UEFA Competitions 2023-2024 Referee Discussions [Rs]

Discussion in 'Referee' started by MassachusettsRef, Jun 23, 2023.

  1. soccerref69420

    soccerref69420 Member+

    President of the Antonio Miguel Mateu Lahoz fan cub
    Mar 14, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Korea DPR
    The fact that "it wasn't called on the field" means nothing. Perhaps the referee didn't see it. So if a referee no-calls something because he didn't see it, does it mean he didn't think it was a foul and shouldn't get an opportunity to look at it again? The fact that the referee called nothing at all on this shows he didn't see it. What if getting the chance to look at it at the monitor actually IS now him making his call and sticking to it?

    And just because there is debate amongst former player pundits doesn't mean there is gray area. I haven't heard any former players who say a RC was wrong giving actual fact-based LOTG reasoning for why, while the former players who are saying it's a RC are using LOTG terminology of endangering the safety of an opponent, which gives them much more credibility that people saying "just seems harsh".

    And still waiting on someone who disagrees with the RC to give their opinion on what should have been called instead.

    Clearly it's more important about what some ex-professional player pundits think about challenges than the UEFA board though.
     
    ilyazhito repped this.
  2. Mikael_Referee

    Mikael_Referee Member+

    Jun 16, 2019
    England
    StarTime repped this.
  3. mathguy ref

    mathguy ref Member+

    Nov 15, 2016
    TX
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Oh my. Compare that first clip, foul and no goal to the NU-ARS call.
     
  4. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #179 MassachusettsRef, Nov 16, 2023
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2023
    Surprised at this reaction. For two reasons.

    First, I don't really see the comparison as useful. In this case, an arm is almost fully extended and it's into the back of the defender who is clearly affected by it. There's not a contested challenge with arms involved. The extended push is the "challenge." Unless you (or anyone else) thinks the force is so negligible that the contact is trifling, this is an obvious, obvious foul; he's deliberately pushing him to ensure that there is no contest for the ball. And even if you think it's trifling, you essentially have to tell the world that the defender is simulating rather than trying to stop an OGSO... which, isn't crazy, but it's also a very, very challenging sell. No goal seems like the expected call in 99.9% of cases here. With Newcastle-Arsenal, there's a challenge at the back post with two bodies in close proximity. They are both leaping for a header. The arms of the defender are up and they are on the attacker but there's always a question in those cases of how much is enough for a foul. Is it normal contact or a push? If the bodies were inversed and the attacker was goalside, would this really be a penalty? Reasonable people can disagree. And if a foul was called, then sure, it's a foul. But it seems like we are trying to compare a 95/5 or better case with a 55/45 case.

    And that leads me to my second reason for surprise at your reaction. Plays like this, with potential APP fouls on aerial challenges, happen dozens of times every weekend globally in competitions with VAR. And the referees make judgment calls. We only want VAR intervention for the obvious misses. So unless you're of the opinion that there was an obvious missed foul in England but this was, somehow, obviously not a foul (or much less of a foul), I don't see a big deal here.
     
    ilyazhito repped this.
  5. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I do think clips 3 and 4 (and maybe even 5) are quite interesting and worthy of some discussion.

    On clip 3... what is a natural movement there? I guess if you're going to head the ball like that, your arm has to be somewhere. At the same time, the ball doesn't deflect off his body. He just misses the header. And heading there instead of kicking is an obvious tactical choice. Should he face consequences when the ball hits his arm and he clearly benefits? Feels like a case where he took a risk and penalty is a just result. But I know the arguments the other way about "natural position as a consequence..." Seems like a really good example to illustrate you'll never be able to legislate handball law fully. Also, no way this goes uncalled at midfield or if an attacker did it; which, to me, kind of gives away what football expects the call to be.

    On clip 4... that's offside. If offside position is confirmed (and I think the length of the check implies it was) then it's offside. I think this is an English VAR screwing up again.

    Clip 5 is only interesting to the theoretical debate of whether or not that gets given in a huge EPL match. It's great Taylor goes red here. Even better he does it without VAR. But if that's Man City versus Chelsea and the guy's name is Sterling... what's he doing? I'm not convinced evidence shows the same conclusion is reached.
     
    ilyazhito, StarTime and socal lurker repped this.
  6. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    On 3, it seems a great example of inconsistent use of VAR. Not sending that down seems inconsistent with most of what we see with HB being conisdered more objective. That seems a pretty easy HB in the modern game.

