The Ref Stop

Everton vs Man Utd

Good VAR intervention

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 36.4%

  • No

    Votes: 21 63.6%
  • Total voters
    33

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

Not a penalty for me too as per Jame's reasoning. Giving these as penalties is the reason most players drop to the floor like a sack of potatos at the slightest touch in the PA, in this case the alanogy is quite close.

But this is the second VAR intervention from last night I was not happy with. The decision wasn't clearly and obviously wrong. Makes me wonder if they have consciously moved the bar.
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
one said:
Not a penalty for me too as per Jame's reasoning. Giving these as penalties is the reason most players drop to the floor like a sack of potatos at the slightest touch in the PA, in this case the alanogy is quite close.

But this is the second VAR intervention from last night I was not happy with. The decision wasn't clearly and obviously wrong. Makes me wonder if they have consciously moved the bar.
Click to expand...
I think I am at the other end of the spectrum on this one.
When we look at the considerations that PGMOL apply and the threshold required for a penalty to be awarded then this for me is clearly and obviously not a penalty.
I think the only thing it has going for it is that there was at least a very brief hold of a shirt.
 
My main opinion here is that AY does dive making the falling unnatural. Had he had just gone down, I actually think he would have got the penalty, but he dived like he had been knocked over by an HGV.

However, I think that being able to hear the referee comms live would sell the decision straight away.
 
one said:
Not a penalty for me too as per Jame's reasoning. Giving these as penalties is the reason most players drop to the floor like a sack of potatos at the slightest touch in the PA, in this case the alanogy is quite close.

But this is the second VAR intervention from last night I was not happy with. The decision wasn't clearly and obviously wrong. Makes me wonder if they have consciously moved the bar.
Click to expand...

I agree, there was a slight shirt pull at times but Young just chucked himself to the floor, he was not pulled back and impeded and nor was he fouled by the feet either which is could be why the referee awarded the penalty.

So the question for me, should Young recieved a second yellow card for diving? I probably can accept no card for simulation here but I do find it astonishing only one player has been booked after a penalty been overturned since VAR came in 5 years ago.
 
Paul_10 said:
I agree, there was a slight shirt pull at times but Young just chucked himself to the floor, he was not pulled back and impeded and nor was he fouled by the feet either which is could be why the referee awarded the penalty.

So the question for me, should Young recieved a second yellow card for diving? I probably can accept no card for simulation here but I do find it astonishing only one player has been booked after a penalty been overturned since VAR came in 5 years ago.
Click to expand...
After the one Jota got away with last week, I’m not sure they’d have the bottle to do this one!
 
Runner Ref said:
After the one Jota got away with last week, I’m not sure they’d have the bottle to do this one!
Click to expand...

I think you can argue in this case Young just chucked himself and try and take advantage of the slight(or fleeting as PGMOL like to use) shirt pull whereas Jota there was virtually no contact with the defender and it was all instagated by Jota so trying to deceive the referee.

It's certainly more of a stonewall simulation than this one is but it's not a penalty either otherwise players should go to ground everyone there is a slight pull on the shirt and we know people will complain if we see too many soft penalties like that.
 
Runner Ref said:
After the one Jota got away with last week, I’m not sure they’d have the bottle to do this one!
Click to expand...
In a world where PGMOL officials have all been told that Jota should have received a YC, it’s actually increased rather than decreased the chance of similar offenses being appropriately punished 😊
 
ARF said:
Of course he would - back in his day (and indeed before his day, after his day, and all the way up to 2020) this was a foul no questions asked. It was only then that the definition of a holding offence was added to the LotG (and only tucked away in the glossary), meaning nearly all non-referees (and some referees) are none the wiser to this day.

If the referee gave the penalty simply because he saw the shirt being pulled, he's wrong in law and VAR had to intervene. If the referee said over comms that he believed the attacker's movement was impeded by the pull, the VAR has looked at it, seen that the attacker has flung himself to ground before any holding may have impeded his movement (meaning no offence was committed), recommended a review, and the referee has seen the incident for what it really was.
Click to expand...
In fairness to McCoist, of all the pundits he is probably the best at keeping up with law changes and understanding refereeing decisions.

I’m happy with no penalty as an on-pitch decision, but a VAR intervention goes against everything Howard Webb has said on the Mic’d Up show about referee’s call. He’s also repeatedly said that they listen to “stakeholders”, and that gives him a problem here. It seems that almost everyone in the game, except those of a Man Utd persuasion and some referees, think this was a clear penalty.

There’s then the obvious question of why Young wasn’t cautioned and subsequently sent off. Especially as it was confirmed that Jota should have been cautioned for simulation the previous week.
 
