Even for the English var fvckery that we’re used to, I don’t see how the handling infraction gets called. The handling occurs before the failed clearance by the defender, which rebounds to the attacker. Anyway if the handling really does eliminate the possibility of a goal scoring opportunity , I agree that the fair result should have been a dfk for spurs.
I am not a ref but I think the penalty call on Gomez for grabbing Sterling was correct. Don't know why Lee Dixon said it wasn't.
The handball is what blocks the failed clearance. The ball then ricochets to Kane. It's a dumb law for all the reasons we've laid out, but the ball does directly go to Kane to create the goal-scoring opportunity.
Because Dixon likes to complain and not think about things critically? And he was a defender? Yes, Sterling lets himself go at the end to sell the call. But Gomez had him wrapped up by the waist for a not insignificant amount of time. It was a deliberate foul to prevent Sterling from beating him. Easy penalty for me. One can only hope Taylor would have called it even if Sterling didn't let himself go--and he might have, but most referees would not.
Hey- from the replays it seemed that the handling occurred when moura was falling to the ground with his arm out- the defender clearance struck moura pretty much square in the back. I could be wrong...
Look at the streamable clip that @Bradley Smith posted. It's admittedly hard to tell from one angle and possible he does touch it first on the way down. But to me it seems pretty clear that the clearance is directly off the upper arm and not the back. I mean, the fact that that component of this fiasco isn't clear is just icing on the cake.
Look at the potential penalty and red card on the foul by Kyle Walker at the 9:40 minute mark in the video. I'm really curious if the VAR even considered DOGSO or was he just focused on it being in or out. I don't know how you can view this and not recommend a red card for DOGSO.
Disagree on this one. That's not a red card. The ball is head-height at Mane's right shoulder when he goes to control the ball (and the foul actually occurs before the ball even reaches Mane). That next touch--if the player controls it--is always going away from goal and always going to be bouncing. This is a difficult play to see through to a goal. Direction isn't necessarily the out here, but it helps. "Likelihood to gain possession and control the ball" is the out. It might be high with a player like Mane, but it's just not obvious here.
I love Lee Dixon (obviously) but vehemently disagree with him here. Clear foul. At one point, Gomes is practically grabbing Sterling's junk.
It’s absolutely a penalty. If that is called at midfield, absolutely no one thinks twice about it. Gomez is wrapping Sterling up for several seconds. I’m normally a fan of Lee Dixon’s analysis, but his past experience as a defender biased him here. If we are going to get some of the grappling out of the game, this has to be called. Anthony Taylor got it right.
Gomez had a tough day all around. Got beat badly on another goal. I know he was out hurt when the season resumed, and his fitness seems to be lacking.
Shout for handling in NEW:WHU (9th or 10th min). Correct non-call. But it got me wondering. The ball had the keeper beat. But for the ball striking the hand, that ball is going in. IFAB modified the laws to rule out goals that are scored as a result of accidental handling. I wonder why they didn’t go both ways and give a PK for accidental handling that prevents a goal. Obviously, it takes judgment, but so does handling itself.
When did we get to the point that we don’t call fouls in the PA unless they’re bad fouls? 73’ LIV:AVL Did Saha go down easy? Sure. But the defender clearly grabbed his arm and pulled him down. So tired of seeing that BS not called. Players cheat because referees let them cheat.
Because they don't want defenders to try to play without arms. The explanations were in with the changes in the grand book.
Thanks, I understand. It just odd. Much like deliberately stopping a goal with your hand is a send off, but deliberately using your hand to score a goal is only a caution.
Have never understood why some people find this odd. If you get caught deliberately scoring a goal with your hand, the goal doesn't count. Your cheating isn't rewarded. Nothing changes in the game. You are therefore punished with a yellow card and warned not to try to cheat again. If you get caught deliberately stopping a goal with your hand, the goal is stopped and cannot be awarded. Your cheating works. The scoreline of the game is affected. You are therefore punished with a red card and not allowed to cheat anymore.
Watching the Leicester v. Arsenal match. I personally think that Sian Massey-Ellis makes a good call for disallowing a goal that Leicester put away (foul in the build-up). However, I think her going big with a flag signal was overkill. She should've gone over the mic system or wait and stand at attention. However, BPL has way different views on AR's assistance than the US. The funny part is that Robbie and Kyle Martino both give her lots of credit.... so media pundits giving reff's props. Ill take it! I'd be curious to hear what her AR coaches would say.
