The Ref Stop

Wolves vs City

Gabriel said:
He hasn’t done anything in the PL this season bar today. I could tell he was struggling a bit. No idea why he swapped flags with the other AR at half time. Swapping halves may be understandable but swapping flags is odd.
Click to expand...
Surely to try and hide the swap.
 
The Ref Stop
TheReferee said:
Ck was sent to the screen because it a controversial offside, meaning it is seen as “refs call” hence him being sent to screen
Click to expand...
This is simply incorrect. (Or, if it is what happened, a blatant breach of VAR protocol.) The VAR can only recommend review if the VAR believes there was a clear and obvious error.
 
ARF said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1848016744725582252

Not a foul or offside IMO. Media looking for controversy where there's none.
Click to expand...
I’d like to see the two seconds before the clip starts. From this clip, you can!t tell if the attacker was there and the GK moved into him or if the attacker unfairly moved into the GK to restrict his movement after the CK was taken, which would be a potential impeding offense by the attacker. (Of course, from what we see here, the GK is making it look like the attacker moved into him, but that wouldn’t be the first GK to try to con the ref into calling a foul where there isn’t one.)

Edit: saw the full play on YouTube. I think technically there is an impeding offense on the attacker. But it is the kind of impending offense that rarely gets called and is trifling or on the cusp of trifling. Certainly not the level of offense (especially in the EPL) that VAR is going to intervene on. (And I believe per protocol that is what it would be—first the VAR would have to have a C&O error to reverse the OS call, and then a C&O error in not calling the impeding foul.)
 
Last edited:
It was the GK who did the shoving so not a foul from the attacker, & couldn’t be offside at this point as direct from a corner. Has to be judged whether onside/offside at point of contact of the header so for me only outcome is give the goal.

 
RustyRef said:
That's irrelevant though, you can only judge offside from the point that Stones heads the ball, and the contact by Silva on Sa happened before that. If Silva was to be penalised for anything it could only be a foul, and it was nowhere near enough contact to make it that.

The issue here is that Tom Bramall flagged it as offside, can understand why as from his angle it may have looked like Silva was blocking Sa's view. Replays show he clearly wasn't, and had the flag not gone up I don't think there would have been a review at all, Attwell would have quickly cleared it. But they obviously felt that as it was given as offside on field it needed to pitch side review
Click to expand...
What on earth is TB doing as an AR?
Edit - it’s ok, I’ve seen the other threads now.
 
DJIC said:
It was the GK who did the shoving so not a foul from the attacker, & couldn’t be offside at this point as direct from a corner. Has to be judged whether onside/offside at point of contact of the header so for me only outcome is give the goal.

Click to expand...
The attacker backs into the GK before the GK shoves him away.
 
DJIC said:
It was the GK who did the shoving so not a foul from the attacker, & couldn’t be offside at this point as direct from a corner. Has to be judged whether onside/offside at point of contact of the header so for me only outcome is give the goal.

Click to expand...
Attacker backs into goalkeeper first, then goalkeeper gives him a slight shove. Happens on 90% of corners. 6 of one and half a dozen of the other……..
 
Is this going to be a KMI error for the AR as he indicated goal to match referee & then was obviously told to raise his flag? 🙈
 
DJIC said:
Is this going to be a KMI error for the AR as he indicated goal to match referee & then was obviously told to raise his flag? 🙈
Click to expand...
These kind of decisions are a 'jigsaw' where input is needed from both AR (offside position) and Ref (possible impact --> offside offence). The best placed official to judge whether or not the attacker in an offside position has committed an offence is the referee not the AR. Worth remembering that it's not just 'line of vision' .. the attacker can also commit an offence by attempting to play the ball or by making an obvious action which significant impacts an opponent's ability to play the ball. So, the on field call of offside would have been given after a (potentially lengthy) discussion over the comms between Ref & AR

For clarity, IMO there is no offence by the attacker on the GK prior to Stones' header and no offside offence by him after. The eventual on field decision of offside is clearly wrong and a good use of VAR to overturn.
 
DJIC said:
Is this going to be a KMI error for the AR as he indicated goal to match referee & then was obviously told to raise his flag? 🙈
Click to expand...
Even if it was, once you get to the upper echelons, it doesn’t really matter. They aren’t going to get demoted in the same way we would. It might mean they get a week off, or do a slightly less glamorous game the next week. But it’s not as significant as if it happened to one of us.
 
Runner Ref said:
Even if it was, once you get to the upper echelons, it doesn’t really matter. They aren’t going to get demoted in the same way we would. It might mean they get a week off, or do a slightly less glamorous game the next week. But it’s not as significant as if it happened to one of us.
Click to expand...
I think you may have down played it a bit, it might be less important to Oliver, Taylor, Pawson but most of SG1 they are fighting for EPL matches.
 
DJIC said:
I think you may have down played it a bit, it might be less important to Oliver, Taylor, Pawson but most of SG1 they are fighting for EPL matches.
Click to expand...
They’re on contracts that have had many legal battles over the years. It’s close to impossible for them to be demoted.
 
RustyRef said:
Err, no it wasn't. And even if it was now, there was a spell under Mike Riley where Graham Scott got nothing other than 4th official or Championship games after he went against an on-field review recommendation.
Click to expand...
It’s not that simple anymore. They don’t have enough officials to cover that, along with the legal implications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top