Burnley v Brentford
- Thread starter bloovee
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
one
RefChat Addict
I think we are talking the same thing but using different terms.
In VAR terms, there are two types of decisions, factual or subjective. If a ball has hit a hand is definitly factual. If a handball is deliberate, non-deliberate or accidental is a subjective decision.
In this case the subjective part is irrelevant. Because a goal is scored, if the ball has hit the hand then it is an offence regardless of which type of handball.
If we have doubt on it hitting the hand, it doesn't make the decision non-factual. It just means we dont have enough evidence to determine the facts.
As a parallel, if a player is in an offside position is factual even if we dont have enough evidence to determine this fact.
ladbroke8745
Censorship
Can I point out that during those 5 minutes of VAR there were TWO checks going on.
One for the handball, cleared within 3 minutes and a further minute or 2 on the melee that saw a substituted player for Brentford and a player, on the pitch i believe, for Burnley cautioned. They were checking for possible red card. This second incident was not highlighted to the crowd but was mentioned on tv by commentators.
I do believe it hit the arm. There is much more evidence of it hitting the arm than there is to suggest it didnt.
Do I like it? Not a chance. I personally think it hit the bit between arm/hip (thus hitting both) and he also had zero time to react. I know the law says to cancel the goal but I dont like it. Even if my team benefited.
There was a penalty shout earlier in the game for Brentford that was not looked at further and seemed pretty quick to resume too. Video on this post on fans site of penalty shout.
To be fair, has he "exaggerated" the pull? Maybe. But as been seen several times this season, if you don't do that you get nothing (remember a Liverpool player staying on feet when it was a clear foul and everyone saying he should've gone down).
https://griffinpark.org/forums/threads/burnley-3-brentford-4-damsgaard-2-thiago-schade.143960/post-4972102
One for the handball, cleared within 3 minutes and a further minute or 2 on the melee that saw a substituted player for Brentford and a player, on the pitch i believe, for Burnley cautioned. They were checking for possible red card. This second incident was not highlighted to the crowd but was mentioned on tv by commentators.
I do believe it hit the arm. There is much more evidence of it hitting the arm than there is to suggest it didnt.
Do I like it? Not a chance. I personally think it hit the bit between arm/hip (thus hitting both) and he also had zero time to react. I know the law says to cancel the goal but I dont like it. Even if my team benefited.
There was a penalty shout earlier in the game for Brentford that was not looked at further and seemed pretty quick to resume too. Video on this post on fans site of penalty shout.
To be fair, has he "exaggerated" the pull? Maybe. But as been seen several times this season, if you don't do that you get nothing (remember a Liverpool player staying on feet when it was a clear foul and everyone saying he should've gone down).
https://griffinpark.org/forums/threads/burnley-3-brentford-4-damsgaard-2-thiago-schade.143960/post-4972102
Last edited:
As soon as the ball goes in Sam Barrott is running in for that melee exactly as you say you described it. But too many skip over it or wilfully ignore it, because it doesn’t sell.
As for the incident with Barnes, he knows what he’s doing. He’s shaped himself to control the ball - there’s a risk but that doesn’t register in the moment itself. It’s all about finishing the chance.
As for the incident with Barnes, he knows what he’s doing. He’s shaped himself to control the ball - there’s a risk but that doesn’t register in the moment itself. It’s all about finishing the chance.
I'd usually defer to your understanding of the protocol but I'm not sure that's right.
"A potential ‘clear and obvious error’" includes "attacking team offence in the build-up to or scoring of the goal (handball, foul, offside etc.)"
Factual is for where on the arm the ball touched:
"For factual decisions e.g. position of an offence or player (offside), point of contact (handball/foul), location (inside or outside the penalty area), ball out of play etc. a ‘VAR-only review’ is usually appropriate but an ‘on-field review’ (OFR) can be used for a factual decision if it will help manage the players/match or ‘sell’ the decision"
Plus
"...slow motion replays should only be used for facts, e.g. position of offence/player, point of contact for physical offences and handball, ball out of play (including goal/no goal); normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’ of an offence or to decide if it was a handball offence"
Were I the referee, I'd be thinking "if it's taking you that long to decide whether or not it touched his arm, I need you to have a clip that proves it, or I'm having an OFR for a crucial match-deciding decision late in the game".
one
RefChat Addict
There are many factual decision. I did not intend for my examples to be the only ones. On handball, the location of contact is another one. Also what you quoted from law is not a full list and are examples.
