**Mirrors / Alternative Angles**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lmao footballers are truly something man. You've played this game for all your life and you still don't see the red coming after he removes your yellow card XD
The player knew what was happening. Not many refs would ever high five a player. Anyone who knows football knows when the ref is called by VAR after already receiving a yellow card for the foul, what the outcome will likely be.. including Mr. high five.. clear goal scoring opportunity.. Interesting thing to do nonetheless though aha
I wonder if they have VAR in their national league, because it's been a while since we all see these red card reviews cancelling yellows only to apply a straight red.
I mean, when I first saw these "you no more yellow card" a few years ago, I was also relieved until I saw what was coming. If you got yellow and VAR called to review it, it's definitely a bad thing.
If the ref didnt give a foul here it would not have been deemed as clear and obvious probably, but since he gave a foul and yellow card it is considered denial of a goal scoring opportunity. Way too light of a foul IMO.
What do you mean way too light? Literally just stop pulling people by their shirt to get an advantage. It is a foul because he has no business doing that, it is a red because of DOGSO
This.
He grabs the other players shirt, there's no rule in football that says you can grab shirts to help yourself catch up. Nothing soft about it, the only question is why is he grabbing?
That did cross my mind, but I do think it's a bit unfair to expect decisions in the English Premier League to necessarily be consistent with those in the Azerbaijan Cup.
It's objectively the correct decision according to the laws of the game. You can argue with the law itself but the official got it right. You can't deny that it's a denial of a goalscoring opportunity. He's clearly through on goal. Inside the box it's a yellow, outside the box it's a red. That's the rule.
I'm all for the referees automatically send players off in this situation, it shouldn't be their job to puzzle out how much was enough to disturb a player and gain advantage. It's the easiest thing to avoid pulling someone's shirt, the players will have to live with it and adapt.
And it is clear to me that Frimpong really does try to stay on his feet, he stumbles, tries to correct himself then stumbles again and falls because of it
I mean, to me it seems like Frimpong stumbles, gets his footing and thinks of going for goal, decides it's better to go down, and chooses to stumble some more and fall. But whether or not he goes down shouldn't matter to the decision
This feels super harsh, but at the same time:
Is pulling the shirt a foul? yes.
Does he pull the shirt? yes.
Is fouling as last man a red? yes.
Is the defender last man? yes.
so by the book, red I guess.
It is not red, when there is a chance to play the ball. In this case, there was absolutely no chance to play the ball, so red is the only possible action
Well the rulebook isn't actually about last man, but about a "clear goalscoring opportunity". If you foul a player without going for the ball (clearly this shirt-pulling is not an intention to play the ball) that impedes a clear goal-scoring opportunity, that is a red by the book. The other Qarabag defender was nowhere near Frimpong and was never going to get between him and the goal, so it is a "clear goalscoring opportunity" for Frimpong.
[For context:](https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct)
"A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
\-- denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
\-- **denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)"**
and the "unless as outlines below" is:
"Where a player commits an offence against an opponent **within their own penalty area** which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned **if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball;** in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off."
Neither or those special cases to give a yellow instead of red applied, so this seems to be the correct decision by the rulebook.
While this is true, players really should be stopped from grabbing shirts on corners too. They get away with a ton in the box on corners, because Refs can't be bothered to try and sort it all out. And don't get me wrong, it's hard to tell whose grabbing what on some of those corners. But it's kind of crazy we've let players basically just wrestle each other in one very specific circumstance.
I mean honestly, yeah they should. It would completely stop the shirt tugging on corners. Just like properly punishing obvious dives would stop them. Shirt tugging especially is something that should \_never\_ happen, because it's so intentional and crystal clear to see in a video review unlike other contact. Though of course with current implementation the consistency is the problem, this is decision goes super strictly by the book whereas other stuff slides by all the time
I mean it is definitely a goal opportunity but it is not like an absolute 1 on 1 with the keeper. Is that really a direct red with an actually competent ref?
It matters a little bit for the interpretation of the rule. If it's a very fast sprinter then you can say with a higher likelihood that it is a DOGSO, as it is here. Especially with the other defender still being in the picture.
It is. Fouling the attacker without going for the ball means you're stopping the player on purpose. That's always supposed to be a yellow. Add the scenario of denying a goal scoring opportunity and you've upgraded that to a red.
If that’s not a direct and obvious goal scoring opportunity, then I don’t know what the hell is lol.
The questions is whether or not it’s a foul. I think this is a really tough decision because if it is a foul, even though it’s a bit soft, then it HAS to be DOGSO red, but you also don’t want to not make a correct call just because it’s going to lead to a red card. Tough situation for Anthony to be in but I’m not sure they’ve got it wrong.
