Blackburn Rovers - Liverpool, 4/10, Anthony Taylor (R)

Discussion in 'Referee' started by SccrDon, Apr 11, 2012.

  1. SccrDon

    SccrDon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Country:
    United States
    Surprised that there isn't a thread about this already (or maybe I missed it). What does the ref community think about Mr Taylor's performance? In one of the most bizarre games I've ever seen, we had a GK sent off, another one could have been sent off, a FB pick up a yellow and narrowly avoid a second yellow in <30 minutes...


  2. NC Soccer United

    NC Soccer United BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    When I saw the highlights, I see Doni get a red and Jones?? not get a red. What was the difference? I thought it was a DOGSO F, but he gets a yellow instead. Personally, I thought Doni's was harsh, but the ref had every right to draw the red card.
  3. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Extended highlights here: http://www.footytube.com/video/blackburn-rovers-liverpool-apr10-113197?ref=hp_ozeit_mp

    First red is at 4:03 and there--hopefully--should be no debate. Easy red card.

    Second penalty is at 21:59. This one is quite interesting and brings up the DOGSO debate again. Strong argument could be made that it's an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and that the attacker would collect the ball, be able to turn, and then shoot, before being challenged. However, there is the pesky problem that the Law itself (not the I&G, not ATR, not the 4 Ds) says the attacker must be "moving toward goal." And he's not here. He's definitely moving away from goal and not just by a manner of degree, like when an attacker needs to dribble around and head toward the outside of the post. He's moving backward here. I think, per the Laws, you can't give a red card here, even though it might feel like you should.

    All that said, I think this is a classic example of the yellow not being necessary. It's red or nothing, in my book.
  4. aphelorah

    aphelorah Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    How was the red card harsh? Doni committed a foul which denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity. It's a straight forward red card. You had a bit of a rant in another thread about how a DOGSO situation was "an easy red to give". I can't see how this situation is any less clear cut.

    Regarding the second PK, I agree that a red card for DOGSO is not warranted. I also agree with MassRef that the yellow is probably unnecessary, as the foul wasn't "tactical" nor was it reckless. We have received rather explicit instruction in the U.S. that there are no "tactical fouls" in the penalty area. For careless fouls, it's either DOGSO and a red, or it's simply a PK.


  5. uniqueconstraint

    uniqueconstraint Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    Indianapolis,Indiana - home of the Indy Eleven!
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    United States
    My first thought watching this was are Liverpool going to have to take Grobbelaar out of moth balls? They're running out of keepers.

    What about the caution to Bellamy at about 25:45? If there was contact it was slight. Was a caution necessary?
  6. NC Soccer United

    NC Soccer United BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    I thought the attacker was clumsy, but Doni did foul him. So I can understand the red. I never said it wasn't a red. It is either a red or no red. I hate it when sock puppets put words in my mouth.
  7. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Can you dial it back just a little?

    Especially since I don't see where he put words in your mouth. He asked "how was the red card harsh?" In your post, you said "I thought Doni's was harsh."

    He never said that you didn't say it was a red, so I'm not sure why you are defending against that charge and I certainly don't think you should be saying he put words in your mouth.
  8. NC Soccer United

    NC Soccer United BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Just what I thought.......
  9. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    I really don't understand what you're getting at here. He asked you a question so you would expand on your thought, which is sort of one of the main points of having a discussion board.
  10. 2wheels

    2wheels Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    That booking in the 2nd half was for attempted deception. The defender (Orr) knew that too. Orr's touch (contact), while being almost stationary at his post, was with his hands to Bellamy body, and the subsequent jump-n-fall fooled no one. Referee Taylor seems to have clearly seen this from behind the play with the AR having the complementing orthogonal view.

    Matters appeared to have settlled down considerably after that booking, as I recall, there were a spate of bookings (3) in the 60'-65' period.
  11. uniqueconstraint

    uniqueconstraint Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    Indianapolis,Indiana - home of the Indy Eleven!
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    United States
    This is where I was going in my head, seemed like the match needed that caution and the others to settle things down.
  12. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 1999
    Location:
    Raleigh
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    I'm a Blackburn fan, so take it for what it's worth...but yeah, I agree. The Liverpool defender would have beaten Yakubu to the ball, for one thing. (If it had been Hoillett, it'd be a tougher call. But Yakubu is slow as hell now.) And I'm not sure that was a "tactical" foul which would warrant a yellow. I get the sense that referees feel that they need to, at the very least, STRONGLY consider a yellow card on any PK, and I kind of think that's what the referee did there. "I'm not going to give a red, so I'll give a yellow." It'd be interesting to see what Taylor himself had to say about it.

