2020-2021 UEFA Referee Discussion [R]

I don't think you're wrong, but I think the red is more clearly the correct application of current Law 12 than you do, I guess--I don't think it's that close of a question. But if we think that soccer doesn't really expect/want this to be a sendoff, I think what it is saying is that the DOGSO law as it stands isn't actually what soccer wants.

 

Personally, I think part of the problem is that the DOGSO law isn't very well written. It's too broad both in terms of defining what is a "goal-scoring opportunity", and the word "obvious" is neither here nor there.

To me the law would be much better written if "obvious" were replaced by "clear", and "goal-scoring opportunity" reinterpreted to as "a situation in which the attacker would have been likely to score if not fouled".

Something along the lines of "denial of a clear goal-scoring opportunity in which the attacking player would have been likely to score if not fouled by the defender".

Now I realize that "likely" is also vague, but it does raise the bar a bit from just having a "goal-scoring opportunity", which is currently very broadly defined so as to include almost any situation in which the attacker might register a shot on goal, to a narrower definition limited to situations when the attacker has a much higher quality goal-scoring opportunity.

After all what are the chances that Mendy would actually have scored yesterday in that situation had he not been fouled....10%....20%....probably not much higher than that.

 

The problem with that logic is that DOGSO is rarely crystal clear.

And I, at least, do not want the laws applied in a vacuum. The match situation has to be accounted for. I don't want knockout round matches (be they one or two legs), which are all "high stakes" for the teams involved, officiated the same way as random league matches (which are much lower stakes because they are only one of 38).

In this specific case, you do not want to reduce the home team to ten men for 70+ minutes in a tie in which away goals matter unless the red is crystal clear....and this wasn't.

Others have made the argument that it was the correct decision by the letter of the law, but it wasn't good refereeing.

As MassRef noted, FIFA/UEFA would have been apoplectic had this happened in a World Cup or EURO knockout stage match.

 

I think this is a key question with VAR — and a problem that was inevitable since VAR was conceived. The line is always going to be drawn somewhere. If this is close to that dividing line between yellow and red —but technically a red card — and we ask referees to opt for the lesser punishment in those cases in order to leave it to VAR... isn’t VAR going to look at it and determine that it’s not 100% wrong to give that lesser punishment? Aren’t we then essentially just moving the line/bar between yellow and red higher as a result? The presence of VAR would mean many correct red cards would never be given anymore because we're teaching people to downgrade a correct red card if it's close to the line.

Ah, VAR...

 

Totally agree with the sentiment I’m reading.

Let’s be clear - the technical “components” of DOGSO can reasonably be construed as having been met. However, and perhaps I should cover my referee badge before I say this, there’s much more to soccer than those components.

If you’re going to go red for DOGSO in such an important context, you want it to be for a situation where your hands are well and truly tied. Stieler’s hands were NOT tied here.

A UEFA referee with more experience in knockout matches would have went yellow, and no one beside a few referees with their head nuzzled snuggly in the LOTG would have batted an eye.

 

Do you think players/managers/teams know the circumstances in a particular match where you can get away with more?

Weirdly, I bring this up because of Mason Mount’s first minute yellow in Atletico-Chelsea the other day.

 

Actually, I think this question you ask fits well within the overall philosophy that I have seen gradually change, and quite exponentially since the introduction of VAR.

That is: there has been a great interest in the last several years to get consistency across games with different referees and to get similar decisions on different scenarios. More objectivity vs subjectivity. A noble goal of course. Problem is, I don't think it's possible.
I think it's VERY important for a particular referee to be consistent WITHIN a game and from one game to his next game. I think it's impossible for all different referees to be on the same page for what constitutes fouls, cautions, send offs etc. Our game has too much subjectivity involved and no amount of VAR (ok...some amount) is going to make the decisions binary and objective.

IMHO, coaches and players have to work out early on in a match the thresholds of a referee for different scenarios. Just as they have to adapt to the size of a field, the length of the grass, the unevenness of the turf each weekend, they also have to adapt to the "style" of refereeing. Then the next time they have that referee, they will know what to expect...or not to expect. "Hey fellas...remember this guy...he call handball for everything"

Now I'm not saying we should all play from a different law book. And I'm all for us trying to get as close as possible to agreeing to what is and is not a foul etc, but at the same time, I think VAR has done us a great disservice because gradually the public is expecting every decision to be totally objective.

 

The Word "quisling" comes to mind.

Here I would hope we'd celebrate a referee taking a brave and correct stand. But instead it's just "ehh he's right but, he should try to make everyone happy."

Am I the only one that sees how weak it is to try and please everyone?

 

Totally, totally agree.

 

Quisling is too strong a term IMO. AIUI it roughly means “traitor”, but “cowardice” is probably more appropriate. When these brave and technically correct decisions are taken, it’s not surprising that people get upset, given that they’re not the norm. The pressure on refereeing mostly seems to be in favor of under-punishment, to “preserve the spectacle”. So when someone comes along and applies the LOTG without regard to such notions, it arguably comes at the cost of consistency of interpretation.

Also, the idea that VAR isn’t supposed to be used for re-refereeing seems increasingly untenable IMO, given that it’s what many (non-refereeing) people seem to implicitly want.

 

It is absolutely fine to be upset about a call, think it's incorrect and take issue with it. I had a little higher expectations from referees though.

Look if this is wrong, please FIFA or UEFA come out and say it's wrong. If it's not wrong, then come out and defend the referee and put that coach in his place. Silence is deafening, referees aren't getting support, they're getting hung out to dry.

 

If the folks in charge think this was the correct call, then by all means, they should be shouting it from the rooftop.
But what if they don't?
If they came out and say it was the wrong call, it would be open season on the ref, open season on VAR for not reversing it, and Atalanta would be screaming for a replay of the game.
Much better to have deafening silence in that case.

 

I feel like it's always a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. If they start coming out and "shouting from the rooftop" that it was the correct call, fans are going to take silence in any other controversial incident as admission that the referee was wrong. And, as you pointed out, if they say it was wrong, Atalanta would be screaming about it — and fans would be going ballistic. Silence is probably the best policy here. There's really no way to win when talking about decisions like these.

 

The Death Threats have proven them wrong.

 

This is why I’m so adamant that officials shouldn’t give post game interviews. It doesn’t matter what they say, the hordes will still paint the referee in a bad light.

 

Juventus - Porto: KUIPERS (NED) [van Boekel (NED)]
Dortmund - Sevilla: CAKIR (TUR) [Irrati (ITA)]

 

PSG - Barcelona: TAYLOR (ENG) [Attwell (ENG)]
Liverpool - Leipzig: TURPIN (FRA) [Brisard (FRA)]

English referees in France, French referees in England.

 

I hope Turpin and his crew don't go to England, because the Liverpool match will be in Hungary!

PH

 

Thanks, forgot the unusual times we're in

On another note, PSG's last six UCL knockout matches are handled by Taylor, Taylor, Kuipers, Orsato, Kuipers, and Taylor. Talk about familiarity...

 

Now we're starting to look at who would get the final. I'd imagine Anthony Taylor would be in the mix for one of the final five matches (two-legged semis or final). The second leg of PSG-Barca shouldn't be a major hurdle to overcome after what PSG did in the first leg.

Of course, the last time I said this was when Michael Oliver had the 2nd leg of the Real Madrid-Juventus match and I said it would be a low-stress environment for him to get his first experience in a UCL knockout match. That prediction did not age well.

 

Or ask Deniz Aytekin, who has not refereed a UCL knockout match since the second leg of Barca - PSG

 

So, nobody said "Gypsy" in a derogatory way?

"In my country, Romanians are gypsies,"