A&H

Newcastle v Liverpool

The Referee Store
Did he show leniency on the second YC for TAA as they had some further discussion that TAA had possibly been fouled in the lead up to his first YC?
 
Mac said:
Did he show leniency on the second YC for TAA as they had some further discussion that TAA had possibly been fouled in the lead up to his first YC?
Click to expand...
While that would morally be the right, it's not exactly in keeping with lotg or var protocol
 
es1 said:
While that would morally be the right, it's not exactly in keeping with lotg or var protocol
Click to expand...
I agree, but as Mike Dean confirmed this week, unfortunately, human nature could have come into play and as they realised he had possibly missed the lead up foul in the first incident, decided to make life easier for himself and take the lesser of two bad choices, resulting in him not opening himself up to a pile of criticism and front pages for the next week if he had gone YC/RC in the first 5mins.
 
Mac said:
I agree, but as Mike Dean confirmed this week, unfortunately, human nature could have come into play and as they realised he had possibly missed the lead up foul in the first incident, decided to make life easier for himself and take the lesser of two bad choices, resulting in him not opening himself up to a pile of criticism and front pages for the next week if he had gone YC/RC in the first 5mins.
Click to expand...
You're right, and I bet we've all done similar in our own games, I know I have
 
one said:
Easy to say for you. Not all of us are as good as you are 😜
Click to expand...
;) I didn't say I'm able to put this theory into practice!

I think referees often perform worse and get themselves in trouble when they try to adjust their levels for match control. This is a great example - TAA is barged in the back and sent flying into the TA, but the ref doesn't give a clear foul because he's trying to get players on his side by showing he'll let the game flow early in the game. TAA then dissents/DTRs, so he has to get a soft booking, TAA then commits a foul that could have been SPA but the ref knows the context and doesn't want to send him for it.

So now you've pissed off both teams and it's all come from just trying to be a bit smart with your foul bar. Whereas I think if you just gives fouls people expect, that whole situation is avoided.

Either that, or his just missed a really obvious foul. Either way the "get fouls right and match control follows" theory applies!
 
Mac said:
Did he show leniency on the second YC for TAA as they had some further discussion that TAA had possibly been fouled in the lead up to his first YC?
Click to expand...

Unlikely. There’s a pervasive urban myth that a player on a caution - especially so in the professional game - that any further infraction is another caution.

Judge the foul on its merits. Is that a caution in isolation? I suggest not. But making it the final warning stage, telling the player in question it’s now on them is a highly effective tool. Some will behave for the remainder of the game, others will go and wipe someone out later on and it’s easy for us. Nobody can argue then.
 
Ryanj91 said:
Honestly can't believe the commentary about how that shouldn't have been a red for VVD as it was 'soft'.

That's a textbook DOGSO.

One thing I was disappointed with... Liverpool had 6 outfield players and the keeper protesting/surrounding the decision. No cautions given.
Click to expand...
Not DOGSO if you see the other angle only way covering defender doesn’t get across is if impeded himself I actually would of booked Isak looking at the angle shown on us tv shared on social media he throws himself before contact so textbook yellow
 
Southerner In The North said:
Not DOGSO if you see the other angle only way covering defender doesn’t get across is if impeded himself I actually would of booked Isak looking at the angle shown on us tv shared on social media he throws himself before contact so textbook yellow
Click to expand...

Wow what take. Not only is it not DOGSO but Isak deserves the card for getting his ankle kicked at full force.
 
Southerner In The North said:
Not DOGSO if you see the other angle only way covering defender doesn’t get across is if impeded himself I actually would of booked Isak looking at the angle shown on us tv shared on social media he throws himself before contact so textbook yellow
Click to expand...
With all due respect, neither of the points you have made here are accurate in the slightest.
 
Southerner In The North said:
Not in my view and seems to be fairly split opinion on DOGSO even among refs
Click to expand...
Don't seem to be that many on here that think it wasn't DOGSO. And by many I of course mean any, as you seem to be the only one that thinks it wasn't, and there's a least one Liverpool fan on here that thinks it was.

Even non-referees seem to think it was red. I'm in a WhatsApp group with 9 non-referees, of which 4 are lifelong Liverpool fans, and they all think it was DOGSO. As did Alan Shearer and Micah Richards on MoTD, and so on.
 
cwyeary said:
From Dale Johnsons review. An attacker running full speed at goal. No other defender is in position to stop the OGSO.

www.espn.com

The VAR Review: Van Dijk red card, Manchester United penalty

In this week's VAR Review: Was it the correct decision to send off Liverpool defender Virgil van Dijk at Newcastle United? Was the VAR right not to intervene to cancel the penalty for Man United?
www.espn.com www.espn.com

View attachment 6799
Click to expand...
Left hand side direct line so easily gets there thank you for proving my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top