RateTheRef

I have to say that Dermot and the officials on this match are correct. When the ball is clearly going into the goal and has been stopped by the arm the correct decision is penalty + a sanction (as we know red card for deliberate, yellow card for non-deliberate).

UEFA have clarified that this is in line with their interpretation in the latest UEFA RAP. Specifically they highlight this interpretation in clip C32 from Croatia v Czechia where in the 70th minute, Tomas Holes blocks a shot on the goal line, however the ball hits his arm which despite being in a natural position, prevents the ball entering the goal. The official explanation from UEFA is "As the defender's arm actually prevents the goal, this must be considered a handball offence. However, the defender should only be cautioned, as the action is deemed to be a non-deliberate handball offence."

While we may not like it, ultimately what does football expect here? Personally I suggest football expects that justifiable position or not, that we can't accept that a player can use their arm to prevent a goal being scored

I disagree.

Having seen clip C32, the comment on the decision also says that the arm makes the body unnaturally bigger (which I don’t think it does).

If somebody wants to argue that the Law should say a penalty is awarded when the ball is going into the goal and is stopped by a hand / arm in a natural position - I get the argument for that. We chalk goals off for these when the attacker immediately scores, so why should we not restore the chance to score when the reverse applies. But the LOTG don’t say that.

If the explanation on Ref Watch is correct then answer me this - why is the player cautioned even though he hasn’t done anything wrong and it wouldn’t be a handball anywhere else on the pitch (possibly not even somewhere else in the penalty area)? Why is it not a penalty only? Does football expect a player receive a YC (possibly a second one and sent off) because he has his arm down by his side?

There has to be a handball offence regardless of going into the goal or not before you get to considering a sanction.

Mid Season Promotions 2025/26

Promotion to Level 2 - Step 2 Referee (5)

Hussain Abid Lancashire FA
Langdon Matthew Gloucestershire FA
Moosa Bilal Lancashire FA
Wall Thomas Staffordshire FA
Wilks Jonathan Sussex FA

Promotion to Level 3 - Step 3/4 Referee (Level 3A) & Step 2 Assistant Referee (Level 3F) (36)

Batie Liam Durham FA
Bone Nicholas Kent FA
Bradley Brendan Sussex FA
Calvert Ryan Lincolnshire FA
Chinnock Spencer Dorset FA
Cotton Ben Manchester FA
Dauber Martin Durham FA
Edge Shaun Cornwall FA
Ford Aaron Birmingham FA
Foster Ashley Army FA
Gillespie Ayden Kent FA
Griffiths Craig Surrey FA
Gudger Benjamin Worcestershire FA
Hague Dylan Sheffield & Hallamshire FA
Halloway Thomas Sheffield & Hallamshire FA
Hood Thomas Hertfordshire FA
Jackson Adam Berks & Bucks FA
Kettlety Lloyd Wiltshire FA
Lawrence Owen Sussex FA
Lister Jaden Norfolk FA
Lord Kyle Manchester FA
Mackay Connor Bedfordshire FA
Maskery Benjamin Surrey FA
O'Shea Matthew Cheshire FA
Parker Louie West Riding FA
Rashid Lisa Birmingham FA
Rister Marc Hertfordshire FA
Rose Matthew Sheffield & Hallamshire FA
Salloway George RAF FA
Salt James Somerset FA
Thompson James Oxfordshire FA
Thompson Joshua Sheffield & Hallamshire FA
Underwood Max Derbyshire FA
Williams Ciaran Liverpool FA
Wright Samuel Hampshire FA
Wright Michael Essex FA

Promotion to Level 3F - Step 2 Assistant Referee (2)

Al-Shaikh Ben Kent FA
Brown Stephen Cheshire FA

Promotion to Level 4 - Step 5/6 Referee & Step 3/4 Assistant Referee (90)

