I don't think it's as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Referees make many decisions during a match, some are not technically correct if reviewed and the strict letter of the law is applied. Any "foul", called or not called, comes down to what the ref believes was the case. I'm sure that some refs are more strict on how they call the match and others are more apt to let the game play out. Neither are incorrect. In this case, VAR is what makes the final call the DOGSO red. Just like offside decisions that literally come down to fractions of an inch, once reviewed, must be called, even if the defender is on the other side of the pitch and would have in no way been able to stop the attacker. As others have said, yes, in a VAR match, that call is what must happen. At my local Sunday beer league, the goal would have been called and play resumed.
Right, and I agree with you in that last sentence. However, what makes this case particularly insightful is that there is simply no way for a ref to see this play well and not think there is a foul by each player. Both holds are indisputably fouls. If a ref says he has a legal goal, he either brutally missed what happened or he’s lying to himself (and everyone else). There’s a big difference between a referee making a good-faith subjective determination, versus deliberately lying about what he saw happen because it’s the lower-friction approach.
Actually, no. The VAR recommends a review. The CR makes the final call. The CR can, and often enough does disagree with the VARs assessment and stays with the call on the field. [note: amending to acknowledge that the VAR can make the final call on issues of fact: was the player in an offside position, was the ball in or out, etc. But CRs make the final call on issues of judgement]
And now here is a forehead VAR offside decision from today that the comment section is back to spewing hate at VAR for the system. https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/s/m8uj4aWPtE
I guess I didn't word my meaning properly. I didn't mean the call came down from VAR, I meant that having VAR meant that the exact wording of the laws needed to be followed - hence the ref had no choice but to assign DOGSO/RC.
Technically, no. Only the R makes decisions. On factual items, the R can accept the recommendation of the VAR without going to the monitor, just as the R can accept the recommendation of the AR to call OS but it is still technically the decision of the R.
I don't want to beat the dead horse too much, but "lying" is a pretty loaded term. You quite obviously feel a fidelity to the text of Law 10 and can't award the goal because of the attacking foul. Can't fight you on plain text there. But it could be a good-faith subjective determination to look at the totality of play, reason (as it is patently obvious) the fouled player could not be fouled if not for his own foul, which was a cynical attempt to deny a goal, and then assess that awarding the goal is the most just outcome. That's not "lying." It's not pretending that the attacking foul didn't exist (though you'd have to ask Pawson, in this situation, if that's what he was doing or if something else was at work). It's making a holistic subjective judgment on the play, and not just the single incident that triggers Law 10 issues. If I had this in an amateur match and got questioned by the defending team for whatever reason, I wouldn't say "no, your guy didn't get fouled, what are you talking about?" I'd say, "yeah, he got fouled and that's only because he tried to cheat and stop the goal." I wouldn't ignore reality, I would just say some Law 5 concepts can trump some Law 10 text in very particular circumstances that none of us has likely ever seen before.
Not to take this in a more useful direction, but please take the lesson from this at lower levels: just end the game. The counter didn’t need to happen if the game ended right when the ball was turned over. It was already past the end of the minimum added time.
I think it's one of those things that you just chalk up to luck. Random things affect a team's fortune all the time. I wouldn't say a grassroots ref is wrong to go DOGSO red+DFK here, but I still think it's a fair and reasonable approach to ref the game in front of you the best you can every time, and as long as you do that every time, it's fair for all the teams involved, even if it's a zero-sum game in the end and someone is always going to be affected negatively. (Also, if I'm ever at a tournament, or closing in on the end of league play, I make it my business to know the standings.)
Changing gears, lot of complaints about Leeds' tying goal yesterday. 6:48 or so: I mean, among arguments for deliberate, unnatural, and the accidental leading to goal provisions... you've got cases for all of them. For the referee to miss this AND the VAR to reason that none of the three clauses apply really is something. I realize we're dealing with two different situations and two different sets of officials. But I think when fans see an intervention for the Liverpool DOGSO situation and no intervention here for a handball leading to a goal, there is an element of whiplash and overall questions of when/why VAR gets involved.
