Buffon leaves his mark
- Thread starter Yampy
- Start date
- Status
one
RefChat Addict
I find it hard to believe Oliver knowingly kept the Juve defender on the park for sentimental reasons moments agter/before he sends off Buffon (a legend of the game) in his last UCL game.
Edit. Cross post here. Above comment was to @Ciley Myrus
@QuaverRef yep that makes sense.
Edit. Cross post here. Above comment was to @Ciley Myrus
@QuaverRef yep that makes sense.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
I've just seen the incident on YouTube. I think MO is a sensational referee. Although i might not have given a penalty for this incident, MO was perfectly entitled to deem it as a foul. Very high stakes don't really mitigate Buffon's reaction and his comments afterwards were childish at best
one
RefChat Addict
Well according to your images the attacker doesn't have head. How can someone score without a head?
BBC Live feed doing a post-match reaction commentary. I think the fall out is pretty amazing. Reading some of the replies, it feels like some fans and players just want the laws to be bent in their favour when the 'emotion' of the game is at a critical point. I bet they'd drop that argument pretty damn quick if the decision went the other way, or if they were benefiting from that decision.
Referee's just can't win really.
Referee's just can't win really.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Bear in mind, sorry to be harsh. but, contray to what has been posted also, the striker DOES NOT HAVE TO BE IN CONTROL of the ball when DOGSO is considered.
the 4 LOTG requirements are
1 > distance from goal (4.5/5 yards max here)
2> general direction of play (striker is bang central of goal with ball heading directly to him)
3> LIKELYHOOD of keeping OR gaining control of the ball (110% likely imo) ( i cant play football but I would fancy myself here to have control of that ball but for the foul (which we have agreed is a foul if we are awarding the pk)
4> location and number of defenders (5 yards max from goal, bang central and 1 gk ) (barring of course the defender committing the actual foul from behind)
if folk can justify red cards for DOGSO for strikers some 25/30 yards away from goal with ball rolling in front of them, then, surely 5 yards out where the striker passing wind would be enough to blow it into the net (and remember its not, would he have scored? its, would he have had the chance to score), then, I am sorry but imo you need to reexamine your interpretation of DOGSO if last nights does not fit your criteria
the 4 LOTG requirements are
1 > distance from goal (4.5/5 yards max here)
2> general direction of play (striker is bang central of goal with ball heading directly to him)
3> LIKELYHOOD of keeping OR gaining control of the ball (110% likely imo) ( i cant play football but I would fancy myself here to have control of that ball but for the foul (which we have agreed is a foul if we are awarding the pk)
4> location and number of defenders (5 yards max from goal, bang central and 1 gk ) (barring of course the defender committing the actual foul from behind)
if folk can justify red cards for DOGSO for strikers some 25/30 yards away from goal with ball rolling in front of them, then, surely 5 yards out where the striker passing wind would be enough to blow it into the net (and remember its not, would he have scored? its, would he have had the chance to score), then, I am sorry but imo you need to reexamine your interpretation of DOGSO if last nights does not fit your criteria
Agreed, DOGSO criteria met. But as the defender was trying to play the ball inside own penalty area -> Caution, Right?
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
I think he tried to play the ball, albeit clumsy at best. I tend to give the offender the benefit of the doubt tbh
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
The 4 criteria are a great reminder.
I have revised my opinion. It is DOGSO IMHO, as you point out, even if there is a doubt over control (though "keeping OR gaining control" seems at 110% as you say, all other criteria are met.
But I still go DOGSO yellow. I think the hand in the back is barely a push. It's the foot/knee around the player that I would sanction. And that is a genuine attempt to play the ball.
Interesting that overall, the defender has attempted to play the ball... but we are splitting his actions into two phases, an initial hand/push and then leg. Is there any law/guidance on this?
I can't believe MO or the other officials lost the player. Surely MO was thinking careless-no DOGSO hence no card...
And fully agree that MO should have back off, probably towards his AR as he awarded the pen and as players crowded him.
I would have also liked to see more cards for e.g. dissent (or delay of game(?)) for the standing around on the penalty spot.
Justylove
RefChat Addict
This is what makes this incident so interesting. There were 2 elements to the challenge, both are "relatively soft" but still IMHO fouls.
If MO has given the penalty for the push - then its a red as no attempt to play the ball. If he's given it for the attempt to hook the ball away, then its a yellow (which would have resulted in a red as he'd already been cautioned).
I'd suggest based on his position and the speed of his decision he's given it for the push, not the "round the corner" contact as he'd probably have had help from his AR if it was the latter.
Great, brave decision in a high pressure situation to give the penalty and deal with Buffon, but sadly nailed on application of law for failing to sanction the defender.
Justylove
RefChat Addict
If he's deemed both to be fouls, then surely you punish the most serious offence, which would be the push so DOGSO Red.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
That is interesting. And a big if. I'm not punishing the hand. I wonder, if there hadn't been the leg hook, and just the hand to the back, would the forward's dive have been sanctioned? (He did do the "oops where have my knees gone")
one
RefChat Addict
A cleverly used still image or cleverly edited video clip can change the truth 180 degrees (ironically I used an image a bit earlier to argue the opposite of your point)
This is a bit old but shows what you don't see is just as important (or more important) as what are shown in the clips.
Last edited:
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
I made this point earlier. And I agree totally, if its me, you or the game am watching in the park on Sunday
But
This is 6 of the top officials, not just in England, Europe, but, the entire world.
Sanctioning the original foul is surely basic. Oliver is fantastic, and he had a very good game last night, and no, I will never be in that pressure situation with millions watching, last 5 secs of play and giving that pen and sending off one of the worlds legendary goalkeepers. But, that referee team is out there for a reason. Because they are the best. To fail to punish the original foul "because of the circumstances" is one thing thats meant to separate "them" from the mere run of the mill refs which are "us"
I agree with you to a certain degree, this is fair and constructive criticism. Again we are unsure and debating why the original offender was not punished. On another point alluded to earlier, this is incident shows really (i think) what's wrong with the perceptions of fans, and pundits alike. To say it is ok for Buffon to act that way because he's legendary and understandable because of the pressure! Then everyone with this soft terminology, FFS he was 4 yards away from goal and you decide to barge through his back, what do you think the outcome is going to be?
Finally, it really upsets me that the english/british media fails to support their refs! A great call, considering all the factors and they are still berating Oliver, shameful!!
- Status