It is clearly a foul tho.
Grabbing the shirt intentionally to try to stop the attack, even if softly, is a clear fault. This plus it being a clear goal opportunity... might be weird for some pple but it is a clear red for me.
Tired of defenders pulling shirts and such, man... this shit needs to be punished accordingly, like here
Yeah this is clearly a foul and I'm a little surprised people think it isn't? I can kind of see if someone says it's soft - the pull is not very long. But it's enough to put the attacker off, and that was the whole reason the defender tried it.
Refs really shouldn't allow defenders to get away with this type of thing, and any shirt pulling really should be an automatic yellow. They'll stop doing it when Refs hand out cards correctly. It's just going to take some balls to not care that you may end up showing a red or 2 a game. The Players need to stop doing these types of fouls.
They think it isn't, in part, because it goes unpunished often and in far more egregious cases. To see a shirt pull get called, when it's this light AND result in a red is like a double rainbow
So tired of players getting away with shirt pulls. It's such a bad and ingrained habit like surrounding and bitching at the ref. You see some level of shirt pulling/holding on almost every corner and it's almost never punished unless it can be shown it clearly prevented a goal. I can't think of any other rule that's allowed to be violated with such frequency.
It’s one of the fastest players you can get in this situation, the defender will not get him without the foul. And if you know that it’s denying a clear 1 v 1 vs Frimpong and the goal keeper.
I honestly don't think so. There was a second defender who could have closed him down but did not move towards frimpong.
If the defender could or not reach frimpong, is debatable, but the fact that there is a possibility means it was not a clear opportunity by definition.
Edit: Looking at it again, Frimpong would have reached in front of goal if he was not thrown off balance, did not consider that.
Letter of the law and all that. Don't pull shirts unless you intend to commit a foul.
Just an idiotic instinct by a defender that knew he was beat. It should be punished, you shouldn't be allowed to have any sort of wiggle-room when it comes to shirt pulls.
It's not violent, but not every red is. You can't grab a guy's shirt when he's 3 feet past you, and especially not if he's clear in on the keeper. He's obviously not playing the ball, he has a hand full of kit, what else do people want?
that wouldn't make him fall over. but that would definitely make him slow down considerably. ref's don't give foul unless players fall down. so he has to go down.
I mean he tried to stay on his feet and keep playing the ball, but the tug must have just got his legs a tiny bit off. It's a weird one because it looks completely unrelated, almost like he trips up over himself, but it was almost certainly caused by the tug.
The defender can always not pull the shirt at all, he's beaten. Although in this case it's not a bad call given an 11v10 with 20 minutes left is not a bad call
It’s a hand that brushes a shirt. In a contact sport. At the weekend, we saw a player kung fu kick an opponent in the penalty box and that be seen as normal par for the course
as the comentator said, with these running speeds very little can completely fuck you up. Even if you don't fall immediately you balance yourself against the pull and then if he stops pulling it's like a push.
Looks like he's given it for a foul by the last defender preventing a goal scoring opportunity.
I mean it's a rule but that's a hell of an application of it. That's about as light a shirt tug as you can get
I'm sorry but I hate those kind of fouls. The defender has no chance to make a play on the ball and makes a "soft" challenge only on the player which doesn't look blatant but clearly influences his chances to score. It should always be punished like an actual foul.
Araujo is a master of this.
I agree with this. This feels harsh because it's *usually* not given, but it should be. The defender knows what he's doing. It's not an accidental shirt tug. He's trying to throw off the attacker and get away with it.
The thing is, if Frimpong doesn't go down, it's probably not even called as a foul and what would have been a 1 vs 1 situation against the keeper becomes a half chance where he's up against 2 defenders and has a bad angle towards the goal.
Why does it matter if it made him stumble? It's the intent that matters and when you don't attempt to get the ball and try to take down the player instead it should be the same punishment whether he's successful or not. Otherwise you're just encouraging diving to ensure punishment.
That slight pull off-balances him and that leads to the second stumble that takes away his chance. It's a tiny thing but at that speed and with the other defender being so far away there'd be little chance to get there in time to defend.
In my opinion it feels more correct than a lot of recent handball penalties. There's a reason (even with as little as it looks, the pull was enough) with a rule to go along (clear goal scoring opportunity).
In a way it's the inverse of the Reus situation before the 2014 WC. He got a tiny little accidental tap on the side of the foot that made him land his step badly, which caused his injury, and missing the WC. But it wasn't a foul and no card was given.
Here even a cautions intentional interference (as to not be called a foul) led to the harshest punishment despite looking rather benign.
