The Ref Stop

Rangers v Aberdeen VAR intervention

The Ref Stop
All for a ref sticking with their decision having been given the opportunity to change it.

Rangers player is at high speed, true he's not high but he does catch him top of the foot, it's a yellow at the absolute minimum. Is that enough to call it a clear and obvious error? not for me
 
Yeah, I basically agree. Yellow is the "best" decision, but red isn't C&O wrong either, should have just been left alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
Same here.

The only thing missing really is point of contact.

Yellow better outcome, red not c&o wrong.

Apples and overturn incoming probably though!!
 
DazN said:
I'm glad he stuck with his decision. We need to see more of that.
Click to expand...
No we don't. We need to see less intervention in the first place.

We need the review process to work like it did in the Newcastle V Fulham game where the referee took one look and issued the correct sanction of red card. That was the gold standard for me.
 
JamesL said:
No we don't. We need to see less intervention in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree, but once intervention takes place I am glad to see a referee sticking by his original decision. Too often a look at the monitor is an assumption of a change in the decision (as evident by the commentary in this case)

JamesL said:
We need the review process to work like it did in the Newcastle V Fulham game where the referee took one look and issued the correct sanction of red card. That was the gold standard for me.
Click to expand...

I don't really see how the two are linked as one required intervention because the original decision was wrong, the other didn't. 🤷‍♂️
 
DazN said:
I agree, but once intervention takes place I am glad to see a referee sticking by his original decision. Too often a look at the monitor is an assumption of a change in the decision (as evident by the commentary in this case)
Click to expand...
I'm not in agreement here. The way VAR should work is that there should be no disagreement at the monitor. If there is the the check and review process has failed. We should never be glad or happy that has happened because ultimately there has been a failure in determining a clear and obvious error, or the referee is failing to overturn a clear and obvious error. There's no good side imo.
DazN said:
I don't really see how the two are linked as one required intervention because the original decision was wrong, the other didn't. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

It's relevant to my whole point, as an example of what good looks like for VAR.
 
JamesL said:
I'm not in agreement here. The way VAR should work is that there should be no disagreement at the monitor. If there is the the check and review process has failed. We should never be glad or happy that has happened because ultimately there has been a failure in determining a clear and obvious error, or the referee is failing to overturn a clear and obvious error. There's no good side imo.
Click to expand...
Almost entirely agree. But edge cases are always going to be there, as we’re never going to have complete unanimity on where the C&O line is. So, IMO, even when both are doing their job well in the process, there should be occasional times when the R disagrees with the VAR and doesn’t change because the decision is in than narrow grey zone where reasonable minds can differ.
 
socal lurker said:
Almost entirely agree. But edge cases are always going to be there, as we’re never going to have complete unanimity on where the C&O line is. So, IMO, even when both are doing their job well in the process, there should be occasional times when the R disagrees with the VAR and doesn’t change because the decision is in than narrow grey zone where reasonable minds can differ.
Click to expand...
I talk about a perfect application.

If we got that clear and obvious right, then there shouldn't really be a grey area.

I can't think of a single example where there has been agreement that the VAR sent it down and also that the referee disagreed.

It's always been a case of VAR shouldn't have sent it or R was incorrect not to change the decision.
 
JamesL said:
If we got that clear and obvious right, then there shouldn't really be a grey area.
Click to expand...
this is where I disagree. On any line there is always a border between yes and no. And there are going to be plays that are right on that border. The better defined the line is, the fewer “edge cases” there are, but there are always are going to be some—but I agree with you to the extent they should be very rare if C&O standards are sufficiently clear.
 
RefGod said:
Reckless for me. intervention wasn't needed however.
Click to expand...

So if it's only reckless then surely a red is a clear and obvious error then?

It's an interesting one for sure, it's times like this why I would love to know what the conversation was and why the ref stuck with his initial decision.

I think a referee only rejected a review once in the PL and that was Darren England for a penalty decision which the VAR reccomended for him to overturn. Sadly this was also near the time his infamous error occured so was not covered in Howard's Webb show but it's something I would love too see shown if we see another instance of a ref rejecting an review.
 
Paul_10 said:
I think a referee only rejected a review once in the PL and that was Darren England for a penalty decision which the VAR reccomended for him to overturn
Click to expand...

I can think of at least 2 more occasions when a PL ref has rejected a review, although all were in previous seasons. I do remember that one though. Aston Villa vs Crystal Palace iirc.
 
I'm probably going to contradict myself here, but hey ho. The initial decision is wrong, it is clearly a caution not SFP, but I don't think it is something VAR should be getting involved in. Once they have though and recommended a review I am struggling to see how any top level referee can watch that from multiple angles and still think it was SFP, so for all I don't think there should have been a review once he has been I sent I think he should have changed his mind. If for no other reason than to protect his own credibility
 
I agree now that it wasn't SFP. On first viewing, I instantly thought RC. I don't anymore though.
 
RustyRef said:
I'm probably going to contradict myself here, but hey ho. The initial decision is wrong, it is clearly a caution not SFP, but I don't think it is something VAR should be getting involved in. Once they have though and recommended a review I am struggling to see how any top level referee can watch that from multiple angles and still think it was SFP, so for all I don't think there should have been a review once he has been I sent I think he should have changed his mind. If for no other reason than to protect his own credibility
Click to expand...

But if you don't think it's a red card and your suggesting the referee looking at the screen should recognise from replays that is not SFP then surely recommending for a review is the right thing to do?

The referee decided to stick by his decision which he has every right to do so but it doesn't mean he's right.
 
It seems like everyone on here so far thinks a yellow card is the best decision. If 10 out of 10 refs think it's a yellow then maybe it's clear and obvious.

I'm playing devils advocate a but because we know we've moved beyond the whole idea of VAR only being there for absolute howlers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top