The ref was poor and his errors seemed to largely favor ManU. Everyone but the most deluded ManU fans and Arsenal-haters acknowledges this simple fact. The ManU fans here will never admit that he gave them this game because it would wipe away their "victory" which is all they really have to hold on to after the wreckage of last year and their poor start this season. It seems that a number of ManU fans have poor sportmanship and are quite happy with winning by any means including cheating. I'm a bit surprised by the names of some of the trolls and even more surprised by the sheer number of ManU fans that seem to relish rooney's dive over on their board. I'm glad that many Arsenal fans have commented on their distaste for this behavior even when it has helped us in the past (hello bobby). I wish the FA would do something to encourage fair refereeing at OT which has been an widely recognized issue for years.
Now some of the former and high profile referees have comeout to support Riley. Jeff Winter has said, "This match, with the baggage that it brings, is almost impossible to referee". Er, No! Would you imagine a different game if Pierluigi Collina was in control. First of all, and without wishing to sound to personal against Mike Riley, he doesn't look the part from the start. Thin and frail, receding hair, and by not being strong from the start, by setting out his stall and sending off Ferdinand, the rest would then know how to (or not) how to react. Imagine seeing Collina's piercing eyes staring at you after your first foul! If Riley had taken a stand of "a foul is a foul" whether a home player at Old Trafford or not, that's how you get player's respect; a la Collina. If they know what they can get away with, then they will push it. The referee sets the tone of the game but showing what he will and will not tolerate. If the home team see they are getting all the breaks then they will push (or dive) for that. RvN not being dealt with (until after the game by the F.A.) allows others to do the same. It shouldn't be up to the F.A. to sort out what the referee should during 90 minutes, by way of TV, video or whatever. Strong referees get respect, others get walked over. Collina or Riley? You tell me!
I totally agree. The way the chief referee describes it, Riley went into the match with a survival plan, rather than trying to enforce the rules of the game. ManU read the referee's approach to the game and took advantage accordingly. Not to mention in Riley's case they probably know quite well how he performs at OT.
This is very funny and ironic. Before the game Andy Gray and various others were moaning about how card happy Riley is and that they hope it doesn't ruin the game. So he takes a lenient approach instead and gets pilloried still. The referees can't win. The most hilarious aspect is people bitching about the penalty decision. When that incident happened first time you were probably like "s***, penalty!! " then after the super x-ray slow motion 5-angles Sky replay "wait that wasn't a penalty, f*** Mike Riley! boo hoo!" I think Riley is a pretty poor referee but the usual tabloid minded stupidity that follows any big game is as ignorant and tiresome as ever. At the end of the day the only fact of significance about the game is the (marginally) better team on the night won it.
We pathetic little minions of your dreams thank you for all of your efforts on our behalf. Clearly we can form no opinion of our own, and require you, our great master baiter to pass your great knowledge down to us. Thank you for taking the time to demonstrate your flacidity. We can only await breathlessly your next feeble attempts to arouse and stimulate interest. It is only because we are so unworthy that that we can see you are anything but a normal, lowly jerk. Off we go into our labors, safe in the knowledge that your guiding hand is there, stroking along day and night with no result save for the knowledge of what you have attempted. Your frustration must mount with each passing hour of inattention, and yet you vainly try to display your skills to an ever unwatchful audience. Thanks and happy trolling.
You may not like his style. You may be of the opinion that he isn't a good referee. But one thing that isn't an issue is bias. I say this as someone who has met more than one Select Group referee. It is simply not an issue for these guys. Riley is a reasonably average referee in the league with probably the highest standard of referees in the world.
Yeah, he's ranked 11th out of 20. I guess bottom half of the table is "reasonably average" for Sp*rs.
Please stop trying to be witty, you desperately aren't. And stop calling everyone a troll. You morons call anything that isn't OMG <3 ARSENAL GREATEST TEAM OF ALL EVER trolling. If you read my post I said Riley was a poor referee but was in a bad situation and did the best he could. Probably not the most unreasonable thing you'll read this week, brains.
