A&H

Match Official Mic'd up

GraemeS said:
But then how is that in any way mitigation for a foul? The only way "they both come in high" can mean it might not be a foul is if both players have chosen to try and play a chest-high ball with their feet - at which point I agree, I'm not interested in picking an offender out of two players doing basically the same thing.

As soon as Doku puts his studs in an area where MacAllister can reasonably expect to be able to safely chest or even head that ball, that's what makes it careless.
Click to expand...
But what sort of situation to we have if both players attempt to chest the ball because it's at chest height? If Doku went in to that challenge like MacAllister there's actually more chance of both players getting hurt (and I mean properly hurt, not MacAllister's level of hurt).

Edit just to point out that I'm not trying to say MacAllister did anything wrong by going in to the tackle how he did. Just that if both players jumped towards each other trying to chest the ball then there's a fair chance of a nasty clash of heads/faces.

It is 100% still a subjective decision. Like I say, it's probably a penalty, but it's far from a howler and it's not clear and obvious. My opinion. You're entitled to yours of course.
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
RefereeX said:
But what sort of situation to we have if both players attempt to chest the ball because it's at chest height? If Doku went in to that challenge like MacAllister there's actually more chance of both players getting hurt (and I mean properly hurt, not MacAllister's level of hurt).

It is 100% still a subjective decision. Like I say, it's probably a penalty, but it's far from a howler and it's not clear and obvious. My opinion. You're entitled to yours of course.
Click to expand...
You're getting distracted by danger and endangering safety again - I'm not asking for a red card.

But what's not clear and obviously careless there? I feel like I've asked that question a dozen times and never got an answer - look at the definition of careless, look at that challenge, compare the two and tell me what about it is even slightly unclear? It just seems like a textbook careless/reckless foul, and any justification for it not being so is either based in incorrect facts (my interpretation of VAR's "both high") or vibes and feeling trumping the written law.
 
GraemeS said:
You're getting distracted by danger and endangering safety again - I'm not asking for a red card.

But what's not clear and obviously careless there? I feel like I've asked that question a dozen times and never got an answer - look at the definition of careless, look at that challenge, compare the two and tell me what about it is even slightly unclear? It just seems like a textbook careless/reckless foul, and any justification for it not being so is either based in incorrect facts (my interpretation of VAR's "both high") or vibes and feeling trumping the written law.
Click to expand...
It's just not a glaring foul. There's a lot of factors not mentioned in law but that are clear considerations used to assist in determining whats a foul and what isn't such as playing the ball and the amount of contact. Like I say, on balance it probably is a foul, but as also said which you haven't answered, do you feel the contact was enough to make MacAllister fall to the floor? Assuming the answer is no, do you think there would be such a debate for an 'obvious' penalty if he didn't fall to the floor and landed on his feet?
 
RefereeX said:
It's just not a glaring foul. There's a lot of factors not mentioned in law but that are clear considerations used to assist in determining whats a foul and what isn't such as playing the ball and the amount of contact. Like I say, on balance it probably is a foul, but as also said which you haven't answered, do you feel the contact was enough to make MacAllister fall to the floor? Assuming the answer is no, do you think there would be such a debate for an 'obvious' penalty if he didn't fall to the floor and landed on his feet?
Click to expand...
I'm tempted to not engage, because none of that actually disputes this just being an obvious careless foul. Again, I've asked that same question for the dozen-plus-one'th time and got "nah, but it just doesn't feeeeeeeel like a penalty maaaaaaan" in response.

But do I think studs glancing across your chest and then making firm contact with your thigh might hurt? Yes, I do actually. And it's well established that referees don't give penalties even for really obvious fouls if the player doesn't fall over - he's a long way off being the first player who's made sure the ref realises he has to make a decision, and we frankly only have referees to blame for that becoming necessary.
 
GraemeS said:
I'm tempted to not engage, because none of that actually disputes this just being an obvious careless foul. Again, I've asked that same question for the dozen-plus-one'th time and got "nah, but it just doesn't feeeeeeeel like a penalty maaaaaaan" in response.

But do I think studs glancing across your chest and then making firm contact with your thigh might hurt? Yes, I do actually. And it's well established that referees don't give penalties even for really obvious fouls if the player doesn't fall over - he's a long way off being the first player who's made sure the ref realises he has to make a decision, and we frankly only have referees to blame for that becoming necessary.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I think you're still buying MacAllister's reaction. The contact on both the chest and the thigh was minimal. Absolutely minimal. This is simulation by MacAllister. That doesn't mean it's offence-worthy simulation (unfortunately), but he acts far more hurt than he actually got.

