|
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 - rustyref
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 135
1
« on: Wed 28 Jan 2026 18:28 »
What is the standard of review on appeal?
I agree fully with rustyref, I feel the on field decision should have stood for the reasons he gave. However, I do not feel a red card would have been a clear and obvious error either. Given after OFR a red card was issued, is the ban upheld as the red card decision, regardless of how it was reached, is not itself clearly wrong?
I suspect Celtic thought they were appealing the VAR intervention, but in reality they are appealing the sending off and the suspension. Whether VAR was involved or not, all an appeal board can get involved with is did the referee clearly make an error, and even with VAR it is the referee that makes the decision.
2
« on: Tue 27 Jan 2026 22:54 »
He's going very wide, and I'd say that 2 or 3 of the considerations for DOGSO are in doubt. Direction, the ball is going well away from goal. Defenders, as by the time he gets to the ball there's clearly a covering defender, and possibly control, is he clearly getting control, although I'd say he probably is. All subjective, but with that many doubts there's no way VAR should be going anywhere near it in my opinion.
3
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 19:14 »
For completeness, this was the rationale for the 2024 law change that Dermot referred to. Nothing to do with a shot being on target, rather to bring it in line with other DOGSO offences so that players who give away a penalty as a consequence of their arm position aren't sent off.
Non-deliberate handball offences are usually the result of a player attempting to play fairly, so when a penalty kick is awarded for such offences, the same philosophy should apply as for offences (fouls) which are an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball, i.e. DOGSO offences result in a yellow card and SPA offences result in no card. Deliberate handball remains a red-card offence when a penalty kick is awarded, as it is similar to holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc
4
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 17:09 »
It does feel like the laws have been misinterpreted, hopefully not by the match officials but certainly those supposed experts commenting about it. There are two decisions to make here, the first is was it intentional handling or was the arm not in an acceptable position for the body movement for that specific action. At this point whether the ball would have gone into the goal is neither here nor there, it is completely irrelevant.
It only then becomes relevant if they decide to award a penalty. The wording of the law is confusing because when deciding the sanction it talks about a deliberate or non-deliberate handball offence. But what it means is if they intentionally handle the ball it is deliberate and would be a red card. If their arm was not deemed to be in a supportable position that would be classed as non-deliberate and would be a caution. Think of it like cases such as Suarez or Steven Taylor saving on the line as a red card, whereas a player having their arm out from their body in what is deemed to deemed to be not justifiable for the footballing action being performed would be a yellow, they haven't made a conscious attempt to handle it but had their arm where it shouldn't have been.
But to be absolutely clear, there has to be a handling offence, just because the ball was going on target is not a consideration in deciding whether there has been an offence, it only affects any potential sanction. The supposed football experts need to read the law again, I really hope the referee and VAR have fallen into this trap otherwise they will be in serious hot water.
5
« on: Thu 22 Jan 2026 21:25 »
I'd really like them to go further in trialing stopping the clock each time the ball goes out of play. Maybe they'd need to shorten the length of the match, but would in theory help stop this time wasting.
In principle, I support the idea of stopping the clock whenever the ball is dead and playing a fixed amount of time. In practice, however, I have two significant concerns. First, how would this be implemented at levels below the professional game? It would require dedicated timekeepers, which is simply not affordable, and so would almost certainly lead to different Laws being applied at different levels of the sport, an outcome I find highly undesirable. Second, once the clock is routinely stopped, broadcasters would inevitably push to extend these pauses to accommodate advertising with the result that matches would last even longer.
You just stop your watch. Isn’t particularly difficult. Might end up hurting your finger in the end, but you’ll just have to hope they can keep the ball in play!
With the advertisements; that’s realistically going to happen anyway. I’m surprised they haven’t printed sponsorships in the centre circle yet……
They'd forget though, or more likely forget to restart it. Even when I was relatively experienced i often forget to restart the watch, to the extent that I gave up stopping it unless there was obviously going to be a very lengthy stoppage.
So the referee has to take accountability and ensure they do it. After a while, it would become second nature. You can’t not do something ‘because the referee might forget’
Yes, but they will forget and it would cause chaos, referees since the day dot have stopped their watch and forgotten to restart it so I don't see how it would ever stop. I don't know the answer to this but do other sports where play is stopped when the ball is out of play rely on a referee on his own also being the timekeeper? Bearing that 90% of games, certainly in England, have just one match official.
So we shouldn’t bring a law in that could improve the game because the referee might forget?
I just think referees on their own on Hackney Marshes on a Sunday morning have enought to deal with without having to become the independent timekeeper (who isn't independent).
It is literally the referees job to be the timekeeper.
Should we not change any laws ever in case referees forget?
