Ref: Palace v Burnley

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Ref: Palace v Burnley

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 24 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Rachid Rachid Rachid 29 Apr 17 9.40pm
He was sh1t but, as has already been pointed out, the linesmen were both equally incompetent.
Alert a moderator to this post

Rachid Rachid Rachid

29 Apr 17 9.40pm

Send a Private Message to Rachid Rachid Rachid

He was sh1t but, as has already been pointed out, the linesmen were both equally incompetent.

Alert a moderator to this post

AndyD 29 Apr 17 9.44pm
The linesman on the Main Stand side was the worst of the bunch. He had an absolute shocker and must be really embarrassed. He looked totally out of his depth.
Alert a moderator to this post

AndyD

29 Apr 17 9.44pm

The linesman on the Main Stand side was the worst of the bunch. He had an absolute shocker and must be really embarrassed. He looked totally out of his depth.

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 29 Apr 17 9.52pm
Originally posted by merganser He may not have got every decision correct, but he was always in control. Not sure that he had much help from his assistants. This. I thought the Assistant in front of Holmesdale was as incompetent as I have seen. Became like a rabbit in the headlights..he didn't even give the handball, I have a feeling that decision came from the 4th Official.
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 29 Apr 17 9.52pm

Originally posted by merganser

He may not have got every decision correct, but he was always in control.

Not sure that he had much help from his assistants.

This.
I thought the Assistant in front of Holmesdale was as incompetent as I have seen. Became like a rabbit in the headlights..he didn't even give the handball, I have a feeling that decision came from the 4th Official.

Alert a moderator to this post

EagleLee79 Mablethorpe, Lincs 29 Apr 17 9.56pm
The commentators were saying the Burnley player got enough of the ball for it not to be a penalty. Bollocks. He came through the back of Wilf first then got a touch on the ball afterwards. That is a penalty you incompetent prick. If that was in the middle of the pitch it would have been a free-kick. To Burnley, not Palace may i add... Edited by EagleLee79 (29 Apr 2017 9.57pm) Add me on Xbox One or PS4 - Eaglelee79
Alert a moderator to this post

EagleLee79

Mablethorpe, Lincs 29 Apr 17 9.56pm

The commentators were saying the Burnley player got enough of the ball for it not to be a penalty. Bollocks.

He came through the back of Wilf first then got a touch on the ball afterwards. That is a penalty you incompetent prick. If that was in the middle of the pitch it would have been a free-kick. To Burnley, not Palace may i add...

Edited by EagleLee79 (29 Apr 2017 9.57pm)

Add me on Xbox One or PS4 - Eaglelee79

Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret 29 Apr 17 9.59pm
Originally posted by EagleLee79 The commentators were saying the Burnley player got enough of the ball for it not to be a penalty. Bollocks. He came through the back of Wilf first then got a touch on the ball afterwards. That is a penalty you incompetent prick. If that was in the middle of the pitch it would have been a free-kick. To Burnley, not Palace may i add... Edited by EagleLee79 (29 Apr 2017 9.57pm) That was as stonewall penalty as I have seen. The idea that a player who touches the ball automatically doesn't concede a foul is bollocks: it may tell you whether a tackle was well timed or not, but if he cleans the player out then plays the ball (as here), that's a foul. ============ The Ferret ============
Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret

29 Apr 17 9.59pm

Originally posted by EagleLee79

The commentators were saying the Burnley player got enough of the ball for it not to be a penalty. Bollocks.

Edited by EagleLee79 (29 Apr 2017 9.57pm)

That was as stonewall penalty as I have seen. The idea that a player who touches the ball automatically doesn't concede a foul is bollocks: it may tell you whether a tackle was well timed or not, but if he cleans the player out then plays the ball (as here), that's a foul.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

merganser 29 Apr 17 10.12pm
I don't think either lino was that great. But who am I to say? Adam Nunn (Wiltshire) and Marc Perry (W. Midlands) are both very experienced Premier League assistant referees who have been in top-flight duty all season.
Alert a moderator to this post

merganser

29 Apr 17 10.12pm

I don't think either lino was that great.

