Going against every principle I have by praising VAR, but this is an example of where the PL gets it right by at least showing us what the referee/VAR is looking at. Unquestionably the right decision, but the 3 minutes waiting with no replays being shown looked terrible.
What are BT paying Walton for?Walton was like. Yeah the Chelsea player has passed it to Giroud, but it took a deflection off the defender so it's onside.
What are BT paying Walton for?
Yeh, but even if his version of events was correct its factually wrong in law. If the ball deflects off an opponent after being played by the attacker it would still be offside.To be fair, at the point he and everyone watching had no clue what had happened as we'd not seen a replay so he guessed and got it quite badly wrong!
Based on the time taken to do the review I assumed it was a really close call when in reality it seemed very clear cut.
Yeh, but even if his version of events was correct its factually wrong in law. If the ball deflects off an opponent after being played by the attacker it would still be offside.
Walton literally just tries to justify the decision made however he can. One of my biggest pet peeves is when they go 'what did you make of that Peter?'Yeh, but even if his version of events was correct its factually wrong in law. If the ball deflects off an opponent after being played by the attacker it would still be offside.
Walton literally just tries to justify the decision made however he can. One of my biggest pet peeves is when they go 'what did you make of that Peter?'
Absolutely. I'd expect Walton to be being paid to do a little more than that, especially when he's often plucking things out of the air for some post-hoc rationale.i think thats just refs in general isnt it? we always try and back up what the refs done
There's "understanding" what the referee has done and "justifying" it. I'd like to see TV referees focus on trying to help fans with the former, but also be comfortable saying they think that decision's wrong if they have reason to suspect it might be. And it's fine to caveat that with "And based on this angle opposite the view the referee had/slowed right down/zoomed in, we can in fact see that X happened and therefore the initial decision was wrong and they should have done Y instead."i think thats just refs in general isnt it? we always try and back up what the refs done
Not if he is wrong in law. We might ponder how he came to his decision and how he could get the decision right, but never back up a completely wrong decision.i think thats just refs in general isnt it? we always try and back up what the refs done
I think as a general rule that's what I see on social media.i cant remember who said it, but i saw recently a comment that refs either back up other refs, or refs slaughter other refs and there's not much in between and i think that's pretty accurate. whether its walton/clattenburg or any other ref on tv, in a newspaper or in their autobiographies.
obviously they need to be right in law and walton definitely messed up here
I think as a general rule that's what I see on social media.
Ironically a lot of it happens in ref "support" s page which is a shame.
I think we get a balanced view from the regulars here which even if we don't perhaps agree with one another, I dont think we have blind support or extreme bashing. But I think this board is am exception and what you say there is probably an accurate assessment of what takes place elsewhere
I think as a general rule that's what I see on social media.
Ironically a lot of it happens in ref "support" s page which is a shame.
I think we get a balanced view from the regulars here which even if we don't perhaps agree with one another, I dont think we have blind support or extreme bashing. But I think this board is am exception and what you say there is probably an accurate assessment of what takes place elsewhere