CHE vs FUL

[QuaverRef]

Why is it just the VAR referee who gets ‘punished’. They recommend a review, rightly or wrongly. It’s still the onfield referee that makes the final decision. This gives the impression the onfield referee doesn’t get much of a say

 

[JD1]

Howard Web: Dear Fulham, sorry it was a foul but it shouldnt have been given as a foul. My team over stepped the mark by knowing the rules, im working on making it better.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

On the face of it this is very harsh treatment of Salisbury. The one unknown is we don't know what PGMO officials have been told to do and not to do behind closed doors, so it could fly in the face of their instructions. If it isnt that then it is Webb who should be taking responsibility not heaping blame on Salisbury.

 

[DavidObs]

M

Why is it just the VAR referee who gets ‘punished’. They recommend a review, rightly or wrongly. It’s still the onfield referee that makes the final decision. This gives the impression the onfield referee doesn’t get much of a say

Because it wasn’t an incorrect decision as such, but an incorrect intervention by the VAR - with the high threshold approach it appears he should never has asked the Referee to look at it. Had the Referee seen it in the first place he would have penalised. This may sound contradictory/confusing, but this is how I read/understand the situation to be.

 

[Paul_10]

I just can't help but feel if the decision was more split amongst the pundits and fans then the PGMOL would not be stepping in like this.

It's an understandable recommendation and the fact a FIFA referee agrees with him probably suggests the PGMOL should just keep out of it. Of course we don't know if Salisbury himself asked to be removed or advised incase anything controversial arose but of course all this could be avoided if you only give the VAR one game a weekend.

 

[Iain]

good that PGMOL have come out and said var intervention was wrong. Not what VAR was sold for. If ref had given it at the time fine. i guess would not be discussing it .

 

[The Gump]

I work in a sport where if I make a error my licence can be temporarily suspended as punishment.

Horseracing?

 

[Archer]

Horseracing?

Greyhounds. He's the rabbit.

 

[HonestRef]

Horseracing?

No although that’s also a example

 

[The Gump]

Wider elaboration on why PGMOL has come out and said it was an error - as others on here have said it's the intervention of VAR that's wrong, not whether or not it was a foul - VAR Review:

The Premier League prides itself on a high bar for intervention. And in the stakeholders' survey in the summer, 83% voted that it should be maintained, with only 8% feeling the VAR should be getting involved more often...

Muniz had possession of the ball and looked to turn. As he did, he stood on the boot of Chalobah. It wasn't an unexpected movement, for instance, the Fulham player didn't place his foot out of stride to make contact. It didn't result in a change of possession to start the break. It was a coming together that had no influence on the move.

Chalobah will probably be getting a lot of praise from his teammates because by staying on the floor, he gave the VAR something to look at. Had he gotten up and jogged back, it's pretty likely nothing would have happened...

Blame will fall on the shoulders of both officials, but ultimately it lies with the VAR as without being sent to the monitor, there's no decision for the referee to make. The VAR has put too much emphasis on Muniz's foot landing on the boot of Chalobah, rather than taking into account the full picture. In breaking the incident down to that one moment, slowed down, context was lost. Watch it at full speed, and there really is nothing in it. If the referee gives this on the field, fair enough, but it's not for VAR -- definitely not in England.

One of the key reasons for having the monitor is to provide a fail-safe against a bad intervention, because as this incident shows, there's going to be human error in the VAR hub from time to time. Jones didn't look completely sold on the decision when at the screen, but he still went with the decision so cannot be absolved.

As @Big Cat has previously said, this whole incident is football in a nutshell:

• Technically it's a missed foul by the referee, but if we're all being honest I doubt many if any of us would have picked up on it in any of our games
• Player completely hams it up
• Managers, players, pundits and fans slam the decision
• Referees (most on here) defend the decision
• PGMOL says it was the wrong decision
• PGMOL gets criticised by referees (on here) for caving to pressure
• If PGMOL don't admit it's wrong, PGMOL gets criticised everywhere else for "covering" for referees
• Division is reinforced and exacerbated
• Rinse and repeat...

Reality is that due to the media and socials we live in an era where being reasonable, seeing both sides and finding the truth where it usually lies - in the grey area between black and white - is increasingly rare, and sure as hell doesn't get you clicks and views.

 

[The Gump]

No although that’s also a example

Got my brain whirring now!

 

[one]

Greyhounds. He's the rabbit.

He said license suspended, not himself shredded.

It's Archery @Archer

 

[Tealeaf]

Seems Antonee Robinson has gone in on his socials too. FA hamstrung here as they can’t exactly let it go, yet to punish contradicts PGMOL decision, at least in the court of public opinion.

