Why wasn’t TAA sent off?

Bubz27

No I won’t change your tag line
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
21,502
No attempt at the ball, clear red that is.
 

KwokSF

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
76
Pretty proud of the fact I actually know what DOGSO means
 

GoldanoGraham

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,270
Too many Liverpool fanboys at the FA these days and the bias works it way down......
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
I said the same thing. I think the check was for a red, not to overturn
 

Jericholyte2

Full Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
3,536
Whilst, even as a United fan, it’s a disgraceful call, if the ref is certain it’s a pen then it has to be a red card surely.
 

Bubz27

No I won’t change your tag line
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
21,502
He slid to block the initial shot so there is an attempt to play the ball. Being late and missing it doesn’t change what he attempted.
Are you saying because he tried to play the ball on a previous shot, it's okay? Wonder how wide that margin can be spread in future.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
49,672
Location
W.Yorks
He tried to block the shot, missed, and then committed the foul. It was a different movement. That’s why it was a foul.

For me its part of that same action to block the ball

He was still sliding when contact was made.


Nailed on penalty. Not DCL's problem if the contact was accidental, it still stopped him from getting to the ball.
As this tweet shows, He never stops sliding
 

DWelbz19

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
33,738
Wondered the same. Though with his performances, I think a red card would’ve been advantage Liverpool for their next game
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
34,063

ESPN VAR guy agrees.

Though I guess you could argue that as he doesn't stop moving it's part of the attempt to win the ball?
 

limerickcitykid

There once was a kid from Toronto...
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
14,051
Location
East end / Oot and aboot
He tried to block the shot, missed, and then committed the foul. It was a different movement. That’s why it was a foul.
He tried to block the shot and immediately tripped DCL. He was literally still sliding when DCL ran into him a millisecond later. There is no different movements.

It’s a foul because he slid across missing the block and getting the man. It’s not a red because he was attempting to block.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
Are you saying because he tried to play the ball on a previous shot, it's okay? Wonder how wide that margin can be spread in future.
Players have had pens given against them with trailing legs etc that had no intention of making a tackle.
The fact it stopped a tap in makes it a stonewaller imo
 

Maureen-yo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2016
Messages
801
Location
London
He tried to block the shot and immediately tripped DCL. He was literally still sliding when DCL ran into him a millisecond later. There is no different movements.

It’s a foul because he slid across missing the block and getting the man. It’s not a red because he was attempting to block.
This makes sense actually.
 

Brightonian

Full Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
14,090
Location
Juanderlust
I've got to be honest, I'm not sure it's a foul. Calvert-Lewin falling over TAA's head can't be classed as a foul. Yes, there's a little flick with his foot by TAA after that (which is an absolutely incomprehensible thing to do for a supposedly top defender) but by then DCL is already falling and it had no impact on him whatsoever. It's not a terrible decision but I wouldn't have given it myself, and I'd be aggrieved if that was given against us.

Regardless, the thread is correct that if you give the penalty you have to give the red, as it's definitely a clear scoring opportunity.

And once again, the scousers were absolutely going to lose this game anyway, so its typically rich to try and blame the defeat on the ref.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,348
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
For me its part of that same action to block the ball



As this tweet shows, He never stops sliding
It’s not the slide that’s the problem. It’s the fact he sits up at the exact moment DCL is trying to vault over him. That’s why he trips him. That’s the foul. Not deliberate but not an attempt to play the ball either.
 

DannyCAFC

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
2,409
Supports
Charlton Athletic
That is never a red. He slid to block the initial shot, momentum meant he was in the way of the rebound. Calvert-Lewin basically trampled over him.

I agree it has to be a pen because if he isn't there obstructing the path for Calvert-Lewin to the ball then he definitely taps in the rebound. But there was no intention there at all.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
The previous shot came less than a second before the foul, so yes. Youre acting like it happened 10 seconds earlier.
But he wasnt playing the ball that gave away the pen. Its a seperate incident and scenario. Hes a play behind the action.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
49,672
Location
W.Yorks
It’s not the slide that’s the problem. It’s the fact he sits up at the exact moment DCL is trying to vault over him. That’s why he trips him. That’s the foul. Not deliberate but not an attempt to play the ball either.
I don't think the ref has given it for the head lift, but because of the slide. He sees the slide as the obstruction.

If it's for the head then it should be a red card, but I don't think that's what it is because he is still in motion.
 

Oranges038

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
11,781
Watched It again a few times, initially thought it was soft.

