Liverpool v Everton
- Thread starter ladbroke8745
- Start date
spuddy1878
RefChat Addict
He was tapping it into an empty net.
Watch the angle from inside the goal at 0:56. It's not a foul for me - the only thing that causes DCL to fall is him inadvertently kneeing TAA in the head.
However, if you're giving a foul then I think it's DOGSO and a red. DCL is most likely to regain control of the ball, would have had a shot into an empty net, and TAA is neither attempting to play the ball, nor is it within playing distance.
I'm always of the opinon that a defender is entitled to take a position on the pitch - it shouldn't be incumbent on them to get out of the way, it should be teh responsibility of the attacker to get round them. So the only question for me here is if TAA has made a natural block and then ended up in a position for DCL to then run into him, or if he's still in the process of actively making a block and actively moving to impede DCL. Former for me: the slide was to impede the original shot and his position following that is still an entirely natural outcome of that initial action.
one
RefChat Addict
But the problem is that he hasn't. He did not you h the ball let alone block it. The only thing he blocked was DCL.
If you don't make this type of challenge a foul the every defender will slide between then ball and opponent who is in eunning it for a 'natural block'.
I keep coming back to the same thing. Whether you think it is a penalty or not, the fact that we as a group can't agree on this, as is the case with other forums, pundits, etc, means it really could not have been a clear and obvious error to award the penalty. VAR is designed to correct clear and obvious errors, the sort of decisions you look at and immediately see that it was wrong, and that certainly isn't the case here. I really don't think he should have been asked to review.
one
RefChat Addict
I think the review was for DOGSO. Not even a yellow card was given. I think reviewing for DOGSO would be wrong as well as it wasn't a clear and obvious red. I would only give a yellow as the fouls was as a result of challenging for the ball.
one
RefChat Addict
First paragraph, you may define it as a success but blocking the ball by definition is stopping it in its path. In either case 'block' is not in the lotg. Did he play the ball or not? That is the question I ask myself.
Second paragraph, correct. I wouldn't put it that way though. I would define it as TAA playing the ball.
That's true - but it also raises the question of having gone to the monitor, how did Kavanaugh decide so quickly that he was correct? A complicated and borderline decision like this should have taken some time to consider, not a cursory glance.
What his action is supposed to be isn't defined by if he succeeds at it or not. As others have pointed out, you could argue he blocks off the far corner, forcing DCL to aim more central and allowing the GK to make the initial save. Even if you don't subscribe to that theory, we're still down to discussing the timing in the end.
For me, he's carried out a reasonable action, it's ended with him in a position on the floor and then had DCL run into him.
My view of it is that he is sliding in to block the initial shot, which I view as an attempt to play the ball, saving him from a red card dogso, he has over exerted that and end result was that he has moved into the path of DCL. He is still moving at the point of contact, it's not a case of he was already there DCL should take evasive, he has continued moving into the path of the attacker. For me it's a textbook careless challenge and looking at the freeze frame is probably impeding progress of opponent with contact.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
VAR can only recommend OFR for a clear red, but if the R reviews and disagrees, the R can give the yellow. (And if the review was for the PK, he could still give the yellow once reviewing.)
one
RefChat Addict
There was an almost identical slide tackle by Holding on Cancelo at 78.55 (only difference this was more from the side) in Arsenal vs City. It resulted in the offender's injury. Advantage was played on that for city. Are you saying you would not give that a foul?
Can't find a vid but a still might give you the picture (pun intended
).
There was an almost identical slide tackle by Holding on Cancelo at 78.55 (only difference this was more from the side) in Arsenal vs City. It resulted in the offender's injury. Advantage was played on that for city. Are you saying you would not give that a foul?
Can't find a vid but a still might give you the picture (pun intended
View attachment 4827
I don't think these are remotely alike tbh
Holding moves at pace right across cancelos path hence the foul.
TAA completes his slide and is stationary at the time DCL makes contact
one
RefChat Addict
We may have to disagree on that. Physics of trip has little to do with the speed of offender but a lot to do with his distance to offended and speed of offended.
Edit. I do see what you are saying. I just don't agree with it. Let's just say as a VAR I would not have recommended a review if you did not give a pen here.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Again, I think this has been a great discussion in the end.
I think there are brilliant points made here.
If I had an assessor hat on, I think I could buy all the arguments and outcomes presented here: no foul, attempt to challenge PK yellow DOGSO downgrade, and no attempt PK DOGSO red. I think the case has been made for all of these.
What is also interesting is that I don't think anyone supports that real-world PK no card outcome or agrees with the VAR process and lightning OFR here.
(Reading back there were a couple of posts who didn't think it was an OGSO if CL had not gone down)
I think there are brilliant points made here.
If I had an assessor hat on, I think I could buy all the arguments and outcomes presented here: no foul, attempt to challenge PK yellow DOGSO downgrade, and no attempt PK DOGSO red. I think the case has been made for all of these.
What is also interesting is that I don't think anyone supports that real-world PK no card outcome or agrees with the VAR process and lightning OFR here.
(Reading back there were a couple of posts who didn't think it was an OGSO if CL had not gone down)