RateTheRef

Aye, that'll be right, and NASA will be about to announce that the Moon is made of green cheese.

I would agree. It was certainly a tale of two halves for Treimanis.

First half, his foul detection seemed off, to be polite, and he cautioned Walker, Silva and Cancelo for fouls that were soft at best, but let the same kind of challenges go unpunished by the Porto players (Pepe, Corona, Sarrs). 
I also wasn't convinced it was a penalty, and/or whether it should have been a YC/RC for the contact from Gündogan on their keeper.

Second half, was markedly improved imo. It felt like he'd been talked to at HT by someone who said "just calm down" and that he did. Had shades of a UEFA Referee who deserved to be there in the second half, for sure.

I don't say this very often but after Wednesday's spectacle it was a pleasure to see a balanced display from Anthony Taylor.  West Ham could well have had a penalty though it probably fell within the ubiquitous "not a clear and obvious error" category much beloved of VAR - I can think of one referee who wouldn't have hesitated to give it.  Rhodri (I think) should have had a yellow card for a pull back where advantage was played. 
Other than that I can think of a handful of free kicks which seemed to me to have more to do with exaggerated reaction to minimal contact than the severity of the challenge.  Simulation seems to be a part of the game now.  Whether Taylor was more perceptive than the Latvian or whether Porto - who appeared to have been schooled in the dark arts by Lord Voldermort himself - were simply more adept is a matter of opinion.

If that's the case, I've learnt something, although I'm not sure I understand the logic.

That could be interesting if it would be a 2nd YC.  Does the referee play advantage, thus avoiding the player being sent off, or stop play irrespective of an advantage knowing, or even because, it means a RC?   

Edit:  Or is that similar to as it was previously in effect in that referees were advised not to play advantage and go back to issue a RC? 

Quote from: ajb95 on Sat 24 Oct 2020 20:06

Quote from: Microscopist on Sat 24 Oct 2020 18:15

I don't say this very often but after Wednesday's spectacle it was a pleasure to see a balanced display from Anthony Taylor.  West Ham could well have had a penalty though it probably fell within the ubiquitous "not a clear and obvious error" category much beloved of VAR - I can think of one referee who wouldn't have hesitated to give it.  Rhodri (I think) should have had a yellow card for a pull back where advantage was played. 
Other than that I can think of a handful of free kicks which seemed to me to have more to do with exaggerated reaction to minimal contact than the severity of the challenge.  Simulation seems to be a part of the game now.  Whether Taylor was more perceptive than the Latvian or whether Porto - who appeared to have been schooled in the dark arts by Lord Voldermort himself - were simply more adept is a matter of opinion.

If you play advantage for a foul that would be classed as stopping a promising attack, you cannot go back and caution the player - new rule for this season!

If that's true its a nonsense.  Correction - another nonsense.

Ah, but isn't it good to see that the powers that be successfully identified which of the game's many problems most urgently needed addressing?

From law 12 ....

Advantage
 If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/
sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity,
the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.

Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear
opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player when the ball is next out of play, but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with
an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick, unless the player committed a more serious offence.

The logic is fairly obvious: if you play advantage you cannot caution for stopping a promising attack as the promising attack has still happened.

We had this debate about 30 years ago when a red card for DOGSO was originally introduced.  The logic of the argument at that time was that the foul had terminated the first goal-scoring opportunity / promising attack and should be sanctioned as such.  Anything resulting from the referee choosing to play advantage was a new opportunity / promising attack.

It made sense to me, but then it was always said that I was a bit too quick with the cards 

I think the change generally makes sense because the foul often has no material effect, although I think it would be worth allowing the referee some latitude for if an attack continued but became less promising because of the foul (a player being forced wider or defenders being able to get back etc.)

It was poor that the BT commentators didn't know about the law change.

Ref Fan - I think you're right that it would make little difference with a second yellow card as referees generally don't paly advantage.

That's a fair point.  Although I would add that part of the original thinking in sanctioning DOGSO with a red card was deterrent - it was preferable to seek the obvious goal scoring opportunity through than to have a stop in play, a red card and a free-kick / penalty kick.  It also supported the fundamental object of the game, which is to score goals, not prevent them illegally.  This law change does somewhat undermine that ideal.