The Ref Stop

Match officials mic'd up

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

P

Paul_10

RefChat Addict
Not sure if it's me or not but I can't help but feel this programme is losing a bit of a feel on what it should be about.

It feels like the vast majority of the time they are showing obviously correct interventions(like Palace v Brighton) to back up Howard Webb's belief VAR is a good thing and I think largely VAR is good for the game but they are reluctant to show the ones which causes a bit of a debate unless it involves the big clubs.

Instead of showing audio why a VAR thought the referee made an error of not showing a red card for DOGSO in the Palace Bournemouth game which the referee rejected at the screen or why a VAR did not correct a referees error of simulation in the Brentford Newcastle game, we were instead in the second part of the programme showed a pointless(at least to me as a fan which the show is largely aimed at) segment of John Brooks talking to players at different incidents including the DOGSO decision. We did not even get any subtitles on any of the audio either and it felt like a last minute decision for whatever reason to include this. This is something that could easily be put on the PGMO/Premier League social media outputs for those who are interested and let's face it, the segment has very little to do with referee/VAR decisions and just felt like pointless filler.

i also think the programme could be extended to 45/60 minutes longer so Owen could maybe challenge Webb more. In the Everton/Spurs scenario whilst it does seem a obvious offside interference, one argument could be is the keeper really impacted by having 2 players around him as he was Infront of the two Everton players from what I can remember instead of "I agree with that" after Webb's explanation.
 
The Ref Stop
Agree that the program needs to be longer, but they led on the Man City vs Liverpool offside decision and that has obviously split people on here.

I thought the John Brooks section was interesting, he's always struck me as one of the grumpier / stricter referees and it certainly came across. Not sure I'd advise up and coming referees to repeatedly shout "come here", but as he explained I suspect some EPL players need that level of force.
 
RustyRef said:
Agree that the program needs to be longer, but they led on the Man City vs Liverpool offside decision and that has obviously split people on here.

I thought the John Brooks section was interesting, he's always struck me as one of the grumpier / stricter referees and it certainly came across. Not sure I'd advise up and coming referees to repeatedly shout "come here", but as he explained I suspect some EPL players need that level of force.
Click to expand...

Which is understandable and i got no issues with leading with that but whilst the last 3 to 4 weeks have largely been fairly uneventful controversy wise, I highlighted 2 incidents which I think might be interesting to hear the audio and Webb's opinion on.

I don't mind the Scottish VAR review and no doubt they get more incidents to cover as their threshold for intervention is clearly lower but it's obviously fairly cheaply made(no touchscreen, no fancy subtitles) compared to the PL version.

I just felt fairly disappointed with tonights show that they only showed one major incident and 2 other clips of fairly obvious correct interventions.
 
bester said:
Webb acts like a politician
Click to expand...
Couldn't be any more true. I haven't seen it but read an article.

At the risk of reigniting the City-Liv offside debate, his words to describe the incident were "did that clear action impact on Donnarumma". Only a politician spins words like that to support their own point which takes the focus away from impact and puts it solely on the action. The laws use "obvious action which clearly impacts". He also used other information that need fact checking 😊. Unfortunately this is how "football expects" is formed.
 
bester said:
The Scottish version is so much better. Get through 15-20 incidents in an hour

Webb acts like a politician
Click to expand...
I think politician is probably the perfect way to answer it. He didn’t really give an opinion on right or wrong, just that it was understandable.

What I really did not like was the comms between Referee and AR. AR claims line of sight, which he has got no chance of telling from a side on angle (and we discussed here that it can’t be line of sight). Then CK just goes ‘ok, so offside then’.
 
Runner Ref said:
I think politician is probably the perfect way to answer it. He didn’t really give an opinion on right or wrong, just that it was understandable.

What I really did not like was the comms between Referee and AR. AR claims line of sight, which he has got no chance of telling from a side on angle (and we discussed here that it can’t be line of sight). Then CK just goes ‘ok, so offside then’.
Click to expand...
Or a diplomat which those at the top of the tree often have to be. As to line of sight - it depends on how much detail there needs to be - for pinpoint accuracy was Robinson in line of sight - no. Was he line of sight from the position of the AR with the ball and goalkeeper going in the same direction as where Robinson was positioned/ducked - yes. The Referee is likely to have wanted some information/opinion from the AR which is what he received and from CK he should have been able to form his own opinion - which he did although not to everyone’s liking.
 
DavidObs said:
Or a diplomat which those at the top of the tree often have to be. As to line of sight - it depends on how much detail there needs to be - for pinpoint accuracy was Robinson in line of sight - no. Was he line of sight from the position of the AR with the ball and goalkeeper going in the same direction as where Robinson was positioned/ducked - yes. The Referee is likely to have wanted some information/opinion from the AR which is what he received and from CK he should have been able to form his own opinion - which he did although not to everyone’s liking.
Click to expand...
No, the AR shouted line of sight and the referee just went with it. Have you actually listened to the clip?
 
