Author Topic: Crystal Palace vs. Chelsea, Christopher Kavanagh [VAR: Attwell]  (Read 1059 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

nemesis

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 964
    • View Profile
Personally I think red, but there is no way VAR can get involved as very difficult to say a caution was a clear and obvious error.

  ..... hasn't stopped them in the past !

ajb95

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,042
    • View Profile
Clear red card. The nearest covering defender is 20 yards away. For Kavanagh to get it wrong on the field is poor, but at least understandable. For the VAR to get it wrong is inept

Acme Thunderer

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,035
    • View Profile
Distance from goal is surely irrelevant. There were no covering players between Ayew and the goal, CK did not give a foul for Ayew's challenge on Silva, therefore red card was appropriate for DOGSO.

Ashington46

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 761
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Ashington, Northumberland
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Retired for years!
Distance from goal is surely irrelevant. There were no covering players between Ayew and the goal, CK did not give a foul for Ayew's challenge on Silva, therefore red card was appropriate for DOGSO.

Let's be brutally honest. Silva probably saved Ayew the embarrassment of yet another miss. He is hardly prolific when it comes to scoring goals.
I thought that Ayew fouled Silva, soft perhaps, however, in the modern game, it was a foul, although I honestly don't know how the different officials are coming to decisions these days. It is obvious from the comments on this board that confusion reigns.
Referee's decision used to be final!
Agree Agree x 2 View List

JCFC

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,566
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Brighouse
    • View Profile
Distance from goal is surely irrelevant. There were no covering players between Ayew and the goal, CK did not give a foul for Ayew's challenge on Silva, therefore red card was appropriate for DOGSO.

Let's be brutally honest. Silva probably saved Ayew the embarrassment of yet another miss. He is hardly prolific when it comes to scoring goals.
I thought that Ayew fouled Silva, soft perhaps, however, in the modern game, it was a foul, although I honestly don't know how the different officials are coming to decisions these days.         It is obvious from the comments on this board that confusion reigns.

It is obvious from decisions on the field that confusion reigns.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Rosstheref

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Yellow for me. He's a long way from goal still and is to the left hand side of the pitch, not bearing down directly on goal.

It's also one that I think will split opinion!
Agree Agree x 1 View List

RCG

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,639
    • View Profile
I think the fact the decision has split pundits and fans alike would suggest there was a goal scoring opportunity but not an obvious one.
Personally I thought it was a long way out  on the angle, leaving the attacker quite a lot to do, even if their next touch took them back towards goal
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Observeref8

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Not a good return for Kavanagh IMO which is his first game back at PL Level.

A lot of the lads from work were in disbelief it was not a red card due to the cynical nature of what
Silva did…… I think everywhere other than England Refs are giving red Cards.

Really poor, and again with Attwell as a VAR.

RCG

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,639
    • View Profile
Whilst I agree it is cynical, there is nothing in the laws that allow for an upgrade, if DOGSO is not applied

rustyref

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,131
    • View Profile
Whilst I agree it is cynical, there is nothing in the laws that allow for an upgrade, if DOGSO is not applied

Exactly, the officials can only look at the criteria needed for DOGSO, which are ...

- Distance between offence and goal.  This was quite a long way although not too far.
- General direction of the play.  He's wide and that counts against the obviousness of it.
- Likelihood keeping or gaining control of the ball.  Ticks this one.
- Location and number of defenders.  Chilwell looks a long way away, but he is central and that potentially makes the distance shorter.

So I'd say one of those is a definite yes, and the other three are more maybes.  They don't all have to be met, but (and this isn't an official method) if we score 1 for yes, 0 for no and 0.5 for maybe, that is 2.5 out of 4.  Is that enough to make it an OGSO?  I don't think so personally, any maybes question the word obvious, three of them majorly question it. 

There is absolutely nothing in law to say that it being cynical, which this undoubtedly was, should or can be considered in the decision making process.
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Gorgeous George

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
I’ve been trying to put into words why I felt this was a SPA and not a DOGSO and I think Rustyref covers this absolutely perfectly. Too much doubt for me personally, and the cynical nature of it doesn’t change that, as much as the whole world would like it to!
Agree Agree x 1 View List