Aston Villa v West Ham

[cdsman]

Interesting events in the 50th minute.

Forearm smash by Hause (no action taken, except advantage), and play continues where Konsa takes out Bowen (I think it was) on the edge of the area.
Ref has clear view to show it was a DOGSO but issues a safe yellow.

VAR now looking at two incidents for possible red cards.

First one with Hause. I would love to have seen the ref sent to monitor for this one, I felt it was dangerous play with the arm by Hause.
Konsa was an easy red and rightly suggested by VAR for red.

Would've been a first I imagine for 2 reds for 2 separate incidents seconds apart.

IF VAR had considered both offences to be worthy of red cards, would we have seen two red cards? Surely, the referee should not have been playing advantage from the first offence and therefore the DOGSO cannot happen??

RC for Hause and a FK back at that point? Or is that not correct?

 

[JamesL]

IF VAR had considered both offences to be worthy of red cards, would we have seen two red cards? Surely, the referee should not have been playing advantage from the first offence and therefore the DOGSO cannot happen??

RC for Hause and a FK back at that point? Or is that not correct?

It's a tricky one.
But the theory is that yes you can play advantage from VC/SFP although it is discouraged (in law) unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal. If the ref does play advantage, then if the offending player touches the ball again he stops play and awards an idfk to opponents.

So yes, in. Principle 2 red cards could have been the result.

Of course the R could conclude he wouldn't have played advantage and thus there was no OGSO, too.

 

[one]

Well, actually I think this is how this should have played out without VAR. Ref to see the first is a red card and still play advantage because an immediate GSO ensued. Then stop play after the second offence which denied an OGSO and send them both off. It would be a rare double red well within how the law makers want you to apply the law. But the chances of that happening with or without VAR in an EPL game are zero in my lifetime.

 

[RustyRef]

The 'nailed on' bit is where I think you're wrong. I won't argue black and white against DOGSO, but I will argue that black and white arguments are misplaced in these judgements. The polarity of language only serves to try and win an argument that can't be won
Like I say, the Referee's mentality WRT this incident, is out of touch with the wider football community

Professional footballer clean through on goal without the foul, as I said it is nailed on DOGSO.

 

[Big Cat]

Professional footballer clean through on goal without the foul, as I said it is nailed on DOGSO.

So why do all the pundits unanimously disagree with your 'nailed on' assessment?
All of the comments I've heard in the media are akin to 'harsh'. I get that Refs have to use polarised language to justify decisions etc.
So I guess that, as an observer, you need to make a judgement and commit to it 100%. So I get where you're coming from (polarised), even if I'm leaning towards agreeing with the footballer/pundit/coach's viewpoint
There are other situations in which I would use the same polarised language to commit to DOGSO, but Referees would go with SPA
Like when a professional player is blatantly hauled down when obviously clean through... yet a long way from goal

 

[QuaverRef]

So why do all the pundits unanimously disagree with your 'nailed on' assessment?
All of the comments I've heard in the media are akin to 'harsh'

if we start listening to pundits and the media, we’re all doomed

 

[Big Cat]

if we start listening to pundits and the media, we’re all doomed

That's the kinda viewpoint which explains the poor relationship between Referees and everyone else in the game. We're better than them. Which we're not. They just use the wrong terminology

 

[QuaverRef]

That's the kinda viewpoint which explains the poor relationship between Referees and everyone else in the game. We're better than them. Which we're not. They just use the wrong terminology

That’s like saying I don’t get on with lawyers because I don’t know the correct words when infact It’s actually because I’ve not conducted the training or got the qualification. Pundits don’t use the correct terminology because they don’t know what it is, and asses decisions as a player and/or a fan, and not as the referee

 

[Big Cat]

That’s like saying I don’t get on with lawyers because I don’t know the correct words when infact It’s actually because I’ve not conducted the training or got the qualification. Pundits don’t use the correct terminology because they don’t know what it is, and asses decisions as a player and/or a fan, and not as the referee