    As a side note, Rovers lost an early season game to Everton when they missed TWO penalties, and Everton made theirs. If Yakubu doesn't take the worst PK in the history of the Prem, Rovers probably win this game. Those 6 points look like they're going to relegate them.

    Sometimes I hate this ********ing sport.
  13. iron81

    iron81 Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    I wonder if yellow for a tactical foul was technically correct, despite the directive. Remember that the directive said not that you can't give a tactical yellow in the box, but that it generally should not be done.

    As MassRef noted, you can't really go red here because the attacker has to head away from goal to retrieve the ball. Yet, the keeper deliberately uses his hands to push the attacker. If he used his hands to keep the attacker away from the ball, it's tactical. If he did it to protect himself from the onrushing attacker, it's merely a penalty.

    New video because the old one was taken down. 2nd Pen at 1:30: http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/...orts/foxsoccer/premier_league/generic-gallery
  14. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009

    I don't even think the written instruction goes that far (though it sounds like some of the oral instruction may have gone further), but rather was an instruction that a PK alone wasn't a basis for a yellow and refs should not try to jusify PKs by flashing yellow, instead referees had to concldue that the conduct itself warranted the card.
  15. Errol V

    Errol V Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    And to think that they had to tell us that. They do more harm than good when they state the obvious like this.
  16. Errol V

    Errol V Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Dude, if there was ever a tactical foul, this was it. Why do YOU think he shoved him to the ground?
  17. aphelorah

    aphelorah Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    As I stated in the next sentence of that post, U.S. Soccer is instructing their referees that there is no such thing as a tactical foul in the penalty area. I'm not criticizing the referee in this instance, as I am sure he is under different instructions than we are, and I understand the mentality that "it's not a red, but I should at least give a yellow". However, I have been told that USSF does not want a yellow in such situations, so when I am doing their games, I will follow their dictates.
  18. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    To deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

    But the IFAB and FIFA say you can't technically have an OGSO when the attacker is moving away from goal. Ergo, no tactical foul but also no red for DOGSO.

    I know we debate DOGSO a lot, but this really is one of the more peculiar circumstances. It's rare to see a player moving away from goal in a true sense but the defender in question still know that it is, in a practical sense, an OGSO that he must stop. Unfortunately the Laws are crystal clear here and do not allow for a red card.
  19. AngloRef

    AngloRef Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Location:
    England
    I am sorry that sentence makes no sense. Why does the fact it wasn't dogso automatical mean it wasn't a tactical foul?
  20. Errol V

    Errol V Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    You can say that about everything we do in the game.

    The only thing obvious here is that he pushed him to the ground to stop him from getting to the ball so that he wouldn't have that obvious goal scoring opportunity. That is the definition of a tactical foul - a foul meant the thwart dangerous attacking play.

    Another way of saying it is that a DOGSO foul puts an end to an OGSO. A tactical foul prevents it from arising in the first place.
  21. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    I can see how it reads that way--or how you might disagree with my conclusion.

    What I'm getting at is that the goalkeeper, in his mind, was trying to stop a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity. He wasn't committing a foul "to stop an attacking opportunity." So even though we technically can't punish DOGSO, we shouldn't revert to the yellow card for a tactical foul.

    But, I know we're not supposed to be in the business of mind-reading. So I can understand the reasoning for a yellow card. If the referee deems it an attacking opportunity, a yellow card makes sense.
  22. AngloRef

    AngloRef Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Location:
    England
    Or a simple caution for a deliberate unsporting push.
  23. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009

    I think you're overthinking this and drawing distinctions where they don't belong. An OSGO is a knid of attacknig opportunty. (Kinda like a square is a kind of rectangle.) That OSGO is also separately defined and has a harsher punishment doesn't mean it isn't an attacking opportunity. -- the red for DOGSO simply trumps the yellow for tactical interference with an attack.
  24. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Probably.

    What I was thinking is that we don't automatically "downgrade" DOGSO reds to yellow because a component or two are missing. We have to analyze the decision on its own merits. But, your point and that of others' still stand, which is that in this case it's quite clearly an attacking opportunity (and it's a deliberate foul). I can see the strong case for the yellow and I'm probably wrong in my initial assessment.
  25. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    With this, I 100% agree. Most obviously, a purely careless foul can still support DOGSO, but a purely careless foul is not tactical in nature and cannot support the yellow.

    (And this, I would respectuflly submit, is underlies the position paper about PKs not being automatic yellows -- a foul needs something more to be yellow such as being tactical or reckless in nature.)

Share This Page