RefSix

Eng v Yanks

Tealeaf

Lighting the darkest hour
Staff member
Level 5 Referee
And now the BBC newsreader starts on “controversial decisions costing England”. What a load of bull.

Zero controversy; offside, lousy penalty and stupid challenge for the red. End of conversation.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
I said offside straight away, just gut instinct I guess. Certainly on first replay I was 100% sure it would be disallowed.

The penalty shows the problem with the reasonably new DOGSO law. That didn't deny a goal scoring opportunity, it denied a certain goal, there is no way she would miss from there. I get that it was an accident, but very difficult to say that there was a challenge for the ball there.

No argument at all on the second caution, possibly an argument to say straight red. Only criticism I would have is the referee had no idea she had already cautioned Bright as she showed the yellow and put it away, only to walk back over later. Given there had only been three cautions at that point it isn't as if she had a hard job of remembering who was on a caution, so that was pretty sloppy for a FIFA referee. Other than that I thought she had a good game.
Pretty much how i would've summarized the game. I also sensed offside. Wonder if we'll see the day when we have to caution a player for excessive celebration after the resultant KO :dead:
 

Peter Grove

RefChat Addict
@Peter Grove
Just out of interest... was it ever in Law that the benefit of doubt should go to the attacker?
No, it never was. Now, there is an argument to be made (and there were those who made it) that when the law was changed, in effect, from level=offside to level=onside, this had the effect of giving 'the benefit of the doubt' to attackers but that particular wording was never included in the Laws.
 

Peter Grove

RefChat Addict
Only a yellow?

Was it a genuine attempt for the ball? No
Was it denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity? Yes
Definitely not an attempt for the ball. And how do we know this? Because the player herself admitted it in a post-match interview. According to the Washington Post, the defender who gave away the penalty, explained afterward that she did it:
to save what seemed a certain goal.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
@Peter Grove
Just out of interest... was it ever in Law that the benefit of doubt should go to the attacker?
I'm down the local and there's a few dozen who celebrated the goal. How naive 🤔
No, it never was. Now, there is an argument to be made (and there were those who made it) that when the law was changed, in effect, from level=offside to level=onside, this had the effect of giving 'the benefit of the doubt' to attackers but that particular wording was never included in the Laws.
AR's are taught to keep the flag down if in doubt. My understanding is that this teaching principle has nothing to do with attackers being given the benefit of doubt, but because most likely no-offside is the correct decision in such case (flash lag effect and all that).
 

xPositor

RefChat Addict
re the offside. I too called it pretty much straightaway (OK, from the comfort of the armchair and an elevated view), but also agree a very tricky call to make on the FOP. However, it did make me wonder whether, as referees, we watch football in a different way to non-referees? Are we always on the lookout for offences, perhaps ones that no-one else ever sees? Just a thought...
 

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
re the offside. I too called it pretty much straightaway (OK, from the comfort of the armchair and an elevated view), but also agree a very tricky call to make on the FOP. However, it did make me wonder whether, as referees, we watch football in a different way to non-referees? Are we always on the lookout for offences, perhaps ones that no-one else ever sees? Just a thought...
Tru dat
 

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
Definitely not an attempt for the ball. And how do we know this? Because the player herself admitted it in a post-match interview. According to the Washington Post, the defender who gave away the penalty, explained afterward that she did it:
Also ball was not within playing distance.
If the decision is a foul - which it was via VAR, however slight and careless - surely it has to be RC, anything else is a mistake in law, surely?
How does VAR lead to the penalty, and yet not ensure that the RC is given... what is Mr Collina's answer - is it what the game expects?
 

AlexF

RefChat Addict
Also ball was not within playing distance.
If the decision is a foul - which it was via VAR, however slight and careless - surely it has to be RC, anything else is a mistake in law, surely?
How does VAR lead to the penalty, and yet not ensure that the RC is given... what is Mr Collina's answer - is it what the game expects?
That was the big push in year one of the new DOGSO.

Elite (ie FIFA) referees and instructors pushed back and the interpretation has changed over the last couple of years towards giving benefit of the doubt to the defender, and leaning towards a caution (YC) unless it's serious foul play (obviously gotta go red here) or one of those challenges where the ball is absolutely nowhere near and it's clearly a cynical chop (but not RC level) to deny the obvious goal.

So, basic tl;dr summary? If it's a leg foul, start yellow. If it's a hand/arm foul, start red.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Definitely not an attempt for the ball. And how do we know this? Because the player herself admitted it in a post-match interview. According to the Washington Post, the defender who gave away the penalty, explained afterward that she did it:
Disagree. Out of context. And as @AlexF notes, the reality is that the application is that anything other than a blatant take down has been considered a DOGSO caution when it involves tripping. Absent that context, I could see an argument that she didn't have a chance to get the ball and it therefore should have been red.
 

JH

RefChat Addict
Also ball was not within playing distance.
If the decision is a foul - which it was via VAR, however slight and careless - surely it has to be RC, anything else is a mistake in law, surely?
How does VAR lead to the penalty, and yet not ensure that the RC is given... what is Mr Collina's answer - is it what the game expects?
Looked like 'it's an accident, I'm going yellow because red is harsh' to me. Would've liked to see the referee explain that to her observer...
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
That was the big push in year one of the new DOGSO.

Elite (ie FIFA) referees and instructors pushed back and the interpretation has changed over the last couple of years towards giving benefit of the doubt to the defender, and leaning towards a caution (YC) unless it's serious foul play (obviously gotta go red here) or one of those challenges where the ball is absolutely nowhere near and it's clearly a cynical chop (but not RC level) to deny the obvious goal.

So, basic tl;dr summary? If it's a leg foul, start yellow. If it's a hand/arm foul, start red.
More secret instruction, which to me contradicts the book. If Elite referees are told one thing, we should all get the same instruction disseminated ffs. Is it any surprise that refereeing football is so inconsistent. Not blaming you for this of course!
 

AlexF

RefChat Addict
More secret instruction, which to me contradicts the book. If Elite referees are told one thing, we should all get the same instruction disseminated ffs. Is it any surprise that refereeing football is so inconsistent. Not blaming you for this of course!
It's been disseminated in Canada.

We've already had this discussion before about how it doesn't seem to be working quite as well in England (for whatever reason).
 
Top