The Ref Stop

Wolves vs Arsenal

Decision?

  • Red

    Votes: 30 38.5%

  • Yellow

    Votes: 48 61.5%
  • Total voters
    78
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ori said:
I’m not arguing the merit of the laws of the game.

That’s given as red card when it never is. Will be interesting to see what Howard says and I’m sure this will be appealed.

FYI. Same match and this isn’t a red card.
Click to expand...
I was sat virtuallly in line with this challenge at the game and they didn't go red there because there was wasn't as much force in the challenge and as PGMOL said at the start of the season, contact above the ankle is much more dangerous than contact on the boot, which other angles show that challenge to have been. Although I'll be honest, I'd have expected a red there 9 times out of 10 in the PL.

Ori said:
including kicking the ball away (which the same ref sent an Arsenal player off for earlier this season)
Click to expand...
I can assure you both sides got away with a lot of that yesterday! The Wolves player who was sent off for 2 yellows had his first one for kicking the ball away, and a minute before and a minute after Arsenal players got away with exactly the same offence.

It wasn't exactly a great performance from MO compared to his usual standards, but both sides got away with a lot so neither can complain really. Did anyone notice that he was surrounded by almost all players from both teams after the Arsenal red but only issued 1 caution. What happened to stamping down on dissent? (I do think the challenge was a red card by the way, as it involved contact on the inside of the shin with studs, no chance of getting the ball, and at high speed, which in my view is excessive force every day of the week, just the same as the Wolves red should have been a straight red, and not a second caution).
 
The Ref Stop
These are some of the PGMOL/PL guidelines for SFP this season:
Screenshot (94).png
The last point is the one I find particularly interesting in this situation. The contact was definitely high and above the ankle, so that's already 2/4 "guidelines" met. Was the contact in this situation particularly forceful? In my opinion, yes. (3/4) The Wolves player was moving quite quickly when the challenge came in so naturally that presents more of a danger to the opponent, and the Arsenal player had no chance of getting anywhere near the ball. Was the contact full? IMO, stills posted by others in this thread alone say that one is a yes. So that's all 4 of the PL/PGMOL's points met for a red card, so I don't really see what else MO and the VAR are going to do in this situation. In the Dog & Duck we're all probably going yellow, let's be honest, but in the Prem I don't see any other option.
 
Russell Jones said:
That’s not accurate (for this or any other incident). They do NOT confirm that it’s the correct or best call … only that it is not clearly and obviously wrong. It’s a subtle but hugely important difference. And, IMO, a reason why VAR makes things worse. They can look at many incidents, see that a different call would be ‘better’ but still (correctly, according to protocol) choose not to intervene
Click to expand...
Completely agree that the process makes things worse. He will have heard MO say contact was on the shin, and at that point can’t really get involved as that is factually what happened.

Will be interesting to say what was said on comms for the Ensico challenge.
 
Kent Ref said:
Forceful - what does that REALLY mean in this scenario?
Click to expand...
Same as it means in any other in my opinion. Was the challenge using excessive force? (for which I think most would agree having no chance of getting near the ball makes it easier to say yes to this consideration). For me, that was excessive force. The point of contact did indeed endanger the safety of an opponent IMO. It's a very subjective call, but for me that's a red. Even so, if VAR disagreed, as many others have pointed out the VAR protocol means they just can't get involved here (another reason why I still think it's utterly pointless - they can think something is wrong but not be able to intervene).
 
Russell Jones said:
That’s not accurate (for this or any other incident). They do NOT confirm that it’s the correct or best call …
Click to expand...
The PGMOL released a statement that does say this!! Not saying you are wrong in what VAR is supposed to do, but you can see why people get confused with statements like this coming out.

“The referee’s call of a red card for Lewis-Skelly was checked and confirmed by VAR, who deemed his challenge to have been serious foul play.”
 
I think RC is OK but it’s not consistent or expected based on the prem and refereering in the prem this season.

Tough one for MO in real time but if he goes yellow I think there’s no drama. Given the safety net of VAR and the wider context it looks like this was not smart refereeing. Shame as I think MO is the best of us.
 
MO has obviously correctly identified the first point of contact is studs first high on the shin, and whether that alone was enough for him, or whether he thought the player raked his studs down the opponent’s leg before the contact on the foot, I can't really blame him for going red on-field.

