Former referee Graham Poll says video technology would have saved the Hammers dropping two points today.
Poll wrote in the Daily Mail “Bobby Madley won’t like watching replays of the final goal after over-ruling his assistant referee to allow Bournemouth’s late equaliser.
As the ball was crossed into the Hammers area, Nathan Ake headed it back across goal towards Callum Wilson. The assistant referee raised his flag to indicate that Wilson was in an offside position and interfering with play.
They only do this once the player in an offside position has touched the ball, much to the annoyance of players and supporters. Therefore he felt sure that Wilson had touched the ball.
At first it looked like Wilson had headed and then handled the ball into the net, but replays indicated it was far more hand.
Irrespective of which part of the body he played it with, the goal should have been disallowed as Wilson was offside. The use of the hand merely rubbed salt into West Ham wounds. Video technology would have enabled West Ham to take all three points.
Earlier, Bournemouth benefited from Madley’s officiating when he chose to allow Simon Francis to escape with a yellow card when he kicked Cheikhou Kouyate in the head when challenging with his boot at head height.”
So why the picture of Clattenburg?
My mistake 😉 too much mulled wine
Bobby Madley was also the man in the middle for the game against Crystal Palace….where he managed to find 7 minutes of extra time….about the time Palace equalised! Anothef two points dtopped there……..and please try to explain studs up in the face? ‘Accident’ or not still a red card….ive senn red cards for less in the EPL.
Hopefully these poor decisions wont cost us a place in the Premiership!
Studs up into the ankles is a red card, but somehow studs up into the face is a yellow. It’s disgraceful.
This is about the second time I’ve ever seen a ref overrule a lino about a goal decision. Hen’s teeth, but here we are…
Madley was not in a position to see either the offside or the handball. Linesman raise flags to indicate that an offence has taken place, not that one might have, nor to ask for a chat.
It is the height of arrogance for a ref to over-turn a colleague’s decision under these circumstances.
A transcript of the conversation would be worth a read.
As said earlier, can’t moan about inaccuracies and then post a picture of Clattenshyte When talking about Mycroft Holmes and Poll!!!
was the ref bribed before the game
Madley is one of three refs I can think of that are way below standard and should be withdrawn from the PL list but that will not happen. Neither will an explanation be forthcoming from the referee or his masters to explain his incomprehensible decisions (two red card incidents and an incorrect goal decision). This man is incompetent. I can only pray that he is not also dishonest. Otherwise God help our game.
I have 2 questions.
1. If a referee issues a yellow card instead of a red one, no further action can be taken on the basis that the referee did see the incident and deemed it worthy of a yellow, albeit erroneously. His discretion will not be interfered with. On what basis then can a panel punish a player retrospectively for deceiving the referee by diving, when the referee has also seen the incident and in his discretion has deemed the player to have been fouled?
Assuming both incidents occur during the same match and are both seen by the referee, what is the rationale for “correcting” the ref’s error in one incident and not the other?
2. If a panel can retrospectively punish a player for deceiving the referee by diving, why can’t the same panel retrospectively punish a player for deceiving the referee through sleight of hand? Diving and scoring by the “hand of God” are all forms of cheating, the latter being worse
in my view.