The Ref Stop

Brighton v Liverpool

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 5122
  • Start date Start date

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

D

Deleted member 5122

Guest
Should it have been a red for Pascal Groß? No attempt to play the ball, so double jeopardy rule not in play?
 
The Ref Stop
Glad someone made the thread...I couldn't be bothered!

How that isn't a card is beyond me. Very good case for a red never mind a yellow. Next touch is a shot at goal from 8 yards out.
 
I wonder if the fact it ran to Diaz means it can't be DOGSO against the player who pulled Szob? And then the foul on Diaz was not DOGSO because defenders were back and then yellow gets downgraded to no card due to it being an attempt on the ball?

Still feels like there should be a card somewhere in there though?
 
Last edited:
Apparently they think he had neither control (well obviously - but his next touch is still a shot) and he's moving away from goal (well obviously - but his next touch is still a shot).

I genuinely don't understand that viewpoint at all. Consider them by all means but you have to conclude its dogso.
 
Just saw a quick clip of it as I missed most of the game. Very surprised a red wasn’t given there.

It’s a shirt pull, so can’t class as attempt to play ball. To me, next action is a clear shot on goal from a few yards out.
 
I've only seen the twitter clip above. Looks like a battle for the ball for me with the expected jostling. The way the Liverpool player slid on both knees just seems so dramatic. No attempt to play, just wants the foul.

Maybe another angle better catches it.

Looks fine to me.
 
RefSupport not up-to-speed. Most of the twitter accounts that are trying to show the refs side are getting it wrong laws on a weekly basis. Shame as their intentions are good in the main
Do we need a "RefChat" view to give better information?

"
People are saying there will be another apology from the PGMOL tomorrow.

I disagree, I think he got this right.

There was no rush with this decision which is what we want and I recon VAR knew it didn’t tick all of the boxes for a clear red.

This law was changed a while back to stop players being punished 3 times for the same offence. A law change I fully agree with.

1. Sent off.
2. Penalty award.
3. Miss a game.
 
I was there for this. I look fwd to seeing the pen again on TV later.

Anthony Taylor had a surprising match. He gave some surprising fouls and didn’t give 2 or 3 obvious cards, plus the pen card question.

It was a weird game, low on quality in places. Seemed an easy one to referee. Baffling why so few cards.
 
I'm going to use obvious twice here. I don't think it was obvious enough to be a DOGSO, the keeper's very close to smothering it and Lewis Dunk is back on the line. There's enough doubt that he isn't moving directly towards goal, there are covering defenders, and he might not have maintained control of the ball. Should certainly have been a caution though.

The other use of obvious is even if it should have been DOGSO it was nowhere near obvious enough for VAR to get involved.
 
When AT signalled penalty he seemed to be indicating it was for the 2nd challenge and not the pull back which would explain his no card for the first.
Or course VAR has to review the first still for the DOGSO as it would have been a red.
 
Gross failure of VAR.
Has to be red.

Diaz, Mac Allister, VVD cards missed.

Taylor made several odd decisions just outside the box on his diagonal. First foul of the match wrong way. Free kick for Bton’s second goal not a foul for me.

The lack of cards (like the Arse game) frightening for me.

As said, surprising decisions and outcomes today. As my friend said, disappointing if Taylor is supposed to be the best of us!
 
Not to echo last week, but I do think it would be a really interesting piece of VAR audio to have released - and also, a rare situation where a WWC-style announcement would actually be helpful. I'm still not sure which foul it was given for and would be very interested in the justification for no-DOGSO if given for the first.

For me the keeper is well out of position due to his involvement in the previous play, and has no chance of covering more than half the goal. And if we take out the delay caused by the shirt pull, Dunk isn't getting there in time to do much more than stick a foot in the frame of the goal. Szob would have had around 1/3rd of the goal unguarded to aim at, seems like clear DOGSO to me.
 
'playing advantage' and awarding the pen for the 2nd foul (if that's what he's done) and therefore not having to send off (or caution) the Brighton player for the initial foul doesn't sit well with me. It feels like it punishes Liverpool and lets Brighton off.
 
es1 said:
'playing advantage' and awarding the pen for the 2nd foul (if that's what he's done) and therefore not having to send off (or caution) the Brighton player for the initial foul doesn't sit well with me. It feels like it punishes Liverpool and lets Brighton off.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The on-field indication from AT was definitely that the penalty was awarded for the second foul - we don't know if that means he played advantage or judged no foul in the first case. And I'm really unsure how far VAR credibility stretches in terms of recommending a different outcome there though.

If hypothetically the "second foul" was a legal tackle, I'm 99% sure they should carry out a VAR review in order to cancel that penalty decision, award the "first foul" penalty and then a red card is definitely viable because the OGSO was denied, it then just comes down to how O they think it is!

But because that "second foul" is in fact a foul, I'm not sure what the thought process would be. I tried typing it out but deleted it because I couldn't get it to make any sense to me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top