Yeah, none of which were relevant to yesterday, but do allow us to shout conspiracy.
If this indeed is the case then it is yet another 'rule' that can be applied SUBJECTIVELY with ZERO accountability.
Not really. As I said, it wasn’t talking specifically about managers. More players. Common sense really. If you’re allowing play to continue pending a red card, you’re effectively allowing a player who shouldn’t be on the pitch to continue taking part in the game.
What does it add to the conversation? The debate is moot as the case is closed for everyone.So none of the instances where LFC got away with blatantly wrong refereeing decisions are not relevant to a discussion about LFC getting away with blatantly wrong refereeing decisions?
Got it.
That’s a little OTT, there wasn’t a goal scoring opportunity, we’d just moved towards the touchline in their final third with defenders in situ.Yes, but only momentarily, in order to allow a promising attack to continue. The LOTG specifically says advantage should be applied it there is a goal scoring opportunity, which there was yesterday.
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.
Incorrect Stephen.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.
Has there ever been an advantage played when a red card has needed to be shown? (Without VAR’s instruction)Incorrect Stephen.
We had 5 attackers bearing town on their back 3. A single pass splits that defence and we'd have been in on goal.That’s a little OTT, there wasn’t a goal scoring opportunity, we’d just moved towards the touchline in their final third with defenders in situ.
It wasn't a player shown the red card.Has there ever been an advantage played when a red card has needed to be shown? (Without VAR’s instruction)
I can’t think of one example.
So? Has there ever been an example?It wasn't a player shown the red card.
Nonsense. It was a bog standard slow attack that had hardlt begun.We had 5 attackers bearing town on their back 3. A single pass splits that defence and we'd have been in on goal.
No idea, but it’s incorrect to suggest that he ref is ‘instructed’ to stop the game immediately to issue a red card. I was a referee and this was never the caseHas there ever been an advantage played when a red card has needed to be shown? (Without VAR’s instruction)
I can’t think of one example.
Maybe so, but playing on and returning to a red card never happens, whether it is in the laws of the game or not.No idea, but it’s incorrect to suggest that he ref is ‘instructed’ to stop the game immediately to issue a red card. I was a referee and this was never the case
It isn't OTT. There are very few circumstances that would require any game to be stopped for the referee to administer a punishment to a team official. Dissent, or verbal abuse doesn't even go near one of the requirements.That’s a little OTT, there wasn’t a goal scoring opportunity, we’d just moved towards the touchline in their final third with defenders in situ.
Ok mate, we disagree. Games are always stopped by refs to send people off. This is why there are no examples of refs going back to send people off after the game has continued.It isn't OTT. There are very few circumstances that would require any game to be stopped for the referee to administer a punishment to a team official. Dissent, or verbal abuse doesn't even go near one of the requirements.
The law, as directly quoted above, says that the game should normally be stopped for serious foul play or violent conduct to be dealt with, but even then, advantage can be applied if there is a goal scoring opportunity.
Whether or not that phase of play could be classed as a true goal scoring opportunity, it does not alter the fact that Taylor prevented a City attack, and it doesn't change the fact that he applied the LOTG incorrectly.
For an offence by a player on the pitch.Maybe so, but playing on and returning to a red card never happens, whether it is in the laws of the game or not.
I think it will be the severity of what Klopp has said and the assistant’s reaction more than a mistake by Taylor.For an offence by a player on the pitch.
There is very little precedent for stopping play by the attacking team (in the attacking third no less) for the purpose of issuing a red card against the manager of the defending team on the touch line.
In the few instances of a manager being sent off I can recall across leagues, the referee treated it the same way as a non-head injury and waited for the ball to be in an obviously neutral state before stopping play to issue a red card.
I am not saying it was necessarily intentionally meant to disadvantage City; in fact, I think this was actually an example of pure incompetence. It was a mistake by Taylor that ended up disadvantaging City.
And that is absolutely fair game to criticise, as no one can argue it *didn’t* disadvantage City and advantage Liverpool in that situation.