I think what's interesting is that the AR's call, "line of sight" is not the decision that is confirmed by the VAR and AVAR who says obvious action which clearly impacts the goalkeeper. That to me is probably a the on field decision is wrong, in terms of the actual specifics of the offence, and that the VAR or AVAR here has confirmed that it's still an offside offence but by a different clause. Is that grounds for an OFR, I don't know?

I can see why CK would take the ARs advice on this one with VAR to confirm it, not that it's best practise, but he is looking at the aerial challenge and it would have been difficult to have any valuable input beyond what the AR said as by the time he looks in the direction of Robertson's position would be totally different.
 
JamesL said:
I think what's interesting is that the AR's call, "line of sight" is not the decision that is confirmed by the VAR and AVAR who says obvious action which clearly impacts the goalkeeper. That to me is probably a the on field decision is wrong, in terms of the actual specifics of the offence, and that the VAR or AVAR here has confirmed that it's still an offside offence but by a different clause. Is that grounds for an OFR, I don't know?
Click to expand...
I think we kind of estabilished this in the closed thread based on the penalty decision that was reviewed. Though I dont think it is the case, apparently reason for a decision contributes to the C&O determination.
 
Runner Ref said:
I think politician is probably the perfect way to answer it. He didn’t really give an opinion on right or wrong, just that it was understandable.

What I really did not like was the comms between Referee and AR. AR claims line of sight, which he has got no chance of telling from a side on angle (and we discussed here that it can’t be line of sight). Then CK just goes ‘ok, so offside then’.
Click to expand...
Or a diplomat which those at the top of the tree often have to be. As to line of sight - it depends on how much detail there needs to be - for pinpoint accuracy was Robinson in line of sight - no. Was he line of sight from the position of the AR with the ball and goalkeeper going in the same direction as where Robinson was positioned/ducked - yes. The Referee is likely to have wanted some information/opinion from the AR which is what he received and from CK he should have been able to form his own opinion - which he did although not to everyone’s likingn
Runner Ref said:
No, the AR shouted line of sight and the referee just went with it. Have you actually listened to the clip?
Click to expand...
I haven’t listened to it, but what you have said is virtually what I have said except that CK received the opinion of the AR without being asked & at PL level I’m not surprised at that. We also know that CK went with it, but he didn’t have to. We don’t know how much influence CK took from the AR who may have only confirmed what he thought already. Of course, the first paragraph of James L last reply is also very appropriate.
 
Last edited:
RustyRef said:
Agree that the program needs to be longer, but they led on the Man City vs Liverpool offside decision and that has obviously split people on here.

I thought the John Brooks section was interesting, he's always struck me as one of the grumpier / stricter referees and it certainly came across. Not sure I'd advise up and coming referees to repeatedly shout "come here", but as he explained I suspect some EPL players need that level of force.
Click to expand...
Having met John Brooks in person at a CPD, he's absolutely not as grumpy as he might come across on screen. Nice guy and a good laugh too.
 
Runner Ref said:
I think politician is probably the perfect way to answer it. He didn’t really give an opinion on right or wrong, just that it was understandable.

What I really did not like was the comms between Referee and AR. AR claims line of sight, which he has got no chance of telling from a side on angle (and we discussed here that it can’t be line of sight). Then CK just goes ‘ok, so offside then’.
Click to expand...
Fully understand what you're saying - but important to realise AR didn't just stick the flag up, he gave CK the facts (offside position) and then said 'I think he's line of sight'. CK then said 'ok, so offside then' which presumably suggests he had no other info to suggest AR was incorrect.
As we know, AR was incorrect in the sense of line of sight, but VAR suggested that there was an obvious action so confirmed the decision.

Reading between the lines of what Webb said, I think he would prefer goal given, but is happy enough with the offside given the subjective nature of it. I think he's probably reluctant to say that on national TV because it will flare up headlines of 'even chief of PGMO can't make his mind up'.

Interestingly, in my chat with AR in question he did say the decision was entirely his. I didn't want to share this until comms went public as it was a private conversation, but I did see in the closed thread that Dermot had said 'it was the AR who made the decision'. Presumably, he is privy to the comms before doing his segment.
 
DavidObs said:
Decent perspective.
Click to expand...
I like Graham Scott, he's a breath of fresh air compared to the bitter ex-referees like Hackett and Halsey. He gives his honest view, even if that means agreeing with the decision, something the other two hardly ever do. Whether that means his work will dry up only time will tell. He was also on talkSPORT today discussing this, comes across really well.
 
RustyRef said:
Yeah, I meant on the pitch, heard a lot of people say good things about him off the pitch
Click to expand...
I met him a season ago at a game he travelled a decent distance to mentor/coach a L4 whereby the game was postponed soon after his arrival because of a floodlight failure (only 1 out). He didn’t feel put out/or disappointed and spent some 1 to 1 time with the Referee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top