Correct decision. Watching on BT they have none other than Peter Walton as their Laws and refereeing expert. He concurs it was a correct decision. Obviously he is more qualified to do this job than the infamous "Dr. Joe" on FOX. PH
NBC just confirmed through the fourth official that it was a DOGSO red. Honestly, that is a copout to avoid the three game suspension. That is more of a SFP red than a DOGSO red. I would not be surprised to see the FA make that a SFP red and a three-game suspension.
I actually think it cannot be DOGSO because Jags knocks the ball away first and then wipes him out. But, the ball is away. But, SFP should be the correct call. They announced on TV it was DOGSO.
Walton is saying it is SFP. Was on camera! One announcer said that Walton has refereed 149 Premier League matches. PH
The slo-mo seemed to show that he hit the ankle first. Either way it is still "endangering the safety of an opponent" and therefore a red card, regardless of the considerations of DOGSO. PH
Ha. Everything about your post is true except the last line. You should be shocked if it gets upgraded. Absolutely shocked. Referees go for those “cop outs” precisely because they know competition authorities don’t have their back. And I put cop out in quotations because I imagine something goes through Pawson’s head like “I easily could go SFP here but I don’t want to risk the FA overturning it if the video doesn’t make it look as bad.”
He did give a yellow, it just wasn’t shown by NBCSN because he waited and didn’t show it immediately after signaling a PK.
Update on BT: saying now that referee had indicated he has viewed it as DOGSO. I agree it seems like a cop-out. So perhaps he should not go on Rufusabc's dislike list after all! PH
I’ve always been under the impression that the English FA is more inclined to impose harsher punishment and not toss their referees under the bus than PRO and MLS, but I could be dead wrong about that.
Yes on the first, not necessarily on the second. But the only reason the first point is true is because VC and SFP are auto 3-match bans when upheld. There’s no discretion to say “yes, SFP but only 1-match.”
Thanks for the correction. I was watching on my iPad Mini at the car dealership while waiting for my car to be done. I was admittedly not following the game 100%, then my son and I were discussing the call. To his credit, he also agreed on the penalty kick and caution (as well as the Jagielka foul being a red for SFP).
Interesting. On the NBC replay just now the restart goal was taken a good 5 yards closer to the goal then where the foul happened. The restart was where the player finished rolling.
And closer to goal is not necessarily a good thing when you are too clos, but I thought it would have gone in either way.
We were just informed the reason for Jagielka red card has officially been changed from “denial of a clear goal-scoring opportunity” to “serious foul play.” Confused yet? 🤔— Over Under Initiative (@OverUnderPlay) August 11, 2018
I was wondering if Pawson might have a look or talk to his team before submitting his report. I hate the phrase "has officially been changed." Nothing is official until the report is submitted. There are plenty of times when I've had something as tactical in my book, only to be convinced by my team or realize on my own post-match that "reckless" makes more sense. And I've certainly had this SFP v DOGSO discussion before, too. If it ticks either box or could come close to ticking either box, just show the red, make the note based on your initial instinct, and figure it out later. My main point here is that I really don't like the fourth official giving broadcasters information mid-game for something like this. Because now you aren't just open to the accuracy of either decision being questioned and changed by the FA on its own merits, you've opened the referee up to the charge that he changed his mind because his figured out the initial explanation offered wasn't justifiable. It's an avoidable mess.
I agree with you. I know there have been times where in NBA games the crew chief comes over to talk with the broadcasters about something, but that's a pretty rare occurrence. Sounds like this was something where the fourth knew the NBC guys were pitchside and told them the discussion. I would not be surprised to see the FA as well as other organizations like PGMOL, PRO, and the other domestic FAs/referee groups tell their officials to not provide any commentary to media near the field. As you've said, eventually it looks like the red will have the right designation associated with it. However, a lot of people are going to see a three-match suspension for Jagielka and wonder how a DOGSO gets a three-match ban.
I have a feeling the 4th, who is a first year elite list referee,may have made a mistake in guessing what the designation was going to be. I’m thinking there is no way Pawson would have decided it was DOGSO based on where the ball ended up (at the least) because of the seriousness of the challenge. I think it would have been a red card even if the foul had occured in the penalty area, which decides it in favor of SFP all the way for me.
There’s no reason to guess when you have radios. Plus even if he guessed, that gets corrected after half time. Unless, of course, the decision was “changed” after full time. Also, I suspect the FOs talk to broadcasters (via whoever is with them—the EPL equivalent to a liaison or delegate) precisely because the FA wants them to do so. Accessibility and real-time information is a good thing for the leagues in the current media era. In other words, I don’t think anything went wrong here. I think everything happened how the FA and EPL want it to happen. It just happens to be a situation that clearly illustrates why some of the instructions or protocols are ill-advised.
Regarding the Red Card and subsequent injury and restart. I noticed that #18 was walked off the field and stood on the touch line while the free kick was taken. (and then he ran to the celebration upon the goal) Was there any reason for him to leave the field since he was injured in a play that resulted in a card? That scenario was fixed in the great re-write of 2016 was it not?
So I asked a high-level ref (penso) about managing a PIOP on a free kick, and how we are to give offside if one parks himself near the gk when the kick is taken. He says something like “you can stand there but if you’re still there when the kick is taken, you’re offside.” Yet we don’t manage active play the same way... the second Liverpool goal today, firminho drifts into the six with the ball being worked down the left channel, the ball goes back out and he parks himself about a yard inside. Not involved, but positionally if the cross had been a free kick, offside would have been given. Is there any logic to this discrepancy?
The typical thing on the FK is that the PIOP is doing their best to make the GK's view of the kick... difficult. This comes back to the "line of sight" part of interfering with an opponent.