A&H

CHE V LEI - Penalty Appeal

The Referee Store
I see your point but, and don't take this the wrong way, Mike Dean is probably considerably fitter then you or I. He has specialist training programs, sports scientists etc etc. They're not like you or I left to our own devices. Mike will have been set a recovery session for yesterday and probably told what to eat as well to aid recovery.
Agree this gets more difficult with agex but when your full Time Job is fitness 2 games in 48 should be manageable.
Not quite being fit was never going to be an excuse for the decision.
 
Contact was trivial to say the least. Werner throws himself to the floor and should be booked for simulation. Giving Leicester a free kick without cautioning Werner is baffling.
MD had two games in two days a couple of weeks ago too. Mags v Gunners then WBA v Wolves
However, he was appointed as 4O for the second game so not sure how he ended up in the middle
Anyway, I agree that it's insane that the possibility of this happening even exists
 
I see your point but, and don't take this the wrong way, Mike Dean is probably considerably fitter then you or I. He has specialist training programs, sports scientists etc etc. They're not like you or I left to our own devices. Mike will have been set a recovery session for yesterday and probably told what to eat as well to aid recovery.
Agree this gets more difficult with agex but when your full Time Job is fitness 2 games in 48 should be manageable.

I fully get it and no offense taken. But my point still stands. No referee should work two elite professional matches in 48 hours. I wouldn't want Michael Oliver or Chris Kavanagh to work 2 matches in 48 hours. Offsetting the items you mentioned are the additional travel, the mental challenges of officiating two Premier League matches (definitely more stressful than me working a high school boys game on Saturday and a junior college women's game on Sunday, without any question! :) ), the need to accelerate any recovery, etc. Referees run every bit as much as many players do in a match. They should have had someone who worked Saturday work this match to get that additional day of recovery.
 
I fully get it and no offense taken. But my point still stands. No referee should work two elite professional matches in 48 hours. I wouldn't want Michael Oliver or Chris Kavanagh to work 2 matches in 48 hours. Offsetting the items you mentioned are the additional travel, the mental challenges of officiating two Premier League matches (definitely more stressful than me working a high school boys game on Saturday and a junior college women's game on Sunday, without any question! :) ), the need to accelerate any recovery, etc. Referees run every bit as much as many players do in a match. They should have had someone who worked Saturday work this match to get that additional day of recovery.
They might run as afr but the exertion is considerably less. I am much stiffer after a 30 min playing than I am. After 90 reffing. But accept your points. I agree it doesn't seem right, given there are a pool of refs, but I also think it should be manageable, at least physically.

It's totally possible to end up doing 2 games in 2 days if you do a sat game and then 4th man on Sunday and the worst happens. Comes with the Job and you have to be ready to do it, even if its not the ideal situation
 
They might run as afr but the exertion is considerably less. I am much stiffer after a 30 min playing than I am. After 90 reffing. But accept your points. I agree it doesn't seem right, given there are a pool of refs, but I also think it should be manageable, at least physically.

It's totally possible to end up doing 2 games in 2 days if you do a sat game and then 4th man on Sunday and the worst happens. Comes with the Job and you have to be ready to do it, even if its not the ideal situation
I don't think that's a fair comparison however. If you're assigned as 4th and have to step in then so be it - you do your best and hope that people are sympathetic. But what actually happened was that a system was put in place where this 52 year old man was employed to run 12km (+ warm up etc), then given 1 day off, then selected as the best of 19 possible options to again run 12+km the next day.

With all due respect to MD, almost anyone else from SG1 would have been a better pick for starting referee for this match, with MD being a perfectly OK option for either 4O or VAR duties. Assigning him in that context is just shockingly incompetent.
 
I also think it should be manageable, at least physically.

I think that the mental part is actually tougher than the physical part for referees. I know that players make decisions, but it's more instinctive. Referees have to concentrate, focus, and make decisions in a completely different way than the players. It's like when I talk to my son after a game he's played. There are times I'll ask him about a play he made and what he was thinking. His response is often, "I really wasn't thinking - it just happened." As an official, I can often recall exactly what I was thinking and seeing on a big call. I know that if I have a day where I do a couple of centers like at a tournament, I'm usually mentally wiped out even if the games aren't terribly taxing physically.
 