I would have preferred no VAR involvement here. There are shirt pulls and it is not obvious that Young's movement was not impeded at all, so the on-field decision should stand.
Once VAR has got involved then the simulation has to be identified and penalised.
 
VAR intervention here got the on-field decision correct BUT maybe the OPs question should be "should VAR have been used here".

The problem, as ever, is that VAR is being used to re-referee games.
 
JamesL said:
Not a penalty for me. The shirt pull was not sustained nor did it impact Young's movement.

The VAR also showed the view from behind the goal which did show the shirt pull so think Madley had all of the info.

I think that's a good VAR intervention myself.
Click to expand...
This is basically my take. As a player I know shirts get grabbed all the time as you jostle for the ball, it's unavoidable. But a grab and a pull that impacts the player are worlds apart and I do not believe any of the contact impacted Young, let alone justify that jump to the floor. Yellow for simulation would be justified imo
 
Kent Ref said:
VAR intervention here got the on-field decision correct BUT maybe the OPs question should be "should VAR have been used here".

The problem, as ever, is that VAR is being used to re-referee games.
Click to expand...

Well if you think the intervention meant the on field decision was correct then surely it's yes it was right for VAR to intervene.

Maybe Madley thought Young was tripped and if he said that on the comms then that is a clear and obvious error, I won't hold my breath on that though because going by the audios, the referee don't always describe why they given a certain decision which means the VAR has to judge for himself in his own mind whether it's wrong or not.
 
Haven't voted because personally I'm on the fence. I definitely don't think it's a penalty. That much is for sure. However I do think that when a foul is given for a pull and a pull factually happens, the wider perception of football (who I will say would say it was pathetically soft if it was given and not overturned) expect that the decision will remain.
I guess I'd say it's a good use of VAR, but that it's not a great look from the outside for 'football'.

PS. When will players learn that being pulled backwards isn't likely to make you fall forwards (unless you're fighting to get free and then the player releases you)
 
Dale Johnson wrote in his review that the referee thought Maguire fouled Young possibly by a pull on the shirt so when the VAR checked that and didn't see Maguire commit a foul, he had to recommend an on field review because the pictures showed in his opinion Maguire did not make a foul. Apparently the VAR did show De Ligts shirt pull but the referee did not deem this to be enough to make Young go to ground.

So if the referee did 'reject' the review at the monitor, there would of been more to it than meets the eye.

Basing on all this, it confirms my belief this is a good VAR intervention and I'll be surprised if this does not get included in the next mic'd up show(of course might depend how much controversial incidents they are between now and then) which hopefully will give clarity on the situation.
 
Paul_10 said:
Well if you think the intervention meant the on field decision was correct then surely it's yes it was right for VAR to intervene.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is it leads to the ends justifying the means, which (IMO) is fine in this case, but sets a precedent nobody will normally want to see. The only justification for this would be judgement that this was a clear and obvious error and that is certainly not cut and dried!
 
Really interesting as usual from Dale Johnson over at ESPN (interesting because he's given his explanations from PGMOL, as he always notes at the bottom of the column) - Var Review

Based on the full explanation, some might still disagree but the decision - and involvement from VAR - makes absolute sense.
 
Wouldn’t it be great if PGMOL could/would clarify things as quickly as Dale publishes his take on events. Don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with him on the rare times I’ve decided to hunt down his ESPN column.

By the time Webb & Co cover it, I’ve forgotten the incident / five more have happened.
 
Archer said:
Wouldn’t it be great if PGMOL could/would clarify things as quickly as Dale publishes his take on events. Don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with him on the rare times I’ve decided to hunt down his ESPN column.

By the time Webb & Co cover it, I’ve forgotten the incident / five more have happened.
Click to expand...
I think that’s the way Webb & co like to have it done - when the controversy has died down. Dermot’s slot is usually quicker, though I haven’t watched it for a while.
 
Martiju said:
The problem with that is it leads to the ends justifying the means, which (IMO) is fine in this case, but sets a precedent nobody will normally want to see. The only justification for this would be judgement that this was a clear and obvious error and that is certainly not cut and dried!
Click to expand...
At the time of the incident I was watching it before the start of a game I was at, where most in the room shouted penalty (though I had my doubts). Once the replays were shown many of them were much more quiet so I think it wouldn’t be far off the mark if considered a clear & obvious error. It changed the mind of Referee Madley so one could only think he himself thought he had made an error.
 
Archer said:
Wouldn’t it be great if PGMOL could/would clarify things as quickly as Dale publishes his take on events. Don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with him on the rare times I’ve decided to hunt down his ESPN column.

By the time Webb & Co cover it, I’ve forgotten the incident / five more have happened.
Click to expand...
He must have someone feeding him information from PGMOL, whether officially or not. Can't recall him ever being wrong, and without access to privileged information I don't see how he can be right every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top