The Ref Stop

Ips V Lei (non) penalty

The Ref Stop
Former referees are not doing referees any justice to be fair.
One in particular is very critical (cough Hackett.. cough).
 
Since start of season guidance, it's as if there's no level of upper body collision or grappling which will result in a penalty.
As always, I've no clue if this reaches the threshold for var interference even though it is a penalty
 
I don't really see the issue here. It is probably a penalty, but even in previous seasons this probably wouldn't be enough for a VAR review, this season there's no chance. The defender doesn't really do much, he doesn't push, he doesn't trip, it could be argued it was just a coming together, no way VAR should be getting involved here.
 
God how does someone make a living from sitting on the fence every Monday.
He just makes the refereeing world look like an old boys club.
 
RustyRef said:
I don't really see the issue here. It is probably a penalty, but even in previous seasons this probably wouldn't be enough for a VAR review, this season there's no chance. The defender doesn't really do much, he doesn't push, he doesn't trip, it could be argued it was just a coming together, no way VAR should be getting involved here.
Click to expand...

Why not? If you feel it's a penalty then the referee has got it wrong?

Unless this "I can see why the referee has made that decision" directive goes then we will get more incidents like this and it will only infuriate fans and managers alike. I just can't see this as being anything other than a penalty and surely the error the referee made is that the collision he claimed to saw was made entirely by the defender and not 2 players naturally coming together. If he has seen that angle which shows that, he may of seen things differently.

It is interesting to note in Dale's Johnson column that the Phillips red card would not be overturned if VAR did get involved and Robinson awarded the penalty as it was separate bits of play.
 
This just goes to show that this new refs call nonsense really doesn’t help the officials. They hardly recommend reviews now, which we have seen already with a couple of incidents (Fernandes red being one) just results in mistakes. The only people the changes benefit are managers and players, who said they wanted less VAR intervention. Even then, they’ll start complaining about it eventually.
 
Paul_10 said:
Why not? If you feel it's a penalty then the referee has got it wrong?

Unless this "I can see why the referee has made that decision" directive goes then we will get more incidents like this and it will only infuriate fans and managers alike. I just can't see this as being anything other than a penalty and surely the error the referee made is that the collision he claimed to saw was made entirely by the defender and not 2 players naturally coming together. If he has seen that angle which shows that, he may of seen things differently.

It is interesting to note in Dale's Johnson column that the Phillips red card would not be overturned if VAR did get involved and Robinson awarded the penalty as it was separate bits of play.
Click to expand...
I too think that this is a penalty, but agree with @RustyRef in that this would not meet the threshold for a VAR review.

I had a discussion earlier this season (in my previous county), with an SG1/SG2 AR about VAR reviews.

He, given he is familiar with my background in Statistics, informally equated the bar for VAR intervention to the concept of 'statistical significance' and 'confidence intervals'.

Without getting into the maths excessively, what this means in practice is that for a VAR to get involved, they have to be 95% or more sure, that the referee has made an error in their on-field decision.

Later in his presentation, he gave a worded example in the discussion (to illustrate the p<0.05 point).

'The threshold for VAR intervention is, you ask a room of twenty Premier League Match Officials whether the referee has made an error. You should get at least nineteen of them to say, "yes that is an error, go have a look at the monitor" before you are recommending a review'.
 
Coming together? Even on the reverse view where Chaplin shifts ball & body to his left? I don't see how this isn't a C&O and worth a review
 
It's exactly where a challenge based system would work much better than the current process.

Ipswich captain or manager initiates a review (say within 10/15 seconds of the on field incident happening that way they cant feasibly use dugout screens to help them) - we think that's a penalty for a foul on number X by their number Y.

None of this clear and obvious BS - use the video to make the right decision.

Ref or VAR reviews the incident and likely awards the penalty based on the video evidence.

Obviously there'll still be cases where the reviewed decision causes controversy, what if it's not obvious etc. but it'll be better than what we have now.
 
I was at the game and didn't want to make a thread about it just in case it was my bias getting involved. But even after a few days I can't see the argument that Chaplin has initiated the contact there and Fatawu, at least in my opinion has just barrelled into him without trying to avoid the collision.
Paul_10 said:
It is interesting to note in Dale's Johnson column that the Phillips red card would not be overturned if VAR did get involved and Robinson awarded the penalty as it was separate bits of play.
Click to expand...
It is annoying that this would be the case if it was overturned but I can understand why.
 
Just throwing this out there, but had VAR recommended a review and awarded a penalty, you'd have had a situation where Kalvin Phillips second caution would have stood, but wouldn't have happened had the referee got the decision 'right' on field. (And I say 'right' in inverted commas because I'm not sure what to make of it).
 
Gabriel said:
This just goes to show that this new refs call nonsense really doesn’t help the officials. They hardly recommend reviews now, which we have seen already with a couple of incidents (Fernandes red being one) just results in mistakes. The only people the changes benefit are managers and players, who said they wanted less VAR intervention. Even then, they’ll start complaining about it eventually.
Click to expand...
There’s really nothing substantively new with “ref’s call.” That is simply words to say that the call was not clear and obvious error. The words may cause confusion, but the concept is the one that has always been with us.
 
socal lurker said:
There’s really nothing substantively new with “ref’s call.” That is simply words to say that the call was not clear and obvious error. The words may cause confusion, but the concept is the one that has always been with us.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that fact, but the new terminology will confuse many players, coaches and spectators and mislead them. That, in turn, creates more issues than it solves.
 
Joe Harrison said:
I too think that this is a penalty, but agree with @RustyRef in that this would not meet the threshold for a VAR review.

I had a discussion earlier this season (in my previous county), with an SG1/SG2 AR about VAR reviews.

He, given he is familiar with my background in Statistics, informally equated the bar for VAR intervention to the concept of 'statistical significance' and 'confidence intervals'.

Without getting into the maths excessively, what this means in practice is that for a VAR to get involved, they have to be 95% or more sure, that the referee has made an error in their on-field decision.

Later in his presentation, he gave a worded example in the discussion (to illustrate the p<0.05 point).

'The threshold for VAR intervention is, you ask a room of twenty Premier League Match Officials whether the referee has made an error. You should get at least nineteen of them to say, "yes that is an error, go have a look at the monitor" before you are recommending a review'.
Click to expand...
Did Michael Oliver get the p<0.05 Memo or was there a p<0.95 typo on his?

FWIW, the penalty shout in the OP is somewhere around the p<0.15 mark IMHO
It's a PK but I think the upper body cause/effect fashionable guidance put them off the scent
 
RustyRef said:
Because the referee getting it wrong is not grounds for a VAR review, they are two very different things.
Click to expand...

So an error has to be ranked for a VAR review then? For me this is a clear error and Ipswich have every right to be annoyed.
 
Paul_10 said:
So an error has to be ranked for a VAR review then? For me this is a clear error and Ipswich have every right to be annoyed.
Click to expand...
Of course it does, have you even looked at the VAR protocol? It has to be a clear and obvious error, which PGMOL have to some extent raised the bar of and rebranded as referee's call.
 
RustyRef said:
Of course it does, have you even looked at the VAR protocol? It has to be a clear and obvious error, which PGMOL have to some extent raised the bar of and rebranded as referee's call.
Click to expand...

And imo and seemingly many others it is a clear and obvious error. Sorry I can't see it any other way. If the referee thinks it's a collision between 2 players then he's wrong, it clearly the defender fouling the attacker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top