A&H

Everton Brighton

M

Mr Dean

RefChat Addict

Regarding the disallowed goal at the end, yellow card is unnecessary, isn't it? Is it justified in law?

Also, referees like this encourage diving.
 
The Referee Store
The YC is correct. The fact that the player is trying not to handle the ball is now irrelevant, however absurd that may sound
 
Big Cat said:
The YC is correct. The fact that the player is trying not to handle the ball is now irrelevant, however absurd that may sound
Click to expand...
I can't see the video, but if what you describe is correct and the handball was accidental but led to a goal scoring opportunity or a goal, the caution is not correct.

If the handball was deemed to be deliberate and led directly to the goal, then yes, the caution is correct.

The caution is NOT needed if the handball is accidental, but deemed to be an offence due to the GSO.
 
I actually thought they got it right.
For me , Calvert-Lewin could have headed that ...
 
It's only a caution if they think he intentionally handled it to score a goal. For me he just mistimed the dive and the handling was accidental, so the goal should be disallowed but no caution.
 
Looks like "handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal" should be rewritten to include the word deliberate.

Calvert Lewin tried his very best not to handle that ball but he was attempting to score and he did end up scoring with his arm.
 
There was
Mr Dean said:
Looks like "handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal" should be rewritten to include the word deliberate.

Calvert Lewin tried his very best not to handle that ball but he was attempting to score and he did end up scoring with his arm.
Click to expand...
"In an attempt to" implies handling should be deliberate. Poorly worded but we know what it means. It's not the first time the laws mean something but word it a different way. It won't be the last time either.
 
I'd had a few sherbets when I saw the incident last night. This was a case of scoring with the hand or arm, not creating a GSO. Is my recollection correct? Does scoring with the arm have any bearing on whether it's a caution?
 
Big Cat said:
I'd had a few sherbets when I saw the incident last night. This was a case of scoring with the hand or arm, not creating a GSO. Is my recollection correct? Does scoring with the arm have any bearing on whether it's a caution?
Click to expand...
Only if it's deemed to be deliberate handling.

There was one a couple of years ago where a defender cleared a ball, it hit an attacker's hand from about a metre (3 feet) away just off the side of his body (so not deliberate in any reading of the Law now or five years ago) and went directly into the goal.

That would NOT be a caution, despite it scoring a goal directly, because it was not an "attempt to score a goal" (read: not deliberate handling).
 
Ok, I think I get it now but

1. Why was the yellow card given for something clearly accidental? And,

2. Why was VAR used to issue a yellow card? VAR was correctly used to disallow the goal but the yellow card issue is a different matter (according to other posts above).
 
1. That's the point we are making too. We think VAR thought it was deliberate.

2. When reviewing the decision for one of four reviewable incidents, if a yellow card offence is detected, it is permissable to issue the yellow card.
 
one said:
1. That's the point we are making too. We think VAR thought it was deliberate.

2. When reviewing the decision for one of four reviewable incidents, if a yellow card offence is detected, it is permissable to issue the yellow card.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up but I'm not happy with no. 2. For example:
- A player commits a reckless challenge but the referee issues no sanction.
- VAR reviews the challenge for potential serious foul play.
- VAR concludes there was no serious foul play but does detect the reckless nature of the challenge.
- VAR can not recommend a yellow card.

The VAR protocol seems very inconsistent; perhaps I'll give it a read, although I was saving that for when I get promoted to the Premier League 😂
 
Mr Dean said:
Thanks for clearing that up but I'm not happy with no. 2. For example:
- A player commits a reckless challenge but the referee issues no sanction.
- VAR reviews the challenge for potential serious foul play.
- VAR concludes there was no serious foul play but does detect the reckless nature of the challenge.
- VAR can not recommend a yellow card.

The VAR protocol seems very inconsistent; perhaps I'll give it a read, although I was saving that for when I get promoted to the Premier League 😂
Click to expand...

There was one in the WWC last year and I actually sought clarification from IFAB on it;

- Penalty appeal for a foul by green player - not DOGSO, just a poor tackle. (Green player already on yellow card).
- Referee does not award penalty nor issue sanction.
- VAR recommends an on-field review for penalty kick - foul.
- Upon consulting the screen, the referee awards a penalty and cautions the green defender. Second yellow - she's off.

