Author Topic: Sat 30th JAN Ė Thu 4th FEB 2021  (Read 5210 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

GingerReferee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sat 30th JAN Ė Thu 4th FEB 2021
« Reply #15 on: Tue 02 Feb 2021 20:03 »
Edited out - do NOT question the integrity of a match official

RANT OVER
« Last Edit: Tue 02 Feb 2021 20:35 by bmb »

Ashington46

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Ashington, Northumberland
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Retired for years!
Re: Sat 30th JAN – Thu 4th FEB 2021
« Reply #16 on: Tue 02 Feb 2021 20:08 »
Very Harsh penalty

It’s a definite penalty - but IMO I don’t see how it can be a red card. Someone will correct me I’m sure but he has made no attempt to tackle him

Isn't that the problem now because had Luiz tried to tackle him it would have been a penalty and a yellow, however, as the Law now stands, is it not the case that if you commit an offence other than tackling or attempting to get the ball then you receive a red card.

To be honest, after 56 years involved in the game at senior level, I no longer know just what is what isn't a penalty etc and I am usually good at keeping up with changes.
« Last Edit: Tue 02 Feb 2021 22:13 by Ashington46 »
Referee's decision used to be final!

JCFC

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,000
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Brighouse
    • View Profile
Like Like x 2 View List

GingerReferee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile

TheThingFromLewes

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,739
    • View Profile
Re: Sat 30th JAN Ė Thu 4th FEB 2021
« Reply #19 on: Tue 02 Feb 2021 20:24 »
Very Harsh penalty

Itís a definite penalty - but IMO I donít see how it can be a red card. Someone will correct me Iím sure but he has made no attempt to tackle him

If itís a genuine attempt for the ball itís yellow. As you state, he made no attempt to tackle him, hence why Pawson went red.
Like Like x 3 View List

rustyref

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
Re: Sat 30th JAN Ė Thu 4th FEB 2021
« Reply #20 on: Tue 02 Feb 2021 21:17 »
Very Harsh penalty

Itís a definite penalty - but IMO I donít see how it can be a red card. Someone will correct me Iím sure but he has made no attempt to tackle him

It is only not a red card if it is a challenge for the ball, there was no challenge at all therefore it has to be DOGSO.  Intent doesn't come into play, so if you give a foul there the only possible outcome is a red card for DOGSO.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

DublinRef

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
    • View Profile
Re: Sat 30th JAN Ė Thu 4th FEB 2021
« Reply #21 on: Tue 02 Feb 2021 21:20 »
Very Harsh penalty

Itís a definite penalty - but IMO I donít see how it can be a red card. Someone will correct me Iím sure but he has made no attempt to tackle him

If itís a genuine attempt for the ball itís yellow. As you state, he made no attempt to tackle him, hence why Pawson went red.

Could someone with a better understanding of the law please confirm my thoughts which (I think?) are the same as what TTFL is saying. Although it may have been an 'accidental' foul as there was clearly no attempt to make a genuine tackle for the ball it has to be a red card? If so something of an anomaly in the law?

I thought the second red card was correct. Pawson in general showing more authority and confidence IMO.
Like Like x 1 View List

TheThingFromLewes

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,739
    • View Profile
Re: Sat 30th JAN Ė Thu 4th FEB 2021
« Reply #22 on: Tue 02 Feb 2021 21:33 »
Very Harsh penalty

Itís a definite penalty - but IMO I donít see how it can be a red card. Someone will correct me Iím sure but he has made no attempt to tackle him

If itís a genuine attempt for the ball itís yellow. As you state, he made no attempt to tackle him, hence why Pawson went red.

Could someone with a better understanding of the law please confirm my thoughts which (I think?) are the same as what TTFL is saying. Although it may have been an 'accidental' foul as there was clearly no attempt to make a genuine tackle for the ball it has to be a red card? If so something of an anomaly in the law?

I thought the second red card was correct. Pawson in general showing more authority and confidence IMO.

I think this video will help you.. itís from the FA CUP final with Swarbrick and Oliver.

https://youtu.be/Itx_v7TZ3YA

DublinRef

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
    • View Profile
Re: Sat 30th JAN Ė Thu 4th FEB 2021
« Reply #23 on: Tue 02 Feb 2021 21:48 »
Very Harsh penalty

Itís a definite penalty - but IMO I donít see how it can be a red card. Someone will correct me Iím sure but he has made no attempt to tackle him

If itís a genuine attempt for the ball itís yellow. As you state, he made no attempt to tackle him, hence why Pawson went red.

