Denying a goal scoring opportunity

[Big.Dane.w]

Was no way a red card offence but the ref didn’t just see stills as most are saying, watch the highlights you can clearly see the ref sees the moving video a few times before the image is still, I agree that anytime the ref is asked to go to the screen then it means what ever decision he has made is gonna be overturned BUT it was overturned for a yellow when Basham was shown a straight red by the ref.

 

[Toronto Blade]

A coincidence?

The VAR ref yesterday against Villa who told the on field ref to go to the monitor was Graham Scott.
Graham Scott the same ref that sent Egan off with a red card at Villa!

So he has had a hand in 2 of our 3 red cards.

 

[IOM Blade]

This pissed me off just as much as the red card. Incompetent twat.

 

[stringer]

Even if a pen is given the offending player should still be sent off if:
"a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off."

https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Personally don't think the Villa player had a chance of playing the ball.

Don’t even think for sure he knew Basham was there

 

[Geordie Blade]

What annoyed me as well was the free kick was taken at least 10 yards further forward such that a direct shot at goal was possible. You could see the mark in the pitch Jags made where the tackle was made. The free kick was allowed to be taken in the second 'line' section from the box. I would have been fuming if that had gone in.

I'm not bitter or anything, but that's exactly what happened at Wembley in 1993 when Waddle scored. The original foul was at least ten yards closer to the halfway line than where the free kick was taken from. If you ever have the misfortune of watching that game again, look out for it.

 

[BobbyDavison'sDebut]

I'm not bitter or anything, but that's exactly what happened at Wembley in 1993 when Waddle scored. The original foul was at least ten yards closer to the halfway line than where the free kick was taken from. If you ever have the misfortune of watching that game again, look out for it.

I didn’t realise that. The only bit of that game I watched again was Alan Cork’s equaliser

 

[BobbyDavison'sDebut]

This pissed me off just as much as the red card. Incompetent twat.

View attachment 107085View attachment 107086

That’s exactly what I said earlier. No one seemed to pick up on it and it meant the free kick was within shooting distance. Luckily Rammers held onto it

 

[SWB]

The second the foul is given. I thought it would be a red right away. So did he.

Giiooeerr!! are you imagining this or are you somehow linked into his thinking, eyes & brain. As another poster has already implied he most likely knew VAR could bend this either way

 

[Geordie Blade]

I didn’t realise that. The only bit of that game I watched again was Alan Cork’s equaliser

I still cheer like mad whenever I see Cork's goal, despite knowing the final score.

Having just watched it again, I reckon Waddle only moved it five yards closer. Just enough to put it within shooting range. To make matters worse, I was sat side on from the freekick at Wembley. It looked wide to me and I was halfway up, doing the "arms out wide" gesture as it hit the back of the net.

 

[BobbyDavison'sDebut]

I still cheer like mad whenever I see Cork's goal, despite knowing the final score.

Having just watched it again, I reckon Waddle only moved it five yards closer. Just enough to put it within shooting range. To make matters worse, I was sat side on from the freekick at Wembley. It looked wide to me and I was halfway up, doing the "arms out wide" gesture as it hit the back of the net.

 

[BobbyDavison'sDebut]

I was in near the corner flag and remember singing the “he’s got no hair but we don’t care’ song from the 44th minute all through the half time break

 

[Chingo]

Anyone just seen the Kante “handball” and the Fulham one ?
It’s a lottery what they are going to decide now !

 

[Berkshire Blade]

Giiooeerr!! are you imagining this or are you somehow linked into his thinking, eyes & brain. As another poster has already implied he most likely knew VAR could bend this either way

Watch it back. I didn't notice it on first watch so maybe my thoughts of it being a red are playing into it..

 

[SwitchBLADE Smiles]

24 hours apart. 1 is a red card, the other is a yellow. 0 consistency. Get fucked.

