I doubt we will get the full audio on this one but it's needed to answer a lot of questions. The AR should have been communicating that they have a delayed offside flag (delay, delay, delay is the used phrase in MLS). Did that not happen? If it didn't then it opens up the AR to a lot of questions (and perhaps even the ref if it was apart of their pregame instructions).
TOT v LIV
- Thread starter GraemeS
- Start date
- Status
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Semantics… I don’t think there’s an argument here… I am happy to call endangering… or excessive force in this case.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I actually think the force used was excessive but even if you disagree and I can see how you might, as you yourself have stated, it doesn't make a difference. As you point out, serious foul play can be either a tackle or challenge with excessive force or it can be one "that endangers the safety of an opponent." This tackle for me, definitely falls into the latter category.
I also totally disagree with your earlier contention that Jones, "gets a good contact on the ball" (which as you said is irrelevant anyway). For me, he hardly touches the ball at all. At most, his foot barely brushes the top of the ball as he goes over it and plants his studs into the opponent's ankle.
In fact, I'd say if you wanted a textbook example of what an "over the ball" challenge looks like, this would be it.
To be clear I think this is a red card. But I'm happy with an on field decision either way. My main contention was that it's not an egregious error that VAR was brought in for. You may, and are entitled to, disagree on that.
This foul wouldnt be getting anywhere close to same amount airtime if VAR hadn't have intervened. I think that would be the case had Hooper gone red, as well. Again that's my opinion and not fact.
David F
Member
This is fair of course - perhaps “intent-based” is the wrong word, and the distinction is between the nature of the challenge and the consequences of the challenge. The latter may be more objective, which lends itself to clearer VAR protocols and decisions. Rugby has certainly moved in that direction, but maybe I’m drawing too much of a parallel.
Rugby also includes clear list of mitigation for things like high tackles - where the decision is yellow rather than red, you will often hear things like "other player ducked more than expected" or "tackle started in the chest and moved upwards after contact".
Football having none of that laid out is part of the problem. The fact that Jones was arguably fouled and off balance going into the tackle, or that he made contact with the ball and the tackle only became higher because of his foot moving off the ball are both mitigation to a casual fan. But there's no clarity in the laws if these are valid reasons to mitigate the sanction, or by how much.
It's a few years old, but look at this:
Can you imagine getting anything that clear and straightforward to help guide us through the decision making process for a tackle like Jones'?
Football having none of that laid out is part of the problem. The fact that Jones was arguably fouled and off balance going into the tackle, or that he made contact with the ball and the tackle only became higher because of his foot moving off the ball are both mitigation to a casual fan. But there's no clarity in the laws if these are valid reasons to mitigate the sanction, or by how much.
It's a few years old, but look at this:
Can you imagine getting anything that clear and straightforward to help guide us through the decision making process for a tackle like Jones'?
Kinsleyr
Member
I thought the initial red card was harsh as he hit the ball and then rolled over it on to the lads leg but on second viewing (and I guess slowed down) it probably was a fair result to upgrade to a red.
I'm not gfoing to go over the disallowed goal as its been mentioned plenty already but it seems like another of the recent rules is being only dished out when it suits the referee. Liverpool have been given yellow cards twice this season for asking for cards to be shown in challenges and it appears it's not a problem for their opponents to do it? Before Jota got his second yellow (which was fair), the lad who was challenged made a clear waving card appeal to the ref right in front of him. This should clearly have been a yellow card which would have meant this silly twit would have receeived a second yellow himself but once again it seems to only be used when it suits the referees narrative!
I'm not gfoing to go over the disallowed goal as its been mentioned plenty already but it seems like another of the recent rules is being only dished out when it suits the referee. Liverpool have been given yellow cards twice this season for asking for cards to be shown in challenges and it appears it's not a problem for their opponents to do it? Before Jota got his second yellow (which was fair), the lad who was challenged made a clear waving card appeal to the ref right in front of him. This should clearly have been a yellow card which would have meant this silly twit would have receeived a second yellow himself but once again it seems to only be used when it suits the referees narrative!
The VAR Review: What went wrong for Luis Diaz's offside goal
In this week's VAR Review: What went wrong in the VAR room to disallow Luis Diaz's goal for Liverpool at Tottenham Hotspur.
Looks like Dale has all the details.
Rugby also includes clear list of mitigation for things like high tackles - where the decision is yellow rather than red, you will often hear things like "other player ducked more than expected" or "tackle started in the chest and moved upwards after contact".
Football having none of that laid out is part of the problem. The fact that Jones was arguably fouled and off balance going into the tackle, or that he made contact with the ball and the tackle only became higher because of his foot moving off the ball are both mitigation to a casual fan. But there's no clarity in the laws if these are valid reasons to mitigate the sanction, or by how much.
