Kavanagh, Attwell, Gillett, Jones and Andy Madley have all had Championship matches, too, this calendar year. It's not abnormal in England. Seems like almost every referee dips down for 1-2 matches minimum. So it's a combination of #1 and #3. Every once in awhile, #2 plays a role (didn't we go through this earlier in the year with Taylor?) but I haven't heard anything about Pawson recently that would warrant #2 (and if you were punishing someone, you wouldn't give them the top tilt that every regular Championship referee would be salivating over!).
https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1ayxpbf/harry_maguire_foul_vs_fulham_35_yellow_card_given/ I know point of contact makes this always be seen as a yellow, but in terms of the lunge and force I think you could make a solid argument for a red.
Yeah I think that's just always a yellow because of point of contact. It is interesting to compare to the red given against Brighton today, though. Probably less force and certainly less of a desperation lunge... but point of contact ended up much higher and the result was worse. Burnley also earned itself a very interesting (read: silly) DOGSO red today. Two straight reds in the EPL and both given without VAR help. Odd.
Missed yellow card (dare I say orange) in the 23' of the Cup final. Klopp understandably upset since they're going to have to make an early sub when they're already stretched thin. Pretty amazing to have this near the benches and have no foul as the outcome. https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1azqj0l/caicedo_horrible_tackle_on_gravenberch_24/
Yeah, that was a terrible miss…had to be a YC at least. Should have been a RC for me, but I’m not surprised VAR didn’t intervene. If he had given the RC in real time, it wouldn’t have been reversed either.
Entertaining final. Both sides had a goal ruled out for offside via var. The Chelsea one where the badge on the arm put him just offside and Liverpool for an interfering with an opponent decision where an offside player picked a defender on a FK. The later one is 1000% correct in law but created enough of an uproar with fans where you're saying the refs can't win here.
To be fair, I don’t think I’ve ever seen that called before. Clearly both correct though, and in the spirit of the game…you should never benefit from being in an offside position.
In 2023/2024, Taylor officiated 1x in the Championship. Michael Oliver 0x. A bit off-topic, but… imo interesting to see the different approaches in European countries: German #1 Felix Zwayer has already officiated 4 games in the second league in 23/24 Where I live (the Netherlands), the Elite referees officiate approx. 1-2x a season in the second league. For example last Friday, Makkelie officiated the no1 vs no2. However, the second league is also used to shield a referee before a topgame domestically or a Tuesday-game in UCL. In France, Turpin hasn’t refereed a game in Ligue2. Letexier 1x. Not sure what is the policy there, but it seems more rare In Italy, we don’t see Orsato in Serie B in 23/24 so far, Guida 1x and Massa already 3x. In Italy it could be a form matter (punishment). In Spain, the divisions are completely divided. I like the approach to send Elite refs to the second league every now and then. It sends a signal to clubs in the 2nd league that they are also taken seriously. I also think, the approach can be useful in bigger countries. More opportunities to send a referee to a game a bit closer to his home before an important game abroad. I guess there are also counterarguments. Development of a new generation, divided leagues creates more competition (higher quality?), and indeed a punishment is nonsense when a 2nd league game is crucial for the standings.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/liverpool-forest-nunez-tunnel-tierney-32257844 I watched it again. The ball is cleared out of the penalty area and Forest had regained control on the left wing when Tierney blows the whistle. Play then restarted with a drop ball to the keeper and Liverpool then score the winner soon after. Maybe the sound was off but Forest seemed well in control on the left wing when play was actually stopped. Of course this doesn't excuse the behavior of those from the Club.
It doesn't seem like Tierney moves the whistle toward his mouth until the ball has left the penalty area. You can't see him on screen on Peacock when the whistle seems to go, but he definitely had both hands at his sides as the ball left the area. This seems bad. Like, I lean toward it being more conceivable that he misapplied the Law than he actually thought the ball was still in the penalty area when he blew. And if he did think the ball was in the penalty area when he blew, then that's like a grassroots level mistake. At best the ball is a fraction of a second away from leaving the area--let it do so and see who collects it. The more I think and write about this, the worse it seems. Oh, and even in our liberal era around head injuries, that was a pretty generous interpretation to begin with.
Here’s the head injury from the Forest-Liverpool game. Looks very SFP to me, surprised VAR didn’t delay to check. https://imgur.com/gallery/SfUMFhY
With the caveat that I've not seen the NOT-LIV incident in video, did we collectively forget about: 8.2 Dropped ball Procedure The ball is dropped for the defending team goalkeeper in their penalty area if, when play was stopped: the ball was in the penalty area or the last touch of the ball was in the penalty area If the ball was near the boundary of the PA when play was stopped (as per @MassachusettsRef's description), the decision is technically correct. And in theory NOR were not entitled to the dropped ball unless play was stopped after they touched it, not merely "possessed" it. (Though if the latter was debatable I'd expect Tierney to be practical and just assume NOR had touched the ball first. Of course, some would argue he should have always done that.)
