Everton v Liverpool

[WillH]

I have some thoughts
If gueye is pulling back the liverpool player like that and preventing an attack, as hes already on a yellow, that means you have to give the red straight away and cant play advantage

Oliver was very poor for both teams tonight. Missed multiple fouls, and then gave ones with little to no contact. Liverpool would have won the game if the foul was given on salah at the end, as they could have killed the game from there. For one of the the leagues once best referees its not a good look

 

[RefereeX]

If gueye is pulling back the liverpool player like that and preventing an attack, as hes already on a yellow, that means you have to give the red straight away and cant play advantage

Not necessarily true. If this is deemed to be a promising attack, it's only a cautionable offence if advantage can not be applied.
Two bits of law almost contradict each other in this situation.
1. We shouldn't play advantage on a second yellow card offence unless there is a very clear immediate goalscoring opportunity
2. If advantage can be applied after a foul stopping a promising attack, the promising attack wasn't stopped so no caution is required.

It's not clear which one of these should trump the other. I believe @JamesL wrote to IFAB once and was still not given a clear answer? But In my opinion, it only becomes SPA when you award the foul, so number 2 would trump number one.

 

[Kinsleyr]

I have no problem with the timing. We all know that when you give a number of minutes, any breakage in play can affect that so MO did right for me.

The problem for me and some others is his up and down decisions for the fouling. The foul on Salah where MO was merely yards away and he waved play on with the making no challenge for the ball but taking Salah out is just confusing, as many other less accurate attempts at fouls were given against Liverpool players in the first half. I counted 3 attempts where the Everton player wasn't even touched and went down. Surely you are supposed to be sure before you give a freekick not give only one team the benefit of the doubt?

I like MO and he's been one of the best ref's but I wonder if last week's incident has affected his confidence in his decision making.

 

[JamesL]

Not necessarily true. If this is deemed to be a promising attack, it's only a cautionable offence if advantage can not be applied.
Two bits of law almost contradict each other in this situation.
1. We shouldn't play advantage on a second yellow card offence unless there is a very clear immediate goalscoring opportunity
2. If advantage can be applied after a foul stopping a promising attack, the promising attack wasn't stopped so no caution is required.

It's not clear which one of these should trump the other. I believe @JamesL wrote to IFAB once and was still not given a clear answer? But In my opinion, it only becomes SPA when you award the foul, so number 2 would trump number one.

I did.



The question:

 

[GraemeS]

You see if I was a Liverpool fan I would be annoyed with Bradley for that first yellow, absolute needless foul in the least thretening part of the pitch because he just wanted to give one to his opponant infront of the Everton fans.

Oliver also had a clear view of the 'push' so if he thought there was nothing in it and the pictures back that up, then no chance VAR getting involved.

I don't disagree on Bradley, but I also don't think that foul would merit a card if not for the reaction of the crowd it occurred in front of. While not exactly conclusive evidence, the "fouled" player didn't even fall over!

It's just part of the pattern of MO being pretty poor and inconsistent across the whole game and indeed, every time I've seen him this season. I'd say he let the occasion get to him (and I think the Bradley first card might be the one occasion where that's true), but in general, I just think he's in a run of real bad form. You don't have to go far back on this forum to find posts where I'm baffled AT is considered as good as MO - but I think this season, AT has actually gone up a notch to the point where he finally deserves the reputation he's had for a few seasons, while MO has gone off a cliff.

 

[GraemeS]

It's a poor argument. Have you ever refereed a game and a team blame you for a goal conceded after a corner they deem to be incorrect or similar? Have you never thought to yourself 'it's not my fault you couldn't defend the corner'? Equally, MO could have given that incorrect free kick near the half way line, Liverpool clear the ball in and go up the other end and score. Are you still considering that free kick decision to have had a major impact on the game? As without it, Liverpool probably wouldn't have scored... (hypothetically). The first goal last night was Liverpool's fault for failing to defend a very routine free kick. In my opinion their defending of that free kick was a bigger error than the award of it by Michael Oliver.

There are levels of imagination going on here, and you're being unreasonable considering all these worlds as equally valid. I'm imagining a world where a referee doesn't a) fall for a dive that b) led to a free kick that c) led to a goal. It's not hard to see the clear sequence there and it's a really small logical leap to think that if a happened differently, c probably wouldn't have had a chance to occur.