No, they've only been a played the game for 20+ years at a level we couldn't dream of, yet it's us with the inner-wisdom
When it comes to assessing an OGSO for example, pundits will be better judges than Referees most of the time. Those with half a brain that is
Mind you, that's because we're at the mercy of Law and our teacher's interpretation of it, whilst players and pundits are free to use better judgement

 

[QuaverRef]

No, they've only been a played the game for 20+ years at a level we couldn't dream of, yet it's us with the inner-wisdom
When it comes to assessing an OGSO for example, pundits will be better judges than Referees most of the time. Those with half a brain that is
Mind you, we're at the mercy of Law and our teacher's interpretation of it, which players and pundits are fortunately spared.

So we’ve got top level qualified referees who have done various amounts of training and tests on the LOTG making the decision for DOGSO, but the better judges are pundits who haven’t done any training and played the game over 10 years ago? For me, you leave it up to the professional. I’m not going to try and milk a cow because I’ve drank milk for 30 years and know better than the farmer

 

[Big Cat]

So we’ve got top level qualified referees who have done various amounts of training and tests on the LOTG making the decision for DOGSO, but the better judges are pundits who haven’t done any training and played the game over 10 years ago? For me, you leave it up to the professional. I’m not going to try and milk a cow because I’ve drank milk for 30 years and know better than the farmer

The Referees are only as good as the Law they apply. Moreover, their instructions from employers are based on questionable motives
The rest of the football community can pass judgement based on common sense and fairness. We have to justify the process in Law by which we reach decisions. So we're at a disadvantage because we're invested in a shoddy book, whilst they're not

 

[Big Cat]

When I think about it, the more experienced I get, the more I emphasize Match Control over Application of Law. 'Perhaps' with the exception of games in which I'm observed, I definitely lean towards fairness rather than the contents of the book or guidance thereof
I'm not even sure about the 'perhaps' bit. Such is my fundamental lack of belief in the Law I'm applying, fairness probably trumps my observation score. At such time that my scores stop me from progressing further, I can't see me changing my approach. Maybe I'm 'Last Week's Ref' on occasion as a result, but so be it. My games seem to go well and I'm usually happy with the service I provide. Maybe my mindset will never deviate too much from that of a player. Hence why I'm defensive of them

 

[Russell Jones]

When I think about it, the more experienced I get, the more I emphasize Match Control over Application of Law. 'Perhaps' with the exception of games in which I'm observed, I definitely lean towards fairness rather than the contents of the book or guidance thereof
I'm not even sure about the 'perhaps' bit. Such is my fundamental lack of belief in the Law I'm applying, fairness probably trumps my observation score. At such time that my scores stop me from progressing further, I can't see me changing my approach. Maybe I'm 'Last Week's Ref' on occasion as a result, but so be it. My games seem to go well and I'm usually happy with the service I provide. Maybe my mindset will never deviate too much from that of a player. Hence why I'm defensive of them

I understand how you get to this perspective. And I fundamentally disagree with it.

Because your personal interpretation of what is fair / reasonable / expected / best for Match Control will be different to other officials. And that is the road to the inconsistency so hated by all the other participants in the game.

Whilst we all have sections of the laws that we question, the more that we all (empathetically, contextually and smilingly) apply them, the simpler the world becomes ... over time

 

[RustyRef]

So why do all the pundits unanimously disagree with your 'nailed on' assessment?
All of the comments I've heard in the media are akin to 'harsh'. I get that Refs have to use polarised language to justify decisions etc.
So I guess that, as an observer, you need to make a judgement and commit to it 100%. So I get where you're coming from (polarised), even if I'm leaning towards agreeing with the footballer/pundit/coach's viewpoint
There are other situations in which I would use the same polarised language to commit to DOGSO, but Referees would go with SPA
Like when a professional player is blatantly hauled down when obviously clean through... yet a long way from goal

I've coached at senior levels, I've refereed at senior levels. Bowen in the area with his the ability to get the ball onto his left foot is an OGSO. He might have potentially missed a shot, but that doesn't take away from the fact he was clean through. Players don't understand it, but that doesn't mean they are right.

