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

Sorry this is my last post on this, I just thought it was a topic of interest.

 

I am watching Leicester v. Aston Villa on the “wonderful” Peacock streaming service. Jonathan Moss continues his claim to the bottom spot. It’s hard to put into words, actually. Just mystifying use of his cards, poor foul recognition, and allowing Jack Grealish to be hacked repeatedly.

 

I watched Mustoe and Howard this morning. Both were IMHO hypocritical. They both said it was wrong and refs in general shouldn’t be touched and Howard in particular said that in today’s environment the female angle makes it worse. Then they both said nothing should happen.

Her initial body language to me looked like she was taken aback and it appeared that he actually squeezed her. It also looked like she made a hand motion to the CR to say let it go. IMHO that was the right way to handle it on the field. Let the FA deal with it and I suspect they will.

 

https://streamable.com/oejnzz

Dunk Red Card.

 

Unfortunately not available in Canada.

 

Not quite the same but.....

 

I know I'm seeing some Liverpool fans on other sites saying that Pickford went out to intentionally hurt Van Dijk. I don't see that at all. It was the fifth minute of a local derby where Everton knows they have a big leg up in the early title race if they win. Pickford sees a breakaway and rushes out to stop it. No chance at all in my mind he's going out to hurt VVD, but his actions are textbook SFP. This is no different than the player who has a very heavy first touch and nails a player mid-shin with a locked leg while trying to get the ball back. In my opinion, there is no intent to injure, but that doesn't matter. The challenge endangers VVD's safety (regardless of the unfortunate final result).

Now, this play absolutely should have been a red card. Whether you call it SFP or VC in the game report (absent any other information, I'm going SFP since Pickford makes his play assuming the ball is still in play), it should still be sanctioned as a send-off. But as others have mentioned, the combination of standard English thresholds for misconduct and general preference toward goalkeepers (another exhibit - Neuer cleaning out Higuain in the 2014 World Cup final) led us to this situation.

 

In a perfect world, these are the three things I'd like to see regarding confrontations with officials.

• As you implied, any contact with an official outside of a pure accident during the course of normal play (i.e. a sliding challenge on the sideline that collects an AR or the referee and a player just coming together) is a minimum yellow card.
• Only the captain may address the referee. Absent that, any player coming in after the first player on a team to argue gets a caution. This one is similar to the "third man in" rule in hockey.

So in the Aguero-Massey-Ellis situation, this would be an automatic caution. That takes the onus off of the officiating crew to try and understand intent, etc. As I watched the play, my initial reaction was that Aguero was trying to keep SME close enough to have her hear him out. It still shouldn't have happened, but I didn't personally see it as threatening or overly manipulative.

 

Quite an unusual technique to rush out, very unnatural, rash and far removed from the booklets. Everyone who has been a (good) goalkeeper himself acknowledges this.

Imagine a goalkeeper doing the same when the shooter is faced straight towards goal in the middle. That would make it more obvious.

Whether it is intentional or not... Many professionals just don't care if they're not checked, with matches prone to escalate.

 

I don't disagree one bit, which is why I used the analogy of trying to win the ball back after a heavy touch. It's a very similar situation. The "fog of war" (to use rufusabc's term) got to Pickford in this case. He was overzealous and did what he did. The issue is that when other goalkeepers see a play like this where the keeper isn't sanctioned, it just gives them more boldness to protect their goal at all costs.

As I stated in a different post, the only two special items for keepers in the Laws are they wear a different shirt color and can use their hands/arms legally in their own penalty area. However, the reality is different. I've called penalties against keepers twice this season, and each time parents and players acted like the world ended. In one case, even after I explained that the keeper contacted the attacker at the knee with her hands and forearms, the coach was still incredulous. I'm a former keeper, so I get the issues facing them. However, keepers still need a foul/misconduct threshold consistent with other players.

 

I know this is opening a can of worms: but I wonder what the retro-active action would be if this was against England captain Harry Kane, or against the Neymars of this world.

