A&H

Burnley v Liverpool

R

redref2005

New Member
Level 6 Referee
It's me again complaining about VAR (what a surprise).
comment image

So, Salah get's his back leg kicked and then falls over as he's lost his pushing leg to kick the ball in the area. There are probably better pictures and videos out there on this but why wouldn't VAR deem it a foul?

It seems to me since the Palace penalty where I was sure it would be called into question, Liverpool haven't had a penalty in the last two games where there were trips or definite fouls on players in the box.
 
The Referee Store
redref2005 said:
It's me again complaining about VAR (what a surprise).
comment image

So, Salah get's his back leg kicked and then falls over as he's lost his pushing leg to kick the ball in the area. There are probably better pictures and videos out there on this but why wouldn't VAR deem it a foul?

It seems to me since the Palace penalty where I was sure it would be called into question, Liverpool haven't had a penalty in the last two games where there were trips or definite fouls on players in the box.
Click to expand...
I have not seen this in real life so cant comment on this actual incident, but...

Because VAR does not re-referee the game. Not every "wrong" decision is sent for OFR. Even if it is one of the 4 checked/reviewed incidents (Goal, Pen, red, other serious missed inicdent).
The VAR had to decide, based on criteria that we do not know, as to whether it is C&O and whether it needs to be looked at again.

If it doesn't match the criteria for C&O a "wrong" decision will be left to stand and the game will continue, once the check is complete if play stops.
 
I think if you have your back leg kicked - even the smallest amount - you are unbalanced and can't do the next step. Now I guess it says in the LOTG that you can do this as the player needs to expect to have their feet removed from beneath them?
 
redref2005 said:
I think if you have your back leg kicked - even the smallest amount - you are unbalanced and can't do the next step. Now I guess it says in the LOTG that you can do this as the player needs to expect to have their feet removed from beneath them?
Click to expand...
This could get well interesting...
Can @bloovee make this about city. Will @redref2005 be able to take off the red specs and put on his black and white specs!!
Stay tuned folks...

Having now seen the video... Inclined to agree with @bloovee . The contact is minimal, it doesn't really appear to affect Salah until he realises he is losing the ball and then as you said he "then falls over".

I don't think many, non-liverpool at least, want pens for this, where the contact does not affect the player and they go down anyway..its not a new concept to VAR either. I also don't think the powers that be want it at uefa either given rosetti's comments at the Euro's about certain penalties.

It's borderline simulation. But we can't call it that because there is a very small amount of contact. Its definitely not warranting stockley Park involvement.

Also, nice advantage and no caution from the king. Shame It wasnt capped off with a goal.
 
Its maybe semantics, but watching the actual footage, I think 'kicked' is a little misleading and from my (TV) view no where near enough force to cause Salah to fall over.

Totally neutral on this club wise as regular readers will know!
 
Ok I get both your points but are you saying then that a kick needs to have a instant physical response to be deemed a foul?

If for example a player jumps to head the ball but at the last second someone pulls his shirt - and this is a minor pull that pribably reduces his jump by an inch which means he gets a poor connection and puts it wide?

It seems to me and this isn't just about Liverpool but it seems unless there is sufficient contact (in a bad challenge) or a definite sliding tackle involved then the foul is not being considered enough to be given?

I do need to re-read the rules on this as it's likely they have changed since I ref'd (its been a year or so - since covid really).

@PinnerPaul Salah was tripped - not kicked - this is a subtle difference I know.
 
Nothing significant has changed on fouls in the last couple of years. (Well, other than the constant tinkering with hand ball.)

It seems to me that the key concept lurking here for contact fouls is where we draw lines on trifling. While no longer in the words of the magic book, it is clearly ingrained in the ethos of the sport and "what football expects." And the reality is that where that line gets drawn varies from level to level of soccer, and (gasp!) varies from referee to referee. Whether it should or not is a fair question, but I think the reality is that trifling gets applied to decline fouls more in the PA than elsewhere on the field. Ultimately, I think the question we are answering when we decide whether to call a careless foul is not so much whether it was "careless" as whether it created an unfair advantage in the battle between players. If, ITOOTR, the contact was minimal and the player decides to fall down to get a call, it won't be given. Where contact is minimal, VAR won't get involved because the foul isn't clear and obvious.
 
It might have been a penalty in previous seasons, but from this season PGMOL have asked referees to consider ...
  • Degree of contact
  • Consequence of contact. Contact in itself doesn't mean foul, a principle that hasn't necessarily been followed in previous seasons
  • Motivation of the attacker reacting to the challenge. Has the player used that contact to try and win a penalty, or where they genuinely fouled.
The Salah one fails on points two and three as far as I can see. Yes, there was contact, but I don't think that contact caused him to go over, and rather he has felt the contact and tried to claim a penalty knowing he wasn't getting to the ball. Last season and before I am 100% sure that VAR would have got involved, assuming Martin Atkinson hadn't seen it real time.

www.theguardian.com

VAR set to end Premier League players ‘buying a penalty’ next season

Premier League referees will have to consider three criteria before giving a penalty while offside decisions will give forwards the benefit of the doubt again
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
About time. But I don't think it is consistently applied though.

This has been a tactic in PL for many years. I'd like to point out a few players but it may get into the fan space. They get into PA with the ball, look for the smallest contact and deliberately go down. No chance of simulation caution because there was contact (which I disagree with). And they get a pen in majority of cases. Some of them even initiate contact.
 
