A&H

Gala in the Turkish league

The Referee Store
So, as I understand it, the likes of the PGMOL, don't want 'lone wolves' doing their own thing
The Goalkeeper did exceed the 6 seconds, but penalising the offence was tantamount to 'lone wolf' refereeing
I would also have penalised the attacker for simulation, but no surprises me saying that
Unless the GK had received multiple warnings, I don't see this whole controversy as wise refereeing
 
Last edited:
Several takeaways from me on this. Which I’ll go through as they happened live on the FOP.

  1. It’s a foul. It is absolutely a foul, both in law and in terms of game management - if an opponent is 3-2 up that stage in the game and run the ball to the corner, why is the referee not following them? It’s not like the defenders will just say ‘okay, take your time’.
  2. That is an insanely long VAR call - both from the VAR team upstairs and from the on field referee at the RRA.
  3. That is not in the same phase of play - whether you want to go through the number of passes, times the opponent could have booted the ball into tough or the number of crosses. That’s a major error. The foul alone is clearly and obviously wrong, but it is not in the phase of play.
  4. Why are the TFF paying a fourth official who is incapable of controlling the benches? Way too many up and random yellow cards from the referee which clearly have little to no effect.
  5. While possibly controversial, I don’t mind the IFK against the GK. Beyond what would be expected, he offers little protest so I assume the referee is saying ‘time to go, let’s go keeper…no? Okay.’ Though, I admit its not what the game expects.
  6. Was the GK cautioned? If not, it’s tough to sell it.
  7. It’s clear to me that the referee got into his own head in awarding the PK - possibly due to the earlier disallowed goal. Having given it - GAL70 needs a caution for dissent.
  8. Do VAR clock out after 10 minutes of added time?! That’s about as clear and obvious an error as you’ll see. Tell him - quick look - yellow for simulation - IFK and off we go.
  9. It’s a really poor passage for the officials - only the far side AR comes out of it well and that’s a virtue of not having anything to do! 4th is very weak and lets the benches run ragged. Referee is poor for the goal and the PK and is nowhere near strong enough on dissent. And the VAR is incorrectly involved in the first ‘goal’ in terms of the phase of play [taking way too long to check, too], before staying well clear of the PK.
*tin hat on*
 
JamesL said:
What are you cautioning the keeper for?
Click to expand...

I’ll be honest and say I don’t know. It’s not something I’ve ever really thought of before because I’ve never stopped play for that. But it feels instinctively wrong to award an IFK for what amounts to unsporting behaviour/lack of respect for the game and then not caution.
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
I’ll be honest and say I don’t know. It’s not something I’ve ever really thought of before because I’ve never stopped play for that. But it feels instinctively wrong to award an IFK for what amounts to unsporting behaviour/lack of respect for the game and then not caution.
Click to expand...
Sound reasoning but no caution required here.
The laws for this offence say award an IDFK.
I think we can loosely apply no disciplinary action for handling he ball when not allowed, as not allowed after six seconds..
It can't be DRP as obviously ball is in play. I'd say if keeper was persistently offending a caution would then be appropriate. I'd say 2nd offence would be enough too.
However, I think you could perhaps sell a caution under generic UB, but the law does not require it although I understand what you mean about feeling it isn't right..
 
JamesL said:
I'd say 2nd offence would be enough too.
Click to expand...
Why? Would you caution a player for PI for two careless challenges? (And yes obviously you could if they were in short succession, but if spread over a significant proportion of the match I can't see why you would!)
 
Alex Rush-Fear said:
Why? Would you caution a player for PI for two careless challenges? (And yes obviously you could if they were in short succession, but if spread over a significant proportion of the match I can't see why you would!)
Click to expand...
No specific number or pattern of offences constitutes persistent offences.
2 careless challenges are unlikely to get my PI going.. A keeper deliberately trying to waste time, after having already been punished once, would have me very interested at looking for a reason to caution.
How many chances you going to give him.
Id also be considering how far apart they were. 1st min and 90th probably not interested.. 88th and 89th in a close 1 niller, I'll be going for it.
 
For heaven's sake--the GK turned the ball in his hand to a good scoring opportunity for the other team that could tie the game! What more punishment is needed than that? If he's stupid enough to do it again, it just makes it likely for the other team to score. (If it was a blow out and the GK just being a jerk, I might see it differently--but here the offense is a gift to the other team.)

Jtpetherick1 said:
  1. That is not in the same phase of play - whether you want to go through the number of passes, times the opponent could have booted the ball into tough or the number of crosses. That’s a major error. The foul alone is clearly and obviously wrong, but it is not in the phase of play.
Click to expand...

I *thought* there was guidance that attacking phase of play went back to when the team gained possession. But I don't see any definition in the VAR guidelines. Anyone know if there is a definition of this somewhere?
 
socal lurker said:
For heaven's sake--the GK turned the ball in his hand to a good scoring opportunity for the other team that could tie the game! What more punishment is needed than that? If he's stupid enough to do it again, it just makes it likely for the other team to score. (If it was a blow out and the GK just being a jerk, I might see it differently--but here the offense is a gift to the other team.)