Hi
FWIW I think MD gave it against Werner as he did not clearly play the ball. Yes he gets kicked in that action yet sticking a foot out that does not play the ball in front of an opponent can be akin to tripping. If the Leicester player was dribbling it out with multiple touches and a Chelsea player sticks his foot in before one of those touches without playing the ball it would be a nailed on trip. I would say that VAR clearly seen no contact on the ball by Werner therefore no obvious error. Had Werner clearly played the ball it would have been a penalty. That's how I saw it.
In the Bournemouth v Brentford game there was a penalty shout that was not given which in my opinion should have been. No VAR. The attacker gets to the ball first and plays it and gets kicked in the process. 1.15 on the attached video
I agree with this and I'll get to my point.

(First time post by the way!)

I can see why 99.9% of all chat among pundits, fans, twitter etc is saying that this is a nailed on penalty. I mean, Tielemans kicks Werner on the back of the leg and Werner goes down as it was a hefty kick. That seems as straight forward as it could possibly get, right? No discussion needed?

But........

But to me Tielemans has the ball. He is in possession of it. It is under his control and he decides to play the ball up field and in order to do so brings his leg back to begin his kicking motion. At this point Werner is behind Tielemans so Tielemans is not being reckless or careless. He's simply starting his backswing in order to kick the ball like any player does dozens of times a game.

Tielemans completes his back swing and naturally he begins his front swing as is necessary to actually kick the ball. I know I'm really breaking this down like a child but I think the stages of the kick play am important part in what makes a foul.

Crucially at this stage, as Tielemans is bringing his foot forward, Werner suddenly puts his leg in between Tielemans and the ball. Werner does not play or touch the ball. Nor does he seem to be attempting to. He's simply putting his foot in between Tielemans and the ball. Werner's foot and leg are now acting as a physical barrier which Tielemans can't help but kick.

The ball may be in Leicester's box but Werner is essentially the 'defender' at this moment as it is Leicester who have the ball. Werner is the one trying to make life difficult for Tielemans.

Werner has a defender has a responsibility to make his challenge legally and safely. He doesn't do so. By placing his foot between Tielemans and the ball he gets kicked. I would say this is tripping Tielemans as Werner has been sloppy and lazy. Werner must play the ball yet doesn't.

If what Tielemans done was wrong then this sets a precedent. Surely any 'defender' anywhere on the pitch trying to stop a clearance or shot just has to dangle their leg in without any touch on the ball and wait to be kicked by the player who has every right to kick it. We would see players dribble everywhere as kicking it could see them being the ones punished.

Why does Werner get to run around sticking his leg in as a defender and yet the attacking player (remember Tielemans is the one in possession) is the one at fault? Seems wholly unfair.

It is difficult for a defender to time their tackle right and get a foot on the ball during a challenge so why not just do what Werner did and dangle a leg in and hope he gets kicked?
 
Mike Dean said on the Peter Couch podcast that he struggles to do two games a week, and that was a year ago. To give a 52 year old referee two middles in the space of days is at best ill advised, especially when the second is such a high profile game.

I don't think that affected the outcome though, and I agree with MLSMAD. For me Werner stepped across Tielemans and in doing so instigated the contact.
 
I don't think that affected the outcome though, and I agree with MLSMAD. For me Werner stepped across Tielemans and in doing so instigated the contact.

Even if that is the case which I admit does look more likely to be the case, how on earth do you sell the decision of giving a free kick to Leicester to football fans and pundits despite Werner the one who got contact made against.

Its not a dive so he can't be booked so should the ref just not waved play on. If Mike Dean did say what you think was the case, then the VAR was correct not to interfere but again, most fans and pundits would of expected VAR to get involved so in the eyes of many(and mine initially) a clear and obvious error was made by the ref and the VAR did not get involved.

This is where as others have said, explanations of certain decisions would bring some clarity, at least to the more sane supporters.
 
For both Koulibaly and Werner here, I think the fouls are careless and should be penalties. No way you're letting these slide in midfield and I'm honestly not sure you can get more obvious errors than these. Not in the very least if you're giving the foul against Werner, which is an extremely difficult sell if you're not giving if for Werner kicking or impeding the defender. In that instance, you'd just be wrong, but giving the fk with VAR is mind boggling and obviously wrong.
 
Even if that is the case which I admit does look more likely to be the case, how on earth do you sell the decision of giving a free kick to Leicester to football fans and pundits despite Werner the one who got contact made against.

