A&H

TOT v LIV

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Referee Store
But I think Liverpool have every right to push for a better explanation as it is unsatisfactory.
So pressure now on Webb for a proper disclosure and review. Apparently the UAE appointments might be part of the push as well.
 
Tim Punter said:
But I think Liverpool have every right to push for a better explanation as it is unsatisfactory.
So pressure now on Webb for a proper disclosure and review. Apparently the UAE appointments might be part of the push as well.
Click to expand...
And again, clubs might want to be careful what they wish for. If English referees aren't allowed to go and referee middle east games, there's every chance that it will be taken out of PGMOL's hands and they just offer the referees jobs directly. There are already reports that the Saudi Pro League are offering European referees over £300k per year tax free to referee for them, that's going to be extremely tempting, and the likes of Taylor and Oliver can probably negotiate to get double that.

Will EPL clubs think it was a good idea to prevent SG1 referees from refereeing overseas when their games are being refereed by Jeremy Simpson, Gavin Ward, Oliver Langford and Keith Stroud (no offence to any of them, they are just three of the longest serving SG2 officials that haven't progressed) because the top SG1 referees have emigrated?

Given the money involved in the EPL, the money paid to our top referees is woeful. They have longer careers than players, but it is still limited as they can't go on until anywhere even close to retirement age, so it is completely understandable that they are keen to pick up supplemental income when offered.

www.mirror.co.uk

Saudi offer eye-watering referee wages as Premier League officials sounded out

The Saudi Professional League is trying to tempt the Premier League's best match officials to move to the Middle East and earn huge wages alongside their new star players
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk
 
English refs going mid-season to ref random games in other countries around the world isn't anything new though. Shouldn't be issue if managed properly
 
I think the UAE issue is bigger because they also own Man City. Not saying these referees are corrupt but it’s the optics. And if refs want to go make big bucks in a dire league then let them, but they can’t them come back with less than 48 hours to recover and ref a top level game in the PL.
 
OnlyUseMeWhistle said:
I think the UAE issue is bigger because they also own Man City. Not saying these referees are corrupt but it’s the optics. And if refs want to go make big bucks in a dire league then let them, but they can’t them come back with less than 48 hours to recover and ref a top level game in the PL.
Click to expand...

But they are not on the field though, they are in a VAR booth making what should of been a simple VAR decision. The reason why the VAR messed up won't ever be fully known unless we hear the audio because ill be interested how the on field team communicated at that point, you would of thought at least at some point the AR would of mentioned offside and I assume the VAR hears what the AR is saying aswell as the referee.

The idea they were in the UAE caused them to have mental fatigue seems a bit of a cop out, if Darren England did not feel 100% to do the job, surely he would of said so.
 
Paul_10 said:
But they are not on the field though, they are in a VAR booth making what should of been a simple VAR decision. The reason why the VAR messed up won't ever be fully known unless we hear the audio because ill be interested how the on field team communicated at that point, you would of thought at least at some point the AR would of mentioned offside and I assume the VAR hears what the AR is saying aswell as the referee.

The idea they were in the UAE caused them to have mental fatigue seems a bit of a cop out, if Darren England did not feel 100% to do the job, surely he would of said so.
Click to expand...
Mental fatigue is a huge factor in VAR or on field. It’s literally what impacts decision making skills and focus.

“If Darren didn’t feel 100% he would have said so” for £1000 a game I’m not sure he would.
 
Paul_10 said:
But they are not on the field though, they are in a VAR booth making what should of been a simple VAR decision. The reason why the VAR messed up won't ever be fully known unless we hear the audio because ill be interested how the on field team communicated at that point, you would of thought at least at some point the AR would of mentioned offside and I assume the VAR hears what the AR is saying aswell as the referee.

The idea they were in the UAE caused them to have mental fatigue seems a bit of a cop out, if Darren England did not feel 100% to do the job, surely he would of said so.
Click to expand...
Exactly. My understanding is that the AR should have been using comms to indicate that he had a close offside decision that he was intending to put the flag up for once the move is over. If the VAR didn't notice him screaming "Delay Delay Delay" as he followed the play back, we either have a serious tech issue or a serious VAR concentration issue that needs to be addressed to complete this story.
 
David F said:
Tackles like Curtis Jones’s seem to be going through a similar evolution to head contact in rugby: from intent-based (careless, reckless, excessive force) to consequence-based (where did he make contact, is there any mitigation). Similar idea across rugby and football that the tackler has a duty of care towards the tackled player.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're referring to there. You seem to be implying that intent not being considered is some kind of trend that started fairly recently and is still ongoing.

That's not so - the element of intent was removed as a consideration for physical challenge fouls in 1995 and has not been a consideration ever since then.

IMG_20231002_085204.jpg

The criteria of, "careless, reckless or using excessive force," are based on the actual nature of the challenge, not the intent of the player.
 
I actually can’t believe how many people (not necessarily on here) who think the Jones challenge wasn’t a red. Or in some cases even a yellow.

Heard a few pundits trying to use the ‘refs never played the game’ justification.

Maybe if Jones had broke his leg they may have changed their mind….
 
Runner-Ref said:
I actually can’t believe how many people (not necessarily on here) who think the Jones challenge wasn’t a red. Or in some cases even a yellow.

Heard a few pundits trying to use the ‘refs never played the game’ justification.

