DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 29772--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Tottenham vs. Manchester United
DIR By: greeny
Date: April 12, 2021, 12:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Spain and Italy have had 4 on at the same time before -
Carballo, Mallenco, Lahoz and Borbalan for Spain; Orsato,
Rizzoli, Rocchi and Tagliavento for Italy.
#Post#: 29774--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Tottenham vs. Manchester United
DIR By: robbie_scouse
Date: April 12, 2021, 12:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: greeny link ---
>
> Spain and Italy have had 4 on at the same time before -
Carballo, Mallenco, Lahoz and Borbalan for Spain; Orsato,
Rizzoli, Rocchi and Tagliavento for Italy.
>
--- End Quote ---
Indeed Germany currently have four - Aytekin, Brych, Stieler and
Zwayer.
#Post#: 29775--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Tottenham vs. Manchester United
DIR By: dave26
Date: April 12, 2021, 1:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For me the excuse that the PGMOL have come out with regarding
McTominays part in the disallowed goal is a desperate grasp at
straws while papering over cracks of the incompetence use of VAR
Kavanagh saw the incident himself and was happy for play to
continue and should have stood by his decision once he was
advised to look at the monitor , it wasn’t a clear and obvious
error by any stretch of the imagination so no need for VAR to
get involved
#Post#: 29776--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Tottenham vs. Manchester United
DIR By: bmb
Date: April 12, 2021, 2:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: robbie_scouse link ---
>
> [quote author=greeny link=topic=2340.msg29772#msg29772
date=1618206428]
> Spain and Italy have had 4 on at the same time before -
Carballo, Mallenco, Lahoz and Borbalan for Spain; Orsato,
Rizzoli, Rocchi and Tagliavento for Italy.
>
--- End Quote ---
Indeed Germany currently have four - Aytekin, Brych, Stieler and
Zwayer.
[/quote]
Different countries have different allocated numbers. What Spain
or Italy do is not relevant to how many elite referees England
can have. It may have changed, I have no idea. I do however
recall a lot of discussion on this site that Mike Dean never
made the elite list because we already had 3 elite officials in
Webb, Atkinson and Clattenburg and we can only have 3. There is
only 27, I think it is, in total.
#Post#: 29779--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Tottenham vs. Manchester United
DIR By: Acme Thunderer
Date: April 12, 2021, 3:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For what it is worth, I thought the decision on the Son incident
was quite correct, even sensible. Contact was made = foul, but
contact was accidental, hence NFA other than a disallowed goal
and free kick to Spurs.
#Post#: 29786--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Tottenham vs. Manchester United
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: April 12, 2021, 6:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ref Watch on Sky's Football Show is interesting to see to what
extent Dermot will support a referee's decision or VAR
intervention.
On the McTominay/Son incident, he felt it inevitable that once
Kavanagh looked at the screen, the goal would be disallowed, but
agreed no further action was required beyond giving the foul.
The 2 pundits, Warnock and Smith strongly disagreed with the
decision to disallow the goal, which was in line with the
viewers' poll of 80/20. Yes, I realise we don't know how many
vote and that probably very few are referees but that doesn't
mean it's totally worthless.
On the non-penalty to Newcastle for the high boot ("so high it
was practically in orbit" according to Jim White in the
Telegraph), Dermot seemed to support the decision but then drew
attention to Taylor's apparent inconsistency when shown a foul
given for a later high foot outside the area.
The poll showed that about 83/17 thought it a wrong decision.
Again, the pundits, like viewers, disagreed with the non-penalty
decision.
Interestingly, the Fernandinho challenge at the Etihad was
scrutinised but no poll taken. DG said DOGSO would also have
been considered but the other City player was close enough to
rule that out. The foul itself, while very cynical, he opined
was reckless not dangerous so a YC was correct.
#Post#: 29790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Tottenham vs. Manchester United
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: April 12, 2021, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref Fan link ---
>
> Ref Watch on Sky's Football Show is interesting to see to what
extent Dermot will support a referee's decision or VAR
intervention.
> On the McTominay/Son incident, he felt it inevitable that once
Kavanagh looked at the screen, the goal would be disallowed, but
agreed no further action was required beyond giving the foul.
The 2 pundits, Warnock and Smith strongly disagreed with the
decision to disallow the goal, which was in line with the
viewers' poll of 80/20. Yes, I realise we don't know how many
vote and that probably very few are referees but that doesn't
mean it's totally worthless.
>
> On the non-penalty to Newcastle for the high boot ("so high it
was practically in orbit" according to Jim White in the
Telegraph), Dermot seemed to support the decision but then drew
attention to Taylor's apparent inconsistency when shown a foul
given for a later high foot outside the area.
> The poll showed that about 83/17 thought it a wrong decision.
Again, the pundits, like viewers, disagreed with the non-penalty
decision.
>
> Interestingly, the Fernandinho challenge at the Etihad was
scrutinised but no poll taken. DG said DOGSO would also have
been considered but the other City player was close enough to
rule that out. The foul itself, while very cynical, he opined
was reckless not dangerous so a YC was correct.
