The +91 decision by Atkinson is really weak. You can't just weasel out and give a goal kick there. Either book Ronaldo or give him his deserved penalty or pull a stunt that can only work in the local park and give Ronaldo the pity corner. You can't just give goal kick there. You just can't. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence.
No, it isn't. There was clearly contact, which generally means that a YC for simulation is out of the question. So Atkinson clearly believed that there wasn't enough contact for it to be a penalty. I don't agree...I think it was a pretty clear penalty...but it certainly doesn't have to be either a penalty or a dive.
Yes there was contact, but you can still give a card for simulation if you believe the attacking player was initiating the contact which is the only logical explanation as to why Atkinson didn't give a penalty kick. Atkinson certainly didn't think it was a fair challenge because he gave a goal kick and not a corner kick. The only other rational decision for not giving a penalty kick is that Ronaldo fell over the defenders leg to initiate the contact.
Interesting moment in the Manchester United v West Ham United match in the 90+4. Ball hits Moss from WHU. Dropped ball. He drops it for a WHU player. Player doesn't react. Bruno Fernandes from 7-8m away races in, takes the ball, carries it down field and puts it into the goal. Called back for another dropped ball because (based on Moss' signals) WHU had to play the ball first. Video: Bruno tried 😂 pic.twitter.com/hksCAzagEK— ESPN FC (@ESPNFC) September 22, 2021
Would have been funnier once Fernandes found out a drop ball has to touch two people before it can be a goal as Moss gives a goal kick.
Ummm, did Bruno actually do anything wrong? The ball is live when its dropped. If the player its dropped for wants to ignore it they do so at their own peril. Bruno (provided he starts far enough away) is free to swoop in and steal if if the offensive player wants to let them. Now scoring on the other hand was a definitive no-no. The restart should have been a goal kick.
Don't know if there was any discussion on this non call either? Mark Noble trying to get his revenge on Lingard 😭 pic.twitter.com/errS09nngi— Ben_Utd ⚡️🀄️ (@Utd2Ben) September 22, 2021
The cut of grass that appears lighter from our perspective is less than 7 yards (the grass cuts touching midfield are larger, but it appears the rest of the grass cuts are either 6 yards or 6 meters throughout). Moss drops the ball fully within that cut, which Fernandes is also in. More importantly, he starts moving before it ever hits the ground, which is when the ball is actually in play. I think there is actually a good chance Fernandes is within 4.5 yards at the point when the ball is in play. Maybe it's 5 yards. But it's not 7-8m. It's not really close to that. Now, if Moss' signalled West Ham had to play the ball first, that's problematic. He should have fallen back on the distance requirement (since he obviously screwed up by turning his back on Fernandes and didn't even know he was ready to pounce like that and the distance gives him an easy out). It doesn't really matter, of course, but you'd like to think Moss knows better. Either way, the goal was never going to count and you can tell from Solksjaer's and Moyes' shared reaction that everyone understood that... but they all probably think it's for different reasons.
Putting aside the technicalities here, IMO the real learning point for us mortal refs is to make sure the player your are dropping to is aware and cognizant of what is happening in order to avoid the chaos of a scenario like this. In our games, many might not understand why we are giving a GK. (And, of course, if there is an infraction on the DB, we should stop play immediately, not figure out what happened after the ball is in the net. I wonder if the 4O or an AR told him that the opponent was closer than 5 meters when the ball hit the ground, and that's why there was a delay?)
This, yes. But also to not have your back turned on the opponent(s) closest to the ball. It's two different sides of the same awareness coin. If Moss sees Fernandes throughout all this, he can either delay the drop until he's satisified he's far enough way or more credibily adjudicate in real-time whether or not Fernandes encroaches early.
Michael Oliver was very good today in a not-always-easy Chelsea vs. Manchester City game. I think he is the master at handling PL games in this current era of football, to be honest.
The whole “don’t raise the offside flag if it’s close” directive is getting out of hand. Here are two instances a few minutes apart in the Chelsea/Man City game where the assistant didn’t raise the flag until the play was over.
I said the same thing on the Havertz offside. Even Peter Drury was saying how that surely had to be offside. The directive about keeping the flag down is too far the other way now. If it’s obvious like this, just raise the flag and end the play.
Ultimately then what becomes the point of the assistant referee on offside? Why slavishly sidestep and work your ass off to be in the perfect position all the time- these people have honed their skill to a supernatural level and now they have to sit on their hands. Sad, in a way.
I’ve said before I think one of the big negative impacts of the overuse of delay and VAR in these games is going to be a drop in quality of ARs at the levels below—why aspire to be an e.it’s AR when the reward for reaching the top is (or is perceived to be) becoming less relevant?
Right. The concept of what an AR is and does is going to change significantly at the highest international and professional levels in the next 10-15 years. But it can't change at the grassroots and amateur (and "lesser" professional) levels. Governing bodies need to be planning ahead for this. But I suspect none have that sort of foresight.
They absolutely don't have the foresight. These are the same idiots who clamor to have some sort of automated/robot officials to get everything right, then complain when they get the (offside) call "too" correct. There is literally no way to win. The same will happen if and when MLB ever goes to automated strike zone calls like all fans beg for where the computer tells the ump on every pitch if it's a ball or strike. They have been testing it at lower levels and even when the umpire is calling what the computer tells him to, the players still complain. But this all comes down to the real bottom line where you could have a referee who makes every single foul call, throw in direction, etc. 100% correctly and people would still complain.
I wonder if eventually there won’t be a need for separate AR track at the higher levels- without offside, won’t the skillset of the AR and the CR be the same?
Nah man. Double-dual. World Cup 2032 (one of those every other year ones) will be 80% PA and FL High School refs.
Source on that? The lines at the US Open were entirely computer-called this year — players may have groaned at their bad luck, but there was no complaining.