|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 10:16:19 GMT
Every team should be putting a complaint in about that - for the good of football
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Dec 28, 2013 10:19:45 GMT
Be interesting to see whats reported and said on soccer Saturday this afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Dec 28, 2013 10:25:07 GMT
Rooney has committed a similar yet far more aggressive foul than Whelan's second booking against both Cardiff and Hull this season and escaped without punishment each time.
Any ideas why that could be?
Good on Peter Coates. Atkinson has shafted us too many times for this to be ineptitude on his part.
He clearly refs our games with a perception that we are the bad guys and that he has to stop our aggressive players.
6 sending offs of which only 1 was correct, 1 perfectly good goal disallowed and in the very same incident refusing a blatant penalty as the ball was cleared away from the line by the most blatant handball you will ever see.
That doesn't even take into account the fact that he was the cup final ref who allowed the systematic kicking of Jermaine Pennant out of that game. Something I had completely forgotten about until yesterday!
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Dec 28, 2013 10:34:18 GMT
This has far east betting scam written all over it!
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Dec 28, 2013 10:55:34 GMT
Will this just make us look like a bunch of mard arses? Sour grapes and all that. If it forces the powers that be to review the game properly, maybe something could come from it all. I think that it is important to emphasise the issue of consistency. The FA / referees association have the opportunity to rerun all Premiership football games and take a good look at what is happening. They also have the task of managing and guiding officials to make the right decisions for most of the time If every incident that we were unhappy about (v Newcastle) was applied consistently at all the weekend games, then fair enough, however there would have been a lot more red and yellow cards imo Sour grapes, maybe - but there does seem to be an inconsistent approach when the high profile teams are involved. The Rooney case of only 1 yellow being a good example Officials have a thankless task but are paid to get major decisions right. Let's hope that the official comments made by Stoke are seen as constructive You can't have consistency across all games, every weekend - it's physically impossible due to human behaviour and judgment. What we should aim for is consistency over an entire game, where the ref has apllied the law evenly to both sides. This was not done in our game versus Newcastle - the most obvious example being Whelan getting booked first time for doing exactly the same as Cabaye, who did not get booked. Personally I don't give a fuck what happened in other games - that's for another referee at another game to decide. For what it's worth, I think it's fairly obvious Rooney deserved at least two yellow cards, but that had no bearing on Atkinson's poor decisions. I'm all for common sense in refereeing, and that will lead to inconsistency as different humans have different levels of what is sense. As for sending a letter, I'd not be opposed to it but going public with it will just drag the whole saga out longer. It now ensures Hughes and Coates will receive questions from the press about it for the next two weeks at least. There's a chance this could distract from the job in hand - getting as many points as possible. It also allows the press to frame it that we are "demanding" an apology which, if the point of an apology is to show remorse, negates the whole process if he is forced into it. I liked Coates' policy when we were first promoted. Pulis was not allowed to mention the referees in his post-match interview, and any comments were made by Coates after the weekend. This policy probably wasn't practical on Boxing Day, as the ref was the most influential person on the field and it would have been impossible for Hughes to not answer any questions. But I wouldn't mind us getting back to that policy in the future.
