Newcastle v Chelsea
- Thread starter BCMilan
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
Bet this one doesn't make it onto the Mic'd Up show either!
Not sure this can be considered a VAR howler. I'd agree it's a mistake. Not every mistake has to be a howler.
Just a thought, if the panel vote 3-2 that the VAR should have recommended a review then it isn’t a clear & obvious error.
To be deemed a VAR non-intervention error should the bar be 5-0 or 4-1?
www.bbc.co.uk
BTW, thought the this one would be 5-0, shows what I know!
‘The panel also voted the VAR Peter Bankes was correct not to advise that Newcastle should be given a spot-kick in their match against Chelsea on 20 December.
Head coach Eddie Howe said the Magpies were refused a "stonewall" penalty when Chelsea defender Trevoh Chalobah barged Anthony Gordon to the ground.’
To be deemed a VAR non-intervention error should the bar be 5-0 or 4-1?
Key Match Incidents Panel: Everton wrongly denied penalty in Arsenal defeat
Everton should have been awarded a penalty in their 1-0 defeat by Arsenal, the Premier League's Key Match Incidents Panel has said.
www.bbc.co.uk
BTW, thought the this one would be 5-0, shows what I know!
‘The panel also voted the VAR Peter Bankes was correct not to advise that Newcastle should be given a spot-kick in their match against Chelsea on 20 December.
Head coach Eddie Howe said the Magpies were refused a "stonewall" penalty when Chelsea defender Trevoh Chalobah barged Anthony Gordon to the ground.’
Especially when the 3 who correctly thought it was a foul also thought it was reckless!
What actual good does the KMI panel achieve? Just headlines that in the opinion of five anonymous people, a subjective decision/error was made, why does their opinion have any more bearing than mine or the bloke down the pub?
The specialist skills of the panel can be used to advise & assist PGMO in future decision making, but I do have a beef with the five person panel can’t agree amongst themselves that it is an error but still it is recorded as a ‘categorical error’.
3-2 referee error, 3-2 VAR was correct not to recommend review
youtube.com
3-2 Referee error, 3-2 VAR error
youtube.com
The specialist skills of the panel can be used to advise & assist PGMO in future decision making, but I do have a beef with the five person panel can’t agree amongst themselves that it is an error but still it is recorded as a ‘categorical error’.
3-2 referee error, 3-2 VAR was correct not to recommend review
✂️ Penalty claim
14 seconds · Clipped by DJIC · Original video "Chelsea fight back to draw thriller! | Newcastle 2-2 Chelsea | Premier League Highlights" by Sky Sports Premie...
youtube.com
3-2 Referee error, 3-2 VAR error
✂️ Penalty
30 seconds · Clipped by DJIC · Original video "Gyokeres fires Arsenal back top for Christmas! 🎄 | Everton 0-1 Arsenal | EPL highlights" by Sky Sports Premie...
youtube.com
Very little, it is just to appease the public. I don't see their decisions with any credibility when they have zero qualifications in the LoTG.What actual good does the KMI panel achieve? Just headlines that in the opinion of five anonymous people, a subjective decision/error was made, why does their opinion have any more bearing than mine or the bloke down the pub?
The specialist skills of the panel can be used to advise & assist PGMO in future decision making, but I do have a beef with the five person panel can’t agree amongst themselves that it is an error but still it is recorded as a ‘categorical error’.
3-2 referee error, 3-2 VAR was correct not to recommend review
✂️ Penalty claim
14 seconds · Clipped by DJIC · Original video "Chelsea fight back to draw thriller! | Newcastle 2-2 Chelsea | Premier League Highlights" by Sky Sports Premie...
3-2 Referee error, 3-2 VAR error
✂️ Penalty
30 seconds · Clipped by DJIC · Original video "Gyokeres fires Arsenal back top for Christmas! 🎄 | Everton 0-1 Arsenal | EPL highlights" by Sky Sports Premie...
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
But, but, but . . .what football expects!!!!
Narrator: It did not make it onto the Mic'd up show.
There would have been more value in seeing this incident discussed than a couple of the selected incidents.
Would be better if they do the review show in such a way that they can show more incidents? We really don't need on every show Owen explaining who is speaking and when the ref is speaking, we also don't fully need Owen faffing around on the touchscreen either.
I think we do need that, or I think the wider football public would misinterpret things. Also, there could be a good reason why any individual clip can't be used. These officials could very easily say something unprofessional in the moment or not strictly correct in law... then that audio can't be put out to the public because PGMO wouldn't live it down.
bester
RefChat Addict
The Scottish show does this and it works great.
There's probably some Scottish fans asking for a longer explanation though!