The Ref Stop

Mic’d Up

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

The Ref Stop
Would love the chaos at the end.
The Attacking action and possible foul in build up etc.
I mean red is pretty straight forward.
 
Hopefully we see the incident in the Chelsea Bournemouth game where it's the closest we got to a referee rejecting an review when the VAR recommended a red card and the referee saw it and only thought it was a yellow card.
 
Here we go…..

The VAR audio that saw Lewis-Skelly red card confirmed against Wolves
https://www.skysports.com/share/13311961

Looks like Howard disagrees with a fair few people (and Michael Oliver and his strong confident personality) on here 😬

I said yellow as I felt it was a graze. Howard’s term was glancing.
 
Last edited:
Hoping to hear the Merseyside Derby equaliser. Absolutely convinced that the 'push on Konate' is not going to be called out as anything more than normal contact.
 
The Jota dive is embarrassing from the officials (and him). At no point did any of them consider caution and IDFK. Even as a Liverpool fan, that is extremely poor
 
Runner Ref said:
The Jota dive is embarrassing from the officials (and him). At no point did any of them consider caution and IDFK. Even as a Liverpool fan, that is extremely poor
Click to expand...
I do wonder whether the contact, even though it is clearly manufactured by Jota, has an impact on the lack of caution for simulation - whether there's an ideal world where we only caution for simulation when there is clearly zero contact at all. I think all of football expects that to be a caution though.
 
RefereeX said:
I do wonder whether the contact, even though it is clearly manufactured by Jota, has an impact on the lack of caution for simulation - whether there's an ideal world where we only caution for simulation when there is clearly zero contact at all. I think all of football expects that to be a caution though.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is any contact. But HW even says himself that he thinks the officials got themselves too focused on overturning the penalty. This is very similar to the Pickford challenge on VVD from a few years back.

It’s really not a good look that they’re doing this.
 
Runner Ref said:
I don’t think there is any contact. But HW even says himself that he thinks the officials got themselves too focused on overturning the penalty. This is very similar to the Pickford challenge on VVD from a few years back.

It’s really not a good look that they’re doing this.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the Mic'd up yet! I also haven't seen a lot of angles of the Jota dive but the one I did see it looked like he intentionally stuck his foot in to the goalkeeper to make contact. Still a caution for me, but just wondered if that raised a question mark.

Not really great though if the officials got too focussed on overturning the penalty as surely the considerations are: was it a foul? No. Was it simulation?...
 
RefereeX said:
I haven't seen the Mic'd up yet! I also haven't seen a lot of angles of the Jota dive but the one I did see it looked like he intentionally stuck his foot in to the goalkeeper to make contact. Still a caution for me, but just wondered if that raised a question mark.

Not really great though if the officials got too focussed on overturning the penalty as surely the considerations are: was it a foul? No. Was it simulation?...
Click to expand...
You must have seen an incredible angle as the goalkeeper isn’t involved 😉

Aye, it’s really not a good look.
 
Regarding the Lewis Skelly incident then I'm disappointed at the lack of description from the referee "red card on the ankle" is hardly much of a description for the VAR to go on. Compare that to the Scottish VAR audio and you can see the referees are instructed to describe what they have saw, it can sound a little bit messy but it's in theory better for the VAR to make a decision whether to intervene or not.
 
Paul_10 said:
Regarding the Lewis Skelly incident then I'm disappointed at the lack of description from the referee "red card on the ankle" is hardly much of a description for the VAR to go on. Compare that to the Scottish VAR audio and you can see the referees are instructed to describe what they have saw, it can sound a little bit messy but it's in theory better for the VAR to make a decision whether to intervene or not.
Click to expand...
Completely agree and said this in the initial thread. Catching someone high does not necessarily = red
 
On the Lewis-Skelly incident, the comment from Webb 'there are some considerations that might support a red card, but there's a whole host of others that say it's not quite there' does not quite support his conclusion that VAR should have intervened. Disappointingly this feels very much like preferring a lower threshold for VAR downgrading cards than upgrading them.

