Yeah such a game always has the risk of the game being about dean, doesn’t it? I thought the vertonghen 2ct showed sensitivity to the dirty things that raise the temp of the game, but in this case and and with the game not escalating I don’t think the yellow was really necessary.
Don't usually see this as SFP in the Premier League: I wonder if Oliver thought there was more studs-to-shin contact or if he saw this accurately and this meets his threshold for red.
You definitely won't see that in MLS that's for sure. It seems that the MLS instruction lately, especially, with some of the reversals by the DisCo and the instruction to VARs is to focus on the "excessive force" aspect and not so much the location of the contact. You can make contact up high and on the shin/high ankle area as long as you are grazing the player or not coming down with heavy force.
The only way the game is going to change is via courageous referees. Great call. Studs under the knee.
That has the chance to be a multi-million pound red card too. 1-0, and needing every point. BTW, I don’t know how many times a play like this results in SFP, but I know my radar goes up when a touch goes away from a player and he needs to go a bit to recover the ball.
I wonder if it would be possible for players to wear some sort of guard or covering on their shin in this sport? Could be something to look in to for the future.
Rough PK call by friend yesterday against Palace. I see a foul from the attacker. https://streamja.com/LPjO
The ball clearly changes direction. And while one angle shows that the defender got to it, that's not the angle Friend had. From Friend's angle, it looks like a foul. I certainly understand why he called it.
Meh, the one angle shows exactly what friend was looking at. I see the ball poked out by the defender and the attacker kicking him. I could agree with a "no call" from that angle, but when you have to be 100% on a PK, I just don't see it as excusable. The CK that was given after the clear GK (that resulted in the RC to Duffy) then going down to 10 men. That PK certainly helped then get the 3 points
What? The attacker "kicking him?" Watch the defender's right knee go into his opponent's left knee. That's the foul. There is significant physical force knee on knee that is due to the defender's actions. There's a philosophical question here, no doubt. The defender can be first to the ball by extending his left foot and ticking it away. But he can't do so without cleaning out his opponent with what amounts to a very physical challenge. At midfield, this is an easy foul on the defender. The philosophical question becomes whether the defender's right and ability to touch the ball first in a desperate attempt to prevent a shot excuses his inability to avoid cleaning out the defender. A few years ago? Easy no call. "I got the ball" would trump the debate before it really started. Today? Much tougher. There are arguments both ways. But a foul on the attacker? No chance.
On the Arsenal v. Manchester match we are through the first half. Marriner has been busy he had 5 cautions alone in the first half. All within a time period of 7 mins. I think all were justifiable with him maybe able to manage bellerin’s caution. There was also a tight onside decision on the free kick leading up to Man U’s goal.
to me I see the defender there first. He pokes the ball away, he didn't initiate the contact, the attacker did. I don't see the defender making any contact with the player. I see him beating the attacker to the ball and poking it away, then the attacker (who was trying to play the ball) hitting the defender instead. I was saying a NO call, but if you have to call something, I see it against the attacker.
I am going to assume Fellaini is just going to retire once VAR is used in EPL? https://streamable.com/x2zi8
Its like BYU v. NM State all over again. I did see that in the 2nd half and was appalled. I don't think Marriner saw the hair pull and assumed it was a hold on the shoulder or arm or he would have sent him off.
Saturday 8 December 12:30 AFC Bournemouth v Liverpool Referee: Lee Mason Assistants: Eddie Smart, Marc Perry Fourth official: Kevin Friend Arsenal v Huddersfield Town Referee: Paul Tierney Assistants: Simon Beck, Mick McDonough Fourth official: Stuart Attwell Burnley v Brighton & Hove Albion Referee: Martin Atkinson Assistants: Constantine Hatzidakis, Daniel Cook Fourth official: Rob Jones Cardiff City v Southampton Referee: Jonathan Moss Assistants: Harry Lennard, Andy Halliday Fourth official: Graham Scott Man Utd v Fulham Referee: Lee Probert Assistants: Adrian Holmes, Andy Garratt Fourth official: Mike Dean West Ham United v Crystal Palace Referee: Anthony Taylor Assistants: Gary Beswick, Adam Nunn Fourth official: Chris Kavanagh 17:30 Chelsea v Manchester City Referee: Michael Oliver Assistants: Stuart Burt, Simon Bennett Fourth official: Andre Marriner 19:45 Leicester City v Tottenham Hotspur Referee: Craig Pawson Assistants: Lee Betts, Ian Hussin Fourth official: Roger East Sunday 9 December 16:00 Newcastle United v Wolves Referee: Mike Dean Assistants: Darren Cann, Dan Robathan Fourth official: Simon Hooper Monday 10 December 20:00 Everton v Watford Referee: Kevin Friend Assistants: Simon Long, Derek Eaton Fourth official: Lee Mason Oliver for the top-of-the-table clash after a few weeks doing relegation battles.
Marriner was right there too- prob means the fa won’t act on it. Edit: yeah https://www.skysports.com/football/...ive-action-for-pulling-matteo-guendouzis-hair
This is ridiculous. Someone should be suspended here. Ideally Fellaini But if that report is true and Marriner clearly saw that and didn't do anything, he should be suspended. All refs screw up on some calls, but this is different. We cannot allow violent conduct to be clearly seen by the ref and the ref not call it.
You're misinterpreting what has occurred. Because Marriner called the foul, the FA takes the position that the incident was seen by the referee and a decision was made. Therefore, per the LOTG, the incident cannot be re-refereed and no further sanction is meted out. That does not mean that Marriner was interviewed and said "yeah, I saw him yank his hair and chose not to do anything." The reality probably is--particularly if you watch Marriner's eyes--that he knew the attacker was held back in an illegal manner and therefore called the foul, but did not focus on the actual point of contact and therefore did not realize the severity of the action.
I misinterpreted nothing. I was pointing out how badly the article was. Sorry that didn't come through. My point is that he didn't "clearly" see it as the article suggests. If he had, he should be suspended.
The standard on what can and cannot be done post match has always seemed to me to be a bit arbitrary. While I am not a VAR convert, this is the type of play that VAR is designed for.