Pro-qualified referee Simon gives his honest opinion on last month’s refereeing decisions, and how they affected Liverpool FC.

Man Utd (H) – Andre Marriner

Andre Marriner showed why he was trusted to manage such a high priority game.  He has continually impressed over the past few seasons, not only with his ability to make big decisions but his willingness to make them regardless of the situation (remember the two penalties correctly awarded in the Arsenal match last season). Yet he also retains the ability to use discretion regardless of how much pressure is being applied by players or fans.

The first half passed almost without incident, although Lucas was cautioned in the 27th minute for a trip on Ji-Sung Park as the Utd player looked to continue a break. Ashley Young was also cautioned in the 42nd minute for a trip on Steven Gerrard. Both Lucas and Young were correctly cautioned for Unsporting Behaviour under Law 12.

In the 53rd minute Rio Ferdinand was cautioned for a tackle from behind on Luis Suarez. As the ball was played to the Uruguayan, he was challenged from behind by Ferdinand, the Utd defender clearly making no contact with the ball and continuing with his challenge to connect with Suarez’s calves.  Suarez falls to the floor and Ferdinand stands over him berating him for diving or feigning contact.

Thankfully Mr Marriner was not fooled by Ferdinand’s false protestations  and correctly cautioned the English defender for Unsporting Behaviour. Unfortunately United’s manager has since chosen to launch a campaign to brand Suarez a diver.

In the 64th minute Patrice Evra was cautioned after a running battle with Luis Suarez. The incident has since developed into a row concerning alleged racial abuse of the Frenchman by the Uruguayan. I will only comment on the referee’s responsibility in this matter. Firstly, If Mr Marriner had heard any racial language he would have instantly dismissed Suarez Under Law 12 – using offensive, insulting or abusive language. So this clearly shows that Mr Marriner had no first-hand evidence of any such language. Secondly, if Evra had informed Mr Marriner of the alleged racial slur at the time it occurred, Mr Marriner would have recorded and duly reported the incident. Finally, when Evra made the allegations known to Mr Marriner after the  game, the ref’s sole responsibility was to report the incident to the appropriate authorities.

The next significant talking point followed a foul by Ferdinand on Charlie Adam in the 65th minute. The Scot was running into the area when Ferdinand attempted to tackle him. There was contact, however minimal – and Mr Marriner judged the challenge sufficient to warrant a free kick. Liverpool players, and an expectant crowd, were baying for a second caution and thus a red card for Ferdinand, however this is a further example of why Mr Marriner is so impressive. The easiest, home crowd-pleasing decision would have been to caution Ferdinand for the trip and dismiss him. But Mr Marriner used his judgement, discretion and understanding of the game. Technically he can look at both fouls and justify yellow cards but referees must consider the totality of offending and manage games accordingly. This highlights the difference in class between Mr Marriner and Mr Jones (Liverpool –v- Spurs) who displayed a distinct lack of ability and judgement. As we know, Gerrard scored from the resultant free kick.

Finally Manchester Utd equalised in the 80th minute from a corner that was incorrectly awarded. Utd had one corner which was flicked behind the Liverpool goal. Replays showed the ball came off a Utd player, but Mr Marriner awarded another corner. In his defence, the near post would be a call for the assistant referee. Mr Marriner should routinely position himself in line with the rear post, about one or two yards outside the area, giving the maximum coverage by both officials, therefore he was not in a position on the pitch to alter the decision.

Overall, Mr Marriner gave an impressive performance and continues his rise towards the summit of English refereeing.

The rest of this post is for subscribers only

Stoke – (A) Mark Clattenburg.

This was the first time Liverpool have been refereed by Mr Clattenburg for some time and it was a welcome return to the middle for the County Durham man, who had a fine match and confirmed his position as one of the best referees currently officiating in the Premier League.

One of the main criticisms of playing at Stoke surrounds the ‘gamesmanship’ employed by the pitch being narrowed and the grass seemingly being allowed to grow a little longer. The FA stipulate a pitch must be between a minimum 90 m (100 yds) and a maximum 120 m (130 yds) in length, and the width must be between a minimum 45 m (50 yds) and a maximum 90 m (100 yds). The Britannia Stadium has an available pitch size of 100 m (110 yds) x 64 m (70 yds) [compared to Anfield's 101 m x 68 m]. However Stoke do not list the actual playing surface size on a game by game basis.  The issue of length of grass is purely a question for the referee to decide. As long as he is satisfied that the ball ‘rolls’ and as such the surface is ‘playable’ then he must play the game and report any concerns to the authorities in his match report.

