It is frustrating when English officials do not.

If the ball is in play when the contact is initiated, it's a foul. Otherwise, it's misconduct, at most (which can still result in a sanction, just not a penalty).

He was grabbed outside the box, sure, but the contact continued well inside the box.

Even after VAR, nothing. It’s beyond ridiculous.

But it’s a DOGSO because Diaz never covers that space as quickly as Salah if he’s not grabbed. But Salah never gets calls. The Bernardo grab was the better shout for me. But again…Salah. City gets at least one of those calls though.

Couldn't see an angle that was definitive, he definitely lets go right around the line. It's point of contact so even if most of Salah was in the area, all that matters is where the grab is taking place. He appears to let go here, I'd say this is 'whatever is called stands' unless there's a better angle somewhere.

I can live with different interpretations of rules if they’re applied consistently.

There's this attitude there that 'well, if you get the shot off, no harm no foul.' If the ball is still in play, and the foul occurs after the shot/pass, then it's a foul. Just call the damn thing.

Also, I don't know why people are making such a big deal of the late red card. Why should Haaland get a goal after he commits a foul? That's how it should work. Advantage not realized, go back to the original foul, it's a DOGSO, let's move on with our lives.

Sometimes you can try to apply the “letter of the law” (when it’s convenient) and it defies logic.

Cherki shot the ball and it was going in. Two players were fighting after it with different objectives. Now Szobo commits a foul first. It’s a DOGSO but it’s also a clear advantage so play on.

Then Haaland’s foul just before the ball crosses the line. Goal.

So what’s the VAR check? Was it an error to give an advantage where an actual goal is scored?

So essentially you’re pretending the goal never happened. You’re saying that it’s a DOGSO except the goal actually occurred. Except it did. The only reason it may not have happened is because a foul took place, which you aren’t enforcing because a foul in the lead up took place first.

That’s all well and good but you’re picking and choosing which outcome you feel should have occurred instead of the actual one. Again, it was a goal. But you’re enforcing a rule that inherently requires a goal to have not occurred.

As for rewarding Haaland. Well he avoids red. He’s on a yellow and commits blatant misconduct that costs a goal.

Do we think in a million years if that was a match winner for City that they would have taken the goal off and ended a draw?

Haaland's foul negated the goal. However, it also cancelled City's advantage. Once the advantage is gone, the referee goes back to enforce the original foul by Szoboszlai on Haaland, which was a DOGSO. That results in a red card and negates the subsequent foul by Haaland on Szoboszlai.

That all correct, wcnitz?

Haaland's foul isn't negated per se, but in order for it to rise to a YC it has to meet some secondary consideration. Like I said elsewhere, trying to justify a YC here in an assessment would likely result in being lectured by the assessor.

Misspoke on that. But it was his foul on the defender trying to clear it (and Haaland was DOGSO fouled, no question about that). 100% correct call was made here.

VAR can intervene on any direct red card situation. The goal cannot be given because a foul was committed by City while it was still in play. You CANNOT give that goal, period.

What's the consideration? Shirt tugs/pulls don't automatically see yellow, there's always a secondary consideration (SPA, excessive, persistent infringement, etc.).

You say misconduct below, but what's the offense? If I'm trying to justify this in an assessment, any considerations I give are going to be dodgy at best.

It's not rocket science. He's made zero attempt on the ball and pulled down a player in the box in order to obtain an unfair result on the play. Advocates for it being the "correct call" to chalk off the goal and give the DOGSO point to the fact that you simply cannot ignore Haaland's blatant foul in the box. Well, then it's a blatant shirt pull. Nothing soccer about it. You pull a player down from behind by the shirt anywhere else on the pitch you're going to see yellow. It just so happens that it's also magnified because it was an attempt to save a game sealing goal.

It isn't a tactical foul. Tactical foul = SPA. That is not SPA, it's actually the complete opposite.