You're making up other worlds where other things could have happened, which is obviously a step further away from "I wish a referee hadn't made a clearly wrong decision that led to a set piece that led to a goal". And you do your arguments a disservice by pretending those two imagined worlds are equivalently reasonable.

I'd like a world where MO didn't fall for any of Everton dives. But there's a reason this is the one that is talked about and that comes up when you search for it on twitter - because it's the impactful one. Imagining other possible impacts doesn't negate the impact that did occur and that could have been prevented with a correct decision in the first place.

No it shouldn't. It should be intervening on clear and obvious refereeing errors. If you believe that's what VAR should be used for then fine, but that's not what it's been asked to be used for. If a referee describes an incident to VAR and it's not vastly different to how the referee has described it, you're not gonna get an overturn.

It's clearly an error not to give a FK for a similar offence to FKs he's blown for a dozen times earlier in the game. The referee sets the threshold, clear deviations from that are obvious errors. I don't understand the interpretation that VAR isn't empowered to help the referee correct a clear missed decision leading to a goal that he would have given multiple times already that game.

 

[Runner Ref]

On paper I think a draw was a fair result.

Liverpool allowed Everton to dictate the game.

Oliver was a bit all over the place with the foul detection and wasn’t his best day at the office by any stretch of the imagination. But I’ve seen worse performances.

My only comment would be that had this been another referee put in the same performance, I’m not convinced there would be as much backing to the referee. I do think Oliver gets a bit of the golden boy treatment.

 

[ARF]

I did.

View attachment 7926

The question:

View attachment 7927

"It only becomes a caution if the referee stops play and doesn't play advantage".

This isn't quite true - it is a caution unless the referee plays advantage. Which shouldn't be done if it's a second caution.

 

[RefereeX]

"It only becomes a caution if the referee stops play and doesn't play advantage".

This isn't quite true - it is a caution unless the referee plays advantage. Which shouldn't be done if it's a second caution.

But the offence is stopping a promising attack, the attack is only stopped when we award the foul?

There's ways of arguing it both ways round, and there's no definitive correct answer.

 

[one]

I did.

View attachment 7926

The question:

View attachment 7927

I salute you for persisting to get answers out of ifab in cases where the laws are badly worded. Even thought I don't think you ever did get a definitive answer in any of them cases (not the ones posted here). I gave up long time ago.

In this case the answer is, probably x is better, but it's up to you.

 

[RefereeX]

There are levels of imagination going on here, and you're being unreasonable considering all these worlds as equally valid. I'm imagining a world where a referee doesn't a) fall for a dive that b) led to a free kick that c) led to a goal. It's not hard to see the clear sequence there and it's a really small logical leap to think that if a happened differently, c probably wouldn't have had a chance to occur.

You're making up other worlds where other things could have happened, which is obviously a step further away from "I wish a referee hadn't made a clearly wrong decision that led to a set piece that led to a goal". And you do your arguments a disservice by pretending those two imagined worlds are equivalently reasonable.

I'd like a world where MO didn't fall for any of Everton dives. But there's a reason this is the one that is talked about and that comes up when you search for it on twitter - because it's the impactful one. Imagining other possible impacts doesn't negate the impact that did occur and that could have been prevented with a correct decision in the first place.

Yes, I'm taking things to the extreme, because there are KMI fouls and there are fouls that aren't KMIs and the foul for the free kick Everton scored the first goal from is not a KMI. Personally, I'd take a referee getting them centre of the park free kicks wrong against my team 5 times a game if that was all he was ever going to get wrong, because it's really not a huge advantage. It wouldn't even register on XG, until Liverpool fail to deal with the ball played along the floor. In my opinion, Liverpools defending of the free kick was worse than Oliver's mistake to award the foul. I'm entitled to that opinion, and whether you agree or not, it's a poor argument to look to blame the referee for something when there is as much blame at your own feet.

It's clearly an error not to give a FK for a similar offence to FKs he's blown for a dozen times earlier in the game. The referee sets the threshold, clear deviations from that are obvious errors. I don't understand the interpretation that VAR isn't empowered to help the referee correct a clear missed decision leading to a goal that he would have given multiple times already that game.