Possibly the likes of Pickford then think twice in the first place, before doing a 'scissor move' elevated off the ground (rather than rushing against Diaby, Eduardo, Ramsey etc.).

 

I'm not suggesting an 'anti-conspiracy' at all, I am suggesting a 'pro-bias' as hypothesis. Or pro conspiracy if you like.

The nowadays esteemed journalist Miguel Delaney thinks the outrage in the Ramsey and Eduardo incidents was higher (both more than a decade ago, btw, professions can learn). Presumably because of the visible effect, but they were 'lesser' players.

are you joking?! It was worse!

— Miguel Delaney (@MiguelDelaney) October 19, 2020

It hasn't entirely disappeared - that much is certain.

Not when it comes down to the referee committees, not when it comes to the assignment of referees either. Tribes and countries still matter.

 

Across the chromosomal pond Mrs. Oliver didn’t have the best day...

https://womenscompetitions.thefa.com/en/Article/EvertonBrightonMatchReport181020
https://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/18804499.watch-kayleigh-green-escapes-red-card-everton/

Hard to see how this gets missed if you have a 4O and comms.

 

Graham Poll must be relieved that he is not the only one

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...gil-van-dijk-set-to-miss-the-season-8rxlwqcgg

So did they review it or didn't they?

 

For what's worth and for the record: my perception is the media (The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph etc.) have indeed a lot about what this means for Liverpool as main headline, but with the Pickford perpetrator only as a side issue, and not the main angle of the coverage. He isn't receiving the hackjob Suarez et al. received by the media. But fair enough, each to his own, I know countries where this ends up in a criminal court...

 

You're posting the same comment twice.

Fair enough about deleting a copyrighted article but what's your take about how the FA is fudging this? Whether the VAR reviewed it - which grants Pickford impunity - or not.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...gil-van-dijk-set-to-miss-the-season-8rxlwqcgg

 

Thanks for the explanation, but it seems to me, and I'm possibly wrong, that they can fudge this to the direction they like. Additionally, they can always make exceptions.

In order for The FA to take retrospective action it must first establish from the match officials whether the incident was ‘not seen’. If they confirm they did see it then in almost all cases no further action is taken. There are extraordinary exceptions, such as in the case involving Ben Thatcher [Manchester City versus Portsmouth in 2006].
https://help.thefa.com/support/solu...ge-a-player-for-an-incident-not-seen-by-the-m

With subsequent texts like this in 2013, after some previous leg breaks, for widening the scope (I'll post the link and not the text):
https://www.foxsports.com/stories/soccer/fa-gets-tough-on-bad-fouls

Don't get me wrong though: I don't want to compare a torn ligament with breathing down an oxygen mask (is this about the consequence or about the action itself?), but it does seem to me there is leeway, with at various points since 2006 them loosening the leeway and range - on paper at least.

Since they continue to get big assignments by default, it perhaps shows aforementioned considerations haven't quite left the building "in 1995"...

 

I thought this commentary from Rebecca Lowe was spot on.

"I was disappointed with it. It made me uncomfortable. I hope we never see it again."

Rebecca Lowe with important points on the interaction between Sian Massey-Ellis and Sergio Aguero on the weekend.

Watch the full episode of the Lowe Down: https://t.co/RZcmmRzLHB pic.twitter.com/CYYuLlEUeK

— NBC Sports Soccer (@NBCSportsSoccer) October 19, 2020

 

The argument is here tribal and country based assignments for referees, VAR referees, and committees (naturally) still happen, regardless of competence or merit.

The natural knock-on effect is - to a limited and circumscribed degree - tribal officiating, on the pitch and behind the green table. The leeway in the 'green table' rules is there.

The evidence for 'green table' decisions don't exist, but for referees their on field decisions it clearly does: Own-nationality bias: evidence from UEFA Champions League
http://econweb.umd.edu/~pope/soccer_paper.pdf
(I might as well post five other papers, covering each a different aspect or competition of own nationality bias)

It supports that it isn't an iron rule, and after some high profile leg breaks several years after 2006 (Ramsey etc.), they've put the door wider open for further exceptions, on paper at least. They might as well use that.