Talk:Phil Dowd

"Criticisms" Section?

I'm not entirely sure whether I get the point of the "criticisms" section. WP should be a forum of objective knowledge; and since (just about) every refereeing criticism has come from individuals partial to their clubs' benefits (players, managers, fans), I'm not entirely sure criticisms levelled by those individuals with vested interests should really be included on a WP entry for a referee. Otherwise every referee-related article would last for hundreds of pages!--Alexio 13:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, it is told in a prosaic, non-NPOV style, based on hearsay, otherwise where are all the sources for the alleged "criticisms"? This could be one for the BLP, I think. Not acceptable. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to clean this up a little. It seems rediculous to have such a long section unless this ref, who I don't know from adam, has an on the record verifiable problem or something. This reads like an angry fan who lost taking it out on the ref. Anyways --Tom 19:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I went back and looked at most of the other refs in this category and very few if any have such a section. I'm sure most refs have many critics and articles saying how bad they are. Anyways.--Tom 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I totally agree with your edits - perhaps I haven't been bold enough. But I WAS going to give the original contributors a chance to qualify what they 'reported' by asking for citations. We'll see if they come back and re-add the stuff.

By the way, Phil Dowd has reached the very top of the English refereeing tree quite late in his career, so late in fact that he retires next season, and he will never get the chance to go on the UEFA or FIFA list. He is also seen as very abrasive in his on-field style, and each time he upsets a group of fans, this page tends to get a pasting. So, no record of poor officiating, but question marks over his diplomatic skills during a game, certainly. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Hi. In fact, following an incident on August 19 2007 during a match in which the officials had decisions to make, and explain afterwards, and in which Dowd was fourth official, the main outline of the incident was duly added to the article, as one would expect. It did not involve direct criticism of Phil Dowd. It seems that the fine line between "criticisms" and valid incidents is getting increasingly blurred. Therefore, in bold mode, I am taking this discussion as a pointer toward consensus on the Criticism section, and integrating the text into the main article. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Newcastle 4-4 Arsenal

I have revised the paragraph regarding this fixture (see edit dated 16:18, 6 February 2011) to better conform to neutral POV rules. I personally, as a neutral fan, do not believe Dowd made any particularly controversial decisions during the course of this match (his assistant referee probably did: the disallowed third Newcastle goal for offside, second penalty award, and not drawing Dowd's attention to Nolan's grapple with the keeper) but it is probably notable as the first time a team has come back from 4-0 down to draw 4-4. Any edits to my revision that jeopardise the neutrality of the text should be promptly reverted. Tbmurray 16:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I may have to rewatch the match myself to better assess Dowd's performance. There were some harsh challenges that were missed by the official crew. Any citation for the first time a 4-0 lead was blown? Joehosophat (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a citation for it being the first time a team has come back from 4-0 down. From my point of view, and something I'd add to my previous comment, I have to ask: What will this game forever be remembered for? Will it be for Phil Dowd, or will it be for Newcastle's comeback? Perhaps Arsenal fans will remember it for Dowd, but the vast majority of everybody else will remember it for the comeback. In the context of Dowd's career this is probably merely a recentism. Yes, we could talk about every decision he arguably got wrong, but if we did that for all referees the articles would be twenty pages long! We have to bear in mind the notability rules and try to keep this article as neutral as possible. Tbmurray 21:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I really think that every football fan who actually watched the game can see clearly Dowd's major roll in the final score line. The 2 penalties were ridiculous and "soft" is an understatement. Moreover, if you check the statistics, the evidence is clear: Dowd was the official in 3 premiere-league matches this season involving Arsenal, and Arsenal gathered only If 2 points. In all 3 matches Dowd made some key decisions against Arsenal, summing up to 2 red cards and 3 penalties. If you examine the other 24 matches of the season so far, Arsenal gathered 54 points and only 2 penalties were given against them. This is cutting edged and you can't call it coincidence. What is more absurd, is that the criticism sections starts with a description on a controversy in favor of Arsenal, when in reality, Dowd is clearly has mad a habit of taking inconsistent decisions against Arsenal. This article should give the real impression on Dowd performances and how the public sees him.

