The Ref Stop

Liverpool vs Everton

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

The Ref Stop
Even less surprising that sports juranalist have no idea about the 'rules' of the sport they jurnalise

BBC sports
"However, PGMOL sources now accept the challenge reached the threshold for serious foul play and VAR Paul Tierney should have upgraded the punishment to a red card."
 
Guys. VAR reviewed it and it’s a red card for Arsenal. ;))

Jokes aside. How is that not a red card is beyond me. Went in hard, high and with studs out.

Thoughts on offside for the goal?
 
My thoughts on the offside shout for the goal are that it is not offside as justified by law, but I would like to see law amended to make situations like this offside. He was very close to the defender and if he isn't there, the defender doesn't have any pressure to play the ball how he does. Not sure how you'd write a definitive wording of that scenario in though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
Just seen the goal in highlights.

Can't believe any ref would argue offside here.
The play does go towards him when it looked close to being offside, but he makes no attempt to play the ball or disrupt the defender. The defender plays the ball, badly, to another Liverpool player who then passes to the player who was "offside" originally but is now onside. So when he plays it this time he is onside and done nothing wrong.

We all know it is not an offence to be in an offside position.
 
cwyeary said:
I don't even know where we can go in England if professional referees can see this on video and say "not a clear red card".
Click to expand...
It's wrong to continually infer this is a problem exclusive to the UK/PGMOL

I'm not even sure it's 'a problem' in the game anyway. Commercially, the game continues to grow. From that perspective, the added hype and controversy seems more of 'a desirable' to me. Left to their own devices, both Sam and Paul would send-off for this all day every day. I'm sure of that, otherwise we may as well all sack refereeing off. One way or another, they're just under intense pressure to avoid ruining the game. A red card at that stage and it's time to switch channel
 
Last edited:
Touché.

Well, under law it isn’t offside.
However, one could argue that the defender wouldn’t have been under pressure had the attacker not been there so even though he didn’t make an attempt to play the ball, he maybe should be defined as involved.
How one would write that into the laws of the game is beyond me though. More subjectivity is not what we need.
Runner Ref said:
What are yours?
Click to expand...
 
Big Cat said:
It's wrong to continually infer this is a problem exclusive to the UK/PGMOL

I'm not even sure it's 'a problem' in the game anyway. Commercially, the game continues to grow. From that perspective, the added hype and controversy seems more of 'a desirable' to me. Left to their own devices, both Sam and Paul would send-off for this all day every day. I'm sure of that, otherwise we may as well all sack refereeing off. One way or another, they're just under intense pressure to avoid ruining the game. Because a red card at that stage and it's time to switch channel
Click to expand...

Sam was very quick to blow and get the yellow card out, I really doubt he thought right in that moment, I better not give red incase it ruins the game. He is just sadly another example where he failed to spot SFP on the field without the aid of VAR. It's ashame because he did recognise just because Tarkowski took the ball cleanly did not mean the follow through wasn't excessive but sadly he did not recognise how severe it was despite seemingly having a very good view of it.

Because of it involving a big 6 club and it's a derby game, it's likely this will be included on the mic'd up show and it will show Tierney once again not recognising SFP as a VAR despite everyone else virtually thinking it is.

If it does get included, maybe what Sam says may tie the VAR hands somewhat but I'm sorry, height, force and seeing that leg buckle like that I don't care what the referee says, you get him over and show him why yellow is not sufficient punishment for that challenge.
 
Diaz is doing what he's doing for reason, unfortunately although he gains an edge by doing it he can't be penalised.

Players shouldn't be allowed to loiter in offside position inside the penalty area, if you're standing offside and not making an effort to get back onside inside the penalty area then make it offside.
 
RefereeX said:
I don't think 'managing the event' has anything to do with this... it's just a howler of a mistake from Tierney not to intervene unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Agree, no referee is managing the event with a challenge like that. The speed with which Barrott got the yellow card out says to me he has just seen it completely wrong, possibly because from his position he can't see the extent of the contact due to the bodies of the players. I can offer no possible excuse for Tierney though unless there was some kind of technology issue.

Both of them, and quite possibly Adam Nunn as AVAR, are going to be featuring on the video nasty at the next PGMOL get together, and I refuse to believe that any referee would willingly put themselves in that position. They are just going to have to feature this on the next Mic'd Up, so going to be intriguing what their thought process was.
 
Assuming Pickford was given a yellow/red and Nunez had stayed off the pitch, would Nunez be allowed to 'come back on' if he was treated 'quickly' off the pitch and the game hadn't restarted.
 
bester said:
Players shouldn't be allowed to loiter in offside position inside the penalty area, if you're standing offside and not making an effort to get back onside inside the penalty area then make it offside.
Click to expand...
So you're basically saying you would penalise a player simply for being in an offside position and literally taking no other action - including "not making an effort to get back onside"?

How would you square that with the first line of Law 11?
 
Peter Grove said:
So you're basically saying you would penalise a player simply for being in an offside position and literally taking no other action - including "not making an effort to get back onside"?

How would you square that with the first line of Law 11?
Click to expand...
I don't think he is saying he would penalise it. He is saying the law should be changed so that he could penalised it. I don't agree with it though.
 
I've seen the highlights now. Sam Barratt can be forgiven for the missed S1 but Paul Tierney cannot
The offside thing was a non-event and David Moyes' analysis was pitiful. The Slot Machine rightly pointed out that the Officials applied the Law and the the Officials are not responsible for the way they're written. I'd like to see Mr Moyes put offside into words in a book. It would make interesting reading
 
one said:
I don't think he is saying he would penalise it. He is saying the law should be changed so that he could penalised it. I don't agree with it though.
Click to expand...
That’s how I read it too he’s not saying he would do it just law should be altered
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
HonestRef said:
That’s how I read it too he’s not saying he would do it just law should be altered
Click to expand...
I don't really see the problem. He didn't play the ball or interfere with an opponent. If we get into psychological interference we'd all need to become psychic. I don't think it's possible to write an offside Law that works really well in very scenario

Not a comment aimed at you BTW. Not sure why I hit the reply button :confused:
 
Big Cat said:
I don't really see the problem. He didn't play the ball or interfere with an opponent. If we get into psychological interference we'd all need to become psychic. I don't think it's possible to write an offside Law that works really well in very scenario

Not a comment aimed at you BTW. Not sure why I hit the reply button :confused:
Click to expand...
Agreed - current Law is written to avoid such situations about “interfering”.

Player is offside in very specific situations: plays it, challenges an opponent, plays it after a rebound (etc).

On the defenders to deal with it, and up to the attackers to play within Law.
 
one said:
I don't think he is saying he would penalise it. He is saying the law should be changed so that he could penalised it. I don't agree with it though.
Click to expand...
I didn't think he meant that either - in saying he would penalise it, I was referring to the fact that that he implied he would prefer the law to be that way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top