Liv City - Klopp and Pep for maybe the last time

[GraemeS]

So the debate is actually about how a bunch of different people define C&O?

I'm usually pretty happy to have a philosophical debate about the intent/point of the laws, but this seems fairly clear-cut to me. Spirit of the law isn't intended to overrule law, it's intended to fill in gaps or help guide borderline decisions - but neither of those principals is relevant here.

And regardless of that, the law doesn't intend to allow players to challenge for chest-high balls using their feet - it's arguably the specific reason for the PIADM law (appreciating that doesn't specifically apply here due to there being contact). "High foot ref" is one of the more common shouts you get that is based on expectations and a misunderstanding of law, but again, a fairly clear example to me that your average grassroots player expects players doing that to be penalised in some way. I just don't understand the argument for no foul here?

 

[santa sangria]

I‘ve just watched the Sky review with Dermot. He wasn’t that interesting. The other very sensible presenters highlighted that Mac Allister actually touched the ball first. While this might not change anything in law, it does give less credence to the excuse that Doku can be forgiven for getting first to the ball.

The more I watch this, the more I think Oliver and Webb will regret getting this decision wrong. Atwell’s credibility is also a problem.

 

[RefereeX]

So the debate is actually about how a bunch of different people define C&O?

I'm usually pretty happy to have a philosophical debate about the intent/point of the laws, but this seems fairly clear-cut to me. Spirit of the law isn't intended to overrule law, it's intended to fill in gaps or help guide borderline decisions - but neither of those principals is relevant here.

And regardless of that, the law doesn't intend to allow players to challenge for chest-high balls using their feet - it's arguably the specific reason for the PIADM law (appreciating that doesn't specifically apply here due to there being contact). "High foot ref" is one of the more common shouts you get that is based on expectations and a misunderstanding of law, but again, a fairly clear example to me that your average grassroots player expects players doing that to be penalised in some way. I just don't understand the argument for no foul here?

On a different thread you were arguing that it was an odd concept that a player who was in an offside position blocking a player who may or may not be able to challenge for the ball was to be penalised for offside. That would be spirit of the law overruling law. (Funnily enough, both that decision and this one are against Liverpool).
A small shirt pull or nudge in the area as a corner comes in that doesn't really affect a players ability to play the ball - would you award a penalty? That is spirit of the law overruling law which suggests that a shirt pull would still be a penalty.

I'm not here to say I'm right and everyone else is wrong in terms of whether it's a foul. In fact I've now accepted that I'm wrong and that should be a foul. I'm just saying that I don't believe, given the split in opinions of the wider footballing community, that it can be considered clear and obvious, but it depends on how heavily you want your VAR team to intervene. That is for Howard Webb to decide.

You and I are at risk of going round in circles and getting nowhere, so we will have to agree to disagree on this!

 

[RefereeX]

Also, to add, while he may well be wrong in saying it shouldn't be a penalty, it's very nice to see Kyle Walker coming out and commending a referee for a decision and not bowing to pressure. Very rare that referees get public praise from footballers!

 

[GraemeS]

On a different thread you were arguing that it was an odd concept that a player who was in an offside position blocking a player who may or may not be able to challenge for the ball was to be penalised for offside. That would be spirit of the law overruling law. (Funnily enough, both that decision and this one are against Liverpool).
A small shirt pull or nudge in the area as a corner comes in that doesn't really affect a players ability to play the ball - would you award a penalty? That is spirit of the law overruling law which suggests that a shirt pull would still be a penalty.

I'm not here to say I'm right and everyone else is wrong in terms of whether it's a foul. In fact I've now accepted that I'm wrong and that should be a foul. I'm just saying that I don't believe, given the split in opinions of the wider footballing community, that it can be considered clear and obvious, but it depends on how heavily you want your VAR team to intervene. That is for Howard Webb to decide.

You and I are at risk of going round in circles and getting nowhere, so we will have to agree to disagree on this!

That's a major misrepresentation - I was arguing for a change in law going forward to add some consistency between what blocking is/isn't allowed, as offside seemed a strange reason to make that distinction. (And interestingly that came up again in this game - Ake's block here was arguably more physical than Endo's there, but because it was from a corner and offside doesn't apply, that's fine? Again, seems inconsistent.)

What I wasn't doing was arguing that a referee should just decide to ignore a bit of law on an ad-hoc basis because he thought he knew what the game expected better than the lawmakers.

