- First highlight 00:51 - no penalty for a clear foul, another example of the questionable officiating for holding offences and VAR Paul Tierney did not proceed to a review for this
- 1:42 - goal correctly disallowed for offside after VAR review but should have been flagged on field
- 2:00 - penalty awarded after VAR review for deliberate handball at the final movement of the arm, good decision
- Also the goalscorer went into the crowd, to which I think he would have been cautioned if he had not already received a caution
Leeds v Sunderland
- Thread starter CaptainsPlease
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
Not sure I agree. While I don't think many would argue if the penalty was giving due to the nature of the way he initiates the hold which looks more like it belongs in a wrestling play book, ultimately I don't think it's as bad or impactful in terms of restricting the players movement as it looks like it's going to be, plus the ball is not making it through to that area anyway, further reducing the impact. I think this is a correct VAR non-review with expectations as they are currently. (If you want to see a harsher stance on holding to prevent this then fair enough, but with the current guidelines I don't think VAR was wrong to not intervene
I think this is a harder decision than it looks when paused at the point of the ball being kicked. I'm sure a PL official will be disappointed in himself for getting it wrong, but with the movement made among the defence / attackers I don't think it's easy by any means.
Law only requires player movement to be impeded for there to be a holding offence, which is clear and obvious in this case. When I refer to 'questionable officiating for holding offences' it is mainly referring to PGMO's overall approach to it.
Aware of that, but whether we like it or not, whether the ball is getting to the player will still come in to peoples minds. Plus like I said, I don't actually think the holding was that restrictive, it just looks like it's going to be because of the WWE style way he initiates it. Blocking is more the cause of the players movement being impeded than any holding. He certainly doesn't get pulled to the ground.
Willing to accept I might be wrong... but just my opinion is that I don't think that's an obvious error for VAR
Is there an angle that proves he's actually grabbed him round the neck?
I know you're being a little exaggerative to make a point, but still... I firmly believe that it's not as bad a case of holding as it looks like it's going to be from the way he opens his arms.
@RefereeX I thought it would be worth doing a bit of analysis based on the PGMO guidance.
'Acts of holding that have clear material impact and/or are extreme non-footballing actions will be penalised.'
Material impact is defined as 'Opportunity for opponent to challenge for or play the ball' which I agree is not apparent in this case, so we focus on their second consideration 'extreme non-footballing action'.
Non-footballing action is defined as 'An action that is clearly not an attempt to challenge for or play the ball', which certainly applies in this case.
Extremeness is defined as 'Degree to which a holding action is a non-footballing act.'
Examples given applicable to this incident include
You asked about alternative angles to show where the holding was so here's another one. If this is not an 'extreme non-footballing action' I don't know what is?
'Acts of holding that have clear material impact and/or are extreme non-footballing actions will be penalised.'
Material impact is defined as 'Opportunity for opponent to challenge for or play the ball' which I agree is not apparent in this case, so we focus on their second consideration 'extreme non-footballing action'.
Non-footballing action is defined as 'An action that is clearly not an attempt to challenge for or play the ball', which certainly applies in this case.
Extremeness is defined as 'Degree to which a holding action is a non-footballing act.'
Examples given applicable to this incident include
- 'Clear (extreme) non-footballing action with impact on the opponent’s movement'
- 'Not looking at the ball, only focusing on opponent and not challenging for the ball'
- 'Holding an opponent with both arms'
You asked about alternative angles to show where the holding was so here's another one. If this is not an 'extreme non-footballing action' I don't know what is?
Good work. I can't disagree with most of what you say. What I will say is that I'm not convinced it's as bad as that still image looks. If someone was trying to move forwards while being held back in that way, the arm on the right of the image would be tight to his neck. the Leeds player feels himself grabbed and throws himself down to the ground which I don't want to encourage. I do think a pen would be the right outcome here based on what you've just found, but I'm still not 100% clear I want to see it given by VAR.
I truly do understand where you are coming from, but I think that a hair pull has to be a red card, accidental or not - it happened. It may not be the most violent of acts in most cases we have seen, perhaps not even violent at all, but I think with the Laws covering the World for both male & female, it has to be treated this way imho.
I don't really think officials can win here. When they've given penalties for holding, and as we know there have been brief periods when this has been cracked down on over the years, the criticism has been harsh and they've been accused of ruining the game. If they now cracked down on it the very same people that are saying they don't like the holding will turncoat and say they don't like the penalties. The same as those saying the keepers need more protection are the very same people that previously said keepers are an over protected species.
I also think too much is being made of this. Holding at set pieces is nothing new, I can remember watching the Arsenal defence of the likes of Adams, Keown, Linighan, etc, and attackers came off black and blue from interactions with them at set pieces, it is mild now in comparison. It is probably worse now than it has been before, no doubt due to the advent of set piece coaches who's only job is to devise these attacking and blocking routines, but listening to some people you'd be forgiven for thinking that there has never been any holding or blocking at set pieces before this season.
I also think too much is being made of this. Holding at set pieces is nothing new, I can remember watching the Arsenal defence of the likes of Adams, Keown, Linighan, etc, and attackers came off black and blue from interactions with them at set pieces, it is mild now in comparison. It is probably worse now than it has been before, no doubt due to the advent of set piece coaches who's only job is to devise these attacking and blocking routines, but listening to some people you'd be forgiven for thinking that there has never been any holding or blocking at set pieces before this season.
KMI panel unanimously voted that the holding offence should have been penalised and the VAR should have intervened.
www.bbc.co.uk
Leeds wrongly denied VAR penalty v Sunderland - panel
Leeds wrongly denied VAR penalty v Sunderland - panel
www.bbc.co.uk
Interesting, clear foul but ‘would the ball have reached him’ criteria not met?
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxLG2T0Xip9L39kj_tjJQJ-CQAyVxn51uk?si=ZoSSSn5odCv-LPJ3
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxLG2T0Xip9L39kj_tjJQJ-CQAyVxn51uk?si=ZoSSSn5odCv-LPJ3
It is not necessary for the ball to have reached him in Law, also in the PGMO guidance they want to punish where there is 'clear material impact' OR an 'extreme non-footballing action' which is the category this incident falls into.