2020-2021 England Referee Appointments (EPL+) [Rs]

Discussion in 'Referee' started by MassachusettsRef, Aug 28, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 16 of 63
  1. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #376 MassachusettsRef, Oct 30, 2020
    52' of tonight's match, Zaha goes down under a challenge within the penalty area. Ball ends up eventually with the Wolves goalkeeper about 5-6 seconds later. Atkinson stops play for no particular reason. Atkinson clearly communicates over the comms system while he holds the ball. Restart is then a dropped ball to the goalkeeper.

    What on earth?

    Let's leave aside the fact that it was a foul and likely should have been a penalty (depending upon which version of "clearly wrong" we are operating under this hour). Nothing there was even close to the approved protocols for VAR. You only stop play for VAR if the VAR definitively has an OFR to recommend. You don't stop play to buy the VAR time and prevent play from developing elsewhere.

    I can't stress enough how bad the English refereeing corps is at VAR right now. It's not just the merits of the decisions, which are bad enough. They are just bad at the mechanics and logistics. We are still at the phase in EPL where everything could be precedent and for fans to expect or believe what happened there is proper does a disservice to quality implementation. it would be like calling handball for an IFK.

    Later in the match there was an SFP red card via VAR. Even there... it took forever to recommend the review. Atkinson made none of the mandated signals to communciate what was happening. And he walked casually to the monitor. I just don't get it.The apparent disdain for the system seems palpable from most of the referees involved.
     
  2. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    #377 socal lurker, Oct 30, 2020
    Could it be that he stopped because there was an OFR recommendation, but after discussing it the R decided to decline the recommendation?
     
  3. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #378 MassachusettsRef, Oct 30, 2020
    No. It was no more than six seconds from challenge to goalkeeper possessing the ball. So no more than maybe ten seconds total. OFRs aren't recommended that quickly, even in efficient systems (this isn't) and when the foul was clear (this wasn't).

    And to be clear, if this was true, it would be far worse than just buying time.
     
  4. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    #379 Pierre Head, Oct 30, 2020
    Never mind the issues with VAR, how on earth could Atkinson have missed this SFP foul initially? I know there was a break on for Wolves,
    but he could have easily issued the red card after the next dead ball. It was a clear obvious foul in active play.
    So without VAR, no red card here? Unbelievable.

    PH
     
  5. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    #380 Sport Billy, Nov 1, 2020
    NEW:EVE. about 30th min
    Full outside PA. very very close to being continuation into PA for a PK.
     
  6. bothways

    bothways Member

    Jun 27, 2009
    #381 bothways, Nov 1, 2020
    if anyone can upload the highlights of this, that would be great.
    aston villa player commits a handling offence about 2 yards outside the penalty area. however if he doesn't handle the ball, it goes straight to a southhampton player, who has no one else in front of him, apart from the goal keeper. So it is basically a DOGSO-H.
    Surprisingly only a yellow card is given :(

    On a different note,Is it just me, or is mike riley doing a piss poor job of establishing and creating a good group of premier league referees?
     
  7. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    #382 socal lurker, Nov 1, 2020
    Was the attacker OS?
     
  8. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    #383 Sport Billy, Nov 1, 2020
    7A665BB1-4D0A-4107-880D-2276573E16E6.jpeg

    Here are highlights- the play is at 4:20 mark.

    but there is no way that is DOGSO.
    No guarantee the attacker gets that ball and play is going across goal, not at it.

    7A665BB1-4D0A-4107-880D-2276573E16E6.jpeg

    The correct call was made. (Assuming it was not in the PA.)
     
  9. Ghastly Officiating

    Ghastly Officiating Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    United States
    Oct 12, 2017
    #384 Ghastly Officiating, Nov 1, 2020
    Clear foul in the APP for Brighton goal, VAR signals to check, and after spending 2 minutes at the monitor, Scott decides no foul. Crazy.
     
    Pierre Head, MassachusettsRef and SCV-Ref repped this.
  10. SCV-Ref

    SCV-Ref Member

    Spurs
    Australia
    Feb 22, 2018
    #385 SCV-Ref, Nov 1, 2020
    I would love to know his thought process, or hear his explanation. I am gob-smacked.
     
  11. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    #386 Sport Billy, Nov 1, 2020
     
  12. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    May 27, 2004
    #387 Rufusabc, Nov 1, 2020
    “well, he got the ball”

    and the only way to get to the ball was to also foul him.

    That is just awful.
     
  13. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    #388 socal lurker, Nov 1, 2020
    While I agree that yellow was the better choice, I quibble with your analysis.

    There doesn't have to be a "guarantee" that attacker gets the ball, it is about likelihood.

    And I disagree with your assessment of direction of play. IFAB has been clear that is general direction of play that matters. This is a clear attack on the goal. I think direction of play is well satisfied here.

