The Ref Stop

NEW LIV

i dont think Taylor will be happy with the 2nd pen yesterday on seeing the replay and he'll have appreciated seeing it for himself and being empowered to change his decision, something which is almost impossible now.
I would like to see VAR used differently. I think at all levels of refereeing when we make a key match decision & instantly know we would like a second look to confirm what we saw. I am sure AT would have made his own decision to go to the screen, which currently he can't.

This is open to players influencing, but could be managed.
 
The Ref Stop
I would like to see VAR used differently. I think at all levels of refereeing when we make a key match decision & instantly know we would like a second look to confirm what we saw. I am sure AT would have made his own decision to go to the screen, which currently he can't.

This is open to players influencing, but could be managed.
Yes, this is one where the Referee needs a second look
Fair play to Taylor though, he's one of the only ones who makes decisions on the FOP himself
 
Mike Dean opined that Joe Linton could've been booked even though the advantage was played, can't say I disagree.

Blatant, cynical and unsporting behaviour in its own right. Even if it wasn't SPA you'd normally caution for an offence of that nature.
 
Thought the referee had a poor game apart from the penalties which were both the right result even though the actual touch was small but enought to provide a change of balance in the attacking player.

There was probably enough times for both teams where Taylor could and probably should have booked players for late fouls - how Joelinton ever gets to the end of a match is beyond me but he seems to have the same skill as Rodri to look like it is only accidental and gets away with it!
 
What I'm saying is, if the teams get challenges, the referee has to go to the screen. There is no VAR.

Then it's down to onfield referee whether they'd like to overturn their original decision or not

Ok, understood.
 
I am sure AT would have made his own decision to go to the screen, which currently he can't.
Not quite correct. The R is the only one who actually decides to to to the monitor. (Though an R would have a really hard time justifying not going when recommended by the VAR.) the R has the authority in the protocols to initiate a review without a recommendation from the VAR if he suspects something serious was missed.

When people focus on single decisions, I think the Forrest can get lost for the trees. A key part of the philosophy behind VAR is that soccer is a flow game, and every use of VAR interrupts the flow and enjoyment of the game. How many of those moments do we want in the game in trying to get every key play re-refereed.

and on this play, I don’t see the inherent injustice. The GK hit his foot. Having a foot hit while running changes how the foot lands and affects balance. Here, it’s when the foot that was hit comes to ground that he loses balance. Either the contact on the moving foot caused him to lose balance, or he didn’t think he could get to the ball to slide into the open net and let himself go down. I don’t think the video clearly answers which of those occurred. I seem to be in a minority here, but I think that the VAR was right to not send this down and that not recommending a review should be the correct answer for the VAR.
 
AT can't go to the screen, only on recommendation of VAR which he can decline if he wishes. But he can't on his on volition decide to view an incident, only if VAR recommends & VAR must also believe he has made a clear & obvious error.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I believe this wasn't losing balance but a player throwing himself to the floor as the ball was heading away from goal. Clear simulation & YC for me.
 
Mike Dean opined that Joe Linton could've been booked even though the advantage was played, can't say I disagree.

Blatant, cynical and unsporting behaviour in its own right. Even if it wasn't SPA you'd normally caution for an offence of that nature.
It's all a mess. Some challenges in games getting YCs after advantage played, though they look more SPA than reckless. Another law change that gives more scope for subjective decisions to give rise to inconsistency.
 
AT can't go to the screen, only on recommendation of VAR which he can decline if he wishes. But he can't on his on volition decide to view an incident, only if VAR recommends & VAR must also believe he has made a clear & obvious error.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I believe this wasn't losing balance but a player throwing himself to the floor as the ball was heading away from goal. Clear simulation & YC for me.
If you are going to argue with someone that has read the protocol then you really ought to have read it yourself first...

Screenshot_20240102-144005.png

As you can see @socal lurker is spot on.
 
I'm probably a bit biased, but I don't think the dive is as bad as people are making out. There's no reason for Jota to have gone down...he was in front of an open goal!

Yes his fall is delayed, but maybe he was trying to stay on his feet. Weirdly enough, Dubravka has came out and practically said he thought it was a pen.

I think it certainly could have been justified as being a dive, bit I equally think a pen can be justified. And on that basis, I don't think VAR can get involved.
 
I'm probably a bit biased, but I don't think the dive is as bad as people are making out. There's no reason for Jota to have gone down...he was in front of an open goal!

Yes his fall is delayed, but maybe he was trying to stay on his feet. Weirdly enough, Dubravka has came out and practically said he thought it was a pen.

I think it certainly could have been justified as being a dive, bit I equally think a pen can be justified. And on that basis, I don't think VAR can get involved.
this is what he said:

"My arms are not trying to catch him. I don't have to agree but, at the end of the day, it was a penalty"

i dont think he's saying he thinks it's a pen, he says he doesn't have to agree, more he's respecting the refs decision
 
If you are going to argue with someone that has read the protocol then you really ought to have read it yourself first...

View attachment 7038

As you can see @socal lurker is spot on.
I accept the referee 'can' initiate the review, but to my knowledge no referee has done that without a VAR recommendation (happy to be corrected).

I don't think it is a pre-requisite to read IFAB VAR protocol before posting (albeit I did), we are a learning forum, I have learnt something today.
 
Liverpool were perfectly happy to take the advantage though, had the fouled player not sprung back up and carried on playing it would have been a free kick and a caution. Once he plays the advantage he simply cannot caution as it was textbook SPA, there was nothing reckless about it. This law has been in for ages now, if the players still don't know about it that is their issue. It is also a bit of a moot point as Joelinton would have been very unlikely to make the second challenge had he been cautioned for the first one.

