Newcastle v Liverpool
- Thread starter Ryanj91
- Start date
I am an admin
Kinsleyr
Member
I see that Liverpool have been charged by the FA now after VVD's comments which I agree shouldn't have happened. But this needs to be across the board as it seems there are some rules for some clubs but not others at the moment. I bet you there are plenty of other instances of players across the premier league who have gone overboard on decisions and I am sure that the FA will be doing the same?
To me VAR is a very good idea but it needs to be involved straight away if there is a obvious honest mistake - VVD was understandably a red card and to Klopp and crew a hard one to take but Brooks didn't do himself any favours by only forcing the rules for one team on Sunday it appeared. Neither Joelinton or Guimaries got a yellow and they gave away 8 fouls between them including waving imaginary cards for every foul that Liverpool committed.
To me VAR is a very good idea but it needs to be involved straight away if there is a obvious honest mistake - VVD was understandably a red card and to Klopp and crew a hard one to take but Brooks didn't do himself any favours by only forcing the rules for one team on Sunday it appeared. Neither Joelinton or Guimaries got a yellow and they gave away 8 fouls between them including waving imaginary cards for every foul that Liverpool committed.
If you want the same across the board, are there any other instances of players gobbing off at the ref after being sent off ?
Quite a few E3 charges last month on here
https://www.thefa.com/news/2023/aug/04/fa-charges---july-2023-040823
That is in the very dangerous category for a refereeing forum ...
Aside for VVD facing additional punishment, I'm really quite taken aback that we're still talking about this game
Reluctance to show TAA 2nd yellow was understandable and a cast iron DOGSO. That's it!
Yes, I guess the bar for Reckless Play and SPA has been raised. It had to be to accommodate the C2 / C4 / C5 bonanza
They don't want a rush of C7's (2nd caution) as I predicted when all this started. That's a problem. It's a problem which is buggereing the refs because they're having to let too much other stuff go
Reluctance to show TAA 2nd yellow was understandable and a cast iron DOGSO. That's it!
Yes, I guess the bar for Reckless Play and SPA has been raised. It had to be to accommodate the C2 / C4 / C5 bonanza
They don't want a rush of C7's (2nd caution) as I predicted when all this started. That's a problem. It's a problem which is buggereing the refs because they're having to let too much other stuff go
Last edited:
Can 'whataboutery' all day long, but I think he was filmed using the F word and refused to leave the pitch, so banged to rights regarding this rule. I think Twitter is the place for 'what about'
There have been a lot though, especially if you include the EFL as well as EPL, including Calvin Bassey at the weekend and Tomiyasu the weekend before. Top level referees have always had a slightly higher bar on cautions where the player is already on one, although Bassey had already started walking before the hand went anywhere near the pocket.
one
RefChat Addict
(A removed post was quoted here)
This post is not how we usually deal with different opinions on this forum no matter how wrong we think it is. I am surprised it's still there and has attracted so many likes.
I certainly hope I am not referred to like this if I have an opinion no one else agrees with
This post is not how we usually deal with different opinions on this forum no matter how wrong we think it is. I am surprised it's still there and has attracted so many likes.
I certainly hope I am not referred to like this if I have an opinion no one else agrees with
Last edited:
This post is not how we usually deal with different opinions on this forum no matter how wrong we think it is. I am surprised it's still there and has attracted so many likes.
I certainly hope I am not referred to like this if I have an opinion no one else agrees with
Easily missed in long threads like this but now dealt with. Thank you for raising it.
To help us get to it more quickly, please consider using the report function in future. This alerts us all directly and we can go straight to it and deal with it that way.
I think a lot of the complaints (certainly my complaints) is that the "C2/C4/C5 bonanza" wasn't particularly applied to this game.
Trent gets his soft booking, but then you have Gordon blocking FKs, Joelinton doing both this and some of the clearest C3 I've ever seen with no punishment. And just a general lack of action on all the dissent around both the Newcastle "requests" for a second yellow for Trent and Liverpools "objections" to VVDs red.
I don't think it's a particularly smart approach to the problem, but at least the benefit of saying "these offences are mandatory cautions" is that no one can object if the yellow comes out 17 times in a game. But applying it once in the 5th minute to a Liverpool player and again in the 90th minutes to another Liverpool player while ignoring all the various other incidents discussed in here is always going to bring up questions.
Last edited:
Kinsleyr
Member
This is all I was mentioning. I am fine with players getting cards for these silly rules but it has to be 100% pushed across to all participants in the game and for some reason (probably not realising) Brooks decided it only applied to Liverpool players. I don't think its intentional on the referees part but it needs working on and getting reviewed.
Anyway, I think we need to move on as I am sure other games had their moments this weekend as well although I have no inclination of reviewing these games.
Trent's wasn't a soft booking, he's thrown the ball back on the pitch. Whether his intent was to delay the restart or show dissent isn't really here nor there, it could be either, but it certainly stopped Newcastle taking a quick thrown in. Just look at Jason Tindall's immediate reaction to it, there was no way he was getting away with that. He might have struggled in previous seasons, this season he had absolutely no chance of not being cautioned.
But yes, I agree Joelinton has got away with a couple there. Perhaps, and only John Brooks will know this, he didn't see the first one. He definitely saw the second one, but given he was about to send someone off for blatant DOGSO it wasn't credible to then caution him. As I say, only he will know, just as only he will know if Howard Webb and the observation panel have marked him down for it.
All I can suggest then is thinking about how written words can come across if put in a certain way. The way it was written implied that he was favouring one team over the other, and that is always going to get picked up on this forum, and I would hope any refereeing forum.
With all due respect, those are weasly explanations, none of which stop it being essentially just a series of mistakes. I'm surprised we're taking opposition reaction as a justification. I wouldn't be happy using that as a reason for a caution on my local park pitch. We're back to having to pull out "match control" tricks and inconsistency because he has to recover from getting an initial decision wrong.
Trent dissented/DTRs, we're all agreed that is sufficient to justify a card. Manager goes mad on the sidelines, by your logic that's what turns that into a definitely required booking.
Gordon almost immediately afterwards kicks the ball away to DTR, arguably an element of dissent too, and because all you get from Liverpool players is a bit of an appeal, referee just ignores it and runs away.
The lesson I'm taking from this is that asking for a card isn't just something players can clearly get away with when he's in the middle, it's actually required to pressure Brooks into getting the cards out for these technical offences. I'm not a twitter idiot who's going to scream corruption, I just think it's a really weak bit of refereeing - his head's gone after that first mistake and he's ended up only responding to whoever's shouting at him loudest. Which is exactly the opposite of the message referees are supposed to be sending out this season.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Good point well made
Couldn't disagree more. I didn't say that Tindall's reaction caused the referee to give the card, I said his reaction showed that everyone expected it to be a caution. If you are going to disagree fine, but at least read what I actually wrote before calling them "weasly explanations" (and get a spell checker
)And he was clearly getting the red out for the DOGSO before any player even thought about appealing, yet you've neglected to mention that as it doesn't back the narrative you want to paint.