DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 40655--------------------------------------------------
Re: M ATKINSON - Man U v Arsenal
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: December 3, 2021, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In the Leicester City v Manchester City game in September Mr
Tierney didn't consider it necessary to stop play when Ederson
had a tooth removed on the pitch by an opponent's studs - in
that case the resultant play only resulted in a corner. I
suppose he used the discretionary "Subbuteo supplement" that
means once someone has touched the ball, however slightly,
anything goes.
#Post#: 40679--------------------------------------------------
Re: M ATKINSON - Man U v Arsenal
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: December 4, 2021, 2:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref Watcher link ---
>
> Martin Atkinson clearly saw that De Gea was on the ground with
his back to play before Smith Rowe took his shot. He moved his
whistle to his mouth but opted not to blow it until after the
ball went in the net (when there was actually no need to blow it
all) presumably in line with the wait-and-see VAR protocols. We
are told time and again that player safety must be our number
one priority. Martin Atkinson had had no chance to assess how
serious the injury was. On a safety-first principle he should
have stopped play immediately. Safety must override VAR
protocols.
>
> Now, consider a slightly different scenario. If De Gea had
been seriously injured, or at least pretended to be, and was
immediately substituted, would VAR have decided that Martin
Atkinson was wrong to have allowed play to continue and that the
goal should be disallowed? And if not, what is the point in
waiting to blow the whistle until the ball is in the net?
>
--- End Quote ---
From what I understand of the incident, it doesn't sound like
the safety principle would apply too much here as it sounds
there was no case to think it was a head injury and presumably
if it had been an outfield player in midfield no one would
complain about play continuing in a similar incident.
If there was a serious injury then hopefully the referee would
stop the game straight away and the VAR protocol of wait and see
obviously wouldn't apply because there'd be nothing to wait for.
In general, my instincts are that an injury to a goalkeeper or a
defending player who plays all attackers onside should be
treated a bit differently because of the tactical advantage it
can lead to for the opposition. It doesn't quite seem in the
spirit of the game for a result simply because the goalkeeper
wasn't able to stand up to save a simple shot for instance. But
obviously the referee needs to have time to assess this and you
don't want to create the precedent of defending players feigning
injury simply to stop the game. An incident where a goal would
have resulted anyway is also a bit different.
NB Obviously the above doesn't apply to serious injuries, in
which case the game should be stopped immediately, regardless of
who and where.
Does anyone remember the incident where Rob Green got injured
for the England B team and missed the 2006 World Cup? He got a
serious injury whilst taking a goal kick and the opposition
striker got the ball and had an open net to score. As a referee,
would people stop play immediately or allow the goal to be
scored? It seemed a bit unfair on Green that he had no chance of
making a save as he was lying on the floor injured but on the
other hand the opposition would have had a 1 on 1 anyway so a
strong chance of scoring without the injury.
If De Gea had been seriously injured and Atkinson had failed to
stop play then I presume the goal would have been allowed as
there'd be no obvious justification for disallowing it. Does the
referee absolutely have to blow the whistle before the ball hits
the net or could they argue they'd made the decision to stop the
game already but not managed to blow the whistle in time?
Obviously if a referee penalises a foul it doesn't matter if the
whistle goes after as their original decision takes precedence
but I suppose it is different here as no offence as such has
been committed. 0
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page