Palace v Man City FAC
- Thread starter ladbroke8745
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
one
RefChat Addict
Dangerous grounds. If this is not interpreted and implement correctly, it give the referee the ability to referee everything (that matters) via video replay.
@bester I can genuinely only think of one example where the referee themselves initiated the review to sell the decision. It was Jarred Gillett when he was mic'd up in that A-League match. It helped then but I'm not sure making it normal would be a good idea, as it leaves too much room for just re-refereeing everything at the monitor.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
That's it then, it was a definite red card as Hackett said it wasn't
Seriously, he's managed to get himself incorrect in law again ...
handling outside of the penalty area should result in a direct free-kick and a yellow card for unsporting behaviour
That just isn't right, there are many occasions where a keeper handling outside of their area would just be a DFK, e.g. when there is no attacking player anywhere near. It would only be a caution if it stopped a promising attack.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
If we go back to first principles, the VAR protocol is set up as it is in order to ensure that the on field referee remains the final arbiter and that we don’t end up re-refereeing for purely subjective decisions. In situations like these, where the on field team have clearly completely missed the (handball) offense and the extent of the tactical impact is highly subjective, I’d feel it would be completely in keeping with the key principles for the VAR to allow the on field referee to judge for themselves what they wish to decide having watched back the incident …
I don't disagree in principle, but the current protocols don't really allow that. As it is written VAR needs to determine that the referee has made a C&O error before recommending a review. Or the referee needs to suspect that something serious has been missed, and that wouldn't be the case here given the complete lack of appeals, it really appeared to be only the broadcasters that noticed a problem.
LothianRef
Member
Almost anyone I’ve seen talking about this incident thinks it’s a red card. That seems a pretty serious missed incident?
I get what yourself and other members are saying about how it doesn’t fit the protocol, but the way read the protocol it still does fit it as a missed incident.
As was mentioned earlier, or maybe elsewhere on social media, I would disagree but understand if Attwell had given yellow and DFK for this with VAR supporting it. But after nothing at all was given on field, a review feels like the correct outcome.
one
RefChat Addict
I disagree. For starters, adapting this practice opens the door to many more incidents being reviewed, I'd go as far as trice as many. The very fundamental principle of VAR was minimal interference which this practice would violates.
There are more holes in that small article than Swiss cheese.
- Ref thinks GK handles ball inside PA
- No further DOGSO considerations for Ref
- VAR determines HB outside PA
- At this point, there is nothing else for the VAR to Review because the Referee has not Refereed the remaining DOGSO criteria
- The Referee must go to the screen to Referee (for the first time) the remaining DOGSO criteria
- Instead the VAR becomes the Referee for the game and Referees the remaining DOGSO criteria
- This is wrong
It could be that the Ref said to VAR (given it was HB), 'he thought the ball was going away from goal so no DOGSO', so it could be that the Ref did get first bite of that cherry. At which point the VAR should've said, 'no ball is only going away from goal because it was palmed away from goal'
Without a proper pitch-side review however, nothing was right about it. The overall decision, but also the restart and the lack of any sanction
The VAR process obviously hasn't catered for this scenario in full. Regardless of likely minor inaccuracies in my account above, nothing went right between Ref and VAR and the outcome was therefore wrong in every way regardless of whether one thinks it was DOGSO or not (which it clearly was). It is VAR not working just when it was most needed and dreamt up for
Only when we hear the comms will we know whether VAR or SA are mostly at fault, but it's highly likely they will share equal blame for this shambles
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
Said it plenty of times and this is another example in its favour; get rid of VAR in its current guise. Bring in a challenge based system for the clubs to use, with a set criteria of what can be challenged.
Then it's just as much on the clubs as it is the official if howlers like this happen (although I'd bet the howlers would be minimal)
Then it's just as much on the clubs as it is the official if howlers like this happen (although I'd bet the howlers would be minimal)
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
I don't think this is how VAR involvement works. If there was a DOGSO and the referee was clearly and obviously wrong to not call it (regardless how wrong or twisted the reason behind the no call was), VAR has to recommend a review.
The reason VAR didn't get involved was because he didn't thing this was a clear and obvious DOGSO, again regardless of why the referee didn't call it. If he'd thought it was a clear DOGSO, then he'd call the ref to review, ref realizes his first handball mistake then judges the considerations for DOGSO.