There are two types of errors that referees are criticised for: errors of law and errors of fact. Errors of law are where a law is applied incorrectly - for example, awarding an Indirect Free Kick for a particular offence where the law states a Direct Free Kick. The refereeing body will acknowledge them and condemn the referee as they are solely his fault. However, these are practically unheard of in top-tier football because referees (as they should) know the laws inside out. Errors of fact are where a referee applies a sanction because he is mistaken as to what actually happened - for example, the referee believed that contact had occured and awarded a penalty, when in fact there was no contact. If an error of fact has clearly been made (eg the slo-mo replay shows beyond all doubt that there was no contact) the refereeing body will acknowledge it, but (dependent on the circumstances) not neccessarily condemn the referee as there is a limit to what can be reasonably expected from them. For example, the Rooney penalty was an error in fact, but it is really no reflection on Riley's ability that he missed it given its nature. However, the most common criticism of referees is not of any actual error that they have made - it is because someone disagrees with their application of judgement. Whether a foul merits a Caution or a Sendoff, whether a foul can be classed as Denying an Obvious Goalscorong Opportunity - these are all in the opinion of the referee. An official refereeing body cannot and will not criticise a referee for an interpretation of the laws that is entirely legitimate. It has no right to.
Until the penalty, there was no difference between the teams. If anything, Carroll's save on Henry was the best chance for either side. The subsequent chances by United were all a result of Arsenal pushing up looking for the equalizer.
I said marginally. Henry had a chance but its not our fault he can't perform in pressure games, the only other chance Arsenal had all game was Cole's shot he blazed over the bar right near the end. We created more, Ronaldo and Giggs having two quick shots blocked, Heinze had one close over and another well hit swerver saved well by Lehman. Ronaldo had a stabbed shot from 6 yards and a header that he really should have scored. Heinze had a header too that was a half chance, and Ronaldo should have had a penalty. Not much in it but we were more composed through out the whole second half. Arsenal came for a draw and we played for a win. I think we just deserved to nick it overall.
Your slew of half chances doesn't prove anything aside from the fact that the teams were even until the penalty. And I say that as a neutral, for whom an Arsenal defeat is the preferable result.
i agree, i think the teams were even until the penalty. After that Arsenal put some pressure on but could not crack the defense and were exposed in the back
To each his own. I'm not sure you are one who's judgement I would accept on this subject. Are you talking to me or to some collective "You morons". As for me, I say if the shoe fits,wear it. That is absolutely untrue. The post that was referenced was all about attacking Arsenal fans. That, sir, is the definition of trolling.
I don't care about his style. I think he is an insult to the word referee. Bias is definitely in play. His record over too many seasons speaks for itself. I have met a lot of top-level referees too. They are people and have biases. I have to disagree completely with your assessment that the EPL is "the league with probably the highest standard of referees in the world." Did you watch any of the Euro 2004? Riley was an embarrassment there and yet he was the referee selected to represent this "highest standard" of referees. Give me a break. This is not the strong point of the English game and, as much as I love the EPL, the standard of officiating is a regular embarassment.
The sad thing about that referee list is that they are ALL crap...and the fact that Riley and Graham Poll represent in Europe is sheer comedy... ....wasn't Collina supposed to referee in the U.K., or have those rumors been killed off ... the match sure could have used him
Do you think you could be any more condescending. Did you just take your ref test and want to show how much you learned? You certainly are working hard to defend the very questionable record of a very questionable referee. What's in it for you? When I was a referee, we had regular clinics to make sure that the type of problems we are seeing with Mr Riley did not occur. Referees were talked to and advised constantly in order to improve their ability to make exactly these types of judgement calls. IMHO Mr Riley shows overall bias as demonstrated by his results as well as poor judgment on the field as demonstrated by his last match. BTW, I just looked more closely at your posted web site. Anyone can sign up for it to "rate the ref". It is not an objective assessment at all!! It has about the same validity as a tracj=king poll that internet users sign into after the debates. Riley got killed this week, by the way. What are you trying to slip by here?
Accusing a referee of bias is akin to accusing him of cheating. That is the single greatest insult that you can use against a referee. It is, frankly, a ridiculous claim as anyone who has met the man will tell you. The EPL is the only league in the world to have to have a fully-professional referees panel. They may not produce the very best individual referees in the world (of the top 5 on the FIFA list I would say one, possibly none, are English) but the aggregate standard of refereeing across the league is substantially higher than other leagues.
