The Ref Stop

LIV v MCI

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

The referee & VAR had to disallow the goal & show red. Two fouls can’t cancel each other out.

The referee will get it in the neck but it’s two bad decisions by Allison, give away a needless penalty & then leave the goal unattended in open play?!?!?
 
The Ref Stop
As a football fan I'd prefer the goal to stand and Szoboslai to stay on, but as a referee I can see that he has to disallow it and send him off. It is a very clear foul by Haaland, difficult to ignore that really.
 
I think penalty/foul goal would be a great thing (penalty try) - rugby really has the laws better in terms of spirit of the game.

But correct outcome in terms of the laws, but a shame as I agree that every footballing person wants the goal. Ref/VAR hands tied.
 
A very complicated situation. Thread will run into double-figure pages most likely
The referee presumably played advantage because he could hardly miss the 'attempted DOGSO'. It could be argued that advantage could not accrue because Szoboszlai would've cleared the ball. Obviously the Incident is made complicated by Haaland's subsequent USB pulling which resulted in the ball crossing the goal line. With VAR in attendance, Law can't be ignored (or a blind eye cannot be turned), so there's no recourse for allowing the goal to stand. I didn't hear Pawson's words, but the outcome amounted to 'advantage did not accrue' and the outcome was supportable. Strictly speaking, Haaland should've been cautioned, but that wouldn't have added any value
Without VAR, Pawson could and would've turned a blind eye to all of it, perhaps only cautioning for failed DOGSO (albeit doubtful I doubt he'd have shown the yellow). A shame the goal didn't stand, but in terms of equity (fairness to all teams ibn the League), the red card and suspension is the fairest outcome for 'all sides', given the resulting FK was the last kick of the game
 
Last edited:
RustyRef said:
As a football fan I'd prefer the goal to stand and Szoboslai to stay on, but as a referee I can see that he has to disallow it and send him off. It is a very clear foul by Haaland, difficult to ignore that really.
Click to expand...
think this is the perfect way to describe it. any ref would probably want to give it but rules are rules
 
Correct decision, but if ever there’s a time for Law 18 that’d be it. I’d be giving the goal and saying (wrongly) that the second foul wasn’t a foul.
 
Big Cat said:
A very complicated situation. Thread will run into double-figure pages most likely
The referee presumably played advantage because he could hardly miss the 'attempted DOGSO'. It could be argued that advantage could not accrue because Szoboszlai would've cleared the ball. Obviously the Incident is made complicated by Haaland's subsequent USB pulling which resulted in the ball crossing the goal line. With VAR in attendance, Law can't be ignored (or a blind eye cannot be turned), so there's no recourse for allowing the goal to stand. I didn't hear Pawson's words, but the outcome amounted to 'advantage did not accrue' and the outcome was supportable. Strictly speaking, Haaland should've been cautioned, but that wouldn't have added any value
Without VAR, Pawson could and would've turned a blind eye to all of it, perhaps only cautioning for failed DOGSO (albeit doubtful I doubt he'd have shown the yellow). A shame the goal didn't stand, but in terms of equity (fairness to all teams ibn the League), the red card and suspension is the fairest outcome for 'all sides', given the resulting FK was the last kick of the game
Click to expand...
Talking to myself, but TBF to the VAR, if I was VAR, it would've taken me 10 minutes to figure out the conclusion I've stated
(which is the average length of a VAR review, so no difference I guess!)
 
Wolf_Ref said:
I think penalty/foul goal would be a great thing (penalty try) - rugby really has the laws better in terms of spirit of the game.

But correct outcome in terms of the laws, but a shame as I agree that every footballing person wants the goal. Ref/VAR hands tied.
Click to expand...
Yep, penalty goal, no brainer
 
Big Cat said:
A very complicated situation. Thread will run into double-figure pages most likely
The referee presumably played advantage because he could hardly miss the 'attempted DOGSO'. It could be argued that advantage could not accrue because Szoboszlai would've cleared the ball. Obviously the Incident is made complicated by Haaland's subsequent USB pulling which resulted in the ball crossing the goal line. With VAR in attendance, Law can't be ignored (or a blind eye cannot be turned), so there's no recourse for allowing the goal to stand. I didn't hear Pawson's words, but the outcome amounted to 'advantage did not accrue' and the outcome was supportable. Strictly speaking, Haaland should've been cautioned, but that wouldn't have added any value
Without VAR, Pawson could and would've turned a blind eye to all of it, perhaps only cautioning for failed DOGSO (albeit doubtful I doubt he'd have shown the yellow). A shame the goal didn't stand, but in terms of equity (fairness to all teams ibn the League), the red card and suspension is the fairest outcome for 'all sides', given the resulting FK was the last kick of the game
Click to expand...

Noting it would have been a second yellow for Haaland. (Why take your shirt off?!?!)
 
Agree fully with that - penalty goal for anything that is currently in the laws as denying a goal, and a penalty kick for anything currently the laws as DOGSO
Wolf_Ref said:
I think penalty/foul goal would be a great thing (penalty try) - rugby really has the laws better in terms of spirit of the game.

But correct outcome in terms of the laws, but a shame as I agree that every footballing person wants the goal. Ref/VAR hands tied.
Click to expand...
 
Game lasted over 104 minutes. Over 7 added minutes to the 7 added minutes. Which is possible when you really think about it. Happened in a game of mine recently. My head nearly went into meltdown when figuring out this phenomenon can occur to achieve the intended extra playing time
 
No one seems to have noticed but Haaland was in an offside position just over the half way line when the ball was played. There was a defender in front of him, but no keeper. So can it be a DOGSO given that if he had touched the ball it would have been interfering with play? It would still have been a free kick as the Laws are clear: foul a PIOP before they play the ball and it's still a free kick: but is it still DOGSO?
 
Ganajin said:
No one seems to have noticed but Haaland was in an offside position just over the half way line when the ball was played. There was a defender in front of him, but no keeper. So can it be a DOGSO given that if he had touched the ball it would have been interfering with play? It would still have been a free kick as the Laws are clear: foul a PIOP before they play the ball and it's still a free kick: but is it still DOGSO?
Click to expand...
Don't think he was
 
Ganajin said:
No one seems to have noticed but Haaland was in an offside position just over the half way line when the ball was played. There was a defender in front of him, but no keeper. So can it be a DOGSO given that if he had touched the ball it would have been interfering with play? It would still have been a free kick as the Laws are clear: foul a PIOP before they play the ball and it's still a free kick: but is it still DOGSO?
Click to expand...
Haaland is about 2 yards in his own half when the ball is played. Though, interestingly the AR has started to, incorrectly, drop with the Liverpool defender so wasn’t perfectly placed to spot this accurately
 
If a referee awards advantage following a DOGSO foul is that really reviewable? Where is the clear and obvious error to justify VAR intervention?
In this case of course the goal is reviewable but I am not sure Szoboszlai's foul is if advantage was awarded on field. A DOGSO foul where advantage is played is always downgraded to a caution whether or not a goal is scored.

To be clear I understand it is part of the APP but I'm not sure the protocol says VAR can negate the referee's award of advantage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top