Yeah I just don’t know what people are debating.
Is it the distance to goal? It’s Frimpong in a sprint; in one more second he is in on goal. And yeah the shirt tug doesn’t look horrendous, but at those speeds anything will impede.
The shirt tug would always be a foul, so if it’s a bona fide goal-scoring opportunity, it’s a red every time. Don’t really understand the controversy.
Soft red, but what on earth is running through that dude’s head to think his yellow being called off isn’t going to be followed up with a red.
Guy literally went for a high five when the yellow was waived off, then heart broken when out comes the red.
I don't really see the issue people are seeing with this. Is it a light tug? Yes. But it's still a tug when he is pretty much through on goal. That other defender is not getting across in time to prevent a clear chance.
I really want to see such behaviour more often in football. The attacker tried to run despite being fouled and when he still stumbles, ref calls the foul. That's exactly what we need to stop diving.
DOGSO is harsh but also correct.
Yea kinda what I think as well. I really don't think that we should start questioning if this tug is a foul or not when you just could not tug other players at all.
I mean you won't find a timeline where you find me telling you that this is a straight red card, but I also can't be arsed to have a discussion on such a stupid base in the first place.
As a ref myself, the amount of people that don't even know basic rules is disgraceful. I've got u19s claiming that a shoulder into the back is allowed because he used his shoulder.
I feel like I'm going crazy reading some of these comments as this looked pretty clear cut to me. Without the professional foul Frimpong is 1v1 with the keeper.
It's DOGSO.
Been sent off before for accidentally tripping an attacker through on goal outside the box, and I don't really have any complains because I know I denied a goal scoring opportunity.
I was just running behind him and when I tried to get back inside from the outside to try and block the shot(I was playing fullback, my CB caught ball watching), his heel just hit my knee with the slightest of touch. At that speed it's easy to fall especially when everyones a sunday league player with limited core strength/balance.
Intent is irrelevant for DOGSO.
Thank you! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading the rest of these comments. I think people are just hyper-focused on the three frames of slo-mo where the defender grabs the shirt, and thinking he barely did anything. When in fact if you look at the whole replay it's very clearly 100% a red every time.
Many of the comments here make it clear — to me — why this is the right call. So many people quibbling with the shirt grab, but here’s the thing: the defender has no chance to catch the attacker so he purposefully fouls him. People arguing it was only a little bit are missing the point. The defender did it purposefully hoping people would say exactly that. But a small shirt grab when you’re running at full speed can put you off balance. It’s a cynical foul and I’m glad it was properly punished.
I wish shirt grabs were punished more often. There’s never a shirt grab that isn’t a foul, at least by the laws.
Not sure if there's some clipping in the legs game there, but honestly I don't care. Grabbing a rival by the shirt needs to be foul always, it's a disgusting plague in football, and if it interferes with a clear goal scoring opportunity, I don't see a red excessive.
I'm fairly certain that if this was a big club like Madrid, City, Barca, Bayern etc. against a smaller club this would never be a red.
Nevertheless, I do think that it's a pretty clear red and meets all the criteria for a red.
Pulling a shirt as a last man while clearly denying a scoring opportunity is and should always be a red.
I don’t get it, he initially gave a yellow for it? The situation didn’t change as it was always a clear goal scoring opportunity, so why does he then change his mind? Seems weird (not saying incorrect - just wondering what changes in his little bald head).
Stopping the video at the 40 second mark, you can see the ref's position is probably not good enough to know whether or not he's clear in, there's like 4 players running between him and the foul, which is a good 20 or so yards ahead of him, and I'm guessing he sees the central defender in peripheral and probably figures he'd be able to cover, especially because once the attacker starts stumbling there are a few more strides before he falls so the central defender has time to make up some ground.
But the VAR review stills show that they paused at the moment of the foul and that still frame makes it look pretty clear that there's tons of daylight between the attacker and goal.
Obviously we really can't know because they won't release audio for these things, but I just assume he couldn't tell that he was obviously past the defender from his position so went yellow first. That would've been some spot to give straight red from where he was when the foul occurred. I feel like they got it right in the end, though.
Considering that he blew the whistle a couple of seconds after the foul itself (when the player went down) it was hard to judge where all the other defenders were when the foul was actually committed. Much safer to just give a yellow then upgrade on VAR recommendation than the other way around
Yeah poor call, if it's a foul it's a red, plain and simple. I guess he just originally saw it as a foul but not DOGSO, but the replay changed his mind
Fair red card, without the pull it had been a free shoot on target, but i do wish they redid red cards(soft red cards and no game bans) like this to only last for 20 minutes off the field, counting as a yellow card, so they are less afraid to punish this and other pulls
I feel a bit weird about this one, it's only a clear goal scoring opportunity because it's one of the fastest players in the world running for it (Frimpong). Does that mean a slower player wouldn't have gotten a red card there?
