DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 43938--------------------------------------------------
Wolves v Arsenal: Michael Oliver
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: February 10, 2022, 5:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The two cautions in quick succession and one passage of play
against Arsenal is a brilliant coaching opportunity.
Besides most of the internet failing to understand Law 12 and
advantage on SPA, Oliver got it correct by the book.
For anyone who hasn’t seen the incident(s), Martinelli attempts
(unsuccessfully) to prevent a quick throw in by pushing the
thrower. He then sprints back up the pitch following the counter
attack and commits a cynical foul on the attacker, which clearly
is SPA.
The video is available here for those who haven’t seen it:
HTML https://twitter.com/theathleticuk/status/1491897029634760704?s=21
Only the second time I can remember seeing this after Cakir for
Chris Baird. It’s probably been in some UEFA clips over the
years, but useful to have this one being made in a high-profile
game.
Some grassroots officials may lack confidence to make such
decisions, so definitely useful to seeing it applied at the top
level.
Edit: Baird, not Brunt
#Post#: 43940--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Arsenal: Michael Oliver
DIR By: Claretman
Date: February 10, 2022, 5:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Refereeing of the highest order from our best referee.
#Post#: 43942--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Arsenal: Michael Oliver
DIR By: tef
Date: February 10, 2022, 6:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Affy_Moose link ---
>
> Some grassroots officials may lack confidence to make such
decisions, so definitely useful to seeing it applied at the top
level.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Quite…I’m sure some less established SG1 members may have
steered clear of that too.
#Post#: 43943--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Arsenal: Michael Oliver
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: February 10, 2022, 6:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As I posted on the Liverpool thread, there have been instances
in the past where I felt two yellow cards should clearly have
been produced, including one refereed by Michael Oliver a few
years ago.
Did the first offence take place before play restarted and if so
is a caution still relevant? I think it is but an interesting
law to clarify.
#Post#: 43944--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Arsenal: Michael Oliver
DIR By: bmb
Date: February 10, 2022, 8:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Readingfan link ---
>
> As I posted on the Liverpool thread, there have been instances
in the past where I felt two yellow cards should clearly have
been produced, including one refereed by Michael Oliver a few
years ago.
>
> Did the first offence take place before play restarted and if
so is a caution still relevant? I think it is but an interesting
law to clarify.
>
--- End Quote ---
He released the ball from the throw as he was pushed. I've tried
to freezeframe it to see which came 1st & it looks to me like he
released the ball literally a split second before he gets pushed
to the ground so the ball was in play, imo.
The pundits make me laugh (it's either that or cry tears of
frustration...) - Keown & Lescott both agree each incident was a
yellow card yet Keown then insists it was immoral refereeing, to
give a red, partly because the player didn't know he was going
to get a yellow. If the player (and pundits) bothered to learn
the LOTG then the player would have known he had committed a
yellow card offence so to charge however far up the pitch &
immediately commit a cynical foul, he should also know was a
yellow card offence is nothing but sheer player stupidity or a
simply complete ignorance for the LOTG that govern the game he
gets paid way too many ££££ for & is his living. Not sure what
part of yellow + yellow = red escapes them really!
PS bonus brownie points for Michael Oliver for the gorgeous
purple shirt!
#Post#: 43949--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Arsenal: Michael Oliver
DIR By: Leggy
Date: February 11, 2022, 12:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Both offences were yellow card offences and MO was correct in
Law (and brave in his actions) to dismiss the Arsenal player.
There is, however, a philosophical issue with the dismissal.
The naming and purpose of a caution is to warn an offending
player that - should they commit a further offence - they could
be dismissed from the field of play.
In the "olden days" - the days before referees simply flashed
yellow cards in the general direction of offending players it
was necessary to speak to the player. Indeed, when I started
refereeing we often had neither team sheets or shirt numbers so
obtaining the name required the conversation. At that point the
"caution" was issued in words to the offender.
Last night it was not possible to warn the player that he was at
risk of being sent from the field of play. Does that mean he
was not cautioned, and - therefore - cannot be dismissed for
receiving (key word) a second caution in the same match?
As a final (and entirely unrelated) point, Arsenal have a clear
disciplinary problem - they are the Premier League team with
comfortably the most red cards since Arteta took over and have
more Red cards than goals the calendar year.
#Post#: 43950--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Arsenal: Michael Oliver
DIR By: RCG
Date: February 11, 2022, 1:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Its a tough one as to have stopped the game to issue the first
caution would have prevented a decent attacking chance for
Wolves and given that the Arsenal player goes and commits the
cynical foul, he too knew it was a promising position.
At a "lower" level I think from a game management point of view,
I would have stopped the game, cautioned the player and
restarted with a free kick.
Having allowed play to continue with the one handed advantage
signal (still dont like that!) MO shows he has seen it and
correctly deals with it at the next stoppage.
I think the player thought he had the chance to get away with
one, imho
PS I too like the purple 😏
#Post#: 43952--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Arsenal: Michael Oliver
DIR By: TheThingFromLewes
Date: February 11, 2022, 1:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully now that Oliver has set this precedent that other
players will bear this in mind. I hope the next scenario when
this happens the other officials are equally as strong.
If not, the whole point of what Oliver did (correctly) will have
been wasted and the consistency problem that reigns will be
exacerbated.
#Post#: 43953--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Arsenal: Michael Oliver
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: February 11, 2022, 1:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The 'getting away with one' is one reason why I've been critical
in the past when a referee hasn't shown two yellow cards when
there's been two yellow card offences in quick succession, as it
essentially means there's no deterrent or extra sanction for the
second foul so the player might as well make it. In such
circumstances, the whole purpose behind playing the advantage is
defeated.
#Post#: 43954--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wolves v Arsenal: Michael Oliver
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: February 11, 2022, 3:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Leggy link ---
>
> Both offences were yellow card offences and MO was correct in
Law (and brave in his actions) to dismiss the Arsenal player.
>
> There is, however, a philosophical issue with the dismissal.
The naming and purpose of a caution is to warn an offending
player that - should they commit a further offence - they could
be dismissed from the field of play.
>
> In the "olden days" - the days before referees simply flashed
yellow cards in the general direction of offending players it
was necessary to speak to the player. Indeed, when I started
refereeing we often had neither team sheets or shirt numbers so
obtaining the name required the conversation. At that point the
"caution" was issued in words to the offender.
>
> Last night it was not possible to warn the player that he was
at risk of being sent from the field of play. Does that mean he
was not cautioned, and - therefore - cannot be dismissed for
receiving (key word) a second caution in the same match?
>
> As a final (and entirely unrelated) point, Arsenal have a
clear disciplinary problem - they are the Premier League team
with comfortably the most red cards since Arteta took over and
have more Red cards than goals the calendar year.
>
--- End Quote ---
You make an interesting point re the purpose of a ‘caution’ but
the logical extension of it is highly problematic. To ensure a
player is warned, either advantage cannot be played or a player
effectively gets one for ‘free’. I have little time for the
Arteta defence - these are grown men, and it’s a game where they
should understand the Laws that govern them.
Football coaches are too often like politicians. They rarely
have a consistent moral position. Effectively, they’ll take up a
position of convenience each week, irrespective of its obvious
contradiction versus previous positions.
The other point made above, specifically around grassroots and
less well organised games about not playing advantage because of
the difficulties. That’s an entirely fair and reasonable point.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page