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
On the Fernandinho challenge, I was surprised not to see a red
card for that, though I would have gone for DOGSO. It was an
unusual foul from him as the rather over emphasised tactical
fouls (roughly on a par with any other defensive mid-fielder in
the Premiership, in my view) are normally quite "gentle" in
nature - stopping the attack but not really with much force.
This one, to me suggested that quite a bit of "needle" had crept
into the match. Generally Marriner, despite the yellow shirt
matching the Leeds keeper, had a reasonable game; foul detection
pretty consistent although some inconsistency with cards (that
is separately from the two highlighted incidents). He also
seemed to be getting in the way of play a bit - though with 20
players condensed into about 1/3rd of the pitch for most of the
second half I suppose he didn't have much space to play with.
#Post#: 29794--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Tottenham vs. Manchester United
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: April 12, 2021, 7:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Microscopist link ---
>
> [quote author=Ref Fan link=topic=2340.msg29786#msg29786
date=1618226375]
> Ref Watch on Sky's Football Show is interesting to see to what
extent Dermot will support a referee's decision or VAR
intervention.
> On the McTominay/Son incident, he felt it inevitable that once
Kavanagh looked at the screen, the goal would be disallowed, but
agreed no further action was required beyond giving the foul.
The 2 pundits, Warnock and Smith strongly disagreed with the
decision to disallow the goal, which was in line with the
viewers' poll of 80/20. Yes, I realise we don't know how many
vote and that probably very few are referees but that doesn't
mean it's totally worthless.
>
> On the non-penalty to Newcastle for the high boot ("so high it
was practically in orbit" according to Jim White in the
Telegraph), Dermot seemed to support the decision but then drew
attention to Taylor's apparent inconsistency when shown a foul
given for a later high foot outside the area.
> The poll showed that about 83/17 thought it a wrong decision.
Again, the pundits, like viewers, disagreed with the non-penalty
decision.
>
> Interestingly, the Fernandinho challenge at the Etihad was
scrutinised but no poll taken. DG said DOGSO would also have
been considered but the other City player was close enough to
rule that out. The foul itself, while very cynical, he opined
was reckless not dangerous so a YC was correct.
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
On the Fernandinho challenge, I was surprised not to see a red
card for that, though I would have gone for DOGSO. It was an
unusual foul from him as the rather over emphasised tactical
fouls (roughly on a par with any other defensive mid-fielder in
the Premiership, in my view) are normally quite "gentle" in
nature - stopping the attack but not really with much force.
This one, to me suggested that quite a bit of "needle" had crept
into the match. Generally Marriner, despite the yellow shirt
matching the Leeds keeper, had a reasonable game; foul detection
pretty consistent although some inconsistency with cards (that
is separately from the two highlighted incidents). He also
seemed to be getting in the way of play a bit - though with 20
players condensed into about 1/3rd of the pitch for most of the
second half I suppose he didn't have much space to play with.
[/quote]
An honest opinion from a City supporter. Thanks Microscopist.
When I originally mentioned the Fernandinho challenge, it was
slightly tongue in cheek although I was surprised no one else
had raised it or the question of DOGSO. Initially, I thought
the second City player was close and level enough to rule out
DOGSO but on seeing it again this morning I'm less convinced.
As regards the RC for Cooper for the challenge on Jesus, DG
argued that on looking at the screen Marriner would have seen
where contact on the player was made and changed his mind to a
RC. However, DG and the pundits agreed that slow motion or
stills can make it look worse than at full speed. Dermot said
the RC was correct (I think) but the 2 pundits - who make some
sensible comments - were unsure and sat on the fence rather.
That was in line with the viewers poll which was very close -
forgotten which way now!!
#Post#: 29805--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Tottenham vs. Manchester United
DIR By: Ref Watcher
Date: April 12, 2021, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: BAFRA #217 link ---
>
> [quote author=chriswfc link=topic=2340.msg29730#msg29730
date=1618157909]
> Can completely understand why Manchester United are extremely
unhappy with this. Both before and after the goal similar
incidents have not been penalised. Very inconsistent officiating
from Kavanagh. If this boils over he only has himself to blame.
This has nothing to do with VAR by the way. Kavanagh went to the
screen,,, it was his interpretation & decision. The players are
quickly losing all faith and confidence in him to manage this
game effectively and make correct and consistent decisions.
>
--- End Quote ---
Riddle me this - how can you give a foul for accidental contact
(which was one of the conclusions on the conversation with VAR)?
[/quote]
It is a foul if it was the contact was careless, reckless or
made with excessive force. Whether it is accidental or
otherwise is completely immaterial.
#Post#: 29809--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Tottenham vs. Manchester United
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: April 12, 2021, 10:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Son trying to pull back McTominay was not accidental so does
that make that a foul first; also bearing in mind that not all
contact is a foul anyway?
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page