VAR and ref shouldn't be having a meeting to discuss how a decision by the ref is reached. VAR is not to fix a KMI decision process, it's to fix the outcome if it is clearly and obviously wrong.
Given reasonable criteria I don't actually think this gets challenged, no one realised the possibility on the pitch or in the stands...and I'm absolutely fine with that as a potential outcome
What would that fix? If they had that in the final then the 2 possible outcomes are:
- Palace don’t challenge
- Palace challenge and referees don’t overturn because they feel it’s not obvious
The debate of no red card continues
Be surprised if palace challenged their own goalkeeper not being sent off
There's two debates here. First off is what the protocol is and whilst not everyone agrees with the VAR not intervening I think everyone accepts that the protocol was followed.
Secondly what folks would like the protocol to look like.
In a challenge system whilst the outcome would, potentially, remain the same it would at least reduce the debate to the decision itself as the reference would be the sole arbiter rather than another referee who would first have to decide if it was an error and then if it was a clear and obvious one.
one
RefChat Addict
I don't think a challenge system should have "clear and obvious" as a criteria anywhere. That is a criteria for VAR to get involved which would no longer be relevant.Be surprised if palace challenged their own goalkeeper not being sent off
There's two debates here. First off is what the protocol is and whilst not everyone agrees with the VAR not intervening I think everyone accepts that the protocol was followed.
Secondly what folks would like the protocol to look like.
In a challenge system whilst the outcome would, potentially, remain the same it would at least reduce the debate to the decision itself as the reference would be the sole arbiter rather than another referee who would first have to decide if it was an error and then if it was a clear and obvious one.
In principle the team is asking the referee to re-referee an incident with the benefit of video replay. If teams have limited challenges then incident doesn't even have to be a KMI.
I don't see a reason why the referee should stick With his original decision if he himself thinks he was wrong, even though not clear and obvious.
I'm not sure I want to read 8 pages of back and forth, but I'll weigh in with an opinion because that's what I do.
Personally I think VAR was correct not to get involved on either the penalty or the handball incident. Just.
It's quite hard to make a case as to why I think it counts as an obvious goal scoring opportunity but not an obvious error to say it isn't, but I just think there are question marks over control / direction of play. I do think the most likely outcome without the handball would be a shot at a relatively empty net (minus maybe one CP player sliding back to try and block) but I do think the ball had bounced quite high and was going away from Haaland. I do think DOGSO is the right decision, but I think a VAR stepping in to say something is DOGSO in the biggest domestic cup final is going to have to see a 100% nailed on every box ticked DOGSO, and I don't think it's quite there. Disappointing miss on the handball in normal time though.
I think the penalty is a dive. He's already well and truly on his way down before any contact, BUT again, because the slide is careless and there ends up being contact on the player (and any contact on the ball is a mere feather) then VAR just can not get involved to say its a clear and obvious error. The award took a strangely long time in real time too.
Back on the DOGSO, I don't think the media uproar / reaction shows that it should have been reviewed by VAR, because I believe had it been reviewed and Henderson sent off, you'd still have the same amount of reaction the other way round.
Personally I think VAR was correct not to get involved on either the penalty or the handball incident. Just.
It's quite hard to make a case as to why I think it counts as an obvious goal scoring opportunity but not an obvious error to say it isn't, but I just think there are question marks over control / direction of play. I do think the most likely outcome without the handball would be a shot at a relatively empty net (minus maybe one CP player sliding back to try and block) but I do think the ball had bounced quite high and was going away from Haaland. I do think DOGSO is the right decision, but I think a VAR stepping in to say something is DOGSO in the biggest domestic cup final is going to have to see a 100% nailed on every box ticked DOGSO, and I don't think it's quite there. Disappointing miss on the handball in normal time though.
I think the penalty is a dive. He's already well and truly on his way down before any contact, BUT again, because the slide is careless and there ends up being contact on the player (and any contact on the ball is a mere feather) then VAR just can not get involved to say its a clear and obvious error. The award took a strangely long time in real time too.
Back on the DOGSO, I don't think the media uproar / reaction shows that it should have been reviewed by VAR, because I believe had it been reviewed and Henderson sent off, you'd still have the same amount of reaction the other way round.