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 28, 2013 10:57:05 GMT
The real problem with Atkinson’s decisions is not simply that they were wrong. If you look at most of the decisions, they were correct by the “letter of the law” –look at some of the reports on the game. The problem is that as a referee you should be aware that your interpretation of the “law” and your selection of sanctions, or punishments, can seriously affect the balance of the game. You can decide the result of a game by simply punishing one team more than the other and yet you would be making all the right decisions. Having made one harsh decision many sensible referees would attempt to mitigate this with a more sympathetic interpretation next time. Not Atkinson. There is also “the benefit of the doubt” – situations where no one can be certain what has happened exactly, and here many sensible officials would try to be at least even handed. On no occasion did Atkinson attempt to address any of this. He allowed himself to hand the game to Newcastle and to be the deciding factor in the match. A referee should be aware that his discretion and his awareness of “sportsmanship” is a bigger factor in any game than the skill of either team. If he has no discretion he has no place on the field of play.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Dec 28, 2013 11:00:30 GMT
The real problem with Atkinson’s decisions is not simply that they were wrong. If you look at most of the decisions, they were correct by the “letter of the law” –look at some of the reports on the game. The problem is that as a referee you should be aware that your interpretation of the “law” and your selection of sanctions, or punishments, can seriously affect the balance of the game. You can decide the result of a game by simply punishing one team more than the other and yet you would be making all the right decisions. Having made one harsh decision many sensible referees would attempt to mitigate this with a more sympathetic interpretation next time. Not Atkinson. There is also “the benefit of the doubt” – situations where no one can be certain what has happened exactly, and here many sensible officials would try to be at least even handed. On no occasion did Atkinson attempt to address any of this. He allowed himself to hand the game to Newcastle and to be the deciding factor in the match. A referee should be aware that his discretion and his awareness of “sportsmanship” is a bigger factor in any game than the skill of either team. If he has no discretion he has no place on the field of play. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Dec 28, 2013 11:05:04 GMT
I'll be gutted if he doesn't ref us again. Especially at the brit. Just to see what he does
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 11:07:03 GMT
The real problem with Atkinson’s decisions is not simply that they were wrong. If you look at most of the decisions, they were correct by the “letter of the law” –look at some of the reports on the game. The problem is that as a referee you should be aware that your interpretation of the “law” and your selection of sanctions, or punishments, can seriously affect the balance of the game. You can decide the result of a game by simply punishing one team more than the other and yet you would be making all the right decisions. Having made one harsh decision many sensible referees would attempt to mitigate this with a more sympathetic interpretation next time. Not Atkinson. There is also “the benefit of the doubt” – situations where no one can be certain what has happened exactly, and here many sensible officials would try to be at least even handed. On no occasion did Atkinson attempt to address any of this. He allowed himself to hand the game to Newcastle and to be the deciding factor in the match. A referee should be aware that his discretion and his awareness of “sportsmanship” is a bigger factor in any game than the skill of either team. If he has no discretion he has no place on the field of play. Yes exactly He did this with whelan then knew he had to send wilson off If it was the other way around, would he have been leaniant with whelan?
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 28, 2013 11:23:44 GMT
But he doesn't have to justify his decisions. If Wilson had been Vidic does anyone think he would have been sent off. When did Man U last get two players sent off? It could have been argued that Shawcross might have made a tackle or that the ball would have gone through to Sorenson. Particularly in the light of the Whelan decision. Besides Remy was also holding Wilson. Atkinson ignored such mitigating factors again.
|
|
|
Post by sjohank on Dec 28, 2013 11:53:03 GMT
