The challenge by defender was risky, however PLAY ON is in my opinion an absolutely supportable choice. Replay shows that situation maybe occurred outside the box.
At first glance it looks like very correct decision, however watching the last replay one can have doubts about the real effect of the contact made by opponent.
This argument in any case in my opinion can't be enough for assessing the situation as crucial mistake because it is impossible for referee to detect that.
In such scenario a whistle is the expected (and I think accepted in this case) decision by referee: absolutely zero chances to play the ball, as I commented yesterday live.
A very interesting situation. I think it is impossible to come to a final judgement about what happened. The contact can't be seen live, replay doesn't help us as well.
One must only support referee because he is in the best position (a replay from his point of view would have been excellent for us) to stop even a minimum touch from behind, that can be enough.
I don't see reason for seeing the attacker falling down after his sprint in penalty area. The evidence of this penalty is missing, but without proofs one can't question referee.
It would be interesting to see VAR decision in this case: I think referee would be supported, without replays from further cameras.
Absolutely no penalty and referee was right but simulation would have been better decision than PLAY ON. Despite of a touch by defender (arm on the back), this was a clear attempt to deceive the officials.
Interesting to see that referee makes some gestures, it seems as he wants to whistle something in favor of defending team (either simulation or a possible handball committeed by attacker once on the grounf).
At the end he decides to play on.
Absolutely correct decision and this is very interesting because despite of having played the ball, the nature of this tackle was definitely reckless, if you watch the live sequence you have the feeling of a certain unnecessary force used.
Well done by referee, in the last second of the game, with a YC for home-team, when they were winning 4-0. Always expect the unexpected before making final whistle, one could say.
To sum up, I think that this performance was rather a good one. Absolutely no problems about disciplinary control, but under this point of view one must say game was very fair.
You can argue about the choices made by referee regarding the crucial incidents in penalty areas, but I don't think that you will find very clear mistakes. When there are such tricky situations to be assessed, if you can support referee, this is always the best option.
It will be interesting to see how Guida will continue his "advanture" as Category 1 referee in this group stage. CL debut could be possible, but I would wait and I would appoint him maybe in a sonorous EL game before that, to make a final test.
LAW 5 - THE REFEREE BLOG REPORTER:
CHEFREN
LAW 5 - THE REFEREE BLOG REPORTER:
CHEFREN
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for writing a comment on our blog!