This is a suboptimal series of events: England never looks sure of himself. And, yeah, that's not a penalty at this level.
There's no way he remembered Gordon was on one. That was incredible. Of course, it's a point of emphasis that was rigidly enforced for 5-6 weeks and then again in week 30 after a several month hiatus, so Gordon can have no excuse. He had to know that such behavior, which didn't actually delay the restart, would be arbitrarily punished at that point because Jones reflexively remembered something he was told last July. Totally on Gordon.
I'm aware of my Spurs bias but the Chelsea PK is something. Spurs are the most fouled team and have the 3rd most touches in the opposition penalty area this season (behind City and Arsenal). Spurs have one PK this season. Chelsea have nine.
Everything you said is true. But it’s also disappointing the a player of Gordon’s quality put himself in that position.
David Coote has been fine in the first half of Liverpool/Brighton (15 fouls, 2 cards) but everytime the camera shows his face he looks like a deer in the headlights.
There's been a couple that would have probably been a caution in 9 out of 10 PL matches this weekend.
Taylor’s game plan is clearly to only give the most obvious cards. Little bit of player frustration but good plan I think.
I don't think it's helped the game to have so many tactical fouls go unpunished. I think we're at 26 fouls so far with no cautions (besides the two for delaying restart).
Obviously not, but it works for Taylor and works for Webb. Asking for anything else at this point is just unrealistic.
Not sure why players were constantly complaining for cautions to be issued, as if it were their first game in the PL. Two top teams, but a borefest to watch.
Can I argue that it's Taylor's fault that the game was a borefest? You give obvious yellows, maybe the fouls decrease or opposite - game heats up - and you get something worth watching on the field? Edit - Just want to acknowledge it is not Taylor's job to make a game exciting. But I do think his approach played a role in that outcome.
We all already know that. Even though it's a ref forum, it's not uncommon to make an innocent observation. Team tactics made it boring. Not sure how anyone can take that it was the referees fault from the way the post was written.
There's kind of an irony here, though. Taylor and his handlers do believe it's his job to help make the game exciting. At least to the extent possible for a referee to do so. The problem is they largely (and falsely) believe that less visible and affirmative referee involvement is a method toward that ends.
The referee in the 4/2 match, NEW v. Eve was Tony Harrington. He has done a total of 16 matches this year. Only 6 involving Premier league teams. He’s had Everton 4 times. The more I see the effect VAR has had on the game, the more I think it impacts referees negatively. Do they just refuse to call things live anymore?
Based on how EPL fans react to Anthony Taylor and how much everyone hates him, he really can’t win. If he gives out cards or VAR reds, they say that he tries to make himself the spectacle. If he doesn’t give cards (which definitely is how EPL seems to want to lean their games towards), fans say he’s incompetent. Michael Oliver doesn’t get anywhere near as much hate as Taylor does, not sure why fans hate him so much. I definitely think Oliver is a better referee but Taylor isn’t that far behind
Thoughts on the VAR decision to disallow Schar's goal for Newcastle against Fulham due to a foul on Dan Burn? Burn leads with a forearm into the back of the defender's neck, the ball flies over both their heads, and Schar then strokes into the net at the near post. It's the type of contact that is given as a foul more often than not (let's say 60/40) elsewhere on the pitch, but it's arguably not a "clear and obvious error" given that it's not always called, and didn't obviously affect the outcome of the play. If it's called IRT, I'm fine with it, but I don't think it should be a VAR overrule.... Thoughts....
I get the "high standard" means no intervention but that's not a PK in the PL. https://dubz.co/v/0b1gq8
He barely nicked the ball, and tripped Jesus. Why isn't this a PK? Do we have lots of examples of something like this not being given?
Macallister getting kicked in the chest a few weeks ago came to mind in terms of "he got the ball". (That's literally what the VAR used in the clip that got released) I'm struggling to think of many examples when a PK is given in England on a trip when they've gotten the ball first and then the follow makes contact. In a total vacuum I understand this being a careless trip but years of watching the PL has almost always seen the ref saying no PK when the defender gets a clear touch followed by a careless trip.
Agreed. Also, this is one of those where the difference between the EPL and other competitions is very clear. Had this not been given on the field, there's no way a VAR would intervene to award it. So despite the facts being crystal clear, PGMOL is fine with either answer on a play like this (and probably prefers no call, to your point). In Italy, France, Spain and elsewhere... you're likely getting one song sheet that the powers that be want everyone singing from.