I just hope we also look at ourselves as well...We do have a history of shirt pulling ( as do many more ) but I don't think we are a cynical malicious gang of thugs as many in the press like to portray. Having said that , we are officially the dirtiest football team which in itself does not do us any favours in trying to put forward a case in relation to this complaint. Many have already made their feelings clearly known in relation to my ''take on the situation , but I try my best to be fair and impartial. I think we were harshly treated on a number of occasions , but not as bad as many would imply or suggest. Tazi has even suggested (and he's not on his own) that the ref is taking money ....well I'm sorry but that suggestion is both ridiculous and out of order. The comments by Terry Conroy and Nigel Johnson after the game didn't help but to be fair did not suggest anything sinister or fradulent. Overall ....I just hope we have learned our lesson of indiscipline which effectively cost us the game. So - (officially) we're the dirtiest football team in the Prem. Are we?. And (officially?) we should have learnt our lesson now. Should we?. Wow! My interpretation: You don't support the Stoke City official complaint re. referee Atkinsons "job" in Newcastle. Unbelievable - almost comical. To Peter Coates:
|
|
|
Post by sjohank on Dec 28, 2013 12:16:25 GMT
Mumf I have to say that you take this seasons prize for persistence....of course you are entitled to your opinion, but ffs give it a rest now. Take up your points with Peter Coates and see what he has to say. What professional source declares us as 'the dirtiest football team'? I saw your link to some dodgy set of figures trying to equate yellow cards to dirty play, you simply cannot take this stuff seriously can you? Objective it isn't and it just seems to serve your own agenda very nicely here. I used to know a group of folks who believed (and probably still do) that the earth is flat and no amount of reasoned argument could change their minds. I suspect that you are in the same camp. The fact is the game yesterday was turned into a farce by one man alone (and not by our player's 'indiscipline' as you like to keep pointing out). My opinions are my own and I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm not seeking to win an argument either , but don't tell me to ''FFS GIVE IT A REST'' as this is an open forum and I have conducted myself far better than some on here. As for my agenda...I don't have one ....just common sense and fair play.The rest of submission not worthy of a sensible reply. Exactly. Re. Martin Atkinsons weird decisions at St. James Park, the club is now , in the name of common sense and fair play, prepared to make an official complaint to FA.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Dec 28, 2013 12:21:37 GMT
this is a comment from that article on the telegraph. Fergie • 4 hours ago ? Right. Enough of the media backing up Stoke's outrage at Atkinon's performance on Thursday without actually analysing his decisions. Whelan kicked the ball away after his first foul - yellow card. He then kicked the back of Cabaye's leg with no attempt made whatsoever to go for the ball - yellow card. 2 yellows = red. The penalty decision was correctWilson pulled back Remy, denying a clear goal scoring opportunity - penalty and red card. In the build up to Newcastle's equaliser a minute later, Atkinson missed a blatant handball by Mike Williamson and should have awarded Stoke a free kick. In the second half in the build up to Gouffran's goal, from the replays I saw, the WHOLE ball did not appear to be outside the whole of the goalline. Certainly no replays conclusively proved that it was and neither the linesman, nor ref could be expected to call it out if it can't be proven with slow motion replays. The second penalty of the game was the correct decision and if anything, Atkinson may have made a mistake in not awarding Newcastle a third penalty of the match for Shawcross' lunge on Haidara. I'm not sure if he got the ball or not. So, Atkinson got all the major decisions correct with the exception of missing Williamson's handball, yet Stoke are up in arms because they've been getting away with fouls like Whelan's second yellow and tugs/shirt pulls/shoves in the box like Wilson's for years. Now a referee takes action by the letter of the law, they can't take it. Tough surely not a united fan taking the moral high ground when it comes to referees? I hope this isn't the same Fergie who used to whine constantly about time being added on, poor referring decisions, berating of fourth officials? FUCKIN HYPOCRITE !!!
|
|
|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Dec 28, 2013 12:27:03 GMT
I don't expect us to get any kind of victory or apology over this but Im glad Coates has taken a stand , he is respected in the footballing establishment and will hopefully get some people to sit up and take notice at least , Atkinson was maliciously harsh in my view and whilst you can argue within the letter of the law , there are much better ways of dealing with things than he did on Boxing Day , he totally ruined the game.