I don’t see how accidental HB could possibly apply as the player who touched the ball didn’t immediately score. As for deliberate and biggering, I din’t see either of those as C&O here. Sure, there’s an argument for it, but especially by EPL handling standards, I don’t see any chance that gets sent down. And I don’t see a good comparsison to the other play. The Haaland foul was a C&O foul.he deliberately pulled the opponent down from behind. sure there is fan frustratio with VAR, but these (even as someone who would still like to abolish VAR) don’t seem to do much together to make the case.
Hmm. I mean, we just disagree on the latter two. I see a pretty obvious handball and think either clause could be applied. On the first one, I admit it's a big stretch and not really justifiable per the Laws, but I can see the English "sense of justice" getting there. But, yes, on the merits this isn't really a punishable accidental handball. I guess I'm saying that if a VAR for some reason couldn't get there on the other two, an overall sense of justice might get him there on this. But I suppose if they were narrowly interpreting the other two, they'd never then very liberally (and incorrectly) apply accidental, so you can disregard the argument. I'm not trying to compare the two from a refereeing standpoint. But from a fan standpoint, I think they do make a case. In the pre-VAR days, most fans would say "goal" for City and "handball" against Leeds. The fact that VAR is "used" (or not used) to get the opposite outcomes within a couple days of each other is the type of thing that leaves fans very, very confused.
Came here to say this. I saw the foul back on Sunday, read the whole thread above yesterday (or at least all that was posted then), and have thought about it for a while now. Obviously Pawson did not have that luxuary. So this isn't Monday morning QB, but Wed night (for me) QB. I think the best outcome is to tell the VAR right as ball enters goal: "I saw the foul, it was outside the area, I played advantage, then in light of that advantage deemed the goal line contact/hold triffling. Call on the field is goal." That puts the VAR now in the position of adjudicating the goal line shenanigans in the context of "is it triffiling given what the R just said?" That may be enough to keep him from calling it down. Once called down though, it would have to be a referee with a lot of cache to say "advantage to the foul, triffling contact on goal line, let's move on," or "two fouls more or less same time, I applied advantage to the first, goal..." because otherwise you end up with the send off and FK, which literally nobody other than the VAR wants (or I suppose maybe the sports betting person, or whatever the next opponent argumuent was above, that I just don't buy). Again, I bet there are only a few referees in the world that could get away with that. Its also not lost on me that in a non-VAR game, that is 100% the right call, so we are in a situation where every decent amature referee and maybe 10 other referees in the world go one way on it, and then every professional ref in a VAR game goes the other. But here we are.
The culture of MLS referees being more confident in telling VARs "no" definitely comes through here. Imagine Marrufo or Chapman accepting the "you need to cancel the goal and give the red" outcome? Maybe, reluctantly, they might today because PRO is a lot closer to technical uniformity. But a few years ago? Not a chance. As you suggest, I bet Marrufo would even tell the VAR not to send it down.
Here's a thought experiment stemming from the clip above: Let's pretend the "accidental handball" rule did apply here (pretend the attacker who handled the ball ultimately put it in, and the handball was deemed clearly not deliberate). I think there's an argument that the keeper fouls the attacker there just before the goal. Let's pretend here that it is a foul. Given that the "accidental handball" only applies once the ball is in the net -- could VAR award a penalty in that situation? Or is the handball deemed to have occurred at the moment of handling, even though it only becomes an offense after the goal is scored?
Oh, I definitely think it's a penalty if not for a goal, which is the other aspect I found interesting for sure. But I hadn't thought of the point you make. I think we have asked the specific last sentence in your post before, though; I just can't remember the context. The accidental handball provision requires the goal to be scored, so yeah, it creates a really weird technical zone if an accidental handball leads immediately to a penalty being awarded. I think the answer IFAB and FIFA and everyone like that wants is for the handball to be called and the penalty not to be awarded. But the Laws aren't written that way and a strict reading of them, in fact, would lead some officials to awarding the penalty.