Abnett Kayden Kent FA
Alexander Nathan North Riding FA
Andre Owen Durham FA
Appadoo Anthony Hertfordshire FA
Arakpogun Emmanuel Northumberland FA
Armstrong Charlie Durham FA
Awolokun Olayinka West Riding FA
Bailey Kiran Kent FA
Baker Jacob Lancashire FA
Barber Mark Amateur Football Alliance
Barker James Manchester FA
Baron Jack London FA
Beaumont Regan Berks & Bucks FA
Bibby Joseph Manchester FA
Brackenbury Oliver Birmingham FA
Brammer Joshua Manchester FA
Brimicombe Owen Gloucestershire FA
Buren Paul Staffordshire FA
Capelli Glenn Berks & Bucks FA
Cloake Joshua Kent FA
Colaco Louis Liverpool FA
Constanti Vas Amateur Football Alliance
Cornell Connor Essex FA
Culver Isaac Birmingham FA
Davis Mark Hampshire FA
Doyle Max London FA
Elliott Andrew Durham FA
England Thomas Huntingdonshire FA
Farrow Neil Norfolk FA
Girt Samuel Kent FA
Godfrey Steven Cornwall FA
Goodman Daniel Essex FA
Gornall James Lancashire FA
Gray Jamie Kent FA
Greenwood Robert Lancashire FA
Hadfield Samuel Royal Navy FA
Halliwell Thomas Isle Of Man FA
Hills Matthew Essex FA
Hince Charles Gloucestershire FA
Hogan Kyle West Riding FA
Ignatiuk Kacper Middlesex FA
Jackson Matthew Liverpool FA
Japp Nathan Northamptonshire FA
Jarman-Davis Jack Gloucestershire FA
Johnson-Small Andre Middlesex FA
Johnston Calum Cheshire FA
Juganaru Ciprian Essex FA
Kenward Joe Somerset FA
Kerr Matthew Durham FA
Kingston Cameron Hampshire FA
Knights Ben Hampshire FA
Lai William Norfolk FA
Lamprell Richard Sussex FA
Lane Daniel Essex FA
London David Hampshire FA
Madaras Jozsef Gloucestershire FA
Mattis Ricardo Berks & Bucks FA
Meakin Benjamin Somerset FA
Miles Tom Norfolk FA
Mills Atticus Cheshire FA
Mills Neil West Riding FA
Molloy Jake Essex FA
Monks Steven RAF FA
Moore Trias David East Riding FA
Morris Colin Hampshire FA
Muslin Zach Wiltshire FA
Nitu Mihai Essex FA
Overbury Ashley London FA
Peet Jack London FA
Piner Luke Sussex FA
Prioteasa Silviu Somerset FA
Rammell Christopher Essex FA
Riddle Daniel Durham FA
Saggers Chay Essex FA
Shakespeare Daniel Devon FA
Sibbons Lewis Essex FA
Sinyei Edwin Sussex FA
Skelton Jonathan North Riding FA
Squires Daniel Oxfordshire FA
Surman Gray Hampshire FA
Thorne Shaun Somerset FA
Travers Ramsey Manchester FA
White Ellis Derbyshire FA
Whitten Peter Hampshire FA
Wiley Tom Birmingham FA
Wilkinson Ryan Army FA
Wood Matthew Bedfordshire FA
Woolmer Daniel Hampshire FA
Worrall Thomas Liverpool FA
YuenLee Ka Hampshire FA


These were circulated by The FA earlier today. Congratulations to all!

The problem with the disallowed goal is with VAR in use you don't blow for the offence as someone is about to head at goal, you give it a second a to see what happens.  No blame on the referee for the penalty, but that is a ludicrous VAR referral, it is a possible penalty but not even close to a clear and obvious error.

And then we have the penalty, it is all set up to be taken and Mendy, already on a caution, walks right up the the ball.  I know the referee was probably shot mentally, but that is a clear caution and he really should have been sent off.

The VAR protocol says:

Delaying the flag/whistle for an offence is only permissible in a very clear attacking situation when a player is about to score a goal or has a clear run into/towards the opponents’ penalty area.

Not sure tonight’s incident really falls into this category. The referee goes to blow for the foul well before the ball reaches the attacker who initially heads the ball. We frequently see referees give free kicks (in games where VAR is in operation) at corners / free kicks are delivered into the penalty area. I can’t however argue with saying that delaying for a second or two would have been very sensible.

I agree on both the VAR intervention and goalkeeper. Not that this is an acceptable reason not to do it, but can anyone imagine what would have happened had Mendy been sent off? I think we’d still be waiting for an outcome on the match.

First Arsenal goal is certainly a talking point.

The comparisons with Haaland’s disallowed goal last night can easily be made - both offside positioned attackers are in direct physical contact with the nearest defending player as the ball goes very close to that defender on its way into the goal. The big difference with Arsenal’s goal is the possibly ‘impacted’ defender is at no time looking at the ball after it is headed towards goal. Is there anything, therefore, the offside attacker does that impacts the defender’s ability to play the ball? I think you can make a good argument for and against. My feeling is that it is offside given the physical contact and closeness of the defender to the ball going into the goal. It also looks like the defender might have been able throw a leg out towards the ball on the goal line as a last minute reflex had the defender not been there. That would be consistent with other decisions / rationales PGMO have given this season.

