A&H

Liv City - Klopp and Pep for maybe the last time

Status
Not open for further replies.
Looks like I'm controversial in my opinion here, but I really don't think that's a foul at the end.

MacAllister initiates the contact by moving his body into a position where Doku has already lifted his foot to strike the ball and does so. The contact is minimal and MacAllister goes down like he's been shot.

Agree that if it's given as a foul it's probably not going to be overturned, but it's not a foul for me, and if a percentage of people can also look at it and think it isn't a foul, that's exactly why VAR hasn't given a foul.
 
The Referee Store
RefereeX said:
Looks like I'm controversial in my opinion here, but I really don't think that's a foul at the end.

MacAllister initiates the contact by moving his body into a position where Doku has already lifted his foot to strike the ball and does so. The contact is minimal and MacAllister goes down like he's been shot.

Agree that if it's given as a foul it's probably not going to be overturned, but it's not a foul for me, and if a percentage of people can also look at it and think it isn't a foul, that's exactly why VAR hasn't given a foul.
Click to expand...
You have to be kidding me?? Mac Allister is running in to challenge for the ball but has to stop when Doku decides to do something truly stupid and raise his foot so high its almost head height before bringing it down into MA's chest. Its a foul and a penalty - no doubt about it. If it happens anywhere else on the pitch its a foul.

I know I'm biased but you are talking absolute nonsense I am afraid.
 
Kinsleyr said:
You have to be kidding me?? Mac Allister is running in to challenge for the ball but has to stop when Doku decides to do something truly stupid and raise his foot so high its almost head height before bringing it down into MA's chest. Its a foul and a penalty - no doubt about it. If it happens anywhere else on the pitch its a foul.

I know I'm biased but you are talking absolute nonsense I am afraid.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes, you are. I have no bias at all, and I don't believe it's a foul.

I have reasoned why I don't believe it's a foul, but I have accepted that other people will view it as a foul. All without any insistence that I am correct and everyone else is wrong, and also without saying that anyone is talking nonsense because their opinion of a clearly subjective 'foul' differs from mine. Amazing how that can be done, isn't it.
 
RefereeX said:
Yes. Yes, you are. I have no bias at all, and I don't believe it's a foul.

I have reasoned why I don't believe it's a foul, but I have accepted that other people will view it as a foul. All without any insistence that I am correct and everyone else is wrong, and also without saying that anyone is talking nonsense because their opinion of a clearly subjective 'foul' differs from mine. Amazing how that can be done, isn't it.
Click to expand...
Ok perhaps I was a bit strong but to see it as a player running in to make a situation is something I find difficult. I get players diving to create a foul - like Haveritez on Saturday who was playing for a penalty and probably should have received a card for simulation, and perhaps again yesterday Salah went down a bit easily (but he rarely gets fouls anyway) so I think there is always a chance to play the referee but if you don't believe it's a foul in this case I guess your level of expectation means you barely ever give fouls in a game unless someone has thrown a punch?
 
I think it's a foul and a penalty, take your pick from either;
  • Endagering an opponent
  • Careless
  • Impedes an opponent with contact
  • Playing in a dangerous manner (?)
Anywhere else, this is a foul and I think it meets the higher threshold for a penalty.

RefereeX said:
MacAllister initiates the contact by moving his body into a position where Doku has already lifted his foot to strike the ball and does so. The contact is minimal and MacAllister goes down like he's been shot.
Click to expand...
Whilst I can see what you're saying I disagree with this take;

Because MacAllister has every right to go for the ball, and Doku needs to be aware that there is likely to be players in the close vicinity, so raising his foot that high is risky. In my opinion, Doku has gone in carelessly and has endangered an opponent by having his boot at chest height. Even if MacAllister initiates the contact, it's still a foul IMO because Doku shouldn't have his foot there.
 
Kinsleyr said:
Ok perhaps I was a bit strong but to see it as a player running in to make a situation is something I find difficult. I get players diving to create a foul - like Haveritez on Saturday who was playing for a penalty and probably should have received a card for simulation, and perhaps again yesterday Salah went down a bit easily (but he rarely gets fouls anyway) so I think there is always a chance to play the referee but if you don't believe it's a foul in this case I guess your level of expectation means you barely ever give fouls in a game unless someone has thrown a punch?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that, but I give what I feel I need to give and try to let games breathe. I don't want anyone to be fed up of hearing my whistle 10 minutes in to the game if I can avoid it.
Appreciate this is the last minute of the game, but I just don't see it as enough for a penalty. I actually work with a Liverpool fan who agrees with me and said he would be abit p*ssed if it was given against them.

The Ginger Ref said:
I think it's a foul and a penalty, take your pick from either;
  • Endagering an opponent
  • Careless
  • Impedes an opponent with contact
  • Playing in a dangerous manner (?)
Anywhere else, this is a foul and I think it meets the higher threshold for a penalty.


Whilst I can see what you're saying I disagree with this take;

Because MacAllister has every right to go for the ball, and Doku needs to be aware that there is likely to be players in the close vicinity, so raising his foot that high is risky. In my opinion, Doku has gone in carelessly and has endangered an opponent by having his boot at chest height. Even if MacAllister initiates the contact, it's still a foul IMO because Doku shouldn't have his foot there.
Click to expand...
Appreciate your overall take, but just bear in mind that playing in a dangerous manner would be an indirect free kick, so don't use this to justify a penalty to an observer!

