I've been saying this for years....CR's need to be miked so that they can communicate decisions to the fans in the stadium, just like NFL officials and rugby officials are.
According to the BBC, Frank's sendoff was for a 2CT. However, they could very easily have that wrong. I'll have to watch the end of that game to see if Bankes went second yellow or straight red for Frank.
Thomas Frank was shown a red card after Brentford's latest defeat! 😬🟥Watch Premier League highlights, including #MUFC's late win against West Ham, on the Sky Sports app or the Sky Sports Football YouTube channel now! 📲 pic.twitter.com/FJuxDVKfRI— Sky Sports News (@SkySportsNews) January 22, 2022 Looks like a yellow and then a straight red unless Bankes just never showed the second yellow.
Based on that video, sure looks like a straight red. The caution looked like one of the garden variety items from the laws (take your pick, but probably dissent while he was otherwise involved in the "afters" following the final whistle), but then the send-off is likely a straight red for the confrontation. That video wasn't the greatest, but it looked like Bankes might have poured some gasoline on the fire as he clearly said something to Frank as he issued the caution. It would be interesting to hear Bankes' comments, because Frank clearly turned as soon as the comment was made.
The no red happening so quickly right after seems like it’s going to distract from the no penalty call. That was like a 98% red. But it was a 100% penalty. I’m amazed by the non-intervention.
Regarding the claims that no one reviewed the Man United goal . . . It's been very clear - EVERY GOAL has a review associated with it. I don't understand why and how coaches and players continue to claim that "they aren't taking a look" after a goal. They always do. Now should there be some sort of communication? Probably. But it's foolish for players to think VAR is simply not looking at the buildup around a goal.
So since no foul was given at all on the penalty check, this wasn’t purely an inside v outside objective decision, right? Like if it was determined to be inside, an OFR still would have been needed, right? If so, it sort of all undermines the whole idea that in v out is objective in the first place, right? Like I look at it and it’s clearly in the area. @code1390 says the same. Texting with others say the same. So it stands to reason Hooper would have had the same if he looked at it. Basically, England’s mistake about the position of the foul allows Hooper’s mistake of missing the foul entirely to stand. Bizarro World stuff. At the very least, an OFR could have resulted in a yellow and free kick.
Minor in the grand scheme of things here but I will never ever ever comprehend referees who put up minimum time added, stop play for an injury during that time, and then stick to the minimum. Maybe only 30 seconds extra was needed. But something was needed.
NBC reporting that he said something like "You given me yellow, so why not give me a red now." And R obliged.
There has to be more than that. If that's all he said, for me that's not enough to give a red unless Bankes just decided that he met the criteria for leaving the technical area to confront him (which under the LOTG it does fit, but at the professional level probably wouldn't justify a red on its own). Frank probably should have been shown red anyway for confronting Neves after the whistle. It was pretty clear he left his technical area for a specific purpose when going after Neves.
Southampton - Man City, on the potential penalty, VAR said it was a foul but it was outside the box, so no OFR.
it’s clear that they should be reviewing every goal, but it is far from clear that they are doing that. I have no idea if it’s happening or being ignored just like clear penalties are being ignored.
Right. But even if the VAR said it was inside, it would have then required an OFR because no foul was originally called. This was not a situation where the VAR was saying “in or out” to a foul call and could then just tell the referee what to do. The VAR was first determining if it was a missed foul in his opinion. Then determining if it was in or out. If he said yes to both, then it would have needed an OFR. He someone fell short at the second threshold, despite clear evidence.