Referee was conned. Usual and marginal contact. Poor decision at this level IMO. It is the oldest trick in the book. Just take a couple of short slow steps in the PA and let the defender collide into your back then collapse. Not heard very many people who support the call. I think Evertonians would be howling if a decision like this had gone against their team. PH
Especially Phil Neville! But in this case he may have meant that no defender would deliberately commit a foul if the opponent were running away from the goal, and the referee should take this into consideration. PH
I personally thought Robbie Earle laid it out very well on the post-game on NBCSN. From Pawson's position, I can easily why and how he would have called what he called. However, when you see it from closer, it was probably not something that should be called. It was a long ball played that no referee could outrun. Perhaps if an AAR was on the goal line, that official could have been in a position where he could have provided Pawson with a little assistance. It's why I will continue to say that AARs are a more beneficial investment in refereeing advancements than video review. Given where this contact occurred, it may not have been helpful. But I would venture an AAR could have been in Pawson's ear saying what his thoughts were about the contact.
Good try. It’s a penalty. . But since you’re in these parts, I’ll let you in on a secret. I’m biased. First penalty for Everton at Anfield in 30 years, and only the second in 80.
Quite a lot of evidence to the contrary though. Not all decisions on a pitch is all that smart and thought through, especially late in a tight game.
At this level, there should be a lot of smart thinking and analysis by the referee. Especially one wearing that coveted white badge. Tight game??!! Did you see the possession numbers? Liverpool 78%. Everton 2 shots on goal (one was the PK!). Only one team was trying to win. PH
On to a completely different subject (and one a heck of a lot less controversial) - what is it with the major European professional leagues allowing referees to wear shirts of the same color as one of the keepers? I constantly see this in the Premier League. Michael Oliver was wearing black while De Gea wore black for Man United between the sticks. In the Frankfurt-Bayern game, the referee wore yellow while Frankfurt's keeper wore yellow. In both cases, the referees could have worn a different shirt to have a fifth color. Oliver could have worn yellow since Ederson was wearing green, while the Frankfurt-Bayern referee could have worn light blue since Frankfurt was in white, Bayern was in black, and Bayern's keeper was wearing red. I can understand getting away with this in our youth games or even high school games, but I would think once you get to college or even some of the more elite club games that you'd have a requirement that there be five colors on the field. I know the England guys probably like to be more traditional and wear black as often as they can, but it seems strange that they would go against the Laws when they really don't need to get in that situation.
I've also found out (at least in the US domestically) there are a lot of decisions that go into televised games. Such as will that red in the daylight look good on camera. Will the blue be contrast enough in the rainy night with the haze? That goes for all 3 teams. That's why many professional teams have home kits, away kits, and alternate kits. As well as usually a white kit. So often times the leagues dictate before the referee crew even gets to the locker room what colors the referee crew will be wearing. Same usually goes with the teams and the goal-keepers just have to contrast the field players. Also like what @RedStar91 said "who cares, no one is going to expect a referee to be in a position where a player will confuse them with the goalkeeper". Also they do have those big ol' super Mario gloves on too!
In the UK, add in the new colour blindness criteria that they're using. The current yellow Nike jersey, on TV, looks very similar to the green Nike GK jersey, especially to someone who is colour blind. The Black would likely have better contrast with the team colours on those particular scales, thus becoming a better choice/option. In real life, very obvious which is which, but there's been a big push over the last 6 months or so by the FA (in conjunction with UEFA) to address such potential colour blindness issues, something that MLS failed with during the Houston/Seattle playoff tie (orange vs lime green, two colours that are almost identical on TV to a colour blind person).
Yes, but the likelihood of an equalizer is determined by the score, not possession. If Everton had half the possession but was down 3-0, the penalty kick wouldn't have mattered.
Why is this even a stat? Does anyone actually think that referees come into matches going "Oh no, I have Everton today. Gotta make sure I don't call a pen today. Someone breaks a femur in the penalty area? I'm yelling play on." As I say to my crew in these situations... "If you're wondering if I'm punching a ball out of the air in the penalty area, we have bigger problems."
That makes a lot of sense. I remember in Euro 2016 that Wales and Portugal each wore their alternates (Wales gray, Portugal Doublemint green) because of color-blindness issues. I didn't have an issue with either case I mentioned watching the game. I could tell De Gea from Oliver, it wasn't that tough. I have heard that MLS officials know the color they will wear well in advance, and I figured the pro leagues did something similar. I just figured that in advance, they would identify what both teams, both keepers, and the officials would wear and that they would be pretty strict about having distinct colors. Of course, with only four colors for EPL referees, there's always a chance they will have no choice in some cases.
