With only seeing this clip… I think a dismissal is appropriate under a straightforward reading of the LOTG but cautions for both seems, I don’t know, “just” to me? I mean, you pays your money and you takes your chances…
In the games I do, this is a clear and unambiguous red. At the professional level, while I think it would be better if a red was expected, I don't know that it really is where the incident is inspired by an opponent being an utter doofus.
I agree. Players interfere with the taking of free kicks quite often. That's a lot of kicks to people's shins we're prepared to make excuses for
It's real easy for some who, I presume, have never officiated a professional match to talk about "excuses" and "the game" deserving better. It is not about making an excuse for a player or to avoid a red card. It's about doing what that game and those players deserve and expect. There are situations, given the context of a match, at the highest levels, where expectations might be different than what you might want in theory or be accustomed to in your common reality. This incident occurred in the 28' minute of a game that was already 3-0. These were the first two cautions of the match. The match ended with one more caution. Simply from observing how the rest of the match went, it seems like this particular match got what the players wanted and what it deserved and things worked out fine. If a game doesn't go in the toilet after this incident happens in the 28th minute(!) of a match, I think we all have to be at least open to the idea that the referee knew what he was doing. And I want to stress that I said in 99% of most games, this is a red card. It's also a red card in many situations at the professional level and, particularly, in certain competitions at the professional and international level. So I'm pretty much saying that in millions of games around the world that is a red card and it's a red card exponentionatlly more than not if it occurs in one of my matches. But there are rare exceptions where expectations are just different. And an experienced, high-level referee would understand that and recognize such moments. That's not ludicrous.
How does the saying go? The truth and fact should always be easy to say because they should come effortlessly. There’s “context” to be had here. This is a red card. Not some of the time, not most of the time, but all of the time. Whatever mental gymnastics you’re doing to try and say the outcome here was acceptable, just stop. Delaying a restart does not earn the opponent the right to commit violent conduct and attempt to injure the opponent severely. Just like keying someone’s car doesn’t earn you the right to hit them in the knees with a baseball bat. I’m extremely disappointed that someone with your knowledge of the game is even entertaining this.
Haha. Okay. How about the Championship referee who, you know, gave the yellow? Or the VAR who confirmed it? I mean, they didn’t just entertain my dangerous ideas. They acted on them! You’re way over the top in your rhetoric here. It’s a single situation where a yellow card worked. I’ve gone out of my way to say how rare that is. I’ve stressed, several times, how this is a red card far, far, far more often than it is not. And in case it isn’t clear, I would have defended the red card if given here. The point I’m making is that there are some extraordinary situations where extraordinary decisions are palatable for the participants and can work for the referee. That seemed to happen here. “Knowledge of the game” is more than knowing the LOTG and applying them rigidly without exception. While you’re extreme disappointment in me is noted, I think I’ll be okay without adjusting my perspective here.
Oh please. You’re almost to the point of sounding like a boot licker here. You’ve devolved to saying “he’s a higher level ref so he must be right”.
I’m going to bite my tongue and let this go. But I probably wouldn’t if you said this to someone else. Wow.
Allow me to try and bring the discussion back to the case at hand. This is a case where it would be nice if we could also send off the guy who caused the reaction. For me, the kick has to be a red regardless of level. But it would be nice if you could also send off the guy who caused the incident. However, it's like I always tell my son - "The retaliation will always be caught, so don't take the bait." It happened to one of his teammates in their second game Saturday. They were down 4-2 but charging hard for a third. The other team started resorting to s***housing to shorten the game. His team earns a free kick, and one of the other team's players takes the ball and starts walking away. His teammate then wraps him up in a bear hug and ragdolls him. It wasn't hard enough to take him to ground, but he definitely wrapped him up. Yellow to the opponent for delaying the restart, red for my son's teammate. I know my son's team was getting frustrated with the s***housing (it was one of the few times they had played a team with significant South American roots - many of the parents were speaking Portuguese on the sideline, and I am aware from other parents on this team that many of the parents on this team are Brazilian immigrants), but you just cannot take the bait. Red was kind of harsh, but definitely defensible. Kind of the same thing here, but here there's no real doubt about red for me. But I will say that if previous s***housing hadn't been dealt with, that's also on the referee crew for not stamping down on it quickly.
YMMV, but from this description I would have gone for two yellows, simply because this seems like a massively unjust outcome. And from the description of the incident (which again, you probably had to see it to judge for yourself), this does not sound like it rises to the level of violent conduct. And I am sure we've seen this time and again given as two yellows. I guess it really depends on what "ragdolls him" means.
I think my point earlier was that the event in question looked like a red card to me and it would have been correct to give as such. Still, there are times when a just result is not what is according to the Laws. Referees arrive at these decisions based on their personal experience and read of the game; sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong but it's always important to remember that there are times when players have a different view of what's right than referees operating on a strict reading of the LOTG. Sure seems to me that this worked out fine. Referees with a good read and feel for the game can really do well here although of course they can also get into trouble ("well, I knew what he was TRYING to do so I didn't caution him..." etc) The games are dynamic, the law book is flexible, your mileage may vary, etc I will say I doubt that player will try to stop a quick free kick again...