This post is for subscribers only

Simon Fear – pro-qualified referee and Tomkins Times member – takes an uncompromising and unbiased look at the officiating in games involving Liverpool in August 2011. Was luck for or against the Reds?

Sunderland (H) – Phil Dowd

Liverpool’s first home match of the season saw them face a new-look Sunderland side. Games between the two sides have a record of controversial incidents and this one was no different. Within four minutes Phil Dowd had a major decision to make following a penalty appeal after Luis Suarez was fouled by Kieran Richardson.

It began when a Sunderland corner was cleared to the halfway line. Richardson, pressurised by Suarez, tried to chip the ball forward, but the Uruguayan jumped and blocked the ball which ricocheted towards the Sunderland goal. Suarez gave chase with Richardson in pursuit.  As Suarez approached the goal and keeper Mignolet came out, Suarez knocked the ball to his right and started to go round him when he was tripped and pulled down by Richardson. There were a number of decisions to be made in relation to this incident.

Firstly, Suarez could have been penalised for hand ball. Law 12 is quite specific that ‘A player is penalised if he deliberately handles the ball’. FIFA provide guidance to assist referees who are told that when considering intent/deliberateness they should take into consideration: (1) The deliberate movement of the hand towards the ball (2) The distance between the opponent and the ball, as this affects the amount of time the player has to remove his arm, and (3) The position of, or movement of the hand/arm (are they in a natural position or have they been moved to an unnatural position?); however this does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement.

In this instance Suarez is close to the ball but deliberately raises his arms above his head (it would appear he was shielding his face), and the ball clearly strikes his arms. Due to this being a quick break Phil Dowd is some way behind Suarez and not in a position to see where the ball strikes the Uruguayan. If he had, I suspect that he would have stopped play and awarded Sunderland a freekick for handball. (The picture shows the ball having already hit Suarez on the arms).

The second decision is a simple one. Richardson clearly fouls Suarez and the award of a penalty kick is straightforward.

The third decision is which punishment is given to Richardson. The referee will be considering a number of things including the cynical nature of the foul (Richardson made no attempt to play the ball). However, to send Richardson off he has to be sure in his own mind that he denied Suarez ‘an obvious goal scoring opportunity’. The laws state ‘denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal’. As the picture shows Suarez initial approach is a fraction to his right hand side of the penalty spot but ‘towards goal’.

Pro-qualified ref Simon Fear takes a look at the Reds’ games from last month. How did the officials perform, and did their decisions affect the results?

Liverpool faced a quiet March with just two premier League fixtures: a home match against Manchester United and a difficult away game against Sunderland. However, these were not quiet matches for the officials, who were overworked on both occasions, with controversy aplenty.

This post is for Subscribers only.

Simon Fear – pro-qualified referee and Tomkins Times member – takes an uncompromising and unbiased look at the officiating in games involving Liverpool in February 2011. Was luck for or against the Reds?

Note: Usually for Subscribers only, this month’s piece is free to all.

Liverpool faced matches against Stoke (H), Chelsea (A), Wigan (H) and West Ham (A) in February and were looking to build upon the recent improvement since the appointment of Kenny Dalglish.

Stoke (H) – Anthony Taylor.

Liverpool’s home match against Stoke was a chance to avenge their defeat at the Britannia Stadium earlier in the season, in one of the most physically aggressive matches seen in the Premier League. Having been promoted to the elite list in November 2010, Anthony Taylor was refereeing his first match at Anfield.

In the 18th minute, Steven Gerrard pleaded for a penalty after exchanging passes with Meireles in the penalty area. Gerrard knocked the ball past Huth who quite intentionally stepped across and into the path of the Liverpool captain, making no attempt to nor having any opportunity of playing the ball. Huth was clearly guilty under Law 12 of ‘Impeding the progress of an opponent’. A player is guilty of impeding an opponent if he moves into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of the player. Gerrard was right to expect Mr Taylor to penalise Huth, however this offence is punishable only by an indirect free-kick, not a penalty kick.

