Italy red card.... first view its a clear red (refs angle), but the last view from front on I'm not so sure??
VAR confirmed red! He had both views! Thoughts
U20 WC Finals
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
Italy red card.... first view its a clear red (refs angle), but the last view from front on I'm not so sure??
VAR confirmed red! He had both views! Thoughts
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
There's the slightest hand the shoulder that doesn't affect the player's movement.
As a coach said to me the other day: "that's water polo refereeing"
That cannot be a penalty and red card.
But what is the VAR supposed to do here? The referee has already given the penalty. If the VAR says no, a drop ball restart in the box and complete loss of match control... the VAR is always going to have some cognitive bias to support the referee here.
As a coach said to me the other day: "that's water polo refereeing"
That cannot be a penalty and red card.
But what is the VAR supposed to do here? The referee has already given the penalty. If the VAR says no, a drop ball restart in the box and complete loss of match control... the VAR is always going to have some cognitive bias to support the referee here.
Very poor decision - from the initial angle, I thought there was maybe a foul by the keeper, but no chance the defender has done anything wrong there. And the replay from the other side confirms my initial suspicions regarding the defender and makes it clear that the attacker has dived over the keeper as well.
In fact, I think that's the answer to @santa sangria 's concerns - the restart here is an IDFK to the defending team and a caution to the attacker for simulation.
In fact, I think that's the answer to @santa sangria 's concerns - the restart here is an IDFK to the defending team and a caution to the attacker for simulation.
Sorry, I cannot see how the caution for simulation exists! There may not be a RC / penalty, but the forward overruns the ball, loses his balance and falls over. No Intent to con the referee.
DB is the only other option.
one
RefChat Addict
I reduced this to 0.25 speed for both replays. And at that speed with a number of replays here is what I see:
There is a touching of the shoulder of the attacker just outside the PA. Then the hand is removed from the shoulder and touches the back of the attacker as they enter the PA. Neither of these are fouls. They are not given anywhere else on the field or any other circumstance.
But here is the sticking point, immediately over the PA line the hand goes back on the shoulder and there is a very slight tug/pull. This is a 50/50 at best. Although not a foul IMO, it is a matter of interpretation of 'careless' and its definition.
Borderline fouls/no foul in PA and/or DOGSO situations were always controversial before VAR and are going to be even more controversial with for use of VAR
There is a touching of the shoulder of the attacker just outside the PA. Then the hand is removed from the shoulder and touches the back of the attacker as they enter the PA. Neither of these are fouls. They are not given anywhere else on the field or any other circumstance.
But here is the sticking point, immediately over the PA line the hand goes back on the shoulder and there is a very slight tug/pull. This is a 50/50 at best. Although not a foul IMO, it is a matter of interpretation of 'careless' and its definition.
Borderline fouls/no foul in PA and/or DOGSO situations were always controversial before VAR and are going to be even more controversial with for use of VAR
Let's think about the Ref angle and mindset here. He is standing behind all of this. 50/50 contact on the shoulders player stumbles -> whistle wiggle...should I call this? Nah...play continues. Keeper comes out and attacker shift around, out stretched keeper arm, attacking player falls, ball goes straight forward. Ref thinks surely keepers nicked his leg and not the ball, and I could of called the shoulder 2 seconds ago, that's it I'm having a pen (you can assume I know this is flawed logic if the ref thought like this - just think it's possible). As others have said the var will look at this and be screwed either way so will bias to the original decision.
I'm having trouble explaining the red in my thinking above though as the red can only be for the shoulder stuff as the keeper was clearly making an attempt at the ball. Even the way he delivers the red he seems a bit unsure just waving it generally in the direction of the offending team
.
Not a great moment in refereeing history but certainly interesting for us.
I'm having trouble explaining the red in my thinking above though as the red can only be for the shoulder stuff as the keeper was clearly making an attempt at the ball. Even the way he delivers the red he seems a bit unsure just waving it generally in the direction of the offending team
. Not a great moment in refereeing history but certainly interesting for us.
I was very confused in the first viewing, but you'll notice later on in the clip that it's number 14 in a blue shirt who walks off the pitch and the on-screen graphic confirms this. That's the defender, which suggests that the foul must have been given for a push/pull rather than the GK sliding in and nicking him.Let's think about the Ref angle and mindset here. He is standing behind all of this. 50/50 contact on the shoulders player stumbles -> whistle wiggle...should I call this? Nah...play continues. Keeper comes out and attacker shift around, out stretched keeper arm, attacking player falls, ball goes straight forward. Ref thinks surely keepers nicked his leg and not the ball, and I could of called the shoulder 2 seconds ago, that's it I'm having a pen (you can assume I know this is flawed logic if the ref thought like this - just think it's possible). As others have said the var will look at this and be screwed either way so will bias to the original decision.
I'm having trouble explaining the red in my thinking above though as the red can only be for the shoulder stuff as the keeper was clearly making an attempt at the ball. Even the way he delivers the red he seems a bit unsure just waving it generally in the direction of the offending team
Not a great moment in refereeing history but certainly interesting for us.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
Watching for the first time with the angle the ref had that it was against the keeper.
I, personally, don't see a foul in the keepers actions, but it's in the opinion of the referee.
I, personally, don't see a foul in the keepers actions, but it's in the opinion of the referee.
Since the red card was to the defender, we can eliminate the keeper's actions (nothing there anyway).
Now the defender does put his arm on the attacker's shoulder IMO just outside the penalty area. This was not a
huge contact, but it could certainly be argued that for a player running at speed, this was enough to throw him off balance. I am not saying I agree with this, but it is certainly ITOOTR. If so, then as a holding offence, it is a red card for DOGSO, irrespective of the penalty being given.
Also, ignore the commentator saying there was "no advantage". in the penalty area, we are taught to "wait and see" rather than call advantage.
So logically the ref must have assumed that the slight contact was enough to throw the attacker off balance, the referee waiting to see if he could still score, but when he went down, gave the penalty and RC.
Finally, be aware that the role of the VAR is only to correct CLEAR MISTAKES. If they looked (from their dozen angles) and saw that the defender's arm was still in contact as the players stepped on PA line, then they must uphold the ref's decision (remember holding is not necessarily given where it first occurred, continual holding that moves into PA is a penalty). It is not the VAR's job to over-ride the referee's assumption that the contact was careless rather than trivial.
Not posting this to agree or disagree with the decision, just pointing out what must have occurred.
Now the defender does put his arm on the attacker's shoulder IMO just outside the penalty area. This was not a
huge contact, but it could certainly be argued that for a player running at speed, this was enough to throw him off balance. I am not saying I agree with this, but it is certainly ITOOTR. If so, then as a holding offence, it is a red card for DOGSO, irrespective of the penalty being given.
Also, ignore the commentator saying there was "no advantage". in the penalty area, we are taught to "wait and see" rather than call advantage.
So logically the ref must have assumed that the slight contact was enough to throw the attacker off balance, the referee waiting to see if he could still score, but when he went down, gave the penalty and RC.
Finally, be aware that the role of the VAR is only to correct CLEAR MISTAKES. If they looked (from their dozen angles) and saw that the defender's arm was still in contact as the players stepped on PA line, then they must uphold the ref's decision (remember holding is not necessarily given where it first occurred, continual holding that moves into PA is a penalty). It is not the VAR's job to over-ride the referee's assumption that the contact was careless rather than trivial.
Not posting this to agree or disagree with the decision, just pointing out what must have occurred.