Its not a dive so he can't be booked so should the ref just not waved play on. If Mike Dean did say what you think was the case, then the VAR was correct not to interfere but again, most fans and pundits would of expected VAR to get involved so in the eyes of many(and mine initially) a clear and obvious error was made by the ref and the VAR did not get involved.

This is where as others have said, explanations of certain decisions would bring some clarity, at least to the more sane supporters.
I don't think a referee needs to worry about 'selling' any decision to the players or viewers. The ref should give the decision they see fit then stand by it and not worry about what anyone else thinks. If the ref knows a decision won't go down well then that's just part of being a ref. You get paid to make difficult decisions and to worry about the optics about how it may look then their own integrity is called in to question.

As for Jorik0907's post, I don't think that Koulibaly or Tielemans are careless. I can't stress enough how a player who has the ball at his feet is the one who needs more protection from the ref than the person coming in to make the challenge i.e. Messi and Werner.

If I am a cynical player, then what I take away from these incidents is that when I try to tackle an opponent, I can forget about legally playing the ball first and instead I can just dangle my foot in between the player and the ball and when I am kicked I get a free kick. This takes out the difficulty and the art form that is tackling, instead just sticking my leg in during the player's back swing and letting him hit me even if I blindside the player and come in from behind or the side.
 
For both Koulibaly and Werner here, I think the fouls are careless and should be penalties. No way you're letting these slide in midfield and I'm honestly not sure you can get more obvious errors than these. Not in the very least if you're giving the foul against Werner, which is an extremely difficult sell if you're not giving if for Werner kicking or impeding the defender. In that instance, you'd just be wrong, but giving the fk with VAR is mind boggling and obviously wrong.

VAR cannot intervene to erase the call on Werner (which wouldn't really matter anyway, as then it would just be a DB to the GK). VAR can only intervene if there was a C&E PK. So the fact a foul was called on Werner is totally irrelevant to VAR review.
 
VAR cannot intervene to erase the call on Werner (which wouldn't really matter anyway, as then it would just be a DB to the GK). VAR can only intervene if there was a C&E PK. So the fact a foul was called on Werner is totally irrelevant to VAR review.
That's true, a no call or a foul on Werner do have the same outcome here though: they're obviously wrong and a check for a PK should have been the result. I was just saying that calling the foul the other way leaves no room for interpretation as that is obviously not a foul by Werner. It is irrelevant as to whether VAR checks for the PK but it makes the clear and obvious a much lower threshold: there's no way Werner commits a foul, he gets carelessly kicked.

On a no-call, often times VAR doesn't intervene because the referee thinks he saw what happened and deems it too little, that's no excuse here.

That's why I mentioned that in particular
 
"Truly a bloody shocker for VAR
As is starting to come through in the comments and mails, there is a growing realisation that the laws are entirely (and intentionally) subjective and adding in extra eyes does not remove that subjectivity. Similarly, applying science to decisions that were never meant to be scientific (location of armpit; how big is someone’s knee) does not remove debate, nor address why the law was created.

Those still hankering for VAR are becoming akin to those emaciated nymphs the police find in the den of a serial killer, clutching a bag of severed cat heads and lamenting how we all just don’t understand their idol’s genius."

:)
 
Those still hankering for VAR are becoming akin to those emaciated nymphs the police find in the den of a serial killer, clutching a bag of severed cat heads and lamenting how we all just don’t understand their idol’s genius."
Great post Santa. Even though I've no idea what this bit is all about, I'm 100% with you nonetheless 😵
 
On a no-call, often times VAR doesn't intervene because the referee thinks he saw what happened and deems it too little, that's no excuse here.
Should be the other way, if anything. On a no call, it could be a missed incident instead of a C&E error, which would be a lower standard for intervention.

Thinking the R saw it should not be a reason for the VAR not to intervene. The whole point is that the VAR should intervene for C&E errors because the VAR has the advantage of multiple angles, etc. And the VARs should be being evaluated on whether or not they adequately identify those C&E errors. So not sending down for the reason you posit should result in poor grades for the VAR if it was a C&E error. (I don't know about elsewhere, but I know the MLS grading of refs also gives the ref a better mark if an error is corrected by VAR; I don't recall the exact process, but it is something like the R gets dinged for the miss, but gets plus points for the correction.)
 
Back
Top