A&H

Manu STN pen or not

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
So, Cavani is brought down on the edge of the box.
Dean gives a penalty.
VAR takes an age and overturns it for a DFK.

I am trying to find where in the book it says that when a foul is given the restart is taken at the point of first contact - the very first touch of foot on foot.
I can't find it.
Of course, I can find reference to holding - if it starts outside and continues inside it's a PK.

So, I just don't get this decision-making.
In this case, there is loads of contact on the line and inside the area. The first contact continues and is forceful on the line, there is more contact with the foot, leg, thigh inside the box.
Dean has called a penalty on the field.

I think:
a) this is a mistake in law (just because the very first contact is outside the box why should the foul be spotted there?)
b) it's not a clear and obvious error
c) it's re-refereeing the game
d) it's a waste of time
e) with that much illegal contact in the box, football expects a PK
 
The Referee Store
Oh lord and now the Southampton goal chalked off - terrible looking offside VAR decision - looked onside to me in the tangle of legs - didn't get the lines or logic at all there. Another one so hard to judge the on field call would have been fine.

I just hate VAR. It ruins it for me. I'm struggling with paying the 30 euros a month at this point. Every match, every goal (and plenty more) ruined. Argh!
 
Not really watching closely, but my view was that the contact on Cavani's foot was outside of the area. Yes, his toes were in the area, but the contact was outside and it was that initial contact that undoubtedly brought him down.

Falls into the "doesn't really matter" category though given the scoreline.
 
We (those fans who hate VAR) need more players like Salah to come out and speak out against VAR.

In terms of the foul, looked a pen all day, cant believe it was overturned. Not seen the Southampton goal though
 
Not really watching closely, but my view was that the contact on Cavani's foot was outside of the area. Yes, his toes were in the area, but the contact was outside and it was that initial contact that undoubtedly brought him down.

Falls into the "doesn't really matter" category though given the scoreline.

But it absolutely does matter. You've got to get it right. I don't see any technology or video proving that initial decision wrong. Surely in that case you stick with the refs initial call.
 
..and now 84mins VAR cannot decide if it's a pen so Dean has to come to the monitor. He has given a pen on field so it should be another red. But now he can re-referee the game and give a diving YC... or...
 
Stays with the on field and red.
That is the "right" decision given how useless VAR was there...

But just like Luis earlier, I think this means we will see a law change and an accidental careless foul in the box will be a downgrade yellow in future...
 
And the feint at the end of the run up penalty. IDFK for me. But let's not go there again.

Love Dean. Love goals. Hate VAR.
 
Stays with the on field and red.
That is the "right" decision given how useless VAR was there...

But just like Luis earlier, I think this means we will see a law change and an accidental careless foul in the box will be a downgrade yellow in future...
Dont see a change coming myself.
 
I've said this since the current law came in, it doesn't seem right that a player can accidentally clip and opponent and be sent off because there was no play for the ball, but had they dived in and still made the foul it would probably only be a caution.

As JamesL says though, I don't see it changing any time soon.
 
I've said this since the current law came in, it doesn't seem right that a player can accidentally clip and opponent and be sent off because there was no play for the ball, but had they dived in and still made the foul it would probably only be a caution.

As JamesL says though, I don't see it changing any time soon.
It feels to me like a lot of the time a player wouldn't be sent off for that type of incident - perhaps VAR has changed things a bit in that respect. Even in what I thought were clearer/more cynical cases (I always remember the Denmark V Croatia game at 2018 World Cup where the striker had an open goal for Croatia when he was fouled) the referee has only issued yellow.

I suppose it doesn't make a difference but from a game management perspective it felt a bit unnecessary/undesirable to be spending about 5 minutes watching slow motion replays several times with the score at 6 or 7 0 (I forget which!)
 
Martial should've been booked for 'simulation'
Poor decision by Mr D, (good call by Scott to suggest the monitor (if that's what happened)). Poor decision, magnified 10-fold because it survived the VAR process (in the absence of which, Mr D was merely cheated by Martial and an understandable error)

The red card was similar to the Luiz situation. 100+ Law changes since I became a ref. Another one on the way
Not that it it'll make much differnece
 
Last edited:
I've said this since the current law came in, it doesn't seem right that a player can accidentally clip and opponent and be sent off because there was no play for the ball, but had they dived in and still made the foul it would probably only be a caution.

As JamesL says though, I don't see it changing any time soon.
Is that really the official explanation? The defender tried to avoid the attacker, so it wasn't a genuine attempt to play the ball? Stupid beyond belief. Spirit of the game? What football expects? Same in the Arsenal game... I mean, it's not as if PGMOL refs can't get together and apply the laws as they think best, is it?
 
Make DOGSO in the penalty area a red card offence only when the penalty is missed. If teams want to deliberately miss / concede then fine, VAR has already made things artificial.
 
..and now 84mins VAR cannot decide if it's a pen so Dean has to come to the monitor. He has given a pen on field so it should be another red. But now he can re-referee the game and give a diving YC... or...
Um, no. That's not how it works. If the VAR recommends an OFR by the R, it means the VAR believes the call on the field was clear error and should be reversed--but it is up to the R to make that decision.
 
Is that really the official explanation? The defender tried to avoid the attacker, so it wasn't a genuine attempt to play the ball? Stupid beyond belief. Spirit of the game? What football expects? Same in the Arsenal game... I mean, it's not as if PGMOL refs can't get together and apply the laws as they think best, is it?

Was the attacker attempting to play the ball? No. An OGSO plus a foul is therefore red. The yellow exception requires that there be a play for the ball. You may not like the way they carved out the exception, but that is what they did.
 
..and now 84mins VAR cannot decide if it's a pen so Dean has to come to the monitor. He has given a pen on field so it should be another red. But now he can re-referee the game and give a diving YC... or...
Referee was never going to overturn the penalty decision; he was only sent to the monitor because he made an error in not showing a red card for the challenge. This was not a penalty/no penalty review; it was a red card/no red card review.
 
Back
Top