But who am I to say?

Adam Nunn (Wiltshire) and Marc Perry (W. Midlands) are both very experienced Premier League assistant referees who have been in top-flight duty all season.

Alert a moderator to this post

EagleLee79 Mablethorpe, Lincs 29 Apr 17 10.15pm
Originally posted by merganser I don't think either lino was that great. But who am I to say? Adam Nunn (Wiltshire) and Marc Perry (W. Midlands) are both very experienced Premier League assistant referees who have been in top-flight duty all season. If i was as incompetent as them pair of clowns in my line of work, id be getting the sack in the morning. Both of them were f***ing useless and half the time didnt know what to do with the flag. Add me on Xbox One or PS4 - Eaglelee79
Alert a moderator to this post

EagleLee79

Mablethorpe, Lincs 29 Apr 17 10.15pm

Originally posted by merganser

I don't think either lino was that great.

But who am I to say?

Adam Nunn (Wiltshire) and Marc Perry (W. Midlands) are both very experienced Premier League assistant referees who have been in top-flight duty all season.

If i was as incompetent as them pair of clowns in my line of work, id be getting the sack in the morning.

Both of them were f***ing useless and half the time didnt know what to do with the flag.

Add me on Xbox One or PS4 - Eaglelee79

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 29 Apr 17 10.29pm
Originally posted by EagleLee79 The commentators were saying the Burnley player got enough of the ball for it not to be a penalty. Bollocks. He came through the back of Wilf first then got a touch on the ball afterwards. That is a penalty you incompetent prick. If that was in the middle of the pitch it would have been a free-kick. To Burnley, not Palace may i add... Edited by EagleLee79 (29 Apr 2017 9.57pm) Agree. Bollocks decision. The commentators included G Poll who also seems to now think you can't foul someone provided you touch the ball at some point. Why does our club get this sh*t from referees time and time again? Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 29 Apr 17 10.29pm

Originally posted by EagleLee79

The commentators were saying the Burnley player got enough of the ball for it not to be a penalty. Bollocks.

Edited by EagleLee79 (29 Apr 2017 9.57pm)

Agree. Bollocks decision. The commentators included G Poll who also seems to now think you can't foul someone provided you touch the ball at some point. Why does our club get this sh*t from referees time and time again?

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 29 Apr 17 10.39pm
Originally posted by chateauferret I think that was actually the worst officiating performance of the season, against some very stiff opposition. Giving Wilf offside was ridiculous and let Heaton away with a clear professional foul which would have been a mandatory straight red card and that was just for f***ing starters. Madley was blatantly, clearly and obviously biased and as with the Spurs game the motive is obvious. It's absolutely scandalous. Agree with you 100% but please clarify what you believe the motive is? To punish Sam for the England affair? To punish Wilf for choosing to play for I Coast? Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 29 Apr 17 10.39pm

Originally posted by chateauferret

I think that was actually the worst officiating performance of the season, against some very stiff opposition. Giving Wilf offside was ridiculous and let Heaton away with a clear professional foul which would have been a mandatory straight red card and that was just for f***ing starters. Madley was blatantly, clearly and obviously biased and as with the Spurs game the motive is obvious.

It's absolutely scandalous.

Agree with you 100% but please clarify what you believe the motive is? To punish Sam for the England affair? To punish Wilf for choosing to play for I Coast?

