PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Its all subjective, but I really think if you're giving fouls for all challenges like that, you'll wear out your whistle by full time!
Yes I agree mane would have felt hard done by but they are the new laws
Fully agree. If they’re going to disallow goals for ‘fouls’ like that, so far away from the attacking goal, we’re going to see a LOT more simulation and almost every single challenge is going to be questioned. There is contact, but like you said, he throws himself to the ground totally unnaturally and holds the wrong leg, which is shows that the contact wasn’t enough to cause a foulAgree with 50%. Yes it was a foul if the ref sees it.
You can only chalk off a clear and obvious error. That is not clear and obvious. Even less so when the player is trying to make it appear worse than it is or are trying to win it contact or not.
We are very slowly heading towards a no contact sport like basket ball as every small amount of contact is placed under a microscope at slow motion speed and of course everyone is then up in arms about a goal.
I was happy for that goal to stand. It was more annoying that Mane goal was ruled out despite being correct in law. I think that law has gone too far.
"Clear and Obvious" does not mean the player needs to have been booted up in the air. The same conditions apply as for any other foul - was it careless, reckless or with excessive force?Agree with 50%. Yes it was a foul if the ref sees it.
You can only chalk off a clear and obvious error. That is not clear and obvious. Even less so when the player is trying to make it appear worse than it is or are trying to win it contact or not.
We are very slowly heading towards a no contact sport like basket ball as every small amount of contact is placed under a microscope at slow motion speed and of course everyone is then up in arms about a goal.
I was happy for that goal to stand. It was more annoying that Mane goal was ruled out despite being correct in law. I think that law has gone too far.
Agree with 50%. Yes it was a foul if the ref sees it.
You can only chalk off a clear and obvious error. That is not clear and obvious. Even less so when the player is trying to make it appear worse than it is or are trying to win it contact or not.
We are very slowly heading towards a no contact sport like basket ball as every small amount of contact is placed under a microscope at slow motion speed and of course everyone is then up in arms about a goal.
I was happy for that goal to stand. It was more annoying that Mane goal was ruled out despite being correct in law. I think that law has gone too far.
For me, there's clearly contact that you have to assume the referee hasn't seen, and none of the Liverpool player's theatrics change that fact. It should therefore go to the monitor and let him decide if it meets the threshold for careless or not.
It's not as simple as that. Did the contact warrant the fall. I repeat. This is not a no contact sport."Clear and Obvious" does not mean the player needs to have been booted up in the air. The same conditions apply as for any other foul - was it careless, reckless or with excessive force?
For me, there's clearly contact that you have to assume the referee hasn't seen, and none of the Liverpool player's theatrics change that fact. It should therefore go to the monitor and let him decide if it meets the threshold for careless or not.
Maybe I meant netballSay what?!?!? Do you actually watch basketball? Do y'all play a super sissified version of the game on that side of the pond?!?!? But seriously, basketball permissible contact is at a pretty similar level to soccer--though, of course, when it is and isn't permitted is different.
(Nor am I aware of any level of basketball that regularly uses video to call general fouls--though the NBA is experimenting this year with one challenge per game that could be used on a foul call. Like most sports, basketball has been very reluctant to get into judgment calls on review. They do review for flagrant fouls (somewhat like a reckless foul or SFP), but most reviews are clearly objective matters, such as who touched the ball last when it went out of play. Part of where soccer has made VAR so much more complicated is trying to use it for many judgment calls, and then adding the clear and obvious kicker on the top. (Indeed, while I haven't watched much, American football, which decided to add one non-objective foul call to what it can review, has been finding it a mess.)
But that's all still a subjective decision. I really think this is an example where we would all be a lot happier if we knew what the referee and the VAR were saying to each other.It's not as simple as that. Did the contact warrant the fall. I repeat. This is not a no contact sport.
Do you penalise every little bit of contact in a game? This was one of those fouls that probably falls into the trifling category. I might give it to kill a game, or if game is flowing I probably ignore it.
The player has to shoulder the blame here. He has been touched with very minimal contact. He is already going to ground at the point of contact. He then proceeds to feign injury by holding a different leg to the one the contact was made with.
You start ruling those out on VAR and all of a sudden you're 0-0s shoot up.
Maybe I meant netball
But that's all still a subjective decision. I really think this is an example where we would all be a lot happier if we knew what the referee and the VAR were saying to each other.
Did he see the contact and deem it trifling? If that's the case, even if I think he's wrong I can accept the logic and accept that the protocol doesn't really allow an OFR for this subjective call.
Or did he not see the contact and the VAR has then decide on his behalf that it's trifling? If that's the case, I would say that it's wrong - if the referee didn't believe there was contact, I would argue that it's "clear and obvious" that there was contact that he needs to assess for severity.
You say yourself that it could be given or not - I think cautious refereeing principals dictate that it's better to give a "nothing foul" in midfield than it is to let play go on and allow a goal that came after a foul. Now the very presence of VAR might be messing with the referee's perception of how to apply cautious refereeing principals, but it shouldn't be allowed to give a different result just by being there as a background presence!
But that's all still a subjective decision. I really think this is an example where we would all be a lot happier if we knew what the referee and the VAR were saying to each other.
If the VAR is not recommending that the R review (which would mean the VAR thought there was a clear error), about all the VAR is going to be saying to the R is "check complete." The VAR doesn't give other advice the way an AR does.
Exactly, the clip starting around 5:50 is a great example. The VAR is talking to the ref to confirm the decision and to confirm what's been seen. When they get to the point where they recommend a review, they're explaining to the referee why they think he needs to take a look and the description of what he's seen affects the way that recommendation is explained to him.I would expect the referee to give some insight into what he had/hadn't seen.
I'd also expect the VAR to say something in the interim, even if not directly related to the decision.
See Inside Video Review for some examples of the interactions that occurs in the MLS -
Exactly, the clip starting around 5:50 is a great example.