|
|
|
Post by ed5993 on Dec 28, 2013 12:33:46 GMT
this is a comment from that article on the telegraph. Fergie • 4 hours ago ? Right. Enough of the media backing up Stoke's outrage at Atkinon's performance on Thursday without actually analysing his decisions. Whelan kicked the ball away after his first foul - yellow card. He then kicked the back of Cabaye's leg with no attempt made whatsoever to go for the ball - yellow card. 2 yellows = red. The penalty decision was correctWilson pulled back Remy, denying a clear goal scoring opportunity - penalty and red card. In the build up to Newcastle's equaliser a minute later, Atkinson missed a blatant handball by Mike Williamson and should have awarded Stoke a free kick. In the second half in the build up to Gouffran's goal, from the replays I saw, the WHOLE ball did not appear to be outside the whole of the goalline. Certainly no replays conclusively proved that it was and neither the linesman, nor ref could be expected to call it out if it can't be proven with slow motion replays. The second penalty of the game was the correct decision and if anything, Atkinson may have made a mistake in not awarding Newcastle a third penalty of the match for Shawcross' lunge on Haidara. I'm not sure if he got the ball or not. So, Atkinson got all the major decisions correct with the exception of missing Williamson's handball, yet Stoke are up in arms because they've been getting away with fouls like Whelan's second yellow and tugs/shirt pulls/shoves in the box like Wilson's for years. Now a referee takes action by the letter of the law, they can't take it. Tough surely not a united fan taking the moral high ground when it comes to referees? I hope this isn't the same Fergie who used to whine constantly about time being added on, poor referring decisions, berating of fourth officials? FUCKIN HYPOCRITE !!! Wonder if they would admit, by those standards, that Rooney should have been sent off at the weekend then? It's the massive inconsistency between games that needs to be solved.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 12:39:09 GMT
This has far east betting scam written all over it! Exactly. If Atkinson was being paid to ensure a Newcastle win he must have been in a real panic with us being one nil up & bossing the game. He'd have needed to take drastic action to ensure that we lost from that position and that's exactly what he did. Sent from my GT-I9300 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Dec 28, 2013 12:46:38 GMT
We've finally grown a pair have we? Too little too late. H In 2010 we requested that Mike Dean didn't take charge of our home game against Spurs following his performances in our games at Hull and Portsmouth when he sent off Faye and Wilkinson. Our request was ignored and Dean ultimately sent Whitehead off for nothing against Spurs. We complained about him after that and Dean didn't referee another Stoke game for a season and a half. As far as I'm aware we haven't had much trouble from him since. Dave as you know I'm not one for this woe is me attitude, but the way Shawcross has been villified constantly and the way our club has been portrayed is fucking disgusting , this cunter has taken it to a new level , Ive always thought the club doesnt defend itself enough and Its a fucking travesty. H
|
|
|
Post by gb on Dec 28, 2013 12:57:47 GMT
Should be interesting to see what happens after Peter Coates complaint , will the FA ban him to the stands or fine him ?
|
|
|
Post by sjohank on Dec 29, 2013 14:26:55 GMT
The real problem with Atkinson’s decisions is not simply that they were wrong. If you look at most of the decisions, they were correct by the “letter of the law” –look at some of the reports on the game. The problem is that as a referee you should be aware that your interpretation of the “law” and your selection of sanctions, or punishments, can seriously affect the balance of the game. You can decide the result of a game by simply punishing one team more than the other and yet you would be making all the right decisions. Having made one harsh decision many sensible referees would attempt to mitigate this with a more sympathetic interpretation next time. Not Atkinson. There is also “the benefit of the doubt” – situations where no one can be certain what has happened exactly, and here many sensible officials would try to be at least even handed. On no occasion did Atkinson attempt to address any of this. He allowed himself to hand the game to Newcastle and to be the deciding factor in the match. A referee should be aware that his discretion and his awareness of “sportsmanship” is a bigger factor in any game than the skill of either team. If he has no discretion he has no place on the field of play. Good post, interesting reflections.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Dec 29, 2013 14:40:46 GMT
Should be interesting to see what happens after Peter Coates complaint , will the FA ban him to the stands or fine him ? It appears to have worked. Atkinson hasn't even made the bench at Newcastle today.
|
|
|
Post by senojbor on Dec 29, 2013 15:04:18 GMT
Match fixing - makes you wonder doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 29, 2013 15:30:10 GMT
What the FA should is to watch both our game and the Arse game against the loveable Geordies boys together and figure how in our game one team had two men sent off but no one sent off in the Arse game.
The answer - we had an incompetent ref.
|
|
Wonto
Youth Player
Posts: 335
|
Post by Wonto on Dec 29, 2013 15:40:10 GMT
I think as 'sportsman' mentions earlier - it isn't just this performance from Atkinson & it is that,that really needs looking at. As soon as you see his name on our game you fear the worst and it is based on reality over several seasons. He makes decisions against us that he doesn't when you see him refereeing other teams.
