There is a high likelihood of the attacker getting a touch here. Since the distance between the attacker and defender is zero, it's reasonable for the defender to try to get to the ball. He and the attacker are trying to get to the same spot. The defender is running to the spot to intercept the cross,.same as the attacker.
But the defender has no likelihood—not even a chance, really—of getting to the ball first unless he fouls.
So the end of Liverpool v City… What an incredible situation, period. Just fascinating all-around. I think, in the old days, goal just stands. In your local amateur match, goal stands (maybe depending on overall match context/management concerns). Here? VAR forces a decision. Haaland has obviously fouled in the APP (how the hold is “careless” is another question). And he has obviously been fouled in the build-up. DOGSO conditions were satisfied with that foul, of course. So now what? Ball is in the net and two fouls in succession from opposite teams. VAR won’t allow the goal to stand with the Haaland foul. So is it no goal and Liverpool ball? Or do you go back to the DOGSO foul… even though the goal was never denied? Red for Liverpool and DFK for City was the result. I get it. But it would have been much, much more credible if this was given on the field. Punting things generally to VAR is part of the problem here. “Goal” being the on-field call is kind of unacceptable in a VAR match, as both fouls are clear as day.
Struggling both to see how this is relevant and how you’re sure he’s trying to get to a ball that he physically has little to no chance of getting to.
That for me is 100% a VAR era call. In any game I do you play the advantage, ignore the second foul and let the ball roll in the net. Any coach worth their salt would rather lose 3-1 than 2-1 and lose the player to a subsequent suspension. I’m sure that’s what Pawson would have preferred. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the dressing room to hear them discuss it.
This was one of the craziest officiating related decisions I have seen in recent memory. And the best part is, I’m sure both teams are left angry by it, and would have preferred that goal stands and the game ends if they were asked which result they would prefer. Also, as for what would happen in an amateur match with respect to “game management”… this would be a situation where I would just completely freeze and have to take a minute to myself to try to remember what I just watched if I couldn’t just say goal stands
Right. That’s why I said VAR forces a decision. All things being equal, goal is the outcome almost everyone actually wants once they spend a second thinking about it.
I know I am being a little over the top here, but the defender pulls back the attacker, Pawson plays the advantage, then Haaland commits his shirt pull AFTER the advantage, is it at all possible it coukd have been a foul going out? Ever?
no...start the video at 14:00: Liverpool v. Manchester City | PREMIER LEAGUE HIGHLIGHTS | 2/8/2026 | NBC Sports
I think this is actually a very interesting question. The initial foul by the defender is presumably let go for advantage. And the tracker commits a blatant subsequent foul. So tht gives us a question as do whether the advantage didn’t ensue or the attacker gave up the advantage by committing the subsequent foul. I think some time back, we would have said the attacker wasted the advantage by committing the clear foul. But I think our more modern view of advantage dvntge is more forgiving, especially as the second foul is somewhat connected to the first foul. Had there been more time between could definitely be a different approach.
Where did you see that Pawson played advantage? I don't think he did. And, let's pretend he did. It was a bad advantage because Szoboszlai got goal side due to his foul. The only reason Haaland had a foul to commit is because Szoboszlai's foul worked, so to speak. But yeah, I don't think Pawson called a thing here. There's also a question of team versus individual concept here. Szoboslai denied Haaland's opportunity to score a goal, right? But the goal was scored anyway, by Cherki. That's what makes this so fascinating. Nothing was denied for City, it was just denied for Haaland. I'm honestly not sure how you address that.
I would say more than "somewhat." Szoboszlai cannot get goal side of Haaland without fouling him. Haaland can't physically foul Szoboszlai from behind (and, indeed, would have no incentive to do so) unless the initial foul occurs. I think it's obvious advantage never materialized. The foul accomplished its goal. The question is whether or not Pawson formally acknowledged either foul on the field and I think the answer is he didn't.
It just occurred to me that this play needed the Mike Dean arms up advantage signal as the ball goes in the net and pivot to point back to the circle.
Strongly disagree here. The free kick and red card are 100% the right call; neither foul falls into any reasonable gray area. We have to make the right call here, even if it sucks to do so. Worth noting also that the two teams on the field aren't the only stakeholders here. Whoever Liverpool plays next would rightfully feel aggrieved if a player who was supposed to be suspended for that game got off because of the last referee being lazy/cowardly. We have a responsibility to be more than just people-pleasers who do whatever makes people immediately happy. We have a responsibility to the sport to get calls like this right.
All fair points, but I just dunno...you referee for the spirit of the game for the match directly in front of you. Nobody expected a red, everyone expected a goal and then match over.
Before the advent of VAR and the APP foul, would you believe this? Again, Cherki scored a goal from the other half. Liverpool's foul did not deny a goal. And the only reason Szoboszlai was in position to potentially stop the goal was due to his own foul. The Haaland foul can only exist because of the Szoboszlai foul. Without the Szoboszlai foul, either Haaland guides the ball in anyway for Cherki's goal (no change) or Haaland taps the ball into ensure a goal. The concept of the team advantage can apply here if you stop to think broadly about the play. City was going to score, City scored. It's only because of the APP foul concept that we "must" punish the Haaland foul and then that sets everything in motion at this level. But Haaland only has the ability to foul Szoboszlai because of Szoboszlai's own foul, which we find so objectionable that it merits a red card for stopping a goal that... it didn't stop. Ultimately, we are punishing Szoboszlai for a goal he didn't deny. Of course I get it from a technical perspective. But I think it's worth thinking twice about whether we've lost the plot with this kind of stuff.
There's another team to consider here as well: Arsenal. Goal difference is the first tiebreaker in the EPL. Arsenal is +32 and City is currently +27 (not +28). Imagine if City makes up the 6 points with 2 wins that cumulatively equalize the goal difference (or fall 1 short). Not guaranteed to happen of course but all this is close enough that it's not out of the realm of possibility. While I'm in the camp that VAR made things worse here, it's a further reminder that the right conclusion under the laws of the game matters. Further complicating the fact, as well, is that VAR cannot suggest a YC even if that YC is a 2nd YC that becomes a RC. Because I think, in many people's minds that might have been an agreeable answer:
Under no circumstances is the Szoboszlai foul a yellow card. It's either red or not a foul, and it was clearly a foul. It's a weird outcome, but you can't allow a team to score while they're actively committing a foul, regardless of why that foul is being committed.