Search results

I don’t think this met the threshold for VAR intervention outlined at the start of the season, and hope that the PGMOL apology dissuades re-refereeing of other similar incidents. In general I think when a player is not making a challenge or committing a holding offence, and his actions are not...

Indeed - would sum it up as "if you move into the line of the ball to block it, you have to do that without using your hands or arms."

It’s a bit like when a striker uses his arm to “cushion” the ball to help control it when it gets played over the top. In those cases the hand is by his side in a natural position, but it’s still an offence because it’s a deliberate handball.

Looked a pen to me - the mitigations being listed (hands by side, deflected) are for when the defender is too close to get out of the way, so you start examining his motives before the ball was struck. There’s enough distance between him and the ball (even after the deflection) for him not to...

Surprised the going away from goal thing is even being mentioned - firstly because it’s the illegal action that takes it in that direction, and secondly because a shot from a wider angle with no keeper in the net is much more likely to be scored than a central 1-on-1

I know direction of attack and covering defenders are OGSO considerations, but is it not still an OGSO anyway if he’s going past the keeper? Do we think Haaland is unlikely to score if the GK is out of the picture?

Clearly endangering his opponent and out of control. And not massively helpful for refs trying to educate people that getting the ball isn’t a defence when that’s the case.

Interesting one. Maybe Anderson has managed to trick me too, but the reason I think it’s a pen is that it’s hard to simulate the dragging of the leg out to the right in sync with with the hand/arm of Mitoma. Usually if a player is looking for contact they’ll plant their foot into the defender...

I thought this was a pen - a soft one but a pen. I don’t see Anderson initiating the contact, I think Mitoma’s elbow has swept Anderson’s right foot with it as he’s slid across the floor. Surprised to see it overturned.

Clearly not a red card - no excessive force, low degree of danger, and you don’t add the yellows for reckless + SPA.

The tackle by Estupiñan on Kilman is out of control, two-footed, with excessive force, studs up, and makes connection directly with the shin - struggling to find any possible reason for VAR not to intervene?!

Also is “fleeting” even a consideration when the attacking player is in possession of the ball? Feels like this guidance should only be for holding in the area when a cross is coming in, not for when a player is running with the ball. Most pull-backs are fleeting but they’re still fouls, and...

Agree this is a pen, and not “fleeting” since it has an immediate impact on the attacking player. Question on the VAR protocol - if the VAR believes that the pull is a clear and obvious offence, but also that the tug of the shirt by Rogers on Anderson just before is a possible foul (but not...

Definitely a backpass - agree on Martínez too, especially given that he didn’t even start on his line.

Agreed - given that distance from goal is a mitigating factor I can’t see how that can be anything other than ref’s call

I respect the opinions of those who are fine with YC here, but I think occasionally there’s an offence so unusual it’s not captured in refs’ muscle memory, even at the top level. The muscle memory is saying YC here - the ball is in play, Joelinton is slowing the game down, and as a ref you’d...

Also worth mentioning that the reason this is a red in rugby is the need to protect the neck, which houses the spinal cord and is particularly vulnerable to serious injury. Obviously a much bigger issue in rugby because tackles in football are very rarely targeted at the neck, but important to...

Wouldn’t a pulling offence need to be a motion of the arm back towards the offender? Joelinton’s was a movement away from his body (with a strong arm and around the neck).

Probably not - but I think this just means the referee *may* caution, rather than *must* caution. As with anything, the ref can always caution at any time if they think USB has occurred. So up to the ref on the day (they don’t *have* to caution until the goal is scored), and I think we’re on the...

I think a goal disallowed is different to a goal not scored? There's a window of opportunity between the ball crossing the line and an offence being identified that the player has to get themselves cautioned.