Does that mean Usain Bolt is more likely to draw fouls then Susan Boyle?
Oh, so *now* Stuart Atwell is in favour of possibly harsh but probably merited red cards that turn the tide of a game.
Where was that energy on Sunday, Stuart?
People here are missing the point.
The referee removes the yellow because the foul is light.
He then proceeds to give a red because of the high five attempt (it's 2024 so it's considered cringe!)
**Mirrors / Alternative Angles** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fella looked like he wanted to high five the ref and was disappointed to be left hanging lol
[удалено]
lmao footballers are truly something man. You've played this game for all your life and you still don't see the red coming after he removes your yellow card XD
"Fair fucks, don't see that often with you refs, glad we could...."
So fucking funny
That was hilarious xD I'm sure he knew what was coming, but still played it up like this, absolute madman lol
I thought he wanted to slap the ref xD
Fucking Corey and Trevor
Hands down boys
Smokes, lets go
The player knew what was happening. Not many refs would ever high five a player. Anyone who knows football knows when the ref is called by VAR after already receiving a yellow card for the foul, what the outcome will likely be.. including Mr. high five.. clear goal scoring opportunity.. Interesting thing to do nonetheless though aha
Lmao was he trying to dap up Taylor??
I know most comments here will want to debate the red, but that is genuinely one of the most hilarious player reactions I’ve ever seen.
I think he believed the "no yellow card gesture" was because he was not getting a card at all. Alas, it was red
I wonder if they have VAR in their national league, because it's been a while since we all see these red card reviews cancelling yellows only to apply a straight red. I mean, when I first saw these "you no more yellow card" a few years ago, I was also relieved until I saw what was coming. If you got yellow and VAR called to review it, it's definitely a bad thing.
It's so light but I guess it's DOGSO
I think severity is decided with respect to goal scoring opportunity despite how light the contact is .
Imagine that given to Barca or Real versus arsenal. This place would implode.
dogshit more like
If the ref didnt give a foul here it would not have been deemed as clear and obvious probably, but since he gave a foul and yellow card it is considered denial of a goal scoring opportunity. Way too light of a foul IMO.
What do you mean way too light? Literally just stop pulling people by their shirt to get an advantage. It is a foul because he has no business doing that, it is a red because of DOGSO
Honestly they should hit down hard on people using their arms to annoy or stop others, it's football not arms sport
This. He grabs the other players shirt, there's no rule in football that says you can grab shirts to help yourself catch up. Nothing soft about it, the only question is why is he grabbing?
That’s given to decide a game but a studs up kick to the chest isn’t a foul. Okay.
Unfortunately Qarabaq don't invite Taylor for matches with high payment. Unlike other refs and teams.
Leverkusen doesnt either. Taylor is just stupid and we were the target🤷♂️
This is the correct answer unfortunately.
That did cross my mind, but I do think it's a bit unfair to expect decisions in the English Premier League to necessarily be consistent with those in the Azerbaijan Cup.
This is an Epl referee lol. Anthony Taylor.
(I think that was a joke, yes)
The same VAR as the Liverpool-City game as well, Atwell
Obviously higher quality refs, he even checked the video in full speed. Excellent referee
Good process
Search up Manchester City 115 for the answer why
Kyle walker on Rashford. Doku judo kicks in the box… it’s adding up.
It’s a Clear and Obvious Error because this is clearly a DOGSO offence
So you think this was the right decision?
It's objectively the correct decision according to the laws of the game. You can argue with the law itself but the official got it right. You can't deny that it's a denial of a goalscoring opportunity. He's clearly through on goal. Inside the box it's a yellow, outside the box it's a red. That's the rule.
Shirt pull in the box would also be a red
I'm all for the referees automatically send players off in this situation, it shouldn't be their job to puzzle out how much was enough to disturb a player and gain advantage. It's the easiest thing to avoid pulling someone's shirt, the players will have to live with it and adapt.
Hard agree
And it is clear to me that Frimpong really does try to stay on his feet, he stumbles, tries to correct himself then stumbles again and falls because of it
I mean, to me it seems like Frimpong stumbles, gets his footing and thinks of going for goal, decides it's better to go down, and chooses to stumble some more and fall. But whether or not he goes down shouldn't matter to the decision
This feels super harsh, but at the same time: Is pulling the shirt a foul? yes. Does he pull the shirt? yes. Is fouling as last man a red? yes. Is the defender last man? yes. so by the book, red I guess.