 

[Tim - 2013]

I would have gone with two red cards.

However, with one exception.

I was already told that I can't get promoted because I call my games using the LOTG, any modifications to the game, and I don't care if the players are trying to get on a college team, loss of scholarship, they're sitting on a number of cards, there's a lot of money connected to the yearly event, etc.

When a referee training class involves the organizations' leadership stating the laws will be bent, ignored, leeway given, at the loss of referee control of game and flow and safety, it takes a stronger person than I to tolerate.

 

[Big Cat]

I understand how you get to this perspective. And I fundamentally disagree with it.

Because your personal interpretation of what is fair / reasonable / expected / best for Match Control will be different to other officials. And that is the road to the inconsistency so hated by all the other participants in the game.

Whilst we all have sections of the laws that we question, the more that we all (empathetically, contextually and smilingly) apply them, the simpler the world becomes ... over time

Lest not forget the original conversation and OP. Even when working off the Referee's definition of DOGSO, I'm in broad agreement that this dismissal was 'harsh' (based on direction of play towards the goal line and an acute angle to goal). That said, I'm not diametrically opposed to any Referee arguing DOGSO WRT this incident. I am however opposed to 'nailed on' language and the side issue of being completely dismissive and mocking of intelligent commentary from non-Referees
Thought it apt to post something directly relevant to the OP

 

[QuaverRef]

I would have gone with two red cards.

However, with one exception.

I was already told that I can't get promoted because I call my games using the LOTG, any modifications to the game, and I don't care if the players are trying to get on a college team, loss of scholarship, they're sitting on a number of cards, there's a lot of money connected to the yearly event, etc.

When a referee training class involves the organizations' leadership stating the laws will be bent, ignored, leeway given, at the loss of referee control of game and flow and safety, it takes a stronger person than I to tolerate.

That’s very much a top level outlook. At our level, and if you’re going 7-6, follow the LOTG to the letter. It’s what will get you promoted and it’s what you are paid to do. You will absolutely get marked down if you ignore the laws and tell the assessor you were concerned about their scholarship

 

[Big Cat]

I understand how you get to this perspective. And I fundamentally disagree with it.

Because your personal interpretation of what is fair / reasonable / expected / best for Match Control will be different to other officials. And that is the road to the inconsistency so hated by all the other participants in the game.

Whilst we all have sections of the laws that we question, the more that we all (empathetically, contextually and smilingly) apply them, the simpler the world becomes ... over time

I'll counter your post, if I may;

The Law Makers are the one's who don't seemingly have an adequate understanding of the game and their motives are questionable​

Professional Referees are working to very dubious instruction. The motives of their employers is again questionable​

Amateur Referees are subject to Law and guidance which is a function of the above​

That all makes for poor Officiating at all levels of football​

There are some superb individuals out there acting with marvellous professionalism and dedication doing an almost impossible job​

​

Therefore, when overall standards are poor (not of our making), we have to be careful about getting on any 'high horse'​

Unless we like playing Buckaroo​

We all routinely ignore parts of the book, so it's hypocritical and bordering on preposterous to define 'last week's ref'​

When a young inexperienced Ref tries to apply the LOTG as they should, they frequently find themselves in a world of pain, which the rest of us have caused​

​

WRT my own philosophy​

Translate fairness into 'USB' and you might find a Referee that acts on 'lack of respect for the game', 'simulation' and other major irritations such as 'delaying the restart' and 'required distance'. Some other Referees should take note​

I'm irritated if I don't get 15/15 on any Laws quiz. This allows me to apply 'fairness' within the framework of the LOTG, but a fair outcome is an absolute priority of mine, over and above other considerations such as my observation score​

Only ~ 15% of my time on the FOP has been as a MO. But my foul recognition and other instinctive/subjective judgements haven't changed much based on the inner-wisdom of CREF and OGSO etc​

Given a lot of what I've said, I really don't think we're in a position to be so dismissive and disparaging towards non-referees. Indeed, I believe we make better MO's if we listen to what the intelligent ones are telling us
Besides, you know I won't hesitate to post stuff on a Ref's forum that might upset the membership a bit...
and I can't resist pushing people's buttons from time to time!

