Jtpetherick1
Well-Known Member
And again, great use of VAR...
This was going to be my question, I take it, current protocol means he can’t?Yes, but...it really needs to allow mariner to book the dive
This was going to be my question, I take it, current protocol means he can’t?
If, as I am inferring, the R did an OFR to reverse a PK, then yes he can caution if he sees that. An OFR cannot be initiated to review for a diving caution, but if something reviewable leads to an OFR, the R can caution as a result of what he sees.This was going to be my question, I take it, current protocol means he can’t?
That's not at all true.No it definitely can't, which is a shame as it was absolutely warranted.
Likely determining the best view, as well as making sure a different angle doesn't show a conflicting story.I also don't get why the VAR kept on constantly looking at replays when it looked quite obvious an OFR should take place.
Simulation can still be given when contact occurs, especially if the fouled player initiates the contact.I don't think it actually qualifies as a dive. There was contact, but the reason the foul is overturned is because the attacker initiated that contact. That's a different thing from simulating contact where there wasn't any.
Irritating distinction and I agree with you that it feels like cheating. But I think they've been fairly consistent in choosing not to card for attacker-initiated contact in the VAR era.
Haven't seen the OP incident but strictly speaking this is not completely correct. An OFR is not needed for a review to take place. So for instance ref give a penalty after a dive. VAR recommended a review to ref based on his initial check showing it was a C&O error. Ref initiates the review by asking VAR to complete the review (without the OFR). VAR looks at more angles and confirms no pen, it was simulation. Ref cautions the offender without an OFR. This is all by the book. Of course it would be wise to do an OFR to sell the decision but not necessary.If, as I am inferring, the R did an OFR to reverse a PK, then yes he can caution if he sees that. An OFR cannot be initiated to review for a diving caution, but if something reviewable leads to an OFR, the R can caution as a result of what he sees.
Agreed with you on the LOTG definition. But again, as is often the case, what I've said is much closer to how it's generally been applied in the PL (particularly in the VAR era) than what you've stated. I don't think it's right, but it is at least consistent.Simulation can still be given when contact occurs, especially if the fouled player initiates the contact.
Simulation is an attempt to decieve the referee that something has happened, that has not. Contact does not mitigate it.
I recall Ashley Young being booked for a dive where he initiated the contaxt and the football community was unanimous it was a good decision.
i think that this has to be a caution for simulation. it has to be. contact is 100% initiated by the attacker moving his leg into the defender. get these cheats cautioned then they might think twice about doing it again.
I agree, but it's never gonna happen. We've arguably had 25 years of rife cheating of this nature... roughly from when Klinsmann took centre stageAgree, he knew exactly what he was doing. My initial response when the penalty was given was that something didn't look right, and that was validated by the first replay. As referees we have to be aware of players stepping across opponents to initiate the contact.
I'd go a step further though, if a player is cautioned for simulation there should be a panel to check all simulations each week. If the caution is deemed to be correct they get an automatic one game ban. Likewise if the officials miss it the panel can issue retrospective charges and issue a one game ban. If the same player gets caught again, whether by the officials or retrospectively, they get a two game ban. The next time four games, the next eight, and it keeps getting doubled until they get the message. If implemented correctly that would stamp it out.
Agree, he knew exactly what he was doing. My initial response when the penalty was given was that something didn't look right, and that was validated by the first replay. As referees we have to be aware of players stepping across opponents to initiate the contact.
I'd go a step further though, if a player is cautioned for simulation there should be a panel to check all simulations each week. If the caution is deemed to be correct they get an automatic one game ban. Likewise if the officials miss it the panel can issue retrospective charges and issue a one game ban. If the same player gets caught again, whether by the officials or retrospectively, they get a two game ban. The next time four games, the next eight, and it keeps getting doubled until they get the message. If implemented correctly that would stamp it out.
'Safe Refereeing is getting out of hand'. It's always been a subtle skill, but Referees in the EPL are positively encouraging 'gamesmanship' with the threshold for defensive FKs. Watching more top flight football than usual, I've also become aware of the frequency of 'professional fouls'. Often, they involve total disregard to safety and are essentially 'off the ball strikes'. There's never been any appetite to stamp out any sort of cheating in the game, except that thuggery is a distant memory. As long as it makes for drama and an audience, it's not going to effect football's finances. Fairness and sportsmanship counts for absolutely zilchi'd go further still. check every foul, i absolutely loathe the way defenders go down under no contact to get a foul. get them booked etc and that'll stop yet we (refs) seem intent on giving defensive free kicks for an incredibly low threshold of contact
'Safe Refereeing is getting out of hand'. It's always been a subtle skill, but Referees in the EPL are positively encouraging 'gamesmanship' with the threshold for defensive FKs. Watching more top flight football than usual, I've also become aware of the frequency of 'professional fouls'. Often, they involve total disregard to safety and are essentially 'off the ball strikes'. There's never been any appetite to stamp out any sort of cheating in the game, except that thuggery is a distant memory. As long as it makes for drama and an audience, it's not going to effect football's finances. Fairness and sportsmanship counts for absolutely zilch