It’s harsh but 100% a pen, the kick after the initial contact confirms it. He’s tripped and would be in on goal if there’s no contact. Don’t see the controversy or why VAR is getting involved at all. How different is it from a normal mistimed tackle? Probably should have been a yellow with double jeopardy?
Liverpool v Everton
- Thread starter ladbroke8745
- Start date
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Interesting. I don’t see how it qualifies as a challenge for the ball. Is TAA close enough to the ball?
I would say he challenged for the ball initially and that was why he was in that situation. You could also argue he’s gone for the ball as he’s falling over? Probably still a red by the letter of the law. I’m desperately trying to find reasons it might not be as it just feels wrong
For me a relatively clear penalty.
I think any are splitting up the incident from before and after CL’s shot. If you do that it looks as if CL runs over AA and falls. So no penalty.
If you look at the incident as a whole. As CL takes his shot AA slides in carelessly. CL does get his shot away but due to AA’s careless challenge CL is tripped on his follow through/run. Clear foul for me.
No red for me because the ball is away. There’s not an obvious goal scoring opportunity denied. Although that’s a more difficult and subjective call.
I think any are splitting up the incident from before and after CL’s shot. If you do that it looks as if CL runs over AA and falls. So no penalty.
If you look at the incident as a whole. As CL takes his shot AA slides in carelessly. CL does get his shot away but due to AA’s careless challenge CL is tripped on his follow through/run. Clear foul for me.
No red for me because the ball is away. There’s not an obvious goal scoring opportunity denied. Although that’s a more difficult and subjective call.
never
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
LOL
Attachments
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Here's good video: http://www.soccer-blogger.com/2021/...win-for-sigurdsson-penalty-vs-liverpool-2021/
Interesting point of law maybe: TAA slides in to block the shot I think rather than try a tackle. And then I think he lifts his head to maximise contact to bring the attacker down. What does a sliding attempt to block a shot mean in relation to DOGSO?
"Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off."
I think the slide to block comes under "all other circumstances" - as does any contact with the head/leg on the attacker.
Very interested to hear from PGMOL what the no card justification is.
Interesting point of law maybe: TAA slides in to block the shot I think rather than try a tackle. And then I think he lifts his head to maximise contact to bring the attacker down. What does a sliding attempt to block a shot mean in relation to DOGSO?
"Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off."
I think the slide to block comes under "all other circumstances" - as does any contact with the head/leg on the attacker.
Very interested to hear from PGMOL what the no card justification is.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
I would say he challenged for the ball initially and that was why he was in that situation. You could also argue he’s gone for the ball as he’s falling over? Probably still a red by the letter of the law. I’m desperately trying to find reasons it might not be as it just feels wrong
It has to be a send off if it’s a foul (and I do think it’s a foul). TAA is not making an attempt for the ball. He simply has no chance to even get near it.
I realize this isn’t exactly the stereotypical DOGSO-red foul we envision if we are going to issue a send off for a DOGSO in the area, but it’s the proper call in law.
Pen for me.
Slides in, doesn’t get the ball, follow through causes player to trip and denies a clear goal.
Slides in, doesn’t get the ball, follow through causes player to trip and denies a clear goal.
Bit of a mess I have to say. I don't think it's a stonewall pen but nor do I think it's a clear and obvious error either. No idea why Chris was sent to the screen but the fact he was there for barely a few seconds did not look good on the VAR who sent him there.
I'm glad they did not go red for DOGSO, It would just make the game look ridiculas if he was sent off for that.
I'm glad they did not go red for DOGSO, It would just make the game look ridiculas if he was sent off for that.
Having seen it back again that’s not an OGSO.
Calvert-Lewis is off balance when he tripped by the raised leg. Would he have kept his feet otherwise? If so would he have been in a position to shoot straight away?
Too much doubt for me, it’s a POSSIBLE opportunity, not an obvious one.
Calvert-Lewis is off balance when he tripped by the raised leg. Would he have kept his feet otherwise? If so would he have been in a position to shoot straight away?
Too much doubt for me, it’s a POSSIBLE opportunity, not an obvious one.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Who trips Calvert-Lewin?
Penalty.
I am comfortable with either itotr but needs a yellow as well.
This is where I am struggling. Do we consider this as one challenge, or is this a secondary action that is not a challenge.
I am comfortable with either itotr but needs a yellow as well.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Why yellow for you chief?
one
RefChat Addict
Pen. Not a clear on obvious one but the original decision. Once on the screen I don't see how you can not see this as DOGSO. I'm going yellow here as I would say the foul occured in the process of challenging for the ball.
I didn't look like he wanted to do an OFR but just went through the motion because he has to. If it's not VAR ruining referees, it's referees ruining VAR.
I didn't look like he wanted to do an OFR but just went through the motion because he has to. If it's not VAR ruining referees, it's referees ruining VAR.
Agreed, but him wanting to do an OFR or not is irrelevant. If he's being asked to go to the monitor, the VAR must think he's got it wrong or has missed something - for him to assume that's impossible and an OFR is a waste of time despite being told to by the VAR is not a good approach. And let's not ignore the fact that it looks terrible - at the very least, he should be looking at that replay and pretending to take it seriously.
I'm in the camp that it's either a penalty and DOGSO or nothing - and for me, it should be nothing. TAA makes a legit attempt to slide to block the shot and DCL runs into the back of him. The suspicious leg movement that people are pointing at occurs after DCL's knee clonks him in the back of the head. It could easily be an instinctive response to that impact, but it's also kind of irrelevant - the first foul is DCL choosing to run knee-first into a player on the floor that he can see and who can't see him.
one
RefChat Addict
On the OFR I think we are on the same page. If he doesn't want to review he should just tell the VAR that and that's the end of it. Pretending to review is not a good look for anyone.
On the pen, it's the slide which is the problem. You slide in front of the opponent and play the ball then it's considered opponent tripping himself over you, but if you slide in front of the opponent and not play the ball then it's considered you trip the opponent.