The Ref Stop

Brentford v Wolves

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

L

ladbroke8745

Censorship
Hate to be that guy but how the officials missed the absolute back pass that led to the Wolves goal before half time.
Not sure how VAR couldnt get involved.
Keeper picks ball up from back pass, plays it to defender, gets it back and then sets the attack going.
HT analysis says VAR called it a tackle as the Brentford player got involved.
Sorry, it was a deliberate pass to the keeper.
 
The Ref Stop
Clear backpass but too far back to intervene. Right non-intervention from VAR but for the wrong reason.

The ball is passed out then goes back to the goalkeeper again
 
No appeal from Brentford players which probably sowed doubt it was a kick to the GK
It was stated that consultations with football stakeholders suggested that football would expect that only the phase of play leading up to a goal/penalty incident/DOGSO should be reviewed i.e. from the point at which the attacking team last gained possession of the ball and started the phase of play that led to the goal/penalty incident. Brentford played the ball in a challenge which began the phase of play that led to the goal.
Personally I think it was an on field decision that needed to be got by the referee and / or assistant.when that did not happen it was simply play on and no VAR.
 
This is a perfect example of making decisions based on "did anyone appeal" is clearly wrong.
 
I thought this one was interesting. Wolves defender clearly intends to pass back but doesn’t move towards ball (which is poor).

Brentford player stretching to reach it in the challenge and I think gets slightest touch on ball if you look closely, but it’s straight onto the Wolves foot as he’s already in motion to pass back.

Technically, could argue it has been played onto the defender, even though where the ball went was still where he intended it to go. Can we still class that as deliberate?

Somewhat splitting hairs I appreciate, but I’m interested in people’s views on whether that changes anything for them in terms of the (non) decision.
 
SelbyRef said:
I thought this one was interesting. Wolves defender clearly intends to pass back but doesn’t move towards ball (which is poor).

Brentford player stretching to reach it in the challenge and I think gets slightest touch on ball if you look closely, but it’s straight onto the Wolves foot as he’s already in motion to pass back.

Technically, could argue it has been played onto the defender, even though where the ball went was still where he intended it to go. Can we still class that as deliberate?

Somewhat splitting hairs I appreciate, but I’m interested in people’s views on whether that changes anything for them in terms of the (non) decision.
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
SelbyRef said:
I thought this one was interesting. Wolves defender clearly intends to pass back but doesn’t move towards ball (which is poor).

Brentford player stretching to reach it in the challenge and I think gets slightest touch on ball if you look closely, but it’s straight onto the Wolves foot as he’s already in motion to pass back.

Technically, could argue it has been played onto the defender, even though where the ball went was still where he intended it to go. Can we still class that as deliberate?

Somewhat splitting hairs I appreciate, but I’m interested in people’s views on whether that changes anything for them in terms of the (non) decision.
Click to expand...
If it was the other way round and the defender player it off of the attacker to the goalkeeper, even if the touch by the attacker was extremely faint and didn't alter the direction of the ball, the goalkeeper would be able to pick it up, however this isn't the case here.

I do now know for a fact that VAR didn't intervene because it's not part of the reviewable APP.
 
one said:
Agree the backpass in isolation is not. But would/should it fall unther this clause.

View attachment 8596
Click to expand...
I don't think so. It says 'may' therefore not must and also the backpass wasn't how they gained possession. They already had possession at that point. I think that clause just reserves to right for VAR to review it if there is a very clear foul not given which results in a team obtaining the ball which they then eventually score from, even if that isn't the same 'phase of play'.

Also, the premier league website says:

VAR: Attacking possession phase explained

The starting point for a phase of play that leads to a goal or penalty incident will be limited to the immediate phase and not necessarily go back to when the attacking team gained possession.

Other factors for consideration will be the ability of the defence to reset and the momentum of the attack.

Clearly the defence had ample time to reset etc.
 
Last edited:
I’m not convinced the PL website is consistent with the protocols in the magic book. I think this would be considered APP in many competitions.
 
socal lurker said:
I’m not convinced the PL website is consistent with the protocols in the magic book. I think this would be considered APP in many competitions.
Click to expand...
I think you either set out a protocol that play strecthes back to either the last restart or the point where the team gained possession, or you say what has been said and the term 'attacking phase of play' - emphasis being on attacking. Clearly Sa having the ball in his hands, releasing it to a defender, then gathering it back from said defender before playing it out again can't really mean that the first time he has the ball was part of an 'attacking phase'. If people want it to go all the way back to when possession was gained, fine, but that ought to be clarified and currently it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top