I personally think he has a personal agenda with Stoke. I don't know how it has come about but all the evidence points to it existing & it is this that needs investigating.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 15:40:10 GMT
What the FA should is to watch both our game and the Arse game against the loveable Geordies boys together and figure how in our game one team had two men sent off but no one sent off in the Arse game. The answer - we had an incompetent ref. The answer goes waaaay waaaay deeper than one incompetent ref. the FA aided and abetted by the media have turned the game into an utterly corrupt closed door of a sport where every possible dice is loaded in favour of the big boys. How many times have you heard a referee be congratulated by commentators during a match between say Liverpool and Arsenal for keeping his cards in his pocket because "he's aware how important this game is." Meanwhile, the smaller clubs with weaker squads run up a list of suspensions, making it even more difficult when they play the big teams. And none of us know what the fuck to do about it.
|
|
|
Post by lloyd86 on Dec 29, 2013 15:44:11 GMT
Sounds good but in all honesty Mike Riley gets about 3 of these letters a week. I imagine he has a more or less pro forma reply letter which he prints off on his old Epsom after first remembering to change the name and the address on the top. Revenge is a dish best served cold. When Atkinson is next at the Brit and in the return game with Newcastle We won't get peace of mind any other way. Yep. Just gotta hope we smash the Geordie fuckers off the pitch when we play em down here. +1! Just watched them against arsenal and they go down at every challenge to hold the play up whilst the crowd gets on the refs back. I even saw cabaye go down after one challenge and have a little look to see if the red was going to caution the arsenal player. Cunt! Hate Newcastle football!
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 29, 2013 15:51:48 GMT
What the FA should is to watch both our game and the Arse game against the loveable Geordies boys together and figure how in our game one team had two men sent off but no one sent off in the Arse game. The answer - we had an incompetent ref. The answer goes waaaay waaaay deeper than one incompetent ref. the FA aided and abetted by the media have turned the game into an utterly corrupt closed door of a sport where every possible dice is loaded in favour of the big boys. How many times have you heard a referee be congratulated by commentators during a match between say Liverpool and Arsenal for keeping his cards in his pocket because "he's aware how important this game is." Meanwhile, the smaller clubs with weaker squads run up a list of suspensions, making it even more difficult when they play the big teams. And none of us know what the fuck to do about it. Is it corruption or something more human; that refs try harder in "big" games and then don't bother so much in games with smaller teams where they let their egos take over. I'm sure it's the latter. The effect is the same though - teams like us get screwed. This is why we have to complain.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 16:04:29 GMT
The answer goes waaaay waaaay deeper than one incompetent ref. the FA aided and abetted by the media have turned the game into an utterly corrupt closed door of a sport where every possible dice is loaded in favour of the big boys. How many times have you heard a referee be congratulated by commentators during a match between say Liverpool and Arsenal for keeping his cards in his pocket because "he's aware how important this game is." Meanwhile, the smaller clubs with weaker squads run up a list of suspensions, making it even more difficult when they play the big teams. And none of us know what the fuck to do about it. Is it corruption or something more human; that refs try harder in "big" games and then don't bother so much in games with smaller teams where they let their egos take over. I'm sure it's the latter. The effect is the same though - teams like us get screwed. This is why we have to complain. I'm fully behind the complaint. We need to be making as much noise as possible over stuff like this. In truth though, we're just pissing in the wind. The situation over the refs may be as you've described, although in the case of Atkinson it was purely vindictive. But if a governing body are prepared to allow this to continue to the enrichment of the bigger clubs who already have every financial gun loaded in their favour, then as far as I'm concerned, it's corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Dec 29, 2013 16:20:24 GMT
If nothing else, Twatkinson should be brought to task over how easily he was manipulated by a bunch of cheats.
What suggests to me it is more than this, however, is him waving on a blatant handball knowing full well that we were screwed in defence by him reducing us to 9 men.
Sorenson's penalty save must have seriously pissed him off.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmithsupper on Dec 29, 2013 16:48:14 GMT
We will be making another one after today
|
|
|
Post by Pirate on Dec 29, 2013 16:50:59 GMT
We will be making another one after today Crazy peno call, Fryers should have walked & peno for Assaidi?
|
|