It’s simply one of those (for too numerous) moments where the IFAB did a horrible job drafting their laws without thinking of all possible edge cases. I don’t think they even considered this possibility, to be honest.
That is interesting. I figured it would be the opposite. Because if a handball is accidental, meaning it shouldn’t be called, why should it then be called to nullify a penalty call that comes after it? Unless I’m misunderstanding the rule. This isn’t IFAB doing a horrible job. It’s really difficult to consider every single possibility that could ever happen from a decision and get every single one written in the laws. Same with the DOGSO decision we have all been discussing. Same with the goal line handball in the MLS playoffs a few years back that VAR didn’t call down because she couldn’t tell if it was deliberate or not and Barkey said “spirit of the game” meant it should be called. Sometimes you don’t even realize an issue with a law as written or that there’s an oversight in the laws until it happens in a game. You know somewhere that IFAB does deserve hate for the laws? Not putting in writing who the ball belongs to after a goal is scored and then pound it into the professional players heads for a year or two to hopefully somewhat mitigate the confrontations that occur in the goal after a losing team scores. I emailed them about it, they responded that they don’t care. That’s something they deserve hate for.
Because a goal couldn't be scored from dynamic play at that point, so the idea that you could get a penalty when your team couldn't immediately legally score a goal is... dubious. Which makes me remember the original scenario I couldn't recall above. The scenario we had once discussed is an accidental offensive handball that then is followed by a deliberate defensive handball to stop a clear goal. Per a plain reading of the Laws, the accidental handball is not an offence UNTIL the ball enters the net. So the foul, technically, should be called on the defense for the deliberate handling. But you can't give the red card because the goal could not legally be scored. So the result, per the strict reading of the Laws, is a penalty and no card... for a deliberate handball to stop a goal. The accidental handball provision creates a few paradoxes, particularly with VAR involvement. Well, broader language allowed for more flexibility and subjectivity. IFAB set on a course awhile ago to be more prescriptive in its law-writing, to reduce ambiguity and subjectivity. Couple that with the advent of VAR and, yeah, I'd say IFAB is making some mistakes that they don't notice and wouldn't have been an issue 15+ years ago if the general framework of the Laws didn't change.
No one took the bait on this one, which is fair enough. Because it is a little far-fetched. But I thought of one more... Everything is the exact same as it happened in the Liverpool v City incident except... the initial defensive foul is in the penalty area. So affirmative VAR interention results in red card and penalty kick, which restores the OGSO and, in the EPL, is like an 87% goal. I wonder what the reaction would have been to that, if the restart had been a pen instead of DFK.
I disagree about it not being terrible drafting. This was the second try, which at least was better than the first try that left a very wide range of applicability. So they narrowed it. But they really didn’t think through the permutations. It’s the problem IFAB often has adding a “solution” without really thinking through the implications—the unintended consequences (or lack of intended consequences) are a constant problem with the drafting process.
Foden’s yellow yesterday is worth a look if we can get a decent clip. Arguments for why it’s not red would be interesting to hear.
He has no chance to get the ball and the contact point is in the Achilles, but it's something you will rarely see a red card given for in the Premier League. This horrific tackle by Foden is a clear RED CARD.... but all he received was a cautionary yellow card. The PGMOL conspiracy in action! pic.twitter.com/sasim4Sfax— Real456Strength⤴️ (@_Real456s) February 11, 2026
“The leg was bent, therefore the force wasn’t there” - Howard Webb probably Seriously, England is such a confusing place for officiating to me. They have the man city DOGSO situation that seemed like the PERFECT opportunity to pull an England, say “eh, the goal was scored, who cares, no punishment” but instead they go strictly by the LOTG and get a crazy situation correct. Then they pull their crap like this to remind you of what they’re like