 

[RefereeX]

That's a major misrepresentation - I was arguing for a change in law going forward to add some consistency between what blocking is/isn't allowed, as offside seemed a strange reason to make that distinction. (And interestingly that came up again in this game - Ake's block here was arguably more physical than Endo's there, but because it was from a corner and offside doesn't apply, that's fine? Again, seems inconsistent.)

What I wasn't doing was arguing that a referee should just decide to ignore a bit of law on an ad-hoc basis because he thought he knew what the game expected better than the lawmakers.

OK, but when we ignore a minor shirt pull at a corner as said before, is that us ignoring a bit of law on an ad-hoc basis because we think we know what the game expects better than lawmakers? Or is it game management?

Nothing in law says that a shirt pull has to be impactful...

 

[GraemeS]

OK, but when we ignore a minor shirt pull at a corner as said before, is that us ignoring a bit of law on an ad-hoc basis because we think we know what the game expects better than lawmakers? Or is it game management?

Nothing in law says that a shirt pull has to be impactful...

So you're comparing a player being kicked in the chest to a minor shirt pull?

There's another thread currently ongoing (https://refchat.co.uk/threads/trifling.23294/) that discusses the history of "trifling" offences in the laws - whether it's current or not, it's absolutely been part of what referees are expected to consider in the past.

But regardless, we're currently in the world of careless/reckless/UEF - if you're trying to argue that putting your boot at chest height and impacting an opponent with enough force to knock them over isn't careless at least, then I think we simply are too far away in our understanding of the words. He either meant to kick MacAllister in the chest (in which case we should be talking VC) or he didn't, in which case he failed to take enough care not to. Spirit/what football expects is irrelevant when it's there in black and white.

 

[JamesL]

Nothing in law says that a shirt pull has to be impactful...

Beg to differ on that statement.

Shirt "pull" is a holding offence. And the definition of holding says that "A holding offence occurs only when a player’s contact with an opponent’s body or equipment impedes the opponent’s movement"

Appreciate that this is not to do with the thread, and a totally different debate so will just get back to my popcorn and leave you two to it.

 

[RefereeX]

So you're comparing a player being kicked in the chest to a minor shirt pull?

There's another thread currently ongoing (https://refchat.co.uk/threads/trifling.23294/) that discusses the history of "trifling" offences in the laws - whether it's current or not, it's absolutely been part of what referees are expected to consider in the past.

But regardless, we're currently in the world of careless/reckless/UEF - if you're trying to argue that putting your boot at chest height and impacting an opponent with enough force to knock them over isn't careless at least, then I think we simply are too far away in our understanding of the words. He either meant to kick MacAllister in the chest (in which case we should be talking VC) or he didn't, in which case he failed to take enough care not to. Spirit/what football expects is irrelevant when it's there in black and white.

I disagree that he impacted with enough force to knock MacAllister over. Quite strongly. So I guess that's where we differ. I don't want to turn the thread in to an argument between us, so I think we should probably move on. (And I don't mean that in an aggressive or confrontational way, I mean that respectfully)

 

[RefereeX]

Beg to differ on that statement.

Shirt "pull" is a holding offence. And the definition of holding says that "A holding offence occurs only when a player’s contact with an opponent’s body or equipment impedes the opponent’s movement"

Appreciate that this is not to do with the thread, and a totally different debate so will just get back to my popcorn and leave you two to it.

I meant impactful in terms of his ability to play the ball. I think we've all turned a blind eye to a shirt pull or a push at the back post when the ball has gone front post.

 

[GraemeS]

I disagree that he impacted with enough force to knock MacAllister over. Quite strongly. So I guess that's where we differ. I don't want to turn the thread in to an argument between us, so I think we should probably move on. (And I don't mean that in an aggressive or confrontational way, I mean that respectfully)

OK, take that statement out and I think the suggestion is still valid: "if you're trying to argue that putting your boot at chest height and impacting an opponent isn't careless at least, then I think we simply are too far away in our understanding of the words."

 

[santa sangria]

This is very interesting scenario and decision, right at the top of the football pyramid, in arguably the biggest club game this year globally (maybe).

