Newcastle - City

[Big Cat]

Newcastle deserved the win but they are a poor side without Diame and Shelvey in all honesty

Actually, although I'd personally rate Shelvey as the most talented player in the squad, we haven't missed him at all in recent months. Ki was terrific before he left for International Duty, but his absence has presented Longstaff with an opportunity he's seized upon. Benitez likes to have two leggy spoiling holding midfielders in these games and Shelvey doesn't tick that box. So whilst they may not have been effective on the ball, Longstaff and Hayden prevented City from playing through the middle whilst the wing back worked tirelessly against Sane and Sterling
The Mags are raving about Longstaff in the absence of Ki and Shelvey and Diame might not play together ever again

 

[Big Cat]

As for Phil Dowd, monotone is too exciting a word

I've said it before, but this aspect of BT Sport's Production is desperately poor. Often embarrassing

 

[QuaverRef]

It’s unsporting behaviour and an easy booking. The defending team would have been fully aware that the play was on the whistle, De Bruyne went against that to gain an advantage and they scored. What’s not unsporting about that?

 

[GraemeS]

Agree with the majority here, you can easily find a reason for the YC (Delay, Dissent or general USB), and the fact the goal is scored and overruled does make the caution much more appealing than it would otherwise.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Rodger Millford in 2001

"If the player does not want to take the kick quickly then, particularly in attacking positions, the referee will stand in front of the ball and pace out 10 yards to determine where the wall should stand.
"If the attacking player then takes the kick before the referee has blown to re-start the game, he is liable to be given a caution. But there is no rule on quick free-kicks that the attacking team should wait for a wall to be built.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

this is one of the training clips I prev alluded too...... totally no chance I still have the instruction though, I did guess around 2010

 

[bester]

As you sure that's not a training clip of bad practice? Spend a long time pointing at your whistle when a players bending over not looking at you, then needlessly start backwards pacing 10-yards when it's 40-yards out.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

As you sure that's not a training clip of bad practice? Spend a long time pointing at your whistle when a players bending over not looking at you, then needlessly start backwards pacing 10-yards when it's 40-yards out.

It was years ago.....things change.

 

[zarathustra]

Had something similar at an RA meeting. Question was: Penalty given, player takes it before the referee has signalled? Everyone said 'retake and caution'. Which of course was met by, what is the caution for? A retake is suffice.

It depends entirely, if I have clearly told a player not to do something (i.e. taking a free kick before i have signalled) and they then do it anyway that is dissent by action.

If on the other hand I haven't made it clear that the kick is on the whistle, perhaps finishing off cautioning a player, and they take the free kick I will just pull it back for the re-take.

Context is everything here, and I guess it depends whether you think the player deliberately went against your instructions, or whether they didn't hear you, or another player ran up and took it before you had signalled it was to be on the whistle etc.

 

[JH]

It depends entirely, if I have clearly told a player not to do something (i.e. taking a free kick before i have signalled) and they then do it anyway that is dissent by action.

If on the other hand I haven't made it clear that the kick is on the whistle, perhaps finishing off cautioning a player, and they take the free kick I will just pull it back for the re-take.

Context is everything here, and I guess it depends whether you think the player deliberately went against your instructions, or whether they didn't hear you, or another player ran up and took it before you had signalled it was to be on the whistle etc.

I take your point. I'd be careful classing it as dissent though.

As per LOTG: "Public disagreement with a match official’s decision"
I don't think taking a quick free kick to gain an advantage is necessarily disagreement with a decision. I wouldn't class telling them on the whistle a 'decision' at all, it's just an instruction. A decision in refereeing terms to me, is awarding a free-kick etc.
Once you class that as dissent, you have to then sin-bin them next season.
Furthermore, dissent cautions weigh more heavily with clubs and leagues.

Also, to those who suggested delaying the restart; is trying to get on with it quicker really appropriate to punish with delaying the restart? I doubt the players really know that if they take it quick it will end up wasting time and it would be very strange to do so, but it is possible. Most players do it because their mate has just made a run and they're trying to pick them out.

I understand the rationale for the caution and if I felt the need to, I would probably file it under 'USB other'.

 

[QuaverRef]

It depends entirely, if I have clearly told a player not to do something (i.e. taking a free kick before i have signalled) and they then do it anyway that is dissent by action.

If on the other hand I haven't made it clear that the kick is on the whistle, perhaps finishing off cautioning a player, and they take the free kick I will just pull it back for the re-take.

Context is everything here, and I guess it depends whether you think the player deliberately went against your instructions, or whether they didn't hear you, or another player ran up and took it before you had signalled it was to be on the whistle etc.

