2023-24 England Referee Thread [EPL/EFL/Cups+][Rs]

I think that if he looks at it for 90 seconds and can't determine what the answer is, then his call has to stand.

The question is whether he should need to look at that for 90 seconds or if that's simply a product of him really wanting to stick to his call. Audio could be interesting on this one--feel like it would probably just be an audible BigSoccer debate.

For me, I think it's not an expected penalty in England. But at the same time, the bar for overtuning a referee's call is also high, so maybe that's just the argument here? "Wrong but not clearly wrong."

 

Soft? Maybe.
But stupid from the defender and keeper.
It's a pretty easy PK call with VAR.

 

But it wasn't given via VAR.

And to suggest that it would have been given via VAR if not given on the field pretty much ignores all VAR history in England to date. I mean, we have a perfect example of that in the Spurs match.

 

I know it didn't go to VAR.
He said it was a "terrible decision"
I disagreed saying it is quite easy to see given the views VAR would get.

It might be soft, but it isn't a terrible call. In fact, it was the correct call.

 

I still don’t understand what VAR has to do with it. Particularly given the fact that I remain confident VAR would never award that penalty on its own. You said it’s a “pretty easy PK with VAR.” You’re suggesting VAR would have sent this down if not given?

And I agree with @Mikael_Referee that it was a terrible decision. This was not the correct call. Or not the optimal call. Gordon is simulating to create or buy a non-existent penalty.

But I can understand a disagreement on the merits. I don’t understand the applicability about an argument related to VAR.

 

I don’t even buy “technically a foul” here. Was the keeper careless or was Gordon actively looking for something that was never there?

But I suppose lines are clearly drawn on this one.

 

In any league other than England, that gets sent down.
I think VAR will change in England after the admission they weren't using it to keep from embarrassing referees. It will fall inline with the rest of Europe.

I agree it wouldn't have been called in the pre-VAR era. But the contact is clear. VAR will call this.
As the dinosaurs die off, English VAR will work and English refs will get better or the league will be left behind.

 

Okay, I just disagree with all your premises here. What exactly makes that a foul? Contact is clear, yes. But what is the careless action by a defending player that makes this a foul?

VAR wasn’t implemented to make it easier for players like Gordon to cheat successfully.

 

I associate myself completely with his comments.

Or very, very closely to completely. I would defend the referees at a very general level only to the extent that they are implementing what they are told to implement. But, those directives are coming in some part from very senior former referees and I've seen very little effort at demonstrating common sense when they are being applied. So it's a very meek defense. Plus, I thought English referees were subpar before all these new directives, so there's a chance I'd be even harsher on them overall than he is.

I don't think, to your last point, it's about increases in levels of play and levels of refereeing accelerating at different rates. I think it's all about priorities diverging. Fitness and very technical aspects of officiating and law application are where everything is at right now. Having player management skills and a common sense feel for the game and an awareness of how tactics intertwine with game management... not so much. And I think that's what he's getting at here.

 

I don't think he cheated.
But many things are going on here.
https://dubz.co/c/f25df1
:07 Defender drops and impedes attacker
:09 Defender grabs/push attacker (attacker's torso actually turns 90* (seen again at :15)
:09 (and :17) Keeper's knee strikes attacker's foot.
:09 (and :17) Keeper actually slides between the players leg so to (not intent) contact and take out the trail leg.
All while keeper never gets the ball.

The grab/push of the defender and the keeper between the legs are both careless.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
But it might of been soft, but to say it was cheating is unsupported.

 

Couldn't disagree more, but I suppose that's to be expected.

The defender's actions just aren't worth a serious discussion relative to a penalty decision. If you take the goalkeeper out of this play and tell me you'd give a penalty for what the defender did in a professional match, I wouldn't know how to respond. It's nothing. Actions like that happen 100x a game without a foul being called. You think the defender's actions turned Gordon's torso 90 degrees? That just didn't happen. It's Gordon who is turning his body to make it look like he's trying to shield the ball from the goalkeeper.

