Hoffenheim v Manchester City

[bloovee]

Penalty denied to City, and Walker getting a YC that might have been red (but no card for a possibly worse challenge on Silva after the ball had gone).

But the main beef was about a throw-in. No clip I'm afraid so unless you saw it you'd not understand, but City got a throw in level with Hoff penalty area, took it quickly over three defenders and Sane was heading clear into the penalty area - and ref Skomina brought it back for a re-take. City fans had almost given up booing the UEFA anthem but that will probably rejuvenate the booing.

 

[alexgr]

I’m a City fan but trying as hard as possible to be objective, I can’t work out the above incidents. Think he was too far away/too narrow an angle to give the pen and the throw in was just weird. Odd game from a refereeing perspective all round

 

[AlexF]

On the non-penalty, the referee was moving in too straight a line, and then got caught behind two players, so had no chance of a good view of any potential contact when it ultimately happened.

The caution was seen by the 4th official or AR1 based on the way it was dealt with. I suspect that it was either a poor viewing angle, or he was looking in the wrong place at the time. Ultimately, the caution was the correct call here based on the point of contact/etc.

Finally, the throw-in... that was unusual, but, based on the replay, I believe that this throw-in should have actually gone to the defending team anyhow.

 

[bloovee]

On the non-penalty, the referee was moving in too straight a line, and then got caught behind two players, so had no chance of a good view of any potential contact when it ultimately happened.

The caution was seen by the 4th official or AR1 based on the way it was dealt with. I suspect that it was either a poor viewing angle, or he was looking in the wrong place at the time. Ultimately, the caution was the correct call here based on the point of contact/etc.

Finally, the throw-in... that was unusual, but, based on the replay, I believe that this throw-in should have actually gone to the defending team anyhow.

That doesn't explain why the referee brought it back.

 

[JH]

All throughout the game I was thinking everything about the way he was refereeing was weird. At one point he found himself almost watching the line from a free-kick before quickly realising he was way out of position...

 

[bloovee]

https://www.fullmatchesandshows.com...m-vs-manchester-city-highlights-full-match/#1

From 33 mins on the vid, 26 mins 50 match time.

 

[AlexF]

That doesn't explain why the referee brought it back.

It wasn't intended to. More intended to agree that it was weird, and add a personal note that it appeared to have been the wrong directional decision regardless.

 

[Ben448844]

The referee brought it back as it was potentially controversial and he was protecting himself (wrongly). If that was a normal throw in and the opposition team hadn't stopped with their hands up in the air whilst appealing and City were in a very good position from the throw then there's no way he would've brought that back. 'Game management' I'm afraid

 

[Big Cat]

I've had one or two incidents in which i sensed something was wrong and instinctively stopped play in the same way. Realizing my error after the whistle, it was an uncomfortable apologetic embarrassment. That's coming from someone infinitely less experienced than a CL Official, which lends weight to the idea that this was a dreadful 'Game Management' thing rather than a calamitous error

 

[bloovee]

I've seen Halsey give a diplomatic FK to the defence after a corner he knew should have been a GK but this was different. I suppose the non-penalty was "game management" too.

 

[AlexF]

I suppose the non-penalty was "game management" too.

Uh no -- that was clearly a case of "wrong position to see contact" (and the AR and AAR didn't have a much better chance to see), so there are three options: 1) GK tripped player, 2) GK made contact with ball so the player tripping was fair contact, 3) player simulated.

If you're not sure and didn't see it, you cannot deem this to be either 1 or 3, so 2 (the "no call") is the safest option.