DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97343--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Man City v Liverpool
DIR By: olliebcafc
Date: November 9, 2025, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TheThingFromLewes link ---
>
>
> We had a similar incident a few years ago at City when Ake was
standing in front of Leno and the goal was allowed by Oliver and
Harrington..
>
--- End Quote ---
Funnily enough that came to my head when I first saw the replay,
and thought it would be disallowed considering Oliver is on VAR
today. Would be interesting to hear the audio for this one as it
was quite a delayed decision, and I don’t think it was the
correct one…
#Post#: 97344--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Man City v Liverpool
DIR By: TA_Ref
Date: November 9, 2025, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I won’t comment my thoughts on the penalty decision.
But for me Robertson is not interfering. If he was standing in
the line of vision of the goalkeeper then the decision is
correct.
In terms of the law
A player will be penalised if
- Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the
ball by clearly obstructing the opponents line of vision
- Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this
action impacts an opponent
- Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability
of an opponent to play the ball.
Robertson was not preventing the keeper from saving the shot. He
was not in the line of vision. He did not make an attempt to
play, much rather getting out of the way. The only one that is
remotely close is the last point but I don’t think Robertson and
his actions were obviously impacting the goalkeeper’s ability to
play the ball.
#Post#: 97346--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Man City v Liverpool
DIR By: olliebcafc
Date: November 9, 2025, 11:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dean kept mentioning the goal area, is that a consideration
because I can’t find it anywhere, only the opposite:
“If an attacking player remains stationary between the goalposts
and inside the goal as the ball enters the goal, a goal must be
awarded unless the player commits an offside offence or a Law 12
offence, in which case play is restarted with an indirect or
direct free kick.”
#Post#: 97349--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Man City v Liverpool
DIR By: Leggy
Date: November 9, 2025, 12:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As Dale Johnson (sort of) said on the BBC, if the player had to
duck he was clearly obstructing the line of the ball and
impeding the goal-keeper's view of it.
I do not think that the keeper was getting to the ball, but the
original offside decision was reasonable.
Liverpool got the rough end of a few decisions today, but they
were far worse than any of the match officials - so probably
better to get them all out of the way in one go.
#Post#: 97351--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Man City v Liverpool
DIR By: Joecphillips
Date: November 9, 2025, 1:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Leggy link ---
>
> As Dale Johnson (sort of) said on the BBC, if the player had
to duck he was clearly obstructing the line of the ball and
impeding the goal-keeper's view of it.
>
> I do not think that the keeper was getting to the ball, but
the original offside decision was reasonable.
>
> Liverpool got the rough end of a few decisions today, but they
were far worse than any of the match officials - so probably
better to get them all out of the way in one go.
>
--- End Quote ---
While the decision i think was reasonable the first part is just
wrong
#Post#: 97364--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Man City v Liverpool
DIR By: TA_Ref
Date: November 10, 2025, 7:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Poor from Arne Slot to say in the post match press that someone
showed him that ‘the same referee allowed a very similar goal
for Man City in the Wolves v Man City game last season’.
Firstly, he needs to get his facts right.
The same referee DISALLOWED both goals on field after
consultation with the respective AR’s.
The only difference is that VAR Stuart Attwell recommended an
OFR in the Wolves game. Michael Oliver did not.
I will agree with him that the decision was harsh but to bring
up a referee decision from a previous season and especially to
critique Chris Kavanagh saying he allowed one and disallowed the
other is quite frankly ludicrous. As I said above, Kavanagh
disallowed both goals on field. One VAR intervened, the other
didn’t.
This screams arrogance from Slot and trying to bring a referee
into disrepute. Should get a hefty fine for me.
#Post#: 97365--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Man City v Liverpool
DIR By: Failed Ref
Date: November 10, 2025, 10:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Kavanagh is an excellent referee. I am not sure what input he
had in disallowing the goal, and by that I mean what he could
see in terms of whether Robertson was blocking the goalkeeper"s
view. The AR had no option but to flag offside as Robertson was
clearly offside and even ducked which to me would suggest he was
obscuring the keeper's view.
