URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       RateTheRef
  HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: General Discussion
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 21441--------------------------------------------------
       Re: C Pawson: Liverpool v Arsenal
   DIR By: Readingfan
       Date: September 29, 2020, 11:39 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: QuoCob link ---
       >
       > Yes, but as an AR you are instructed to 'flag early' if there
       is a possibility of a collision, especially between the attacker
       and goalkeeper in an offside situation, which is what Ashington
       was referring to.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Indeed, but ARs are also told to keep the flag down in VAR games
       if there's a tight offside. Obviously if there's no VAR then it
       absolutely makes sense to give an offence as soon as possible in
       those circumstances.
       If Ashington was suggesting it's right that ARs are asked to
       delay the flag for close offsides but one disadvantage of that
       is a player might pick up an injury then I'd agree with that.
       If they meant that the policy of asking an AR to delay the flag
       is wrong because a player might get injured then I'd disagree
       with that because I think on balance the chosen approach is
       better overall.
       #Post#: 21443--------------------------------------------------
       Re: C Pawson: Liverpool v Arsenal
   DIR By: rustyref
       Date: September 29, 2020, 12:05 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Readingfan link ---
       >
       > [quote author=Ref Watcher link=topic=1804.msg21439#msg21439
       date=1601396529]
       > [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=1804.msg21437#msg21437
       date=1601395501]
       > [quote author=rustyref link=topic=1804.msg21435#msg21435
       date=1601394616]
       > [quote author=Matt link=topic=1804.msg21405#msg21405
       date=1601368714]
       > [quote author=TundeP link=topic=1804.msg21402#msg21402
       date=1601364721]
       > I think the excellent advantage he played before Liverpool's
       first goal (praised both in media and on social media, something
       not often seen concerning a referee) should also be mentioned.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       However, post this advantage does anyone else think the Arsenal
       player should've been booked as well?
       [/quote]
       Law change this season, if you play advantage you can't then go
       back and caution for stopping a promising attack, you could only
       caution if the challenge ticked the reckless box.
       [/quote]
       Another pointless and unnecessary rule change...
       [/quote]
       The logic being that the miscreant has not stopped a promising
       attack and therefore can't be punished for doing so.
       [/quote]
       I think it makes sense in some situations where there is no
       detrimental impact on the attack caused by the foul - but there
       will be other instances where the foul slightly halts the
       momentum of the attack or allows a defender to get back etc.
       where a yellow card would still feel reasonable.
       [/quote]
       Only if the referee goes back for a free kick, then the
       advantage hasn't accrued.  If the advantage is played out there
       can't be a caution for SPA, although the obvious workaround is
       calling it reckless.
       I think it is a sensible change as it has caused problems in the
       past.  I cautioned a player before after an advantage and he
       asked why, I said it was for stopping a promising attack, to
       which he replied "how did it stop a promising attack, they
       ***ing scored?"  A valid point to which I had no answer ...!
       #Post#: 21444--------------------------------------------------
       Re: C Pawson: Liverpool v Arsenal
   DIR By: Ashington46
       Date: September 29, 2020, 1:22 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: rustyref link ---
       >
       > [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=1804.msg21440#msg21440
       date=1601397251]
       > [quote author=Ref Watcher link=topic=1804.msg21439#msg21439
       date=1601396529]
       > [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=1804.msg21437#msg21437
       date=1601395501]
       > [quote author=rustyref link=topic=1804.msg21435#msg21435
       date=1601394616]
       > [quote author=Matt link=topic=1804.msg21405#msg21405
       date=1601368714]
       > [quote author=TundeP link=topic=1804.msg21402#msg21402
       date=1601364721]
       > I think the excellent advantage he played before Liverpool's
       first goal (praised both in media and on social media, something
       not often seen concerning a referee) should also be mentioned.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       However, post this advantage does anyone else think the Arsenal
       player should've been booked as well?
