As you mentioned in another post in this thread, he has history of this.
I don't agree. As an example, if I drive very slowly on a road because another car is right up my arse, then technically I'm the rule breaker but he's the one who caused the problem.
It doesn't matter to me whether you're a Referee or not. Whilst this is a Referee Forum which is mostly used by Referees to intercommunicate on all matters Refereeing, I value the opinions of non-Referees equally
I don't agree. Whilst this might attract a Caution for 'Unsporting Behaviour - Stopping a Promising Attack', I thought the absence of intent (pushing, pulling, intentional tripping) and the resulting free kick perpetuated the 'Promising Attack' because of the location of the offence. The bar is always higher for the second yellow. You might be right that the threshold for a first Caution may have been reached. The higher bar for the second yellow is part of the game and is not written into Law. That's a different debate
We are all fans of one club or another. So of course it doesn't say fans can't interact here, else the forum could not exist.
And to add, the value of this forum is to assess and understand refereeing decisions from an objective point of view. Once this becomes skewed by bias, the conversation loses its value. I'm all for questioning and challenging decisions in order to understand, but not just for the purpose of referee-bashing.
When it comes to tactical fouls, I think all referees (top to bottom) are more likely to caution for SPA (especially first cautions) if there is an element of cynicism or intent in the foul.
You talk about reaction, but my counter-argument in this case would be that if he doesn't react or "try to sell it", he doesn't get the decision. Like the red the Southampton player got against him - it wasn't a crazy hair pull, but if he doesn't try to sell it, there is a good chance it goes missed.
I missed part of the game, so I can't fully say how true it is, but Christie apparently had at least one more similar foul while being on a yellow already.
Id argue against this. VAR executed perfectly should really result in zero overturns at the monitor so when it happens, it's not great, but it means that we've created another error, be that the final decision or the decision to recommend an on field review.
I was mid-writing exactly this post, so will just cancel that post and agree with James.
I agree that Cucurella's actions should be taken into account, but in this case after seeing that Brooks was clearly targetting him (he looked at him right before) and then getting his arm out like that face height would deem anything irrelevant (an unlucky connection with the chin can knock someone out). For me the problem is that Brooks goes for his head rather than his torso.
Ideally I agree with you, there would be no errors, and whenever the ref is sent, it's clear that it's the correct decision. But sometimes there have been cases where it seems that the on-field referee gave the decision unwillingly just because he was sent to the screen, which I don't think is ideal.
Well yes, but you've neglected to consider the phrase I used "executed perfectly" that would remove imperfections such as the humans prone to error or any other reason that would lead to an error.
As far as I'm aware, being sent to review is for some of the more borderline decisions and therefore the referee should have a look themselves to have the final say. I would say I would always want decisions like this to go to screen because it it not concrete and will be subjective no matter what.
That isn't correct, there's no concept of VAR recommending a review so that the referee can have a look for themselves to make a decision. Rather VAR has to make a judgement call that the referee has made a clear and obvious error, only then can they recommend a review. So on that basis it should be extremely rare that the a review is recommended, that can only happen when VAR says there was a clear and obvious error and the referee doesn't agree.
