A&H

Arsenal v Aston Villa

USSF used to have a handful of additional examples of USB, and interfering with the GK was one of them. I think SPA is a tough sell when the GK still has the ball. But I don’t have a problem with vanilla USB when an attacker is really being a knucklehead.
 
The Referee Store
Why is nobody talking about the talking point?
Not whether it was a PK or not, but the fact that Pawson had blown for HT when he was called to OFR the foul. With the PK saved, he then allowed the rebound to be scored before HT was then called immediately after the KO
Not saying the Ref was wrong in any way, but one can understand the ensuing controversy
 
Big Cat said:
Why is nobody talking about the talking point?
Not whether it was a PK or not, but the fact that Pawson had blown for HT when he was called to OFR the foul. With the PK saved, he then allowed the rebound to be scored before HT was then called immediately after the KO
Not saying the Ref was wrong in any way, but one can understand the ensuing controversy
Click to expand...
He hadn't - he blew the whistle to stop the game because VAR was recommending a review.

streamable.com

ARSAVL Pawson [Oliver] +47'

Watch "ARSAVL Pawson [Oliver] +47'" on Streamable.
streamable.com streamable.com
 
JamesL said:
Yes. Once play is in a neutral area the referee can stop to do the OFR.
Click to expand...
They were also banging about the HT controversy after the game for 10 mins or so. Kelly 'Whatserface' was giving it the big'un
So I thought it was 'a thing'
Begs the question, what would've happened if the rebound from a PK was scored after the HT whistle. More VAR nonsense, whatever the answer is
 
Last edited:
How long did they play on for after the penalty was taken? Must've been at least a minute as Pawson played that much time before stopping play after the penalty incident
 
I must say, it seems to me that the penalty should have been the last kick. Pen taken 3 minutes after the 2 added on, when the reviewed incident occurred 1 and a half minutes into added time.
Can understand the frustration
 
You could see there was a VAR check as the ref let play along Arsenal’s back line continue after the 2 mins of added time was up. It was clear he didn't want to blow for HT to cause the issues mentioned above. Arsenal weren't attacking with any threat (when do they?) so he just waited for the VAR verdict.

Immediate rebound was scored
 
I think the situation was managed poorly. My guess is VAR told him he is checking it. He kept play going untill check was complete and review was recommended. What he should have done, given we were into extra time, he should have stopped play the first opportunity he had during Check. And he had a few opportunities to stop play before he actually did.
 
bester said:
If you decide this qualifies as a promising attack then you're going have at least five cautions a game for SPA.
Click to expand...
Was going to pick up on that point myself.

Its a big (wrong?) assumption to assume that a goalkeeper (even at this level) is going to instigate a promising attack 70/80 yards away with a fly kick isn't it?

You could caution for USB (Unspecified), USB, calling the challenge 'reckless' or even for playing in a dangerous manner if foot raised I guess, but I'm having a problem with the 'promising attack' logic - its a possible attack, but that's not the same thing nor a reason to caution as per LOTG.
 
PinnerPaul said:
Was going to pick up on that point myself.

Its a big (wrong?) assumption to assume that a goalkeeper (even at this level) is going to instigate a promising attack 70/80 yards away with a fly kick isn't it?

You could caution for USB (Unspecified), USB, calling the challenge 'reckless' or even for playing in a dangerous manner if foot raised I guess, but I'm having a problem with the 'promising attack' logic - its a possible attack, but that's not the same thing nor a reason to caution as per LOTG.
Click to expand...

It can be argued it was promising. Villa had a player completely free out by the touchline, and these days many keepers can put the ball on a sixpence. Aubameyang realised this break was on and blocked the keeper, for me that can be SPA even though there were a lot of unknowns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
RustyRef said:
It can be argued it was promising. Villa had a player completely free out by the touchline, and these days many keepers can put the ball on a sixpence. Aubameyang realised this break was on and blocked the keeper, for me that can be SPA even though there were a lot of unknowns.
Click to expand...
Many keepers 'can' put the ball on a sixpence, but those same GKs can also put the ball straight in the crowd - I see that half a dozen times in most Championship games I see live.

My point is that until that ball does land on that sixpence, its not, by definition, a promising attack.
 
RustyRef said:
It can be argued it was promising. Villa had a player completely free out by the touchline, and these days many keepers can put the ball on a sixpence. Aubameyang realised this break was on and blocked the keeper, for me that can be SPA even though there were a lot of unknowns.
Click to expand...
I can see both sides of this one. Going on the balance of probabilities, these type of situations likely don't meet the 'standard' SPA criteria as we're looking at the possibility of a promising attack starting rather than saying there already IS a promising attack. That said, the ONLY reason for Aubameyang to do this is because he is concerned about a promising attack and therefore acts in an unsporting manner. In a world where what we don't (properly) punish we encourage, I think the minimum required here is a strong public word and I'd personally lean towards a caution.
 
Exactly my thought process. Why's he doing that? It's either to stop what the attacker believes is a promising attack, to delay the release by the GK to slow the game down, or because he's just being a dick. Or to put it in referee speak, it's either C1 (SPA), C4 or C1 (general USB).

I'm not saying you have to pull out a card on a first offence, or on a token gesture that doesn't actually influence the GK. But if the temperature of the game demands it, I think you can always find a reason to justify the card - and you want to be having a word with the player at the next opportunity regardless.
 
GraemeS said:
Exactly my thought process. Why's he doing that? It's either to stop what the attacker believes is a promising attack, to delay the release by the GK to slow the game down, or because he's just being a dick. Or to put it in referee speak, it's either C1 (SPA), C4 or C1 (general USB).

I'm not saying you have to pull out a card on a first offence, or on a token gesture that doesn't actually influence the GK. But if the temperature of the game demands it, I think you can always find a reason to justify the card - and you want to be having a word with the player at the next opportunity regardless.
Click to expand...
Can this be a C4? With ball in keepers hands is this a "restart" that can be delayed? I always thought that only applied to "dead ball" situations such as goal kick, free kick, corner etc
 
Hendo said:
Can this be a C4? With ball in keepers hands is this a "restart" that can be delayed? I always thought that only applied to "dead ball" situations such as goal kick, free kick, corner etc
Click to expand...
No it absolutely cannot be a C4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
Ugh, pointless distinction. OK, fine, it can't actually be C4 - the overall point stands, and you can throw C3 in there as well once you've given a warning if they do it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top