Mags v Reds

[Ben448844]

On the TAA handball. Is there an argument to suggest that the goal should be awarded and a red card to TAA if the ref saw it but allowed advantage? The reason being that TAA denies a goalscoring oppurtunity but then the Atsu goal is a seperate goalscoring oppurtunity, so the ref could go back to the first one and issue a red?

With VAR next season in the PL, would they look at it as two seperate goalscoring opportunities?

 

[es1]

On the TAA handball. Is there an argument to suggest that the goal should be awarded and a red card to TAA if the ref saw it but allowed advantage? The reason being that TAA denies a goalscoring oppurtunity but then the Atsu goal is a seperate goalscoring oppurtunity, so the ref could go back to the first one and issue a red?

With VAR next season in the PL, would they look at it as two seperate goalscoring opportunities?

It's either penalty and red or goal and yellow.

See where you're coming from mind

 

[santa sangria]

I don’t think the Laws intend referees to look at the send off as part of the advantage analysis. A goal is more advantageous than a PK.

Not necessarily. Re not booking. While we would expect the caution, he could have decided not to because the goal was scored and he didn’t want to also card. (I think it more likely it was missed, but it’s not impossible that he just decided not to card it.)



Because it isn’t done. Sure, good basis for it. But I think it’s going to take a far more egregious scenario than this one for a ref at that level of play to toss a player for successive challenges like that.

It’s a mandatory yellow. You can’t decide not to YC if you saw it. Would be error in law surely.

One possibility is AM thought it was ball to hand, natural position and no offence... though by TAA’s giggles in the interview after the game it’s pretty clear he thought it was blatant!

By the way, TAA, Robertson, Sane, KDB, B Silva, Mane, Aguero, Salah, Virgil, Laporte... I feel blessed watching these amazing players!

 

[alexgr]

He's not

https://twitter.com/x/status/1124781830539026432

Decision is made after the dive

Look at the reverse angle where you can clearly see his hands

 

[JH]

The arm across looks like it’s unbalanced Fabinho, you can see the AR about to switch hands there but then pauses. I think the foul is for the initial contact rather than the flop

Even with the initial contact there is no foul for me. When a player jumps so theatrically like that in front of me, I'd immediately shout "no way". I hate players buying free kicks.

 

[JH]

On the TAA handball. Is there an argument to suggest that the goal should be awarded and a red card to TAA if the ref saw it but allowed advantage? The reason being that TAA denies a goalscoring oppurtunity but then the Atsu goal is a seperate goalscoring oppurtunity, so the ref could go back to the first one and issue a red?

With VAR next season in the PL, would they look at it as two seperate goalscoring opportunities?

No. The law is very clear on this scenario.

 

[Tealeaf]

On the TAA handball. Is there an argument to suggest that the goal should be awarded and a red card to TAA if the ref saw it but allowed advantage? The reason being that TAA denies a goalscoring oppurtunity but then the Atsu goal is a seperate goalscoring oppurtunity, so the ref could go back to the first one and issue a red?

With VAR next season in the PL, would they look at it as two seperate goalscoring opportunities?

No in this case the offence would be denying a goal, rather than the goal scoring opportunity.

The goal has been scored, so not denied.

 

[GraemeS]

All of which is a bit moot, as the lack of a yellow clearly suggests he just missed it (or judged it accidental) rather than consciously downgrading DOGSO because the goal resulted.

 

[Ben448844]

No in this case the offence would be denying a goal, rather than the goal scoring opportunity.

The goal has been scored, so not denied.

Yes this is the way I understand too. But my question was "is there an argument to suggest" that the goal is scored from a seperate obvious goalscoring oppurtunity. IE, once TAA has stopped a goal with his arm then that particular obvious goalscoring oppurtunity has ended and the Atsu shot is a new goalscoring oppurtunity. Therefore, is there an argument to suggest that they be dealt with as individual incidents and not lumped into one?