But you're agreeing that football doesn't expect a penalty when a player doesn't go over. Whether you agree with it or not, that is an expectation of football that goes against law. Football isn't black and white and nor is this incident. In law it is black and white, but whether it feels like a clear and obvious error not to award a penalty is a huge part of the whole point of VAR.
VAR isn't there to re-referee the game, its there to eliminate the mistakes where everyone talks about how horrendously wrong the decision was. That hasn't happened here and that should tell you everything you need to know. We're covering old ground, but once again, I'd be very surprised if you were so strongly adamant that it was a clear and obvious error if it was a liverpool player making the challenge.
 
GraemeS said:
But then how is that in any way mitigation for a foul? The only way "they both come in high" can mean it might not be a foul is if both players have chosen to try and play a chest-high ball with their feet - at which point I agree, I'm not interested in picking an offender out of two players doing basically the same thing.

As soon as Doku puts his studs in an area where MacAllister can reasonably expect to be able to safely chest or even head that ball, that's what makes it careless.
Click to expand...
It's really tough 1 though isn't it? Doku is clearly going to play the ball with his foot because it isn't high enough for a heading challenge.
McAllister moves his body into that clear action although he would have been quite aware of the risk in doing so, the reward would have been a match changing situation.

Whilst I think it's probably a foul, it's not clear and obvious with both players acting carelessly (i.e. Without precaution) to a degree.

If Doku doesn't play that ball, could that mean McAllister becomes guilty of playing in a dangerous manner?

As an analogy, we don't want to award handball for players who kick the ball directly at an opponents hand, we probably want to avoid a situation where players deliberately put themselves in harms way to create a foul against them.
 
JamesL said:
It's really tough 1 though isn't it? Doku is clearly going to play the ball with his foot because it isn't high enough for a heading challenge.
McAllister moves his body into that clear action although he would have been quite aware of the risk in doing so, the reward would have been a match changing situation.

Whilst I think it's probably a foul, it's not clear and obvious with both players acting carelessly (i.e. Without precaution) to a degree.

If Doku doesn't play that ball, could that mean McAllister becomes guilty of playing in a dangerous manner?

As an analogy, we don't want to award handball for players who kick the ball directly at an opponents hand, we probably want to avoid a situation where players deliberately put themselves in harms way to create a foul against them.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure we're in a world where "football expects" a player to choose not to play a ball in the opposition penalty area when they're chasing a winning goal. You're asking MacAllister to choose not to do something because of the possibility an opponent might commit a C/R/UEF penal offence against him? I just don't think that's how anyone expects football to work.

I buy the argument that it is technically possible to attempt to chest the ball in a dangerous manner. And if Doku had pulled out as a result, or had gone to head it, there's technically a case for MacAllister having committed the more dangerous act and result would be a defensive FK, although I think that would be a massive surprise decision.

But that ignores the fact Doku has gone in with his studs at chest height. I don't think choosing to do that is in any way analogous to having the ball kicked at a hand that's otherwise in reasonable position. If we're in the world of what football expects, I'd argue you could put all possible actions in order in terms of "care" - and pointing your studs at an opponent at chest height would be arguably the lowest and therefore most careless option available to you.
 
RefereeX said:
Firstly, I think you're still buying MacAllister's reaction. The contact on both the chest and the thigh was minimal. Absolutely minimal. This is simulation by MacAllister. That doesn't mean it's offence-worthy simulation (unfortunately), but he acts far more hurt than he actually got.

But you're agreeing that football doesn't expect a penalty when a player doesn't go over. Whether you agree with it or not, that is an expectation of football that goes against law. Football isn't black and white and nor is this incident. In law it is black and white, but whether it feels like a clear and obvious error not to award a penalty is a huge part of the whole point of VAR.
VAR isn't there to re-referee the game, its there to eliminate the mistakes where everyone talks about how horrendously wrong the decision was. That hasn't happened here and that should tell you everything you need to know. We're covering old ground, but once again, I'd be very surprised if you were so strongly adamant that it was a clear and obvious error if it was a liverpool player making the challenge.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but that's miles too far the other way. There is clear contact, in two places on MacAllister, with the sharp bits on the bottom of Doku's boot that are designed to dig into soft ground. Arguing for "simulation" is nonsense.

But even if we take all of that as true, what's the case for "no clear foul" here? That MacAllister may have exaggerated the extent of the clear careless contact to ensure the referee has to make a call one way or the other? "A soft foul is still a foul" is a line repeated by referees for years across the globe - even with all the exaggeration on his simulation that you've stretched too, "a clear soft foul" is the best reason for not giving it you can come up with?

And also, apologies for the edit, but to drag it back to specifically this thread, that's nothing to do with the reasons given by the VAR. The VAR isn't saying it's not C&O because he's exaggerated the fall, they're just simply wrong in their description of what's happened.
 
