I remember one of Messi's earliest throw-ins ever (perhaps his 2nd) in the MLS and it was foulest of foul throws and even then it wasn't called. It just won't be called. Period.
Everyone got it backwards, that’s the exact time it should be called. If it’s 100% and everyone knows, it’s more of a farce to ignore it than just call it. Especially cuz the stakes literally couldn’t be lower, awarding a throw-in to the other team.
In the era of VAR, what is the AR doing on a PK now? No ball in/out…that’s GLT, and no early movement from the GK, that’s VAR.
Per the most recent LOTG changes, in a VAR match the AR is now supposed to (or can be) even with the penalty mark. But I have absolutely no idea why he's on the field, at the penalty area. This is wrong. And, in fact, a player could literally be standing where he is standing (or, say, a milimeter to his left). This is dumb.
Yeah I honestly think it might’ve been a brain fart where the AR combined the normal position (penalty area and goal line) with the new guidance. Hopefully it’s just that because now he’s in a position where he can easily be hit by a ball being cleared from a defender on the rebound or an attacker running in.
Agree. Makes no sense. The whole point of the change was to put the AR in position to call OS if the kick is not scored. If he’s on the field, he has to scramble to get back to the touchline.
I know this is just one isolated thing and I'll risk pontificating here, but... the English laissez-faire attitude around officiating is so bizarre to me. It's like they simultaneously want to be the keepers of the game globally but then also want to show that officiating is, at it's core, suppose to be passive and unobtrusive. But then it just leads to laziness and incorrect interpretations and applications. Like in this case, a qualified professional AR in the highest league in the world received new information in some sort of instructional setting (you'd hope he'd learn it himself the day it came out, like a lot of us, but maybe that's a dream), and then applied it in a globally watched came in a half-ass and incorrect manner. The levels of laziness this takes astounds me. It just seems much easier to forget to do it the new way. The alternative, of course, is that the FA and PGMOL itself are instructing this incorrectly. Which would also speak to the same issue but just with a much wider breadth.
of course, he is not wrong but that is the sporting philosophy these days: Premier League ref Anthony Taylor: Is job 'worth it' amid abuse? - ESPN Taylor continued: "We have this archaic psychological tactic of 'let's bombard the ref or bombard the fourth official with the hope of getting a decision out of it'."
The bell tolls for Dale. At least at ESPN. 🚨 Personal news klaxon! 🚨My time at @ESPNFC is over after a great stint, longer than SWFC's absence from the Premier League. So, there's no VAR Review.But fear not!I will soon start a hugely exciting new role @BBCSport, covering all the usual topics but much, much more.— Dale Johnson (@DaleJohnsonBBC) October 20, 2025
Any active BBC readers on here? Will need someone to post a regular link to his weekly VAR word salad.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/46730140/var-review-man-united-had-penalty-vs-brighton White smoke rises over Bristol, CT, as a new Dale as been chosen
Never a good start when your biography is a lie. But he was a Select Group 2 referee, which is, you know, totally different. And not really "elite" in the way the word is intended here, as they directly associate it with the Premier League. And if he has been in the Premier League, it seems like as a 4th official or AR? Also what in the world does it mean to "operate within the VAR space...?" Has he ever been a VAR? "Former EFL Championship Referee" is nothing to be embarrassed about and would have worked fine here.
So there was this insane tackle in spurs-Newcastle that only got a yellow card https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/s/oq4lzBkk6e I’m sure red card is the clear and obvious answer here. But playing devils advocate… does scissor tackling someone around the waist “endanger the safety” of the opponent as much as doing it around the ankle? Lol
Would genuinely like to see another angle on this. I honestly can't tell if he's trying to tackle him with his legs or if he's trying to more grab/charge him (deliberately) and screws up/slips. I mean, the ultimate first point of contact seems like crotch to hip? Yes, his legs are wrapped on either side but there's no actual scissors action. It's a very strange one. I think given the fact that the player just gets up immediately, endangering the safety is kind of hard to sell. Maybe you can argue there's just too much excessive force and it was too deliberate. But when you're talking about a 3-match ban for a straight red and it's a 2-0 game with a few minutes left... I feel like you've got to be damned sure this was more nefarious than unfortunate and I'm not convinced from this one angle.
I thought Joelinton was lucky not to get a 2CT.....one yellow for the tackle, and one yellow for the argy-bargy with Kudus afterwards. Since Kavanaugh only gave him one yellow, you don't know if it was for the tackle or for the afters.
In the Newcastle-Tottenham match there was also one other interesting situation, prior to Newcastle scoring their opening goal. Newcastle had earned a corner kick, however a Tottenham defender, Djed Spence had lost his shoe during the play. He knelt within the 10-yard radius of the corner kick to put his shoe back on and tie his laces, so the CR (Chris Kavanaugh) held up the play. However, once Spence had his boot back on and had exited the 10-yard radius (but before he was back in his normal defending position), Kavanaugh waived for the corner to be taken. Newcastle took the corner and scored off a Schar header. Tottenham subsequently complained that Kavanaugh should have waited until Spence was back in his normal position before allowing the corner kick to be taken. Thoughts?
I’d argue strongly that “scissor tackling” someone at the waist like this is a lot less dangerous than doing it at the ankle. The waist doesn’t have any joints that can relatively easily torque out of position, tear, or dislocate from a tackle like this. The main concern I would have would be if the fouling player landed on the back of the opponent’s legs afterwards and trapped them in a way that endangered the legs, but the waist isn’t going to be damaged by a tackle like this at all. In fact, I’m not even sure I see a “scissor tackle” motion in this tackle precisely because I’m not sure it’s realistically possible to “scissor” the waist at all without an incredible amount of force. Based on this one look, I support yellow here, with the caveats Mass mentioned above about the context / nature of the challenge.
I usually wait until players get to their defensive positions on subs, also wait for keeper to get back to middle of goal on free kicks. Seems the sporting thing to do
1:42: What's interesting for me is that Kavanagh doesn't whistle at all to restart. So either this wasn't ceremonial (meaning he didn't actually "hold up" the play officially and Newcastle just waited on their own initiative--either out of courtesy or because they wanted/needed the 10 yards) OR, yeah, I'd say he screwed up and Spurs has a legitimate beef. In the end, it doesn't seem like Spence's defensive position would have been relevant to the goal-scorer but you can't really predict that or use it as justification. Do we have any video of Kavanagh affirmatively asking Newcastle to wait?