A&H

Man Utd Vs Brugge

RobOda

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
There was a ridiculous handball that the referee correctly dismissed the player for DOSGO-Handling.

After he did so, VAR recommended a review at the pitchside monitor. I'm just wondering why? All i can see on the fan forums is chatter from the commentators saying they were checking if the keeper could save it and if it should be a yellow card instead, which is nonsense.

It was a bit of a long review considering the referee got it spot on IMO and the replays were fairly... conclusive. Was it just a lengthy confirmation session?
 
The Referee Store
Referee got it spot on and then spent over a minute watching it on the monitor. Why did he need to see it so many times and why was it even reviewed in the first place? They really aren’t helping fans get behind VAR
 
Was it clear that the keeper could save it? No. Then the referee's decision was not a clear and obvious error and it should not have been reviewed. The only justification for review then is 'to sell the decision" in which case one replayed of the best angle should do, maybe 10-15 seconds.

Top flight referees and VAR need to know, while the system is there as a tool to use when needed (EPL needs to know), it is not there to re-referee the game (most of the rest). This is the major reason we have so many opponents to the VAR system out there.
 
Putting aside the VAR question, i think there is an interesting question on how sure we have to be the ball is going in to make a DOG call. If this were an outside the silhouette call, I wonder if the R would have gone red. But the defender essentially asked to be sent off with that cynical play (what the $%#$ was he thinking?!?). I know it is not in the Laws, but I think the cynical or non-cynical nature of a play affects judgment on DOG & DOGSO calls--and I actually wouldn't mind that being a factor to consider, as the whole point was to get rid of cynical actions.

On the VAR question, WTF? Putting aside where you think the line should be on how sure we have to be the ball would go in, how could the VAR possibly think that red was a clear and obvious error? Was the R thinking "are you out of your $%$%ing mind?" when the VAR recommended he look at it on the screen.

These are plays that I think would be great if other ref associations did what PRO does in the US and provide an analysis of the decisions by both the VAR and the R.
 
I'm on the same page as social. If it's an arm extended away from the body then we go yellow and it's probably not a huge debate. When a defender makes a diving save, I'm starting red and it's gonna take a lot for me to downgrade to yellow. I don't care if you can make a technical argument that it's only SPA. The player deserved a red and thankfully the ref held his ground.
 
I tend to agree with everyone else here. It’s a blatant cynical offence, he’s trying to stop a goal with his arm, don’t disappoint him with just a yellow when he wants a red card. Even if it’s not an OG, it’s an OGSO as it’s a goalbound shot on target with 6 yards to travel and we have to debate whether the keeper would save it.

VAR intervening is a shocker. I don’t think there’s an error let alone a clear and obvious error. It’s not a decision that needs to be sold at all, there’s no dissent, there’s no potential for reaction, it’s 20 minutes in and one of the most stonewall handballs you’ll see in football, what do you need to sell? VAR literally wasted well over a minute because the Ref goes over thinking have I ****ed up, what have I missed and keeps checking when actually he’s got it bang on in the first place.
 
I was behind the goal and could see the offence was DOGSO, the intervention and time taken by VAR was puzzling; the potential impact of that long long delay was on the nerves of the kicker - that was wrong, and there would have been more said if he'd bottled it.

My questions are (following a full-length dive and 'save') what sanction:-

1. If the ball was judged to be missing the goal?
2. If the ball was judged to be goal-bound, but the keeper (or another player) would have saved it in any case?

Obviously, the player who made the 'save' did so because HE thought it was going in - which in my opinion, should be enough to merit a red in any case.
 
I was behind the goal and could see the offence was DOGSO, the intervention and time taken by VAR was puzzling; the potential impact of that long long delay was on the nerves of the kicker - that was wrong, and there would have been more said if he'd bottled it.

My questions are (following a full-length dive and 'save') what sanction:-

1. If the ball was judged to be missing the goal?
2. If the ball was judged to be goal-bound, but the keeper (or another player) would have saved it in any case?

Obviously, the player who made the 'save' did so because HE thought it was going in - which in my opinion, should be enough to merit a red in any case.

plus it's mognolet in goal so he'd likely have spilled the shot into the goal as well!
 
Even if it’s not an OG, it’s an OGSO as it’s a goalbound shot on target with 6 yards to travel and we have to debate whether the keeper would save it.

I don't think you can call it an OGSO. The Laws contemplate DOG differently; if you start thinking about DOGSO, you are in the world of the four factors, which don't apply--no attacker was going to get possession. This was either DOG or not. In my games, its an easy DOG send off.

I was behind the goal and could see the offence was DOGSO, the intervention and time taken by VAR was puzzling; the potential impact of that long long delay was on the nerves of the kicker - that was wrong, and there would have been more said if he'd bottled it.

My questions are (following a full-length dive and 'save') what sanction:-

1. If the ball was judged to be missing the goal?
2. If the ball was judged to be goal-bound, but the keeper (or another player) would have saved it in any case?

Obviously, the player who made the 'save' did so because HE thought it was going in - which in my opinion, should be enough to merit a red in any case.

1. I think most Rs are going to caution for USB, even though it doesn't really meet the definition of SPA if the ball is heading out of play. But I think everyone expects a cynical play like that to be a caution. (And I think any doubt about whether it was going in gets resolved in favor of red on a play this cynical.)

2. I think it's really the same--and again, the more cynical the handling the more benefit of doubt gets resolved in favor of red.
 
Rambling aside:

When professional fouls first became a send off, they were considered a flavor of SFP, and were largely ITOOTR. And that worked pretty well in that initial WC.

Over time, there was concern that Rs were not applying as often as they should, which led us into the world of the four factors. The good news is the potential greater consistency, but the bad news is things that don't quite fit but really should and "honest" fouls that were send offs where maybe the punishment didn't fit the crime.

I'd really like to see more ITOOTR added back in, especially to sanction cynical acts--like this one--whether or not the factors are technically met. This is an archetypal act of what they professional foul concept was intended to sanction--there should not be anything to discuss about a cynical act like this one.
 
Back
Top