Stoke, although missing one of their usual enforcers, the suspended Ryan Shawcross, still had Robert Huth continuing to play the role. His next transgression was a dreadful challenge on Martin Kelly. Kuyt collected a pass from Gerrard which he touched back to Kelly, Huth challenged for the ball with a tackle that involved him jumping with both feet off the ground and landing with both sets of studs showing. To make matters worse, Huth made contact with Kelly whilst still airborne. The tackle was clearly visible to Mr Taylor and his assistant. Huth was guilty of serious foul play and should have seen a red card.

“A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.” A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play. “Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play”. Again this serves only to highlight the lack of consistency amongst referees, and gives players the message that dangerous tackles are permissible.

Stoke were penalised again in the 46th minute when Salif Diao was pulled up for an agricultural challenge on Daniel Agger as the Danish defender strode towards the Stoke penalty area. Diao made a wild swipe from the side, making absolutely no contact with the ball and taking Agger knee high. Diao was correctly cautioned, and from the resulting free-kick Liverpool opened the scoring.

John Carew had committed two fouls in quick succession before finally being cautioned in the 49th minute for unsporting behaviour (Under Law 12 – Persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game) after fouling Daniel Agger. Carew then committed another foul and proceeded to show clear dissent to Mr Taylor after being penalised by throwing the ball away. However Mr Taylor failed to deal with the dissent, which should have led to a second caution and dismissal.

Stoke finished the game with four yellow cards. The fourth came in the 80th minute when Danny Collins decided to introduce Luis Suárez to the Premier League with a blatant foul from behind. The ball was played to Suárez on the halfway line by Meireles, Suárez played the ball instantly and as he turned to run forward he was fouled by a late and dangerous tackle from Collins. The foul was utterly deliberate and was rightly punished by Mr Taylor with a caution for unsporting behaviour.

Overall Mr Taylor had a poor game; he allowed Stoke far too much leniency over a number of deliberate late and dangerous tackles. He also allowed Carew to clearly show dissent towards him. Mr Taylor should have issued two red cards to Stoke players (Huth and Carew for a second yellow card) yet he seemed unable to make the big decisions.

Chelsea (A) – Andre Marriner.

Liverpool faced Chelsea at Stamford Bridge after the close of the January transfer window and the loss of Fernando Torres. Liverpool again opted for three central defenders, who were matched against Drogba, Anelka and Torres. Mr Marriner was quickly into the action after just 32 seconds when he rightly cautioned Mikel for a late lunging challenge on Steven Gerrard. Whilst this was the first significant challenge of the match, Mikel was late, had no opportunity of winning the ball and the tackle itself was reckless with Mikel’s studs connecting with Gerrard’s right shin.

The first big decision came in the 25th minute, when Torres was fouled by Daniel Agger on Liverpool’s left side. Torres slowed Agger before knocking the ball past him. As Torres started to accelerate past Agger, the Liverpool defender stepped into Torres and raised his right forearm and blocked Torres across the neck,  under his chin. Torres collapsed to the floor and Agger, who made absolutely no attempt to play the ball, was penalised by Mr Marriner.

Mr Marriner had a number of options; the lenient choice would have been to caution Agger for ‘Unsporting Behaviour’, and the more serious option would have been to dismiss Agger for ‘Violent Conduct’ or ‘Serious Foul Play’. A caution for unsporting behaviour would be because Agger’s challenge was ‘Reckless and made with Excessive Force.’ “Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent, and “Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.”

“Serious Foul Play” is defined as “using excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be classed as serious foul play. Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play”. “Violent Conduct” is defined as “using excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball.”

I was surprised that Mr Marriner decided a free kick was sufficient punishment as the challenge was on the high end of a caution, without quite reaching the required level of force needed for a sending off.

Chelsea had two claims for a penalty dismissed by Mr Marriner. The first was a relatively easy decision. Following a Chelsea corner which was headed clear by Agger, Gerrard attempted to clear the ball as it dropped but it deflected in a tackle by Kalou and hit Lucas on the left arm. It was a clear handball, however Mr Marriner was totally correct to ignore Chelsea’s claim for a penalty as the handball was clearly not deliberate. Mr Marriner would have considered the distance between Lucas and the tackle, the position of Lucas’s arm and any movement of the arm. In doing so, Mr Marriner rightly adjudged that there was nothing to justify penalising Lucas and allowed play to continue.