Similar can apply to mentioning endangering an opponent which implies serious foul play.

I know 100% what you're trying to say, but if you're getting observed and use the terminology that would then make you incorrect in law, it can make all the difference.
 
RefereeX said:
Appreciate your overall take, but just bear in mind that playing in a dangerous manner would be an indirect free kick, so don't use this to justify a penalty to an observer!

Similar can apply to mentioning endangering an opponent which implies serious foul play.

I know 100% what you're trying to say, but if you're getting observed and use the terminology that would then make you incorrect in law, it can make all the difference.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying, it's why I put it last and added the question mark (you and @JamesL confirmed my thought process that it can't be a penalty for PIADM and contact removes this option).

Because I was going to ask would anyone be brave to award an IDFK in this situation (had there not been contact)? I don't think 'the game expects it'
 
As much as I believe that was certainly a foul which would necessarily result in a PK; many of us struggle on another level with the punishment not fitting the crime. Or to be more exact, we really don't want to see a game decided by a PK in the 98th minute on a foul in which the attacking player wasn't a direct threat to score or create a chance.
And my psychology may be a bit off but I'm also speculating Oliver wants to avoid awarding a second PK to a team in such a tight and momentous game, for lack of a better phrase, it's just not a good look.
 
The Ginger Ref said:
Thanks for clarifying, it's why I put it last and added the question mark (you and @JamesL confirmed my thought process that it can't be a penalty for PIADM and contact removes this option).

Because I was going to ask would anyone be brave to award an IDFK in this situation (had there not been contact)? I don't think 'the game expects it'
Click to expand...
In my first season as a level 7 I remember turning down an appeal for a clear high foot by a defender inside the penalty area because my first thought was 'I can't give a penalty for that'. It was only after I'd had more thinking time that I realised it would have only been indirect as there was no contact, and had I been able to have that thought process quicker, I probably would have awarded the IDFK, but I think it's always wise to avoid giving IDFK in the box IF you can. (You can't always avoid it!)
 
Other more experienced refs on this forum may be able to advise better that what I am about to say, or say it better.

I would be extremely careful with the thought process of;

YourBootsAreUntied said:
we really don't want to see a game decided by a PK in the 98th minute on a foul in which the attacking player wasn't a direct threat to score or create a chance.
Click to expand...

It's not for us as referee's to consider the impact on the outcome of the game as that, IMO, is not remaining neutral, your thought process suggests you don't want to give a penalty because it will impact the outcome of the game.

You have written it is a foul, therefore the only decision is to give a penalty.

YourBootsAreUntied said:
wants to avoid awarding a second PK to a team in such a tight and momentous game, for lack of a better phrase, it's just not a good look
Click to expand...

Similarly, in regards to it being "not a good look", IMO, it's equally not a good look if you avoid giving a penalty because of the occasion, you could be accused of being out of your depth.

IMO, we aren't there to be liked (although it helps), we aren't there to make popular decisions, we are there to correctly apply the LOTG.
 
george.g said:
Are you saying this in the sense that you would award a red card?
Click to expand...
No, I think it's careless.

May upgrade it to reckless and a yellow card (and rephrase my wording to "disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent", but it isn't excessive force therefore doesn't constitute SFP.
 
The Ginger Ref said:
No, I think it's careless.

May upgrade it to reckless and a yellow card (and rephrase my wording to "disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent", but it isn't excessive force therefore doesn't constitute SFP.
Click to expand...
I agree it's not a red card, but my understanding of law is that endangering an opponent's safety OR using excessive force are red card offences. Therefore the initial wording you've used would still be bearing a sending off.

It's nitpicky from me - I know :mad:
 
I changed my wording because I thought that is what you were getting at.

But the LOTG book would disagree

Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off​
​
My interpretation is that you can endanger an opponent without it being excessive force (disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent)

Maybe an experienced head can advise, for it to be SFP, do both elements have to be present?
 
The Ginger Ref said:
I changed my wording because I thought that is what you were getting at.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree with your changed wording later - and I do think you've madem a valid point, so it isn't me disputing that.

It was more just a question of law if anything, as to where the remit of endangering safety extends in terms of a red card
 
I see that that the usuals on social media are making a big deal out of Oliver's gig in the UAE. It seems to happen every time Oliver makes a mistake which favours Manchester City. Certainly not a good look - Oliver should never have gone to the UAE because these allegations will now follow him for the rest of his career.
 
I'd go as far to say you're probably 50/50 for a red card for this in Europe (sadly).
A certain Turkish ref (whose name I can't utter) would have shown a red (especially if you were playing against Madrid).
 
YourBootsAreUntied said:
As much as I believe that was certainly a foul which would necessarily result in a PK; many of us struggle on another level with the punishment not fitting the crime. Or to be more exact, we really don't want to see a game decided by a PK in the 98th minute on a foul in which the attacking player wasn't a direct threat to score or create a chance.
And my psychology may be a bit off but I'm also speculating Oliver wants to avoid awarding a second PK to a team in such a tight and momentous game, for lack of a better phrase, it's just not a good look.
Click to expand...

Oliver LOVES a big decision late in a game. He didn't have the angle to give this. If he's on VAR this is 100% being given.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top