It is troubling that there are lots of excuses here: it's the profile of the match, the potential consequence of a result-altering decision, the time in the match, that it's 1-1, that it's an attacker playing poorly, that the opponent is moving towards the ball (hashtag LOL), that the ball was touched, that the contact to the chest/waist/thigh might have been minimal, that it's in the area, that it might not be clear or obvious, that the referee might or might not have seen it clearly, that VAR might not have wanted to act, that it would have been an offence if whistled...

I can imagine fans being confused and annoyed.

 

[The Ginger Ref]

Also, to add, while he may well be wrong in saying it shouldn't be a penalty, it's very nice to see Kyle Walker coming out and commending a referee for a decision and not bowing to pressure. Very rare that referees get public praise from footballers!

Not buying it myself. He's only doing so because the decision was to the benefit of him and his team.

Morgan Gibbs White did the exact opposite on Sunday.

Referee's aren't given a platform to praise or lambast a player or manager's performance, so I don't see why it's allowed the other way round.

 

[The Ginger Ref]

It's true you were at one point speculating about Oliver's thought process, but before that you said:



Which sounds awfully like you saying "we" (you) wouldn't want to see a penalty given in the 98th minute.

I would also have to disagree with the bit about the player not being a direct threat. Whether he was or wasn't has nothing to do with whether it's a foul or not.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Huge contradiction in two posts.

 

[Matthew]

This bit:
seems to strongly imply to me that you think this is an accurate summary of the incident and is clear evidence of it not requiring VAR intervention. I think that's a really strange metric, especially given most of the arguments against this being a missed penalty seem to not be based in law.

A couple of people going "nah, I don't think that's a penalty" and that sparking 3 pages of response to try and understand where the stance has come from doesn't make for a conclusive body of evidence for me. And that goes double on here where we're supposed to discuss these things with a bit more knowledge of law that most of social media - the law-based explanation of why this shouldn't have been given hasn't been provided yet. IMO, it's entirely valid to say that we shouldn't be trying to summarise and end the debate yet.

Of course I think that it's an accurate summary otherwise I wouldn't have said it. I'm simply offering an opinion based on what I've seen and read, which is that it was not a C&O error and that VAR was correct not to get involved.

Me offering a summary of what I think I've read is just that. You've taken exception to me apparently "trying to summarise and end the debate", before going on to continue to debate with various posters

 

[BCMilan]

In summary. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with the LOTG if even referees on a forum can't agree with certain decisions. I think the beautiful game leaves way too much to interpretation.

 

[deusex]

Also, to add, while he may well be wrong in saying it shouldn't be a penalty, it's very nice to see Kyle Walker coming out and commending a referee for a decision and not bowing to pressure. Very rare that referees get public praise from footballers!

I'm sure Walker would say the same if the penalty denied was in the Liverpool box!!
Walker's comment makes me think it's a penalty even more!

 

[RefereeX]

I'm sure Walker would say the same if the penalty denied was in the Liverpool box!!
Walker's comment makes me think it's a penalty even more!

I'm sure he wouldn't say the same, but he could have just said nothing, but he actively said Oliver did well. Even if he's wrong, abit of complimenting a referee can't hurt.

 

[Quarryref]

In summary. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with the LOTG if even referees on a forum can't agree with certain decisions. I think the beautiful game leaves way too much to interpretation.

On the contrary, it's part of what makes it the beautiful game and I think things tend to go wrong when we take simple principles and create Laws that try to cover every possibility when they palpably can't (cf handball or even worse Law 12.4). It just ends up confusing everyone without creating the certainty it sought.

Much better imho to steer toward keeping football a simple game with simple laws and accept judgement will always play a bigger part than in most other sports.

By the way, my view in this one is that MO is in a no win position whatever decision he makes and I've heard plenty of neutral voices saying no foul. I think the better decision was penalty. I am more strongly of the opinion VAR was correct to leave it alone.

But that's just one opinion....

 

[Mr Dean]

In summary. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with the LOTG if even referees on a forum can't agree with certain decisions. I think the beautiful game leaves way too much to interpretation.

I think the problem here is the VAR protocol. Many people have looked at the incident and thought that the decision was clearly and obviously wrong whereas others (including the VAR) have looked at it and thought 'I see nothing clearly and obviously wrong with that'.

The problem is that "clear and obvious error" is so poorly defined that nobody knows where the threshold is. Last season, referees used a lower threshold despite the protocol being worded exactly as it is this season. UEFA seems to use an entirely different threshold. This will continue to happen until the "clear and obvious error" threshold is replaced with something else.