The second claim was far more valid. Ashley Cole hit a long diagonal ball into the Liverpool penalty area, Daniel Agger was watching the ball waiting to make a challenge, Ivanovic ran into the penalty area and like Agger was solely concentrating on the ball, however Glen Johnson blocked Ivanovic to ensure he had no opportunity of reaching the ball. Mr Marriner had to decide if Johnson’s intervention was (A) any offence at all (B) an Indirect Freekick for Obstruction – impeding the progress of an opponent or (C) a Direct Freekick for either tripping or attempts to trip an opponent/pushing an opponent.

As the picture shows, Johnson is guilty under Law 12 of ‘Impeding the progress of an opponent’ as he moves into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of the player. Johnson could also be guilty of pushing an opponent as he clearly has no interest in playing the ball, deliberately moves himself into a position where he pushes Ivanovic using his upper body and causes him to fall.

This was a difficult decision for Mr Marriner as Ivanovic exaggerated the extent of the contact with a flamboyant fall; Mr Marriner has to decide whether Johnson was standing his ground, which he is entitled to do, impeding Ivanovic or pushing the Chelsea defender. Thankfully for Liverpool, as the ball was overhit and sailed harmlessly over all three players and into touch, Mr Marriner took all three options out of the equation, avoided making a difficult call and awarded a goal kick.

I was impressed with Mr Marriner’s performance. He did not buckle, nor was he intimidated by the home crowd, and kept good control of the match throughout.

Wigan (H) – Kevin Friend.

Liverpool returned to Anfield and faced an improving Wigan Athletic side whilst Kenny Dalglish gave Luis Suárez his full home debut. A foul on Maxi by Mohamed Diamé within just 40 seconds of the start set the pattern. Wigan seemed to be quite deliberately targeting Liverpool’s more diminutive and skilful players, with both Maxi and Suárez repeatedly fouled. Mr Friend penalised Wigan for the early fouls but didn’t issue his first yellow card until the 29th minute when Gohouri fouled Suárez from behind. The challenge was cynical, with no likelihood of playing the ball, and Mr Friend cautioned Gohouri for ‘Unsporting Behaviour’.

The pattern continued when Antolín Alcaraz was cautioned in the 58th minute for another brutal foul on Luis Suárez. On this occasion, Suárez received the ball from Kelly and as he turned and made to sprint clear on the right-hand side, Alcaraz came flying in and slid through the side of Suárez making sure that regardless of the ball, Suárez was not going to make progress. Alcaraz was cautioned under Law 12 – for ‘Unsporting Behaviour’ as his challenge was ‘Reckless and made with Excessive Force’.

In the 63rd minute, Carragher was correctly cautioned for a late challenge on Hugo Rodallega 15 yards into Liverpool’s half. Carragher’s challenge was late and reckless and an easy decision for Mr Friend, although given the amount of leniency being displayed by Mr Friend towards Wigan, Carragher may have considered himself a little unfortunate to be cautioned for his first foul.

Wigan played the free-kick deep into the Liverpool penalty area, the ball was headed away by Agger and cleared by Kuyt. The ball was collected by Charles N’Zogbia, who delivered an inswinging cross that was flicked on by Alcaraz. The picture clearly shows the moment the ball is headed onwards by Alcaraz (blue arrow), with Gohouri a significant distance offside (the offside line is shown in yellow).

This is a fairly simple decision for the referee’s assistant and Gohouri was far enough offside to leave clear daylight behind Martin Kelly, the Liverpool defender. For an assistant referee of Premier League standards to make an error of this magnitude is inexcusable and Liverpool have every right to expect higher standards.

The other significant lack of action by Mr Friend was his failure to punish Mohamed Diamé for ‘Persistently infringing the Laws of the Game’. The combative Wigan midfield player committed five fouls, two of which were worthy of yellow cards in their own right, however Mr Friend showed a lack of authority and a failure to control the match.

In the 69th minute, Caldwell was cautioned for ‘Unsporting Behaviour’ for yet another late challenge on Suárez. The ball was played up to Suárez, who exchanged a quick one-two with Maxi. As the Uruguayan knocked the ball past Caldwell and looked to drive into the penalty area, Caldwell cynically tripped Suárez to deny him a run on goal.  The caution was issued for Caldwell, who “committed a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack”.

In the 75th minute, Lucas played a ball into Suárez, the Uruguayan striker turned Caldwell and looked to sprint into the penalty area. Both players were about two yards from the area and, as the picture shows, Caldwell made no attempt to play the ball; instead he grabs Suárez around the chest and, as Suárez moves goal side, pulls him to the ground.

