I completely agree with the send off here. That was VC in my book. granted it wasnt a vicious head butt but why do it? Ref had the yellow out immediately and was dealing with the original foul. What was the purpose of him going after the other player? Stupid stupid stupid. I have no pity for players who feel they have to take matters into their own hands, especially when the reason for their displeasure is being dealt with.
Based on that second GIF, I can see it being more of a sending off than before. I can certainly not see a successful appeal, since they launched one.
That tackle should have been a send off. Yellow goes right through blue, with a leg that is straight (if not knee locked) hard enough to flip the blue player. Had the blue player not seen it coming and did that little "hop", his leg would have been destroyed. As the referee, even if you are going yellow, you need to be there before the offended player gets to his/their feet. The blue player reacted the way he did because of the tackle and referee did not deal with it. Both should be sent off, but it didn't need to get to that point.
You bring up a good point in that the referee never reached a fast run or sprint. He doesn't show much urgency. I have to wonder why too assuming that he just saw that challenge in front of him.
Regarding the three points. 1) Foy was never giving the penalty to Walcott. Classic signal for advantage after a goal that makes it look to everyone as if he was going to give the penalty and it's therefore a fantastic advantage. We've all done it! 2) Nasri definite RC. The "violent" part of VC went out about 5 or 6 years ago. If you make a headbutting motion to another player, regardless of force, contact or subsequent injury, that is VC and a red card. Stupid from him. 3) The initial tackle was never a RC IMO. Good, old-fashioned strong challenge, but ultimately a YC in the modern game.
I can see why you would think this, but I respectfully disagree. If Walcott goes down and stays down, he's pointing for a PK. For whatever it's worth, US Soccer uploaded a video in the fall that says it's "not needed to signal advantage if the immediate result is a goal" (at 2:28 of video). Regardless, I like the way Foy handled it and would like to think an MLS ref would do the same thing in the same circumstance: http://www.ussoccer.com/media-library/Videos/Referees/Laws-of-the-Game/Law-5/Advantage-Update.aspx
The initial tackle was nasty and could very easily have been a send off for SFP. I am ok with a YC at this level, but it would be a dark orange imo. I also agree with the poster who said the referee showed no urgency. The whole Nasri incident could have been prevented with the referee's presence. As to Nasri, I understand the claims for a send off but I personally would not have sent him off in this situation. There was almost equal contact between the two players and neither of them reacted to the minor attempted "head butt". The referee was fine with letting them play but it was clearly the 4th(?) who told him to send off nasri.
I think the key statement in this exchange is the bolded part in Englishref's post above. I've seen this signal (advantage after a goal scored) before in the English game. I've never seen it given in the US. It's not instructed here and, as MetroFever shows, there's actually instruction that says it's unnecessary. Personally, I've never seen instruction to give anything other than a point back up to midfield after a goal. So, when Englishref says "we've all done it," and uses that phrase as an implication that we've all tried to sell a great advantage call on a PK we were never going to give... well, he's probably right in his world, but the statement doesn't resonate with American-based officials because I don't think many of us have done it or even seen it that often. That's not a statement on the signal or Englishref's believe on how/why Foy applied it. I just think it's reality, though. American refs can look at it and say "hmm, that looks interesting and I think it worked really well." Whereas more experienced English referees might have a more cynical (yet still congratulatory) perspective.
watching (on replay) Wigan toy with Villa right now like a cat with a ball, I wonder if people can appreciate how difficult it is to referee those games, as Villa in the last 10 minutes has committed a number of pure frustration fouls - particularly Albrighton as he loses the ball upfield the last 3-4 times he's received it. The CR could've gone to his book at least oncein the past 10-15 mins. but has managed to talk both teams down so far, but I bet the next one may merit a booking...
Man City was just given a penalty but the foul by the Stoke player was clearly outside the box. Can anyone really argue it was inside the box? From my view, its not even close.
