Search results

I think he accidentally gets into the position, but then doesn’t make any effort to get out of it. But I can forgive that given it all happens very quickly. I’d card if I thought the player had deliberately engineered a situation in which the ball was unplayable.

Both brilliant referees, but this did make me think of the de Jong on Alonso tackle in the 2010 WC Final…

I think he got this spot on, and actually agree with the no card. It’s a freak occurrence and no defender expects to end up sat on the ball in his own penalty area. The ball rolls back between his legs and from that point it’s tough for him to get out of it. IFK seems plenty enough.

Am I right in thinking that “clear and obvious” here would automatically apply to both challenges as per protocol (i.e. to overturn, both must be C&O not offences)? Or is there a case that the second challenge is C&O not a foul, the first one is not C&O either way, and therefore a VAR could...

Huge fan of Michael Oliver but he’s got to be off for the second one

I don’t think one mistake, where he’s made the right decision but got things the wrong way round on the original call, is enough to say he’s not suited for the job. My guess is that if you fix the protocols this won’t happen again.

Really, really hope this doesn’t happen - doesn’t help one bit to scapegoat on a systemic issue. Managers show support for strikers who miss an open goal, and this is similar. Without clear protocols VARs are set up to make this exact mistake perhaps once every 1,000 checks. The message should...

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...