It’s massively inappropriate and unprofessional to make them public straight away.
Everton - Forest
- Thread starter cwyeary
- Start date
Outside of the decisions themselves, there are two discrete issues to consider imho.
The first, which I suspect we all agree on, is Forest's post on X, for which they need the book throwing at them. After the Karl Henry debacle, whether the FA have the ability to make it stick is a different matter.
The second discrete issue is that of bias - both real bias and apparent (perceived) bias. As well as reffing grassroots, I work in professional sport, and am involved in disciplinary matters. Apparent bias is, or should be (it isn't always!) a serious consideration when sporting regulators are discharging their functions, officiating and discipline being two key functions.
This issue has been considered in horseracing (https://www.britishhorseracing.com/...03/Christopher-Quinlan-QC-Report-29-09-16.pdf for those who are struggling to sleep), but the test of apparent bias can be summed up as follows:
Would a fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, conclude that there was a real possibility the tribunal/official was biased?
As a few of us on this forum do, I regularly referee games where I'm alive to the issue of bias, either because I'm refereeing my son's team, or a team I help coach, or a team my son used to play for. I always inform the opposition coach of this in advance of kick-off, as I accept I'm going to make decisions they don't like and I don't want them to find out afterwards about any possible links and then accuse me of bias. Telling them in advance won't necessarily prevent this, but it at least addresses the issue head-on.
In the professional game, on the one hand it would seem sensible for PGMOL not to appoint officials to games where their could be a question of apparent bias. However, taking that to it's ultimate end, if a referee supported any Premier League club there could possibly be an issue of apparent bias in many, many matches given how results can impact other teams in all sorts of ways. I'm guessing it's for this reason the PGMOL did not accede to Forest's pre-match request for a change of official because a) it would open the floodgates and b) taken to it's logical conclusion I doubt there'd be too many Premier League referees left available.
I don't know what the solution is, but when Forest get charged, I wouldn't be at all surprised if these points are raised in the hearing and that it's going to be a topic that is subsequently addressed between PGMOL and Premier League.
The first, which I suspect we all agree on, is Forest's post on X, for which they need the book throwing at them. After the Karl Henry debacle, whether the FA have the ability to make it stick is a different matter.
The second discrete issue is that of bias - both real bias and apparent (perceived) bias. As well as reffing grassroots, I work in professional sport, and am involved in disciplinary matters. Apparent bias is, or should be (it isn't always!) a serious consideration when sporting regulators are discharging their functions, officiating and discipline being two key functions.
This issue has been considered in horseracing (https://www.britishhorseracing.com/...03/Christopher-Quinlan-QC-Report-29-09-16.pdf for those who are struggling to sleep), but the test of apparent bias can be summed up as follows:
Would a fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, conclude that there was a real possibility the tribunal/official was biased?
As a few of us on this forum do, I regularly referee games where I'm alive to the issue of bias, either because I'm refereeing my son's team, or a team I help coach, or a team my son used to play for. I always inform the opposition coach of this in advance of kick-off, as I accept I'm going to make decisions they don't like and I don't want them to find out afterwards about any possible links and then accuse me of bias. Telling them in advance won't necessarily prevent this, but it at least addresses the issue head-on.
In the professional game, on the one hand it would seem sensible for PGMOL not to appoint officials to games where their could be a question of apparent bias. However, taking that to it's ultimate end, if a referee supported any Premier League club there could possibly be an issue of apparent bias in many, many matches given how results can impact other teams in all sorts of ways. I'm guessing it's for this reason the PGMOL did not accede to Forest's pre-match request for a change of official because a) it would open the floodgates and b) taken to it's logical conclusion I doubt there'd be too many Premier League referees left available.
I don't know what the solution is, but when Forest get charged, I wouldn't be at all surprised if these points are raised in the hearing and that it's going to be a topic that is subsequently addressed between PGMOL and Premier League.
With force? If you think there is anything more than minimal force in that first penalty shout then it's not even worth debating...
Nottingham Forest have got exactly what they want from this tweet: Stuart Atwell will not be involved in another Nottingham Forest game.
It looks like Forest made private representations to PGMOL about Atwell's appointment - this was PGMOL's opportunity to notice the perceived conflict of interest and change the appointment. There's precedence for this: I remember Kevin Friend being removed from a game involving relegation rivals of the team he supports - that game went ahead without issue.
I know Howard Webb is deeply loved on this forum but it has to be said that PGMOL seemed to be better run under Mike Riley. Dare I say, there were also fewer VAR mistakes under Riley. Webb is not the saviour he was billed to be.
It looks like Forest made private representations to PGMOL about Atwell's appointment - this was PGMOL's opportunity to notice the perceived conflict of interest and change the appointment. There's precedence for this: I remember Kevin Friend being removed from a game involving relegation rivals of the team he supports - that game went ahead without issue.
I know Howard Webb is deeply loved on this forum but it has to be said that PGMOL seemed to be better run under Mike Riley. Dare I say, there were also fewer VAR mistakes under Riley. Webb is not the saviour he was billed to be.
Exactly. As we've discussed on the forum before, it does us no good to pretend that all referees are above bias and incapable of having that affect decisions. Spain and Italy have both had high-level refereeing corruption scandals in the last 20 years - and that's explicit financial bias, let alone slight subconscious favouring of one team over another. You don't stop bias by burying your head in the sand and pretending referees are somehow morally superior and above normal human concerns, you do so by acknowledging it and taking steps to spot it and then mitigate it where practical and necessary.