I'm a football fan, who supports neither of these teams, and I do not believe Dowd played such a "major" role in the comeback. I can't remember any piece of press, from any credible news agency, that truly slated him for his performance. The penalties awarded might have been "ridiculous" in your opinion, but others may feel at least one of the penalties was correct. I hear what you're saying about the "statistics", and I believe you. Refs are only human and bound to have some degree of bias with some teams. But, Wikipedia does not permit original research which has not been published by reliable sources. The way this article currently portrays the events of that match is sufficient and complies with Wikipedia's rules on neutrality. The description of Diaby's red card includes a quote from Wenger that Barton also deserved punishment; and the second penalty is described as appearing dubious. I note that the second penalty was actually awarded by the linesman. As I said before, what will this game forever be remembered for? Will it be for Phil Dowd, or will it be for Newcastle's comeback? Perhaps Arsenal fans will remember it for Dowd's performance, but the vast majority of everybody else will remember it for the comeback. Yes, we could talk about every decision he arguably got wrong, but if we did that for all games and all referees the articles would be twenty pages long! Tbmurray 18:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know you personally, but i get the impression you have some experience at wikipedia, and i believe your goal is to have the most accurate and reliable articles, which are as coherent as possible with reality. The article as is, does not reflects the public persona which Dowd is. It is a well known knowledge that Dowd is constantly inconsistent when it comes to Arsenal's matches. And of course it is more well known among the Arsenal's fans, since they are the victims. It is a valid aspect in Dowd's public representation, alongside his good values. There are a lot of football referees in the premiere league, but the Arsenal's fans are aware of only one in particular who is a persona non grata amongst them. It is an aspect who should be portrayed in his bigoraphy, otherwise his biography will remain as an untruthful history. In many years to come, no one will know of this aspect of him. And about the second penalty where you say the linesman informed Dowd, i would like to see the source of that information, because at first glance it looks like Dowd made this decision by himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molovokiri (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the second penalty, I can't produce a website source at the moment but I clearly remember on Match of the Day that the lino signalled for the second penalty and Dowd merely trusted the word of his assistant, which of course he is well within his rights to do (this fact was discussed by the pundits). I'm happy to add more content to this article regarding Arsenal criticisms of Dowd, but only if properly sourced. If I can find any material from the BBC Sport website, for example, I'll include it, or if you can find any reliable sources documenting Arsene Wenger's criticisms of Dowd, feel free to post them here and I'll add to the article. Tbmurray (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can seriously watch this match and say that Dowd didn't have a nightmare game, you can't possibly have watched any football before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.229.199 (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions

There have been numerous additions recently, all about Dowd's involvement in Wigan Athletic matches.

I have removed the content regarding Wigan's defeat to Arsenal in the League Cup semifinal second leg in 2005/06. The source says nothing about Dowd being "at the centre of controversy" and merely says that he turned down three Wigan penalty appeals during the match. Referees turn down multiple penalty appeals in every match, every weekend across the country, so I'm not sure why the editor deems it encyclopedic that Dowd turned down appeals in this match.

The content about Wigan's draw at Blackburn in 2006 has been written in a very non-neutral manner. I will improve the NPOV on this item.

The allegation of swearing at Wigan players in 2007 did not result in a formal complaint. We see players on the television swearing at referees constantly during matches so it is unfair and non-neutral to put across a point to the reader of this article that Dowd allegedly swore at players - nothing was ever proven.

And finally, Wigan's Boxing Day match is nothing more than a recentism. It will be forgotten very quickly (except perhaps among Wigan fans who thought the red card prevented their team from beating Manchester United, at Old Trafford, despite being 1-0 already and as the source says "but in truth United had shown plenty of menace even before Park's early strike"). If consistent news stories continue, such as if Wigan appeal the red card, and it is rescinded, etc, then we could consider it for inclusion. If it is ultimately included, we need to portray it with better NPOV. For example, the current content implies Dowd was very anti-Wigan but mentions nothing of the fact that a Man United player "had a penalty appeal turned down despite being wrestled to the ground by Maynor Figueroa". --TBM10 (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the above. Your opinion, is that; your opinion. Living here in Asia, and having no affilation to either Wigan, Man United or Dowd, watching the match live once again the problems with referees in the PL and championship. On the otherhand your statement above gives the impression that you are a biased fan of Man U and/or Dowd. In keeping with wikipedia, you should not delete entire passages (not mine), just because in your opinion it is not fair or non-neutral. As far as I see you are also guilty of being non-neutral. Instead of discussing your deletion after, you should discuss; then delete. Sure I agree the wording of the earlier section (pre-boxing day) may have been a bit biased, but your total sanitation of it and mine has made the arguement unbalanced, Sammon WAS wrongly sent off. That is fact, not an opinion, so please change back my paragraph to state this. Dowd got it wrong. FA agreed, so my wording was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boopolo (talk • contribs) 00:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I will add the word 'wrongly' or 'unfairly' to the last line to highlight the fact that it was Dowd, and he alone who made a serious error. Will wait a day or two before changing to wait for objections.

You are jeopardising the neutrality of the article by dictating to the reader that Dowd's decision was "unfair". You should state the facts, then let the reader decide for themselves. The fact is that Sammon was sent off, and another fact is that the FA rescinded it. I have no affiliation to Man United or Dowd, but believe in fundamental neutrality. --TBM10 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Small text