Man Utd vs Ipswich
- Thread starter Runner Ref
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
✂️ Red
34 seconds · Clipped by Camden · Original video "Maguire Winner Rescues United 😮💨 | Man United 3-2 Ipswich Town | Premier League Highlights" by TNT Sports...youtube.com
It’s worrying that it took VAR to see this. If the onfield officials don’t, the 4O should have
And even then, it took Darren England a good while at the screen to perhaps be fully convinced that it's SFP.
I actually thought coupled with him taking a while at the screen and then looking for the player to talk to him before doing the VAR signal to give a red, he was going to give a yellow instead. Just all seems a bit bizzare too me.
One thing I will say is to look at the reaction of McKenna who the tackle happens right in front of. All he does is appeal for a throw.
Maybe looks worse on camera I don’t know
because I agree it looks bad. But given 4Os view would have been similar to McKenna’s, maybe he has mitigation?
Maybe looks worse on camera I don’t know
because I agree it looks bad. But given 4Os view would have been similar to McKenna’s, maybe he has mitigation?When it is seen who are on the panels for a player to successfully win an appeal it’s sometimes not difficult to understand why. I have absolutely no doubt that they are respected & have an open mind before considering their judgement, but apart from a PL/PGMOL rep who advises on Law, they are usually ex players, so will normally see things in a different light to a Referee. At the end of the day it’s the same for all Referees no matter what level they operate at, although it can be hard to deal with a player winning any appeal (though some are justified), Referees to focus on doing what they believe is right at the time of the incident.
one
RefChat Addict
When the FA has an appeal process whereby these appeals are won this frequently, it can oly mean one or more of three things. Their Rules/laws are bad. Their referees at their highest level are bad. And/or their appeal process is bad. Either way it's broken.
Keep in mind these appeals are not based on EIL, they are opinion based.
Keep in mind these appeals are not based on EIL, they are opinion based.
Tbf to Darren England, he probably was unsighted but what did surprise me was how many replays he had to look at to finally make a decision and then we had further slight delay where he was looking for the player to explain why he was going to send him off before actually sending him off, surely it would be quicker doing it the other way round.
Probably for the very first time I cannot agree with you here.
I work in another sport where there's an appeal process that's very similar to the FA's - legal chair and two "wingers", all of whom are independent. They cannot take decisions outside of the LOTG (ie go soft on someone because the sanction means they miss a big game/competition/event) but importantly have a significant amount of time, every single angle of an incident and the benefit of written and/or oral submissions.
Most appeals in any sport are around the fringes of decisions taken in split seconds/with little time and the pressure of a live, ongoing or recently concluded event depending on the sport, and are mostly on subjective laws and rules. As appeals are based on the civil standard of balance of probabilities (eg 51%), if clubs/individuals/player associations are discerning in what they appeal you would expect more appeals to be successful than not.
It follows that a high success rate (ours is circa 80%) does not and should not equate to bad officiating, bad laws or a bad process. It's a natural reaction for other officials to reach that conclusion but they are, perhaps understandably, looking at it in the wrong way. Instead of reaching the conclusions you suggest (bad process, they don't know what they're doing, appeals system is broken), how we ALL should be looking at it is that an appeals process is vital, we should be grown up about decisions being reversed/overturned/amended, and instead focus on the fact that the number of successful appeals represent a tiny, tiny fraction of the thousands and thousands of decisions taken a year that go unchallenged.
Last edited:
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
The 4O can’t say there was a red card there but you might as well look at the monitor. That’s not how it works.
If the referee is sent to the monitor, all onfield officials have missed it. They can’t use the monitor to sell a decision
deusex
RefChat Addict
I'd also add, you're making out it's the clearest SFP.
This is the challenge. Looks well within the realms of a normal challenge for me.
The ball slips out, the defender gets his studs caught in the turf and it all looks horrible from there.
You could argue if you go in like this there is always the chance the balls slips away.
Either decision is justifiable by the ref. Similar tackles will get a caution next week.
deusex
RefChat Addict
Fair enough. I think our original (TV) angle is what the 4O would have seen.
I wouldn't be confident enough to be calling for SFP from that angle personally.
I'd be saying USB and hope I was right.
It is pretty clear. He's lunged with a straight leg and studs showing and made contact above the ankle. Hutchinson is lucky that his leg wasn't planted as that could have been really bad.
one
RefChat Addict
To me, your post and mine is about difference of opinion around where we are and where we should be.
For example, and to make it simple, for me if the panel is doing their job right and process is right, and same for VAR, then the referees at the highest level of the game in the country are making too many critical mistakes. (In reality it's a combination of referee, var and panel)
Now if the % is acceptable for you, fair enough, but for me there should be less of it. Less VAR reviews, less changes of decisions on VAR reviews, less appeals and less appeals upheld.
deusex
RefChat Addict
So you're issuing a red if that ball doesn't spin away and there's no contact with the man?
Almost certainly - and if we all agreed life would be pretty boring - although we are in full agreement that there should be fewer VAR reviews and decision changes. We probably also agree that there are two many critical errors at the highest levels. However, the main reason I really don't like VAR is because, as I've said before and outside of the way it impacts the game for supporters, the pursuit of perfection is a fundamentally flawed prospect. Therefore I don't think it's reasonable to expect nor should we expect 100% accuracy, because it's chasing an impossible ideal.. I can accept a level of error, even critical ones, though I'm not sure what that level is as a %.
Where we disagree is blaming or being critical of the appeal process. Representing athletes in another sport, this is a line parroted by our governing body and it entirely misses the point. When we appeal (circa 10-20 times a year), it is almost always around the edges/detail of a decision/penalty and is rarely (maybe once or twice a year) overturning "shockers".
For me, and this digresses slightly, by far the biggest problem with refereeing at the highest level outside of VAR and this pursuit of perfection, is the fact there are clearly instructions/guidance given to ignore or go soft on certain LOTG, particularly dissent, the failure of FAs to deal with post-match comments and media analysis, and the impact this has throughout the game.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
You’re completely changing the scenario with ifs, buts and maybes….
That didn't happen, clearly if there is no contact then is very unlikely to be SFP, but there was. The only question is did it use excessive force and / or endanger the safety of an opponent, and there is zero doubt that it did. Not saying it was intentional, but it doesn't need to be.