Charlton received 15 penalties last season

It’s not bothering me, I ‘m simply discussing it. I’m not talking about mistakes. If you can’t see that by him taking no actions against their players it gives them advantage then I don’t know. We had players treading a red card tightrope much longer than theirs in the game. Had he dished the cards out consistently then they would’ve been in the same situation.

 

This is your viewpoint of the game. A Barnsley fan. Ask a Charlton fan and you'll get en entirely different one. More than likely their complaints will centre around consistency or the lack there of, because that's the go-to argument when discussing referees. That's what fans of all sides claim to dislike the most*. They'll give a number of examples, just a valid as yours, of where the referee was inconsistent and why that constitutes a bias towards us. Two sets of supporters on opposite sides both claiming the referee is biased, but for the other team. Happens almost every game, (apart from ridiculous ones like the Liverpool game or when Gunnar Halle chucked himself to the floor and a penalty was awarded with no Barnsley player in the same postal district). So are we right and fans of every other club are wrong? Because you can't be biased to both teams at the same time. Are we all better judges of performance. Or are we partisan and only see it from our point of view, just like the opposition, and the only one in this argument who isn't is the referee.

*What football fans actually dislike the most is any decision against their team.

 

I don’t dislike decisions against my team if they are fair decisions. Particularly after the event and reflected upon. It’s also fact that several fouls worthy of a yellow card were committed by Charlton, 5 in the first 13 minutes on the same player. Barnsley’s first foul that warranted a yellow card duly got one. If I was overly biased I could say that none of our yellow cards were warranted, but they were everyone. One or 2 of them being first offenders. That’s inconsistent, unfair and favouring one side

 

But you're not acknowledging that an opposition fan will give just as valid account of inconsistency that favoured us.

Do you genuinely believe that the referee favoured Charlton over us? That he wanted a Charlton victory and attempted to influence that with his decision making in the game? That's what you believe?

All I'm reading is a number of decisions that you've arbitrarily grouped together to reach a conclusion that I find bizarre. That a professional referee had a favourite and used his position to their advantage. I don't get that line of thinking, particularly when we're all unashamedly partisan and obviously favour our team over any other.

I saw a stunning goal yesterday. The likes of which I've rarely seen from a Barnsley player. I saw another very good one, his debut goal for us. I saw a titanic battle between Diaby and their fast, powerful forward line. And in their number 7, a masterclass in midfield play. I was disappointed by the late penalty, but having not seen the challenge at the time (my eyes followed the ball) I've since reviewed the replay and although I could make the case that they're not always given, I can't argue that Diaby played the man after the ball had gone and that's a foul. I feel for him as he played well, but it happens. There are a number of areas where we need to improve, but also some signs of hope. What I really didn't see was a biased referee.

 

Yes I am, by stating it was fact, that several cynical fouls were committed and went unpunished. By the way I enjoyed the game yesterday and thought we played well for most of the game. It was spoiled a little by an inconsistent referee who unfairly showed more leniency towards the opposition’s fouling than ours, fact. Oh and by the way, we saw quite a few stunning goals last season.

 

That's that then, you've said it's a fact, so you win. Congratulations, you proved an adversary way too powerful for me. I'll have to remember that tactic in future.

 

Yep, fact that the referee showed far more leniency towards Charlton’s indiscretions than he did Barnsley’s. I don’t consider myself a winner or a loser in this discussion. I just firmly believe what I’ve written.

 

You can firmly believe it, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make it a fact, just an opinion you believe in strongly. No matter how dearly you hold an opinion you can't will it into being a fact.

The scoreline yesterday is a fact, as is the number of cards, free kicks, throw-ins etc. The leniency and impartiality of the referee is a matter of opinion.

 

My opinion is that it is a fact that Wilks was cynically fouled 5 times in the first 13 minutes, the ref blew for all 5 fouls fact, no further action was taken, fact. The first cynical foul committed by a Barnsley player rightly resulted in him being booked, fact. That means that there was inconsistency by being more lenient to one side.

 

how the hell that was a penalty i have slowed it down, froze it and watched it god knows how many times and i cannot see any contact whatsoever

 

Only seen it on Quest and Recap at normal speed and they were unconvincing either way. Anyway I I’m going to bed now so I’ll hand the baton over to you

 

I think that was my point mate!

 

@Jay is right. The point of my original post was not that refs are biased towards Charlton.

It is that refs seem to allow themselves to have the wool pulled over their eyes by what is quite cynical cheating. This is compounded by inconsistency. However, they’re not biased, it’s a nonsense to suggest so.

It will be the same when Cardiff turn up no doubt!

 

When the ref sees the fouls and gives them he is not having the wool pulled over his eyes. My point is he sees the indiscretions, gives the free kick and chooses to show players on one side yellow cards but not the others for similar indiscretions. That is unfair and bias.

 

I've just watched the full game back on ifollow.

I've certainly seen way worse referees than that. He got the penalty for Charlton right. He got the decision right where people thought Wilks' shot was handballed (it may have struck an arm, but it was point blank range, the defender had his head turned away and the ball first hit his body then ricocheted onto his arm) and anything else were two teams falling over for niggly fouls. If you watch the two final Charlton booking near the end, you'll see the Barnsley players protesting and at that point he goes to book their player.

That doesn't seem biased to Charlton to me. I can understand frustration at a last minute equaliser (though on balance I feel a draw was fair), but I can't see reason to berate a referee for having a game where he got all the big decisions right.

 

I don’t think he was biased, just poor.

As soon as we took the lead the ref was telling Radlinger to hurry his kicks up yet just after they scored the equaliser, their keeper was messing about with the ball behind the net and he never said anything to him.

Wilks tapped the ball away and got (rightly) booked, their player threw the ball away and got nothing.

Wilks got fouled 4 or 5 times at the start of the game and no words of warning were given yet Thomas made his first tackle and got booked. How many bookings did Charlton end up with? 3? 2 of them came in injury time so it was too late for them to be meaningful.

His consistency levels were nowhere near the required level and that made him poor. In my opinion of course.

 

You can't always see off the ball footage on ifollow, so I can't comment on things such as hurrying Radlinger. In this day and age with so much cheating, its really tough for a referee. I thought he did ok as I said before. He got the major decisions right. The niggles and the diving, it's always going to be difficult to get all that right, especially when you've teams who base their whole strategy around gamesmanship. Though we certainly have plenty of divers in our team too.

 

You’ve said you didn’t think he was biased then put a list of reasons why the ref WAS biased .
It’s not poor favouring one side and treating them differently to the other side it’s biased.

 

Nope, I’ve listed reasons as to how I thought he was inconsistent with his decision making.

No refs will be intentionally biased, just poor.

 

Ignoring one team continuously fouling one player then booking the other team for their first foul on the opposition which was no more dubious than the previous five . And that’s just poor . I’d say it was a teensy weensy bit biased myself I’m not advocating cheating but definitely biased ,