So on field decision is to disallow the goal, a reasonable
decision. As Dermott Gallagher said this morning, there are no
hard and fast rules in this situation. It is not a clear and
obvious error, and being subjective, you are risking
re-refereeing the game.
For me, Robertson was too slow getting out of the 6 yard box. If
he wants to block the keeper then fine but if the defence move
out he has to move out. He was too slow and bears some
responsibility for the goal being chalked off.
#Post#: 97379--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Man City v Liverpool
DIR By: Leggy
Date: November 10, 2025, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Joecphillips link ---
>
> [quote author=Leggy link=topic=7396.msg97349#msg97349
date=1762714661]
> As Dale Johnson (sort of) said on the BBC, if the player had
to duck he was clearly obstructing the line of the ball and
impeding the goal-keeper's view of it.
>
> I do not think that the keeper was getting to the ball, but
the original offside decision was reasonable.
>
> Liverpool got the rough end of a few decisions today, but they
were far worse than any of the match officials - so probably
better to get them all out of the way in one go.
>
--- End Quote ---
While the decision i think was reasonable the first part is just
wrong
[/quote]
If Robertson had not moved the ball would have hit him (and that
would have saved everyone a lot of bother!). If he has to move
to get out of the way of the ball and he is in the goal-area
(and within the width of the goal-posts) then there is a high
probability that he is impeding the goal-keeper's view of the
ball.
Given that set of circumstances, the Referee and his active AR
would have probably had a chat which led to the flag being
raised and the goal disallowed. VAR is really not going to
intervene.
Slot comes out with no credit. If he wants to blame the match
officials and (incorrectly) cite a fixture from history then
that is is choice. I would suggest, however, that he focuses
his energies on fixing his mis-firing team. Liverpool did not
lose because of a refereeing decision.
#Post#: 97380--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Man City v Liverpool
DIR By: Semi Retired
Date: November 10, 2025, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Failed Ref link ---
>
> Kavanagh is an excellent referee. I am not sure what input he
had in disallowing the goal, and by that I mean what he could
see in terms of whether Robertson was blocking the goalkeeper"s
view. The AR had no option but to flag offside as Robertson was
clearly offside and even ducked which to me would suggest he was
obscuring the keeper's view.
> So on field decision is to disallow the goal, a reasonable
decision. As Dermott Gallagher said this morning, there are no
hard and fast rules in this situation. It is not a clear and
obvious error, and being subjective, you are risking
re-refereeing the game.
> For me, Robertson was too slow getting out of the 6 yard box.
If he wants to block the keeper then fine but if the defence
move out he has to move out. He was too slow and bears some
responsibility for the goal being chalked off.
>
--- End Quote ---
Exactly this. Robertson is clearly in an offside position. He
ducks out of the way of the ball.
Overall I think it’s a slightly harsh call, but a perfectly
reasonable one for the on field officials to make, and comes
into the “is it actually an obvious error?” Camp.
For what it’s worth I don’t think it’s an offside offence but I
also don’t think it’s a clear and obvious error. He’s so close
to the keeper, and ducks out of the way of the ball, so there
are definite arguments he could have been in the keeper’s sight.
#Post#: 97381--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Man City v Liverpool
DIR By: TA_Ref
Date: November 10, 2025, 11:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully we get this incident on the Mic’d up show tomorrow
evening.
Not because I want to hear an explanation from Howard Webb but
more to listen to the consultation between Kavanagh and Stuart
Burt. Only then will we know what was fed back to Michael Oliver
and whether Oliver was correct to not intervene. Then we can
decide whether what Kavanagh and Burt said was clearly and
obviously wrong - and my opinion is that they weren’t. It still
feels harsh but no intervention probably correct.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page