This x1000. This is what I've always found so confusing about England and feel like @Mikael_Referee and I have had a back and forth about it before. So many weird or technical things where the default move is essentially "sorry, our hands are tied" and the result is a very strange or peculiar decision that people would probably be okay with if the laws were bent otherwise. But then on foul physical play, rather than rigidly enforcing the letter of the law, they stretch subjective latitude beyond its limits to avoid what I think are expected results in the modern game. It's definitely a cultural thing, I just don't understand why. I actually get the reasoning or motivation behind the second part. A tradition of more physicality and not wanting over-involvement from referees. But you'd think that philosophy would apply to the technical stuff, too; if it's a hard physical game, why do they want or countenance referees making game-altering decisions on obscure stuff?
Thank you for getting the video. For what it's worth, I thought it was so bad/blatant and in isolation with no real mitigation that I actually do expect a red in England for this. I think the only argument is "it was an accident" to the extent he didn't mean to foul him there and like that. But, well, that just doesn't seem good enough for me. Plus, it's an accident caused by a deliberate attempt to foul anyway, which seems like it should matter; it's not like he just inadvertantly stepped on him out of the blue.
FWIW, the consensus on the UK ref board I go to seems to be red and worthy (though close) of VAR intervention.
It'll be some BS about the opponent's leg not being fully planted and the force being mitigated somehow.
You worded it properly, the disconnect between their laxity on physical play but sometimes technical adherence to the LOTG. But then you have other times they ignore technical adherence, like comes up a lot where they don’t properly give cards especially in penalty decisions. As much as I hate the whining about “consistency” that always happens in refereeing, it truly is one of the most frustrating things about seeing these premier league incidents. It’s like you never know when they’re going to apply consistently with the LOTG, and when they’re going to just make up some crap. It’s almost like when a person is near death and suddenly they get this burst of energy and normalcy right before they die. EPL refs degrade and degrade then they have the DOGSO incident where you say “what the hell is going on, how are EPL refs doing this”, and then right back to degrading with the non-red card
Yeah, that was what really surprised me (perhaps it shouldn't have). He first tries to grab him and pull him back but can't because Bassey is too strong. And then he rakes down the achilles.
No handball at 8:15 in the highlights video is peak England. It seems to hit the arm that’s just fully extended perpendicular to the ground. No handball if it hits the tucked in arm but the one replay shown in broadcast shows the ball clearly hitting the arm that is out.
Can't really tell much from this clip, though. Did the ball maybe hit the body first? I'm all for piling on, the arm is so blatantly out that I find it hard to believe that got check completed. Just like the Foden incident, it's so bad that I expect it to be easily given in England. Though, now that I type that out I see the problem.
Looks like it hit the tucked right arm before hitting the outstretched left arm https://streambug.org/cv/5523a1
Yeah, so the argument will be that the nonpunishable deflection of the right arm will make the otherwise clearly punishable handball by the left hand not punishable. And my head will continue to spin.
Agreed. I have never understood why “biggering” should not apply after a deflection. The concept of it is that the player unfairly took up space with the arm. That is still the case if there is a deflection. It does make sense as a consideration towards deliberate. But the powers that be ne longer want factors that contribute to judgment, but want to turn all grey into black and white.
These black and white considerations (or at least close to black and white) are the effort to create "consistency" even though they lead to some absurd decisions. Worked pretty well at first in UEFA when the RAP stuff first came out but VAR led to these considerations causing some bizarre "technically correct" decisions.
Newcastle’s non-penalty today. Hooo, boy. 3-1 win anyway so no repercussions. But quite literally the type of incident that VAR was invented for.