He slides in to make the block, but lifts his leg a second time to take DCL down.

Should have been a red.
 

James Peril

New Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2016
Messages
3,576
If that happens against United, 99.99% of the above poster would say it’s not a penalty and that DCL runs into the defender and that it’s a new situation after the initial shot
 

limerickcitykid

There once was a kid from Toronto...
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
14,051
Location
East end / Oot and aboot
I've got to be honest, I'm not sure it's a foul. Calvert-Lewin falling over TAA's head can't be classed as a foul. Yes, there's a little flick with his foot by TAA after that (which is an absolutely incomprehensible thing to do for a supposedly top defender) but by then DCL is already falling and it had no impact on him whatsoever. It's not a terrible decision but I wouldn't have given it myself, and I'd be aggrieved if that was given against us.

Regardless, the thread is correct that if you give the penalty you have to give the red, as it's definitely a clear scoring opportunity.

And once again, the scousers were absolutely going to lose this game anyway, so its typically rich to try and blame the defeat on the ref.
DCL falling over a defender who has slid straight into his path is definitely classed as a foul.

The thread is wrong, stopping a clear scoring opportunity isn’t an automatic red. TAA tried to play the ball so it isn’t a red.
 

Bubz27

No I won’t change your tag line
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
21,502
The previous shot came less than a second before the foul, so yes. Youre acting like it happened 10 seconds earlier.
I'm not acting like anything.

I'm saying there were two parts to it. The first shot and DCL going for the tap in. Just because TAA hadn't reacted to the second one, it doesn't mean he isn't impeding DCL whilst not trying to play the ball.
 

Bubz27

No I won’t change your tag line
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
21,502
If that happens against United, 99.99% of the above poster would say it’s not a penalty and that DCL runs into the defender and that it’s a new situation after the initial shot
But it didn't so I couldn't care less. It happened against Liverpool which makes it hilarious.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,348
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
I don't think the ref has given it for the head lift, but because of the slide. He sees the slide as the obstruction.

If it's for the head then it should be a red card, but I don't think that's what it is because he is still in motion.
Ok, look at it another way. DCL had two goal-scoring opportunities. The shot saved by Allison, which TAA unsuccessfully tried to block. Then another chance from the rebound. It was this second opportunity that was denied by a Liverpool defender who - unlike DCL - was not making any attempt to play the ball. DOGOS. Red card.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
49,672
Location
W.Yorks
I'm such a fecking nerd that I find the discussion around this pen on all sides fascinating /interesting

It's Saturday night... I need a fecking life.
 

limerickcitykid

There once was a kid from Toronto...
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
14,051
Location
East end / Oot and aboot
But he wasnt playing the ball that gave away the pen. Its a seperate incident and scenario. Hes a play behind the action.
He’s literally still sliding, there are no separate incidents within milliseconds of the same slide tackle.

He genuinely attempted to block the shot, it isn’t a red. He missed and tripped the attacker, it is a penalty. It’s fairly simple.
 

Bubz27

No I won’t change your tag line
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
21,502
Players have had pens given against them with trailing legs etc that had no intention of making a tackle.
The fact it stopped a tap in makes it a stonewaller imo
Exactly. TAA is still on the first action. DCL is making another attempt. Surely it's more relevant what the attacker is doing in that instance?
 

mav_9me

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
12,400
But he wasnt playing the ball that gave away the pen. Its a seperate incident and scenario. Hes a play behind the action.
I had the same opinion as you. But I can see the argument that the foul was part of the same slide. I disagree with that but at least that's a reasonable explanation.
 

limerickcitykid

There once was a kid from Toronto...
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
14,051
Location
East end / Oot and aboot
I'm not acting like anything.

I'm saying there were two parts to it. The first shot and DCL going for the tap in. Just because TAA hadn't reacted to the second one, it doesn't mean he isn't impeding DCL whilst not trying to play the ball.
There are no two parts to it. TAA attempts a slide tackle, he brings down DCL while still sliding. So yes you are acting like something. You don’t analyse slide tackles by the millisecond as different parts.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
49,672
Location
W.Yorks
Ok, look at it another way. DCL had two goal-scoring opportunities. The shot saved by Allison, which TAA unsuccessfully tried to block. Then another chance from the rebound. When he was fouled by a Liverpool defender who was not making any attempt to play the ball. DOGOS. Red card.
Certainly one way of looking at it! I think the refs view is that TAA has made a genuine attempt to block the ball and it is that action that has carried over to second action of impeding DCL's run.

It's a fascinating incident!