Could someone with a better understanding of the law please confirm my thoughts which (I think?) are the same as what TTFL is saying. Although it may have been an 'accidental' foul as there was clearly no attempt to make a genuine tackle for the ball it has to be a red card? If so something of an anomaly in the law?

I thought the second red card was correct. Pawson in general showing more authority and confidence IMO.

I think this video will help you.. itís from the FA CUP final with Swarbrick and Oliver.

https://youtu.be/Itx_v7TZ3YA

TTFL, many thanks for that clip.

I think its interesting how loosely a genuine attempt for the ball is interpreted (not specifically in that case but looking at some UEFA RAP clips too) its seems that once you go to ground and get somewhere in the general vicinity of the ball you won't get red for DOGSO. I wonder had Luiz simply slid rather than accidentally clip his opponent would he have stayed on the pitch. I think its an anomaly that a totally accidental foul can lead to a red card when I thought the idea of the law change was to punish more cynical DOGSO offences where the only aim is to stop a goal being scored.

Regardless I can see now that under the current laws Mr. Pawson was totally correct to issue the red

GingerReferee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Sat 30th JAN Ė Thu 4th FEB 2021
« Reply #24 on: Wed 03 Feb 2021 09:03 »
Edited out - do NOT question the integrity of a match official

RANT OVER

i am here to sincerely apolgoize for my behaviour last night as i was so annoyed, i took it out on here. I hope this is accepted as i did not mean to cause offence to any of you or to Craig Pawson
Like Like x 8 Love Love x 1 View List

bmb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,212
  • Gender: Female
  • Causing mischief & mayhem!!
  • Location: Somewhere between Poole & Budapest!
    • View Profile
    • Hungarian Football
  • Referee Level: Assessor
Re: Sat 30th JAN Ė Thu 4th FEB 2021
« Reply #25 on: Wed 03 Feb 2021 11:24 »
Edited out - do NOT question the integrity of a match official

RANT OVER

i am here to sincerely apolgoize for my behaviour last night as i was so annoyed, i took it out on here. I hope this is accepted as i did not mean to cause offence to any of you or to Craig Pawson

Thank you for the apology.
HajrŠ LilŠk. Csak a Kispest. HajrŠ Magyarok! HajrŠ jŠtťkvezetői csapat! Soha ne add fel
Like Like x 1 View List

ajb95

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,343
    • View Profile
Re: Sat 30th JAN Ė Thu 4th FEB 2021
« Reply #26 on: Wed 03 Feb 2021 20:56 »
Whoever the VAR is at Elland road they have just missed a clear handball. Oliver has missed it but VAR asleep at the wheel

Ref Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
    • View Profile
Re: Sat 30th JAN Ė Thu 4th FEB 2021
« Reply #27 on: Wed 03 Feb 2021 22:21 »
What a strange evening with all 5 games resulting in away wins.

The handball incident at Leeds ajb95 mentions was odd in that when bt replayed it I only saw one player appeal and not with any great relish.  My first impression was that the ball may have struck slightly high on the arm but could well be wrong.  There was no indication that VAR had reviewed it.

Missed the early part but it looked a decent entertaining game as often is the case with Leeds, although it got a bit scrappy for a short period later in the second half.  Not a particularly difficult match for Oliver and fortunately no RC challenges in what I saw.  Liverpool v City may test him rather more.

RCG

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 908
    • View Profile
Re: Sat 30th JAN Ė Thu 4th FEB 2021
« Reply #28 on: Thu 04 Feb 2021 05:37 »
An interesting thought that Liv v Man C will be more of a test.
Gone are the days IMO of the big titans of football clashing (in my time I think of Keane/Viera etc), both sides dont really have an "enforcer" as such. More often than not these games come down to the awarding or non awarding of fks/penalties where fouls have been 'won' or gained by the attacking player just being much better than the defender.
So I do agree it will test the referee, more on his ability to pick up the right offences rather than managing the testesterone fueled challenges we used to see.

greeny

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: Sat 30th JAN Ė Thu 4th FEB 2021
« Reply #29 on: Thu 04 Feb 2021 05:45 »
Liverpool's current form at Anfield suggests it may not be the huge battle that fixture normally is.  Of course, they may raise their game, but they're not exactly in great form at Anfield.