    On 4, I also don’t get it. Did the VAR consider it a play by the defender? That seems a stretch to me. Perhaps the AR/R called it a play and the VAR didn’t think it was C&O error?
     
    StarTime repped this.
  7. mathguy ref

    mathguy ref Member+

    Nov 15, 2016
    TX
    Club:
    Manchester United FC

    I am of that opinion. I thought that was a foul then and should have been called and I have no issues with the call here. Its a foul. The call before obviously fell into the no foul category in England and the VAR affirmed he also had no foul. Yet here is an English referee making that call here and deciding it was a foul and the English VAR having no issues with that foul (or so I assume as we cannot hear the audio). I find that interesting. Not amazing, but really just more "yeah, they arent refereeing the game the same" interesting.

    Clip 5 is the same. As you pointed out Taylor just ignored a much worse case of SFP with Sterling last weekend. And yet he went to the back pocket here and his VAR affirmed it.
     
  8. soccerref69420

    soccerref69420 Member+

    President of the Antonio Miguel Mateu Lahoz fan cub
    Mar 14, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Korea DPR
    Why do we bother wondering if Taylor would call this a red card in EPL? We all know EPL is officiated differently from all other competitions and there’s very little to learn or carry over from it.

    It is great that Taylor went straight red so clearly he can identify it. If Webb tells him to ignore these in EPL, that’s not Taylor’s fault
     
  9. StarTime

    StarTime Member+

    United States
    Oct 18, 2020
    The third clip is one of those where you guys know I would love to see that not be considered a handball due to natural position, but ultimately it seems like this has been taught as a handball by UEFA and I’m surprised it didn’t get sent down. I don’t love it, but based on previous instruction I would expect a penalty there.

    Number 4 is offside unless there was no offside position to begin with. I have deflection there rather than deliberate play with control.
     
    ilyazhito repped this.
  10. gaolin

    gaolin Member+

    Apr 21, 2019
  11. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That angle at 31 seconds...

    Sure he didn't do everything to avoid contact but why is that on the attacker?
     
  12. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I was also surprised this decision stood.

    Yes, Kane is playing for the penalty. No doubt about that. But the Maltese keeper fell for the bait. He took up every bit of space where Kane could plausibly put his leg as part of a natural running movement to pursue the ball. Kane would have to take extraordinary measures to avoid the challenge--to the extent that he might have to sacrifice successful pursuit of the ball. This wasn't a case where Kane unnaturally stuck his leg into the goalkeeper or dragged it from a previous stride to ensure contact.

    I get what the referee felt he saw. And, based on instinct and appearance from his angle, I don't necessarily fault him. But that's a penalty in my book.
     
  13. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Kavanagh VAR:

    https://dubz.live/c/bde7f9

    There is zero chance in the world that this would be given in the EPL. Zero. Can there be negative zero?

    And if this was a UEFA match of real consequence, I think it might be close to zero. Imagine this given in a EURO or UCL semi? But Gibraltar in an away match? No problem.

    I will say that the “ankle buckled” seems to be the inverse of “glancing” in UEFA now.
     
    RedStar91 and Mikael_Referee repped this.
  14. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Buckled ankle is everything now:

    https://streamin.me/v/6bcd13ce

    Not that it shouldn’t be, in a way (notwithstanding some extraordinary circumstances). I’m more worried that the absence of the buckled ankles is now an excuse to not sanction SFP.
     
  15. soccerref69420

    soccerref69420 Member+

    President of the Antonio Miguel Mateu Lahoz fan cub
    Mar 14, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Korea DPR
    Has there been any evidence that a lack of buckled ankle will mean that they aren't sanctioning SFP? From what I have seen. they are still pretty regulary giving the IFAB LOTG SFP "lunging with one/two outstretched legs" even without evidence of a buckles ankle.

    Also man that is a smooth card transition from Frappart, AND with the shirt velcro pocket. So nice to see a ref who isn't sitting there fumbling around their pockets for their cards.
     
  16. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Only the last 15 years or so of the sport.

