@WhistleBlowerDK Me too. Would like to see how it works in a trial. The new offside trial for ‘daylight’ has been great for showing how crazy it is. This could be similar or actually be an improvement to the game. It won’t tackle the grappling aspect but it stops this nonsense around GK’s
@grassrootsrefJa I’d certainly be interested in seeing how a trial went. I agree it doesn’t really target the grappling aspect, but it does make it less likely for players to be able to impede the GK from the moment the ball is in play. I would be interested in how a trial fared, for sure
@WhistleBlowerDK This isn’t the first time I’ve seen something good relating to officials in the USA and appropriate behaviours.
Seems a lot more strict in terms of abuse tolerance (or lack there of). I for one would love to see similar implemented and consistently followed in the UK.
@grassrootsrefJa Just my own opinion of course. I understand some of their reasoning but it does feel like it’s opened the door to more of this behaviour which goes against the idea of reducing referee abuse.
@grassrootsrefJa I completely agree. I also think now that the FA have set the precedent, inevitably a player will end up (rightly) getting a ban for comments similar, and then fans will quite fairly point to this as evidence of unequal punishment. They’ve just created a bigger future issue
@tomr997 I think that’s why they didn’t call him over for an on-field review, as they were satisfied not all criteria were met. I was surprised the delay went on for as long as it did
Melker Ellborg sees yellow for his challenge on George Hall, as VAR determined it was not a denial of a goalscoring opportunity 🟨
Correct decision? 🤔
📺 @tntsports & @discoveryplusUK
@refcraig I have to say I’m quite pleased at the commentary referencing one of the DOGSO criteria as a possible reason why the yellow is correct here. Usually commentary does no favours for the referee and indirectly influences a pile-on but this one is better. Still won’t stop everyone!
@spaulinnit@grassrootsrefJa I think the force used was minimal but sufficient to interrupt Gabriel’s jump, but the exaggeration is quite pathetic imo. Kolo Muani hasn’t helped himself out by clearly moving towards Gabriel with his arms extended in a pushing motion either. On-field call all day imo
Interesting this wasn’t given as a caution imo. Can certainly make a case for making a foul with disregard to the danger to an opponent. Looks reckless in my opinion
@NCCMagpie Reckless is a yellow card, excessive force is red. I think the challenge is reckless so a second yellow would have been appropriate, but VAR does not currently review second yellow offences
@caledgar1 The fact Bernardo has done that whilst on a yellow already is baffling, referee would have been more than justified in law to send him off. Absolutely got away with that imo
@Bailz84@DaleJohnsonBBC It’s not an action that’s in the spirit of the game at all in my opinion. Whilst it’s technically ‘punishable’ with the retaken kick if seen, it’s unreasonable to expect the referee to simultaneously watch all movement of 19 players. It’s rather like the mutual pushing at corners
@Bailz84@DaleJohnsonBBC This link should have the answer as to why VAR didn’t intervene. My assumption for why Dias wasn’t booked is that either the referee did not see it or did not believe it to be a foul. Obviously I can’t say for sure https://t.co/VSb7ajgMRl
@Bailz84@DaleJohnsonBBC Dale is spot on with what he’s said. The difference is in the game the referee did not punish the push, so the free kick did not have the chance to be retaken. Dale is completely correct.
@Bailz84@DaleJohnsonBBC It does not say a player cannot be penalised for offside if they were pushed by an opponent in LOTG. It does however say that if the ball is out of play when the foul occurs, play is restarted with the previous decision, so the kick should be retaken if the push was penalised.