It's a few years old, but look at this:
Can you imagine getting anything that clear and straightforward to help guide us through the decision making process for a tackle like Jones'?
challenging yes, but this is exactly what we need in football
considering excessive force and endangering safety for shoulder charge and high tackle...
we could come up with a short list of questions to go through to come up with a consistent and correct approach based on things such as speed of the tackle (running/standing start), type of tackle (diving/lunging/stretching) and point of contract and nature of contact (studs/instep on ankle/shin etc.)
next time i'm woking at home i might spend some time on this! and one for handball and offside!
Last edited:
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
I'm on board with you that the speed on the Jones challenge isn't going to be enough to go red on that challenge. However, in my opinion (and I'm perfectly good with others disagreeing), I think a lot of other factors that justify endangering the safety of a player are in play here.
- Straight leg
- High placement (Jones definitely comes over the ball as opposed to coming through the ball, in my opinion)
- The position of the contact. Contact on the inside of the leg carries a higher risk of significant injury compared to contact from another direction.
I'm coming to the conclusion that outside of goal-line technology and automated offsides (which admittedly still require some form of human intervention), we really would be better off without VAR. My reasoning is:
- Unlike other sports that use video assistance (eg cricket, rugby, US football, tennis) football is a far more flowing game that doesn't have the inbuilt breaks in play neccessary to allow it be used effectively without ruining the flow of the game, This in turn creates an undue and unfair amount of pressure on VARs to make decisions quickly.
- LOTG are so subjective in nature that there will still be disagreement regardless of the outcome (eg Curtis Jones, Brentford penalty decision,
- As a general rule, people are more accepting of missing things/mistakes/interpretations in real time, than using video technology.
- The impact on the game as a spectacle (and having been at matches where an already celebrated goal is subsequently wiped off) is not sufficiently offset by an improvement in outcomes
This one page makes an absolute mockery of the LOTGRugby also includes clear list of mitigation for things like high tackles - where the decision is yellow rather than red, you will often hear things like "other player ducked more than expected" or "tackle started in the chest and moved upwards after contact".
Football having none of that laid out is part of the problem. The fact that Jones was arguably fouled and off balance going into the tackle, or that he made contact with the ball and the tackle only became higher because of his foot moving off the ball are both mitigation to a casual fan. But there's no clarity in the laws if these are valid reasons to mitigate the sanction, or by how much.
It's a few years old, but look at this:
Can you imagine getting anything that clear and straightforward to help guide us through the decision making process for a tackle like Jones'?
Same as Golf. Logical. Very clear, no ambiguity, instead of the absolute rubbish we have to work with
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Yes there has been a lot of inconsistency with the application of the laws already this season, but to suggest Liverpool are being selectively targeted is utterly ridiculous and bordering on fandom. Chelsea Vs Liverpool first game of the season - player from each side was yellow carded for waving imaginary cards in the direction of the referee, first up was Chelsea's Jackson shortly followed by a Liverpool player. Infact all 5 of Jackson's yellow cards he has collected already have been dissent/card waving related and deservely so!
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
People are seriously losing their minds over this one offside. Some comments on social media are beyond laughable including the usual "this proves VAR doesn't work, time to scrap it", whilst they ignore the fact it was given as offside by the on-field team, so even without VAR, it wouldn't have counted!
As for Liverpool's response, at best it lacks any sense of class or respect for the game. Are they the only team to ever be on the wrong end of an incorrect referee/VAR call?
As for Liverpool's response, at best it lacks any sense of class or respect for the game. Are they the only team to ever be on the wrong end of an incorrect referee/VAR call?
I think this is the owners trying to ensure they don't miss out on the Champs League money next season, due to perceived errors by officials. Most EPL clubs are bought to make money, they are not owned by people who respect the game and that is the problem. I also think there is psychology at play here which they hope will benefit them in subjective decisions when sent to VAR in the future.
On this occasion, the. VAR operators, have brought this on themselves. One job, “check complete, you can award the goal”.
The VAR audio is going to be enlightening if released, was there any over talking, comms failed? Do the VAR operators hear the comms between AR & referee, would have been obvious both visually and audible that the on field decision was offside.
interesting, Phil Bentham is a PGMOL VAR coach and former English professional rugby league Referee & video referee. He was one of the Rugby Football League's full-time match officials since its inception in 2007. Bentham was referee in seven major finals and video referee in nine major finals.
Appointed in August 2022, but we don’t really see a rugby type structure to the VAR dialogue.
But I would potentially argue it was consistent with other SFP referrals where there hasn't really been a lot of intent.
Yes, this didn't feel right at the time, as Darren England, by having the freeze frame there when the referee arrives, is setting the agenda. We don't know what was said, but you can almost guess as Hooper is walking to the screen, England is telling him 'that's excessive force'. Surely the ref should be given full speed, all angles, as well as the slow motion to get the context of the challenge, and its Hooper decision then to overturn or not.
I agree that England, and Cook, could find themselves with a rest a bit longer than the usual one weekend. But it is impossible for Liverpool to get a replay, FIFA would intervene if there was even a suggestion that was going to happen. And Liverpool know it isn't going to happen, they are just sabre rattling.
- Status