A&H

2nd yellow given here for SPA. Was this the right call?

The Referee Store
Not for me either. Driving forward in what is a build up but with many well positioned defenders in the mix. Doesn’t seem all that promising in the context of the phase of play.

Some interesting fouls in subsequent clips. Cards clearly at a premium.
 
Just to circle around here on the evolution on my own thinking...

1. Was this even a foul?

Honestly, I could easily see this being a play on. If there's contact, it's super minimal, enough that I'm having to really search hard for it.

If it is deemed a foul, onward...

2. Was it SPA?

I think the yellow for SPA is appropriate!

The 3 considerations for SPA are SSO (Speed, Space, Options).
  • Speed: the attacker is running at pace when the foul happens.
  • Space: the attacker is also running in space. Sure, there's another defender close to him but the attack continues if this foul doesn't happen.
  • Options: the attacker has at least 2 options to play the ball that both make a slightly promising attack even more promising. See screenshot below. Maybe you disagree, @RefRyanAus?
If a referee decided the closest defender meant this play didn't meet the threshold for Space, I could absolutely buy that argument. But I can personally easily see how this meets SSO requirements.

image.png
 
I'm with @Ref X on this - it feels like a soft yellow because it's a really soft foul decision. But when you separate out the foul and SPA questions, it's a clear SPA: He has broken through the midfield and would be running at the defence diagonally towards the goal if it wasn't for the contact from players who are behind him.

I just think not giving the foul at all and considering that contact trifling would be the best call.
 
GraemeS said:
I'm with @Ref X on this - it feels like a soft yellow because it's a really soft foul decision. But when you separate out the foul and SPA questions, it's a clear SPA: He has broken through the midfield and would be running at the defence diagonally towards the goal if it wasn't for the contact from players who are behind him.

I just think not giving the foul at all and considering that contact trifling would be the best call.
Click to expand...
that's how i saw it.
 
socal lurker said:
That perspective intrigues me--the defender clips his foot from behind. Seems a pretty clear foul to me.
Click to expand...
I'm not totally convinced I see that. And if I do, I think you can also make a case the attacker effectively initiates it by slowing down.
 
GraemeS said:
I'm not totally convinced I see that. And if I do, I think you can also make a case the attacker effectively initiates it by slowing down.
Click to expand...
The attacker isn’t required to maintain speed. If he does slow down, it doesn’t remove the foul. The defender was trying to crowd him. I still see it as a foul.
 
I didn't say he's required to maintain speed. But I can flag up a bunch of examples where an attacker deliberately moving their path in order to make contact with a defender has resulted in penalties being overturned/non-penalties being supported by VAR.

I don't see "crowding" on the list of DFK offences in my LOTG? Absent a clear trip, this is just normal footballing contact.
 
Ref X said:
Just to circle around here on the evolution on my own thinking...

1. Was this even a foul?

Honestly, I could easily see this being a play on. If there's contact, it's super minimal, enough that I'm having to really search hard for it.

If it is deemed a foul, onward...

2. Was it SPA?

I think the yellow for SPA is appropriate!

The 3 considerations for SPA are SSO (Speed, Space, Options).
  • Speed: the attacker is running at pace when the foul happens.
  • Space: the attacker is also running in space. Sure, there's another defender close to him but the attack continues if this foul doesn't happen.
  • Options: the attacker has at least 2 options to play the ball that both make a slightly promising attack even more promising. See screenshot below. Maybe you disagree, @RefRyanAus?
If a referee decided the closest defender meant this play didn't meet the threshold for Space, I could absolutely buy that argument. But I can personally easily see how this meets SSO requirements.

image.png
Click to expand...
A promising attack is very much a subjective call. I am ok with you interpreting that way. But I don't agree with it. For me it doesn't meet the numbers (defenders) consideration if you combine it with distance.

A point on your assertion in the "options", it already assumes a promising attack exists by saying this is a "slight promising attack" in a point used to prove it is. It's a circular reference.

For me had he passed it to one of the options and then if one of those two player were fouled then that would have been spa. As it is now, for me it is a "good" attack but not a "promising" one.

For the foul, it is on the lower end of the threshold. If this is given them I would like to see the same threshold maintained in the game within the same context. And it has to be consistent within the league also. I don't see this being given in EPL very often.

If the foul or the spa were reviewable, I don't think either should have been intervene by VAR as the opinion of the referee here should be 'respected'.
 
Last edited:
GraemeS said:
I didn't say he's required to maintain speed. But I can flag up a bunch of examples where an attacker deliberately moving their path in order to make contact with a defender has resulted in penalties being overturned/non-penalties being supported by VAR.

I don't see "crowding" on the list of DFK offences in my LOTG? Absent a clear trip, this is just normal footballing contact.
Click to expand...

We're just going to disagree here. This wasn't an attacker deliberately moving into a path to create the contact; he's trying to attack. By crowding the opponent from behind with no ability to challenge for the ball, the defender carelessly tripped the attacker. I don't see clipping an opponent's foot from behind and causing him to fall as "normal footballing contact." (But I do agree that in a reviewable context, this is one that VAR should not get involved in either way--while I think a foul is the better call, I don't think a call either direction would be C&O error.)

(As long as I've said as much as I have, I guess I should opine on SPA--I think it's close but would come out on the side of not SPA, but wouldn't argue much with anyone who disagrees. And I think it also depends a bit on how other spa-ish scenarios have been treated in the same game for the sake of consistency. This also plays into some of what @one is saying about the foul--where the foul bar has been throughout the game should influence whether this is called as a foul or is trifling--and I admittedly haven't watched any other parts of the game.)
 
For me had he passed it to one of the options and then if one of those two player were fouled then that would have been spa. As it is now, for me it is a "good" attack but not a "promising" one.
Click to expand...
@one I accept this interpretation.

For the foul, it is on the lower end of the threshold. If this is given them I would like to see the same threshold maintained in the game within the same context. And it has to be consistent within the league also. I don't see this being given in EPL very often.
Click to expand...
Totally agreed. That's one thing we all have to keep in mind when watching video clips of one moment of the game. We're not taking the whole game into account which really is needed to determine how a subjective call is made in a singular moment. I like your thinking here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top