Haaland's 'blatant foul' wasn't ignored. The goal was taken off as a result of it. You're incorrect about shirt pulls always being yellow. There is ALWAYS a secondary consideration.

And look, you know I'm not going to defend every decision made by English officials here. I'm frustrated by PGMOL on the regular. But in this situation, this is EXACTLY how the guidance wants this played out. They got it all by the book.

I said any time you blatantly pull down someone from behind by the shirt is going to be yellow.

As you know the laws aren't meant to be exclusive when it comes to defining what is unsporting (or violent, reckless, etc.). Haaland's foul was most definitely tactical. Again, I didn't say SPA. Basically, almost any SPA is going to be tactical. But not all tactical is SPA. There are any number of reasons a player may want to disrupt the flow of the game. The laws are not meant to protect goals being scored. They are there to protect the integrity of the game. So yes, I will never be convinced that pulling down a player behind from the shirt to prevent a goaline clearance is not against the spirt of the rules.

We can agree to disagree. But IMO there's officiating the black letter of the law. And there's officiating the spirit of the game. Almost every fan says leave that situation alone and move on. City fans, Liverpool fans and even Arsenal fans. But if you're gonna take the goal of the board and start officiating via VAR, then it's Haaland gets yellow for taking down a player and ultimately causing a goal to be disallowed.

You can't give a foul or a card on an action that occurs after a foul on the offending team. Or at least not one for an action that occurs in play. That part of the play is negated by the DOGSO foul.

It's no different than a penalty not being given for a foul that occurs after an offside.

On the one hand, you argue that you can't give a foul after a foul. But that's the entire reason that the goal didn't stand. Because VAR literally gave a foul after a foul. The ref did not blow the whistle and stop play before the goal. It was a goal. But the goal was disallowed because of Haaland's foul. There is no DOGSO infringement to enforce unless the referees are saying that something took place to disallow a goal. Szobo did not stop the goal. The center did not stop the goal (or blow the whistle). The only one's stopping the goal are video assistants who are saying that the goal should be disallowed because Haaland fouled Szobo. So yes, they are enforcing the foul after Szobo's foul.

But all of that is academic because even if you want to split hairs regarding subsequent fouls, I'm advocating for a card. And you can most certainly give a card after a foul.

Can Haaland get a yellow or is play over?

There's no actual foul on Haaland...it was never called anyway. So they're going back to the DOGSO play. Which is only "not a goal" because Haaland pulled down the player from behind. Not a foul. Not a goal. For me it's a player misconduct.

For other officials apparently, they're good with calling the DOGSO and pretending nothing else happened.

the officials. The average City fan in England will list a litany of calls that didn’t go their way as will every other fanbase. Nothing will change with the officials as long as Howard Webb is there. Tribalism will rule the day and thus Howard Webb will survive as the fanbases just argue amongst themselves.

I warned you two years ago that fixating about the refs will get you nothing but frustration. Well here we are you just keep getting more and more frustrated.

Usually when I see gross inconsistency in calls.

Color me unsympathetic to City when you have Rodri whining about officiating in a game where he himself had not one, but two borderline yellow cards not given after he was already in a yellow.

...sorry, I just saw the pun and went for it

Just realize the officiating is going to poor across this league for the foreseeable future.

Allison didn’t even try to play the ball. In that case it doesn’t matter where it goes.

If he had tried to play the ball, even a little, everything you said would be correct.

I didn’t watch the post game. The in game commentators said that it’s foul anywhere else on the pitch, and should be a foul regardless, but is almost never given as a penalty.

Which I agree with on all fronts.

Side note: Allison tried to get to the ball, he was just late.

It's a question that came to my mind before today's match.

Takes awhile to go through 115 charges on a part time basis I guess.

That was a pathetic wall however.

But he cost them in the end. Careless playing onside for the first goal.

Then the red that will cost him and the team some game action

Not surprising he got caught off the line.

The red was probably stupid given the lack of time remaining, but his only chance of stopping the goal.

He’s a master at free kicks.