Ref Watch

[Bluearmy]

I take issue with you on the Wolves game, we had a clear cut penalty ignored in the first half. For me the contentious penalty made up for the officials balls-up in the first half, perhaps that was praying on his mind?

I dont disagree with you about the pen in the first half, i was however replying to a point about us getting no decisions in our favour.

 

[Bluearmy]

Unfortunately no. He was some way off the ball.

Agreed. Caught him around knee height. As others have said with the current laws Stones is probably a red, fair enough. But how then is a higher tackle which actually caused a deep gash to Laportes thigh not being dealt with the same way. Comical

 

[Cassandra]

The ball not being there had no relevance according to the current law

So, how do you decide who came late to the challenge? In this case I would say neither player engineered the contact, both had intended playing the ball and were committed to that course of action so did Fraser foul Ederson or did Ederson foul Fraser and what criteria do you use to determine that?

Fraser's spectacular fall made me think when I first saw it that it was a penalty but when I analysed it I couldn't give a concrete reason why it should be.

 

[Bluearmy]

So, how do you decide who came late to the challenge? In this case I would say neither player engineered the contact, both had intended playing the ball and were committed to that course of action so did Fraser foul Ederson or did Ederson foul Fraser and what criteria do you use to determine that?

Fraser's spectacular fall made me think when I first saw it that it was a penalty but when I analysed it I couldn't give a concrete reason why it should be.

Ederson sliding into Fraser the differentiator. He engineered the contact. Fraser did nothing other than be running in the vicinity of the ball.

Intent has zero bearing on anything according to the current laws. There was no spectacular fall, he got cleaned out. Granted, after Cancelo had got to the ball first (which again has no bearing on whether a foul occurred)

 

[swinton blue]

Agreed. Caught him around knee height. As others have said with the current laws Stones is probably a red, fair enough. But how then is a higher tackle which actually caused a deep gash to Laportes thigh not being dealt with the same way. Comical

I know it might sound daft but on the way back from Southampton I said to my mate the reason they didn't give it was because it was too high.
My thinking behind it. If it was on the shin or knee the ref defo gives a red card as you could easily break a leg. On the thigh you would probably never break a leg hence why refs probably think its not as bad as knee or shin high.
That's the only reason I can think why the ref wouldn't give a red

 

[Cassandra]

Ederson sliding into Fraser the differentiator. He engineered the contact. Fraser did nothing other than be running in the vicinity of the ball.

Intent has zero bearing on anything according to the current laws. There was no spectacular fall, he got cleaned out. Granted, after Cancelo had got to the ball first (which again has no bearing on whether a foul occurred)

Seems to me there is some inconsistency in your argument. "He (Ederson) engineered the contact" vs "Intent has zero bearing on anything according to the current laws."
When Cancello took the ball Ederson was already on the way down to intercept the ball; he couldn't reverse that movement - Fraser was on both feet and had more opportunity to avoid the collision - which would have taken him more in the direction of the ball - he was going nowhere.

 

[rabby]

I know it might sound daft but on the way back from Southampton I said to my mate the reason they didn't give it was because it was too high.
My thinking behind it. If it was on the shin or knee the ref defo gives a red card as you could easily break a leg. On the thigh you would probably never break a leg hence why refs probably think its not as bad as knee or shin high.
That's the only reason I can think why the ref wouldn't give a red

Maybe Mane shouldn't have been sent off against us after all then ; )

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Ederson sliding into Fraser the differentiator. He engineered the contact. Fraser did nothing other than be running in the vicinity of the ball.

Intent has zero bearing on anything according to the current laws. There was no spectacular fall, he got cleaned out. Granted, after Cancelo had got to the ball first (which again has no bearing on whether a foul occurred)

Off the ball contact happens in every game all the time and the ref ignores it, unless it is violent conduct or retaliation, Fraser had the option to jump over Ederson but gambled on Cancelo leaving the ball.

 

[Norbiton]

Ederson sliding into Fraser the differentiator. He engineered the contact. Fraser did nothing other than be running in the vicinity of the ball.

Intent has zero bearing on anything according to the current laws. There was no spectacular fall, he got cleaned out. Granted, after Cancelo had got to the ball first (which again has no bearing on whether a foul occurred)

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a free kick/penalty given when another player has run between the supposed offender and victim and come away with the ball. Unless there’s very obvious deliberate contact between the players after that I don’t see how it could possibly be a foul.

 

[Sheik Battle and Goal]

Agreed. Caught him around knee height. As others have said with the current laws Stones is probably a red, fair enough. But how then is a higher tackle which actually caused a deep gash to Laportes thigh not being dealt with the same way. Comical

I think Graeme Souness said that the officials just make it up as they go along which sums it up perfectly.