I agree with the penalty and in real-time I would've shown a card too but obviously yellow (second or otherwise) is not part of the VAR remit. IFAB told me - which makes sense - that the card can be shown as it is part of the incident they are checking.

Where it becomes complicated - lets imagine they called it back for a reckless foul from the attacking team beforehand so no penalty, not only could green not be carded but neither could the attacker as the free kick was not what the check was for - it was merely a byproduct of the penalty check.
 
Mr Dean said:
Thanks for clearing that up but I'm not happy with no. 2. For example:
- A player commits a reckless challenge but the referee issues no sanction.
- VAR reviews the challenge for potential serious foul play.
- VAR concludes there was no serious foul play but does detect the reckless nature of the challenge.
- VAR can not recommend a yellow card.

The VAR protocol seems very inconsistent; perhaps I'll give it a read, although I was saving that for when I get promoted to the Premier League 😂
Click to expand...
You seem to be mixing up what a check is and what a review is. I blame the EPL system where there is no OFR (on field review) and a check and review seem to be the same thing . What you are saying is not possible if the protocol is flowed correctly. In the first instance VAR 'checks' to see if the incident needs to be reviewed (there is a clear and obvious error). Once he concluded there was no serious foul play (there was no C&O error), the incident can not be reviewed and nothing can be changed.

However using the same challenge in your example, lets say

- A player commits a reckless challenge but the referee sends off the player for SFP.
-VAR checks and finds a clear and obvious error since the challenge clearly was not SFP
- VAR recommends a review and referee accepts it
- The incident is reviewed (by VAR or by referee as OFR)
- It is found that the challenge was only reckless, the red card is withdrawn and a caution is issued in line with LOTG.
 
one said:
You seem to be mixing up what a check is and what a review is. I blame the EPL system where there is no OFR (on field review) and a check and review seem to be the same thing . What you are saying is not possible if the protocol is flowed correctly. In the first instance VAR 'checks' to see if the incident needs to be reviewed (there is a clear and obvious error). Once he concluded there was no serious foul play (there was no C&O error), the incident can not be reviewed and nothing can be changed.

However using the same challenge in your example, lets say

- A player commits a reckless challenge but the referee sends off the player for SFP.
-VAR checks and finds a clear and obvious error since the challenge clearly was not SFP
- VAR recommends a review and referee accepts it
- The incident is reviewed (by VAR or by referee as OFR)
- It is found that the challenge was only reckless, the red card is withdrawn and a caution is issued in line with LOTG.
Click to expand...


You're right, the Premier League has messed with my head a bit. Now, I think about it, in the World Cup, I remember Ronaldo (against Iran, I think) getting a yellow card after an on-field review. The referee initially missed the incident and was reviewing for violent conduct. Looks like VAR can be used to give yellow cards - sometimes 🤷
 
Mr Dean said:
You're right, the Premier League has messed with my head a bit. Now, I think about it, in the World Cup, I remember Ronaldo (against Iran, I think) getting a yellow card after an on-field review. The referee initially missed the incident and was reviewing for violent conduct. Looks like VAR can be used to give yellow cards - sometimes 🤷
Click to expand...
VAR can be used to give cautions if they're seen while using OFR to review something else.

So, for example above (which is what happened in the Portugal game), an incident is missed by the ref (or called a simple foul). VAR looks at it and thinks that it's a possible RC (violent conduct or SFP) and tells the referee to take a look.

Referee looks, disagrees but feels that it's a caution, can caution.

If, while looking at the video, the referee sees that the opponent did something cautionable in the same incident, that player can ALSO be cautioned.

VAR cannot recommend a caution, that must come from the referee while looking at one of the incidents that can be OFR reviewed.
 
one said:
1. That's the point we are making too. We think VAR thought it was deliberate.

2. When reviewing the decision for one of four reviewable incidents, if a yellow card offence is detected, it is permissable to issue the yellow card.
Click to expand...
"Thought" it was deliberate? Wouldn't they have to "know" before it was a clear and obvious error?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top