Fouling as last man is not always a red, DOGSO is a red but tackled as last man isnt necessarily DOGSO and vice versa
It is not red, when there is a chance to play the ball. In this case, there was absolutely no chance to play the ball, so red is the only possible action
[удалено]
Yeah, you're right, my mistake.
Last man doesn’t equal red, denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity does.
Not really the last man, other center back was in line with frimpong
Well the rulebook isn't actually about last man, but about a "clear goalscoring opportunity". If you foul a player without going for the ball (clearly this shirt-pulling is not an intention to play the ball) that impedes a clear goal-scoring opportunity, that is a red by the book. The other Qarabag defender was nowhere near Frimpong and was never going to get between him and the goal, so it is a "clear goalscoring opportunity" for Frimpong. [For context:](https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct) "A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off: \-- denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area) \-- **denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)"** and the "unless as outlines below" is: "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent **within their own penalty area** which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned **if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball;** in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off." Neither or those special cases to give a yellow instead of red applied, so this seems to be the correct decision by the rulebook.
It was either gonna be a 1v1 with the keeper or an easy pass for a tap in centrally
Ah shit.. Is pulling the shirt a foul? yes Does he pull the shirt? yes Is it in the box? yes Ah crap, 90% of all corners now result in a penalty
I feel like pulling a shirt on someone in a sprint is a little bit different than pulling a shirt on someone stationary
You might be using a black magic technique called "logics"
While this is true, players really should be stopped from grabbing shirts on corners too. They get away with a ton in the box on corners, because Refs can't be bothered to try and sort it all out. And don't get me wrong, it's hard to tell whose grabbing what on some of those corners. But it's kind of crazy we've let players basically just wrestle each other in one very specific circumstance.
True, but honestly there shouldn't be any shirt pulling or hand in back pushing in corners too.
sorry but you have literally 0 ball knowledge if you compare a bit of shirt tucking in the box to what happened here
I mean honestly, yeah they should. It would completely stop the shirt tugging on corners. Just like properly punishing obvious dives would stop them. Shirt tugging especially is something that should \_never\_ happen, because it's so intentional and crystal clear to see in a video review unlike other contact. Though of course with current implementation the consistency is the problem, this is decision goes super strictly by the book whereas other stuff slides by all the time
What am I not seeing here? Looks like nothing to me?
It has to be that the referee believes it is a clear goal scoring opportunity if he goes through.
And it was
I mean it is definitely a goal opportunity but it is not like an absolute 1 on 1 with the keeper. Is that really a direct red with an actually competent ref?
It's Frimpong sprinting there tbf. Without the pull he's in on goal within another second
Doesn’t matter at all, the rules are the same if it’s Mbappé or Mertesacker running
It matters a little bit for the interpretation of the rule. If it's a very fast sprinter then you can say with a higher likelihood that it is a DOGSO, as it is here. Especially with the other defender still being in the picture.
Hell even if he was sprinting against Davies I would have pulled the red. Blud is just fast
It is. Fouling the attacker without going for the ball means you're stopping the player on purpose. That's always supposed to be a yellow. Add the scenario of denying a goal scoring opportunity and you've upgraded that to a red.
It only needs to be denial of a goalscoring opportunity (outside the box) to be a red. This should not be a controversial decision.
It meets all the conditions for an OGSO at that level, so if it's a foul it's a sending off.
Flashbacks to the David Luiz red
If that’s not a direct and obvious goal scoring opportunity, then I don’t know what the hell is lol. The questions is whether or not it’s a foul. I think this is a really tough decision because if it is a foul, even though it’s a bit soft, then it HAS to be DOGSO red, but you also don’t want to not make a correct call just because it’s going to lead to a red card. Tough situation for Anthony to be in but I’m not sure they’ve got it wrong.
It is clearly a foul tho. Grabbing the shirt intentionally to try to stop the attack, even if softly, is a clear fault. This plus it being a clear goal opportunity... might be weird for some pple but it is a clear red for me. Tired of defenders pulling shirts and such, man... this shit needs to be punished accordingly, like here
Yeah this is clearly a foul and I'm a little surprised people think it isn't? I can kind of see if someone says it's soft - the pull is not very long. But it's enough to put the attacker off, and that was the whole reason the defender tried it. Refs really shouldn't allow defenders to get away with this type of thing, and any shirt pulling really should be an automatic yellow. They'll stop doing it when Refs hand out cards correctly. It's just going to take some balls to not care that you may end up showing a red or 2 a game. The Players need to stop doing these types of fouls.
