Search results

Does MO think they’re talking to him when they say ‘Oli’? The below suggests he can hear the discussion…

Honestly listening to the audio, this could have happened to anyone. This is a system issue far more than it is human error, and I hope the obvious fix (“you may award the goal”) is in place by the weekend. This was always going to happen at some point, it’s just DE’s bad luck it happened to...

Agreed. As a first go, what about the following logic for offences in the tackle? Studs-up = 1 point Feet off the ground = 1 point Force: Low = 0 points, Moderate = 1 point, High = 2 points Impact: Above the foot = 1 point Full contact with ball first = -1 point 0-1 points = no sanction 2...

This is fair of course - perhaps “intent-based” is the wrong word, and the distinction is between the nature of the challenge and the consequences of the challenge. The latter may be more objective, which lends itself to clearer VAR protocols and decisions. Rugby has certainly moved in that...

Oh yep - fully agree. Wasn’t arguing that Jones should’ve been mitigated down, just for clear protocols.

Worth noting that rugby TMOs always end by confirming the restart, whatever the decision or circumstances. That seems an easy fix. Tackles like Curtis Jones’s seem to be going through a similar evolution to head contact in rugby: from intent-based (careless, reckless, excessive force) to...

I’m guessing the VAR discussion would have started with “onfield decision is goal” but that would have been talking to each other and not the referee? If so I’m with you but to “confirm” the call they need to talk to the ref at some point.

It feels like there’s a lot they could learn from rugby in developing clearer VAR protocols for how these discussions unfold. There’s a reason rugby TMOs say “you may award the try” and not “yep, check complete”.

Thoughts on the Malo Gusto red card? Felt like yellow was plenty enough - he wins the ball well before contact and to me it was reckless rather than excessive force. Definitely didn’t seem like a VAR intervention was needed...

Sometimes it feels like it being the GK can give them a bit of a blind spot? Different situation, but reminds me a bit of Ederson on Ryan Fraser a while back in the clear-and-obviousness of it

Yeah penalty all day long. VAR seemed to spend the most time on the worst angle, which was the only one it wasn’t obvious for - but would have expected this to be given on the field and then by VAR if not.

Thought this was excellent from the on-field referee - the first foul is soft, but gives enough doubt not to overturn the decision. Shouldn’t have been referred in the first place but can understand why they missed it. This one’s a pen!

Great to get some insight here - credit to him for doing this and explaining the thought process so well. I was surprised as I thought both (1) the Newcastle penalty and (2) HW’s suggestion that Toney should’ve been penalised for holding before the penalty incident against Bournemouth weren’t...

I guess I’m surprised to see any handball overturned by VAR without evidence that it’s not hit the arm. I‘d assume that in most cases if it hits the arm it can’t then be a C&O error since mitigation is subjective.

I think one of the reasons this one is so hard for the ref in real time is that it’s such a clear opportunity to score a goal - there’s a decent-sized gap between the keeper and defender into an empty net - that you’re not expecting a dive in that position.

I’m confused - thoughts on the reversed PK? I know leg first and onto arm is usually no pen, but that’s generally when the ball has been miscontrolled. Here Kiwior has made himself bigger to stop a shot and it hits his thigh first before his arm (I think). I can understand the ref giving no pen...

Agree with the red if the foul is given. My first reaction was PK, but a couple of the camera angles show how easily he goes down. With those I’d be going no foul, but in real time from the ref’s angle I would’ve given it.

Fair enough, but in most situations a penalty (0.8 xG) plus a red card is a more game-changing decision. Referees also already give goals in plenty of other situations that decide games, so there’s nothing new there. And rugby referees already award penalty tries, generally in more complex...

It’d be the same decision with less pressure on the referee - if you give PK + RC for denying a goal today, you give a penalty goal + YC under a revised law. If there are grey areas they’re the same ones that exist now.

My first reaction to the Anderson disallowed goal was that the ball was played to Longstaff by the Forest defender, starting a new phase of play and therefore not an offside offence - and certainly not C&O for VAR to overturn. Is there something I'm missing?