgy sending off and the no contact penalty.
Forest and the fans are not questioning integrity but competency. Competency of organisations like PGMOL, competency of refs, and competency of VAR and communication of VAR. For the benefit of football sought it out.
Forest and the fans are not questioning integrity but competency. Competency of organisations like PGMOL, competency of refs, and competency of VAR and communication of VAR. For the benefit of football sought it out.
seasider red
Vital 1st Team Regular
Yes I agree with all that but people seem to be running away with the idea that he chose not to check it or something like that. I couldn't agree more that having checked it he clearly should have brought it to the attention of Taylor that he didn't get the ball which is different to saying he didn't even bother to look.
Imagine the ridicule if Taylor had to be sent to the screen 3 times in one game to correct his mistakes & the PGMOL can't allow that to happen as it would show Taylor up for the incompetent he is & this quite rightly just stokes the fires of the conspiracy theorists
But he hadn’t been sent to the screen for the first two so no excuse to not send for third. Either both incompetent or something else.
Re your last paragraph-I disagree . I think they are questioning his integrity aand the PGMOL's integrity.. The first statement made that clear and a number of posters on here have also expressed their concern. All other statements are defacto grovelling apologies for the first but deep down many are thinking that this stinks on so many levels, including me as this develops
Could be read either way. Forest questioning integrity or Forest questioning the competency of PGMOL in putting Attwell in this position for that game. If the conversation that is reported between Clattenburg and Webb, before the game,is correct it is the latter. The fact you chose to read it that way, as did the Neville’s and Carraghers of the world says how clumsy the wording was. Clattenburg statement, plus Forest subsequent statement confirms it is competencies that are being questioned. Integrity questioned will sell more copy so media continue to plug that view. Williams statement is the more worrying. Actually claiming standards for top 6 is different from any one else is questioning intended or unintended bias.
Not in my opinion. The first statement was an emotional statement which went straight to Atwell's integrity which was why his support for Luton was mentioned. The second made points about competency and expressly walks away from the integrity route. That was after a lawyer realised how it could be construed. It was a quasi retraction or shall we say "clarification"
You can only go down the integrity route if you can justify it. That was the mistake from the club and showed them to be incompetent. Maybe the lawyer wasnt available at 330 on a Sunday
Barry Goldie
Vital Squad Member
Well put.
I've been trying to summarise that in my head. Agreed the wording was clumsy but it only becomes a question of someones (atwell is not even named in person) integrity if the reader joins up some dots and makes that assertion of the tweets intention.
You break the statement down and it really is a series of matter of fact statements. Ok the there is subjectivity about the 3 very poor referee decisions but generally even that statement is fairly clear fact in all quarters. It is just the assertion on someone's integrity which everyone is fussing about which actually is only in the readers head if they decide that is what the post is intending.
I've said before I would much rather the statement was made in a more official thought through manner than in such knee jerk manner. Either way it's done it's job and got this out there for discussion. It does feel like the media is now trying to supress though. Little being reported in the last 24 hours or so
seasider red
Vital 1st Team Regular
I agree with all of the above, I'm just afraid it's going to be one of those things that never has a satisfactory outcome, but sincerely hope that EM pursues it until there is.
If the PGMOL was not so sensitive to any degree of criticism I'm sure we would all get to know what actually went wrong, but as no one is ever allowed to question or criticise with out being fined it just never happens.
This in itself is an archaic way of running any organisation in a day & age when transparency is asked for in all sorts of areas that have traditionally operated under a shroud of secrecy which used to allow them to get away with & cover up many things which they can't any more
If the PGMOL was not so sensitive to any degree of criticism I'm sure we would all get to know what actually went wrong, but as no one is ever allowed to question or criticise with out being fined it just never happens.
This in itself is an archaic way of running any organisation in a day & age when transparency is asked for in all sorts of areas that have traditionally operated under a shroud of secrecy which used to allow them to get away with & cover up many things which they can't any more
I doubt integrity can be proved and it has not been mentioned by the club. They are clear that it was the appointment of an opposition supporter (he is a bit more than just a supporter, he has appeared on Luton’s equivalent of Garribaldi Red podcast). in an official capacity they have issue with as it opens decisions to scrutiny. This is what a Clattenburg says. If you read his words spoken on Friday it is clear they are not questioning his integrity but that he will be put in a difficult position. All this before the game.
Forest can expect little to come from this except a few fines. However they could take the real high ground and offer to host and finance a PGMOL meeting to review processes and decision making for new season. This will include appointments of officials, clarity of rules around handball, off side interference, fouls but minor contact, intent and control after tackle. It will also review the rules for VAR and it’s communication to fans. The implication by doing so is that we are looking to improve the game for next season and right wrongs.
We are not going to get points given back or replays no matter what the facts. Best now to be proactive and work with authorities or pick up the ball and go home.
Forest can expect little to come from this except a few fines. However they could take the real high ground and offer to host and finance a PGMOL meeting to review processes and decision making for new season. This will include appointments of officials, clarity of rules around handball, off side interference, fouls but minor contact, intent and control after tackle. It will also review the rules for VAR and it’s communication to fans. The implication by doing so is that we are looking to improve the game for next season and right wrongs.
We are not going to get points given back or replays no matter what the facts. Best now to be proactive and work with authorities or pick up the ball and go home.
