Anubis
RefChat Addict
Not clear from tv so maybe he did but Kavangh in Villa Spurs played a great advantage, goal , i dont know if he went back for the card, I really hope so!
Reds versus Blues
- Thread starter Big Cat
- Start date
- Status
Not clear from tv so maybe he did but Kavangh in Villa Spurs played a great advantage, goal , i dont know if he went back for the card, I really hope so!
He did.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
in that case, fantastic bit of refereeing,
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
IMHO, this is something that too many refs lose sight of. The list of USB conduct in Law 12 is not exclusive--it is examples ("including if . . ."). While we need to be careful about cautions for things not listed so that we are not creating a unique universe for ourselves, we also cannot hide behind "it's not on the list" when unsporting actions are taking place.
It definitely wasn't reckless, didn't tick any boxes for that. It was pretty much textbook SPA, but if the foul was given against Henderson then Milner didn't stop a promising attack as by the time he made the foul play was already stopped.
I don't buy the argument that you can use the "other" category to justify a caution.
Had he given Milner the 2nd yellow everyone would be moaning Tierney made it about himself, ruined the game and it was never reckless. Pretty much what Cuneyt Cakir is going through atm as can be seen in the ACM v Atl thread.
Damned if you do damned if you don't. Referees can never win, what an impossible task we set ourselves.
Damned if you do damned if you don't. Referees can never win, what an impossible task we set ourselves.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
The reactions from just about every pundit, commentator and reporter covering this game that I've seen, heard or read, would seem to indicate the opposite. Just about all of them thought it should have been a second yellow.
"Pundits, commentators and reporters" are not familiar with the LOTG. What they say holds no weight whatsoever in my mind and they are in part responsible for the nonsense we have to put up with at grassroots.
Which was more of a reckless/yellow? Kessie's foul in the ACM v ATL or Milner's?
In my mind Kessie's all day long. I would see why yellow would have been given had Tierney given it on Milner but i can also see why it hasn't been given. Kessie's behind the player studs to the foot had all the 'pundits, commentators and reporters' crying foul when a yellow was given though. Apparently it wasnt a card!
You can never win with these people because they do not know the LOTG and as such they make it up as they feel, hence there is no consistency to them.
Which was more of a reckless/yellow? Kessie's foul in the ACM v ATL or Milner's?
In my mind Kessie's all day long. I would see why yellow would have been given had Tierney given it on Milner but i can also see why it hasn't been given. Kessie's behind the player studs to the foot had all the 'pundits, commentators and reporters' crying foul when a yellow was given though. Apparently it wasnt a card!
You can never win with these people because they do not know the LOTG and as such they make it up as they feel, hence there is no consistency to them.
Last edited:
It's the consistency of PGMOL referees that's in question, not "these people".
I think that's what he's saying - because pundits, commentators and reporters use their own frames of reference for what they think should happen that will always lead them to think that decisions are made inconsistently (as the frames of reference are moving all the time). If they were to use the LOTG or refereeing experience they'd at least be able to see why a certain decision was made (or not made) rather than assuming incompetency/inability to be consistent.
It's the same, for instance, as when a player points out that you've given a different decision to their challenge than to one that took place 10 minutes earlier. They are often outraged at the 'inconsistency' but they're starting from a very different perspective than you, as the referee.
It's the same, for instance, as when a player points out that you've given a different decision to their challenge than to one that took place 10 minutes earlier. They are often outraged at the 'inconsistency' but they're starting from a very different perspective than you, as the referee.
Blaming pundits for a referee not issuing an obvious 2nd yellow really misses the point. I think most people know why Milner didn't get sent off at Anfield. (Apart from the "Did he give the foul against Henderson, but not play advantage nor issue a card for Henderson's SPA?" conjecturing.)
Who has blamed pundits for Tierney not issuing a 2nd yellow?
What has been said is just because pundits say it should be a yellow does not mean it is true.
It seems there are other motives from some posters here than simply discussing refereeing from its neutral perspective.
What has been said is just because pundits say it should be a yellow does not mean it is true.
It seems there are other motives from some posters here than simply discussing refereeing from its neutral perspective.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Whether they're familiar with the laws isn't the point - you said that if Tierney had given Milner a second yellow, everyone would have been moaning about it.
I was pointing out that, as far as I can tell that's not the case. It's not true of referees, as the discussion on here shows and as far as non-referees go, as previously stated, it seems that the opposite is more likely true.
steakbridie
New Member
My post said IF it was a reckless tackle - which was in response to another poster saying Milner's foul doesn't count unless it was SFP. It is surely not the case that you could get away without a sanction for a reckless tackle because another player just before you has committed a foul?
And play wasn't stopped after Henderson's tackle - the whistle was only blown after the Milner's tackle.
one
RefChat Addict
The referee decides when play is stopped. And at that moment play is stopped. Blowing the whistle is only a means of communicating it which is always after that decision. How long after? Depends on the situation and the referee.
In this case, if you trust the referee, he said he decided to stop play after Henderson's foul. If you don't trust home then we would never know.
There's a split second between the two incidents - getting a whistle in between them would both require having the whistle already in his mouth, coupled with superhuman reflexes and decision making speed. We have no way of knowing which decision the foul was given for.
We do have a way. PGMOL's Omertà means they choose not to use that way - i.e. in this instance, to explain whether Mr Tierney gave a foul by Henderson (without playing advantage, or without issuing a YC), or gave a foul by Milner (without issuing a YC).
If they will not explain, anyone is free to speculate. So "we have no way of knowing" isn't an "end-of-discussion" matter. Knowing what went wrong - i.e. being told - that would be.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Not sure that mantra is exclusive to pgmol tho.
OK, fine. We have one way of knowing - which is if you or I manage to convince PGMOL to break with habits of a lifetime and ask Tierney a specific question about this decision and if we can know we'll get a straight answer. Personally, I think the likelihood of that happening is so vanishingly low, it may as well be indistinguishable from "no way of knowing".
So given we don't know and are unlikely to find out, what's the best course of action? I'm going to refer you to the pinned post at the top of this subforum - we're here as referees rather than fans, and I'd argue that wildly speculating about the sinister motives behind a decision we don't understand is perhaps not appropriate here. Discussing if there is a LOTG reason to justify that decision is reasonable - implying he didn't give the second yellow because the game was at Anfield is the kind of stuff that belongs on a different forum with a lighter blue colour scheme.
- Status