DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 77587--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea v Burnley - Darren England (John Brooks)
DIR By: Arbitre anglais
Date: March 31, 2024, 5:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rustyref link ---
>
> It is one of those that whether it was a foul or not is
debatable. But once awarded, and given the fact there was no
attempt to play the ball, it has to be SPA or DOGSO.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree - if DOGSO, has to then be RC. Can’t remember if this
really was DOGSO?
But if SPA, thought that was now just a penalty, as the ‘attack’
is being reinstated by the PK so no double jeopardy. Same as
free kick/SPA situation and ref plays advantage. YC in penalty
situations should really now only be for a DOGSO (genuine
attempt for ball) and an offence in its own right (reckless,
outside interference). Just thought it was interesting.
#Post#: 77590--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea v Burnley - Darren England (John Brooks)
DIR By: rustyref
Date: March 31, 2024, 5:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Arbitre anglais link ---
>
> [quote author=rustyref link=topic=5840.msg77585#msg77585
date=1711921910]
> It is one of those that whether it was a foul or not is
debatable. But once awarded, and given the fact there was no
attempt to play the ball, it has to be SPA or DOGSO.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree - if DOGSO, has to then be RC. Can’t remember if this
really was DOGSO?
But if SPA, thought that was now just a penalty, as the ‘attack’
is being reinstated by the PK so no double jeopardy. Same as
free kick/SPA situation and ref plays advantage. YC in penalty
situations should really now only be for a DOGSO (genuine
attempt for ball) and an offence in its own right (reckless,
outside interference). Just thought it was interesting.
[/quote]
Only if it was an attempt for the ball, and a pull on the
shoulder is never going to be classed as that.
#Post#: 77595--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea v Burnley - Darren England (John Brooks)
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: April 1, 2024, 2:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Arbitre anglais link ---
>
> [quote author=rustyref link=topic=5840.msg77585#msg77585
date=1711921910]
> It is one of those that whether it was a foul or not is
debatable. But once awarded, and given the fact there was no
attempt to play the ball, it has to be SPA or DOGSO.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree - if DOGSO, has to then be RC. Can’t remember if this
really was DOGSO?
But if SPA, thought that was now just a penalty, as the ‘attack’
is being reinstated by the PK so no double jeopardy. Same as
free kick/SPA situation and ref plays advantage. YC in penalty
situations should really now only be for a DOGSO (genuine
attempt for ball) and an offence in its own right (reckless,
outside interference). Just thought it was interesting.
[/quote]
To summarise in a slightly simplified form - essentially:
DOGSO (no attempt to play the ball_ - red card
DOGSO (attempt to play the ball) - yellow card
SPA (no attempt to play the ball( - yellow card
SPA (attempt to play the ball) - no yellow card
This obviously only applies in penalty area - so essentially
it's a sliding scale where a cynical foul should result in
comparatively harsher punishment.
#Post#: 77627--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea v Burnley - Darren England (John Brooks)
DIR By: ClaretandBlue06
Date: April 1, 2024, 5:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dissai looked offside as it hit another player (Jackson) in the
middle.
#Post#: 77640--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea v Burnley - Darren England (John Brooks)
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: April 2, 2024, 4:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's a while since I heard such strong criticism on RefWatch as
that of the penalty awarded to Chelsea and the resulting red
cards for Assignon and Kompany.
This was Dermot's take on it:
“I talk about referees and how tough it is but I don't know
what's made him think that's a penalty. It's not a penalty, 100
per cent.
“He then gives him a yellow card – I'm not sure what that's for.
It can't be for denying a goalscoring opportunity because Mudryk
is not in possession of the ball.
“You give a penalty, that is wrong. A yellow card, that's wrong,
which becomes a red card, so the player is sent off and he's
going to serve a one-match ban because there's no appeal.
“It starts to ramp up because the manager is frustrated and
upset by this and he gets a red card."
Dermot, it seems, is usually armed with a PGMOL view when he
comments.
Pundit, Stephen Warnock, who personally I find quite sensible,
said it was one of the worst decisions of the season in his
opinion.
Views on here appear more mixed and muted.
#Post#: 77651--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea v Burnley - Darren England (John Brooks)
DIR By: Failed Ref
Date: April 2, 2024, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest I watched this and there are two issues. Firstly
the Burnley player barges into the attacker without playing the
ball. Secondly the defender's arm is on the shoulder of the
attacker. Why do that? It can only be for 1 purpose, I.e. to
impede the attacker.
I no longer know what a penalty is but I don't think the
attacker dived and I can understand why the penalty was given.
Likewise, I understand why VAR didn't want to get involved.
The second yellow naturally follows.
#Post#: 77657--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea v Burnley - Darren England (John Brooks)
DIR By: TVOS
Date: April 2, 2024, 6:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Failed Ref link ---
>
> Out of interest I watched this and there are two issues.
Firstly the Burnley player barges into the attacker without
playing the ball. Secondly the defender's arm is on the shoulder
of the attacker. Why do that? It can only be for 1 purpose, I.e.
to impede the attacker.
> I no longer know what a penalty is but I don't think the
attacker dived and I can understand why the penalty was given.
Likewise, I understand why VAR didn't want to get involved.
> The second yellow naturally follows.
>
--- End Quote ---
Give over. I'm no lover of Burnley, but that's a really
exaggerated take on what really happened.
#Post#: 77659--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea v Burnley - Darren England (John Brooks)
DIR By: Failed Ref
Date: April 2, 2024, 6:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Why arm on shoulder?
#Post#: 77665--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea v Burnley - Darren England (John Brooks)
DIR By: TVOS
Date: April 2, 2024, 7:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Failed Ref link ---
>
> Why arm on shoulder?
>
--- End Quote ---
It's a contact sport (or is supposed to be) and nigh on
impossible to run with your arms down by your side. There are
"arms on shoulders" and such like all over the pitch that aren't
penalised.
#Post#: 77667--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chelsea v Burnley - Darren England (John Brooks)
DIR By: Ashington46
Date: April 2, 2024, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TVOS link ---
>
> [quote author=Failed Ref link=topic=5840.msg77659#msg77659
date=1712055959]
> Why arm on shoulder?
>
--- End Quote ---
It's a contact sport (or is supposed to be) and nigh on
impossible to run with your arms down by your side. There are
"arms on shoulders" and such like all over the pitch that aren't
penalised.
[/quote]
I shall certainly be watching Man City v Villa on Wednesday
night to see how much of that sort of contact is allowed. It was
something which happened all the time in my playing days without
being penalised and was the rough and tumble of the game.
Thinking about it, I think that it is still a part of the game
once you get away from the sterile atmosphere of the PL and
watch enjoyable football at other levels.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page