Mr Friend was in perfect position and instantly awarded the free-kick yet somehow, and I cannot find any logical reason for this, he declined to caution Caldwell for ‘Unsporting Behaviour’ for the very specific offence of “holding an opponent for the tactical purpose of pulling the opponent away from the ball or preventing the opponent from getting to the ball”. The offence is almost made for this exact scenario, yet Mr Friend simply failed to fulfil his responsibilities as a referee.

Overall, I thought Mr Friend’s performance was significantly below the standard expected in the Premier League and he failed to discharge his responsibilities. His leniency and unwillingness to protect Suárez from what appeared a fairly cynical targeting contributed towards Wigan being able to secure a 1 – 1 draw.

West Ham (A) – Mark Halsey.

Mark Halsey is not a lucky omen for Liverpool, especially in away games. He last officiated for us in November 2010 in our game at Stoke, a game that took brutality in football to new levels. At Upton Park he faced a very different challenge, having to decide whether Demba Ba or Frédéric Piquionne had developed a sudden case of vertigo or were simply trying to win free-kicks or penalties for West Ham. The first and only caution was in the sixth minute for Martin Skrtel, who tripped Piquionne in an attempt to prevent the French striker breaking towards goal. Skrtel was cautioned for ‘Unsporting Behaviour’ not because of the severity of the foul, but because Mr Halsey deemed that the foul was ‘committed for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack’. This is often why a player seems to be allowed a number of minor fouls without being cautioned and then another player is cautioned for his first foul.

Liverpool had two penalty claims, the first for a handball by Piquionne, who controlled and cleared the ball in his own six-yard box. The ball clearly hit the player’s arm, but as with the claim against Lucas in the Chelsea match, Piquionne’s arm was by his side, he made no additional movement towards the ball and the claim was rightly waved away.

In the 35th minute, Liverpool had a legitimate penalty claim ignored by Mr Halsey after Suárez was fouled by James ‘not related’ Tomkins just inside the penalty area. Meireles collected the ball in midfield and chipped the ball to Suárez, who controlled it on his chest with his back to Tomkins and allowed the ball to bounce in front of him. As the Uruguayan waited to play the ball, Tomkins made a rash challenge from behind, having absolutely no way of playing the ball without fouling Suárez. As the picture shows, Tomkins kicks through Suárez’s left leg, makes no contact with the ball and upends Suárez for a clear free-kick.

The offence is just inside the penalty area and Mr Halsey was perfectly positioned to see the challenge, yet again, astonishingly, he failed to blow up and denied Liverpool a certain penalty. Why? I simply don’t know, nor can I fathom any reason why Mr Halsey failed to make a simple decision; he clearly saw the incident because he made a demonstrative gesture with his arms signalling no foul.

Mr Halsey had few difficult decisions to make thereafter, yet to give him credit he was consistent in ignoring both Ba and Piquionne when the two powerfully built West Ham strikers fell to the ground. Again I have to say that his performance was sub-standard, and he showed a final lack of judgement in exchanging a smiling handshake, which turned into a full hug, with Avram Grant on leaving the pitch. Was it harmless?  Almost certainly, following Mr Halsey’s illness.  But such shows of bonhomie may be ill-advised if they raise suspicions amongst opposing teams’ fans who feel that their team did not get the rub of the green within the match.

Simon Fear – pro-qualified referee and Tomkins Times member – takes an uncompromising and unbiased look at the officiating in games involving Liverpool in January 2011. Was luck for or against the Reds?

Liverpool faced a congested fixture list in January 2011, with five premier League games and an away trip to Manchester Utd in the 3rd round of the FA Cup.

Bolton (A) – Kevin Friend.

This was the first time Mr Friend had officiated at Anfield since his promotion to the Elite panel of referees. The game followed a well known pattern of Bolton, despite the improvement in their football under Owen Coyle, remaining physically combative, and due to some lenient refereeing that allowed Cahill, Knight and Mark Davies to offend with impunity. The second obvious plan for Bolton was a concerted effort to provoke Torres with a series of challenges which whilst on occasions winning the ball often went beyond what should have been acceptable level of force as the striker was repeatedly fouled. It was somewhat surprising that Fabio Aurelio was the first player to receive a caution. The caution was correctly awarded as Aurelio made a reckless ‘scissor’ style challenge on Rodrigo from behind. Bolton took full advantage of the freekick as Kevin Davies headed in the opener.

