That’s a bad analogy. If you shoot a gun at someone you shouldn’t escape punishment because you missed. The booking should be for a cynical attempt to thwart an attack. Which should be punished whether or not that attempt to stop the player fails. And that’s been the way it was always referee’d. So bizarre to think that was a problem that needed fixing.
Of course you can. The intent is to stop the attack and they should be penalised for it - you shouldn’t get a free hit because your attempt to cheat didn’t work the first time.
Yup. Or infuriating. Probably infuriating.
Interesting yes. But as it is not live, I'm not hoping for to much. We will see.
Agreed.
To be fair the commentators can hear the conversation so I doubt there’s any shenanigans going on
Yeah, mens rea is the legal term- 'the guilty mind'. It means that part of what is punished in any crime is the intention.
Can they?!
Makes zero sense to me. The intent is there to stop the attack. Just because the challenge may be too laboured and the opposition can escape it, doesn't make it ok.
Yep, Gary has said it on commentary many times
I'm not saying that it is. Just that we need to hear this during games. I don't want any edited version like game highlights.
Yeah, I think it’s how they know what’s being reviewed. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard Gary say it 1m times and he even sort of repeats what’s being said.
I can’t find Gary quotes now because of the Webb spam but I found this
The law doesn’t say that attempting to stop an attack is a yellow card. The law says that actually stopping a promising attack is a yellow card. Previously, a player who tackled an opponent and didn’t stop a promising attack was then given a yellow card for stopping an attack that was never stopped. How can that make more sense to you than this revision?
The law only penalises the successful attempt at stopping a promising attack with a yellow card, so you’d have to ignore the laws of the game for your opinion to be true. Not that that’s unheard of for PL refs, but still.
Like I’ve said to the other posters, the law only mentions it being a yellow if a promising attack is stopped. And like I posted above, they even made a specific point of it not being a yellow if the referee gives advantage and deems that the promising attack was not stopped. Still everyone “feels” like Casemiro should’ve had a red despite the rules being very clear on why it correctly wasn’t given. It’s the same as when we got punished for scoring a goal that was technically lawful because facts didn’t matter and everyone “felt” it was wrong which is more important than the actual laws of the game. Then that seeps into the media and the narrative is that we’re lucky with refs because Casemiro wasn’t sent off.
But just like attempted murder is a different crime from murder that carries a different punishment, attempted stopping of a promising attack is a different rule which isn’t punished with a yellow card.
That could mean he found out after. Not that he listened live. I’ll trust you on this one but I do have some reservations.
Where does this “promising attack” thing come from? I’m talking about a foul which, on its own merits, is worthy of a yellow. A blatant shirt pull or nasty tackle. Nothing to do with the promise of the attack it interrupts. It seems insane to me that these could go unpunished just because the team in possession doesn’t lose the ball and the referee decides to lallow the attacking team play on without stopping play to book someone. The way this always used to be referee’d was to book the offending player at the next natural break in play. Changing the rules to prevent this seems as unnecessary as it is dumb.
Ah, we’re talking about different things then. A tackle that’s reckless or careless etc will be given a yellow as normal. But there’s another law that says that stopping a promising attack is a yellow, also dubbed the tactical foul (that’s the law people are referring to when they say that Casemiro should’ve had a red against Brighton to indicate how lucky we are with refs). The tweet that I posted about the clarification refers to that law. But even then, there’s nothing saying that a shirt pull is automatically a yellow, so for a yellow to be shown for just the shirt pull itself it needs to be a “brutal” shirt pull (like clotheslining an opponent while holding the neck of the shirt) if it doesn’t stop a promising attack. Usually the cynical fouls like blatant trips and shirt pulls as teams are countering are yellows due to stopping promising attacks, and previously a player could be booked even if the attack went on, but shouldn’t be now if the ref’s given an advantage.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It’s going to be a handpicked handful of completely uncontroversial decisions. Pure PR.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What happened to tactical fouling? City do it all the time, yet they are hardly ever penalised because they do it so high up the pitch. It makes no sense. Nowhere does it say that tactical fouls only apply this and that many yards from goal.
This ones pretty funny... but not for for the ref, Zinchenko... Offside offside offside, and when he overturns it saying 'Exactly well done'... because he still thinks it's offside was why it was overturned, ending with sarcastic clap too
Each game needs its own VAR team. It won't work otherwise.
Thanks. I find it wierd that they allow commentators but not fans to hear and see it. I guess it is so they can talk about it through the game (tv contracts between TheFA and them?) but that don't do much for us.