This could be an offside decision where the referee’s call principle applies. A lot of guesswork / assumption on my part, but:

1. Gyokeres is quite clearly in an offside position and I’d expect the AR to identify that in real time.
2. A discussion may have then been held between the on field officials who decide there is no offence for whatever reason - maybe because the Chelsea player is not looking at the ball.
3. As the offence part is a subjective decision, unless the decision is clearly / obviously wrong then the on field call stands.

There may have been no discussion on ‘impact’ last night for the Haaland incident, because it was an incredibly tight positional judgement and the onfield decision was Haaland was in an onside position.

I’m not sure how much tonight’s decision has to do with what Dale Johnson has described as being less forensic. We still don’t know why it took so long last night to recommend a OFR. The bulk of it could have been because of the failure of SAOT. The decision making on whether Haaland was committing an offence could have been quite quick. VARs will still no doubt be ‘forensic’ with drawing lines and checking for an offside position if required.

Interesting VAR overturn for a penalty awarded on field to Brentford for a holding offence.

As Brentford send a ball towards the back post, the referee has adjudged the defender to have held the attacker. Both are moving towards the dropping zone, the ball has not been played by the attacker and the holding begins not long after the cross is played in.

VAR has confirmed the holding / penalty kick, but has recommended a factual overturn for the offside. John Brooks was not sent to the screen. The explanation given by John Brooks was:

“After review, the Brentford number 19 who was fouled is in an offside position. Therefore the final decision is an indirect free kick”.

Law 11 states:

In situations where:

• a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball, this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12

• a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence

• an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge

I think it’s debatable whether the Brentford attacker has interfered with the defender before the foul occurs. I’d say not because they are both simply running towards a ball that is nowhere near them, but you could argue the attacker is preventing the defender from getting to the dropping zone by their movement. Given the ball is not close, I don’t think the attacker has factually affected the defender’s ability to play / challenge for the ball.

Whatever the right outcome is, I would have thought the decision had to be an on field review, because there was no offside flag raised and it is a subjective decision as to whether the attacker has interfered with an opponent for the offside.

Fans may think from the announcement that if a player in an offside position is fouled, there can’t be a penalty. That’s isn’t the case though, and perhaps there needed to be more to it (e.g. offside position and interferes with the defender).

The only logical explanation to allow the Leeds goal is that the ball was played by Martinez’s hand rather than the Leeds player. Based off the sky coverage, it was definitely checked but the lines weren’t shown so I assume that’s what the VAR team settled on

I don’t think that will be the case. There are multiple angles that clearly show the ball being played by Stach (off his back rather than a header) and the PL Match Centre tweet says that Stach played the ball.

Would be interesting to know if the save v deliberate play point was even discussed.

Quote from: rustyref on Sat 22 Nov 2025 18:20

Quote from: Irishref1985 on Sat 22 Nov 2025 17:49

Continues at St James Park. A clear foul and penalty for the late tackle on Phil Foden. What is Craig Pawson looking at?

There's an unwritten rule that they are never given once the attacker has got their shot away, they are very rarely given.  That isn't just an England thing, it happens at senior levels of football all over the world.

Perhaps someone should write down all the unwritten rules so players and spectators know what to expect.

There is a guidance booklet that does give some insight into how decisions are to be approached in the Premier League.

https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2025/08/15/cc0d97b3-8f1a-4433-aded-0d42347ca053/Premier-League-and-PGMO-Competition-Guidance-Handbook-2025-26-v2.pdf

Page 90 - Contact after pass or shot towards goal

Considerations:

> Where there is contact following an attacker either passing the ball or taking a shot at goal, where this contact is inevitable or a consequence of momentum, play should typically be allowed to continue.

> Where the contact is clearly reckless (yellow card) or serious foul play (red card) then a penalty kick and appropriate sanction is the expected outcome.


There are a couple of angles shown on a video on Sky Sports. From the angle behind the goal, the challenge does appear to be a reckless one. But from the side on angle (from the AR’s touchline), any contact on the attacker appears minimal. Because of that, I think the ‘Referee’s Call’ principle is going to apply.