But a threshold for what is a foul has not been asked to be the same throughout a game. This isn't what good referees are taught. Whether you like it or not, that isn't a reflection on Michael Oliver's ability, it's a result of the way referees are asked to officiate for the benefit of the game. Adjust your tolerance levels to reflect what's happening in front of you. Reign it in when you need to, let it go when you can.
Furthermore, a VAR is not asked to suggest 'well he's been giving them soft ones throughout the game so we should tell him he needs to look at giving that one'. They're asked to take in to account the referee's explanation of events and see whether they deem the referee to have made a clear error in judgement. The alleged foul on Konate is never going to reach the VAR threshold in this country. Again, that isn't the VAR's fault.

 

[GraemeS]

Yes, I'm taking things to the extreme, because there are KMI fouls and there are fouls that aren't KMIs and the foul for the free kick Everton scored the first goal from is not a KMI. Personally, I'd take a referee getting them centre of the park free kicks wrong against my team 5 times a game if that was all he was ever going to get wrong, because it's really not a huge advantage. It wouldn't even register on XG, until Liverpool fail to deal with the ball played along the floor. In my opinion, Liverpools defending of the free kick was worse than Oliver's mistake to award the foul. I'm entitled to that opinion, and whether you agree or not, it's a poor argument to look to blame the referee for something when there is as much blame at your own feet.

There's no reason to pretend like it has to be one or the other. Of course Liverpool could have defended the free kick better - most (all?) goals are preventable with good enough defence.

That doesn't change the fact that the referee imagining a foul there makes it far more likely that Liverpool will conceded vs the world where he sees it correctly and either allows play to continue with Liverpool in possession or give LFC the FK and books the Everton player for the dive. You can fairly say that they could have defended better - but without the FK, they don't even have to defend, they're playing on with the ball at their feet in their own half. That's a chance created that wouldn't have existed without that poor decision.

But a threshold for what is a foul has not been asked to be the same throughout a game. This isn't what good referees are taught. Whether you like it or not, that isn't a reflection on Michael Oliver's ability, it's a result of the way referees are asked to officiate for the benefit of the game. Adjust your tolerance levels to reflect what's happening in front of you. Reign it in when you need to, let it go when you can.
Furthermore, a VAR is not asked to suggest 'well he's been giving them soft ones throughout the game so we should tell him he needs to look at giving that one'. They're asked to take in to account the referee's explanation of events and see whether they deem the referee to have made a clear error in judgement. The alleged foul on Konate is never going to reach the VAR threshold in this country. Again, that isn't the VAR's fault.

Frankly, I think that's often (and in this case), a nonsense excuse for poor foul detection. Why did he "need" to suddenly raise his foul tolerance for a key moment at the end of the game? What about the tension of the last few second of a tight game demands suddenly releasing the reigns for no reason?

You've dragged me round in circles back to where I started. If MO has seen the push, why has he not given the foul? And if he hasn't seen it, why haven't VAR bailed him out from a KMI he hasn't seen?

 

[Hilly1618]

Who’d be a referee! Didn’t watch the game live but watched the extended highlights this morning knowing already about a lot of the incidents. It must have been a horrible game to referee and MO was never going to please all of those watching (supporters of either team or watching non biased referees) It appears he tried to referee the game in a way that the players wanted (letting the game flow ) but then got castigated by players for penalising them at other times. No major bloopers in my opinion, additional time is always down the official in the middle , the nudge before the equalising goal was not enough to be penalised. I thought MO did

 

[Archer]

Christ, and I thought Man City match threads used to be tedious.

 

[RefereeX]

There's no reason to pretend like it has to be one or the other. Of course Liverpool could have defended the free kick better - most (all?) goals are preventable with good enough defence.

That doesn't change the fact that the referee imagining a foul there makes it far more likely that Liverpool will conceded vs the world where he sees it correctly and either allows play to continue with Liverpool in possession or give LFC the FK and books the Everton player for the dive. You can fairly say that they could have defended better - but without the FK, they don't even have to defend, they're playing on with the ball at their feet in their own half. That's a chance created that wouldn't have existed without that poor decision.

