LIV v MCI

[RefereeX]

On that matter though... there's an argument that what Haaland did should be made a mandatory caution. (Should be made law, not currently is law)
Law states that a player who deliberately uses their arm in attempt to score is cautioned, so why is a player deliberately pulling a defender to cause the ball to roll in not an equivalent offence?
But I do agree, I'm never second cautioning Haaland in that situation.

 

[es1]

On that matter though... there's an argument that what Haaland did should be made a mandatory caution. (Should be made law, not currently is law)
Law states that a player who deliberately uses their arm in attempt to score is cautioned, so why is a player deliberately pulling a defender to cause the ball to roll in not an equivalent offence?
But I do agree, I'm never second cautioning Haaland in that situation.

there is obviously no argument for this whatsoever

 

[RefereeX]

there is obviously no argument for this whatsoever

Because it's Haaland?

I'm not specifically referring to this situation. Could you explain to me why one form of clearly cheating to score a goal should be any different to another form of clearly cheating to score a goal?

 

[es1]

Because it's Haaland?

I'm not specifically referring to this situation. Could you explain to me why one form of clearly cheating to score a goal should be any different to another form of clearly cheating to score a goal?

because you're interpreting the law in (quite clearly) a way they're not written.

it's clearly for handball goals, this is clearly not a handball, and you clearly were referring to this situation when you said "there's an argument that what Haaland did should be made a mandatory caution" - there absolutely is not.

 

[RefereeX]

because you're interpreting the law in (quite clearly) a way they're not written.

it's clearly for handball goals, this is clearly not a handball, and you clearly were referring to this situation when you said "there's an argument that what Haaland did should be made a mandatory caution" - there absolutely is not.

I'm not interpreting the law in a way they're not written, I'm suggesting a case could be made to change the law for it to be included, not that it is a cautionable offence as things stand.

The argument being that pulling a defender in such a way to score a goal is not wildly different in intent and morals than deliberately handling to score a goal. That is the argument. It's up for debate, but to say there is no case for a debate is dismissive and incorrect.

 

[es1]

but to say there is no case for a debate is dismissive and incorrect.

it's not - there is zero case/justification for a caution currently (the action is not reckless/dangerous etc.)

you're suggesting any intentional action of foul play that is done to score a goal should result in a yellow card? that argument has some merit but i dont think it's workable in reality

 

[RefereeX]

it's not - there is zero case/justification for a caution currently (the action is not reckless/dangerous etc.)

Neither is handball to score a goal

you're suggesting any intentional action of foul play that is done to score a goal should result in a yellow card? that argument has some merit but i dont think it's workable in reality

This is what I was suggesting, yes. Not even necessarily in my opinion, just that if intentional handling to score is a caution, then it's a debatable subject, that's all I was saying. No issue with you disagreeing, I'm just saying there would be some degree of logic.

Lets face it, if it wasn't for Diego Maradonna, we probably wouldn't feel so enraged about the idea of a deliberate handball to score a goal.

 

[Will_A]

Would have been a 2nd yellow for USB had they cautioned him for the pull back.

 

[bloovee]

Because it's Haaland?

I'm not specifically referring to this situation. Could you explain to me why one form of clearly cheating to score a goal should be any different to another form of clearly cheating to score a goal?

No need to use the word "cheating" at all. It's a foul to redress the consequence of being fouled.

 

[bloovee]

Imagine it was earlier in the game - first minute rather than last. If Haaland realised the situation, he could have shouted to Szoboszlai - "let it go in or you'll get sent off" and Slob would have had to decide whether to prevent the goal and have his team play with ten men, or go one down with 89 minutes left... But in the first minute, would Slob have committed the DOGSO offence anyway?

The problem is that the decision was probably right according to law, but it wasn't fair. And had it been 1-1 it would have been scandalously unfair (as a last minute sending off). But how on earth could the law be drafted to allow a retaliatory foul to a DOGSO foul?

 

[RefereeX]

No need to use the word "cheating" at all. It's a foul to redress the consequence of being fouled.

It's a deliberate foul. Some would describe that as cheating. I'm not saying it wasn't warranted or expected. It wasn't a sleight on Haaland. See big Cat's comments on another thread. Everyone cheats, even us as referees.

