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

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AremRed

    AremRed Member+

    Sep 23, 2013
    #701 AremRed, Jan 7, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2021
    Anyone have an update on Jarred Gillett and Bobby Madley?

    Is there a place to view Championship and below assignments?
     
  2. Mikael_Referee

    Mikael_Referee Member+

    Jun 16, 2019
    England
  3. gold4278

    gold4278 Member

    Feb 21, 2007
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Mikael_Referee repped this.
  4. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    May 27, 2004
    thank you again for your information.
     
  5. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Any thoughts on the decision by VAR to overturn the straight red in extra time of the Arsenal-Newcastle FA Cup tie?
     
    frankieboylampard repped this.
  6. frankieboylampard

    Mar 7, 2016
    USA
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Point of contact mid shin but I think the force was low enough not to rise to SFP. Definitely reckless but no excessive force.
     
  7. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    Great to see Oliver working the FA Cup match at non-league Marine FC (in Crosby, suburb of Liverpool) in the 8th level of the pyramid, against Spurs. A tiny "stadium" in a neighborhood surrounded by houses.
    Not really needed but a nice gesture to the club
    Match on national TV on BBC as well. All the big personalities including Lineker and Shearer actually on site, outside in the cold weather! Great exposure for the mainly non-pro players,

    PH
     
    frankieboylampard repped this.
  8. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    May 27, 2004
    Marine gets a nice check too from the TV folks too.
     
  9. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    They also sold 20,000 virtual tickets to fans from all over the country, including lots of Spurs fans, so it was a good day for everyone.
    It seemed that the Spurs players enjoyed the experience also and did not disrespect Marine FC. The FA Cup in its true spirit!

    PH
     
  10. sulfur

    sulfur Member+

    Oct 22, 2007
    Ontario, Canada
    It was up to 23,000 by kickoff apparently... and Marine has decided to do a draw and invite the winner to manage the team for a day in their next pre-season.
     
    Pierre Head repped this.
  11. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    Rufusabc repped this.
  12. Well, the reason I posted it wasnot about red or not, but for what he told about the VAR and how it influenced the way refs scan situations.
     
    SccrDon repped this.
  13. LampLighter

    LampLighter Red Card

    Bugeaters FC
    Apr 13, 2019
    Not everyone agrees with the red card at the time. Benefit of hindsight isn't a referees friend.
     
  14. Alex-Ref

    Alex-Ref Member

    Liverpool FC
    United States
    Nov 13, 2019
    Congrats! I am very interested to see how Tierney handles this game, given that he hasn’t had a game of this importance yet.
     
  15. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So that Burnley-Man United review doesn't exactly contradict my continued argument that EPL officials don't know how to use VAR. Yikes.
     
    Thegreatwar repped this.
  16. Do they do it on purpose:cautious:?
     
  17. bothways

    bothways Member

    Jun 27, 2009
    took forever.
    the luke Shaw foul..overrides the potential dog so. should look at that first. check on that first..if not a foul. then look at dogso
     
  18. Bradley Smith

    Bradley Smith Member

    Jul 29, 2013
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Actually, I think the reverse is true. You can't check the Shaw foul unless it's determined that the yellow card for SPA is a clear error (and that it should have been red for DOGSO). Only then can you go back and check the attacking possession phase for any other clear errors — in this case the Shaw foul.
     
  19. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, you have two avenues here.

    The first is what you suggest. If the yellow card was clearly incorrect and the VAR believes it was a red card, then he has to clean up the APP. At that point, if the Shaw foul is clear, you go look at that.

    The other avenue is that the Shaw challenge is deemed clear SFP by the VAR. If that is the case, you go look at the Shaw challenge no matter what and the VAR's opinion on the SPA yellow is irrelevant.

    In either case, though, if the Shaw challenge is why Friend is being invited to the monitor there is no need whatsoever to look at the challenge on Cavani. Yet he did. So that's wrong. Maybe a small detail, but still wrong.