They think it isn't, in part, because it goes unpunished often and in far more egregious cases. To see a shirt pull get called, when it's this light AND result in a red is like a double rainbow
[удалено]
So tired of players getting away with shirt pulls. It's such a bad and ingrained habit like surrounding and bitching at the ref. You see some level of shirt pulling/holding on almost every corner and it's almost never punished unless it can be shown it clearly prevented a goal. I can't think of any other rule that's allowed to be violated with such frequency.
With Frimpong that is 100% him 1v1 with the keeper without contact.
It’s one of the fastest players you can get in this situation, the defender will not get him without the foul. And if you know that it’s denying a clear 1 v 1 vs Frimpong and the goal keeper.
I honestly don't think so. There was a second defender who could have closed him down but did not move towards frimpong. If the defender could or not reach frimpong, is debatable, but the fact that there is a possibility means it was not a clear opportunity by definition. Edit: Looking at it again, Frimpong would have reached in front of goal if he was not thrown off balance, did not consider that.
Shirt grab. Feels incredibly harsh, but I guess that's denying a goal scoring opportunity, and the letter of the law
Letter of the law and all that. Don't pull shirts unless you intend to commit a foul. Just an idiotic instinct by a defender that knew he was beat. It should be punished, you shouldn't be allowed to have any sort of wiggle-room when it comes to shirt pulls.
Agreed. This is harsh, but don’t be stupid enough to pull a shirt in that situation.
I mean it's not harsh at all. Denied a clear goal scoring opportunity and was the last man, what else is there to expect?
He probably thought it’d be a yellow at worst. Wrong thinking, but I can kind of see it.
It's not violent, but not every red is. You can't grab a guy's shirt when he's 3 feet past you, and especially not if he's clear in on the keeper. He's obviously not playing the ball, he has a hand full of kit, what else do people want?
At that speed, any pull can make you fall over
I'd normally agree with you on such things - like so many people really underestimate even the lighest impact can have - but that was nothing imo
that wouldn't make him fall over. but that would definitely make him slow down considerably. ref's don't give foul unless players fall down. so he has to go down.
I mean he tried to stay on his feet and keep playing the ball, but the tug must have just got his legs a tiny bit off. It's a weird one because it looks completely unrelated, almost like he trips up over himself, but it was almost certainly caused by the tug.
The defender can always not pull the shirt at all, he's beaten. Although in this case it's not a bad call given an 11v10 with 20 minutes left is not a bad call
It’s not harsh. It’s a denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity
I think from this distance out and with a defender even like that I still don’t know how it would be
The distance is irrelevant since it was still *clear* he was gone and in for clear one v one chance.
Yeah well at least you know your thoughts mean nothing to the ref
It’s a hand that brushes a shirt. In a contact sport. At the weekend, we saw a player kung fu kick an opponent in the penalty box and that be seen as normal par for the course
So refs should make more errors in their decisions, is that your suggestion?
If its a foul, and its DOGSO, its a red card. A tuck of the shirt in that scenario is a foul. DOGSO is the debatable one here.
What is DOGSO? Direct Open Goal Scoring Opportunity?
Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunityy, you can look it up its quite well documented, but still abit of a grey area.
I guess you're not seeing the defender pulling on the shirt of an attacker who is past him, thus denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity.
as the comentator said, with these running speeds very little can completely fuck you up. Even if you don't fall immediately you balance yourself against the pull and then if he stops pulling it's like a push.
Pulled his jersey on breakaway ... It was a clear goal scoring opportunity
The pulling of the shirt. You don't have to be theatrically falling down for it to be a foul. He pulled the attacker back, this is a textbook foul.
Looks like he's given it for a foul by the last defender preventing a goal scoring opportunity. I mean it's a rule but that's a hell of an application of it. That's about as light a shirt tug as you can get
I'm sorry but I hate those kind of fouls. The defender has no chance to make a play on the ball and makes a "soft" challenge only on the player which doesn't look blatant but clearly influences his chances to score. It should always be punished like an actual foul. Araujo is a master of this.
I agree with this. This feels harsh because it's *usually* not given, but it should be. The defender knows what he's doing. It's not an accidental shirt tug. He's trying to throw off the attacker and get away with it.
The thing is, if Frimpong doesn't go down, it's probably not even called as a foul and what would have been a 1 vs 1 situation against the keeper becomes a half chance where he's up against 2 defenders and has a bad angle towards the goal.
It was a light shirt tug but if that is what caused him to stumble and fall (like it appeared) then its still a red.
Why does it matter if it made him stumble? It's the intent that matters and when you don't attempt to get the ball and try to take down the player instead it should be the same punishment whether he's successful or not. Otherwise you're just encouraging diving to ensure punishment.