Yes it is the referee's job to be the timekeeper, but that becomes a lot more complicated when the watch might stop every minute. How many offences are going to be missed because the referee is constantly faffing around with their watch? All irrelevant anyway as this option isn't on the table as far as I am aware. There are far too many stoppages in football to take that approach, it just wouldn't work outside of senior levels.
6
« on: Thu 22 Jan 2026 20:59 »
I'd really like them to go further in trialing stopping the clock each time the ball goes out of play. Maybe they'd need to shorten the length of the match, but would in theory help stop this time wasting.
In principle, I support the idea of stopping the clock whenever the ball is dead and playing a fixed amount of time. In practice, however, I have two significant concerns. First, how would this be implemented at levels below the professional game? It would require dedicated timekeepers, which is simply not affordable, and so would almost certainly lead to different Laws being applied at different levels of the sport, an outcome I find highly undesirable. Second, once the clock is routinely stopped, broadcasters would inevitably push to extend these pauses to accommodate advertising with the result that matches would last even longer.
You just stop your watch. Isn’t particularly difficult. Might end up hurting your finger in the end, but you’ll just have to hope they can keep the ball in play!
With the advertisements; that’s realistically going to happen anyway. I’m surprised they haven’t printed sponsorships in the centre circle yet……
They'd forget though, or more likely forget to restart it. Even when I was relatively experienced i often forget to restart the watch, to the extent that I gave up stopping it unless there was obviously going to be a very lengthy stoppage.
So the referee has to take accountability and ensure they do it. After a while, it would become second nature. You can’t not do something ‘because the referee might forget’
Yes, but they will forget and it would cause chaos, referees since the day dot have stopped their watch and forgotten to restart it so I don't see how it would ever stop. I don't know the answer to this but do other sports where play is stopped when the ball is out of play rely on a referee on his own also being the timekeeper? Bearing that 90% of games, certainly in England, have just one match official.
So we shouldn’t bring a law in that could improve the game because the referee might forget?
I guess only time would tell. If a referee forgets to restart their watch now they have a secondary one so it isn't the end of the world, whereas it would be problematic if the clock was stopped for stoppages. I suspect referees would end up doing what many do now and don't stop their watch, and rather guesstimate stoppages. I just think referees on their own on Hackney Marshes on a Sunday morning have enought to deal with without having to become the independent timekeeper (who isn't independent).
7
« on: Thu 22 Jan 2026 19:54 »
I'd really like them to go further in trialing stopping the clock each time the ball goes out of play. Maybe they'd need to shorten the length of the match, but would in theory help stop this time wasting.
In principle, I support the idea of stopping the clock whenever the ball is dead and playing a fixed amount of time. In practice, however, I have two significant concerns. First, how would this be implemented at levels below the professional game? It would require dedicated timekeepers, which is simply not affordable, and so would almost certainly lead to different Laws being applied at different levels of the sport, an outcome I find highly undesirable. Second, once the clock is routinely stopped, broadcasters would inevitably push to extend these pauses to accommodate advertising with the result that matches would last even longer.
You just stop your watch. Isn’t particularly difficult. Might end up hurting your finger in the end, but you’ll just have to hope they can keep the ball in play!
With the advertisements; that’s realistically going to happen anyway. I’m surprised they haven’t printed sponsorships in the centre circle yet……
They'd forget though, or more likely forget to restart it. Even when I was relatively experienced i often forget to restart the watch, to the extent that I gave up stopping it unless there was obviously going to be a very lengthy stoppage.
So the referee has to take accountability and ensure they do it. After a while, it would become second nature. You can’t not do something ‘because the referee might forget’
Yes, but they will forget and it would cause chaos, referees since the day dot have stopped their watch and forgotten to restart it so I don't see how it would ever stop. I don't know the answer to this but do other sports where play is stopped when the ball is out of play rely on a referee on his own also being the timekeeper? Bearing that 90% of games, certainly in England, have just one match official.
8
« on: Thu 22 Jan 2026 18:19 »
I'd really like them to go further in trialing stopping the clock each time the ball goes out of play. Maybe they'd need to shorten the length of the match, but would in theory help stop this time wasting.
In principle, I support the idea of stopping the clock whenever the ball is dead and playing a fixed amount of time. In practice, however, I have two significant concerns. First, how would this be implemented at levels below the professional game? It would require dedicated timekeepers, which is simply not affordable, and so would almost certainly lead to different Laws being applied at different levels of the sport, an outcome I find highly undesirable. Second, once the clock is routinely stopped, broadcasters would inevitably push to extend these pauses to accommodate advertising with the result that matches would last even longer.
You just stop your watch. Isn’t particularly difficult. Might end up hurting your finger in the end, but you’ll just have to hope they can keep the ball in play!