With the benefit of replays I'm not convinced there's enough force in the challenge for it to be SFP, but given the the high point of contact I can understand why VAR hasn't recommended a review.
 
ARF said:
MO has obviously correctly identified the first point of contact is studs first high on the shin, and whether that alone was enough for him, or whether he thought the player raked his studs down the opponent’s leg before the contact on the foot, I can't really blame him for going red on-field.

With the benefit of replays I'm not convinced there's enough force in the challenge for it to be SFP, but given the the high point of contact I can understand why VAR hasn't recommended a review.
Click to expand...
I wonder if MO had seen this again, or review, if he'd still have gone red?
 
Kent Ref said:
I wonder if MO had seen this again, or review, if he'd still have gone red?
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but it could be argued he is in a no win situation. On one hand many ex Referees suggest that PL Referees are relying too much on VAR and not making decisions themselves and on the other, perhaps had VAR intervened and recommended he looked at the monitor, MO may have changed his mind. He made the call from what he saw at the time & was comfortable with his decision.
 
I think what may have influenced Oliver is recent PGMOL emphasis on tackles that impact the Achilles. This wasn’t that and considering the contact when factoring in the foul location, for me it’s SPA.
 
I am starting to see this more and more as a correct decision from MO's point of view, but from the player's perspective I still think it's the equivalent of tripping over, falling hands first into a puddle of tomato ketchup and randomly ending up next to a policeman inspecting a dead cat--if you get my drift.
 
Cannot understand Arsenal fans moaning, as one of their players, again is caught playing the dark arts from the City and Arsenal playbook. But rather than just grabbing the opponent or a trip, he gets it wrong and rakes his foot down his calf. So it is a red imo. Harsh, but either he needs to practice stopping an opponent better, or why didn’t he just the two defenders who were in place deal with it. Bigger problem is that his manager and coaches have clearly coached him to stop any counter attack, so zero sympathy.
 
I’ve had a morning of whinging and whining from my old man about this and why wasn’t the Wolves one red 🙄

- Arsenal red, not an attempt to play the ball and images do suggest a rake down the Achilles. Not the intent, more an attempt to trip? Probably, and unfortunate but justifiable.

-Wolves one. Two things, ball is being contested between two players, which is a big difference between the two. Contact point isn’t clever so likely to have been reviewed had it been a first caution.

Point 2, he’s going anyway. He hasn’t “got away with it”.
 
Kent Ref said:
I wonder if MO had seen this again, or review, if he'd still have gone red?
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but it could be argued he is in a no win situation. On one hand many ex Referees suggest that PL Referees are relying too much on VAR and not making decisions themselves and on the other, perhaps had VAR intervened and recommended he looked at the monitor, MO may have changed his mind. He made the call from what he saw at the time & was comfortable with his decision
 
We have a culture (emanating from VAR) of posting freeze frames. Doing so has no relevance. Slow motion has little relevance too
The game is not played in photographs and slow motion. Only real-time playback shows intensity, excessive force and the like
Whether or not this dismissal gets reversed on appeal, we wouldn't be anywhere near talking about this had the sanction been a caution

Nobody expected a red card. We never want to be the only person in the ground to see something, unless we're on TV and it's a superb spot that nobody would disagree with. This does not fit with that exceptional scenario. For me, it was never a red card anyway
 
I can live with red, but I’d be more comfortable with a caution. Yes the initial contact is fairly high, but it’s a very glancing touch, more so with the outer part of his foot.

I’m sure we had something similar not long ago and map went with yellow as the contact was high but minimal. Can’t for the life of me remember the topic.
 
Big Cat said:
We have a culture (emanating from VAR) of posting freeze frames. Doing so has no relevance. Slow motion has little relevance too
The game is not played in photographs and slow motion. Only real-time playback shows intensity, excessive force and the like
Whether or not this dismissal gets reversed on appeal, we wouldn't be anywhere near talking about this had the sanction been a caution
Click to expand...
Willie Collum says pretty much this on the VAR review show you didn’t want to watch. He doesn’t want incidents like this shown in slow motion, as it takes away the force, speed, brutality etc. At least on the first viewings of the incident.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top