Wow. I had only seen that one highlight so commented. You have... 14' - clear offside goal by Villa. 30' - I have a pretty clear penalty for Newcastle; yes, the attacker let's his legs go so it looks like a dive, but I mean the defender just sticks his legs in between his opponent's legs and doesn't play the ball nor come anywhere near the ball. 41' - I have SFP for Digne/Villa. The (or an) argument will be that the final contact was on the top of the foot and that the initial contact wasn't flush against the shin and that the leg wasn't fully extended. But the initial contact was on the shin and it's the toes of the studs directly into it. Plus, it's just a ridiculous lunging challenge that never had a chance of being near the ball. To me, the idea he hits shin *and* foot should almost make it all the worse, yet some referees and instructors will use the foot contact as the primary argument for mitigation. There was a time when this was an easy red just for the overall look of it. 45+1 - DOGSO red card to Villa keeper, which hopefully no one has arguments with or has to look at more than twice. I'd like this to be SFP red for the complete inability and attempt to play the ball as well as the knee-high contact, but I am not holding my breath. 52 - a very interesting and I'd say somewhat suspect simulation card against Newcastle. Like 30', sure, attacker doesn't try hard to stay up, but that's quite a new standard; physical contact is there and I don't think it's a stretch to say it's a foul, even if very soft. 61' - the atrocious non-penalty decision. Not sure how you get this wrong. He handles. You call it. He jumps from within the penalty area and he lands in the penalty area. I mean, he never physically leaves the penalty area even when he protests! I know he's relying on AR and much blame falls on the AR, but that's just not good enough. This is unacceptable. 70' - only flagging because it's highlighted in the video. Yeah, a bit of a headlock movement but Burn has his arm wrapped around the defender's back, too, and is looking to go down. Ball lands nowhwere near. This is not a penalty. I mean, everything went against Newcastle here except the red card that just had to be given. 14' and 61' get reviewed and reversed in EPL. I think 30' gets reviewed and awarded almost anywhere but England (though I'm sure there'd be dissent among officials in some leagues). 41' feels like it's red in the southern part of this hemisphere and in many domestic competitions adjacent to the Mediterranean, but probably not elsewhere. But both 30' and 41' could have been given live on the field here in England and then upheld; neither would be clear errors if given.
Anyone want to argue that 2:28 isn't DOGSO red? Also 90+2' is a great example of the stupidity of coach yellow cards. Something was so bad that we had to kill the game in the dying moments of a one goal game with the losing team in the attacking third and in possession of the restart... for a referee to walk over and flash a yellow and then end the match two minutes later. I'm living in the past on this one, but at that point the behavior either needs to warrant dismissal or you just get on with it. A yellow card does nothing and pleases no one; in no way is it a service to the game.
Nope. But I can see how with one live look the R could have thought the inside defender was in position to challenge to make it not an OGSO. At the professional level, I pretty much agree about the cards for coaches (or perhaps about giving one here). But at the youth level, I love them. It is much more clear to coaches who may not otherwise understand what a "tell" means. And for youth refs, it is much easier to use the card than have to tell an adult a "tell."
I just can't believe the AR, at this level, isn't helping (or, if he is trying to help, helping better). There's a pretty amazing touch line view on the second replay, which shows this is DOGSO clear as day. Yeah, if someone wants to make the argument that carding coaches at the youth level makes things easier or, in particular, helps youth referees more confidently assert their authority, I won't quibble too much (though I think I've argued in the past that this both can become a crutch that erodes the development of bench management skills AND is a lot more theoretical than practical, but again, won't argue too strenuously). But then make it a local competition amendment. At the professional level it is farcical and has only coincided with worsening technical area behavior.
I had to toss my first adult when I was a preteen and there was not an adult as part of the ref team. (Different era!) Don’t know that I would have been able to do that without cards. But I take the point at higher levels of youth play, the rules should be the same as adults. I was really thinking of rec level where advancing is in the minds of a very small minority of refs.
Kavanagh stood down from Premier League round after errors in Villa loss to Newcastle https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-villa-newcastle-fa-cup-tie?CMP=share_btn_url
The worse part is before the yellow cards to coaches the bar for "irresponsible behavior" was pretty wide and truly in the opinion of the referee. With the advent of yellow cards and red cards for coaches, IFAB had to codify behavior that warranted a yellow and red card. So you would think red and yellow cards would be more common as the referee hands were tied. Somehow that is not the case, especially in the EPL. I still have no clue how Arteta is not getting sent off or suspended for card accumulation multiple times a season. Referees are just flat out ignoring blatant violations because of "yeah he touched the ball but it just doesn't feel like a red card."
Match officials micd up released a new episode and it has the VAR discussion about the man city Liverpool DOGSO nullifying the goal situation Also has a ref on his first game refusing the VAR intervention on a handball penalty.
So the referee in the Wolves situation essentially said "yeah, his arm is out unnaturally but it hits the elbow, not the arm." Huh? And Webb says they are fine with the outcome. Okay. The Liverpool clip is interesting in that we have confirmation Pawson didn't register the second foul and only played advantage on the first. We don't need to relitigate the entire discussion, but the idea (from Webb and voiced by real-time in the VOR) that you simply "can't" allow the goal really does stem from the advent of VAR. I'm also shocked (but not shocked) that Webb just flat-out defends the Leeds handball as natural and not deliberate. But again, we already had that discussion.