Why Refs need our help / Liverpool and Arsenal should have lost / Chelsea and Fulham should have won
It’s been quite a weekend with many sets of fans left fuming at refereeing decisions going against their teams.
The Right Result.net panel have been very busy looking at this weekend’s fixtures. The independent panel have judged that seven of the games should have finished with a different score. These results mean its all change on the Right Result table. Chelsea have overtaken Liverpool at the top of the table. The panel believe Middlesbrough should be up into 7th while West Ham have dropped into our bottom 3.
Before we get to the fixtures and the scoreline changes, I want to request our readers to think about the following the next time they get angry at a ref:
We all hate it when a ref’s mistake costs our team points. But blaming the refs and thinking of carrying out extreme violence against them / their property (you’re thinking about it, someone out there is probably acting it out) is not the answer, in fact it’s the stupidest thing you can do. The more anger we vent towards refs, the worse it will get for football and refereeing standards as more and more competent refs drop out due to abuse and we’re left with amateurs officiating the top games.
Refs need help. They need a fifth ref with video replays to help correct mistakes. They need help in terms of clarified rules. They need goal-line tech. They need post-match video reviews to take care of dangerous tackling, diving and any challenges / incidents that the ref didn’t see.
Those who make the rules can give them more help.
It is time to target the collective cannons of all aggrieved fans around the world against the powers that be – i.e. FIFA, who have so far failed to allow the most basic of technological assistance, goal-line tech, to be introduced in English football.
The next time a decision goes wrong against your team and it’s not corrected, blame FIFA for not being at the forefront of taking care of what fans want – justice.
On to this weekend’s fixtures:
1) LIVERPOOL v HULL CITY (2-2)
- The panel believe that Michael Turner was fouled by Albert Riera in the run up to Liverpool’s first goal
THE RIGHT RESULT: LIVERPOOL 1-2 HULL CITY
2) CHELSEA v WEST HAM (1-1)
- The panel have judged that Chelsea should have had a penalty for Lucas Neill’s late trip on Frank Lampard
THE RIGHT RESULT: CHELSEA 2-1 WEST HAM
3) MIDDLESBROUGH v ARSENAL (1-1)
- The panel believe that Middlesbrough should have had a penalty for Gael Clichy’s trip on Adam Johnson
THE RIGHT RESULT: MIDDLESBROUGH 2-1 ARSENAL
4) STOKE v FULHAM (0-0)
- The panel have judged that a handball from Danny Higginbotham should have resulted in a Fulham penalty
THE RIGHT RESULT: STOKE 0-1 FULHAM
5) PORTSMOUTH v NEWCASTLE (0-3)
- The panel have judged that Portsmouth should have been awarded a penalty for Sebastien Bassong’s foul on Jermain Defoe
THE RIGHT RESULT: PORTSMOUTH 1-3 NEWCASTLE
6) MANCHESTER CITY v EVERTON (0-1)
- The panel believe Leon Osman was fouled by Michael Ball and Everton should have had a penalty
THE RIGHT RESULT: MANCHESTER CITY 0-2 EVERTON
7) ASTON VILLA v BOLTON WANDERERS (4-2)
- The panel believe a handball by Gary Cahill should have resulted in a penalty for Aston Villa.
THE RIGHT RESULT: ASTON VILLA 5-2 BOLTON
See the full Right Result table here and previous Right Result archives here. To learn more about Right Result and to follow it every week, click here.
If you think the officials got a decision wrong on the weekend, something that would have resulted in a goal or prevented one, let us know in the comments below.
Topics: Arsenal, Aston Villa, Bolton Wanderers, Chelsea, English Premier League, Everton, Features, Fulham, Help Football, Hull City, Liverpool, Manchester City, Middlesbrough, Newcastle United, Portsmouth, Right Result, West Ham
Football News 24/7
Perhaps we should just ignore the countless fouls committed by Hull particularly in the first half some of which were so blatant the crowd was at an utter loss to understand how the referee could have missed them. I was at the match and I did not have my rose coloured spectacles on nor have I been eating sour grapes. I fully agree about the foul we committed in relation to at least one of our goals.
December 15th, 2008 @ 17:51The panel believe Fat frank was tripped, Is the panel Andy Gray. Neill put his foot out and pulled it back in again. As he was pulling it back in Lampard took the initiative and dived over it. It was lampard who made the contact, Neill was trying to avoid contact but fat frank decided otherwise. Ps. I like the way your so confident of everyone scoring penos. Anyone ever see a keeper save one, at least once in a while.
December 15th, 2008 @ 18:21this is one the most rubbish piece of analysis/article i have come across. you just cannot make stuff up. let me explain…
December 15th, 2008 @ 18:24who is to say chelsea would have scored from the penalty?
who is to say liverpool would have not scored again had they been 2-0 or 2-1 down if the goal wasnt given?
who is to say what the result could have been had ronaldo been sent off for that blatant kick at dawson?
et cetera…
hence this analysis is all bull…i have read great articles on this website but i am sorry, this one is a joke.