 

[DavidObs]

Seems Antonee Robinson has gone in on his socials too. FA hamstrung here as they can’t exactly let it go, yet to punish contradicts PGMOL decision, at least in the court of public opinion.View attachment 8342

I’m surprised Fulham have said to players that they can post about matches, or it may be that he did it anyway, with or without their blessing. The comments he makes are clearly his view, but I would say shockingly inaccurate. The officiating in the Prem is not shocking and nor has it ever been. Controversial decisions, some of which are justified and some are not has to be accepted - but not shocking or anything like it.

 

[Paul_10]

Wider elaboration on why PGMOL has come out and said it was an error - as others on here have said it's the intervention of VAR that's wrong, not whether or not it was a foul - VAR Review:



As @Big Cat has previously said, this whole incident is football in a nutshell:

• Technically it's a missed foul by the referee, but if we're all being honest I doubt many if any of us would have picked up on it in any of our games
• Player completely hams it up
• Managers, players, pundits and fans slam the decision
• Referees (most on here) defend the decision
• PGMOL says it was the wrong decision
• PGMOL gets criticised by referees (on here) for caving to pressure
• If PGMOL don't admit it's wrong, PGMOL gets criticised everywhere else for "covering" for referees
• Division is reinforced and exacerbated
• Rinse and repeat...

Reality is that due to the media and socials we live in an era where being reasonable, seeing both sides and finding the truth where it usually lies - in the grey area between black and white - is increasingly rare, and sure as hell doesn't get you clicks and views.

I think your first bullet point just emphasizes too me why VAR got involved because it is a missed foul in my opinion . Do a pivot all you like but if you make contact with an opponent whilst doing the skill move then don't complain if you get a foul called against you.

The fact the PGMOL removed the VAR for the next game just feels too me they buckled under the pressure. I think Webb is just more concerned too keep his beloved stakeholders/people in the game happy than backing his officials on an understandable recommendation. Let's not forget the referee could of kept his original decision, the VAR is only recommending to change his decision.

Maybe all will be revealed tomorrow when the mic'd up show is on.

 

[bester]

He's voicing an opinion and not being abusive or implying bias.

 

[Big Cat]

The officiating in the Prem is not shocking

Of course, you're quite right, the standard of officiating is not shocking per se, but it is shocking by most people's 'expectations'
Twofold, the standard of officiating is not as good as it could be (for many reasons IMO that I won't write a book about), but primarily it's because the 'expectations' are completely adrift from what is achievable by anyone (which I also won't write a book about)

VAR only serves to widen the gap between 'the standard' and 'the expectation', which then exacerbates the two-way vitriol

It is two-way though. Not just the endless comments about pundits here on the forum etc.... I sit in the car on shared travel on the way home from games and find it quite depressing to hear the way fellow referees speak about the participants they've just encountered. Aside from massaging their own egos, I wonder why most of them bother with refereeing

 

[The Gump]

View attachment 8342

Interesting early-season case for The FA.

Robinson isn't being abusive or implying bias, and I accept he's posting solely an opinion, but there's a prima facie case of a breach of his opinion - however honestly held - is in breach of E3: "A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute..."

I think it justifies a charge though doing so wouldn't be without risk - if the charge wasn't upheld a dangerous precedent would be set, and they may be hamstrung by their own Essential Information for Players guide:

DO NOT:
• Use threatening, indecent, abusive or insulting language or images.
• Use discriminatory language.
• Imply bias or attack the integrity of Match Officials (including the VAR Officials).
• Make any comment about an appointed Match Official (including VAR Officials) before a match. Please note that The FA may take disciplinary action even in
circumstances where the Match Official is not named by the Player, or the Match Official(s) has not yet been appointed for the next game.
• Be personally offensive about Match Officials.
These are examples of where charges may be brought. The above can also include repeated negative and/or inflammatory comments in respect of the performance of a Match Official.

His comment is clearly negative and inflamatory, but if it's his first offence I bet he simply receives a warning.

I doubt a Premier League referee posting the same sentiment about Premier League players' behaviour and attitudes would be granted the same discretion... (I don't think they should, and posting something like that would be career suicide as a ref as we've found out, but I don't see why players should get away with it).

 

[LothianRef]

The fact the PGMOL removed the VAR for the next game just feels too me they buckled under the pressure.

I think they were stuck between a rock and a hard place. Replace the VAR and it’s seen as an admission of error, but equally Michael Salisbury will have seen the fall out from the game and it would have undoubtedly been on his mind, even just subconsciously, if he was still involved in the game yesterday.

 

[Paul_10]

I think they were stuck between a rock and a hard place. Replace the VAR and it’s seen as an admission of error, but equally Michael Salisbury will have seen the fall out from the game and it would have undoubtedly been on his mind, even just subconsciously, if he was still involved in the game yesterday.

Unless Salisbury has requested to be removed, I rather the PGMOL backed up their official and whilst they may prefer no intervention, it's certainly not a howler of a decision to be punished over.

It's only the fact the Fulham player did a bit of skill and the big club benefitting against the small club has caused so much over the top reaction uproar. I've no doubt the bias against VAR in general is playing a part aswell.