RateTheRef

Two talking points to come from this match
Aberdeen Penalty to equalise. It is a clear penalty. But as the Aberdeen player takes the penalty the ball moves backwards about 10-15cm.
Ryan Kent is sent off. Second Yellow looks incredibly soft.

Surely Mr Clancy will look at the replay and wish he had killed the shot and ordered a retake. If we are to rate Mr Clancys performance it must surely be low as his lack of knowledge of the LOTG has led to the result being affected.
In New South Wales an error in law like this has the potential to see the game annulled, restarted with the penalty kick again and then the last 17mins replayed. That would mean Kent does not get his second YC. The scenario of errors in Law being replayed has happened three times when video evidence has been presented.

Hey GingerRef,  Where the difference is, the McGregor Pen/No Pen is a judgement call. Clancy is wrong in Law.  what happens after that point, the second caution is fruit of the poison tree.

Just watched the highlights, and again far better level than I am working at, but some of the same logic applies.

To me from the start of the run up to the 'outcome' of the penalty between the referee and the assitant they are checking - encroachment across the box and D, goalkepper on/off line, taker (make sure they don't stop last step) and then ball over the line. At no point, once I have confirmed the ball is spotted correctly would I look at the ball, and as I say watchign the highlights, it starts to move a maximum of a second before it is struck - so that's a second for the ref to spot it in their peripheral vision and blow.

Not sure if it didn't make the highlights but there appears to be no complaint from Rangers (if there was - apologies) but to me if there's no major complaint, there wasn't time to blow before it happened - just guve the goal and move on. I feel talk of playign the game again is completely OTT, if not on windy days you will go back to look at every corner, free kick etc. find an incident where the ball just moves a CM before it's kicked and ask for the game to be replayed.

Quote from: Wollongong Ref on Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:11

Hey GingerRef,  Where the difference is, the McGregor Pen/No Pen is a judgement call. Clancy is wrong in Law.  what happens after that point, the second caution is fruit of the poison tree.

Hey, yh I get that, it is a poor mistake but thats why I think Scotland need to introduce VAR

Scotland *should* have VAR from the start of next season.  Officials are going through the various training elements.  We may see significant additions to Category One (development) and some additional SARs (also at development level) later this month, as well as in June.  They will be needed to help cope with the additional 12 officials needed every weekend for VAR to operate (2x additional officials per Premiership match).

All of that said, it’s not clear that VAR would have had any involvement.  If Mr Clancy had viewed that the attacker instigated contact, and had otherwise no chance of getting the ball, then it may not have been reviewed.  Whilst it is my opinion that it was a penalty, I doubt that belief is universal.  We have seen how VAR currently operates in England, and far more egregious offences have not been reviewed recently.

With respect to the ball moving on the penalty, this was likely missed because it’s not a referee’s priority, and anyone who professes to do otherwise is missing the obvious.  The idea that a FIFA referee is not aware that a ball must be stationary when taking a penalty kick is also a fairly ludicrous one.  It’s not an error in law any more than a missed foul is.

The AR’s job is the goalkeeper and the ball crossing the goal line, and the referee’s priority is to prevent/identify encroachment, and identify if there’s a clear feint when striking the ball.  The latter is usually obvious and doesn’t require total attention.  Whilst technically the penalty should have been retaken, the ball rolled towards the attacker and make a miss kick more likely.  This was nothing more than a technicality, and the defending team was not disadvantaged.

The two cautions for Mr Kent were perfectly acceptable. Overall, the performance was fine, with a few footnotes.