Ref Watch

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It wasn't a player shown the red card.

So? Has there ever been an example?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

We had 5 attackers bearing town on their back 3. A single pass splits that defence and we'd have been in on goal.

Nonsense. It was a bog standard slow attack that had hardlt begun.

I don’t know how long it takes you to get over a result, but I hope you can soon.

 

[levets]

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.

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

 

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

I thought he was ok to be honest for the most part. It was a tough game to ref that.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

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

Maybe so, but playing on and returning to a red card never happens, whether it is in the laws of the game or not.

 

[Paladin]

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 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.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Bet he's had plenty of pats on the back at pigmol today.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

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.

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.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Maybe so, but playing on and returning to a red card never happens, whether it is in the laws of the game or not.

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. This is to avoid disadvantaging one team or the other (I even appearing to do so, as is the case with most laws—and the implementation of laws—of the game).

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 reasonable person can argue it *didn’t* disadvantage City and advantage Liverpool in that instance.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

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.

I think it will be the severity of what Klopp has said and the assistant’s reaction more than a mistake by Taylor.

A flash point off the ball tends to stop play whenever they happen, red card or not.