I *thought* there was guidance that attacking phase of play went back to when the team gained possession. But I don't see any definition in the VAR guidelines. Anyone know if there is a definition of this somewhere?
Click to expand...
Not so. In fact I would guess it's rare for a goal to come From an IDFK in the area as teams tend to stick all 11 players in front of the goal.
You have to bear in mind, that 99‰ of refs are going to have given 1 2 or 3 warning before punishing the first one. To then do it again is just taking the mickey, and I'm finding someway to deal with it, not least to contribute to match control as the other team are going to be getting p*Ed off too.
 
socal lurker said:
I *thought* there was guidance that attacking phase of play went back to when the team gained possession. But I don't see any definition in the VAR guidelines. Anyone know if there is a definition of this somewhere?
Click to expand...

According to the Premier League (I know...) at July last year:

The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession.

Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack.
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
According to the Premier League (I know...) at July last year:

The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession.

Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack.
Click to expand...

Yeah, not sure what the PL says us tells us much about how VAR is supposed to be handled . . . though I do think there is logic to not always going back to possession, though the advantage of possession is it is pretty black/white compared to things like "immediate phase."
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
Several takeaways from me on this. Which I’ll go through as they happened live on the FOP.

  1. It’s a foul. It is absolutely a foul, both in law and in terms of game management - if an opponent is 3-2 up that stage in the game and run the ball to the corner, why is the referee not following them? It’s not like the defenders will just say ‘okay, take your time’.
  2. That is an insanely long VAR call - both from the VAR team upstairs and from the on field referee at the RRA.
  3. That is not in the same phase of play - whether you want to go through the number of passes, times the opponent could have booted the ball into tough or the number of crosses. That’s a major error. The foul alone is clearly and obviously wrong, but it is not in the phase of play.
  4. Why are the TFF paying a fourth official who is incapable of controlling the benches? Way too many up and random yellow cards from the referee which clearly have little to no effect.
  5. While possibly controversial, I don’t mind the IFK against the GK. Beyond what would be expected, he offers little protest so I assume the referee is saying ‘time to go, let’s go keeper…no? Okay.’ Though, I admit its not what the game expects.
  6. Was the GK cautioned? If not, it’s tough to sell it.
  7. It’s clear to me that the referee got into his own head in awarding the PK - possibly due to the earlier disallowed goal. Having given it - GAL70 needs a caution for dissent.
  8. Do VAR clock out after 10 minutes of added time?! That’s about as clear and obvious an error as you’ll see. Tell him - quick look - yellow for simulation - IFK and off we go.
  9. It’s a really poor passage for the officials - only the far side AR comes out of it well and that’s a virtue of not having anything to do! 4th is very weak and lets the benches run ragged. Referee is poor for the goal and the PK and is nowhere near strong enough on dissent. And the VAR is incorrectly involved in the first ‘goal’ in terms of the phase of play [taking way too long to check, too], before staying well clear of the PK.
*tin hat on*
Click to expand...
1,2,3,4 OK - 2 - I think they made the mistake of looking at the wrong incidents first.
5 also agree, I count 15 secs but that's inc. the GK being on the floor. We can't see how many warnings and what the ref said to the players unf.
6 no need for YC
7 OK, good spot
8 Hmm - I am watching over and over and I cannot see a conclusive angle that says it's simulation, or a conclusive angle that shows contact
9 Well, I think the ref presented very well throughout. He had to wait for VAR. He did control the benches with good use of the whistle. He did make clear signals. He did confirm the foul be the corner flag on the screen. He called the GK on six seconds. He was perfectly positioned for the penalty decision. I thought he did great.

Extra context, big Turkish and Greek games often import refs from other countries because the pressure is so insane!

For me, the phase of play is the big question - and it seems we don't know what our colleagues in Turkey thought about that...

@Jtpetherick1 great post BTW!
 
JamesL said:
Not so. In fact I would guess it's rare for a goal to come From an IDFK in the area as teams tend to stick all 11 players in front of the goal.
Click to expand...
It's a much better opportunity than the ball being in the GK's hands . . .
You have to bear in mind, that 99‰ of refs are going to have given 1 2 or 3 warning before punishing the first one. To then do it again is just taking the mickey, and I'm finding someway to deal with it, not least to contribute to match control as the other team are going to be getting p*Ed off too.
Click to expand...
I'm just not going to get riled up about this unicorn. I've never called a 6 second violation (nor have I ever looked back and thought I should have). And this one in Turkey counts as the second time I've ever heard of it being called in a professional game (the other was in the WWC between US and Canada). I think in the real world, if it happens once, the GK's teammates are going to make sure it doesn't happen again.
 
socal lurker said:
It's a much better opportunity than the ball being in the GK's hands . . .

I'm just not going to get riled up about this unicorn. I've never called a 6 second violation (nor have I ever looked back and thought I should have). And this one in Turkey counts as the second time I've ever heard of it being called in a professional game (the other was in the WWC between US and Canada). I think in the real world, if it happens once, the GK's teammates are going to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Click to expand...
No me neither (riled up or called a six second) I was originally talking about when I might caution after it was suggested it should be a caution :)
Regarding OP I wonder how consistent the referee was.. Its called very quickly, but I'd be willing to wager there were more serious offences in terms of time the ball was held for.
 
This answers the attacking phase of play question. I don't think the lotg overrules any of it.

1598623335198.png

For the 6 second if this referee does it the same way in all his games, including the entirety of this game, I have no issues with it but i suspect he doesn't and he didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top