    I'd also strongly suggest that annulling the yellow card was wrong. Not only was the nature of the misconduct SPA at the time it was committed, but it was also reckless. Either way, there's no real reason to annul that yellow card. Yet Friend reflexively did so, which is something we've seen from EPL referees before.

    Finally, I think it's important to know why Friend was called over. If he was called over because that was recommended as a red and he only went yellow, that is a big data point compared to him being recommended to review simply a foul (which he decided was yellow) because otherwise the foul against Cavani was red. That's a trivial question, to most, I presume. But it tells us a lot about how these things are being adjudicated. Did Attwell think it was a clear red on Shaw (with Friend disagreeing) or a clear DOGSO red when Cavani was fouled (which then opens the door to Shaw's challenge being looked at regardless of any misconduct)?
     
  20. Bradley Smith

    Bradley Smith Member

    Jul 29, 2013
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Agree with you. I assumed that the broadcast VAR graphics (which said "Checking possible red card — Denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity") was correct. Knowing VAR in England, that might not be what was actually happening — but it's what the broadcast was either told by the VAR room or assumed themselves.

    I personally felt the Shaw challenge did not rise to the level of a clear, obvious error to not give a red card — so I hadn't really considered that in my post above.

    The way it played out with what we saw on TV...

    During the check:
    • First thing we see is the VAR reviewing the potential DOGSO challenge — for about 45 seconds or so.
    • Then the check switches to looking at the Shaw challenge from a wide angle, playing through to the potential DOGSO. At this point it appears the VAR is checking that the Shaw challenge is indeed within the APP.
    • Then the check switches to the closeups of the Shaw foul, and eventually back to play through all the way to the DOGSO foul.
    At that point the ref is called to the monitor. Once there:
    • The ref is first shown the Shaw challenge from multiple closeup angles.
    • He's then shown the full APP up to the DOGSO foul — but only from a high angle, never close up.
    Based on that, my assumption is that the VAR was initially suggesting the possible red card for DOGSO, then went back to determine a clear foul missed. I don't believe the VAR was suggesting the Shaw foul was a red card. The point of contact is high, but the leg is already bending back a bit after playing the ball and the contact is glancing. A red can be defended, but it feels yellow is the right decision.

    EDIT: I should note that I think the DOGSO challenge was definitely a reckless challenge and the yellow card should have never been rescinded.

    My assumption is the latter based on the above notes, but who knows with the EPL!
     
    MassachusettsRef repped this.
  21. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    For reckless, I get that the caution would stand. But if the caution was for SPAA, shouldn't it be wiped as there was no promising attack because of the preceding foul?

    I'm a bit torn on applying the protocols here.

    If the OFR was recommended for the SFP, then what @Bradley Smith describes the R being shown makes complete sense--and the R disagreed.

    If the OFR was recommended for DOGSO and APP, the order of looking suddenly becomes important. If the R looks at the DOGSO first, and disagrees it is DOGSO, he'll never see APP foul, so the FK/caution would stand; but if he looks at the APP foul first, then he's seen it and can act, and DOGSO never gets evaluated by the R. (Possibly what happened here?)
     
    Thegreatwar and Bradley Smith repped this.
  22. Bradley Smith

    Bradley Smith Member

    Jul 29, 2013
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Good point, but my assumption here is that the ref would still look at the challenge and give the yellow for a reckless challenge instead, thus "keeping" the yellow instead of rescinding it?

    Good point. I guess my logic isn't as good in that case. Not sure what they teach in this particular instance.

    Here's the PGMOL explanation:

     
  23. Bradley Smith

    Bradley Smith Member

    Jul 29, 2013
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    I suppose both could be true? Maybe the VAR initially was checking for DOGSO. Determined it was DOGSO, but when checking the APP for the foul felt that it was actually a SFP red card challenge (per @MassachusettsRef question at then end of the post). That would explain why the challenge during the APP was shown first.
     

Share This Page