Coventry v Newcastle

[ladbroke8745]

Just want to put it out there, I am not Brooks biggest fan, far from it. He has made some minor mistakes (goal kick instead of corner for example) but he has played the best advantage I've seen in a while AND went back to caution Joelinton for the foul that led to advantage.

 

[RustyRef]

That was a fantastic advantage, would have been so easy to blow for a free kick there.

I personally think he is one of the best, mainly because of how different he is. He has zero interest in being friendly or chatty with the players, rather adopts a very stern "stay away" approach, almost a throw back to refereeing of 20 / 30 years ago. I know from speaking to referees that know him well that isn't his personality, it is just the approach he uses in games and I think it works really well. He always looks completely in control.

 

[bester]

 

[CaptainsPlease]

View attachment 8887

Just a ragebait post isn't it? Rudoni's message wasn't advertising a song for his mate.

 

[bester]

Just a ragebait post isn't it? Rudoni's message wasn't advertising a song for his mate.

Showing an advertising message isn't a yellow card offence and he's not covered his head or removed his shirt.

Don't see how the referee would know that he was advertising something.

 

[Big Cat]

It may have escaped everyone's attention, but I've noticed the Assistant Referees are flagging for tight offside calls
Newcastle got humped at Leeds but were denied a very good goalscoring opportunity in that game by a premature and incorrect offside flag. Again last night, Harvey Barnes was onside and in on goal in the first half (an excellent opportunity just short of an OGSO), only to see the flag go up. I've found these calls to be extremely irritating because it smacks of the ARs being 'clever'. What it actually highlights, is very poor judgement in these moments as they're presumably putting the flag up for what they deem to be 'clear' offsides (not tight)

Don't get me wrong, the away side were an embarrassment in both these games. And you all know I'd rather have incorrect decisions in every game as opposed to VAR, delayed flag and all that's entailed. But I get the feeling, the AR's have been instructed to flag more often
I didn't get to see a side-on replay, but it looked like the other AR also got one wrong for Coventry last night too

I'm not a Brooks fan as I'm not keen on his body language. He had a good game however
The decision to not award Willock a FK at the start of the second half didn't sit well with me. I didn't think it was DOGSO, but the possibility of it being just that meant a clear foul was overlooked. Had it been given with an associated caution for SPA, the away side wouldn't have been down to 10 men for the 2nd Coventry goal. This is the downside of the 60s rule. If any of us fail to award a foul in situations whereby the an injured player goes off, we're all exposed to another reason for a team losing a game. Whilst the 60s rule is needed, solving one problem opens the door to another

 

[one]

Showing an advertising message isn't a yellow card offence

It is completely up to the referee for this. It is not mandatory, but it is incorrect to say it is not a yellow card. However the laws are clear that advertising or revealing them on equipment is not permitted. There is a whole section in law (4.5) for this and guidelines for referees on how to interpret it.

Don't see how the referee would know that he was advertising something.

IMO if a player reveals a statement etc in a goal celebration, the onus is on the player to make sure the referee knows/understands it is a permitted message not the other way around.

 

[bester]

@one What are you cautioning him for exactly? Of course the referee can decide anything is USB-unspecific but we know where that road leads.

I can't recall any previous cautions for this.

 

[one]

@one What are you cautioning him for exactly? Of course the referee can decide anything is USB-unspecific but we know where that road leads.

I can't recall any previous cautions for this.

Would you caution if they reveal a (strong) political message? What for?

'Unspecified' is an English thing. In our system we just put USB. If I am pressed to describe the reason, and you don't want me to say 'unspecified' then it can fit excessive goal celebration. But as far as I am concerned the specific case meets the threshold of USB for doing something they are not permitted to do.

There have many precedents for cautioning it. In fact I think there was a time revealing any message was a caution and the guidelines in LOTG came out to ensure 'some' messages are not cautioned.

 

[one]

 

[RefereeX]

Would you caution if they reveal a (strong) political message? What for?

'Unspecified' is an English thing. In our system we just put USB. If I am pressed to describe the reason, and you don't want me to say 'unspecified' then it can fit excessive goal celebration. But as far as I am concerned the specific case meets the threshold of USB for doing something they are not permitted to do.

There have many precedents for cautioning it. In fact I think there was a time revealing any message was a caution and the guidelines in LOTG came out to ensure 'some' messages are not cautioned.

Not my job to determine how political a message is or isn't. That's for the authorities post match. In my opinion the punishment (if any) on field should be the same regardless of what the message is.

 

[one]

Not my job to determine how political a message is or isn't. That's for the authorities post match. In my opinion the punishment (if any) on field should be the same regardless of what the message is.

Fair enough and each to their own. But for me, I am paid to decide these things and not pass the buck especially if the lotg is clear that any political message is not permitted on equipment. For a players to circumnavigate that by hiding the message and only showing it when they know the attention is on them, I think that should be an easy decision.

 

[RustyRef]

It is completely up to the referee for this. It is not mandatory, but it is incorrect to say it is not a yellow card. However the laws are clear that advertising or revealing them on equipment is not permitted. There is a whole section in law (4.5) for this and guidelines for referees on how to interpret it.

It does, but it also says that the player / team will be sanctioned by the competition organiser, national football association or FIFA. I would take the referee not being listed there as meaning they would just include it in a match report, not caution for it. The laws only reference a caution where the player removes the shirt or covers their head with it, neither player did this and I actually thought at the time that the Pino caution was incorrect.

 

[ARF]

View attachment 8887

Are we quite sure the player cautioned didn't cover his head with his shirt at any point? Given that I can only ever remember players being cautioned if they either removed their shirt completely or covered/lifted it over their head, I'd be surprised if he was cautioned without having done any of those three things.

 

[RustyRef]

Are we quite sure the player cautioned didn't cover his head with his shirt at any point? Given that I can only ever remember players being cautioned if they either removed their shirt completely or covered/lifted it over their head, I'd be surprised if he was cautioned without having done any of those three things.

Definitely not, just lifted it to show the message, at no point was the head covered. Hence why I think it was a refereeing mistake.

 

[one]

Hence why I think it was a refereeing mistake.

A lot of mistakes by a lot of top flight referees? And this is just EPL (more below - one of them was even dicussed on ref chat). Happy to list more if needed.

 

[RustyRef]

A lot of mistakes by a lot of top flight referees? And this is just EPL (more below - one of them was even dicussed on ref chat). Happy to list more if needed.

View attachment 8890

I prefer to go on what the law says rather than what AI says has happened. Even more so as for the Benrahma one it says he lifted it over his head, which is a mandatory caution.

 

[bester]

RefChat is a dodgy source