By the way, I haven't yet said that I do not agree with the original proposition of this thread. Let me do so now. Any incorrect decision necessarily stands by itself and cannot easily be said to be offset by another wrong decision that goes in the other direction. Even if the number of wrong decisions going for and against a team is exactly even over a certain period of time - and of course a season is an arbitrary period - the exact consequences of the decisions will be hard if not impossible to measure.
Luke's red card, for example, being a decision I am happy to categorise as wrong on the basis of the in-goal camera footage, has the obvious consequence of us being deprived of a first-choice player for the next match. In a small squad, someone else has to step into the breach, increasing the risk of injury as well as having the obvious impact of a theoretically less capable player coming in. It also nearly had the immediate consequence of turning the game from a victory to a loss - or did it? It is impossible to say that the game would not have turned anyway. Further, it might be that the nature of the comeback while a player down may have a galvanising effect on the morale of the squad that could be different from that of a facile 2-0 victory. How does one measure the two effects? It may also have a physiological effect because it is possible that the players had to work harder to make up for the deficit in numbers. Is the adrenalin that followed the final whistle a good thing or may it lead to a downturn on Saturday? Also, the player that replaces Luke - Thompson perhaps - may capitalise on the opportunity to play in a way that demands inclusion. This would be good for the team but bad for the career of the player that makes way for him in the team.
There's a Sliding Doors aspect to this when one starts to look at it in any detail and it does not pay to look into decisions that were not obviously wrong but could have gone the other way - Bayo's ball-winning challenge that lead to CMS's cross for the third goal could have been given a free kick, for example. Even confining oneself to unarguably "wrong" ones, it seems philosophically impossible to ascribe a cost to each that would allow an accurate reckoning of the ledger at season's end.
Staying with the Luke situation for a minute and turning to the question of VAR (and I know this isn't the thread for that but it seems relevant); imagine a hypothetical scenario where there was no player available to replace Luke in the next match and Wycombe had to play with ten from the start. Presented thus, the cost of the referee's mistake is clear. That the cost is not so stark is thanks only to the fact that the club has had the foresight to sign more than eleven players. Sensible clubs do that not just to mitigate against injuries but also to provide for suspension, unjust or otherwise. That fact that that is so should not be taken to forgive the fact that damage to the intended integrity of the event was done by the original error. If we aim to make sporting events ones that provide the truest test - and I can't think why we wouldn't - it seems logical to me that we should aim to eradicate egregious errors as much as possible so long as the game is not damaged in other ways by the introduction of a review process. Whether that is so can probably only be determined by carrying out a trial of the sort currently in place in the PL.
HC Blue - completely agree - as I have said in another post, Referees are only human and will always make mistakes, the FA however and especially in this instance, with the evidence presumably provided and with the assumption that they actually bothered reviewing it, are completely wrong in their decision - but not surprising as they don't give a stuff about proper grass roots lower league football.
Well there are quite a few assumptions in there, @Ceefax_Striker. Without knowing whether the behind-goal footage was admissible, it's hard to draw any conclusions. Even if it was admitted, I'm not sure the decision shows an indifference to the lower leagues so much as a misplaced desire to avoid being seen to undermine referees. Being too reluctant to overturn a decision means that, in the long term, there is less trust of and respect for referees and a greater incentive to attempt to mislead them, knowing that if you do so successfully your advantage is highly unlikely to be corrected.
HCblue - yes a difficult situation and when explained in such detail does make you think about the consequences of not supporting "your staff" I guess. I am in Bayswater road next week, I might just pop in to Lancaster Gate to discuss the whole refereeing situation - how far do you think I will get !!
TBH I'm not so surprised the red card has been upheld. For the appeal to be successful there must be CLEAR evidence of an OBVIOUS mistake. I'm not sure the criteria are met by the goal cam footage. Its a very harsh decision and we all think t's wrong but the appeal system is crap and biased toward not making the referee look bad.
@Twizz, you've got it spot on there. You can't be certain from the video footage that he didn't handle it, so we can't get it ruled out.
It's a little mad, as the ref "should" have been certain to award the pen, and he surely cannot have been. Guessed is a little strong, but he must have gone with the probability that it was a handball.
Instead, we can't certainly prove it wasn't a handball, which seems the wrong way round, but a rest will see him ready for Tuesday.
Notts County had a nice one tonight! An extra game, and chased off the pitch 8-1!
Comments
By the way, I haven't yet said that I do not agree with the original proposition of this thread. Let me do so now. Any incorrect decision necessarily stands by itself and cannot easily be said to be offset by another wrong decision that goes in the other direction. Even if the number of wrong decisions going for and against a team is exactly even over a certain period of time - and of course a season is an arbitrary period - the exact consequences of the decisions will be hard if not impossible to measure.
