A&H

Liverpool/Cardiff

bloovee said:
I think it proves that PGMOL and I have a different concept of what a "glancing blow" means.

It's as if PGMOL have engaged the No. 10 press office to explain that raking with the studs is a typical work event.
Click to expand...
It's entirely possible for that to happen as part of a careless foul, or even just in the course of normal play - see the Diaz injury in the Liverpool/Cardiff game, which was a nasty studs-in-the-knee injury that was 100% accidental, happened in the normal course of play and was correctly judged as not even a foul.

Show me a video of when your injury occurred and you might have a case, but a still photo of an injury post-match proves nothing. And you're a qualified referee, I shouldn't have to tell you that.
 
The Referee Store
bloovee said:
What, admit that it was a clear and obvious error by VAR not to call it a clear and obvious error? Trying to explain it would make it worse.

The VAR decisions are worse than the onfieid ones. I'm not sure how they are defining "endangering".

And just a reminder that "excessive force" was originally not intended to bear this sort of analysis, simply because it has to be weighed against "just enough force to foul someone in a reckless way but without risking serious injury". It's a stupid use of language.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree it was a clear and obvious error to yellow - by my own definition - or by IFAB’s c&o - though TBH I don’t really get or appreciate the actual c&o guidance.
 
bloovee said:
Ah - the "glancing blow" argument again...

Like this non-red:

View attachment 5420
Click to expand...
In a step 7 game in my area, it was abandoned after 11 minutes, when a 50/50 challenge left both players involved with broken legs (one has a double break, the other has a single break, both of them required surgery).

No questions from anyone of it being anything other than a good 50/50 tackle. Let's not referee by outcome..
 
GraemeS said:
It's entirely possible for that to happen as part of a careless foul, or even just in the course of normal play - see the Diaz injury in the Liverpool/Cardiff game, which was a nasty studs-in-the-knee injury that was 100% accidental, happened in the normal course of play and was correctly judged as not even a foul.

Show me a video of when your injury occurred and you might have a case, but a still photo of an injury post-match proves nothing. And you're a qualified referee, I shouldn't have to tell you that.
Click to expand...
The Match of the Day episode is no longer available, but 8.38 at https://www.mancity.com/citytv/mens...y-premier-league-extended-highlights-63778482

The Euro success of "it's a contact sport" VAR has transmogrified in the EPL to allowing really dangerous tackles (assaults) to go as YCs.
 
Justylove said:
In a step 7 game in my area, it was abandoned after 11 minutes, when a 50/50 challenge left both players involved with broken legs (one has a double break, the other has a single break, both of them required surgery).

No questions from anyone of it being anything other than a good 50/50 tackle. Let's not referee by outcome..
Click to expand...
Excellent example. Reminds me of the worst injury I've seen live from the middle: a broken wrist, which happened when a player launched himself into a tackle, cleared out the opponent and then was knocked onto his own wrist as a result.

Once we got him off the pitch and on the way to the hospital, the correct restart was a foul against the injured player for the careless (to be honest, borderline reckless) tackle he'd carried out that resulted in his own injury. Had I refereed by outcome, we'd be advocating cards for a player who's only crime was being fouled!
 
bloovee said:
The Match of the Day episode is no longer available, but 8.38 at https://www.mancity.com/citytv/mens...y-premier-league-extended-highlights-63778482

The Euro success of "it's a contact sport" VAR has transmogrified in the EPL to allowing really dangerous tackles (assaults) to go as YCs.
Click to expand...

Can I remind you that this topic, as cleverly alluded to in the title, is about Liverpool vs Cardiff. It isn't always about Man City, you do know that ...? We get complaints when topics are taken off at a tangent like this so please cut it out.
 
RustyRef said:
Can I remind you that this topic, as cleverly alluded to in the title, is about Liverpool vs Cardiff. It isn't always about Man City, you do know that ...? We get complaints when topics are taken off at a tangent like this so please cut it out.
Click to expand...
It's not a tangent. The issue is this nonsense about "a glancing blow" for full-on studs-on-the-leg challenges.
 
I write what I know about, and make comparison. I know more about what happens in City games. I can't help it if others detect partiality.

But in this thread I've compared the incident with one in Forest v Leicester where a GK did not risk DOGSO, let alone SFP, and the opponent was not carted and injured, and scored.
 
Last edited:
GraemeS said:
If you take the GK out of the picture completely, the defender is shoulder-to-shoulder with the attacker and in a position where he could make a sliding/lunging tackle if he needed to. That's enough for me that he still has work to do to get to the ball and hit it on target ahead of defenders
Click to expand...
Yes I agree, it was more the fact that attacker didn't have the ball and only a 50/50 chance of reaching it, that made it yellow for me as well.
 
bloovee said:
So the GK used just the necessary use of force to take out an opponent with no attempt to play the ball... and with what could have caused serious injury.

