RateTheRef

Quote from: rustyref on Thu 29 Oct 2020 21:26

Certainly in England I think the government are desperate not to prevent organised sports from carrying on, after all football is still fine even in cities and areas in tier 3.  Problematic yes for leagues that span tier 3 and tier 1/2 areas as clubs from the former can't travel to the latter (but match officials can), but football is still being played.  Of course a full lockdown is going to wipe out non-professional sport, but I think they would allow everything above National League to carry on unlike the last lock down.

Where I am a little baffled is how countries are saying they are doing a two to four week lock down to get control back, as after two to four weeks following the March full lockdown it took the best part of four months to lift those restrictions and I can't see why it would be any different now.  I fear that if a full lock down is implemented that will be in place until at least March, they will just keep extending at the end of every period.

Very insightful post and I think that we are all baffled as to how they are going to resolve things.
I honestly don't think that any government in any country has the answer and they will just keep bumbling along until what? Strange times for us all.

New Zealand?

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 

Quote from: anje-roo on Tue 20 Oct 2020 18:46

I couldn't lip read, but it has triggered me thinking that (and whilst women don't want to be treated differently from men I do think that the women's game is generally less physical) women's football could advance from 2 cards.
A yellow card - you've been warned that you're 1 card away from spending time on the naughty step.
An orange card - results in 10 minutes on the naughty step, either because it's a 2nd yellow or it's "worse" than yellow but not red.
A red card - dismissal, either because it's a 3rd yellow or 2nd orange or (obviously) serious foul play.
Most women players would, I think, want to play 11 v 11 unless something is warranted.
Perhaps the difficult aspect of this is DOGSO - personally I'd prefer orange to red unless there's serious foul play - for other sports (such as rugby & hockey) the advantage of having 10 minutes against reduced opposition does usually result in a benefit to the non-offending team.
Whilst the crowds are away (or significantly reduced) there are so many potential low-lying fruit which once harvested would really improve football for all concerned. And there's no real reason why a stand-alone competition couldn't trial law changes at any stage of the season. If VAR can be brought in at the latter rounds for instance ...... so can other law changes, or are my spectacles too tinted?

I think a 3 card system would be too complicated, subjective and lead to even more arguments etc. than we have now.

And errors .....

Player is marginally offside, however, the flag does not go up as per instructions these days, and play goes on and the keeper makes a genuine attempt to play the ball which results in the offside player being injured and having to leave the field.
VAR looks at the situation to see if a penalty should be awarded but the eveidence shows that the player was offside, therefore, that is the first offence and the offside is given.

Are we then going to dismiss a keeper for a genuine attempt to play the ball, bearing in mind that it could well have been the keeper who was injured and had to leave the field.  Those running the game have manufactured these situations  and the use of VAR is compounding the issue.

In the same incident in any game in England outside the Premier League, the offside would have been flagged but because of the speed of the game the keeper would still have challenged and it would be possible  that players are injured, however, the free  kick would have been given for offside and everyone gets on with the game.
The monster has been created in an effort to make the game 100% perfect.

I am not sure that it is a "genuine attempt to play the ball" - but that loses any relevance when considering Serious Foul Play:

Did the challenge endanger the safety of an opponent?  100% yes. 

Should Pickford have been sanctioned as such?  100% yes.

Should Oliver have seen it?  Almost certainly - he had a decent viewing eye-line.

Should Coote - which access to technology and as much time as he needs identified it?  100% yes.

I am not sure if the "collision" would not have happened had the flag been raised instantly and Oliver's whistle stopped play - there was very little time.  I am sure, however, that this nonsense of telling AR's to hold their flag and see what happens next is going to end with a serious injury one day soon.

Ross' expenses will be low as he spends most of his time in London 😏

But then a quick turnaround ......

League C - Group 1
10 October 2020, 15:00 CET - City of Luxembourg (Stade Josy Barthel)
Luxembourg - Cyprus
Referee: Donald Robertson (SCO)
Assistant Referee 1: Graeme Stewart (SCO)
Assistant Referee 2: Douglas Ross (SCO)
Fourth Official: Andrew Dallas (SCO)
UEFA Referee Observer: Stefan Messner (AUT)
UEFA Delegate: Roland Tis (BEL)

Quote from: Hendo on Sat 26 Sep 2020 17:13

Quote from: edy on Sat 26 Sep 2020 16:20

According to the VAR protocol, the review process can take place AFTER the final whistle.

Excellent intervention by Simon Hooper.

How long after? Could the players be in the shower and then made to come back?

IFAB doesn't say. Apparently they are more interested in accuracy than the time.

So common sense would suggest that the referee - even if he has blown the final whistle - tells the players to stay on the field of play while the VAR check takes place

Just as happens in cricket when the 10th wicket of an innings is reviewed - even if it is a wildly speculatively review because the team still has one to burn.

Opps - sorry, I have just realised that I have cited "common sense" - many apologies all 

Quote from: Readingfan on Sun 20 Sep 2020 22:53

At least it has made handball more consistent. There used to be lots of discussion about whether an incident such as Trent Alexander-Arnold's handling last season agI do find it easier to judge a handball offence now, even if I don't personally agree.

It's basically gone in the PL from a player getting a lot of the benefit of the doubt if the ball hit their hand to them being given very little. A lot was required for handball in England previously, but now if the ball hits your hand it's likely to be penalised if VAR is in use unless your hand is very close to your body.

Perhaps it makes it more consistent if the offence happens in the penalty area, however, there were several instances of handball, similar to those leading to penalties in the games discussed, which were committed in general play and these were not penalised. 

The question which then arises is are we playing to different laws in the penalty area to those used on the rest of the field because some are covered by VAR but others are not?

We are, because VAR has the ability to forensically review (from several angles) and spot contact that cannot be conclusively determined using the naked eye from a set position (be that a good or not-so-good one).  And VAR is only used to determine potential penalty offences.  As a result we get more handball "offences" in the penalty area than pretty much anywhere else of the Field of Play.