 

[es1]

"Penalty goal" is the only fair/moral outcome that could be written into law

 

[redref2005]

What about the pull on Salah when he was through on goal - this happened twice in the match and neither offence was deemed worthy of a penalty (in the first instance) or a red card (in the second). It seems to me that Salah for all his 100's of goals and previous ability to score worldies against City that he is deemed by referee's (and VAR) as a diver and unable to shoot at goal accurately.

 

[es1]

What about the pull on Salah when he was through on goal - this happened twice in the match and neither offence was deemed worthy of a penalty (in the first instance) or a red card (in the second). It seems to me that Salah for all his 100's of goals and previous ability to score worldies against City that he is deemed by referee's (and VAR) as a diver and unable to shoot at goal accurately.

2nd one is definitely a yellow for me

The first is a really foolish action by bernado, but he does go down like he's been shot

 

[RustyRef]

"Penalty goal" is the only fair/moral outcome that could be written into law

Graham Scott has been talking about that today, and I tend to agree that would be the right outcome for football here. There was clearly going to be a goal, absolutely zero debate about that, so the penalty goal becomes a thing. And City would be given the choice of a goal and no red card or a free kick and a red card, clearly in this case they would choose the former, but that decision might be different in it had happened in the first minute instead of the last.

 

[es1]

Graham Scott has been talking about that today, and I tend to agree that would be the right outcome for football here. There was clearly going to be a goal, absolutely zero debate about that, so the penalty goal becomes a thing. And City would be given the choice of a goal and no red card or a free kick and a red card, clearly in this case they would choose the former, but that decision might be different in it had happened in the first minute instead of the last.

I like that suggestion

 

[Paul_10]

Graham Scott has been talking about that today, and I tend to agree that would be the right outcome for football here. There was clearly going to be a goal, absolutely zero debate about that, so the penalty goal becomes a thing. And City would be given the choice of a goal and no red card or a free kick and a red card, clearly in this case they would choose the former, but that decision might be different in it had happened in the first minute instead of the last.

But we don't know for sure the ball was not going to be cleared by the defender though and there was every chance he could of but he was prevented by the foul from Haaland so how can you give City a goal that was not certain? I'm sure if the ball was well in before any foul from Haaland or there was no chance a defender was getting back then I think the on field decision of goal would of stood.

It's such an unusual situation and maybe Pawson did not see the second foul but if he did, then he definately had a rabbit in headlights moment and maybe wanted the VAR to help him out.

 

[bloovee]

But we don't know for sure the ball was not going to be cleared by the defender though and there was every chance he could of but he was prevented by the foul from Haaland so how can you give City a goal that was not certain? I'm sure if the ball was well in before any foul from Haaland or there was no chance a defender was getting back then I think the on field decision of goal would of stood.

It's such an unusual situation and maybe Pawson did not see the second foul but if he did, then he definately had a rabbit in headlights moment and maybe wanted the VAR to help him out.

Er - a penalty goal is precisely for situations where the referee judges that a goal would have been certain but for an opponent denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. I'm not sure how you'd draft it to cover situations like yesterday where "every chance to clear" was only because of the DOGSO and the chance to clear was denied because of a subsequent foul (as distinct from an OGSO that still depends on a player having to score - unless it says "DOGSO against the best striker in the world with an open goal should be a penalty goal no matter what happens after the DOGSO").

Maybe there really should be a law 18.

Where do you stop though? A last minute penalty for a "unnaturally bigger" position where the ball would be going away from goal isn't a fair outcome.

 

[Kinsleyr]

2nd one is definitely a yellow for me

The first is a really foolish action by bernado, but he does go down like he's been shot

I think that opinion is part of the problem. Here we have a player who is told he dives when he falls and then when he stays up is not given a foul when it’s clearly a foul. He can’t win and I don’t know what to call it when a player like Grealish has achieved more fouls in a tenth of the games that Salah has attained over ten seasons whilst also scoring ten times as many goals. You’d think that someone has an agenda against as he’s not English.

I think it also resonates with other foreign players like Haaland and Martinelli who don’t get the penalties, but for some reason Saka etc does.

 

[RefereeX]

aware this is friend of a friend of a friend type stuff so read in to it whatever you will, but I’m told by someone I know that is in the know that Dermot is correct and Craig Pawson just didn’t see the pull by Haaland because he was unsighted