You said it, not me. It is far from a ridiculous claim. I will spell it out-Riley should not be allowed to referee a game involving ManU or teams that are contending with ManU. I didn't realize you had met him. BTW, what do you mean by met; walked past in a tavern, introduced at halftime, had a beer at the pub after the match, longtime friend of the family? What do you mean? Absolutely serious question here, who is the one? Who do you consider the top referee in English football today? Do you really think the overall standard is better than Italy or Spain?
It wasn't my intention to be condescending and if it came across like that I apologise. I was trying to address your remark about why the refereeing body doesn't seem to be publically critical of referees and I had no idea if I was speaking to a referee or not. The judgement calls made by Riley are open to interpretation. Personally, I don't agree with several of them either. That's not to say they were wrong, however. There are plenty of occasions where (for example) there are strong cases to be made for both issuing and not issuing a card, and the decision is solely the referee's. It's a long leap from saying "I would have done it differently" to "He has poor judgement". I assumed that was the type of opinion you wanted. The opinions of the FA Assessors whose marks placed him in the Select Group and determine his matches, or the Referees chief who has supported him are pretty clear. That site shows what could be more considered public opinion. Yes, Riley got killed this week. We all know that the general public is of the view that he had a lousy game. My point is, from the long-term reports, even the general public seems to think that he's a fair-to-reasonable referee, rather than a total disgrace.
This is wrong on two levels: 1) A referee may be *unconsciously* biased in favor of a club. While that makes him a crappy referee, it does not make him a cheat. 2) The greatest insult you can use against a referee, or anyone else for that matter, is "your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries." I get goosebumps just thinking about it.
No prob-- I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. IMHO one's assessment of a referee's judgement is precisely the way one evaluates a referee. I don't know how you are proposing to do it. You still didn't answer my question of what you mean by "met" Mr Riley. Slipping into that condescension thing again, are we? As a matter of fact, the FA Assessors data is exactly what I'd want to have. I'd like to have it game-by-game. You couldn't be more wrong about me if you were trying. Based on watching Mr Riley in the summer when he was awful and over the weekend when he showed many of the same glaring deficiencies, I just wanted to know if there was a pattern. Having better data can only help that goal. As to the Ref chief who supported him, what else did you expect? I certainly didn't expect him to come out and publicly castigate Riley. To do so would have reflected poorly on his judgement in assigning Riley to a game he handled poorly. I can't believe you expected anything other than this from the chief ref. I have seen no stats to confirm or deny your assumption. All of the stats I have quoted I have given reference for. You have given a non-scientific public opinion poll that no one should use.
I've made my point of view clear, I don't think we're going to agree. I have a lot of respect for you as a poster so I'm just going to leave that point now. A few years ago I was staying with an English referee and went to one of his Society meetings where Riley delivered a guest speech. I met him briefly afterwards, asked a couple questions, nothing special. I don't know. Paul Durkin probably until the end of last season, nobody has really stood out so far this season. Graham Poll always gets the big games, I suppose. I honestly do think that Premiership referees are a better overall standard but I certainly have no idea how I would prove it.
I agree, and I have the same respect for you, even though we disagree. Actually that is very cool, IMHO. That is one of the problems, AFAIK there is no objective standard for measuring officials in different leagues.
I don't know what it is like for top referees, but from talking to lower-league refs in England I think even they only get a comments sheet from their assessments and the marks are kept secret unless you apply through the FA and pay a fee. It's certainly not something that I think we can ever look forward to becoming public. However it's pretty safe to say that the Assessors must approve of him to a certain degree, because he's been on the SG for a while, refereed the 2001 FA Cup Final and continues to get big appointments like MUFC v Arsenal. FAMOA usually just sits tight and doesn't come out in defence of a referee who's in their bad books. Remember that referee last year who 'scored' a goal on deflection in the FL playoffs? I was only using the public opinion poll as just that - a rough indicator of public opinion. The opinions on that site put him at about the upper middle of the pack when it comes to referees in the Premiership. Hardly a ringing endorsement when he's one of the 'elite' sent to Euro, but not exactly abysmal.