I really don't think that he had "Big club Leeds" in his head. It's a load of piffle to believe referees go on to the pitch with the idea of favouring a 'Big club'.Referees cannot see everything as they make decisions based on their view on the field of play which is of course very different from the umpteen views we see on TV.

I'm am sure there were numerous decisions made by Gallagher which were a credit to his profession.I recall him as being a very capable referee who refereed on the PL for 15 years.

Edited by Willo (20 Nov 2017 9.29pm)

I don't agree with all the 'Serious errors' that you have listed.

But of course the excellent split-second decisions that I am sure were made throughout the weekend are simply not highlighted by the media as they are often not that obvious and of course the media concentrate on contentious issues.

Off to eat now and then to bed.Goodnight.

Actually you're right: in that the list isn't quite complete. I forgot to mention Clark pulling Lukaku down by the shirt in the box, and Carroll's elbow in the face of Zeegelar. I've updated the list. So that's seven out of ten Premiership matches involving serious errors by the referee.

Six of them are discussed here

[Link]

and all are listed as incorrect decisions.

The ref review considers "every red card (or avoidance of one), every penalty and any other major incident every matchday". There were eight of those decisions over the weekend (not counting the Seaweed match tonight) and the refs got six of them wrong. 75% of major refereeing decisions in Premier League matches wrong. Three out of four.

The seventh s*** ref performance of the weekend occurred this evening and wasn't reviewed, but the referee left the Amex to a chorus of loud boos from both sets of fans and was roundly condemned by the BBC commentary, so he presumably also has scant defence.

Yet according to you 30% of Premier League matches being officiated correctly and fairly, 25% of major calls being right, is acceptable; because after all "most" of the decisions (the easy ones, at least) are OK.

I've never heard such bollocks in all my life.

Edited by chateauferret (20 Nov 2017 10.34pm)

============
The Ferret
============

Where did I make this claim? All I said was that 25%, 30% was not good enough. And if you think it is then you need your f***ing bumps felt.

You wouldn't know what grandstanding rhetoric was if it got up and smacked you in the face. I gave you a list of hard facts: specific matches, specific decisions, specific references to expert analysis of them, even links to reports and video clips. That isn't grandstanding rhetoric, it's concrete evidence. True, only from one weekend, a weekend on which about 35% of football fans were ripped off by the officials.

If by "brilliant decisions" you mean the big ones that they actually get right, this weekend they managed two out of the eight listed in the reviews I referenced. I suppose two out of eight could be called "some". I'd like them to get more than "some" of them right, and certainly more than a quarter. Nowhere did I mention 100%.

My list isn't selective. I looked at every single PL game this weekend just gone, and at reviews of every single "big" decision (as defined above). All of them. Including the ones they got right. I did not "select" anything. The only "big" calls not included are the penalty appeals denied (there was one of those in our match).

And those decisions aren't so-called anything. They're objectively, clearly and plainly incorrect.

Bad decisions on big calls certainly do affect the outtomes of matches. Are you seriously claiming that:

- a team reduced to ten men for nearly the whole game isn't significantly weakened?
- a wrongly-awarded penalty or a penalty not awarded that should have been isn't significant in a game that finished 2-2?
- a three-match ban for a red card doesn't affect the three matches concerned, especially when it involves a player as important for a team as Murray is for Brighton?

In fact it was asserted on TalkSh!te this evening, and by people who know far better than you or I, that the notorious ghost goal incident of 1980

[Link]

affected Palace not only for that match but for the whole of the rest of the season and contributed significantly to our relegation. I don't know if I'd go that far but it certainly had effects that went well beyond that one game. (Happily it could not happen today, but the decisions I listed could be similarly significant).

And of course this research only covered big decisions, it makes no mention of the constant failure to protect important players, the poor match management and the failure to apply the Laws consistently which we saw 95 minutes of on Saturday.

It is you who are grandstanding, my friend, because it is you that are making statements unsupported with any evidence more solid than "my pal said this so it must be right" or "100 years ago I took a referees' test". It is you twist the words of others to put words like "100 per cent." into their mouths so that you can attack what they didn't say. And it is you who stick your fingers in your ears as soon as anyone produces evidence that demolishes your one and only argument.

Typical Tory politician, I suppose.

============
The Ferret
============

I give up Willo, trying to have a proper conversation with you is like talking to a bowl of porridge (with apologies to the porridge)

Even the FA seem to have concluded he got the 'penalty' decision wrong.

It's pointless discussing refereeing with Willo.