And then just look at what Gordon does here. The left leg lunges into a place where he can't reach the ball to ensure there is contact with the keeper's knee. He then drags the right leg across the floor (look at that and try telling me it is either natural or a consequence of allegedly being fouled) to ensure the right foot also makes contact with the goalkeeper.

Also, to your point of "all while keeper never gets the ball." Neither did Gordon! And he had less of a chance of doing so, too. Not getting the ball has to work both ways here.

I'm more than fine being aligned with @Mikael_Referee and @Pierre Head here. This is very skillful simulation. It has all the hallmarks and it's the exact type of situation where the incentive is high (no chance to get the ball, no chance for attacking play to continue, etc.). And it's a player who is known for this behavior. A professional AR fell for it, Pawson went with him, and the VAR felt (based on the existence of contact, I'm sure) that there wasn't enough to overturn.

 

I don't think the defender was enough but it is, whether it should or not, grouped into the penalty decision. It's just human nature. But why are you so against making "it easier for players like Gordon to cheat successfully" but so willing to bail out a keeper who stupidly made contact with a player when the player was never going to get to the ball? I don't get it.

The keeper took a needless risk and paid the price. That's football.
Players put themselves into position to get fouled all the time and now you want to deem it as "cheating?"

 

Why? As a referee, what instruction have you received that would make this true?

Because the goalkeeper did not "stupidly ma[k]e contact when the player was never going to get the ball."

He slid at the goal line to cover the crossing angle if necessary and then opted to shepherd the ball out of play when that became unnecessary. Gordon is the one who throws himself in there. I mean, you're deliberately not engaging with the argument. My argument is that Gordon is the one who creates/makes the contact here.

This is the most debatable point you raise. Tactically, he probably didn't need to do what he did (the announcer hits on this point with the "he's got no need to be there" bit). But I would argue he didn't think he was taking any or much of a risk at all, even if the play wasn't tactically useful. Contact only occurs because Gordon lunges in desperately to create it. If you want to say that's an outcome the keeper needs to account for, okay. But I just think Gordon's actions override that point.

Do you know any of Gordon's history? Or can you look at this and honestly argue Gordon is doing anything other than trying to win a penalty when the only other outcome will be the ball going out of play?

Yes, this is an instance of cheating in my eyes. And I think a lot of other people's eyes, including--I imagine--the person you were initially responding to here. That doesn't mean I don't think players have the right to put themselves into position to win fouls. You're arguing a logical fallacy. I want to deem this play cheating. Not other hypothetical plays.

 

I said - "Whether it should are not" all referees bring in human nature that isn't part of the laws or instructions. Nowhere are we instructed to call fouls tighter against a player that's being an ass. But nearly every referee does it.

But the keeper clearly contacts the plant leg at :17 and Gordon's ankle actually buckles. That's what caused him to go flying. Without the ankle buckle the trail leg may never even make contact.

"Do you know any of Gordon's history? Or can you look at this and honestly argue Gordon is doing anything other than trying to win a penalty"
Winning penalties is part of every attacker's job. He simply took advantage of a stupid play by the keeper.

But since you made it fair game, please tell me as a referee, what instruction have you received that would make it acceptable to make calls or not make calls based upon your perceived history of a player.

I'm going to bed.

 

You think this is a gotcha moment?

Every referee at the professional level studies and has studied the behavior, tendencies and playing styles of the individuals they officiate. Indeed, they are instructed to do so. Only one of the two of us have refereed professional matches, right? Or any matches.

And in almost every sentence or paragraph in this exchange, you've moved the goalposts or made incorrect and unfair logical conclusions. I have said that Gordon's reputation matters. I would even suggest that Gordon's reputation was going through Pawson's head when he didn't call it himself and then took input from his AR. I never said you make calls based on their history--perceived or otherwise. But if it's not a factor in your decision-making process, you're doing it wrong.

 

Minimal contact.

That's next level stuff there. Wow. He got kicked in the achilles/ankle from behind with the force a player would use to kick the ball. If that's minimal, what's moderate?

 

Wait, what? 8:48 here:



Where do you see a hold that rises to the level of a penalty kick?