Maybe. And maybe a statement along those lines following such a high profile outburst would have made DD’s dismissal more understandable (which I’m not saying it wasn’t)
Without it, it just comes across as inconsistent.
Liverpool v Man U
- Thread starter lincs22
- Start date
- Status
Maybe. And maybe a statement along those lines following such a high profile outburst would have made DD’s dismissal more understandable (which I’m not saying it wasn’t)
Without it, it just comes across as inconsistent.
Was he consistent within the game? - just saying! It’s impossible for every Referee to be consistent across the whole of the board because each game & circumstances are different, but they should be consistent with the game they have in front of them. However, I would accept that a mandatory caution is a mandatory caution at whatever game it is. Although it could be argued that it wasn’t right what Harland did, it could be that SH gave him latitude because he (SH) had made a mistake by not playing the Advantage.
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Absolutely!
There is no doubt Michael Oliver is a very good referee and has achieved levels that most of us can only ever dream about. However especially given the high level of negativity towards the refereeing and VAR community from fans and the media at this current time, Michael Oliver has done himself and his colleagues no favours whatsoever with his lack of consistency in dealing with effectively the same offence in this game.
Regardless of what minute of the game it is, you can't choose to ignore Nunez waving his arms in the air, mouthing off at the AR and sarcastically applauding, all of which came immediately after he got a yellow card, but then take issue with Dallot for his continued protest after a blatantly wrong decision.
You have some valid points, but from MR viewpoint he was not blatantly wrong with on field his throw in decision rather than from the comfort of an armchair!
I'm not sure what chance we've got as refs when so many on here seem to believe that Michael Oliver got this wrong. 
As blatant a YC as you'll see for dissent by action, immediately followed by the exactly the same dissent by action to the yellow card being shown. All over a poxy throw in given the wrong way!!!
I understand the comparison to Nunez potentially getting away with a similar (not the same) double offence, but who on here hasn't adopted different tolerance levels to various things depending on the circumstances of the game? MO spot on with both imho.
As blatant a YC as you'll see for dissent by action, immediately followed by the exactly the same dissent by action to the yellow card being shown. All over a poxy throw in given the wrong way!!!
I understand the comparison to Nunez potentially getting away with a similar (not the same) double offence, but who on here hasn't adopted different tolerance levels to various things depending on the circumstances of the game? MO spot on with both imho.
Darwin Nunez committed a foul, then kicked the ball away for which he received a YC. He then turned and clapped the AR upon receiving his caution for which no further action was taken, so I would say no, he wasn't consistent within the game.
I'm happy with Dalot being sent off for what he did there, Oliver should not be criticised for that but it sounds like criticism is fair for not punishing Nunez's dissent (haven't seen that as it wasn't in the MOTD highlights). As a ref this is the kind of criticism I'd generally welcome, fans not wanting dissent ignored!
deusex
RefChat Addict
I'm not sure what chance we've got as refs when so many on here seem to believe that Michael Oliver got this wrong.
As blatant a YC as you'll see for dissent by action, immediately followed by the exactly the same dissent by action to the yellow card being shown. All over a poxy throw in given the wrong way!!!
I understand the comparison to Nunez potentially getting away with a similar (not the same) double offence, but who on here hasn't adopted different tolerance levels to various things depending on the circumstances of the game? MO spot on with both imho.
Please tell me how he is spot on with the Nunez incident.
I am ok with it too as long as all players, in all matches and all minutes in to the match receive double yellow dissent cautions for similar for the remainder of the season.
This continued dissent was probably continued over about 5 seconds.
MO could have attempted to diffuse the situation and then second yellow if Dalot didn’t listen.
It's supportable. That's different from being "correct" or "best" response, but the two offences people are suggesting Nunez committed are both optional/subjective yellows and it's well within the "norms" of premier league football to look at the whole incident and determine one yellow to cover it all is what's expected.
Importantly, they're also different offences, so there's zero wrong with deciding one gets a yellow and the other gets a "cut it out, you're already on a yellow". That's where Dalot makes it really difficult for MO to not 2 x YC - he's made it clear that particular gesture is a yellow and then he repeats it almost identically after seeing the card.
"Consistency" is overrated in refereeing, because it's very rare for two incidents to actually be the same. But Dalot gives MO the closest thing to two identical decisions he'll ever get, and he makes the same call both times.
deusex
RefChat Addict
I am basically repeating DJIC but:
That's fine as long as MO penalises every single dissent that continues (past his insta-caution) is punished with a 2nd.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
These kinds of absolutist statements are a bit silly and disingenuous. What’s unusual here is the player doing the exact same thong he was just cautioned for. Most players don’t do something quite that stupid to put the referee in a box like that. He’s essentially challenging the Rs authority by dating the R to toss him.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Your last sentence is (accidentally) disgraceful
deusex
RefChat Addict
And a sarcastic clap isn't?
RefGod
Active Member
DesgraciaYour last sentence is (accidentally) disgraceful
It was followed with a disingenuous thumbs up, so it is ok.
There is a difference and that's the issue. They are not similar. Dalot loses his mind over a throw in with a couple of minutes to go in the game. His over gesticulation in showing dissent is followed by again over gesticulating the yc. All fans would love to see consistency with decisions by all refs in all games. But these two instances, while both are dissent they are nowhere near the same.
For those saying they want consistency, I would argue this was the absolute textbook example of consistency. Dalot makes an action that is deemed to be dissent and is shown a yellow card, he then makes exactly the same action again and is shown another yellow card. Is that not an absolute textbook example of consistency?
I don't disagree that Nunez was perhaps a bit lucky, but a totally different situation. He has a caution for delaying the restart and a potential caution for dissent, can't really make any argument for consistency as two totally different situations.
I don't disagree that Nunez was perhaps a bit lucky, but a totally different situation. He has a caution for delaying the restart and a potential caution for dissent, can't really make any argument for consistency as two totally different situations.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I’d have no problem with a second card for the sarcastic clap. But the R hadn’t just cautioned him for a sarcastic clap and he did it again. That makes it significantly different.
Dissent is always going to be incredibly subjective. Penalising the first Dalot offence is entirely subjective and in another moment in another game, he's entitled to decide that gesture gets a "cut it out" warning, same as Nunez got.
But he made a different decision (as he's entitled to do, because the Nunez "dissent" is different to Dalot's first action) and then Dalot didn't give him a choice by repeating it. That's the point - different offences in different moments can receive a different response from the referee, and it's kind of ridiculous to suggest that choosing to punish one act of dissent means he's now forfeited his right to any discretion in any future event.
i like what you're saying...but it still doesnt sit right with me!
it feels inconsistent. i guess it's whether it is or not that's subjective
- Status