|
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ARF
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 22
1
« on: Sat 28 Feb 2026 11:49 »
Stephen Martin was close, except Ipswich vs Blackburn got abandoned!
Just because it was abandoned doesn't mean it never happened!
2
« on: Fri 27 Feb 2026 18:28 »
Obviously unlikely but what would have happened if the referee, after reviewing the incident on the screen, actually decided that it shouldn't have been either a RC or a 2YC (which he had already given) and that it was an accidental collision? Is he allowed to overturn his original decision (under the current VAR rules) given that he has only looked at the screen because of the potential upgrade to RC?
Yes, he could have.
3
« on: Thu 19 Feb 2026 08:47 »
Can VAR come in, for the Jesus hands to the face incident, after the final whistle has gone?
I’m sure Kavanagh had a VAR summons in a game at the AMEX v Man U where a penalty was awarded after the final whistle had blown.
I may be answering my own question but am I right in suggesting ( in law) that if the incident occurs after the final whistle goes then VAR can’t be involved, and that the jurisdiction of the sour events falls to the FA to deal with?
I'm not certain whether VAR is able to get involved for anything that happens after the final whistle (gut feeling would be yes as VAR is used in penalty shootouts, which technically happen after the match has finished) but in this incident Jesus pushed Mosquera in the chest, who then clutched his face and went down like a sack of spuds, so I don't think the VAR should have been getting involved here, even if they could.
4
« on: Thu 19 Feb 2026 08:31 »
I think if the referee had gone red on-field it would be supportable, but with the on-field decision being a caution I don't think it's a clear and obvious mistake for the VAR to be getting involved with.
5
« on: Sat 14 Feb 2026 18:52 »
I'm really not seeing SFP for the Bizet red card. Would 100% support it as DOGSO, but I can't see how it's endangered the opponent’s safety.
Edit: never mind, they just confirmed it was for DOGSO and not SFP
6
« on: Tue 03 Feb 2026 11:21 »
Villa goal ruled out after Tierney ruled the ball had gone out of play. Two doubts here for me, the first being I’m not sure you can 100% say the ball is out, although it looks it. And secondly surely that can’t be part of the APP, it’s ages before the goal is scored.
Good spot by Robinson to send off Schade for violent conduct in the first half
19 seconds from the ball going out of play to the goal being scored - don't think you can really call that "ages". I hope that the VAR team had a more conclusive angle available to them though, because from the TV angle alone it's just guesswork.
7
« on: Thu 29 Jan 2026 13:28 »
In contrast to the previous week's officials, County badges were sadly deficient.
This is an odd one I find - and by that I mean... I always wear my county badge on FA competitions and county cup matches, but I know I am meant to purely from being told. I have never seen it written down. I think there are lots of officials out there who have never been told and thus don't know that it is the correct protocol to do so.
Regulation 11(d) of The FA's Referee Regulations (p.487 of the latest version of the 25/26 FA Handbook): Match Officials officiating in FA Competition matches are required to wear the FIFA or Football Association
badge (where awarded) or the badge of their Affiliated Association. No other competition badge
should be worn.
8
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 12:11 »
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
With respect, as per the LotG you are incorrect, as is whoever at UEFA signed off on on the latest RAP. What any of us like or dislike is irrelevant - the Laws are clear that this is not an offence.
9
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 11:06 »
On sky sports ref watch Mr gallagher says the handball law changed.
Quote:
DERMOT SAYS: "The law was changed in August 2024. It was felt that if a player stops the ball accidentally with his hand from going in the goal, it isn't about handball, it's about stoping a goal. That's the difference, it's a dfferent part of the law.
"When you look at this incident from behind the goal, it is quite clear it is going in the goal. There is no doubt whatsoever it's going to be a goal. The goalkeeper is out."
Unquote:
I know I'm repeating myself a little from the other thread, but it's very frustrating that an ex-top flight referee who is now paid to explain things from a refereeing point of view to viewers who don't know the Laws, can invent/misunderstand parts of the LotG so badly here. And that goes double for the active SG1 match officials on the field and in the VAR booth yesterday.
10
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 10:55 »
I get that misreadings/misunderstandings of the LotG happen, but Dermot really needs to be doing his homework and fact-checking himself before he goes on air stating false information. And it's especially concerning that two SG1 referees (one being FIFA list) have both failed to correctly understand/apply the Laws here.
The ONLY situations where accidentally touching the ball with the hand/arm is automatically an offence is when a player scores directly from it, or scores immediately after the touch. The fact the ball was otherwise going in the goal is completely irrelevant. No-one who understands the game and the LotG would reasonably deem the player's arm to be making him unnaturally bigger here, and no-one for a moment thinks that it's a deliberate handball. There is no offence here.
11
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 00:25 »
What makes you say the Crystal Palace intervention was incorrect?
The Laws of the Game.
12
« on: Sun 25 Jan 2026 22:34 »
It’s never a penalty but if it is surely it’s a red card?
As it's been given for a non-deliberate handball offence, and would otherwise be DOGSO, it's a caution. But I agree that it's not a handling offence in the first place.
13
« on: Sun 25 Jan 2026 20:57 »
I've seen two photos on social media which look like the ball touches his arm, but can't find a decent clip - does anyone have a link?
What Do you mean by it looks like? Are you sure ie conclusive if not the goal has to stand. Tierney in var correct in my view.
I mean that in the photos it appears to be touching his arm. As I have not yet seen a video clip of it, it's difficult to say whether said photos are painting an accurate picture or not.
14
« on: Sun 25 Jan 2026 18:22 »
I've seen two photos on social media which look like the ball touches his arm, but can't find a decent clip - does anyone have a link?
15
« on: Mon 19 Jan 2026 00:58 »
Do we know if Barnet appeal the red card is there a chance the suspension gets transferred to Kanu or is it a guaranteed overturn? You can hear the crowd react to something off camera when Kizzi is back in position so it’s not him. Looks like O’Connor has been hung out to dry by his 4th unfortunately
Assuming the referee has shown the red for the second incident, I would presume there would be two claims submitted - one for mistaken identity, and one for wrongful dismissal (and possibly a third for excessive punishment too, in case the wrongful dismissal claim is unsuccessful).
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 22
|
Home
Search
Contact
Login
Register
Show Posts