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Dangermouse Hastings 29 Apr 17 11.05pm
Madley has made some very obvious, stupid decisions this season and it's clearly affecting him. Today he just didn't want to give anything for fear of getting it hopelessly wrong as usual and his assistants did exactly the same. Always baffled why they deem it more acceptable to get it wrong by not giving something, rather than wrong by giving it. Once more Wilf was a Piñata, and got booked for dissent. He was visibly frustrated at the end and displays like this will cost us his services IMO. He's probably going anyway, but it doesn't help when he knows he'll get more protection at a bigger club. Benteke was booked for winning a header and yet as far as I remember not one Burnley player was cautioned. Madley clearly was out of his depth and video can't come soon enough, because too many games are being shaped by weak/poor/pathetic refereeing. Today, just like Wednesday we should of been playing 10 men for more than an hour. Yes you can say we were poor, we didn't deserve anything from both games, but if the refs do their job, it changes the whole game. So we now have three games left for the 3 for 13 against bent calls to even themselves out over the course of the season. Edited by Dangermouse (29 Apr 2017 11.07pm) That's Life And as funny as it may seem Some people get their kicks stompin' on a Dream. KEEP THE FAITH!!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Dangermouse

Hastings 29 Apr 17 11.05pm

Madley has made some very obvious, stupid decisions this season and it's clearly affecting him. Today he just didn't want to give anything for fear of getting it hopelessly wrong as usual and his assistants did exactly the same. Always baffled why they deem it more acceptable to get it wrong by not giving something, rather than wrong by giving it.
Once more Wilf was a Piñata, and got booked for dissent. He was visibly frustrated at the end and displays like this will cost us his services IMO. He's probably going anyway, but it doesn't help when he knows he'll get more protection at a bigger club.
Benteke was booked for winning a header and yet as far as I remember not one Burnley player was cautioned. Madley clearly was out of his depth and video can't come soon enough, because too many games are being shaped by weak/poor/pathetic refereeing. Today, just like Wednesday we should of been playing 10 men for more than an hour. Yes you can say we were poor, we didn't deserve anything from both games, but if the refs do their job, it changes the whole game.
So we now have three games left for the 3 for 13 against bent calls to even themselves out over the course of the season.

Edited by Dangermouse (29 Apr 2017 11.07pm)

That's Life
And as funny as it may seem
Some people get their kicks stompin' on a Dream.
KEEP THE FAITH!!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret 29 Apr 17 11.08pm
Originally posted by YT Agree with you 100% but please clarify what you believe the motive is? To punish Sam for the England affair? To punish Wilf for choosing to play for I Coast? Look for the vested (commercial) interest. The motive, clearly, is to keep issues open for as long as possible so that the matches remain "interesting" until the last day. In this case, Sky will clearly not be happy if Palace v Hull is a dead rubber (for example). It's been retimed and advertised for some time, having been identified as a likely six-pointer. Edited by chateauferret (29 Apr 2017 11.11pm) ============ The Ferret ============
Alert a moderator to this post

chateauferret

29 Apr 17 11.08pm

Originally posted by YT

Agree with you 100% but please clarify what you believe the motive is? To punish Sam for the England affair? To punish Wilf for choosing to play for I Coast?

Look for the vested (commercial) interest.

The motive, clearly, is to keep issues open for as long as possible so that the matches remain "interesting" until the last day. In this case, Sky will clearly not be happy if Palace v Hull is a dead rubber (for example). It's been retimed and advertised for some time, having been identified as a likely six-pointer.

Edited by chateauferret (29 Apr 2017 11.11pm)

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

Alert a moderator to this post

so many memories basingstoke 29 Apr 17 11.10pm
I thought Burnley were already on the lilos in the pool, beach amount of time their players seemed to spend on their arses today. Another inept ref. By the way Willo been quite must have been up to west brom to see off clattenf*. Get it on-get it in-FK OFF ALAN HANSEN!!
Alert a moderator to this post

so many memories

basingstoke 29 Apr 17 11.10pm

Send a Private Message to so many memories

I thought Burnley were already on the lilos in the pool, beach amount of time their players seemed to spend on their arses today. Another inept ref. By the way Willo been quite must have been up to west brom to see off clattenf***.

Get it on-get it in-F**K OFF ALAN HANSEN!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 24 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Ref: Palace v Burnley

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors