Ref Watch

[RobinHood]

Only just noticed back on the highlights he stops the game with us on the attack and Liverpool scrambling back to send off Klopp.

Bizarre.

Yes. Pissed me off, no end.

 

[Edward Deadwood]

Anthony Clear Patsy

 

[Chi-town blues]

Var killed this beautiful game . Endless possibilities to over turn results.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Because referees are instructed to never allow play to go on and go back to issue a red card. They’re told it must be issued as soon as they’re aware a red card offence has been committed.

Where in Law 12 does it say this, because I'm struggling to find it?

 

[Blu3m00n91]

The way the game flowed was helped by the ref letting stuff go which made the game a lot better/quicker. However once you’ve set that tone you have to see it through. Clear as day he’s dropped his arse when they’ve gone to the screen. He saw it in real time and played on

 

[Paladin]

Because referees are instructed to never allow play to go on and go back to issue a red card. They’re told it must be issued as soon as they’re aware a red card offence has been committed.

That's not correct.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

That's not correct.

That's what I though.

If the referee's are 'instructed' otherwise then it flies in the face of the LOTG, and they might as well just admit they are making it up as they go along.

 

[andyhinch]

Because referees are instructed to never allow play to go on and go back to issue a red card. They’re told it must be issued as soon as they’re aware a red card offence has been committed.

Could you show where it says that ?

 

[cleavers]

Because referees are instructed to never allow play to go on and go back to issue a red card. They’re told it must be issued as soon as they’re aware a red card offence has been committed.

For players, perhaps, because it gives the offending team a (brief) advantage, but coaches, what difference would it make waiting till the ball is out of play.

I don't think I've ever seen a game stopped to send a coach off.

 

[Roachy]

Var killed this beautiful game . Endless possibilities to over turn results.

More easy to manipulate than the British public.

 

[56Blueyears]

How was this not seen?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

View attachment 58401
How was this not seen?

Actual still image from Stockley Park...

 

[SatOnTheWall]

View attachment 58401
How was this not seen?

I think it probably was.

 

[Stephen230]

Where in Law 12 does it say this, because I'm struggling to find it?

You won’t because it’s not part of the laws of the game. It’s advice/ instruction not a point of law.

If City were threatening the goal, I’d guess he would probably have used some common sense and let it go a few seconds to see what occurred. But the ball was a few feet from the touchline, not far into the Liverpool half, with just about all Liverpool players behind the ball. So this “stopping a City attack” is pushing it a bit anyway.

 

[Stephen230]

Could you show where it says that ?

I will try and find it. I had a copy of the info sent out to referees a couple of years ago, that they get sent at the start of every season, telling them of law changes and any changes in how they were expected to interpret them. It wasn’t specific to sending managers off. Just issuing straight red cards in general.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

View attachment 58401
How was this not seen?

I’m not convinced one way or the other going off what I’ve seen in real time, but it’s hard to see how that hasn’t touched his arm. Like the Haaland shirt tug I’m sure if it was slowed down & shown from different angles it could look more definitive, there’s shadows on the pitch from the players but none on the ball which suggests close contact

 

[5 Hit Gibbon]

View attachment 58401
How was this not seen?

Weird isn't it? Perhaps the VAR was on the blink again!

 

[JewelZee]

That's what I though.

If the referee's are 'instructed' otherwise then it flies in the face of the LOTG, and they might as well just admit they are making it up as they go along.

100%.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

You won’t because it’s not part of the laws of the game. It’s advice/ instruction not a point of law.

If this indeed is the case then it is yet another 'rule' that can be applied SUBJECTIVELY with ZERO accountability.

 

[Paladin]

You won’t because it’s not part of the laws of the game. It’s advice/ instruction not a point of law.

If City were threatening the goal, I’d guess he would probably have used some common sense and let it go a few seconds to see what occurred. But the ball was a few feet from the touchline, not far into the Liverpool half, with just about all Liverpool players behind the ball. So this “stopping a City attack” is pushing it a bit anyway.

The advice to referees isn't allowed to change how they apply the written LOTG. They are intended as guidelines for how to deal with certain situations.

The LOTG clearly says you can apply an advantage and then go back and punish a red card offence when the ball is next out of play. This is what should have happened yesterday, and the clarifying guidelines do not change this.

You could sense the bewilderment when Taylor stopped play for no apparent reason, then ran over to flash the red card at Klopp. It should not have happened. I doubt if anyone will be putting the question to Taylor, or Walton, or Gallagher though.