Not pretending it has to be one of the other, but I'll dispute your use of the word 'far more likely'. Liverpool's chance of conceding from that free kick is SO small.
Yes, it's larger than it would be if the free kick wasn't given, but if you're looking to blame a referee for a free kick award on the half way line as a 'howler' because by chance a goal came from it then you've got your fan head on not your referee head on. I don't know what perfect world you're expecting where a referee doesn't get a foul wrong in a game. There will always be a potential consequence of that that could mean a team conceding a goal. The consequence of the free kick doesn't make the decision a howler. Or are you suggesting a referee has only had a good game if he gets 100% of decisions correct? Because using your logic, any incorrect decision is potentially a howler, because it could lead to a goal...

Frankly, I think that's often (and in this case), a nonsense excuse for poor foul detection. Why did he "need" to suddenly raise his foul tolerance for a key moment at the end of the game? What about the tension of the last few second of a tight game demands suddenly releasing the reigns for no reason?

You've dragged me round in circles back to where I started. If MO has seen the push, why has he not given the foul? And if he hasn't seen it, why haven't VAR bailed him out from a KMI he hasn't seen?

Nobody said he needed to raise his foul tolerance late on. I'm saying foul tolerance varies throughout a game so how can you ask a VAR to match that tolerance. If you need to bring tolerances in to things at all, it's not a clear an obvious error, as a clear and obvious error would be a foul despite anyones tolerance level. I'm telling you that without doubt, you will not see Howard Webb standing with Michael Owen saying it was a mistake on field and VAR should have intervened. You either struggle to comprehend the brief that VAR's operate under, or you choose to ignore it.

I'm not going to waste everyone's time by replying any further in this thread (unless it's unrelated to the above points), because I know you will never change your mind or accept that other peoples view point may not be wrong, just because it differs from yours.

 

[Kinsleyr]

Who’d be a referee! Didn’t watch the game live but watched the extended highlights this morning knowing already about a lot of the incidents. It must have been a horrible game to referee and MO was never going to please all of those watching (supporters of either team or watching non biased referees) It appears he tried to referee the game in a way that the players wanted (letting the game flow ) but then got castigated by players for penalising them at other times. No major bloopers in my opinion, additional time is always down the official in the middle , the nudge before the equalising goal was not enough to be penalised. I thought MO did

OK fair enough - but you've just said the ref let the game flow. Ok he did it for one team and everytime the other team fell over he gave a foul so like most teams want - they want fair decisions on both sides. I'd have been more than happy if he just let the game flow for both teams as it would have improved the spectacle but it was only for one side.

 

[Kinsleyr]

Christ, and I thought Man City match threads used to be tedious.

It's ok you can look at other threads.

 

[Kinsleyr]

Anyway, I think we are all entitled to our opinions and in the belief of some ref's MO had a mare and in the view of others he did marvellous and all was dandy. Let's move on and see what the FA decide now regarding the red cards?

 

[Runner Ref]

Anyway, I think we are all entitled to our opinions and in the belief of some ref's MO had a mare and in the view of others he did marvellous and all was dandy. Let's move on and see what the FA decide now regarding the red cards?

Well Jones and Doucoure were sent off for a second yellow, so nothing the FA can do.

Slot was shown red for confronting a match official. He’s going need a miracle to get that overturned. I imagine Sipke Hulshoff will be the same.

 

[GraemeS]

Not pretending it has to be one of the other, but I'll dispute your use of the word 'far more likely'. Liverpool's chance of conceding from that free kick is SO small.
Yes, it's larger than it would be if the free kick wasn't given, but if you're looking to blame a referee for a free kick award on the half way line as a 'howler' because by chance a goal came from it then you've got your fan head on not your referee head on. I don't know what perfect world you're expecting where a referee doesn't get a foul wrong in a game. There will always be a potential consequence of that that could mean a team conceding a goal. The consequence of the free kick doesn't make the decision a howler. Or are you suggesting a referee has only had a good game if he gets 100% of decisions correct? Because using your logic, any incorrect decision is potentially a howler, because it could lead to a goal...

I've pointed out multiple times that his decision making was all over the place all game - giving an FK for a dive that led to a goal is just the "highlight" of a generally poor performance that you're defending him for despite...not watching the game? I'm not hiding my motivation for thinking it was an awful performance - what's your motivation for assuming it wasn't?