A&H

Watford v Palace

The Referee Store
It's a very narrow angle for it to be red, and there's no guarantee he's even keeping the ball in if he doesn't get taken out. Surprised it wasn't a caution though.
 
Interesting question - was this DOGSO? I think we can all agree it wasn't a genuine attempt at the ball.
He would have had the ball at his feet, nobody around him and an open goal. Narrow angle, but at this level he should be hitting it.
PK should have been retaken for encroachment by both teams.
 
It's in that iffy yellow area for DOGSO. Like you say pro footballers should be getting a shot on target from there, on the parks a different story.

Either way a card of one sort should have been shown. There was no real chance of him winning or making a fair challenge for the ball.
 
Interesting one. Personally I feel you could make a legitimate case for any decision here (apart from not giving the PK of course!). Goalkeepers are far less used to making tackles so, late as it was, I can understand the opinion that Gomes was attempting to get the ball with very little skill! Thus justifying a Yellow rather than a Red IF you deem it be DOGSO. For me, the angle would have been so acute once he re-controlled the ball that it wasn't an OGSO .. but would certainly back any referee who decided otherwise ...
 
Looking at the replay it does look like Gomes hangs out a foot, but from the MOTD replays I thought a 'no card' decision was defensible.

I thought the yellow for simulation for Zaha was absolutely spot on. There is contact but that contact is engineered by Zaha and it's not enough to bring him down.
 
Trip said:
Looking at the replay it does look like Gomes hangs out a foot, but from the MOTD replays I thought a 'no card' decision was defensible.

I thought the yellow for simulation for Zaha was absolutely spot on. There is contact but that contact is engineered by Zaha and it's not enough to bring him down.
Click to expand...
How was it "engineered"?
 
Capture.PNG capture2.PNG
definite penalty and angle is plenty to make a shot on goal. I do not think the player's ability to score (or not) from a certain angle should be questioned at all. Besides he had time to make a couple touches to increase his chances.

Red or yellow? I would be ok with both colors, kinda left to the referee. Initial intention seems like the ball but in my opinion he realized his timing was horrible and still kicked the attacker intentionally. If it was left to me, red for sure because his move was not for the ball. If referee showed a yellow then I would still be OK because he only watched it once. It took me 2+ replays to make up my mind.
 
I think it's a fairly-well know phenomenon that challenges often (though not always) look worse on a slow-motion replay than they do in real time. Interestingly enough, the IFAB protocol on VAR's recommends that referees should only watch the replays at normal speed, except for establishing 'point of contact' (where relevant) - most probably for this reason.

Anyway, watching this incident in real time, I thought the challenge was badly mis-timed and right on the borderline between careless and reckless but not excessively violent so while a yellow wouldn't have surprised me, I was OK with no card - I also think this is one of those that looks worse in slow motion.
 
Peter Grove said:
I think it's a fairly-well know phenomenon that challenges often (though not always) look worse on a slow-motion replay than they do in real time. Interestingly enough, the IFAB protocol on VAR's recommends that referees should only watch the replays at normal speed, except for establishing 'point of contact' (where relevant) - most probably for this reason.

Anyway, watching this incident in real time, I thought the challenge was badly mis-timed and right on the borderline between careless and reckless but not excessively violent so while a yellow wouldn't have surprised me, I was OK with no card - I also think this is one of those that looks worse in slow motion.
Click to expand...
How about from DOGSO point of view? I do not think no card is an option here.
 
OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity? Not for me. Too wide, heavy touch and heading away from goal at the moment of contact.

Having said that, it's a poor challenge from Gomes. Anywhere else on the pitch by an outfield player would be a nailed on yellow.
 
Mooseybaby said:
OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity? Not for me. Too wide, heavy touch and heading away from goal at the moment of contact.

Having said that, it's a poor challenge from Gomes. Anywhere else on the pitch by an outfield player would be a nailed on yellow.
Click to expand...

Why does the location of the incident reduce the severity of the foul and hence the shade of yellow card?
 
Mintyref said:
Why does the location of the incident reduce the severity of the foul and hence the shade of yellow card?
Click to expand...
According to the laws of the game, it doesn't. However as we all know professional level referees work to a different set of the laws from everyone else especially when dealing with incidents inside the box!
 
Mooseybaby said:
According to the laws of the game, it doesn't. However as we all know professional level referees work to a different set of the laws from everyone else especially when dealing with incidents inside the box!
Click to expand...

Great, so you meant to say it was a nailed on yellow..........haven't seen the challenge Moose, but if you'd go with yellow so will I.....:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top