For the Brentford penalty retake, the ball is clearly going to touch Mbeumo before Janelt so I don't think the VAR intervention is justified. It certainly is not a factual decision and so an on-field review should have taken place?

The explanation about 'serious missed incident' procedure for the Brooks/Cucurella incident was nicely done.
 
Yep I'm really surprised Webb thinks the VAR should of intervened and I can't help but think if we didn't had the over the top reaction, he would of went more with this is a classic example of "referees call" where it's probably the classic orange card and some refs would go yellow and some red.

Can't also help but feel the reaction would be different if it was a more experienced player who made that tackle and played for a much lesser club.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
On the Lewis-Skelly incident, the comment from Webb 'there are some considerations that might support a red card, but there's a whole host of others that say it's not quite there' does not quite support his conclusion that VAR should have intervened. Disappointingly this feels very much like preferring a lower threshold for VAR downgrading cards than upgrading them.

For the Brentford penalty retake, the ball is clearly going to touch Mbeumo before Janelt so I don't think the VAR intervention is justified. It certainly is not a factual decision and so an on-field review should have taken place?

The explanation about 'serious missed incident' procedure for the Brooks/Cucurella incident was nicely done.
Click to expand...
Just to upset some people again and comment without having seen the micd up review for it… 🤣 but I have seen the incident… the Mbuemo situation is factual. The fact Mbuemo would have touched it is irrelevant, as Guehi (IIRC) touched it first so it factually has to be a retake.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
For the Brentford penalty retake, the ball is clearly going to touch Mbeumo before Janelt so I don't think the VAR intervention is justified. It certainly is not a factual decision and so an on-field review should have taken place?
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand this. Mbuemo cannot touch the ball as he took the penalty, so he is taken out of the equation completely. Guehy cleared the ball well ahead of any other Brentford player having a chance of getting there, there is zero doubt he encroached, therefore this is black and white, there's no need for an on-pitch review.
 
RefereeX said:
Just to upset some people again and comment without having seen the micd up review for it… 🤣 but I have seen the incident… the Mbuemo situation is factual. The fact Mbuemo would have touched it is irrelevant, as Guehi (IIRC) touched it first so it factually has to be a retake.
Click to expand...

RustyRef said:
Not sure I understand this. Mbuemo cannot touch the ball as he took the penalty, so he is taken out of the equation completely. Guehy cleared the ball well ahead of any other Brentford player having a chance of getting there, there is zero doubt he encroached, therefore this is black and white, there's no need for an on-pitch review.
Click to expand...
My issue (and this was mentioned during the VAR discussions) is according to Law 14 the encroaching defender who plays the ball can only be penalised if it prevents the opponents from scoring, attempting to score or creating a goal-scoring opportunity. In this case the only impact was preventing the kicker touching the ball twice, which is none of the above. VAR then sees Janelt coming in behind and uses this as justification to intervene, but seems to lose track that the footage is showing Mbeumo is about to touch the ball first. To suggest Mbeumo might not touch the ball makes it a subjective decision.

This is a link to the incident as shown on Mic'd Up https://www.skysports.com/football/...ford-had-to-be-retaken-against-crystal-palace

The player and ball positions when Guehi plays the ball:
1739947805406.png
 
Last edited:
CaptainsPlease said:
My issue (and this was mentioned during the VAR discussions) is according to Law 14 the encroaching defender who plays the ball can only be penalised if it prevents the opponents from scoring, attempting to score or creating a goal-scoring opportunity. In this case the only impact was preventing the kicker touching the ball twice, which is none of the above. VAR then sees Janelt coming in behind and uses this as justification to intervene, but seems to lose track that the footage is showing Mbeumo is about to touch the ball first. To suggest Mbeumo might not touch the ball makes it a subjective decision.
Click to expand...
Genuinely didn’t realise that caveat in law to be honest. I’ve been under the impression that encroachment was only to be penalised if ‘impactful’ i.e. if they play or challenge for the ball or impact the kicker in some way, then this has had an impact.
The way that’s written in law makes things somewhat different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top