 

[Tealeaf]

No because the direct consequence of handling was to return the ball to an attacker who has scored.

The best comparison I can make is in rugby where even if tackled you can score a try in the same movement.

Ball rebounds to a defender who mishits it to another attacker then you’d be looking at a red

 

[one]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1124774708787011586

This angers me so so much

The dive

The AR buying it

I suspect you can't see Fabinho's left arm being pulled back. Don't quite agree with it being a foul but I think that is what the AR gave the foul for not the dive.

EDIT: Just saw the reverse angle. Not much of an arm pull there either

 

[one]

Yes this is the way I understand too. But my question was "is there an argument to suggest" that the goal is scored from a seperate obvious goalscoring oppurtunity. IE, once TAA has stopped a goal with his arm then that particular obvious goalscoring oppurtunity has ended and the Atsu shot is a new goalscoring oppurtunity. Therefore, is there an argument to suggest that they be dealt with as individual incidents and not lumped into one?

No. In this case, the second GSO was created (and scored) specifically because of playing advantage. So you can't separate them. They are very much connected.

Even if they don't score from the second opportunity, the player can't be sent off. The law is clear in it's explanation.

 

[Big Cat]

No. In this case, the second GSO was created (and scored) specifically because of playing advantage. So you can't separate them. They are very much connected.

Even if they don't score from the second opportunity, the player can't be sent off. The law is clear in it's explanation.

View attachment 3454

Thanks @one
This definitively absolves AM of any wrong doing with regards to the HB on the line (told everyone, he's a top ref )
However, it shows a lack of understanding of the game on behalf of IFAB

Quote @socal lurker
Because it isn’t done. Sure, good basis for it. But I think it’s going to take a far more egregious scenario than this one for a ref at that level of play to toss a player for successive challenges like that.[/QUOTE]

Whilst you might be factually right, it never ceases to amaze me how interpretations of the Laws are invented to justify referees' progression
It is utter tosh that a player can commit a blatant reckless challenge (for which it's a cast iron certainty he will be cautioned for it) before being guilty of an equally blatant SPA, yet only be cautioned for the latter. Some of these pyramid learning interpretations leave me completely bemused
It doesn't help our cause as referees as this sort of nonsense contributes to officials being derided the world over

 

[Redster]

The Law rewrite is a flaccid bowing to what (the lowest common denominator in) football expects. Even more justification to only play advantage for a tap in.

 

[socal lurker]

Whilst you might be factually right, it never ceases to amaze me how interpretations of the Laws are invented to justify referees' progression
It is utter tosh that a player can commit a blatant reckless challenge (for which it's a cast iron certainty he will be cautioned for it) before being guilty of an equally blatant SPA, yet only be cautioned for the latter. Some of these pyramid learning interpretations leave me completely bemused
It doesn't help our cause as referees as this sort of nonsense contributes to officials being derided the world over

I don't really disagree with you about this. But the bias toward keeping players on the field makes this a hard sell for the ref in a practical sense.

 

[socal lurker]

It’s a mandatory yellow. You can’t decide not to YC if you saw it. Would be error in law surely.

I don't know that at that level they see anything (perhaps with the exception of removing a shirt after scoring a goal) as a mandatory caution. Clearly cautionable behavior goes unpunished all the time. As I said, I don't think he saw a handling offense and that is why play continued. (Perhaps the AR would have helped if the goal had not scored.) But I don't find it remotely implausible that he simply decided that it wasn't worth giving a caution on that as he would get nothing from it but a lot of grief.

 

[Big Cat]

I don't know that at that level they see anything (perhaps with the exception of removing a shirt after scoring a goal) as a mandatory caution. Clearly cautionable behavior goes unpunished all the time. As I said, I don't think he saw a handling offense and that is why play continued. (Perhaps the AR would have helped if the goal had not scored.) But I don't find it remotely implausible that he simply decided that it wasn't worth giving a caution on that as he would get nothing from it but a lot of grief.