GraemeS said:
I'm not sure we're in a world where "football expects" a player to choose not to play a ball in the opposition their own penalty area when they're chasing defending a winning goal. You're asking MacAllister Doku to choose not to do something because of the possibility an opponent might chuck himself in the way causing you to commit a C/R/UEF penal offence against him them? I just don't think that's how anyone expects football to work.
Click to expand...
Same statement but pretend you are a city fan and then maybe, just maybe, we get to a point where we see why this might not step into clear and obvious territory.
GraemeS said:
I buy the argument that it is technically possible to attempt to chest the ball in a dangerous manner. And if Doku had pulled out as a result, or had gone to head it, there's technically a case for MacAllister having committed the more dangerous act and result would be a defensive FK, although I think that would be a massive surprise decision.
Click to expand...
As I said I do think it's a foul, but I'm making a case for why it's not clear and obvious and why VAR hasn't got involved.
GraemeS said:
But that ignores the fact Doku has gone in with his studs at chest height. I don't think choosing to do that is in any way analogous to having the ball kicked at a hand that's otherwise in reasonable position. If we're in the world of what football expects, I'd argue you could put all possible actions in order in terms of "care" - and pointing your studs at an opponent at chest height would be arguably the lowest and therefore most careless option available to you.
Click to expand...
It's analogous in that if we awarded free kicks when the ball is kicked deliberately at the hand, a similar issue could arise where players just put themselves in the way of opponents playing the ball legitimately to win a foul.

Let's not pretend that McAllister didn't know the risk of what he was attempting. Yes Doku should take care for his opponent, but his opponent should also take some responsibility for their own wellbeing, and when your opponent has ready started the action of playing the ball, to just lob your body into it is less than advisable.

Again, on reflection I think it is a foul, all of my summary here, which I at least think is quite valid, point to why I wouldnt expect VAR to intervene.
 
GraemeS said:
I'm sorry, but that's miles too far the other way. There is clear contact, in two places on MacAllister, with the sharp bits on the bottom of Doku's boot that are designed to dig into soft ground. Arguing for "simulation" is nonsense.

But even if we take all of that as true, what's the case for "no clear foul" here? That MacAllister may have exaggerated the extent of the clear careless contact to ensure the referee has to make a call one way or the other? "A soft foul is still a foul" is a line repeated by referees for years across the globe - even with all the exaggeration on his simulation that you've stretched too, "a clear soft foul" is the best reason for not giving it you can come up with?
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that MacAllister should have been penalised for simulation, I'm merely stating that he did simulate an outcome far worse than what actually happened. Personally I don't want to see that in the game, but it's not a problem unique to MacAllister or Liverpool unfortunately, as we all know.

The argument is I don't believe the contact was sufficient to make him fall over the way he did and if he hadn't fallen over I very much doubt we'd be having this conversation.

Like I say, VAR doesn't re-referee the game. If you think it should, then fair enough, but it doesn't. It intervenes (or is supposed to intervene) when the referee has clearly made a glaring error that everyone will be shocked by. This hasn't happened here. I haven't seen that many people in any walk of life that are still shocked this wasn't given.
 
RefereeX said:
I'm not arguing that MacAllister should have been penalised for simulation, I'm merely stating that he did simulate an outcome far worse than what actually happened. Personally I don't want to see that in the game, but it's not a problem unique to MacAllister or Liverpool unfortunately, as we all know.

The argument is I don't believe the contact was sufficient to make him fall over the way he did and if he hadn't fallen over I very much doubt we'd be having this conversation.

Like I say, VAR doesn't re-referee the game. If you think it should, then fair enough, but it doesn't. It intervenes (or is supposed to intervene) when the referee has clearly made a glaring error that everyone will be shocked by. This hasn't happened here. I haven't seen that many people in any walk of life that are still shocked this wasn't given.
Click to expand...
So we're back to "vibes" again.

The referees and VAR are supposed to work based on the law, and in law this is simply just a careless foul. If the system is "what does Dave who's wandering down the street and has never heard of C/R/UEF think?", what's the point in paying experienced referees thousands of pounds to do the job? I've got a 50p coin in my pocket - we may as well just toss that and it will reduce the required budget massively.
 
JamesL said:
Same statement but pretend you are a city fan and then maybe, just maybe, we get to a point where we see why this might not step into clear and obvious territory.

As I said I do think it's a foul, but I'm making a case for why it's not clear and obvious and why VAR hasn't got involved.

It's analogous in that if we awarded free kicks when the ball is kicked deliberately at the hand, a similar issue could arise where players just put themselves in the way of opponents playing the ball legitimately to win a foul.

