The Ref Stop

LIV v MCI

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

Can I ask, what is the difference between the pull by the Liverpool player, that got the goal ruled out and him sent off, and the one by Trippier on Lewis-Potter in the Newcastle v Brentford game?
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
The Ref Stop
ladbroke8745 said:
Can I ask, what is the difference between the pull by the Liverpool player, that got the goal ruled out and him sent off, and the one by Trippier on Lewis-Potter in the Newcastle v Brentford game?
Click to expand...
Very different incidents. Szoboszlai got a huge grab on Haaland and completely impacted his momentum. Tripper grabbed Lewis-Potter's shirt with very little force and he then flung himself to the ground.
 
Will_A said:
He did. After 91st minute penalty.
Click to expand...
Maybe I am misunderstanding it. He said it would have been his second yellow. I thought he is saying he also took his shirt off after the 100th minute disallowed goal. So what would would have been his second yellow?
 
I don’t understand the confusion relating to the end scenario.
I find it hard to believe Pawson didn’t see either of the blatant pulling offences so I’m assuming he used the common sense we could all apply if our decisions weren’t being checked by VAR.
Ultimately, if the game was 1-1 and this happened we wouldn’t be able to apply common sense, as you’d have one team who would benefit from having a player sent off and the goal being chalked off. Similarly, with VAR checkkng in operation, law must be applied to the letter, so the decision to go back to the initial foul and award a red card was correct. Advantage didn’t accrue so dogso still absolutely on the table.
 
I'm still curious whether the VAR protocol actually allows for downgraded DOGSO cautions following advantage to be upgraded to a sending off. Dale Johnson claims advantage was awarded on field. I think in this scenario if there is not a goal/no-goal decision, and Pawson decides not go back to penalise the original offence and instead cautions Szoboszlai, then that would definitely not be reviewable. I am assuming Szoboszlai's foul was reviewed as part of the APP for the goal/no-goal decision, but it is also very unusual for an APP check to penalise the defending team.
For decisions/incidents relating to goals, penalty/no penalty and red cards for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO), it may be necessary to review the attacking phase of play which led directly to the decision/incident; this may include how the attacking team gained possession of the ball in open play
Click to expand...
The APP review is supposed to be there to check whether the attacking team has committed an offence before being awarded a goal, penalty kick, or a defending team player sent off for DOGSO.

Was Szoboszlai cautioned on field?
 
CaptainsPlease said:
I'm still curious whether the VAR protocol actually allows for downgraded DOGSO cautions following advantage to be upgraded to a sending off. Dale Johnson claims advantage was awarded on field. I think in this scenario if there is not a goal/no-goal decision, and Pawson decides not go back to penalise the original offence and instead cautions Szoboszlai, then that would definitely not be reviewable. I am assuming Szoboszlai's foul was reviewed as part of the APP for the goal/no-goal decision, but it is also very unusual for an APP check to penalise the defending team.

The APP review is supposed to be there to check whether the attacking team has committed an offence before being awarded a goal, penalty kick, or a defending team player sent off for DOGSO.

Was Szoboszlai cautioned on field?
Click to expand...
Imagine restarting with a Liverpool free kick - there would be genuine carnage.

There is no advantage to the shirt pull by the Liverpool player as, clearly, haaland isn't going to score after the initial shirt pull. That's literally why haaland pulled him back

Appreciate your arguing the law in general not the scenario in the match specifically
 
CaptainsPlease said:
I'm still curious whether the VAR protocol actually allows for downgraded DOGSO cautions following advantage to be upgraded to a sending off. Dale Johnson claims advantage was awarded on field. I think in this scenario if there is not a goal/no-goal decision, and Pawson decides not go back to penalise the original offence and instead cautions Szoboszlai, then that would definitely not be reviewable. I am assuming Szoboszlai's foul was reviewed as part of the APP for the goal/no-goal decision, but it is also very unusual for an APP check to penalise the defending team.

The APP review is supposed to be there to check whether the attacking team has committed an offence before being awarded a goal, penalty kick, or a defending team player sent off for DOGSO.

Was Szoboszlai cautioned on field?
Click to expand...
I didn't see Szoboszlai being cautioned on live stream or on replay. I am fairly certain the onfield decision was a goal with no cards, which is very puzzling . It means CP didn't think anyone had committed a foul.

What I think happened in reality was that it was either too much to process live and he decided to just give the goal and let VAR sort it out. Or he dealt with the two fouls as mutual holding. Both of which are wrong.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
I'm still curious whether the VAR protocol actually allows for downgraded DOGSO cautions following advantage to be upgraded to a sending off. Dale Johnson claims advantage was awarded on field. I think in this scenario if there is not a goal/no-goal decision, and Pawson decides not go back to penalise the original offence and instead cautions Szoboszlai, then that would definitely not be reviewable. I am assuming Szoboszlai's foul was reviewed as part of the APP for the goal/no-goal decision, but it is also very unusual for an APP check to penalise the defending team.

The APP review is supposed to be there to check whether the attacking team has committed an offence before being awarded a goal, penalty kick, or a defending team player sent off for DOGSO.

Was Szoboszlai cautioned on field?
Click to expand...
There seems to be a misconception (or at least I believe it to be a misconception) from some referees that if you 'play advantage' the offence must be downgraded (DOGSO to caution, SPA to no caution).
A misconception in such that this is only the case if the advantage accrues. Here, the advantage didn't accrue because Szoboslai did successfully deny Haaland the OGSO, because Haaland then had to foul Szoboslai to score, so the advantage didn't accrue and a red card has to be issued.

It's irrelevant as to whether the protocol looks for downgraded cautions to be upgraded to sending off, because as we know, if a review is implemented because of any reviewable criteria, anything else that is part of that review is also changable (i.e. no foul given, review for SFP, on field referee may choose to award a caution) so by a review being recommended for no goal, Pawson then realises he must go back and issue to red card for DOGSO because the OGSO was denied by Szoboslai.
 
Another great day for VAR because it's given 24/7/365 Media something to bang on about endlessly

They're all missing one very important point however
Sunderland v Liverpool this week

In equity (fairness to ALL sides), did Sunderland want this red card yesterday?
Trouble being, no commentator has the brains to think about that because Sunderland are not a Marquee Club
Furthermore, come the end of the season, the dismissal could have a bearing on European qualification too. So I'm not really on board with the common sense rhetoric on this occasion. As always however, I'm mindful that VAR is always 'the star of the show', to quote Guardiola
 
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...
There's no way that Haaland would have been cautioned has he was already on a yellow for removing his shirt after converting the penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top