Maybe if Jones had broke his leg they may have changed their mind….
Click to expand...

My main query is the VAR intervention. It's not clearly and obviously wrong in my view. And he was not shown the challenge, that I saw, at full speed. He arrived to a still image which yes should be used for point of contact but then he should be shown the challenge in full speed.

I can feel sorry for Jones as he gets a good contact on the ball (yes I know that means nothing) and the ball contact forces the foot to roll over the ball, he didn't really come in over the top, it was more mechanical as a result of the contact he made.

It's not excessive force but I can agree there is endangering safety, which was incidental from the challenge that was made, but Hooper was not clearly and obviously wrong not to send off. I don't think a VAR intervention was expected.

It's a subjective call and as I said in another group, it's one of those where what referees see and expect as an outcome does not necessarily reflect what football expects (or rather non-referee folks) as an outcome.
 
george.g said:
Nor much else I imagine
Click to expand...

Bit complicated and technical, but the short version is that they could probably get to a point where the VAR finds himself in front of an FA panel and is asked to justify their competency and continued use in that role. And what the FA panel can then choose to do is pretty open-ended - so while I don't know if Liverpool would get their lost points or replay, it's not impossible. And England losing the right to work as a VAR for at least the rest of the season is a legitimately plausible outcome.
 
JamesL said:
My main query is the VAR intervention. It's not clearly and obviously wrong in my view. And he was not shown the challenge, that I saw, at full speed. He arrived to a still image which yes should be used for point of contact but then he should be shown the challenge in full speed.

I can feel sorry for Jones as he gets a good contact on the ball (yes I know that means nothing) and the ball contact forces the foot to roll over the ball, he didn't really come in over the top, it was more mechanical as a result of the contact he made.

It's not excessive force but I can agree there is endangering safety, which was incidental from the challenge that was made, but Hooper was not clearly and obviously wrong not to send off. I don't think a VAR intervention was expected.

It's a subjective call and as I said in another group, it's one of those where what referees see and expect as an outcome does not necessarily reflect what football expects (or rather non-referee folks) as an outcome.
Click to expand...
I'm glad someone else said this because I was worried my red specs were showing. But this is exactly where I landed on seeing the first replay - it's a textbook "ticks a lot of red boxes but with some mitigation" orange card, where either on-field decision would have been acceptable and there was no need for VAR to intervene.

And yes, even if you do think it's nailed-on red, we should still be expecting a SG1 official to follow a basic protocol properly. A still for point of contact is fine, but then there's no excuse for showing one angle on repeat in slow-mo to determine severity. That should have been full speed, it should have been from multiple angles and it should have included the previous contact on Jones that put him off balance in the first place.

The VAR is not there to re-referee, it's there to show the referee when he may have made a mistake, and the referee needs to be shown the whole picture in order to correctly determine if that has happened.
 
JamesL said:
My main query is the VAR intervention. It's not clearly and obviously wrong in my view. And he was not shown the challenge, that I saw, at full speed. He arrived to a still image which yes should be used for point of contact but then he should be shown the challenge in full speed.

I can feel sorry for Jones as he gets a good contact on the ball (yes I know that means nothing) and the ball contact forces the foot to roll over the ball, he didn't really come in over the top, it was more mechanical as a result of the contact he made.

It's not excessive force but I can agree there is endangering safety, which was incidental from the challenge that was made, but Hooper was not clearly and obviously wrong not to send off. I don't think a VAR intervention was expected.

It's a subjective call and as I said in another group, it's one of those where what referees see and expect as an outcome does not necessarily reflect what football expects (or rather non-referee folks) as an outcome.
Click to expand...
I put this in another thread but happy to discuss here. the Niakhate send off in Forest Vs Brentford was given a yellow and I don't think was reviewed. I thought that challenge was worse that this and it was not reviewed to change a yellow to red, albeit the yellow was a second yellow.

For what it's worth, IMO both incidents were clear reds.
 
Runner-Ref said:
I actually can’t believe how many people (not necessarily on here) who think the Jones challenge wasn’t a red. Or in some cases even a yellow.

Heard a few pundits trying to use the ‘refs never played the game’ justification.

Maybe if Jones had broke his leg they may have changed their mind….
Click to expand...
I think the way the pundits reacted - combined with the choice of extreme still - is responsible.

Neville and Redknapp explained they felt Jones was rolling his foot over the ball to control/shield it and it wasn’t Jones’s aim to injure or responsibility that another player has is ankle the other side of the ball.

We know this is wrong.
Unlucky for Jones maybe but it’s obviously excessive force.

Pundits and fans can cry “you’ve never played the game” but it is so much more relevant that they have never refereed the game!!!!
 
santa sangria said:
I think the way the pundits reacted - combined with the choice of extreme still - is responsible.

Neville and Redknapp explained they felt Jones was rolling his foot over the ball to control/shield it and it wasn’t Jones’s aim to injure or responsibility that another player has is ankle the other side of the ball.

We know this is wrong.
Unlucky for Jones maybe but it’s obviously excessive force.

Pundits and fans can cry “you’ve never played the game” but it is so much more relevant that they have never refereed the game!!!!
Click to expand...
You think the force he used was excessive? He barely used any force, certainly, not more than was needed for the action be was using, so I can't say it is excessive.
Endangering safety, yes, all day, I accept, but not excessive force. Might as well ban tackling if we are saying the force used here was excessive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top