A&H

Wolves v Citee

RustyRef said:
Dendoncker trod on Mahrez's foot and that is a penalty even if it is difficult to spot real time.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's not the criteria for the on-field decision to be overturned though - the proper question is not whether it was a foul (or a penalty) but whether it was a clear and obvious error not to give the foul.

I'd agree with anyone who says that there was careless contact but can we really say it was clearly and obviously wrong not to give it?

I thought the original idea behind VAR was for it basically to only overturn those blatant and obvious miscarriages of justice where it's so clearly unjust that nobody could argue about it. Yes there's contact, but if that had not been given, would anybody (other than City fans of course) have really complained about how terribly wrong it was?
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
Peter Grove said:
Yes, but that's not the criteria for the on-field decision to be overturned though - the proper question is not whether it was a foul (or a penalty) but whether it was a clear and obvious error not to give the foul.

I'd agree with anyone who says that there was careless contact but can we really say it was clearly and obviously wrong not to give it?

I thought the original idea behind VAR was for it basically to only overturn those blatant and obvious miscarriages of justice where it's so clearly unjust that nobody could argue about it. Yes there's contact, but if that had not been given, would anybody (other than City fans of course) have really complained about how terribly wrong it was?
Click to expand...

My first reaction was no pen, but you can't see the contact without the replays. Surely you stand on someone's foot as they're running it's a foul? And not giving the foul is a clear and obvious error?

There was an identical challenge earlier this season, Bournemouth v city, where the pen wasn't given. Mike Riley came out after and said VAR made a mistake. This had to be given.
 
es1 said:
My first reaction was no pen, but you can't see the contact without the replays. Surely you stand on someone's foot as they're running it's a foul? And not giving the foul is a clear and obvious error?

There was an identical challenge earlier this season, Bournemouth v city, where the pen wasn't given. Mike Riley came out after and said VAR made a mistake. This had to be given.
Click to expand...
So, by your own admittance it wasn’t clear and obvious, therefore it’s got nothing to do with VAR.. Ref has given his decision!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
So, by your own admittance it wasn’t clear and obvious, therefore it’s got nothing to do with VAR.. Ref has given his decision!
Click to expand...

I think it's clear with the replays that a foul was committed.

Impossible for the ref to call in real time, surely that's what VAR is for?
 
es1 said:
I think it's clear with the replays that a foul was committed.

Impossible for the ref to call in real time, surely that's what VAR is for?
Click to expand...
Again, it wasn't for that, it was for massive errors, was this a massive error, really, they had to look at it multiple times to see the faintest clip, and then we we treated to an absolute DIVE just to make sure someone saw it, Michael Owen was scathing of it.... Complete and utter cheat!!!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Again, it wasn't for that, it was for massive errors, was this a massive error, really, they had to look at it multiple times to see the faintest clip, and then we we treated to an absolute DIVE just to make sure someone saw it, Michael Owen was scathing of it.... Complete and utter cheat!!!
Click to expand...

And again, missing a player standing on an another players foot is a clear and obvious error. The ref agreed, VAR agreed, Dermot Gallagher agreed and Mike Riley agreed.
 
I don't deny their was a minor contact, did it really need the Platoon fall? Definite contender for the annual North West, FallonDeFloor Award!!!!! Mane has had a few too!!!
See the Jeff Stelling tweet??
 
Sheffields Finest said:
I don't deny their was a minor contact, did it really need the Platoon fall? Definite contender for the annual North West, FallonDeFloor Award!!!!! Mane has had a few too!!!
See the Jeff Stelling tweet??
Click to expand...

I haven't seen it, I'll have a look...

I would agree he's exaggerated the fall, but I challemge anyone to have their foot trodden on whilst running and not fall over.
 
They’ve a song at the Lane for it, not that one, it’s another one..... ‘it’s not football anymore’, Rather apt when 30000 sing it!!!
 
es1 said:
Singing f**k VAR when VAR is reviewing a potential pen for city tells you all you need to know about how our fans feel about it!
Click to expand...
Yeah... it illustrates how the fans, players and managers don’t understand the laws of the game... let’s face it - if you’re at the wrong end of it - the uneducated will always disagree with it.
 
Andrew.Rainsbury said:
Yeah... it illustrates how the fans, players and managers don’t understand the laws of the game... let’s face it - if you’re at the wrong end of it - the uneducated will always disagree with it.
Click to expand...
It’s the fans game not referees! They’ll vote with their feet!
 
Peter Grove said:
Yes, but that's not the criteria for the on-field decision to be overturned though - the proper question is not whether it was a foul (or a penalty) but whether it was a clear and obvious error not to give the foul.

I'd agree with anyone who says that there was careless contact but can we really say it was clearly and obviously wrong not to give it?

I thought the original idea behind VAR was for it basically to only overturn those blatant and obvious miscarriages of justice where it's so clearly unjust that nobody could argue about it. Yes there's contact, but if that had not been given, would anybody (other than City fans of course) have really complained about how terribly wrong it was?
Click to expand...

I would guess the conversation went along the lines of ...

VAR: Did you see the defender tread on the attacker's foot before he went down?
REF: No I didn't see that
VAR: OK, had you have seen that would you have given a penalty?
REF: Yes, thanks I'll award the penalty

That makes it a clear and obvious error, the error being that he didn't see the contact. Especially as Dermot Gallagher said afterwards that referees have been told that if a defender treads on an attacker's foot and caused them to fall it must be given as a penalty.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JH
For me it is a penalty. The “dive” from Mahrez seems theatrical, but when someone stands on your foot and you then try to move that’s the natural way you will fall. Trying to explain that to my uncle, who I was watching the game with, was a challenge though.
 
I don't see how can anyone not call that a clear and obvious error. Every decent referee seeing that treading on the foot in replay will call it a foul. The fact that you need replays to see it as a foul does not make it not a foul. Its 100% a foul. So if the referee doesn't call it (having seen it or not having seen it), then he is clearly making the wrong decision. The way Mahrez goes down is inconsequential here.
 
Andrew.Rainsbury said:
Yeah... it illustrates how the fans, players and managers don’t understand the laws of the game... let’s face it - if you’re at the wrong end of it - the uneducated will always disagree with it.
Click to expand...

As a city fan I think it illustrates exactly how fans feel VAR is impacting the game.
 
es1 said:
Surely you stand on someone's foot as they're running it's a foul?
Click to expand...
If it's at a minimum, careless then yes.
es1 said:
And not giving the foul is a clear and obvious error?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. Just because there was a foul that wasn't given, it doesn't mean it was therefore a clear and obvious error. That's the whole point of one of the guiding principles of the entire VAR system. As stated in the protocol:

The referee’s decision can only be changed if the video review shows a clear error
i.e. not ‘was the decision correct?’ but:

“was the decision clearly wrong?”
Click to expand...
 
RustyRef said:
Dermot Gallagher said afterwards that referees have been told that if a defender treads on an attacker's foot and caused them to fall it must be given as a penalty.
Click to expand...
Where's the justification in the law for that? The law says the contact must be careless, reckless or using excessive force. Deciding that is conditioned on the nature of the actions committed by the player making the challenge, not on whether the opponent falls over.
 
Peter Grove said:
If it's at a minimum, careless then yes.

Absolutely not. Just because there was a foul that wasn't given, it doesn't mean it was therefore a clear and obvious error. That's the whole point of one of the guiding principles of the entire VAR system. As stated in the protocol:
Click to expand...

Was the decision not to award a penalty clear and obviously wrong?

Of course it was! He stood on his foot and it was missed by the ref
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top