Well that was suggested via the blue card but so many people were against it that I doubt it will ever see use at PL level.
Wolves vs Arsenal
- Thread starter Runner Ref
- Start date
- Status
Well that was suggested via the blue card but so many people were against it that I doubt it will ever see use at PL level.
See the image I posted above. Straight legged connecting well above the ankle with studs, granted it isn't with a huge amount of force, but equally I wouldn't call it a graze.
one
RefChat Addict
Footbal expects a yellow except when the original decision is a yellow, then football expects a red.
And yes, as referees, we can't win.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
But you’ve basically just described a caution. The criteria PGMOL go to says that high contact simply isn’t enough. To be considered red, it says high+full+forceful.
You just said yourself it wasn’t a huge amount of force
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Maybe if PGMOL didn’t make up their own rules they wouldn’t stick their referees in it so often.
Absolutely.
Exactly this. I think this is a consequence of the few high-profile incidents (Xhaka being the first I remember) where commentators and pundits go mad over a clearly cynical foul with some (but not masses of) force, and the PL have kind of started to accept some red cards for what would otherwise only be considered reckless.
This reeks to me of adding SPA to a reckless tackle and getting red as a result. I wouldn't actually have a huge issue with SPA being an aggravating factor rather than a separate offence (and so, SPA on a careless foul = yellow, on a reckless foul = red), but those aren't the laws at the moment. And I don't like the fact that a) the PL have been pressured into doing this non-law thing on a semi-regular basis and b) they're trying to hide that this is clearly being taught (or at least, encouraged) at the higher levels now.
If this had been a publicly-known thing, they could have just said something long the lines of "the PGMOL now expect reckless tackles that also stop a promising attack to be punished with a red card as per [insert examples here]." But they're not willing to stand behind it, so it looks like MO making things up as he goes along.
Though he isn’t (making things up as he goes along) - he saw what he saw from the position he was in & acted as he normally does - with what he considered was the appropriate course of action. People may not agree with it or like it, but he was not incorrect in Law.
I quite clearly say that I don't think he's making it up as he goes along?
What I think's happening is that he's being told to be harsher on "obviously cynical" challenges than he might otherwise be, and so has taken a "orange" offence and deliberately chosen to go up to red rather than the more normal down to yellow, as a result of the SPA context.
And PGMOL have absolutely dropped him in it by pretending it's SFP rather than admitting the non-LOTG compliant directives they're clearly giving their officials on things like this.
Are PGMOL the only body who have their own directives for how referees should apply law?
I believe UEFA do the same. It's not really a new thing.
one
RefChat Addict
There was a Rooney kick/trip several years ago in a similar position under similar circumstances. There was no studs involved in that one though. From a SFP point of view this is far worse than the Rooney one.
There is a thread on this forum on it. Cant be bothered finding it. It was given as read then and most people expected red. What has changed since?
There is a thread on this forum on it. Cant be bothered finding it. It was given as read then and most people expected red. What has changed since?
Yeah, and I don't like it when UEFA do it either! Two wrongs don't make a right.
Your exact words were “so it looks like MO making things up as he goes along”, but I am happy to accept that you don’t think he was making things up.
However, I also don’t think he has been told anything about being harsher on cynical fouls - MO is a very strong character & although he will take on board direction the PGMOL may want to see as a whole, he will still make up his own mind.
I recall a game I watched last season in NLN and at the time the Referee sent a player off, from my decent viewpoint (but not as good as the Referee’s), it appeared very harsh. However, as I would always do, i asked the Referee to talk me through what he saw & then to watch the incident on MOAS video footage. His explanation immediately after the game was exactly what was shown on the footage. The offence was subtle but clinical and almost similar to the MO incident, though was a bit worse in that the challenge was made from behind and raked down from the calf to the offended players ankle - who required lengthy treatment. If I did not have access to the footage, I would have had a dilemma, to agree with the explanation of the Referee or to go with what I considered I saw - which would also have been harsh - incorrect red card!.
And that's fine if you're of that opinion, but seems like some just like bashing the PGMOL for anything they can. (and I'm not targeting that at yourself or Santa Sangria either)
Similarly, some people criticise PGMOL for advising referees to 'do anything they can to keep 11 men on the pitch' and then criticise them for 'asking referees to create drama rather than apply LOTG' - it doesn't make sense both ways!
Like I say, for me this is an incorrect red, I think MO has seen the contact spot on but misjudged the force. But with VAR as it sits it can't really get involved.
I'd be in favour of this form of aggravated USB meeting the criteria for SFP
Situations like this whereby SPA is aggravated by no intention whatsoever to play the ball. As @RustyRef points out early in the discussion, any such contact is 'excessive force' because the sole intention is to take out the opponent
However, such behaviour does not attract a red card at the time around the world, so I'm against individual authorities or referees taking it upon themselves to do their own thing UNLESS they clearly announce their intention in advance (like at the start of the season). The PGMOL must not suddenly implement covert bright ideas mid-season.
@Russell Jones is that what the PGMOL have done here? Is MO just following orders?
Situations like this whereby SPA is aggravated by no intention whatsoever to play the ball. As @RustyRef points out early in the discussion, any such contact is 'excessive force' because the sole intention is to take out the opponent
However, such behaviour does not attract a red card at the time around the world, so I'm against individual authorities or referees taking it upon themselves to do their own thing UNLESS they clearly announce their intention in advance (like at the start of the season). The PGMOL must not suddenly implement covert bright ideas mid-season.
@Russell Jones is that what the PGMOL have done here? Is MO just following orders?
In fact, if we're being precise, my exact words were "But they're not willing to stand behind it, so it looks like MO making things up as he goes along." - clearly criticising someone other than MO putting him in an impossible situation.
I will always of course just accept the possibility that the referee has got the decision wrong and there is no big conspiracy. I was happy to support MO and blame his bosses, but if you insist.....
As others in the thread have pointed out, the force is minimal and concerns about "raking studs" are frankly outdated - no premier league footballer wears inch-long spikes any more. Stud first challenges might scratch an opponent or sting in the moment, but aren't automatically going to cause serious lacerations or injury to the extent that glancing contact with "studs" automatically requires SFP.
So from my perspective, there are two possibilities. Either:
1) PL match officials are told to err on the side of being harsh with borderline challenges that are also cynical SPA. This (in my mind) is consistent with the PL being overly harsh on these challenges / pundits complaining when they have failed to be harsh on these challenges in the past.
2) MO has completely misjudged the force of the challenge and VAR has failed to bail him out.
I actually chose the option that is more sympathetic to the match officials. But if you're insisting that isn't the case, then you leave me no choice but to say this is a mistake.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
The speed Doherty was moving at isn't really that relevant imo. The speed of the challenge is what you need to be concerned about.
Last edited:
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
Completely agree, but also agree it’s not just PGMOL that do this.
The laws are there for interpretation to a point, but there should be a lot more clarity in regards to what the guidance/interpretation is to a wider audience. And on the occasion they do release stuff to tell people how situations will be interpreted, they then need to follow up on it. The constant crowding of referees and failure to issue cautions for it would be a prime example.
- Status