Looking at how the Nottingham Forest GK today didn't take out his opponent and Iheanacho scored in the open goal, it makes a better case for DOGSO.

And it's not easy for the away team to get a penalty at Anfield, is it?
Click to expand...
Its very difficult to get a penalty anywhere when the foul is about 30 yards outside the penalty area!:rolleyes:
 
GraemeS said:
Nothing in that picture proves a red card was the correct outcome....
Click to expand...
Indeed, I reference the (very sensible discussion) on the Barbet v Dike (QPR v WBA) incident, where the player received 5 minutes treatment and is STILL wearing a protective head cover - outcome of the 'foul'? - Throw in!

Not sure showing bloodied body parts brings anything to a discussion about the LOTG or indeed specific incidents.
 
bloovee said:
I think it proves that PGMOL and I have a different concept of what a "glancing blow" means.

It's as if PGMOL have engaged the No. 10 press office to explain that raking with the studs is a typical work event.
Click to expand...
I'm searching for 'typical work event' in the LOTG but strangely can't seem to find it?
 
bloovee said:
I write what I know about, and make comparison. I know more about what happens in City games. I can't help it of others detect partiality.

But in this thread I've compared the incident with one in Forest v Leicester where a GK did not risk DOGSO, let alone SFP, and the opponent was not carted and injured, and scored.
Click to expand...
Different referee, different match.

I'm sure we all LOVE it when players tell us what happened in last week's match - helps a lot I find! :rolleyes:
 
At least there was one (unfortunately only one) KMD that went in favour of the lower league team (Boro) in the 4th round of the Cup
Appallingly safe Refereeing all weekend in that respect
 
QuaverRef said:
It was Man City so of course it does!
Click to expand...
Everyone knows Man City get robbed by refs. Ignore most of the rival fans who will say VAR always goes City’s way, City are hated by the EPL!

Although as a United fan, I’m still fuming over the handball last week so I might start a rant about how the refs are against us (something I know many a United fan thinks, despite it being untrue. The theory ignores the fact we had a fair bit of luck with VAR last season 😂 .)

Back to this, I think the reason it feels so wrong is because it’s both borderline SFP and DOGSO. It’s both for me and is a red card, but it’s not clear and obvious for either I guess.
 
Last edited:
Joshref said:
Everyone knows Man City get robbed by refs. Ignore most of the rival fans who will say VAR always goes City’s way, City are hated by the EPL!

Although as a United fan, I’m still fuming over the handball last week so I might start a rant about how the refs are against us (something I know many a United fan thinks, ignoring we had a fair bit of luck with VAR last season.)

Back to this, I think the reason it feels so wrong is because it’s both borderline SFP and DOGSO. It’s both for me and is a red card, but it’s not clear and obvious for either I guess.
Click to expand...
Agree with this (well, the final paragraph at least, not the tin-foil-hat first two!)

But as discussed, the law is clear that for simultaneous offences, (ie. one action that may be an offence in multiple ways), you can only punish one, the most serious. Yellow but almost a red for DOGSO and yellow but almost a red for SFP can't be stacked into a red card. It feels a bit iffy of course, but I think it doesn't quite pass the threshold for either offence, so yellow is right.
 
Can someone clarify why so many refs here think this is NOT Dogso?

Leicester's goal is proof why this was 100% DOGSO.
Empty net, no real challenge from a defender. Like what else do you need?

If a defender pulled the player back and the keeper was in his goal, everyone would say DOGSO, so why is this different when the chance to score is miles better.
GraemeS said:
Agree with this (well, the final paragraph at least, not the tin-foil-hat first two!)

But as discussed, the law is clear that for simultaneous offences, (ie. one action that may be an offence in multiple ways), you can only punish one, the most serious. Yellow but almost a red for DOGSO and yellow but almost a red for SFP can't be stacked into a red card. It feels a bit iffy of course, but I think it doesn't quite pass the threshold for either offence, so yellow is right.
Click to expand...
 
The fact that this has already caused three pages of debate shows that it isn't at all a clear decision. On first sight I was certainly concerned about it being SFP (never really thought it was DOGSO, given distance & proximity) but the replays showing glancing contact below the ankle made me doubt that. That said, if it had been given, I could've seen why.

It is then, to me, a classically 'orange' card. As referees, we also know that you can't combine the 'nearly DOGSO' and 'nearly SFP' to come up with a red. Plenty of players, managers, pundits and fans can do that - but we shouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top