WEEK 22 QPR : Tottenham - PROBERT Aston Villa : Southampton - HALSEY (game time replacement due to illness) Everton : Swansea - DOWD Fulham : Wigan - CLATTENBURG Norwich : Newcastle - TAYLOR Reading : WBA - FRIEND Stoke : Chelsea - MARRINER Sunderland : West Ham - SWARBRICK Manchester United : Liverpool - WEBB Arsenal : Manchester City - DEAN Chelsea : Southampton - OLIVER
His first league game as an International Referee. He did Crawley vs Reading in the FA Cup at the weekend (I think).
Looks like he replaced Stuart Attwell. I guess the US is not the only country that misjudges the abilities of referees, or has other criteria for putting someone on their FIFA list. It will be interesting to see if he gets a second chance. PH
Commentator has a legit complaint on Webb in the Man Utd/Liverpool game. Pepe Reina collides with a Man Utd player. I agree with the no foul decision. Reina stays now injured as Liverpool attack on the other end. For 20 seconds Reina stays down in his own penalty area as Liverpool attack at the other end. However, as soon as Manchester United get the ball back, Webb stops the game. If he knows he would stop the game when Man Utd get the ball back, how is it fair to allow Liverpool to attack?
You could make a practical argument that Liverpool doesn't need Reina to attack, but Liverpool (and any team) must have their goalie to defend. And whether Liverpool has Reina or not during the attack doesn't help or hurt Manchester United, so no one is advantaged or disadvantaged while Liverpool has the ball. But Liverpool is inherently disadvantaged once they turn the ball over. Practically, it makes sense. But, from an appearance of fairness situation, I agree. It just doesn't look right. And if a similar situation happens later, not involving the goalkeeper, it will be tough to navigate for Webb. Add to the fact that it's an apparent head injury, and I'm not sure why he didn't stop immediately (or, once his AR alerted him, if he didn't notice straight away that Reina was down). Seems like a risk that's not worth taking, as I don't really understand what the potential benefit will be. Especially as I don't think Liverpool would complain much if you stop play because their goalkeeper is lying on the ground and unable to play. Oh, and barring all that, the Manchester United player seemed to be shoved into the goalkeeper by a defender. It'd be an incredibly gutsy call to make, but I'm not sure how that isn't a penalty kick, as it very possibly prevented the attacker from getting the ball first (and, more to the point, that was the purpose of the shove).
I think I agree with that analysis. If he didn't think it was a head injury then Reina isn't involved in the play at all and he's not going to be in anyone's way while Liverpool are attacking. Another interesting talking point is MU's second goal. As it appeared to touch Vidic I think it is offside. But one of those plays that is impossible for any of the officials to see at game speed.
Was just having this very discussion with a friend online. If it was offside, it was probably impossible to discern. I'm still not sure it was offside, as it was possible Vidic was behind the ball when it was played. But there definitely is a chance that it was offside, which no one seems to have noticed yet in the punditry world.
And, with the post-game replay, I think it shows it was offside. Vidic's leg is in front of the ball. Ironically, and not unexpectedly, the pundits seem to agree--generally--that he was even and therefore onside.
OK, from the post game replay it looks like Vidic was just even with the ball when Evra played it. So no issues.
You sure? His head is even with the ball, which is where the ball then hits him. But look at his leg. It's out-stretched in front of him as Evra plays the ball. At least that's how I saw it.
"Out-stretched" is probably too strong of a term, having seen it one more time. But I think the leg is definitely in front of the ball, so he's therefore offside. All that said, it's incredibly close and, given both the closeness and the possibility that the AR might not be sure Vidic touched the ball, I think it's nearly an impossible call to make.
Any opinions on Welbeck not getting a second yellow for a borderline rugby tackle? The two were pushing and pulling leading up to it, so I don't know if that nullifies it somehow, but I found that (and Sktrel not getting a red as the ball was landing perfectly) both interesting from Howard 'supposedly property of Man Utd' Webb.