RustyRef said:
It might have been a penalty in previous seasons, but from this season PGMOL have asked referees to consider ...
  • Degree of contact
  • Consequence of contact. Contact in itself doesn't mean foul, a principle that hasn't necessarily been followed in previous seasons
  • Motivation of the attacker reacting to the challenge. Has the player used that contact to try and win a penalty, or where they genuinely fouled.
The Salah one fails on points two and three as far as I can see. Yes, there was contact, but I don't think that contact caused him to go over, and rather he has felt the contact and tried to claim a penalty knowing he wasn't getting to the ball. Last season and before I am 100% sure that VAR would have got involved, assuming Martin Atkinson hadn't seen it real time.

www.theguardian.com

VAR set to end Premier League players ‘buying a penalty’ next season

Premier League referees will have to consider three criteria before giving a penalty while offside decisions will give forwards the benefit of the doubt again
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
This is great - thanks Rusty! That makes everything a bit clearer certainly.

My only concern then as a Liverpool fan is the referee - Atkinson - has given us 1 penalty in 29 games. I would suggest this is a small amount for the number of games and the likelihood of us getting fouled in the area but that I guess is down to how he sees the game?
 
Those kinds of stats are so misleading IMO. Every game is different, the number of touches in the box changes, the tactics used (by LFC and the opposition), etc. etc. In short, there are so many variables that singling one (the referee) out, doesn't really tell anything.

Any suggestion that professional referees are demonstrating bias against any specific team is pretty unsustainable given the amount of scrutiny they are under - let alone their professional behaviour and the consequences for them were that to be true.
 
Martiju said:
Those kinds of stats are so misleading IMO. Every game is different, the number of touches in the box changes, the tactics used (by LFC and the opposition), etc. etc. In short, there are so many variables that singling one (the referee) out, doesn't really tell anything.

Any suggestion that professional referees are demonstrating bias against any specific team is pretty unsustainable given the amount of scrutiny they are under - let alone their professional behaviour and the consequences for them were that to be true.
Click to expand...
That and to be honest this site really isn't the forum to be pedalling that BS.
 
one said:
About time. But I don't think it is consistently applied though.

This has been a tactic in PL for many years. I'd like to point out a few players but it may get into the fan space. They get into PA with the ball, look for the smallest contact and deliberately go down. No chance of simulation caution because there was contact (which I disagree with). And they get a pen in majority of cases. Some of them even initiate contact.
Click to expand...
Think I can guess one of them! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Martiju said:
Those kinds of stats are so misleading IMO. Every game is different, the number of touches in the box changes, the tactics used (by LFC and the opposition), etc. etc. In short, there are so many variables that singling one (the referee) out, doesn't really tell anything.

Any suggestion that professional referees are demonstrating bias against any specific team is pretty unsustainable given the amount of scrutiny they are under - let alone their professional behaviour and the consequences for them were that to be true.
Click to expand...
Yes agree, lets not go down that route. Dyche used to bemoan the fact that Burnley were never given a penalty, noticed the other day that Burnley are the only team that haven't received a red card in the PL this season, he hasn't mentioned that, funnily enough!:rolleyes:
 
Martiju said:
Those kinds of stats are so misleading IMO. Every game is different, the number of touches in the box changes, the tactics used (by LFC and the opposition), etc. etc. In short, there are so many variables that singling one (the referee) out, doesn't really tell anything.

Any suggestion that professional referees are demonstrating bias against any specific team is pretty unsustainable given the amount of scrutiny they are under - let alone their professional behaviour and the consequences for them were that to be true.
Click to expand...

And also, as one of the top referees for a long, long time, I'd hazard a guess that a lot of games Martin Atkinson has done involving Liverpool involved games against other top teams.

Stats say nothing. I went 13 consecutive Sunday morning games without a card, the next game I had a card fest. Depending on which teams you spoke to they would say I was either the league's most lenient referee or an absolute b@stard, you can't really read into anything.
 
RustyRef said:
It might have been a penalty in previous seasons, but from this season PGMOL have asked referees to consider ...
  • Degree of contact
  • Consequence of contact. Contact in itself doesn't mean foul, a principle that hasn't necessarily been followed in previous seasons
  • Motivation of the attacker reacting to the challenge. Has the player used that contact to try and win a penalty, or where they genuinely fouled.
The Salah one fails on points two and three as far as I can see. Yes, there was contact, but I don't think that contact caused him to go over, and rather he has felt the contact and tried to claim a penalty knowing he wasn't getting to the ball. Last season and before I am 100% sure that VAR would have got involved, assuming Martin Atkinson hadn't seen it real time.

www.theguardian.com

VAR set to end Premier League players ‘buying a penalty’ next season

Premier League referees will have to consider three criteria before giving a penalty while offside decisions will give forwards the benefit of the doubt again
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
This article was published in Aug 21
Assuming you knew that, the only pixels that should get a mention, are the ones I've just aged on my monitor by taking a moment to read it
 
Random question, why can't simulation be called if there is contact? I see no problem calling simulation if contact is exaggerated.
 
Big Cat said:
This article was published in Aug 21
Assuming you knew that, the only pixels that should get a mention, are the ones I've just aged on my monitor by taking a moment to read it
Click to expand...
Yes, of course I knew it given the date is on the article. I am using it to explain why contact that has previously been penalised is being let go this season, and rightly so.
 
RustyRef said:
Yes, of course I knew it given the date is on the article. I am using it to explain why contact that has previously been penalised is being let go this season, and rightly so.
Click to expand...
Shame they got nowhere near sticking to their pledge(s)
After the good work done in the summer (when the article was published), the PGMOL have ensured it was all in vane. Nauseatingly safe refereeing at every opportunity, allowing the players to make the decisions (with the help of VAR, naturally). So plucking criteria from the report is kinda pointless

And yes... I was THE ONE who predicted (a good few seasons back) the PGMOL would revolutionise VAR from what had gone before :asshat::bag::oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top