Having said that, I don't think this is a situation where excluding that particular official is practical. As far as we understand it, declaring affinity for a club stops you specifically refereeing them and any direct derby rivals. Extending that to "and also, anyone who's vaguely near your supported team in the league" is a step too far - at some point, you have to assume that no referee would choose to sacrifice their own career by deliberately making (in my opinion) two clearly wrong decisions just to marginally favour their team in a game they're not involved in.
Hanlons Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". We've seen dozens of incidents this year of VARs making mistakes and missing clear instances where they should get involved. Forest assuming they're the victims of some kind of deliberate conspiracy instead of just the victims of highly-trained on-field referees being shoved in a VAR booth and told to do a completely different job to a poorly written set of rules is just main character syndrome. No one is risking their jobs in order to try and get Forest relegated instead of Everton or Luton.
Last edited:
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I like the Razor… and I think Liverpool fans would also like Atwell to never VAR them again.
Is it possible that a) the powers were daft to make Atwell VAR without more training, b) double daft to appoint him to the Forest match, and c) Atwell also daft to mess up the third penalty appeal.
Is it possible that a) the powers were daft to make Atwell VAR without more training, b) double daft to appoint him to the Forest match, and c) Atwell also daft to mess up the third penalty appeal.
Just to add further to the debate, had VAR given the 3rd as a penalty, what sanction are we expecting? I would think it would have to be DOGSO, but are we going DOGSO red or yellow?
I think it's one of those that with last seasons law about an attempt to win the ball it would be red, but this season's 'challenge for the ball' only yellow. Anyone think differently?
(Disclaimer: I've only watched it twice and they were both yesterday so I may be misremembering it)
I think it's one of those that with last seasons law about an attempt to win the ball it would be red, but this season's 'challenge for the ball' only yellow. Anyone think differently?
(Disclaimer: I've only watched it twice and they were both yesterday so I may be misremembering it)
I have to admit I haven't followed Atwell in the VAR booth closely, but I would certainly say that I think Darren England is someone who just isn't very good at that particular job. That doesn't mean I want him fired and never to be seen again - there are enough games that he can justify his salary by acting only as referee or 4O and the system should be set up to allow that.
VAR is at least as much of a specialised skill for a referee as running a line is, and should be an option to specialise in the same way.
Nope, I'm with you - there's enough of an attempt on the ball that yellow would have been uncontroversial.
I think there will be in the future, but I think it will probably be reserved for those who've retired from refereeing top level matches and don't want to go down the Mark Clattenburg or even worse, the Keith Hackett / Mark Halsey route...
Fully aware that I'm stereotyping, but it's not typical that older people are the most comfortable with technology. I'd love a VAR to be able to manipulate the images themselves - having to communicate with the replay operator is slower and risks miscommunication and having to repeat or correct actions, compared to someone who knows what they want to see and is able to cue it up and forward/reverse/zoom on their own.
Long term, specialising from eg. L3 would allow that to be part of the VAR training and would improve the speed and accuracy of the system overall - I'm not sure that can ever be achieved by only using retired officials.
I don't disagree, but I think the argument will be that the VAR needs to have operated at that level of the game to fully understand it.
And I think that's an argument that needs to be examined and considered - not just accepted as irrefutable truth as it seems to be now.
I agree about retired officals not always best suited for VAR. I would add the noise in the VAR room must make it incredibly difficult to focus as VAR. All the input from AVAR, 4O, isn't necessary, as VAR I would want quiet time to concentrate on what I am looking at on a TV screen. The difference between Rugby TMO & cricket's DRS is noticeable, so much calmer, focused, a much better professional environment to make good decisions.
Spot on.
Clattenburg knew exactly what he was doing in making that request/comment to PGMOL beforehand - any controversial decision was going to be used afterwards.
However it will badly backfire because a) Forest are in for a big fine (or should be) and b) whilst the perception of bias exists, if you apply the test of would a fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, conclude that there was a real possibility the tribunal/official was biased? Atwell's appointment would pass that test for the very reasons you state.
With the pre-match work done by referees on team formations, set plays etc a professional organisation should have avoided putting a referee in the firing line at the end of the season. (Don't appoint him, Forest clearly picked this up pre-match). The start & mid season appointing referees has fewer conflicts, but with the last five matches of the season it was an extrememly poor decision to put this referee in the VAR role.
Removing someone in response to an intervention from a club would have opened the floodgates but I agree it's something the PGMOL should consider ACTIVELY doing. Problem is most sports regulators have a "we'd never be biased" mentality, which when combined with a siege mentality (which almost certainly is the case at PGMOL, somewhat understandably) leads to poor decision making.
deusex
RefChat Addict
Given your take, I absolutely agree.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
this is a complete straw man. This isn’t a case of “vaguely near.” This was utterly stupid on the part of PGMOL where the clubs are a point apart in the relegation battle at the end of the season. this is the kind of game that supporters of Lutron watch carefully and cheer for a result. That poor decision to put Atwell on the game created the potential for exactly this kind of drama. I’m not at all accusing Atwell of bias. PL VAR is so bad, incompetence is always a more obvious explanation. But PGMOL set up Atwell for this kind of black eye by unnecessarily putting him on this game. People who get paid to make assignments should be far more savvy than that.
I'd buy this if a Forest loss benefitted Luton clearly, but a draw is arguably a better result because Luton play Everton in the coming weeks