    Are red cards given for SFP? Yes. Are they given with anywhere near the same frequency they were a few WC cycles ago? Absolutely not. But, suddenly, they are being given religiously--at least inside UEFA--when the ankle buckles.

    I'm loath to even reply to you on silliness like this. But I will use this observation to point out that the more important mechanic related issue here is the whistle stuck firmly in her mouth. Way too many referees have acquired this bad habit during the carding procedure.
     
    gaolin repped this.
  17. gaolin

    gaolin Member+

    Apr 21, 2019
    AremRed and ShayG repped this.
  18. soccerref69420

    soccerref69420 Member+

    President of the Antonio Miguel Mateu Lahoz fan cub
    Mar 14, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Korea DPR
    Well that's good if they are starting to give them out more often then because they seem to be somewhat consistent with them and are taking potential ankle breaks more seriously, hopefully it will soon start to discourage players from trying them, but I doubt it

    Is the whistle mechanic bad because the ref might have to talk to the player and can't do that with the whiste in their mouth? I admit I never noticed this

    I know it's silly to look at the smoothness of carding procedure but there's just something cringy about seeing the ref fumbling around with their shirt pocket velcro or back shorts pocket velcro to take out a yellow card or red card especially doing it in front of a player

    That player seemed to be taken aback by him snapping at him. Good for Marciniak though not putting up with that whining.
     
  19. MetroFever

    MetroFever Member+

    Jun 3, 2001
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    It appeared to me that Ukraine's Mudryk gets fouled in the penalty area around the 93rd minute in the match vs Italy.

    I'm guessing anyone opposed to a PK would feel he oversold it? The Italian defender was relieved nothing was whistled.
     
    Brilliant Oranje repped this.
  20. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd


    Infuriating at a lack of any decision.

    It's a penalty or simulation. You can't just give nothing there. You have to sell something to the players and do your job and make some decision there.
     
    Brilliant Oranje, M and MetroFever repped this.
  21. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Thanks to @Mikael_Referee for the slow-motion here:
    https://www.streambug.io/cv/94d985

    Seems like it's a pretty straightforward foul. I get the desire to not want to make a call in real-time. In a lot of ways, it's like the Kane simulation card from last matchday. Yes, the attacker is absolutely looking for the penalty. But the defender has taken a risk and obliged. Here, you can add in a layer of embellishing or overselling the contact. That said, the contact is still there.

    It's peculiar, isn't it? In the old days, I do think most refs--good ones, at least--would be forced into a decision. It's either a simulation or it's a penalty. Call it and deal with the consequences. Now that we have VAR, referees A) don't want to be embarrasingly wrong on such a big call and B) argue, to themselves and the players on the field, that VAR will intervene if it's really a penalty. But then VAR doesn't intervene because... well, in those olden days, plays like this didn't get given as penalties all the time. It's circular and you end up with the no-call as the default.

    As an aside, imagine if this had gone the other way and Italy failed to qualify directly on this play in this moment of the final matchday.
     
  22. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Thankfully Italians are known for taking refereeing decisions against them well so I'm sure things would have been fine.
     
  23. soccerref69420

    soccerref69420 Member+

    President of the Antonio Miguel Mateu Lahoz fan cub
    Mar 14, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Korea DPR
    This is a great video, the evidence of the contact on the trailing left leg is damning
    upload_2023-11-20_21-4-35.png

    Although unfortunately I am not skilled enough to be able to recognize these instances of when the defender does a bad poke at the ball and the attacker "dragged his leg" across the defender or when the attacker is "fishing" for the penalty and it therefore is a dive. The only one I remember was the one Marciniak gave in the World Cup.
     
  24. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    The announcer said, “Thankfully, it’s not the Ukraine way to challenge the referee but if this were reversed, we’d have bedlam.”
     
    Brilliant Oranje repped this.
  25. Brilliant Oranje

    Ajax
    Netherlands
    Mar 4, 2023
    Amsterdam and Marbella
    Nat'l Team:
    Netherlands
    Here's another video.
    Mudryk definitely dove, but I also felt there was enough contact for a PK.
    I get the feeling if this happened to a big footballing country it wouldve been given.

    My verdict: PENALTY

     

Share This Page