Tough technically, location of contact decision is implicit to the factual decision of "ball hit (or didnt hit) hand/arm".
FWIW, if not convinced it hit Barnes’ arm. I think it probably did, but I’m a long way from certain, which was the point Shearer was belabouring on MOTD.
However, sports rules are governed by the civil standard of proof, ie the balance of probabilities. I’m not aware of any specific VAR guidance on standard of proof, so unless there is, they have clearly concluded it is more likely than not that the ball hit his arm, which is exactly what it looked like on replay.
However, sports rules are governed by the civil standard of proof, ie the balance of probabilities. I’m not aware of any specific VAR guidance on standard of proof, so unless there is, they have clearly concluded it is more likely than not that the ball hit his arm, which is exactly what it looked like on replay.
ladbroke8745
Censorship
Just seen the extended highlight of the handball goal on Facebook.
Throw in given that leads to the actual attack.
I get its a "defensive" one and teams should be able to defend better from that far out but my complaint is that ever since (I think it was Arsenal, may have been Man Utd) complained about the location of a Kayode throw in earlier this season not being exactly where the ball went out, Brentford have had every assistant and referee point to where it should exactly been taken and insisted upon.
But this throw in, the ball goes out about 10-12 yards from half way line (ball bounces to the right away from half way line in this still but its best still I can get with ball closest to ground/touchline).
Burnley run off to get ball at half way line.
Sam Barrott blows his whistle and literally points to take throw further back, but Burnley ignore that at take throw in from half way line, throwing the ball backwards instead.
You can even see in this screenshot Barrott pointing.
What I dont get is why this wasn't stopped and brought back to be taken in the correct place. This was taken literally where they picked the ball up.
Happens in a lot of games, happens for my team too, but once the ref has said where it should be, he should stick to his guns. As I said, they insist on Brentford taking it where it should be.
Same thing happened against Brighton in their last fixture and eventually he cautioned a player for taking the pee but still never moved them back.
Throw in given that leads to the actual attack.
I get its a "defensive" one and teams should be able to defend better from that far out but my complaint is that ever since (I think it was Arsenal, may have been Man Utd) complained about the location of a Kayode throw in earlier this season not being exactly where the ball went out, Brentford have had every assistant and referee point to where it should exactly been taken and insisted upon.
But this throw in, the ball goes out about 10-12 yards from half way line (ball bounces to the right away from half way line in this still but its best still I can get with ball closest to ground/touchline).
Burnley run off to get ball at half way line.
Sam Barrott blows his whistle and literally points to take throw further back, but Burnley ignore that at take throw in from half way line, throwing the ball backwards instead.
You can even see in this screenshot Barrott pointing.
What I dont get is why this wasn't stopped and brought back to be taken in the correct place. This was taken literally where they picked the ball up.
Happens in a lot of games, happens for my team too, but once the ref has said where it should be, he should stick to his guns. As I said, they insist on Brentford taking it where it should be.
Same thing happened against Brighton in their last fixture and eventually he cautioned a player for taking the pee but still never moved them back.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Typically, rightly or wrongly, referees will be forgiving over FK / TI placements if the team is going to kick / throw backwards and therefore not likely to start an immediate promising attack. 99 times out of 100, this works out well for the game as an entertainment spectacle. However, there will always be the odd occasion where being incorrect / liberal with law comes back and bites you on the rear!
ladbroke8745
Censorship
I appreciate that.
But he must have known, with seconds to go, its going straight up the other end.
Also, why are then Brentford throw ins always having to be taken in exact spot whilst opponents in same game get off.. thats my bug bear when it comes to restart inconsistencies.
No territorial advantage so allows play to continue. He could have stopped it, or since it was taken from the incorrect place, awarded it to the opposition, but really, is that what we want to see.
ladbroke8745
Censorship
I agree. I wouldn't want to see it.
But as someone watching, whether a fan or not, I want to see consistency in the same match on decisions, and that includes silly things like throws.
I get it, but I think we have to examine ‘consistency, so in my world, it’s where a Referee does something different from exactly the same or a very similar incident/situation. So in the situation described, if the Referee did 2 different things from the same position during the game, then that would be inconsistent. However, if there were no other similar situations, then can’t be considered as inconsistent. As Jimmy Hill said, can only be expected to be consistent within the game performing at & not anything else & there is much to be said with that statement.