    But as I said, though there is a plausible argument about red (indeed, the defender must have thought so, as that is why he handled the ball on a very cynical handling), I think yellow is the preferred choice. I wouldn't say the likelihood of getting the ball is high enough to be "obvious," and it seems that there is a pretty high threshold generally used on DOGSO-H (as distinct from DOG-H). But I think this is a very close call (i.e. not one that should have been subject to VAR regardless of red or yellow).
     
  14. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    #389 Pierre Head, Nov 1, 2020
    It's not just you. Among others, former FIFA referee and PGMOL manager Keith Hackett has been pointing this out
    for several years, and predicting the demise that we now see happening. He has a Web site and an internet TV series.

    PH
     
  15. RefIADad

    RefIADad Member+

    United States
    Aug 18, 2017
    Des Moines, IA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #390 RefIADad, Nov 1, 2020
    Once upon a time, the Wall Street Journal had a study where they compared mutual fund managers' performance against a portfolio where the editors threw darts against a board of S&P 500 stocks.

    Maybe PGMOL should just throw darts to see what the correct call should be. Seems like it would be about as accurate as what we are seeing from VAR.
     
  16. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    #391 Sport Billy, Nov 1, 2020
    I’m not disagreeing. I realize that it just takes a general direction. But my point here is that this was a cross at a high rate of speed. The ability of the attacker being able to handle the cross and create a GSO is so far from obvious it should not be called.
     
    Rufusabc repped this.
  17. bothways

    bothways Member

    Jun 27, 2009
    #392 bothways, Nov 2, 2020
    i cant go any other color but red, well maybe purple, since that is my favorite color :)
    if he doesn't handle it, it goes to walcott, who has no one in front of him. walcott is skilled enough to control it. we can't say . well what if the cross was too fast, etc.
    the handling changed the trajectory of the ball, and affecting walcott's ability to control it. therefore denying a GSO
     
  18. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #393 MassachusettsRef, Nov 2, 2020
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2020
    I'm actually not positive what the answer would be from IFAB on this one. There has been clarity that direction to goal needs to be general and that deviations while attacking toward goal (like when you round the goalkeeper and you are aiming toward the corner flag). But this feels different. This is a cross to start the true attack on goal. Yes, this overall play is an "attack on the goal" but so is basically every attacking move from the middle third of the field onward. There reaches a point where an attack on goal become a goal-scoring opportunity (and, then of course, an obvious one) and determining all that is more art than science.

    This would never have been DOGSO years ago and I still don't think it quite gets there. One reason is the likelihood to control the ball, as you point out. But I do think the "direction of play" is also at least doubtful, if not fully satisfied. This is a lateral cross more than 18 yards from the goal line--counting that as "toward goal" is a stretch and there has to reach a point where you've stretched that definition too far.

    EDIT to add that, practically, I do think this is the sort of blatant cheating that should be a red card for DOGSO due to the cynical nature and clear intent. Alas, I just don't think the text of the Laws and instructions from the powers that be get us there.
     
  19. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    #394 Sport Billy, Nov 2, 2020
    Amen
     
  20. gaolin

    gaolin Member+

    Apr 21, 2019
    #395 gaolin, Nov 2, 2020
    upload_2020-11-2_11-9-43.png

    This really sums up this match, doesn't it? The referee is IN both shots watching himself literally yards away.
     
  21. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    #396 socal lurker, Nov 2, 2020
    Totally agree. And before we got to the 4 Ds, I think it would have been (at least from the refs with the courage to do it). I wish we could trust refs to use judgment to punish the cynical fouls that are the spirit of DOGSO rather than the check-the-box process we have now. This defender deserved to be sent off more than many who have had to leave.
     
  22. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    #397 Sport Billy, Nov 2, 2020
    Sadly, in search of consistency, IFAB has created refereeing via a flowchart.
    It's bad for the game.
     
  23. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #398 MassachusettsRef, Nov 2, 2020
    74', a dive to end all dives from Ayling in an attempt to win a penalty for Leeds. Good from Marriner for not falling for it but, man, how do you not book him? Goal kick was the decision.

    It's a strange by-product and I don't have the data to prove it, but after years of increasing simulation calls for diving in the penalty area, I wonder if the advent of VAR has made referees more reluctant to make the call in the affirmative.
     
    Ghastly Officiating repped this.
  24. djmtxref

    djmtxref Member

    Apr 8, 2013
    #399 djmtxref, Nov 2, 2020
    I was wondering if live this was a case of being a little to close to the play to see it well? But then I'd have to extend that to the OFR. Perhaps if he stood back with the Tottenham players to watch he could have made the right call.

    I suppose to be fully transparent I should admit to being a Spurs fan.
     
  25. AremRed

    AremRed Member+

    Sep 23, 2013
    #400 AremRed, Nov 2, 2020
    Being close often makes our judgement worse. I remember hearing a few years ago about a FIFA or PRO analysis that said we make the best decision most often when about 20 yards from the play.
     
    RefIADad repped this.
Page 16 of 63

Share This Page