​

​

 

[Russell Jones]

It's a really interesting debate ... so let's continue

I don't think the motivations at the top level are 'questionable', I think they are clear. Football in the upper echelons is a multi billion pound entertainment business and the powers that be quite understandably have a strong view as to how referees can best contribute to that business. I do however completely agree that the 'filtering down' of this approach makes life harder for officials below this level.

I strongly disagree with the generalisation that officiating at all levels of football is 'poor'. From my ten years of experience from youth football up to National League, I generally and regularly have seen the 'Third Team' being the best team on the FOP. It's bizarre to me that all others involved in the game seem to expect perfection from the match officials whilst being (more) understanding of the multiple mistakes made by other participants.

It frustrates me that, as you say, we all routinely ignore parts of the LOTG. I would love to wave a magic wand and make changes to the basic laws where current convention dictates that they are not applied. Just for starters, imagine if the '6 second rule' became '12 second' but all refs applied it. Or if taking throw ins from any point on the touch line closer to your own goal was legal rather than just 'accepted'. Or that all 'non involved' players needed to be in the other half at the taking of a penalty kick, so the whole messy concept of encroachment just disappeared. Then we could concentrate on consistent application of all laws without the 'get out' card that some were routinely ignored.

And with regard to your last paragraph, that's where I continue to get it but fervently disagree. I know you're passionate about 'doing the right thing' where you see the right thing as what you believe to be fair. But until or unless the view / training of all other referees comes in line with your concept of fairness, you run the real risk of being an outlier breeding inconsistency. Sticking with the OP, the training and communication around DOGSO is clear, easy to understand and consistent. It's not easy on the day for a ref to take that 'mental snapshot' at exactly the right time and there will always be borderline cases ... but at least there is a coherent framework within which to debate any particular incident .... that's surely better than defaulting to what 26,000 individual referees unilaterally decide is "fair"?

 

[Big Cat]

It's a really interesting debate ... so let's continue

I don't think the motivations at the top level are 'questionable', I think they are clear. Football in the upper echelons is a multi billion pound entertainment business and the powers that be quite understandably have a strong view as to how referees can best contribute to that business. I do however completely agree that the 'filtering down' of this approach makes life harder for officials below this level.

I strongly disagree with the generalisation that officiating at all levels of football is 'poor'. From my ten years of experience from youth football up to National League, I generally and regularly have seen the 'Third Team' being the best team on the FOP. It's bizarre to me that all others involved in the game seem to expect perfection from the match officials whilst being (more) understanding of the multiple mistakes made by other participants.

It frustrates me that, as you say, we all routinely ignore parts of the LOTG. I would love to wave a magic wand and make changes to the basic laws where current convention dictates that they are not applied. Just for starters, imagine if the '6 second rule' became '12 second' but all refs applied it. Or if taking throw ins from any point on the touch line closer to your own goal was legal rather than just 'accepted'. Or that all 'non involved' players needed to be in the other half at the taking of a penalty kick, so the whole messy concept of encroachment just disappeared. Then we could concentrate on consistent application of all laws without the 'get out' card that some were routinely ignored.

And with regard to your last paragraph, that's where I continue to get it but fervently disagree. I know you're passionate about 'doing the right thing' where you see the right thing as what you believe to be fair. But until or unless the view / training of all other referees comes in line with your concept of fairness, you run the real risk of being an outlier breeding inconsistency. Sticking with the OP, the training and communication around DOGSO is clear, easy to understand and consistent. It's not easy on the day for a ref to take that 'mental snapshot' at exactly the right time and there will always be borderline cases ... but at least there is a coherent framework within which to debate any particular incident .... that's surely better than defaulting to what 26,000 individual referees unilaterally decide is "fair"?

Yo, I'll have to get back to you! I've got a job to do and a 'big game' tonight to prepare for. We may need to set aside a week or so to further confab