If it were me, I probably would have gone double-yellow. However, I can defend a red. The game had been pretty chippy, and there had been several cautions both ways. This was also the center's third middle of the day and at least his fourth game overall, as he ran my line in the previous game on this field. I think by this time he was just tired of everything. (Side note - this example is exactly why I never do two full-field, 11 v 11 middles on the same day. This guy is a good official, but it was clear he was struggling in the third match.) Like you said, mileage varies. The "ragdoll" was more than just your "wrap him up from behind and turn him away", but less than a full-on suplex to the turf. For me, the overall lesson was my son's teammate shouldn't have taken the bait. The other team knew exactly what they were doing, and he fell for it. It's a good lesson for 13-year-olds to keep your discipline and not be sucked into any problem spots.
Jarred Gillett: Australian to become first overseas Premier League referee https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58628148
And after six rounds of matches (!!), he becomes the first of the four promotees to get a PL game. And the only one. Riley knows if the clubs want him out, he is out, so he doesn't dare take any risks in the appointments - always the same names over and over again. Sad state of affairs to be honest.
At some point having all these guys over 50 still doing big PL games will catch up. You're going to need to see if these four promoted guys have what it takes and you won't find that out in one game.
Matchweek 6 Chelsea - Man City Referee: Michael Oliver. Assistants: Stuart Burt, Simon Bennett. Fourth official: Robert Jones. VAR: Darren England. Assistant VAR: Dan Robathan. Man Utd - Aston Villa Referee: Mike Dean. Assistants: Darren Cann, Eddie Smart. Fourth official: Michael Salisbury. VAR: Andy Madley. Assistant VAR: Simon Beck. Everton - Norwich Referee: David Coote. Assistants: Gary Beswick, Nick Hopton. Fourth official: Dean Whitestone. VAR: Lee Mason. Assistant VAR: Peter Kirkup. Leeds - West Ham Referee: Kevin Friend. Assistants: Adrian Holmes, Derek Eaton. Fourth official: Tony Harrington. VAR: Andre Marriner. Assistant VAR: Ian Hussin. Leicester - Burnley Referee: Chris Kavanagh. Assistants: Adam Nunn, Neil Davies. Fourth official: Graham Scott. VAR: Jonathan Moss. Assistant VAR: Timothy Wood. Watford - Newcastle Referee: Jarred Gillett. Assistants: Lee Betts, Constantine Hatzidakis. Fourth official: Martin Atkinson. VAR: Craig Pawson. Assistant VAR: Marc Perry. Brentford - Liverpool Referee: Stuart Attwell. Assistants: Dan Cook, Harry Lennard. Fourth official: John Brooks. VAR: Paul Tierney. Assistant VAR: Sian Massey-Ellis. Southampton - Wolves Referee: Andy Madley. Assistants: Richard West, Mark Scholes. Fourth official: Simon Hooper. VAR: Paul Tierney. Assistant VAR: Harry Lennard. Arsenal - Tottenham Referee: Craig Pawson. Assistants: Ian Hussin, Dan Robathan. Fourth official: Peter Bankes. VAR: Stuart Attwell. Assistant VAR: Constantine Hatzidakis. Crystal Palace - Brighton Referee: Andre Marriner. Assistants: Simon Long, Scott Ledger. Fourth official: Kevin Friend. VAR: Chris Kavanagh. Assistant VAR: Nick Hopton.
"Big" matches: Leicester - Man City (Community Shield): Tierney Tottenham - Man City: Taylor Arsenal - Chelsea: Tierney Man City - Arsenal: Atkinson Liverpool - Chelsea: Taylor Leicester - Man City: Tierney Tottenham - Chelsea: Tierney Chelsea - Man City: Oliver Arsenal - Tottenham: Pawson Distribution of these matches in the EPL: Tierney: 3 Taylor: 2 Atkinson: 1 Oliver: 1 Pawson: 1
Strap yourselves in. It's time. The Monday VAR thread, this week featuring: - Overturned penalties!- Penalties! Penalties! Penalties! - Ivan Toney disallowed goal / handball- Offside decisions It's just like old times.....— Dale Johnson (@DaleJohnsonESPN) September 20, 2021 This week's VAR tweet thread from Dale Johnson. I don't always agree with all of his takes/points, I do respect that he's clearly made an effort to learn VAR protocol and the LOTG and I think he's gained a foothold as the most credible journalist/editor on referee takes.
I suspect @Mikael_Referee might have a different opinion from Mr. Johnson on Atkinson's performance. I think Johnson is credible, like you say, but his firm conclusions--particularly around the United penalty shouts in this thread--feel a little too confident to me.
Hmm...fair comment, I wonder who here will explain to him why a YC was given and, more importantly, why it was accepted by the players. There it is...good explanation. Huh. This seemed like an effortless explanation to someone who didn't get it. Weird. Yes. This is the dumbed-down version that fairplayforlife needed. Issue solved. Oh my. This guy is bonkers. You got an explanation that several people seemed to agree with - the player deserved a red in a vacuum and yet a YC worked out perfectly here. The players who were actually involved in this game that you did not watch were clearly OK with the outcome of this decision. The players view this as 2 players - one from each team - committing shithousery equally, just in different ways. They want them both punished equally and to get on with the game. Are you giving 2 reds or 2 yellows? - your pick. Because one YC and one RC here causes you to lose control of the game for the rest of the match and probably lose upcoming matches. But none of this matters, I know. No amount of logic will break through your biased stance here and you will now resort to calling me names...because I took the time to explain that your opinion doesn't matter one bit to professional players and professional referees. As has been said, this is a RC 99% of the time. This is the 1%.
It was pretty obvious that PGMOL communicated through Johnson before the start of the season, but now it seems that is not the case. They both concur that 69' and +91' should be given (and intervention), but our ref body (quite rightly) determined 77' was a correct go on.