With the advertisements; that’s realistically going to happen anyway. I’m surprised they haven’t printed sponsorships in the centre circle yet……
They'd forget though, or more likely forget to restart it. Even when I was relatively experienced i often forget to restart the watch, to the extent that I gave up stopping it unless there was obviously going to be a very lengthy stoppage.
9
« on: Tue 20 Jan 2026 22:12 »
Webb has said that the referee got the Dalot incident correct. Too much has been made of the slow motion replays. Much as Dale Johnson suggested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cp3741nlep5o
Webb, For someone who is supposed to pandering to the ‘what the game expects’ he is way out of of tune.
Isn't that the problem though, no one knows what the game expects or wants.
Completely and utterly agree with you. The problem is that the ‘what the game expects’ excuse is dragged out any time justification is needed for a rather poor decision.
If it was up to me, the phrase would be banned.
Just as a side note on the glancing blow excuse; it reminded me of the challenge below (40 seconds in). High, late challenge, but a rather glancing blow.
https://youtu.be/C61spFkyZw4?si=Y1ffuiAVFuP8qnnV
The big difference there though is that was a full on two footed lunge, both feet off the floor and using a hell of a lot of force. The Dalot one was a slightly mistimed stretch for the ball with one foot, making a comparison there is comparing apples with oranges.
10
« on: Tue 20 Jan 2026 21:00 »
Webb has said that the referee got the Dalot incident correct. Too much has been made of the slow motion replays. Much as Dale Johnson suggested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cp3741nlep5o
Webb, For someone who is supposed to pandering to the ‘what the game expects’ he is way out of of tune.
Isn't that the problem though, no one knows what the game expects or wants. Generally speaking it is all self serving and what most clubs and fans will want is what benefits their own club in any given scenario, they have no interest in what is best for the game.
11
« on: Mon 19 Jan 2026 22:09 »
If Tierney had given nothing then that probably would have been the right outcome.
Unfortunately when he cards the player for diving, he’s in a predicament because when VAR comes in and suggests a review for a penalty, he has to reverse the simulation caution, but then he has to give the penalty as there was no simulation, but contact.
An interesting situation.
Yeah, that's where I'm at. It wasn't simulation, might have been a foul but definitely wasn't a clear and obvious error to not give the penalty. Had Tierney just played on without cautioning for simulation I'm convinced there would have been no review recommended. All a bit of a mess, but I can understand why he thought it was simulation real time.
12
« on: Sun 18 Jan 2026 23:24 »
Think the referee has been well and truly chucked under the bus by his AR1 or 4th official here. Very clear that he didn't see it happen himself so obviously someone has come in with advice over the comms.
13
« on: Sun 18 Jan 2026 22:57 »
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.
He blew as an attacker was about to have a free header at goal, that by definition is a very clear attacking situation. Agree on the Mendy situation, if he'd sent him off he might well have caused a full on riot, but equally we have a Morocco player waiting 10 minutes to take a penalty and then having the keeper sh*thouse him. I fully expect that Morocco will try to challenge the validity of Senegal's win.
14
« on: Sun 18 Jan 2026 22:29 »
Well, if you were looking for the ultimate scenario in refereeing where you are thinking “thank God that’s not me”, we might have seen it tonight.
Disallowed goal - I don’t think it’s a foul, but I can see why the referee has given it. Motivation of the defender is to block the attacker and doesn’t even look at the ball. But two hands go out from the attacker into the defender’s chest. Not a howler.
Penalty - A bit soft, but again can see why it’s been given. I haven’t seen what’s gone on around the VAR review / screen but sounds like some awful behaviour from those around the referee.
The actions of Senegal post award are unacceptable. I feel really sorry for the referee in this situation. What do you do? Shed loads of yellow cards for leaving FOP without permission (and likely many reds)? Start with 1 YC for that and say if you don’t get people back out now I’ll keep going and people will start getting sent off? Abandon the match? There are no good outcomes. For those saying they’d abandon it - whatever the LOTG say, the referee is not taking that decision alone in a confederation competition final. The decision would need the backing of CAF before being taken. Context - referees do not solely take a decision to abandon a game in professional football in England. Consultation with the competition / PGMO will take place before any final decision is made.
It’s very sad, because without a fully effective deterrent that is used the power will lie with the team that walk off. They get their way and have an impact making the other team wait forever and a day to take the penalty.
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.
15
« on: Sun 18 Jan 2026 22:02 »
I said to a friend I think my hamstring would definitely have gone, handing over to 4th and disappearing down tunnel 😉
I'd want it to be something far worse than a hammy, has to be something that means you can't possibly stand up and hold a board and need urgent hospital treatment.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 135
|
Home
Search
Contact
Login
Register
Show Posts