How is that not a penalty on Martial. Was the VAR Mr Pawson away for a coffee and a biscuit
Kids managed to get himself a reputation in a matter of weeks. He is very quick and slight so will do sown easier than some others but he did not cover himself in glory the other week.I don’t think so. That’s a “get up and get on with it” for me.
Daniel James caution for simulation was wrong, but if players didn’t cheat, the occasional innocent player wouldn’t get pulled up
Kids managed to get himself a reputation in a matter of weeks. He is very quick and slight so will do sown easier than some others but he did not cover himself in glory the other week.
How is that not a penalty on Martial. Was the VAR Mr Pawson away for a coffee and a biscuit
Maybe so... However he was correctly adjudged to have dived previously so had immediately drawn attention to himself. Naturally referees will be aware of it and wary of it.Bit unfair to get that rep so quick tbh. That caution was so incorrect I would have liked VAR to step in. He can't appeal it and it counts towards his caution statistics.
Having seen it, I agree it should be a penalty, it's pretty blatant holding offence that starts from outside all the way in.
There's also question marks on Cahill's foul, whether it was DOSGO, if he didn't take out Martial, he was clean through, and yet, only a caution for that.
Three very poor decisions imo.
Also don’t think the flop forwards for what was light contact on the knee helped his case.Maybe so... However he was correctly adjudged to have dived previously so had immediately drawn attention to himself. Naturally referees will be aware of it and wary of it.
Question marks? As far as I'm concerned that was a nailed-on case of DOGSO. There wasn't a single one of the considerations where the criteria for a DOGSO offence were not met, from what I could see. The law says:There's also question marks on Cahill's foul, whether it was DOSGO, if he didn't take out Martial, he was clean through, and yet, only a caution for that.
The following must be considered:
- distance between the offence and the goal
- general direction of the play
- likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- location and number of defenders
Bit unfair to get that rep so quick tbh. That caution was so incorrect I would have liked VAR to step in. He can't appeal it and it counts towards his caution statistics.
I don’t think so. That’s a “get up and get on with it” for me.
Question marks? As far as I'm concerned that was a nailed-on case of DOGSO. There wasn't a single one of the considerations where the criteria for a DOGSO offence were not met, from what I could see. The law says: