Crystal Palace vs Liverpool
- Thread starter bester
- Start date
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
What about VVD on Guehi - only listened on Talksh*** so yet to see.
If the directive the commentators talked about actually exists, i.e. a foul has to affect the ability of a player to get to the ball, then I'd say no penalty. Van Dijk certainly had hold of Guehi's arm, but there's no way he would have got to the ball as it was going straight to the keeper.
The EPL referees don't help lower level referees, the caution for Mac Allister was textbook SPA, there was nothing even vaguely reckless about it, yet Hooper played advantage then went back to caution. It's 100% incorrect in law.
Kinsleyr
Member
Well it also seemed he only applied it to one team as well. It wasn't a dirty game by any means but Liverpool got their first free kick at 60 mins where as Palace had had 12 by that point!
one
RefChat Addict
Didn't see it but this would be fine if the caution was for USB and not for SPA.
one
RefChat Addict
Clearly a foul. However, on top of what Rusty said, the laws and VAR directives are moving in the direction of don't intervene unless there is impact for pretty much everything. Of course if there is safety issue it takes priority.
'Impact' was brought into offside determination. Then it was brought into penalty encroachment determination. I cant remember of other things that are specific in LOTG but I think what is a directive now will eventually find it's way into the laws.
As someone who watched it with no dog in the race, I can explain why Palace got so many free kicks ...
... Liverpool players kept fouling Palace players. Curtis Jones alone gave three fouls away in the first 15 minutes and after the last one was very publicly warned that the next one would be a caution.
On the flip side Palace players couldn't get close enough to Liverpool players to be able to foul them. At least not until the second half when they started pressing better, and lo and behold once they did that they started giving free kicks away as well.
Kinsleyr
Member
That is exactly the answer I need to be looking for. It makes it so much clearer thank you RustyRef!
Would you like to suggest some specific fouls you think Liverpool should have been given? Or do you propose that the referee should just give Liverpool some soft ones because they haven't had one yet to even it up? I'm sure you're aware that every referee would love a nice even foul count but if one team is committing all the fouls then the other team are gonna be getting all the free kicks...
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Nitpick—SPA is USB . . . But the point stands that if it is for other USB, advantage doesn’t wipe the card. Whether a pull designed to stop a promising attack meets that standard is a matter of debate. Would it have been a caution if an attacker did it to a defender? If so, the caution should stand. If not, it is really for SPA and the caution should not stand if the advantage is given.
one
RefChat Addict
Nitpick on your nitpick
. "Being for USB and not for SPA" is correct from a logic view point for this context despite SPA being a form of USB, which I was aware of at the time. Had I said something is for SPA and not USB I would have been logically incorrect.
Last edited:
With the current trend of the better teams playing a very aggressive high press they give away a lot more fouls than they used to. It used to generally be that the weaker team would commit the most fouls, but these days it is often the other way round. Coaches tell the players they have 5 to 10 seconds to win the ball back after losing possession and that is naturally going to increase the risk of them committing fouls.
But yes, the referees can only penalise fouls as they happen, and if that means one team get 90% of them so be it.