Not sure I’d go with dissent but I’ve no arguments with the card for USB. I just think that if the player has actively acknowledged your on the whistle request and they take it anyway, there’s no excuse

 

[Ben448844]

What Tierney did well was clearly state that KDB needs to wait for the whistle. That's important particularly in a tv game for the audience and commentators. Although the commentators last night were too arrogant to accept that the ref was right, even after they saw the replay!

 

[Ben448844]

They ask Phil Dowd for his explanation on incidents. I'd have loved Dowd to come in after the replay and question why the commentators think that even after stating to the player that he was to wait for the whistle that they believe the ref was in the wrong.

 

[bloovee]

Agree with the majority here, you can easily find a reason for the YC (Delay, Dissent or general USB), and the fact the goal is scored and overruled does make the caution much more appealing than it would otherwise.

So the referee - for no obvious reason (he might have issued a caution for the tackle but didn't) - decides it's a "ceremonial" FK (but no spray). Player taking FK takes it anyway without a signal. And some think that because a goal is "scored" that makes it more worth a caution.

So - team disadvantaged by a foul, by not being allowed a FK when they want, and by a goal disallowed, and by a caution. Hmmm.

Strange night though. Do any away fans manage to get excited in that ashtray in the sky (against Prem League rules)?

 

[one]

Taking the sarcasm out I agree with bloovee.

USB is open ended so it's easy to caution anything for USB. Good refereeing is about useing USB for incidents that are not covered but is necessary to caution. OP was not necessary to caution at all. Not mandatory, no impact on control or fairness. The team was punished enough by having a goal disallowed.

Sometimes it is tempting to use an unnecessary card to put assurity on a controversial decision (I have done it), I think OP was one of those.

 

[es1]

So the referee - for no obvious reason (he might have issued a caution for the tackle but didn't) - decides it's a "ceremonial" FK (but no spray). Player taking FK takes it anyway without a signal. And some think that because a goal is "scored" that makes it more worth a caution.

So - team disadvantaged by a foul, by not being allowed a FK when they want, and by a goal disallowed, and by a caution. Hmmm.

Strange night though. Do any away fans manage to get excited in that ashtray in the sky (against Prem League rules)?

i always enjoy going to SJP, was my 8th or 9th trip on tuesday and first loss so not a bad record! was a pretty good atmosphere amongst the blues as well, even after the game...'typical city' were out in force!

 

[bloovee]

...
Sometimes it is tempting to use an unnecessary card to put assurity on a controversial decision (I have done it), I think OP was one of those.

I would think that's a fairly standard thing. You make a controversial decision - or, bluntly, a wrong decision. A player dissents, and gets booked. So - for the sake of your control - you realise you may have made a mistake (and wrongly penalised a team) but you still penalise the consequent dissent. It happens all the time, but this is on the "seen on TV" thread, where there's less sympathy for the initial mistake... (Or there's an assessor, and you might have "managed" the dissent without a card, but the assessor will mark you down not for the mistake but for not punishing the dissent.)

Giving a card on a technicality needs stronger justification (especially as the EPL seems to have a flexible approach even to mandatory cautions).

 

[zarathustra]

So the referee - for no obvious reason (he might have issued a caution for the tackle but didn't) - decides it's a "ceremonial" FK (but no spray). Player taking FK takes it anyway without a signal. And some think that because a goal is "scored" that makes it more worth a caution.

So - team disadvantaged by a foul, by not being allowed a FK when they want, and by a goal disallowed, and by a caution. Hmmm.

Strange night though. Do any away fans manage to get excited in that ashtray in the sky (against Prem League rules)?

1. Spray is in no way a requirement of a ceremonial free kick
2. The referee can make any free kick ceremonial
3. De Bruyne was told that it was on the whistle, he ignored that and took the kick anyway.

I think we've established that a caution under these circumstances very much depends on the context, but considering De Bruyne was told in no uncertain terms that it was on the whistle I think there is a justification for a caution if the referee thinks it is worth it.

You really should take your blue tinted glasses off sometimes.

 

[bloovee]

1. Spray is in no way a requirement of a ceremonial free kick
2. The referee can make any free kick ceremonial
3. De Bruyne was told that it was on the whistle, he ignored that and took the kick anyway.

I think we've established that a caution under these circumstances very much depends on the context, but considering De Bruyne was told in no uncertain terms that it was on the whistle I think there is a justification for a caution if the referee thinks it is worth it.

You really should take your blue tinted glasses off sometimes.

That was a decent post till the last line. There seem to be several posters on this agreeing with me who don't have blue tinted glasses.

 

[zarathustra]

That was a decent post till the last line. There seem to be several posters on this agreeing with me who don't have blue tinted glasses.

It's horses for courses.

I've never cautioned someone for taking a free kick before I'm ready.

But I've never had a situation where I have obviously told a player to wait for my whistle only for them to take the kick anyway.