 

[1889]

The PGMOL and the introduction of VAR aren’t for the good of the game, they are wholly for the good of referees and their assistants.
It’s all about making them evermore powerful, increasing their influence in the game and raising their individual profiles.
They’ve seen the EPL is awash with obscene amounts of money and celebrity players. Now they want their share of the pie.
Already we have Dermot Gallagher and Peter Walton on Sky or BT I shudder to think where it’s all going to end?
What the egotistical twats fail to realise is that they are going to kill the game as a spectacle with their unnecessary and self serving meddling

 

[HoodedClaw]

Don’t even think for sure he knew Basham was there

Maybe, not sure that has an impact on the possibility of a player playing the ball without fouling the opponent though.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

This is probably the worst red card in history. Other mistakenly given red cards were done by the ref who saw it from one perspective in one instance. Some recent ones were given by the on-field ref but not overturned by VAR, but this one was only given after multiple views and scrutiny by two referees.

 

[stringer]

Maybe, not sure that has an impact on the possibility of a player playing the ball without fouling the opponent though.

Well if he doesn’t know Basham is there he isn’t intentionally fouling him, so is obviously trying to play the ball

 

[HoodedClaw]

Intention isn't a consideration.

Try the link I put in the original reply.

 

[MJM]

This pissed me off just as much as the red card. Incompetent twat.

View attachment 107085View attachment 107086

I never even batted an eyelid at the position of the FK as I was so infuriated about the decision.

That's 5 yards further forward.

Some consistency would be nice really...

 

[PokerBlade]

24 hours apart. 1 is a red card, the other is a yellow. 0 consistency. Get fucked.

Almost spooky how similar that is in terms of positions of players. There'll probably be a special intepretation unique to this situation to explain to us why it's a yellow. It won't help anyone understand the game any better but the refs will be filled with smug satisfaction.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Almost spooky how similar that is in terms of positions of players. There'll probably be a special intepretation unique to this situation to explain to us why it's a yellow. It won't help anyone understand the game any better but the refs will be filled with smug satisfaction.

They won't even explain it. They have become an untouchable authority and a law unto themselves.

 

[PokerBlade]

They won't even explain it. They have become an untouchable authority and a law unto themselves.

Well, not properly. Sometimes we get a nice throw away line like "some degree of contact is expected" to enjoy. Another sad thing is when ex-refs like Dermot started commenting on games I got my hopes up. Because I'd be more than willing to believe that a former professional ref would be able to tell me why I'm wrong, but all I ever him from people like him is the same kind of wishy-washy language that would allow any decision to be "correct".

Best analogy I've been able to think of is if you ever read things like The Secret Barrister or watch some lawyers on YouTube that do case analysis. You can go start reading about some miscarriage of justice and he can go point by point as to why the case ended with the decision it did (why someone got the sentence they did, for instance). And then I can often disagree with what I think the laws should be, but I understand why it's in accordance with the law.

When it comes to refereeing, I never find that kind of analysis. Think of all the ex-refs or lower league refs there are and yet there's not one "secret referee" out there able to say "Here's how the laws of the game are understood and here's how they're being applied consistently". Like I've said, if Jags' tackle is a red by the laws of the game, then fine, we deal with it and move on, but it took 24 hours for an almost identical situation to get a different decision. It pains me to be a reasonably intelligent fan who just wants to understand the game I've watched for more than twenty years that just can't.

 

[scouseblade]

The video assistant referee's first question should be "is there a clear and obvious error" and if there isn't, they should go no further. It seems to me they see an incident and think they should forensically dissect it, forgetting the "clear and obvious" aspect.

The problem is there's so much film available these days, that similar incidents from other games are seen to be dealt with differently and the whole VAR system is made to look foolish.

Marginal off side decisions are a case in point. As soon as they start to draw lines and drop perpendiculars , it immediately demonstrates that the off side is not "clear and obvious" so the player should be deemed on side.

VAR has just become another entertainment for the armchair fan and it has long since forgotten what it was brought in for.

Whoa there. Stop making sense here.....that wouldnt cause enough debate!!