The other major talking point of the first half followed yet another heavy challenge from Gary Cahill on Torres. Cahill challenged Torres from behind and despite clattering into Torres, Cahill ended up on the ground with Torres leaning over. There was an exchange of words before Torres grabbed Cahill’s face with one hand, pushed him, and turned and walked away. Mr Friend had already awarded Liverpool the freekick and had a decision to make. Under Law 12 – A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball. There are no rules about the raising of hands, touching the face, etc … these are all typical myths that develop due to interpretation; however Mr Friend rightly decided that Torres’s actions did not amount to Violent Conduct. However, I am surprised that Torres was not cautioned for Unsporting Behaviour for ‘pushing an opponent’ regardless of the amount of provocation he suffered.

The second half saw Liverpool equalise after a wonderful pass from Gerrard was volleyed into the roof of the net by Torres. The game seemed certain to be heading for a draw until Joe Cole tapped in a controversial last-minute winner. Liverpool had possession of the ball on the right flank, Gerrard delivered a superb cross to the back post yet at the moment he played the ball Cole is some two yards offside. (The yellow line on the picture is the offside line.) The ball goes beyond Cole and Maxi, who is onside, challenges Elmander at the back post. The ball deflects off Elmander and back across goal where Cole, still in an offside position taps home.

It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position. A player is only penalised if, at the moment the ball is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by ‘interfering with play’ ‘interfering with an opponent’ or ‘gaining an advantage by being in that position’.

In this case Cole is not ‘interfering with an opponent’ when the ball is crossed (this is defined as ‘Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent’).

At no time did Cole get back to an onside position. However, he was rightly not penalised and play was allowed to continue. As the play progressed, Maxi and Elmander challenged for the ball, and the Swede managed to get his body in the way of the ball; it rebounds of his hip (as shown in the picture) and travels back across goal where Joe Cole taps in from close range. Cole is still in an offside position and would have been penalised if Maxi had played the ball to him. However, the rules clearly state ‘the moment the ball is played by one of his team’ and in this instance the linesman made an excellent decision and the goal correctly stood.

Blackburn (A) – Andre Marriner.

The rest of this post, analysing the five remaining games, is for Subscribers only.

Liverpool headed into the festive season with a run of games that on paper should have presented a reasonable expectation of gaining some much needed points and the opportunity to move up the table. Liverpool faced Aston Villa (H), Newcastle (A), both Fulham and Blackpool were postponed due to the weather and ended the month against Wolves (H).

Aston Villa (H) – Phil Dowd.

After last month’s report, some subscribers were commenting on the fact that we had managed to avoid having either Phil Dowd or Lee Mason officiate any of our games this season (the two referees who gave us the worst decisions last season). Well we tempted fate and ended up with them in quick succession. Liverpool scored early  in the game when Raul Meireles delivered a deep corner that was headed goalwards by Skrtel. Ngog reacted quickly and threw himself full length to head home.

The second goal followed soon after when Lucas played a through ball for Babel, Babel had arched his run in an attempt to remain onside however at the point of Lucas playing the ball Babel had moved marginally offside. The assistant referee is not shown in the picture but upon viewing the video the assistant is some 3 – 5 yards ahead of play and therefore looking diagonally across the pitch which may have favoured Babel.

Babel is clearly in an offside position, but that alone is not punishable. Again ‘It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.’ A player is only penalised if, at the moment the ball is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by ‘interfering with play’ ‘interfering with an opponent’ or ‘gaining an advantage by being in that position’.

The rest of this post is for Subscribers only.

Simon Fear – pro-qualified referee and Tomkins Times member – takes an uncompromising and unbiased look at the officiating in games involving Liverpool in November 2010. Was luck for or against the Reds?

Liverpool faced matches against Blackpool (H) Everton (A) Blackburn (H) and Bolton (A) in a series of games that they desperately needed to gain maximum points to lift themselves from the lower regions of the Premier League.

Blackpool (H) – Mike Jones.

The game kicked off and Liverpool had an early opportunity to open the scoring when Fernando Torres delivered a cross from the right, Joe Cole was running into the 6yd box to meet the cross and as the ball arrived he was fouled from behind by Neal Eardley. The cross was perfect and Cole was within 3 yards of goal with what appeared a simple tap in.  As the picture shows Cole was challenged before the ball arrived and had both

legs swiped from beneath him.

This post is for Subscribers only.