A yellow card is the worst outcome for the ref, regardless of what the Laws say
When all said and done, it sounds like AM didn't really do a lot wrong; unless you're a Magpie
What was interesting, is that the Newcastle players didn't really give the ref much stick over any of the KMIs
Either thats because AM has a great report with the players, or it's because the Newcastle players are not Champions League level in terms of their nous

 

[Peter Grove]

I'd say a red card and penalty, at this stage of the game, is a much better advantage than a goal.

Absolutely, definitely not. There is no greater advantage in a football match, than a goal. If you have a goal and the other team doesn't, you definitely win the match. If you get a penalty you might or might not score. And if you don't, there's absolutely no guarantee that playing against ten men will win you the match. We're not there to second-guess the chances of a team going on to win a match with the other team down to ten men.

There have been loads of games where the team with ten men has performed heroically and either held on without conceding or even gone on to win the game. It's actually quite surprising how often it happens.

Goals are the most precious commodity in football and they're relatively rare - how many 0-0 or 1-0 games do we see every year? You should never chalk off an actual goal for a team on the basis that they might potentially then go on to score more goals afterwards. It's only if you've actually blown the whistle before the goal is scored that you can and must disallow it.

For instance, if you remember the 2006 UCL final, even the referee admitted he should have played the advantage and not sent off the Arsenal keeper. As the Grauniad report put it:

Referee Terje Hauge has admitted he acted too hastily in sending off Arsenal goalkeeper Jens Lehmann in the Champions League final against Barcelona.
[...]
"The ideal thing would have been to wait a few seconds," he said. "If I'd done that, I could have given the goal and eventually given a yellow card. Of course everyone wants a goal, so this was a key situation."

Also, in that match don't forget Arsenal actually took the lead despite being down to ten men - which shows that playing against ten men is not necessarily the advantage you might expect it to be (although Barcelona did eventually win the match, of course).

 

[spuddy1878]

Jamie Carragher said as a player he would rather have the penalty and playing against ten men.

The thing is a referee you dont get to decide whats best you just have to make the correct decision.

 

[Big Cat]

Absolutely, definitely not. There is no greater advantage in a football match, than a goal. If you have a goal and the other team doesn't, you definitely win the match. If you get a penalty you might or might not score. And if you don't, there's absolutely no guarantee that playing against ten men will win you the match. We're not there to second-guess the chances of a team going on to win a match with the other team down to ten men.

There have been loads of games where the team with ten men has performed heroically and either held on without conceding or even gone on to win the game. It's actually quite surprising how often it happens.

Goals are the most precious commodity in football and they're relatively rare - how many 0-0 or 1-0 games do we see every year? You should never chalk off an actual goal for a team on the basis that they might potentially then go on to score more goals afterwards. It's only if you've actually blown the whistle before the goal is scored that you can and must disallow it.

For instance, if you remember the 2006 UCL final, even the referee admitted he should have played the advantage and not sent off the Arsenal keeper. As the Grauniad report put it:



Also, in that match don't forget Arsenal actually took the lead despite being down to ten men - which shows that playing against ten men is not necessarily the advantage you might expect it to be (although Barcelona did eventually win the match, of course).

Your assessment is generally wrong, albeit reasonable from a refereeing perspective

Without harking into detail, betting in-running on football matches is huge these days and I've worked in the gaming industry for two decades. Suffice to say, the home team's chance of winning, was dealt a huge blow (due to the mis-match between the two teams and timing of the incident) by the failure to award DOGSO-H and PK.
That said, this is not the first time such a predicament has been discussed and I completely accept that it's unreasonable for a referee to know the probability of three points based on the relative abilities of the two teams and the timings of events. Therefore, I'd accept that referees (who are not career gamblers) should be taught to award the goal

It's the Milner scenario that I really can't accept because the two Cautions were cast iron