       [/quote]
       Law change this season, if you play advantage you can't then go
       back and caution for stopping a promising attack, you could only
       caution if the challenge ticked the reckless box.
       [/quote]
       Another pointless and unnecessary rule change...
       [/quote]
       The logic being that the miscreant has not stopped a promising
       attack and therefore can't be punished for doing so.
       [/quote]
       I think it makes sense in some situations where there is no
       detrimental impact on the attack caused by the foul - but there
       will be other instances where the foul slightly halts the
       momentum of the attack or allows a defender to get back etc.
       where a yellow card would still feel reasonable.
       [/quote]
       Only if the referee goes back for a free kick, then the
       advantage hasn't accrued.  If the advantage is played out there
       can't be a caution for SPA, although the obvious workaround is
       calling it reckless.
       I think it is a sensible change as it has caused problems in the
       past.  I cautioned a player before after an advantage and he
       asked why, I said it was for stopping a promising attack, to
       which he replied "how did it stop a promising attack, they
       ***ing scored?"  A valid point to which I had no answer ...!
       [/quote]
       Some you win an some you lose!  ;D
       #Post#: 21449--------------------------------------------------
       Re: C Pawson: Liverpool v Arsenal
   DIR By: bruntyboy
       Date: September 29, 2020, 7:25 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: rustyref link ---
       >
       > [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=1804.msg21440#msg21440
       date=1601397251]
       > [quote author=Ref Watcher link=topic=1804.msg21439#msg21439
       date=1601396529]
       > [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=1804.msg21437#msg21437
       date=1601395501]
       > [quote author=rustyref link=topic=1804.msg21435#msg21435
       date=1601394616]
       > [quote author=Matt link=topic=1804.msg21405#msg21405
       date=1601368714]
       > [quote author=TundeP link=topic=1804.msg21402#msg21402
       date=1601364721]
       > I think the excellent advantage he played before Liverpool's
       first goal (praised both in media and on social media, something
       not often seen concerning a referee) should also be mentioned.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       However, post this advantage does anyone else think the Arsenal
       player should've been booked as well?
       [/quote]
       Law change this season, if you play advantage you can't then go
       back and caution for stopping a promising attack, you could only
       caution if the challenge ticked the reckless box.
       [/quote]
       Another pointless and unnecessary rule change...
       [/quote]
       The logic being that the miscreant has not stopped a promising
       attack and therefore can't be punished for doing so.
       [/quote]
       I think it makes sense in some situations where there is no
       detrimental impact on the attack caused by the foul - but there
       will be other instances where the foul slightly halts the
       momentum of the attack or allows a defender to get back etc.
       where a yellow card would still feel reasonable.
       [/quote]
       Only if the referee goes back for a free kick, then the
       advantage hasn't accrued.  If the advantage is played out there
       can't be a caution for SPA, although the obvious workaround is
       calling it reckless.
       I think it is a sensible change as it has caused problems in the
       past.  I cautioned a player before after an advantage and he
       asked why, I said it was for stopping a promising attack, to
       which he replied "how did it stop a promising attack, they
       ***ing scored?"  A valid point to which I had no answer ...!
       [/quote]
       Did you double down and give him a red card for abusive
       language?  ;D
       #Post#: 21459--------------------------------------------------
       Re: C Pawson: Liverpool v Arsenal
   DIR By: QuoCob
       Date: September 30, 2020, 6:43 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Readingfan link ---
       >
       > [quote author=QuoCob link=topic=1804.msg21428#msg21428
       date=1601391411]
       > Yes, but as an AR you are instructed to 'flag early' if there
       is a possibility of a collision, especially between the attacker
       and goalkeeper in an offside situation, which is what Ashington
       was referring to.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       If Ashington was suggesting it's right that ARs are asked to
       delay the flag for close offsides but one disadvantage of that
       is a player might pick up an injury then I'd agree with that.
       [/quote]
       He did...
       *****************************************************
       Page 3 of 3
   DIR Previous Page