It is no different to UEFA games, FIFA referees officiate midweek but then have EPL games at the weekend. OK, it is a longer journey, but it isn't Australia, think it is about an 8 hour flight. And that will be a business class flight with a flat bed, even if they fly back business from Europe it will just be extra leg room and better food.
ARS vs CIT
- Thread starter Joshref
- Start date
Totally agree. I've worked in trading floor support in the past, which is probably very similar to VAR as they are looking at screens and trying to make quick decisions. One is to make correct refereeing decisions, the other is to potentially avoid losing millions of pounds, but the pressure is probably very similar. Almost all of the traders refer to their fellow traders, and the fund managers and fund analysts that support them, by nicknames.
Therealcjhill
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Wasn’t like it was Ryanair. Absolutely no reason to believe this trip had any negative affect what so ever on them and in truth, not sure they really deserve the excuse. It was just P poor all around.
In fairness to the VAR, I think it was a mixed reaction as to whether the first one was a red card or not, I don't think yellow was clearly and obviously wrong but neither would a red be.
Obviously the second is harder to justify, perhaps the only thing that saved him is it wasn't a stopping a promising attack otherwise I don't think Michael Oliver would have any other choice which makes Peter Bankes decision not to send off Guimaraes in the West Ham game even more baffling as the West Ham player had a clear run through to the Newcastle defence.
When you see these 2 incidents, you can't help but feel game management comes before the LOTG.
I think the main problem is that the match was in the UAE, a country which happens to own one of the teams he's refereeing in the Premier League. It's not a great look and has led to conspiracy theories on social media. It's a bit like a court judge doing ad-hoc work in China then ruling on a case involving a Chinese-owned company - not a great look because in addition to being impartial, arbiters must also appear to be impartial.
That wasn't the argument used at all, it was said that they might have been tired after a long trip.
Yes, there are clueless conspiracy theorists on the internet trying to look for things that don't exist, but that wasn't the argument used for the VAR mess up.
Southerner In The North
Well-Known Member
He would of heard VAR audio they all would so I get his point and it’s valid
There are a lot of problems with "state" ownership of football clubs, I don't think it's unfair to add this kind of thing to the list.
Being the neutral arbiter in any walk of life isn't just about being impartial, it's also about being trusted to be impartial. We all know there are loads of rules in place to help referees maintain the appearance of impartiality, ranging from bans on gambling to certain clubs some referees can't be involved in, to a bunch of things I'm sure we don't even know about.
In fact, I think it was you that pointed out an English referee couldn't possibly referee Argentina in the WC due to the Falklands War. A war that ended 3 years before Michael Oliver was born! And you were right to point that out - because the appearance of impartiality is more important than the reality that MO really isn't going to care about the Falklands War or treat Argentina any differently because of it.
All of which is to say that while there are links between the owners of a PL club and a league who are offering to pay for PL referees to have a luxurious trip to referee in their league, it might have been smarter to not allow that kind of thing. Not because I think any of our officials are actually consciously corrupt, but for the sake of appearances.
Last edited:
R
Runner-Ref
Guest
Eh?
The 4th is not going to get involved in an offside decision when there is an AR, VAR & AVAR.
He wouldn’t have heard the full audio. As HW said, the onfield officials, which is imagine includes 4th, didn’t know about the error until afterwards
You are (again) misquoting me. I said that the argument being put forward for the VAR mistake being made was that the officials might have been tired due to having recently returned from the Middle East.
We are absolutely fed up of suggestions that any referees, including our top level ones, are guilty of any kind of bias, even if subconsciously. When it happens we get the report button being hit and then we have to deal with it, and that is why we have a zero tolerance approach to it.
I'm not misquoting anything - you're either missing the point or deliberately ignoring it. But since you've threatened mod powers, I'm obliged to leave it at that.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
How accurate is that?
During the audio clip, they actually spoke with Michael Oliver, so clearly he was in communication with them.
R
Runner-Ref
Guest
They opened mic with Michael Oliver and then closed it
Ultimately they could have had the mic open 100% and he still isn’t going to get involved. A 4O is never going to get involved in such a decision
You are talking about they shouldn't have gone to the middle east due to potential conflicts of interest. I get that as a potential argument, even though I don't agree with it, but that was never put forward as a reason for the VAR error. What was put forward as a possible cause was the travel time and distance before a big game, my point was it wasn't a whole lot different than for a UEFA game. It's potentially worse, if one of them gets a game in Baku that's a longer journey in terms of time, and they won't be in a flat bed like they would be for the middle east.
I haven't threatened "mod powers", I'm just reminding everyone that this isn't the right site for any kind of conspiracy theories.
Have watched two of the rugby QFs this weekend and the use of VAR or TOM is absolutely light years ahead of the Premier League. Even a situation in the England game where the referee called on another official to look at the big screen with him to make a call on a yellow card knock-on. Audio and visuals were all shared with the crowd, and everything was fully explained. Apparently, there are still subjective calls that cause problems, but watching the rugby is a really nice break from football this weekend!
There are definitely things that football can take from technology in rugby union, but we have to remember they are very different sports. Most of the decisions are black and white with very little "in the opinion of the referee" subjectivity. Rugby is also very different in that all of the officials are the same level, there isn't the concept of dedicated touch judges, can't really see Michael Oliver having a chat on the pitch with Stuart Burt and Dan Cook to talk about a decision as they watch it. And then not all EPL grounds have giant screens, where are you going to put one big enough to clearly watch a replay at Kenilworth Road for example?
That didn't happen by magic, it's the result of better-written rules with clear flow charts (like the one I pasted in the Spurs Liv thread as an example) to help referees categorise difficult decisions appropriately and consistently.
Maybe it's impossible to produce a similar level of clarity and procedure in football, but there's been little visible effort to even try and do so. At the very least, I think a flowchart-like process should be possible for handball and SFP even with existing laws, but I doubt that's the limit of areas where some more clarity could theoretically be introduced.
They might all be the same "level", but there's still a lead official and two assisting touch judges.
At the end of the day, if the rugby referee and the consulted touch judge disagree, the referees say will go. The touch judge isn't there to have an equal say in a democratic voting procedure, they're there to sanity check the ref and provide a sounding board for any debatable aspects. I don't see any reason why an SG1 AR couldn't do that job.
Big screens for this are great, but there's no reason to pretend they're mandatory. Any existing ground without a big screen can be grandfathered in and the small VAR screens used until those grounds decide to install a big screen.
And in the long run, the grounds will be incentivised to do so because it's essentially providing a worse experience for in-stadium fans without that big screen for clarity and to stop the "standing around confused and waiting for something to happen" that we get with current VAR.
Warrabout Barcelona? I think it would be very naive to assume everything is above board, everywhere, all of the time, at the top level
Note: I'm aware that nothing has been proven WRT the Barcelona controversy. And I somehow doubt it ever will be
Albeit, treacherous waters to swim in, I don't think it's good to shut down every mention of of bias (in whatever form), as long as the discussion is intelligent and legal. Every decision in every game is always swayed by a million and one things and we should acknowledge that fact
Last edited:
Fellow members clearly don't agree as we get complaints when it happened.
In any case, this is a refereeing forum. Therefore anyone posting on here about on-pitch decision related conspiracy theories are clearly implying wrong doing by referees. It isn't the right place. None of us would be happy if clubs we have officiated posted on Facebook or Twitter suggesting we were less than impartial, so in what parallel universe is it acceptable to allow posts on a dedicated refereeing forum suggesting our top level officials are less than impartial, even if sub-consciously?