I'm also in the camp of struggling to see why Jota would go down there. OK, he's going a bit wide, but it was still a pretty easy chance for a top level striker. Dubravka's elbow did make quite an impact on his ankle, I wonder if he felt that when he next planted it as that was the exact moment he went over
 
De jure vs de facto. If no referee ever does something, a bit of text saying they have the right to do so may as well not exist.
I don't disagree. But it also means you can't say I don't agree someone could do it. If it is written down, they most certainly can do it, and when questioned point to the relevant text, in law, which proves them to be correct
I accept the referee 'can' initiate the review, but to my knowledge no referee has done that without a VAR recommendation (happy to be corrected).
Hard to say as we are not privy to vast majority of VAR Comms. I suspect in most cases the VAR is/should already looking, so it might be fairly moot, but it is still permissible for the ref to initiate it.
I don't think it is a pre-requisite to read IFAB VAR protocol before posting (albeit I did), we are a learning forum, I have learnt something today.
I never said you had to, but that you ought to. Especially where you are making comment/disagreement on technicalities of said protocol. That way you don't get smart Alec responses from smart arses like me 🙂
 
Last edited:
It's all a mess. Some challenges in games getting YCs after advantage played, though they look more SPA than reckless. Another law change that gives more scope for subjective decisions to give rise to inconsistency.
Before the law change, there was already 'inconsistency' after referees played advantage. Sometimes they would caution (Reckless OR SPA) sometimes not (Careless non SPA). That variability still remains but with only Reckless challenges being cautioned . However the law change brought two clear benefits ... firstly, less cautions overall, which is good for the game (and referees) at all levels. Secondly, an inherent sense of logic, as cautioning for Reckless is important for player safety, whereas cautioning someone for SPA when they didn't actually stop anything always felt somewhat weird ...
 
Back to an old question about “blatant holding” which probably should be in the LotG but is not - but is taught as a cautionable offence… is it a subset of SPA or is it USB?

The laws could cover it and make it clear if blatant holding + advantage is YC or not.

You might get where I’m going with this. At the moment blatant holding gives us the ability to caution in “just-out-of-SPA” situations for cynical tactical fouls. If blatant holding was moved from Uefa guidance into the LotG (and it was always YC) then this foul could have been SPA but also blatant holding, the ref could advantage and punish the worst offence, so still produce the YC. I think this would be a good way to enable referees to sanction the most cynical anti football tactical fouls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
Back to an old question about “blatant holding” which probably should be in the LotG but is not - but is taught as a cautionable offence… is it a subset of SPA or is it USB?

The laws could cover it and make it clear if blatant holding + advantage is YC or not.

You might get where I’m going with this. At the moment blatant holding gives us the ability to caution in “just-out-of-SPA” situations for cynical tactical fouls. If blatant holding was moved from Uefa guidance into the LotG (and it was always YC) then this foul could have been SPA but also blatant holding, the ref could advantage and punish the worst offence, so still produce the YC. I think this would be a good way to enable referees to sanction the most cynical anti football tactical fouls.


SPA advantage downgrades should only be for attempts to play the ball / challenges for the ball imo.
I'll repost Elleray's response again.

1) If an advantage is played on a shirt pulling offence that would've stopped a promising attack if play was stopped, can the player still be cautioned if the referee considered it to be unsporting behaviour?

"In theory it could but the ‘spirit’ of the Law would not expect a caution, which might be difficult to justify"

2) An advantage is played from a shirt pulling offence that involves a non-promising attack, can the player be cautioned for unsporting behaviour?

"Yes, it could but in the same way that every ‘foul’ is not a caution then every shirt pull is not a caution"
 
SPA advantage downgrades should only be for attempts to play the ball / challenges for the ball imo.
I'll repost Elleray's response again.

1) If an advantage is played on a shirt pulling offence that would've stopped a promising attack if play was stopped, can the player still be cautioned if the referee considered it to be unsporting behaviour?

"In theory it could but the ‘spirit’ of the Law would not expect a caution, which might be difficult to justify"

2) An advantage is played from a shirt pulling offence that involves a non-promising attack, can the player be cautioned for unsporting behaviour?

"Yes, it could but in the same way that every ‘foul’ is not a caution then every shirt pull is not a caution"
That's already the same explanation Mike Dean made, he originally corrected Gary Neville saying it couldn't be a caution as the promising attack hadn't been stopped, then eventually gave up after Neville wouldn't listen and said well he supposed it could be a caution.

Not saying I like the law as it is, and I'm sure most of us have had challenges trying to explain it to players, but it was changed for a reason, the same reason that the double jeopardy for DOGSO was changed. It can't have stopped a promising attack if the promising attack still happened, so unless it was reckless it isn't a caution. That shouldn't be complicated or difficult for players and pundits to understand, but for some reason it is.
 
Not saying I like the law as it is, and I'm sure most of us have had challenges trying to explain it to players, but it was changed for a reason, the same reason that the double jeopardy for DOGSO was changed. It can't have stopped a promising attack if the promising attack still happened, so unless it was reckless it isn't a caution. That shouldn't be complicated or difficult for players and pundits to understand, but for some reason it is.
While I don’t disagree about what happened, I think there are two problems with the analogy to the PK/DOGSO. First, on DOGSO, it only applies to challenges for the ball, not to other cynical play. Second, the PK is generally (admittedly not always) going to be comparable to the scoring chance that was taken away. But when advantage is played on a SPA scenario, it can have dramatically reduced the value of the scoring chance, but the opportunity that remains is still better from a FK (which might not be much of a scoring chance at all). I’m not at all disturbed by the idea that an “honest” foul in a SPA context should be forgiven the caution if advantage is played. But I think it is idiotic for the relief to be given against a cynical foul like blatant holding. I don’t agree with Mr. Elleray that the spirit of the game doesn’t support a caution for such cynical behavior.
 
Back
Top