A&H

Euros

Status
Not open for further replies.
This just isn't the type of straight leg lunge I was expected to see from some of the replies.

He's kicked the ball and then his leg has extended, this happens routinely after players kick the ball.
 
The Referee Store
JamesL said:
It's what the VAR protocol says:

• The VAR can ‘check’ the footage in normal speed and/or in slow motion but,
in general, slow-motion replays should only be used for facts, e.g. position of
offence/player, point of contact for physical offences and handball, ball out of
play (including goal/no goal); normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’
of an offence or to decide if it was a handball offence
Click to expand...
Thanks. Admittedly, since I will never work a match with VAR I don't exactly pore over the details of the protocols. :D
 
GraemeS said:
One tackle is innately very dangerous with a very high risk of causing injury. The other is much less dangerous, with a much lower chance of causing injury. What actually ended up happening doesn't change that description.

I get that you have a club-related interest in seeing anyone who hurts KdB punished, but your blue-tinted specs are getting in the way of the actual refereeing discussion here. The two challenges are not comparable in risk, in force or in likelihood of injury, and therefore they should not recieve comparable punishment. You are comparing apples and oranges (or cherries and lemons) here. Again, even the article you came up with to try and make your point with doesn't actually think that was a red for the KdB challenge!
Click to expand...
I may be thinking of a period a few seasons ago when it really did seem to be "open season" on City players, prompting Guardiola's plea for referees to protect players of all teams.

But you are dead wrong about the comparison, hence IFAB's initially saying that any challenge from behind was SFP. If you don't think an off-the-ground lunge from behind that did injure a player is a challenge "not comparable in risk, in force or in likelihood of injury", I'm really not sure what the point of the law is. The law says they are comparable.
 
JamesL said:
It's what the VAR protocol says:

• The VAR can ‘check’ the footage in normal speed and/or in slow motion but,
in general, slow-motion replays should only be used for facts, e.g. position of
offence/player, point of contact for physical offences and handball, ball out of
play (including goal/no goal); normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’
of an offence or to decide if it was a handball offence
Click to expand...
Does this only apply to the VAR viewing it or also what the referee is shown on the screen? In the EPL they almost exclusively only show the referee a slow motion replay.
 
JamesL said:
It's what the VAR protocol says:

• The VAR can ‘check’ the footage in normal speed and/or in slow motion but,
in general, slow-motion replays should only be used for facts, e.g. position of
offence/player, point of contact for physical offences and handball, ball out of
play (including goal/no goal); normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’
of an offence or to decide if it was a handball offence
Click to expand...
But we routinely see the review monitor showing slow motion and snap-shots when it shouldn't. In fact, I'm not sure I've seen a real-time replay yet on that blessed screen. I know this part of the protocol exists, but it's another page which can be torn out
 
bester said:
Does this only apply to the VAR viewing it or also what the referee is shown on the screen? In the EPL they almost exclusively only show the referee a slow motion replay.
Click to expand...
No. It also says
• The referee can request different cameras angles/replay speeds but, in
general, slow-motion replays should only be used for facts, e.g. position of
offence/player, point of contact for physical offences and handball, ball out of play (including goal/no goal); normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’
of an offence or to decide if it was a handball offence.
 
Big Cat said:
But we routinely see the review monitor showing slow motion and snap-shots when it shouldn't. In fact, I'm not sure I've seen a real-time replay yet on that blessed screen. I know this part of the protocol exists, but it's another page which can be torn out
Click to expand...
Agreed.
I can only assume that the reason for this is a lot of emphasis is placed on point of contact for SFP.
Indeed, coaching I have had in the past, is that in general, ankle and below = yellow / any higher = red.
So assuming, that the R is signed up to that principle he need only be shown POC to determine SFP. Bearing in mind, especially if he has ready yellow carded he must have some misgivings around the force used that made him go yellow.
Reading the protocol snippet above it would seem (not saying its what happens) the R asks for what he wants to see on the monitor.
 
I really am amazed that any qualified referee thinks this isn't a nailed on red card. Yes, he cleared the ball, and yes, he didn't mean to kick the opponent. None of that has any relevance, certainly not as much as he has kicked an opponent at knee height, with real force and with a straight leg. Even his manager and much of the media think it was a red card, a referee not sending off for this is guilty of a serious dereliction of duty, although granted it was more difficult to spot real time.
 
RustyRef said:
I really am amazed that any qualified referee thinks this isn't a nailed on red card. Yes, he cleared the ball, and yes, he didn't mean to kick the opponent. None of that has any relevance, certainly not as much as he has kicked an opponent at knee height, with real force and with a straight leg. Even his manager and much of the media think it was a red card, a referee not sending off for this is guilty of a serious dereliction of duty, although granted it was more difficult to spot real time.
Click to expand...
Not sure anyone has disputed the Red
 
JamesL said:
Agreed.
I can only assume that the reason for this is a lot of emphasis is placed on point of contact for SFP.
Indeed, coaching I have had in the past, is that in general, ankle and below = yellow / any higher = red.
So assuming, that the R is signed up to that principle he need only be shown POC to determine SFP. Bearing in mind, especially if he has ready yellow carded he must have some misgivings around the force used that made him go yellow.
Reading the protocol snippet above it would seem (not saying its what happens) the R asks for what he wants to see on the monitor.
Click to expand...
I think that is consistent with the quick review that happened here. He had already cautioned. I am *guessing* he told the VAR that he had a yellow because of low point of contact. So all he needed to see was point of contact, which made the slow mo appropriate, as that was the only open issue for the R to reverse the call. As soon as he saw point of contact, he had everything he needed.
 
socal lurker said:
I think that is consistent with the quick review that happened here. He had already cautioned. I am *guessing* he told the VAR that he had a yellow because of low point of contact. So all he needed to see was point of contact, which made the slow mo appropriate, as that was the only open issue for the R to reverse the call. As soon as he saw point of contact, he had everything he needed.
Click to expand...
I don't share your trust with respect to such matters
 
Big Cat said:
I don't share your trust with respect to such matters
Click to expand...
As I said, it's a guess. And I really wish UEFA would follow the lead of MLS and be more open about what happens in the review and communications between the R and VAR. They don't have to do it in real time, but it is very interesting and illuminating to see what the VAR actually does in the check process and not only what is shown to the R, but the discussion about what is being shown.

As the passages @JamesL quoted specify, the VAR procedure mandates that the slow mo should only be used for points of contact. So either that was the only thing in issue or the VAR procedures were blatantly ignored.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top