RateTheRef

I watched most of the game yesterday… the manager clearly cancelled the substitution as they were defending a set play! Nothing to do with the officials at all.

Nothing to see here!

I think it’s a pretty clear deflection off the arm, and therefore a very credible VAR intervention in law and also expectation. The commentators called it before the VAR had even intervened it was that clear

I don’t really see what you would second caution for in this scenario? The challenge is never reckless … it’s a careless trip and not dangerous in any way. It also cannot be a SPA offence as Dalot gets to the ball and is therefore covering any potential promising attack? So what point of law would you send him off for?

The problem with games as dull as this one was, is that people within the media then go searching for anything to discuss to fill airtime.

I agree with the posters so far that England missed a clear red card from Williams first half. I would though applaud the teamwork for the red card for Benrahma’s reaction though, although the initial challenge should definitely have been cautioned too (if as suggested above it wasn’t)?

My issue is that as a referee you could clearly see that the game was feisty and before the Williams challenge you just knew a bigger tackle was coming and he did nothing to control the situation.

This is about smelling the danger earlier. If that means giving a few simple soft free kicks to gain back control then so be it… but he clearly didn’t see it coming (which is a bigger issue and one he struggled with multiple times when watching him on the Championship years ago). However, the problem with preventative refereeing is you’ll get so called experts on sites like this saying his foul detection is “random” because he’s refereeing by a feeling of the game to keep control and maybe giving a few soft ones to keep his foot on it.

Overall I just think England needs help and support to get his confidence back after the incident at Spurs earlier in the season. And maybe needs to think about being more preventative in his approach to controlling a game.

The difference is one was given by the onfield referee (incorrectly in most people’s opinions) and one wasn’t.

So by your strange consistency theory if a referee makes an error in judgement on the opening day of the season then our referees should continue to apply the same error every single game for the remainder of the season so as to appear consistent?

I think learning from a mistake and applying the learning is a far better way forwards for our elite referees and it appears that’s what they have done. Simple

If this ****-sure approach you say is something that is common amongst top level referees, is it possible that this is something that is needed to deal with the egos being vastly paid and arguing about every decision? If a referee is unsure or nervous looking people complain about then being indecisive. When a referee holds themselves strongly we say they’re ****-sure or arrogant. I don’t think they can win!

Readingfan is completely 100% correct in terms of application of the law and I believe the VAR and Brooks were also completely correct to disallow the goal.

I feel that the terminology used in law actually makes it sound incorrect as they use “deliberate play” when the reality is it’s more like a deliberate pass or full ball under control needed to be classed as a deliberate play in law. Any block, save or stretching attempt to touch the ball is basically a deflection and not classed as a deliberate play in law whether the defender moves towards the ball deliberately or not.

Sadly most football fans have no idea about law application and there in lies the problem with modern refereeing.

Also, as Dermot explained today, the Palace Fulham goal was different as the only touches after the initial free kick come from a defender and not an attacker, and as Ward was onside when the ball was whipped in initially it is clearly a correct goal.