Interesting that Chris Kavanaugh did an OFR on that VAR-upgraded red card. Announcers said that referees are encouraged to do an OFR for SFP, though I hadn't seen an OFR in the EPL before.
It's 4:48 at the below video. I disagree with your analysis and assessment. The foul occurs at 4:51. She keeps running with play and doesn't signal for about 2-2.5 seconds. To me, it's very obvious that she's made the verbal communication to alert Kavanagh of what she's seen and then flags. And she has to flag to visually sell the call because, well, Kavanagh never saw it himself. What would be the virtue of doing this only over the mic or by standing at attention? If the world knows the referee didn't see it and then has no visual signal that the AR saw it, how does that serve the officiating team as a whole?
Hmm, interesting I don't think its that obvious that the referee didn't see it. He has good proximity to play when he whistles and has decent line of sight of the foul, although, his focus is on where the penalty area meets the goal line with Vardy. Why does the referee need the credibility of the assistant here? especially since its right on top of the penalty area. Why force the referees hand in this decision? Plus you have VAR. I mean they got the call right but... Maybe I am coming from a more amateur/adult/college mentality, and concerned about the referee's credibility being shot.
Let's start by ensuring we're working from the same set of facts or perspective. Now that you've watched again, do you believe she flagged immediately or do you think she consulted with/informed Kavanagh before doing so? This goes to the heart of you thinking the referee's hand was "forced" in anyway here. My training shows that she saw the foul, alerted Kavanagh to the call she was about to make, and then she flagged as he whistled at nearly the same time. It worked perfectly. Hell, it's possible Kavanagh asked her over the comms what she had, she says "foul foul foul" and they went at nearly the same time. But it seems obvious that there was communication here between the foul and the signals to stop play. As for the new assertion that he has a good line of sight on the foul, I disagree entirely. Play is going down the left channel and there is about to be a potential challenge on the ball in the penalty area. That's where his focus is. In his periphery, sure he will have seen a coming together. But that's likely all he will have seen. If he could discern an off-the-ball foul there appropriately, I would suggest he might not be focused enough on the play at hand. This is a classic situation of where the AR needs to lead on a foul call even though the CR has proximity. It is directly in her field of vision--it is not for Kavanagh. It's not necessarily a case where the referee needs the AR's "credibility." He just simply needs the AR. Finally, VAR shouldn't even enter the discussion here. If the AR sees an obvious foul, then she calls it. Other than very slight delays on OGSOs or corner kicks where a foul call might be dubious, what you're suggesting is terrible practice. Let's pretend she sees this foul and then doesn't call it... and the ball doesn't end up in the net. Now what? You can't go back and call the foul. So the attacking team gets a corner kick and scores. Or retains possession off a rebound and scores. Or retains possession out on the wing and a different defender commits a red card offence. There are a plethora of potential results other than a goal and a goal is the only way VAR comes into play for a foul like this. And that's why you call the foul. You don't wait.
I think it would’ve been equally “fine” for her to just communicate foul over the comms and not flag, to be honest. I do think how it worked out was just about perfect though. Credit to her for flagging this foul, it takes guts to do that when the referee is so close. I’m kind of in the camp that Kavanaugh should have at least perceived that something (AKA a foul) happened even without her help. I mean it wasn’t really that far away. But maybe I’m being too harsh.
My opinion only, but Kavanagh has to focus on the ball there and not shift focus to where the ball may go. You have an attacker with speed approaching the penalty area, and a defender is closing. You are looking at a possible SPA caution. You are also starting to think about a inside/outside of the area foul call in a spot where the AR can’t help all that much. Since the ball could (and was) played back to the middle, Kavanagh was in a good position and not too wide. I’m with MassRef on this one. It sure looked like great teamwork between one of the Premier League’s best assistants and a good center referee. This is why we work as a team of three or four on the field.
This could very well irrelevant to the premier league but I asked Chris Penso particularly about how you never see the taught flag up-eye contact-waggle flag mechanic for AR called fouls in the pros. He said that his AR says “foul” on the comm and if he agrees he says back “give it, and the waggle flag up and whistle are practically simultaneous. This very much seems what happened here, esp since kavanaugh decelerates and whistles pretty much as massey’s flag goes up. As for the tunnel vision, kavanagh has to burst toward the corner. Not only does his focus justifiably lie there, it is really unnatural to run as fast as you can and be looking not where you are going. Even if he caught it in his periphery that something happened, is he going to be sure it was a foul vs a collision? Kudos to Massey, killing it like usual.