Matchweek 18 Saturday 16 December 12:30 Leicester City v Crystal Palace Referee: Martin Atkinson Assistants: Peter Kirkup, Adrian Holmes Fourth official: Jonathan Moss Arsenal v Newcastle United Referee: Stuart Attwell Assistants: Simon Long, Matthew Wilkes Fourth official: Mike Dean Brighton & Hove Albion v Burnley Referee: Chris Kavanagh Assistants: Constantine Hatzidakis, Mick McDonough Fourth official: Andre Marriner Chelsea v Southampton Referee: Roger East Assistants: Ian Hussin, Sian Massey-Ellis Fourth official: Bobby Madley Stoke City v West Ham United Referee: Graham Scott Assistants: Richard West, Marc Perry Fourth official: Neil Swarbrick Watford v Huddersfield Town Referee: Michael Oliver Assistants: Simon Bennett, Daniel Cook Fourth official: Paul Tierney 17:30 Manchester City v Tottenham Hotspur Referee: Craig Pawson Assistants: Lee Betts, Adam Nunn Fourth official: Lee Mason Sunday 17 December 14:15 West Bromwich Albion v Manchester United Referee: Anthony Taylor Assistants: Stephen Child, Harry Lennard Fourth official: Bobby Madley 16:30 AFC Bournemouth v Liverpool Referee: Andre Marriner Assistants: Simon Beck, Scott Ledger Fourth official: Kevin Friend Monday 18 December 20:00 Everton v Swansea City Referee: Jonathan Moss Assistants: Eddie Smart, Andy Halliday Fourth official: Neil Swarbrick Pawson, fresh off Merseyside controversy, with the match of the week. Attwell with a nice match at the Emirates.
No, he debuted in April. Today he will have his sixth Premier League center appointment, and Saturday's match will be his seventh.
Who doesn’t love a bit of controversy. Would you let this stand as a goal or call it off? (I don’t believe a yellow card was issued) https://streamable.com/h8epp
There is a lot of "spirit of the laws" that goes into a decision like that. The commentator in the clip is one of the few people involved that didn't like the decision. Even Klopp didn't really raise a stink. The arm was up and away from the body and he gained a clear advantage from the ball hitting his arm and it directly resulted in a goal. If the ball bounces up on a defender and hits the arm raised above the head, a penalty kick is given and we/pundits/coaches say "keep your arms down in the penalty area". The attacker put his arms up above the head and the ball incidentally made contact with the arm. I think its a foul. Of course, this would be a mandatory caution as well, but once again the spirit of the laws come into play. I think it was good refereeing.
First of all when it comes to handling, there is no criteria of gaining an advantage it either is deliberate handling or it isn't. We as referees have tools to use at our disposal in order to make a judgement. Like position of the arms, time to react etc... In my opinion in this instance the right call was made by the Spirit of the game. You can not score a goal with an arm. There was a similar incident a few years back involving Neymar and the same decision was reached.
There's a weird double standard at play from those complaining that this shouldn't have been called. If that was a defender, and the ball had hit his arm like that in the box, it would have been a 100% penalty, and I can't imagine an argument. But because it's an attacker, it shoudln't be called?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that. (There is, of course, always a double standard in that balls that hit the opponent's arm are always more deliberate than when they hit my arm, but that's a different story . . . ) The standard for handling, by either team, is whether it was deliberate. And then we put all kinds of glosses on to decide how we tell that. Beyond the "OMG, we can't let a goal score if it touched his arm!" argument, I can see two possible arguments under the LOTG to get to deliberate here: (1) The old "unnatural position/biggering." That really doesn't wash here. The arm is clearly in a natural position for the lunge being made. At the moment of the lunge, there is absolutely no reason to expect the ball to end up where the arm was. I just don't see that as a basis that holds up. (2) It simply was deliberate. The arm does move towards the ball after it hits his chest. That movement helps corral the ball in a way that puts it into the goal. If that is the view of the referee, then this is an easy call (whether an attacker or defender). And where do we put he benefit of the doubt? One of the things that the sometimes maligned USSF paper on handling noted, and I paraphrase, that we can consider clues that help us tell if something was deliberate. The fact that there was a fortuitous bounce from the handling does not make it handling, but it can be a clue that the attacker may be acting deliberately. And certainly a ball bouncing into the goal is the most fortuitous result possible. Put that with (2) above, and I'm good with handling being the best call here. I think where people find difference on this call is those that don't believe the arm movement was anything more than the natural movement already in play such that it was simply not deliberate. I don't think anyone is suggesting greater benefit of the doubt for an attacker who scores a goal than a defender. (Indeed, if anything, I think both fans referees would be more likely to see the act by an attacker that scores as handling than an act by a defender.)
I have absolutely no idea how this is controversial at all. Of course that's not a goal. Of course it's deliberate handling.