Let's not pretend that McAllister didn't know the risk of what he was attempting. Yes Doku should take care for his opponent, but his opponent should also take some responsibility for their own wellbeing, and when your opponent has ready started the action of playing the ball, to just lob your body into it is less than advisable.

Again, on reflection I think it is a foul, all of my summary here, which I at least think is quite valid, point to why I wouldnt expect VAR to intervene.
Click to expand...
It's lost due to the quote system, but "chucks himself in the way" is an extremely uncharitable read of MacAllister's actions. He plays the ball (first I might remind you, not that it's actually vital in law to do so), using a body part that is naturally at the same height as the ball when he gets there, and does so in order to get the ball to his teammate.

I get that you're making a rhetorical point, but it's a real stretch to say MacAllister's done anything wrong there, especially when comparing to Doku's "wave studs around at chest height" actions.
 
RefereeX said:
Like I say, VAR doesn't re-referee the game. If you think it should, then fair enough, but it doesn't. It intervenes (or is supposed to intervene) when the referee has clearly made a glaring error that everyone will be shocked by. This hasn't happened here. I haven't seen that many people in any walk of life that are still shocked this wasn't given.
Click to expand...
But the referee does miss a blatent foul so no it has happened here. I can only think that the VAR in question doesn't want to overrule Oliver and so just agrees with what he has said which is so wrong on so many levels.
 
Kinsleyr said:
But the referee does miss a blatent foul so no it has happened here. I can only think that the VAR in question doesn't want to overrule Oliver and so just agrees with what he has said which is so wrong on so many levels.
Click to expand...
A foul so blatant the independent panel which includes ex players voted that not giving it was the correct decision
 
Kinsleyr said:
But the referee does miss a blatent foul so no it has happened here. I can only think that the VAR in question doesn't want to overrule Oliver and so just agrees with what he has said which is so wrong on so many levels.
Click to expand...
But for me, and many others, it isn't a 'blatant' foul, it's a 'probably just about a foul'. That's why it's not clear and obvious.
 
So, you agree that kicking someone in the chest no matter how lightly is effectively not a foul as I guess no blood is drawn? Ok so as long as I know the distintion between a foul and a light get together - of course the game is a physical sport so this is acceptable.
 
GraemeS said:
It's lost due to the quote system, but "chucks himself in the way" is an extremely uncharitable read of MacAllister's actions. He plays the ball (first I might remind you, not that it's actually vital in law to do so),
Click to expand...
By luck, I would say. At worst this is a 49/51 situation, again strengthening my view that it's not a clear and obvious error. It's a marginal situation they could just have easily (by less than a 2nd) been completely the other way.
GraemeS said:
using a body part that is naturally at the same height as the ball when he gets there, and does so in order to get the ball to his teammate.
Click to expand...
In full knowledge his opponents boot was going to be there too.
GraemeS said:
I get that you're making a rhetorical point, but it's a real stretch to say MacAllister's done anything wrong there, especially when comparing to Doku's "wave studs around at chest height" actions.
Click to expand...

The height, whilst a consideration, is not an offence in its.wpnnright. Bearing in mind Doku is stood still watching a ball that's about to land plump on his boot to be cleared. Whilst making that action McAllister moves, at speed, (a better description than chucks himself) into that action that has already started. To absolve McAllister of any responsibility here is clearly and obviously wrong in my view.

Laying the blame squarely on Doku for what ensues is not a balanced view of the situation. You want a penalty for your team, in a crucial moment, in a crucial game, and I get that, but this is a ref forum and you have to detach yourself away from that element and look objectively at the whole picture of what happened and whether the decision is as clearly and obviously wrong as you're suggesting.

It's a no win situation, if the penalty is given we have @bloovee on here making all the same arguments you're making in reverse!! God help us had VAR intervened to recommend a pen!! 😂
 
Kinsleyr said:
So, you agree that kicking someone in the chest no matter how lightly is effectively not a foul as I guess no blood is drawn? Ok so as long as I know the distintion between a foul and a light get together - of course the game is a physical sport so this is acceptable.
Click to expand...
Of course the city defender should have parted like the red sea and made no attempt to legitimately play the ball.
It's a 49/51 situation. Seen them given. Seen them not. It is not blatant.
 
If you kick the ball first then it's not going to be classed as a clear and obvious, in England, unless it's a lunge or a serious injury occurs.
 
JamesL said:
Of course the city defender should have parted like the red sea and made no attempt to legitimately play the ball.
It's a 49/51 situation. Seen them given. Seen them not. It is not blatant.
Click to expand...
What's legitimate about playing a ball at chest height with a studs-first jab of the boot with opponents in proximity? And then going on to actually make contact with that opponent, with the studs, twice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top