I said to the guy sat next to me at ht this idiot is going to alter the outcome of this game with his bias decision making, and he almost did, he was the only person in the ground who saw a penalty thankfully justice was done great save from joe.

Exile 1976 wrote:

Amberexile wrote:The quality of the referee matched the quality of the football, both were below par.

The ref was truly awful...not sure how you could say the football was below par though mate. I thought there was some great football on show from both sides.

Unable to get to RP for this one, I watched it on iFollow. Perhaps the closeness that the camera gives you amplifies all of the mistakes? From that perspective the game came across as a series of errors with the occasional outbreak of football. Maybe in the flesh it looked better and had I been at RP I would also have seen a different game.

llanwern exile wrote:I said to the guy sat next to me at ht this idiot is going to alter the outcome of this game with his bias decision making, and he almost did, he was the only person in the ground who saw a penalty thankfully justice was done great save from joe.

I didn’t like his reffing (too “whistly”, poor application of the advantage rule) but I felt the penalty award was fair enough. And he at least signalled to indicate their player had been held.

Their penalty the player ran into O'Brien like he was greeting a long-lost friend, most games you'd get five or six on that basis.

I thought the ref might be new to it, but he has about 120 games under his belt in L1 and L2, plus 90 in the National League.

Amberexile wrote:The quality of the referee matched the quality of the football, both were below par.

You were watching a different game to me.
Some really enjoyable attractive football from both sides.

Having viewed the sky sports highlights few times still can't see how he gave a penalty.. Agree a 50/50 coming together. Just because opposing players come together and one ends up on the floor it doesn't have to be a foul. Unfortunately refs seem too willing to award a foul too often in such circumstances, IMO.
With regards the Sheehan appeal, still can't come to a clear decision i.e, not certain if there was contact? ref was probably in a better position to see it than the camera angle.

Thought the ref was poor in many respects. He seemed to be a bit too far from the action in regard to the debatable decisions and on a couple of occasions turning away to follow the ball when a Carlisle player made a cheap shot late challenge. Missed a blatant dive by Hope very early in the game. However he was correct for the decision to book Sheehan for the same offence. He would have got less flack from the crowd if he was sure enough to blow his whistle earlier, not after their players appealed. I was pleased that he booked Gerrard for his mouthing off about Amond being allowed treatment for a head injury. Very unprofessional, but you could see from his physical condition that there are other unprofessional aspects to that particular player.

I was pleased that he booked Gerrard for his mouthing off about Amond behind allowed treatment for a head injury. Very unprofessional, but you could see from his physical condition that there are other unprofessional aspects to that particular player.

Nicely put.

Just watched the extended highlights on I-Follow and defiinitely thought there was contact on Sheehan.Whether or not it was enough to give a penalty not sure but definitely shouldn't have been booked.

Steve Pressley, Carlisle's manager, describes the referee as "very brave" for awarding the penalty.

I wonder what he really meant.

I can remember in "Yes Minister" Sir Humphrey calling the P.M." very brave" when he was about to make a stupid decision.