Hackett's team at YATR didn't like it, either, but they also have an obvious and heavy bias against certain referees. Pawson is perhaps their most derided upon for whatever reason.
I thought Merriner had a bad day at the office in the Stoke-Arsenal match today. Did anyone without a rooting interest happen to watch?
i thought so too- do you mean the tackle by mustafi on pieters that was deemed a good tackle? or the bad offside call by the AR
Didn't get to watch the whole game so I never saw the Mustafi tackle. Do think that the first PK shout (Welbeck IIRC) should have been given and the late one on Bellerin looked like one too (perhaps if he had made a meal of it). He rightly waved away the handball claims though. The offside one feels a bit harsh but it was correct by the pictures I saw (less than an inch perhaps but still).
Do you mean the one that disallowed the goal? Crazy tight, but looking at the replay, I think that it was a good call in the end... https://streamable.com/o5ra3
http://deadspin.com/bournemouth-player-prevents-possible-goal-using-nothing-1798154149 very interesting to read- i guess it is rarely called at premier league level
Difficult game for Dean for Bournemouth v Man City. I only half watched but I thought he did a pretty good job. 11 cautions, one of which was a 2CT for celebrating the winner in added time. Sterling went into a crowd of supports who had surged onto the field. The only real controversy was a possible DOGSO which was only a caution. I think the call was defensible.
I'm a big Dean fan. That said, while the call might have been defensible in the sense that those sort of calls (immediate foul after change in position) are very difficult to assess at the moment they occur and DOGSO is a possibility, I don't think the call is defensible at all insofar as the actual accuracy when you get to see a replay. That should always be red at the professional level. Only got to see the first half. How/why did the second half stoppage time go over ten minutes when five was the original amount added?
They signaled 5 minutes at 91, two cards, a sub and then a goal at 97. Restart at 99:40 after Sterling sent off for second yellow.
In addition to what was already mentioned, Pep and Howe nearly came to blows right at 90 minutes. Dean had to come over to sort things out, so that added at least another minute to the added time. The fourth didn't put the "5" up until sometime past 91:00. Add the "injury" (definitely exaggerated at a minimum) and the dustup after the goal, and the amount of added time was defensible. I'm not a City or Bournemouth fan by any stretch, so I could look at the added time objectively. I thought Dean was well within his bounds to have the match continue past 95:00 and 96:00.
You'll never see an easier serious foul play call than what Jon Moss had in City-Liverpool. Mane goes in with a head-high boot and nails Ederson. The only question now is whether the FA follows standard operating procedure with Mane regarding additional games on the suspension. I'm guessing this is a three-match ban given the nature of the SFP.
Here's where FIFA and IFAB put themselves in bad shape. There should be an easy-to-find explanation of why a play like that is serious foul play. Just for amusement, go to this page and check out the link to the official IFAB site: http://www.fifa.com/development/education-and-technical/referees/laws-of-the-game.html Yeah. That's where we stand. You can easily find poorly organized pages and PDFs. You can find discussion forums that haven't been updated since 2009. Any simple "Here's the Law, here are the interpretations" site isn't ranked very high in Google's algorithm. I know this was SFP. I think everyone agrees other than Klopp, bless him. But if someone asks me why, I don't know what to cite. As for additional games -- wouldn't intent come into play there? The commentators rightly said it doesn't come into play for the red card, but what about the suspension? I think three games would be harsh. He misjudged the ball and the goalkeeper's speed. (Ironically, as I type this, someone got a stud in the face in Arsenal-Bournemouth. Three games?)
I'd be surprised if they give him any more than the fast track 3 games. There is nothing intentional or malicious about the foul, it's just a poor choice by Mane on a 50/50 ball and he got his deserved red card.
It is 3 games because of the FA's fast track system. If you get a red and the disciplinary committee doesn't think it is especially bad then the player gets a choice to accept the standard 3 games (suspension to start within 3 days from the card IIRC) or take it to a hearing (takes about 7-10 days to set up and can result in anything from 0 to lots of games depending on the situation). Of course if the player requests a hearing and the disciplinary panel thinks it is a crystal clear red and the player appeals it unnecessarily then the player gets an extra game tacked on. *That was purely accidental though. Deemed no foul or card and I can't see any way that anything more is made of it.
I've seen 2-3 ex-top level refs say the same thing now. And worse, they're saying YC and IFK, because it's PIADM.
The Liverpool incident? We had a discussion on this recently involving Becky Sauerbrunn. I understand the reasoning. But where's the documentation? I know someone dug up something about "contact" in the Sauerbrunn case, but why is it so hard to find?
pg 81 of the 16/17 Laws (we're not using the 17/18 Laws yet here in Canada, so I'm not as familiar with them yet), which is the first page of Law 12. It's even underlined in the book (to show it's new wording yes, but stands out even more)!
Outside the US and MLS, almost every serious league and competent governing body in the world has automatic 3-match bans for VC and SFP. There are some pretty clear regulations that allow that figure to be reduced in certain situations at the FIFA tournament level (since a 3 match ban in a tournament that is 7 games at the most is pretty rough). But not usually at the domestic level. The fact that MLS starts at 1-game and very occasionally goes up to 2 is the outlier.
Is there anything Moss could have done to prevent Mane from making that challenge? I've heard that if a ref has to give a red, he needs to examine what he could have done differently. Moss had given 3 cautions prior to the red and the game didn't seem chippy to me. In my opinion, this was a poor decision by Mane.
Late in the Man U Stoke City game, it sure seemed like the referee (I don't know who) tried to mandate that Stoke City be the only team to contest a dropped ball that I thought United had a rightful claim to. This caused quite a bit of fuss between the players and the ref had to step between the players. Reason for stoppage was a Stoke City player down in the box with an apparent head injury. Just looked bad all around.
Not a thing. It was an unlucky situation, unfortunate (for both), and the only way that it could have been avoided was if one of the two players had made a different decision.
Yea it was pretty bad by Swarbrick tbh. In the end the team that had possession regained it just 70 yards further from the opponents goal. They really need to figure out a better way to deal with these kinds of situations.
Apparently, Clattenburg on Norwegian TV (boy, these former refs will go anywhere for money) said it was yellow and a free kick. That's crazy. That's a red card. At any level of play anytime. In fact, it's probably one of the easiest red cards to deliver. Moss was in an excellent position to see the 'keeper win the ball and the boot to contact the head. Any referee who says otherwise should stop refereeing.