Luke's red card, for example, being a decision I am happy to categorise as wrong on the basis of the in-goal camera footage, has the obvious consequence of us being deprived of a first-choice player for the next match. In a small squad, someone else has to step into the breach, increasing the risk of injury as well as having the obvious impact of a theoretically less capable player coming in. It also nearly had the immediate consequence of turning the game from a victory to a loss - or did it? It is impossible to say that the game would not have turned anyway. Further, it might be that the nature of the comeback while a player down may have a galvanising effect on the morale of the squad that could be different from that of a facile 2-0 victory. How does one measure the two effects? It may also have a physiological effect because it is possible that the players had to work harder to make up for the deficit in numbers. Is the adrenalin that followed the final whistle a good thing or may it lead to a downturn on Saturday? Also, the player that replaces Luke - Thompson perhaps - may capitalise on the opportunity to play in a way that demands inclusion. This would be good for the team but bad for the career of the player that makes way for him in the team.
There's a Sliding Doors aspect to this when one starts to look at it in any detail and it does not pay to look into decisions that were not obviously wrong but could have gone the other way - Bayo's ball-winning challenge that lead to CMS's cross for the third goal could have been given a free kick, for example. Even confining oneself to unarguably "wrong" ones, it seems philosophically impossible to ascribe a cost to each that would allow an accurate reckoning of the ledger at season's end.
Staying with the Luke situation for a minute and turning to the question of VAR (and I know this isn't the thread for that but it seems relevant); imagine a hypothetical scenario where there was no player available to replace Luke in the next match and Wycombe had to play with ten from the start. Presented thus, the cost of the referee's mistake is clear. That the cost is not so stark is thanks only to the fact that the club has had the foresight to sign more than eleven players. Sensible clubs do that not just to mitigate against injuries but also to provide for suspension, unjust or otherwise. That fact that that is so should not be taken to forgive the fact that damage to the intended integrity of the event was done by the original error. If we aim to make sporting events ones that provide the truest test - and I can't think why we wouldn't - it seems logical to me that we should aim to eradicate egregious errors as much as possible so long as the game is not damaged in other ways by the introduction of a review process. Whether that is so can probably only be determined by carrying out a trial of the sort currently in place in the PL.
Yes but with no arm holes;-)
HC Blue - completely agree - as I have said in another post, Referees are only human and will always make mistakes, the FA however and especially in this instance, with the evidence presumably provided and with the assumption that they actually bothered reviewing it, are completely wrong in their decision - but not surprising as they don't give a stuff about proper grass roots lower league football.
Well there are quite a few assumptions in there, @Ceefax_Striker. Without knowing whether the behind-goal footage was admissible, it's hard to draw any conclusions. Even if it was admitted, I'm not sure the decision shows an indifference to the lower leagues so much as a misplaced desire to avoid being seen to undermine referees. Being too reluctant to overturn a decision means that, in the long term, there is less trust of and respect for referees and a greater incentive to attempt to mislead them, knowing that if you do so successfully your advantage is highly unlikely to be corrected.
Love that Mr Valley Wanderer :-)
HCblue - yes a difficult situation and when explained in such detail does make you think about the consequences of not supporting "your staff" I guess. I am in Bayswater road next week, I might just pop in to Lancaster Gate to discuss the whole refereeing situation - how far do you think I will get !!
TBH I'm not so surprised the red card has been upheld. For the appeal to be successful there must be CLEAR evidence of an OBVIOUS mistake. I'm not sure the criteria are met by the goal cam footage. Its a very harsh decision and we all think t's wrong but the appeal system is crap and biased toward not making the referee look bad.
small squad ? behave we have as many players as anybody else if not more. Tafari will come in and Gapey into midfield.
Hope so re Moore & Gape Richie - but I am not sure that our squad is as large as everyone else, can you justify your comment, give examples etc?
We're still third tonight so thank you Swindon (even though they got a red card for violent conduct so a 3 match ban!).
We're second, equal GD with Accrington but we've scored more goals.
@Twizz, you've got it spot on there. You can't be certain from the video footage that he didn't handle it, so we can't get it ruled out.
It's a little mad, as the ref "should" have been certain to award the pen, and he surely cannot have been. Guessed is a little strong, but he must have gone with the probability that it was a handball.
Instead, we can't certainly prove it wasn't a handball, which seems the wrong way round, but a rest will see him ready for Tuesday.
Notts County had a nice one tonight! An extra game, and chased off the pitch 8-1!
You're completely right @floyd and I've no idea why I typed that apart from age!
Swindon had a straight red on Saturday too, so barring any successful appeals, that's two players who will be missing for them next Tuesday.
The 'straight red' last night was only a sub - but even so...