I think this also raises the question of what time matters—when the R decides to stop play or when the whistle sounds?
He doesn't even have to assume anything. If this was all actually in his head at the time, all he has to do is wait 0.5 seconds to ensure the Forest player touched it. As it was clear he was going to have possession. Again, I can't imagine an EPL referee would have this sort of very technical thinking, rather than the larger question about what the game expects, in his mind. But I guess I've been surprised before insofar as what British referees seem to care about most.
So this angle does raise a host of questions/points. In no particular order... 1) We are sure Tierney dropped the ball and it didn't restart with a free kick, correct? I've assumed so because the reporting has implied so. But we don't actually see the restart on the broadcast. Without that confirmation, I suppose it remains possible that Tierney gave a foul very late. But I feel like we would have heard that by now. 2) Was this angle available to the VAR? Because, similarly, I didn't see it. Remember they were checking for the penalty on Gomez, not any sort of red card. 3) To that end and consistent with my point on the MLS thread, a lot gets forgiven when a player is trying to score. That said, the manner in which he goes in here is always unacceptable. So yeah, I think if he actually caught Konate flush in the head here, you are looking at a red card. 4) However, the other angle really made it look like Konate collided with Kelleher and any "head injury" or severe contact was with Konate's left side. Note the boot here is coming at the right side of Konate's face yet Konate grabs the left side of his head. So I'm just not sure if this shows contact conclusively or not. At the very least, I am certain you cannot give a red card based on this angle alone.
Yes. Screenshot taken just as he drops the ball - it should have been where the Forest player on the left of screen is. As Carragher was pointing out at this point, you can clearly see Graham Scott (the 4th Official) at the bottom of the screen pointing to where the ball should be.
Well that's very interesting! Thanks for that. If Scott had this the whole time, that means he was in agreement with Forest's bench. I wonder about the communications there. And if there's any fallout for Tierney not listening to Scott (got to presume AR1 had this, too). Also, maybe this is a bridge too far for England, but I know in MLS a VAR would also be willing to help the referee out here.
I think there is a perfectly plausible explanation here, which many people wont like, but others will understand..... I think Tierney clearly missed the fact that there had been a head injury, and was only told about it by AR2. That being the case, Tierney has taken the view that IF he had seen it, he would have stopped play immediately, which would have been when the ball was in the penalty-area. We know that, technically, it is when play is stopped, but if he decides that he SHOUL D have stopped it immediately - and AR2 told him so - then I'm sort of OK with that thinking, and the restart. I think he knew exactly what he was doing - the ball was ouside the penalty-area when he blew the whistle, but it was inside when AR2 effectively did so, so that's where he restarted from.
In the Sheffield United vs. Arsenal match, I thought this lack of a card was odd. The ref correctly plays advantage and Havertz scores. But I don't understand why the Sheffield defender wasn't booked for violently chucking Martinelli to the ground by his shirt as he releases his pass. https://dubz.co/v/61mgbd
The card would be for stopping a promising attack. The Laws now say (have for a few years, in fact) that if the referee plays advantage on such a foul, the card goes away because the promising attack was, inherently, not actually stopped. The fact that the goal is scored is just icing on the cake. Now, in England, as we discussed a few months back (and last season?), referees have still often been giving this card if the foul is blatant. So unless this is an evolution--or done solely because the goal was scored--the inconsistency in application can be vexxing. Also, you used the word "violently." To the extent words matter, if he actually violently threw someone to the ground, we'd have a red card. If you want to say that he recklessly did it, then a referee could still come back and give the yellow. But the reality is that on almost anything that can be judged as a promising attack foul, if advantage is applied the card goes away.
"Violently" may be a bit (only a bit) hyperbolic here. But if you watch the clip, it's certainly not reckless as there's clearly intent to both grab Martinelli by the shirt and throw him down, ie, the mens rea is much more intentional. Blatant---as you describe.
Seems like England is notorious for weaseling out of giving yellow cards for potentially reckless challenges they played advantage on because they can put it under the guise of attempted SPA. However if you can look at it, Everton Tottenham in April 2023 64’ had a defender try to yank the attacker down by his front collar and advantage was played but then they came back and gave the yellow which was strange for England
No, that actually wasn't strange for England. And that was the point at the time (and the point I'm making above). England has been lagging here. They were still giving the yellow card for "advantage-SPA" fouls even though they weren't supposed to be. And I think that's what is confusing here for @yossarian Of course, there's also just the point that this is a dumb and misguided rule change. It's part of an overall move to reduce yellow cards, it seems. But the more you eliminate yellow cards for actual cynical play, the harder it seems--to me, at least--to give them for more technical offences while the ball is out of play, like delaying the restart, failure to respect, dissent, etc. I think we should want to be carding behavior like highlighted here and in the April 2023 example. And I think fans get that, too. That's what's jarring about this evolution. It doesn't really seem to have a grand purpose other than "let's find a way to have fewer yellow cards."