I see your point, but he & VAR certainly felt they didn't. "Interestingly, Kavanagh and the VAR agreed that Rice should be given a second yellow card, with the referee heard saying: "I have no choice, he knocks the ball away." https://www.football.london/arsenal-fc/news/declan-rice-three-word-message-29956950
If we're going to revisit this, Webb also said that the crew unequivocally got the Pedro incident wrong and that Pedro should have seen yellow for his action. So they sort of "had no choice" there, either, but still opted to make a choice.
You understand that "I have no choice" is rhetoric aimed at selling a decision, right? No one amazingly didn't realize they had a choice. Every referee realizes they almost always have a choice. I mean, you can choose to deliberately be wrong in some circumstances in order to manage a certain situation. I would say this should come naturally to any referee at almost any level.
Certainly. But often, when a referee doesn't punish obvious conduct that violates the laws, they risk losing control of the match. So while they COULD choose to do whatever they wanted, the effect of that choice severely limits what they SHOULD choose.
Agree with all this. I'll just add one more example that fuels the frustration. So, you might recall about a year ago, Arsenal played City at the Emirates and in the first half Kovacic committed at least three fouls worthy of yellow cards (one even could've been a straight red). But he only ended up with a yellow and a stern talking to from Oliver (I'm pretty sure it was Oliver). In his show later that week, Webb focused on the incidents, and while he acknowledged that Kovacic was lucky to stay on the pitch, he also defended Oliver by saying something along the lines of "he didn't want to overreact and negatively impact the match...." So in that instance, being cautious and not impacting the match was praised. But here, sending a player off, thus negatively impacting the match for something that was trifling is also praised as a decision that had to be made??
This all goes to the matter of viewing more technical or non-physical issues as objective/mandatory and physical challenges as subjective, I think. Look at VARing and penalties. We parse the handling rule down to the text and minutae to determine that a call or no-call was "clear and obvious" yet when dealing with physical interaction between players (trips, holds, tackles, etc.) a much, much higher standard of subjectivity is countenanced. I have never understood this. The incidents and scenarios where one player is trying to physically stop another player from doing something, we throw up our hands are are like "well, let's give him the benefit of the doubt." And then on the more technical offences, we rigidly enforce things because we have to. Think about the shirt removal and even simulation cards. You'd think that, at a macro level, we'd want to be a little more draconian on physical challenges and a little less so on the more technical aspects, but apparently you'd be wrong.
That comment by Webb to, basically, excuse/defend Oliver infuriates me to this day. Excusing and defending Oliver's cowardice to make an early big decision in a big match. It really summed up Webb as a referee and explained why he got so far as he did as a referee.
That’s exactly what it is. I’ve said it here before but you disagreed, that getting rules more objective rather than subjective makes referees jobs easier and should theoretically reduce the amount of dissent received because it’s black and white in writing and there can really be no argument. When the rule is written down steadfast, as is the case with technical infractions, there can really be no debate. But almost every single physical interaction has some level of subjectivity including SPA, handling, reckless offenses, which can lead to referees not “correctly” penalizing certain things, talking about the “intensity” of the match or the time when it happened. Any time a referee can use subjectivity to weasel out of making a big or consequential decision in an important match, usually relating to a red card, he gets celebrated for it
I don't understand how you connect this to your argument, which I still disagree with. Two points: If the ideas are somehow connected, well, I want more subjectivity on the "objective" stuff and not less on the subjective stuff. You want to go down a path where everything is written down and referees don't really have to exercise much judgment. I don't. I don't want to "make referees jobs easier" at the expense of the game as a whole. Plus, I don't think it actually would achieve what you think. But more importantly, how is everything supposed to be more "black and white in writing" about physical challenges? What language could you write that 100% would dictate whether a certain tackle was a yellow card, a red card, or no card? How would you further codify "reckless" versus "careless" where it could essentially take the judgment out of the hands of the referee? What would the "steadfast written" rules be? I really don't get what is being argued here. Or at least what outcome you're suggesting.
Leicester manager Steve Cooper claims 'proof' of VAR error - ESPN Leicester City boss Steve Cooper has claimed an "awful human error" by the VAR was "hidden" following his side's 2-2 draw at Crystal Palace last weekend. Leicester were 2-0 up when Palace striker Jean-Philippe Mateta saw his goal disallowed for offside by the assistant's flag two minutes into the second half. However, the goal was awarded soon after following a VAR review with the striker deemed to be level with the last defender. Leicester went on to draw the game 2-2
57th minute - Tottenham/Brentford Spurs GK goes to collect a cross and fumbles it and then clearly handles in outside of the area. 100% a FK and probably SPA. Never ever DOGSO. Of course cue the commentators then spending the following minutes shocked the VAR didn't send the ref to the monitor. Terrible from the on field crew though.
Those are the plays that really make me wonder what happened. It is an unexpected play, but still. This could be hard for the R to see exactly where the ball was touched, and he may have been looking towards what happens next. But how does the AR miss that? Was something happening elsewhere that grabbed his attention so he wasn’t looking at the GK? Or was he shielded so couldn’t be sure of the contact with the hand once the ball came outside? I would think that with communication among the team they really should have been able to get this. (The clip I saw didn’t show either the R or Ar.)
What a wild tackle. https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1fm8sh4/martinez_challenge_yellow_card_63/
THIS TWO FOOTED STOMP TACKLE FROM LISANDRO MARTINEZ. Should he have seen more than yellow for this? pic.twitter.com/iBmGGD7gOy— Men in Blazers (@MenInBlazers) September 21, 2024 Truly in the "well you didn't break his leg so it's fine" stage.
I think it’s way worse than that. I just don’t think this is taught as a red card anymore outside Latin America. And maybe not there? Result trumps nature now. Without actual contact here or any sort of negative physical result, I worry red just is never coming again for this sort of thing.
There was the famous Wayne Rooney wild scissor tackle that made no contact at all that he got a yellow card for anyway. I feel like this one probably is in the same category, so reckless that whatever the end result was would be upgraded. No contact, yellow card, any contact at all, red card? Absolutely should be a red card by the way
Oh man. 83' in Brighton-Forest. How? Like, how does Jones come up with "he got the ball" there and signal for a throw-in? Then he has to look like a fool showing a 2CT for a non-foul because his Taylor tells him it has to be a 2CT (and honestly could have been SFP if you want to go there). And then Taylor has to take all the incoming. So very England on this one. Except for the part where the 4th had the guts to intervene. If that's not Taylor, that doesn't happen. Of course, people will then say Taylor wanted to be the center of the show. Can't win. Then both managers see red. I'm wondering what prompted the red card for the Brighton manager.
Optically very poor, and super disappointing that he didn’t have the tackle as a caution (second) to begin with. One more bit of weirdness is that min 93, Brighton player cleans out NF player right after he makes a pass to PIOP: the play continues and attack fizzles. Offside is given, and caution given to Brighton (dunk, I think) for the initial foul. But if pass is to a PIOP, then advantage is not realized, shouldn’t the restart be Dfk for NF?