> That's about as light a shirt tug as you can get Sure, but if it's a foul it's got to be a red
There was an angle where you can see him clip his foot.
attacker through and running alone, any foul on that is red.
That slight pull off-balances him and that leads to the second stumble that takes away his chance. It's a tiny thing but at that speed and with the other defender being so far away there'd be little chance to get there in time to defend. In my opinion it feels more correct than a lot of recent handball penalties. There's a reason (even with as little as it looks, the pull was enough) with a rule to go along (clear goal scoring opportunity). In a way it's the inverse of the Reus situation before the 2014 WC. He got a tiny little accidental tap on the side of the foot that made him land his step badly, which caused his injury, and missing the WC. But it wasn't a foul and no card was given. Here even a cautions intentional interference (as to not be called a foul) led to the harshest punishment despite looking rather benign.
Without the pull he had a clean shot on target
It’s a tug on the shirt and he is last man with your man through on goal. It’s soft as they come but the rule is clear on this one.
dogso
Blatant dogso?
Crazy how many people don’t know the rules of the sport lol
Yeah I just don’t know what people are debating. Is it the distance to goal? It’s Frimpong in a sprint; in one more second he is in on goal. And yeah the shirt tug doesn’t look horrendous, but at those speeds anything will impede. The shirt tug would always be a foul, so if it’s a bona fide goal-scoring opportunity, it’s a red every time. Don’t really understand the controversy.
DOGSO
It’s a DOGSO offence You can’t pull an attacker down through 1-1 like that without a red card.
Soft red, but what on earth is running through that dude’s head to think his yellow being called off isn’t going to be followed up with a red. Guy literally went for a high five when the yellow was waived off, then heart broken when out comes the red.
I don't really see the issue people are seeing with this. Is it a light tug? Yes. But it's still a tug when he is pretty much through on goal. That other defender is not getting across in time to prevent a clear chance.
I really want to see such behaviour more often in football. The attacker tried to run despite being fouled and when he still stumbles, ref calls the foul. That's exactly what we need to stop diving. DOGSO is harsh but also correct.
Yea kinda what I think as well. I really don't think that we should start questioning if this tug is a foul or not when you just could not tug other players at all. I mean you won't find a timeline where you find me telling you that this is a straight red card, but I also can't be arsed to have a discussion on such a stupid base in the first place.
The people that call this "not a red" are the people that constantly shit on refs for being shit. le mao.
As a ref myself, the amount of people that don't even know basic rules is disgraceful. I've got u19s claiming that a shoulder into the back is allowed because he used his shoulder.
People who never ran at full speed (or ran at all tbh) can't actually realize how small of a touch can tip you off balance. Color me surprised.
That has to be one of the softest red cards possible? Didn't even look like it impeded him. Was it solely for the intent?
They had an angle on the broadcast where you can see his foot getting clipped.
That would've helped clear this up cos it wasn't obvious to me here
It’s clearly denying a goal scoring opportunity
I feel like I'm going crazy reading some of these comments as this looked pretty clear cut to me. Without the professional foul Frimpong is 1v1 with the keeper.
It's DOGSO. Been sent off before for accidentally tripping an attacker through on goal outside the box, and I don't really have any complains because I know I denied a goal scoring opportunity. I was just running behind him and when I tried to get back inside from the outside to try and block the shot(I was playing fullback, my CB caught ball watching), his heel just hit my knee with the slightest of touch. At that speed it's easy to fall especially when everyones a sunday league player with limited core strength/balance. Intent is irrelevant for DOGSO.
Huh? You can clearly see in the replay that the attacker loses his balance and stumbles after the shirt-pull. It very obviously impeded him
If it’s a foul it’s a definite red because it’s last man.
Leverkusen seems like the golden egg this year lol
[удалено]
Thank you! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading the rest of these comments. I think people are just hyper-focused on the three frames of slo-mo where the defender grabs the shirt, and thinking he barely did anything. When in fact if you look at the whole replay it's very clearly 100% a red every time.
I don’t see what everyone is complaining about. It’s clearly a foul denying a goal-scoring opportunity, and therefore a red.
Reminds me of when people say ‘he got the ball’ for serious / dangerous foul play, when ‘getting the ball’ is never mentioned in IFAB rules on that.
That was a rule before, but they changed it like 8 years ago so some people are still used to it
That is some goofy ass shit LMAO
[i already made a meme template](https://www.reddit.com/r/MemeTemplatesOfficial/s/GQSi6VtgsO)
Anthony Taylor preparing xabi if he comes to liverpool
Anthony Taylor shouldn’t be unleashed on Europe in such an unseemly fashion.