Might help your case if you read how RR decides results – they’ve pretty much catered for and answered all your questions (similar scenarios), so a little research before mouthing off would help.
As for that Ronaldo bit – the ref said upon reviewing the video replay that he wouldn’t have sent him off if he had seen it, so that’s that.
December 15th, 2008 @ 18:52What about Drogba diving just before Neill supposedly fouled fatty in the box. That should have been a yellow card to Drogba and a West Ham free kick for unsporting behaviour. So if you’re going to scrutinise decisions you may as well scrutinise them all, as such there never should have been a penalty shout.
December 15th, 2008 @ 19:46While I agree with most of the article, there is one tiny glitch.. Even if players are fouled in the box and deserve a penalty, there is no guarantee that the penalty would have been converted. so you couldnt say for sure that chelsea would have won 2-1. Green is a pretty good shot stopper.
December 15th, 2008 @ 20:10Credit were credit is due…this article sucks ball entirely. I often try to place er constructive arguments but… this article sucks(repeating myself)…
Now, this is not because of the provocative title of the article or my liverpool bias, but this article lacks any essence.
The panel RightResult.net (or more stylishly RR, as coined by Ahmed) should really rename itself as ‘ PenaltyCallDecider.net’. Because, a match of football DOES NOT relie solely on penalties or fouls.
Really, that site is just trying to gain money from the increasingly sordid-money-oriented Premierleague from gullible fans. And I am pretty disappointed Soccerlens are actually promoting such a site.And, I don’t believe you are actually trying to justify that shit of an article, ahmed. I’m just calling a cat a cat.REMEMBER: I have no personal enemity with the writer.
Finally, fat frank dived( all people will agree with this, except some chelsea n united fans.) I’m not saying that Liverpool players don’t dive, just that the ref read him clearly there.Actually, if Charlton Cole had kept his head, West Ham should have won. BYE N PEACE.
December 15th, 2008 @ 22:50Harasuke – I take it you can’t read, as usual. nothing new there.
December 16th, 2008 @ 06:16The essence of this article lies in the fourth and fifth paragraphs, the rest is just a round-up of how many blatant mistakes the refs had made during the game. There is no knowing that the ‘correct’ results (predicted by RR) would have been realized had the call been correct.
As RR used to say on their site (I haven’t visited it in a while, so I don’t know what is there anymore):
“We realize that this is not a perfect method of accounting for the referees’ mistakes, but at least it is a start.” (or something along those lines.
December 16th, 2008 @ 00:23I think it was a very bad week! Refs played really badly!!
December 16th, 2008 @ 09:16How dare you ahmed…
I’ve got A2 in O-level English and A1 in O-level French, I definitely can read and I am quite good at reading between the lines ( and yes im a bit paranoid 2).
I can’t read? You mean you were not defending that article? But you did…subtuly I agree, but you did. The comments before yours were overly negative and your comments does make it look like you’re defending the article.
And I repeat: there’s no essence to this article: Refs do make mistake, and yes we all know ( except the so-incompetent FIFA executives) that refs should make use of videos…but the title of this article is really misleading if it’s just to state the obvious again.
I’m just pissed because it’s just a promotional campaign for a shitty site (RR). I so hope Soccerlens have not parterned them…
December 16th, 2008 @ 14:52subtly..i meant
December 16th, 2008 @ 14:53It’s not a promotional campaign and while I respect all feedback on the site, I don’t need to be told if a site is ‘shitty’ or not. If you read my comments on RightResult (you can read, right? http://soccerlens.com/right-result/ for your basic background info) you’ll understand more about where I stand and what I think about them.
I don’t feel the need to explain EVERY SINGLE TIME what RightResult is – if you can’t follow the links and read for yourself how they arrive at their decisions and see if your objections have been already addressed (everything you’ve said, it’s been covered in either my articles or on their site), then I’m sorry, your comprehension skills are below par.
The article is a column we do listing scoreline changing referee decisions every week. I added the bit at the start about referees needing our help, and yes, I wrote that title as well.
Is it misleading? According to the criteria set by the RR panel (again, before dismissing them read the link above), they should have lost.
Just because you’re pissed at your club not performing to their ‘potential’ does not mean you go attacking other sites for pointing out their flaws.
As for the comments before mine – angry fans will rant. I expect a tad bit better from the regular readers. Is that wrong?
December 16th, 2008 @ 15:09wat you guys think of ronaldo’s diving or against stoke city where he actually raise his boot against another player.Wat about rooney?? where he said fuck off?? rite result….lol
December 28th, 2008 @ 02:06