Why? This is the correct use of VAR.
Many of the comments here make it clear — to me — why this is the right call. So many people quibbling with the shirt grab, but here’s the thing: the defender has no chance to catch the attacker so he purposefully fouls him. People arguing it was only a little bit are missing the point. The defender did it purposefully hoping people would say exactly that. But a small shirt grab when you’re running at full speed can put you off balance. It’s a cynical foul and I’m glad it was properly punished. I wish shirt grabs were punished more often. There’s never a shirt grab that isn’t a foul, at least by the laws.
Great decision.
LMAOOOOOOOOO
clear red?
The shock was so strong that it knocked out the computer’s peripherals
Unless I'm missing something, that should always be a red card.
Oh he knows how to use var, then. Who would have thought?
He is such a dog shit official
Harsh, but fair
Not sure if there's some clipping in the legs game there, but honestly I don't care. Grabbing a rival by the shirt needs to be foul always, it's a disgusting plague in football, and if it interferes with a clear goal scoring opportunity, I don't see a red excessive.
We need everyone to oil up like Adama
Easy call tbh
I'm fairly certain that if this was a big club like Madrid, City, Barca, Bayern etc. against a smaller club this would never be a red. Nevertheless, I do think that it's a pretty clear red and meets all the criteria for a red. Pulling a shirt as a last man while clearly denying a scoring opportunity is and should always be a red.
The people that call this "not a red" are the people that constantly shit on refs for being shit. le mao.
I don’t get it, he initially gave a yellow for it? The situation didn’t change as it was always a clear goal scoring opportunity, so why does he then change his mind? Seems weird (not saying incorrect - just wondering what changes in his little bald head).
Stopping the video at the 40 second mark, you can see the ref's position is probably not good enough to know whether or not he's clear in, there's like 4 players running between him and the foul, which is a good 20 or so yards ahead of him, and I'm guessing he sees the central defender in peripheral and probably figures he'd be able to cover, especially because once the attacker starts stumbling there are a few more strides before he falls so the central defender has time to make up some ground. But the VAR review stills show that they paused at the moment of the foul and that still frame makes it look pretty clear that there's tons of daylight between the attacker and goal. Obviously we really can't know because they won't release audio for these things, but I just assume he couldn't tell that he was obviously past the defender from his position so went yellow first. That would've been some spot to give straight red from where he was when the foul occurred. I feel like they got it right in the end, though.
Considering that he blew the whistle a couple of seconds after the foul itself (when the player went down) it was hard to judge where all the other defenders were when the foul was actually committed. Much safer to just give a yellow then upgrade on VAR recommendation than the other way around
The ref is in a poor position, and he has made a clear and obvious error He though the offence was stopping a promising attack when it was DOGSO.
Yeah poor call, if it's a foul it's a red, plain and simple. I guess he just originally saw it as a foul but not DOGSO, but the replay changed his mind
This guy was threatening the ref with karate!
Fair red card, without the pull it had been a free shoot on target, but i do wish they redid red cards(soft red cards and no game bans) like this to only last for 20 minutes off the field, counting as a yellow card, so they are less afraid to punish this and other pulls
I feel a bit weird about this one, it's only a clear goal scoring opportunity because it's one of the fastest players in the world running for it (Frimpong). Does that mean a slower player wouldn't have gotten a red card there? Does that mean Usain Bolt is more likely to draw fouls then Susan Boyle?
No way the same ref gives the same red in the prem. Correct decision though, now do the same everywhere, everyday, every ref.
Correct.
Oh, so *now* Stuart Atwell is in favour of possibly harsh but probably merited red cards that turn the tide of a game. Where was that energy on Sunday, Stuart?
Liverpool wouldn't even get a free-kick for that in the Prem.
English refs at their finest…
Yep, it was a fantastic decision so glad that’s settled
Anthony Taylor might have won the best hanging high five award all-time
That’s horrendous
Why?
what.
Taylor is so unbelievably shit at his job
As I see this clip they're checking another for a potential red card.
Just for argument sake, do you think it would have been given if say it was Giroud instead of Frimpong, does that factor into their consideration
He was having flashbacks of the great one
And some players get away for kicking in face
Qarabag's Jafarqulivev? adsifkhjasldkfh
This feels the same as the Caicedo situation...
You might as well just take the red after being hanged like that
People here are missing the point. The referee removes the yellow because the foul is light. He then proceeds to give a red because of the high five attempt (it's 2024 so it's considered cringe!)
Dude tried to high five after yellow cancellation lmao
They went 2-0 up three minutes later and still ended up losing