The Ref Stop

Bournemouth vs Man United

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

D

dadofref

New Member
Not sure how the referee and VAR have decided to not give a penalty to United, then give one to Bournemouth a few minutes later (and send Maguire off) with arguably far less force in the contact. Arguably both players went down a bit easily.

Surely they either have to both be penalties (in which case Bournemouth's first goal also gets ruled out), or neither...?

It's the inconsistency - even in the face of VAR - that's infuriating.

Especially when it's a decision that goes against one team and in the same passage of play ends up in a goal for the other team; there's going to be a pause in play anyway after the goal, what have VAR got to lose by telling the referee to have another look and be sure he's happy with the first decision? Not advising him to overturn it, but just use the tools available to make sure...

I despair!
 
The Ref Stop
I laughed when Alex Scott went down holding his head in the area again with a couple mins to go.
Done it recently too against Brentford, forcing the game to stop and take momentum away from opponents.
Players know what they're doing and are forcing the hands.
 
Also not sure where the 9 minutes of stoppage time came from. It seems so inconsistent.

It's at the point now where I'd rather the timekeeper was off-field, stop the clock whenever the ball's not in play, and reduce match length to two 30 minute halves.

And if someone's gone down with a head injury causing the game to be stopped, they can go off for a mandatory 10 minute concussion check, with a concussion sub coming on for them.
 
Neither were pens.
VAR are the problem, not sending thebref tot he monitor for the 2nd pen is unreal.
 
I don't think either were really penalties, but nor do I think VAR should be going anywhere near either decision. Was there inconsistency in the game? Arguably yes. But VAR isn't supposed to remove inconsistencies, that isn't within its remit.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
I laughed when Alex Scott went down holding his head in the area again with a couple mins to go.
Done it recently too against Brentford, forcing the game to stop and take momentum away from opponents.
Players know what they're doing and are forcing the hands.
Click to expand...
He got a shot full in the face and legs looked like jelly when he tried to get up. Of course that could be good acting, but the referee has no choice but to stop the game. The bigger concern I'd have with this is the physios seemed to be waiting for Iraola's permission to go on and if that was indeed the case it is fundamentally wrong and should be dealt with.
 
RustyRef said:
I don't think either were really penalties, but nor do I think VAR should be going anywhere near either decision. Was there inconsistency in the game? Arguably yes. But VAR isn't supposed to remove inconsistencies, that isn't within its remit.
Click to expand...
So he just had an absolute stinker then? If we're prepared to put up with that, why bother with VAR at all?

Even if neither decision on its own was a clear and obvious error, the second decision in the context of the first decision WAS a clear and obvious error...
 
dadofref said:
Also not sure where the 9 minutes of stoppage time came from. It seems so inconsistent.

It's at the point now where I'd rather the timekeeper was off-field, stop the clock whenever the ball's not in play, and reduce match length to two 30 minute halves.
Click to expand...
I said there would be at least 8.
There was a delay after Bournemouth first goal. A delay to confirm man utd penalty. A delay to confirm the Maguire red. There was a no pen check too if I recall. + Subs and injuries then added on time felt about right without needing to time it.
dadofref said:
And if someone's gone down with a head injury causing the game to be stopped, they can go off for a mandatory 10 minute concussion check, with a concussion sub coming on for them.
Click to expand...
Not sure this is the answer... It's open to abuse. I know we have concussion subs now but this gives your opponent another sub opportunity. We'd be introducing unlimited subs actually.
The IFAB are bringing in ways to increase game flow and decrease time lost. Not this specific issue but I expect with time there will come some measures to address it.
 
Unpopular opinions it seems but both were pens for me.
The holding clearly impeded Cunhas movement, and although he dived theatrically the fact that not a single Bournemouth player argued the decision tells you enough for me.
The Amad one in the build up to the goal was more of expected football contact. The difference with Maguire's were they were side by side and challenging for the ball.
I think The Maguire one is probably the most debatable, due to the Amad having some comparisons but I'm comfortable 1 is a pen and the other isn't. Maguire isn't challenging for the ball, and he's given the referee a decision to make. I think the issue here is it seems Stuart Attwell has said something like shirt pull as Maguire seemed to be insisting that he hadn't pulled his shirt but that doesn't remove the fact that it was a careless challenge, and although the shirt pull was not as clear as Jimenez on cunha there was holding of the arms and players equipment.
Once pen was given there was only one possible outcome of red card.
 
dadofref said:
So he just had an absolute stinker then? If we're prepared to put up with that, why bother with VAR at all?

Even if neither decision on its own was a clear and obvious error, the second decision in the context of the first decision WAS a clear and obvious error...
Click to expand...
Just because 2 pen decisions may have gone the other way, does not mean he had a stinker. That’s a comment that could easily be made by players, managers, spectators and armchair viewers. I would expect more constructive comments from a fellow Referee (or Observer).
 
DavidObs said:
Just because 2 pen decisions may have gone the other way, does not mean he had a stinker. That’s a comment that could easily be made by players, managers, spectators and armchair viewers. I would expect more constructive comments from a fellow Referee (or Observer).
Click to expand...
Username suggests not a referee themselves but the dad of one.
 
If VAR had recommended review for Man U penalty, & Ref had given it, Ref would have had to disallow a Bournemouth goal, would that be a EPL first?

IMO, give both or don’t give either… but easy to say after the event.
 
RustyRef said:
He got a shot full in the face and legs looked like jelly when he tried to get up. Of course that could be good acting, but the referee has no choice but to stop the game. The bigger concern I'd have with this is the physios seemed to be waiting for Iraola's permission to go on and if that was indeed the case it is fundamentally wrong and should be dealt with.
Click to expand...
I know he did, but the thing is it reminds me of the phrase of the "boy who cried wolf".

Players go down when they dont get hit. And I would have a good guess at that this is instruction from management (tactics).
So in this case, considering the history of this very player and other Bournemouth players (they went down 3 times v Brentford in the final 10-15 minutes and only watched last night from the penalty as was busy before), where you mention about waiting for managers permission, you now dont know if it was a tactical one (no physio needed so therefore doesnt leave pitch for 30 seconds) or a genuine one and that delay on getting on could be costly.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
I know he did, but the thing is it reminds me of the phrase of the "boy who cried wolf".

Players go down when they dont get hit. And I would have a good guess at that this is instruction from management (tactics).
So in this case, considering the history of this very player and other Bournemouth players (they went down 3 times v Brentford in the final 10-15 minutes and only watched last night from the penalty as was busy before), where you mention about waiting for managers permission, you now dont know if it was a tactical one (no physio needed so therefore doesnt leave pitch for 30 seconds) or a genuine one and that delay on getting on could be costly.
Click to expand...
Law says "If the referee has authorised the doctors and/or stretcher bearers to enter the field of play, the player must leave on a stretcher or on foot. A player who does not comply must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour"
 
ladbroke8745 said:
I know he did, but the thing is it reminds me of the phrase of the "boy who cried wolf".

Players go down when they dont get hit. And I would have a good guess at that this is instruction from management (tactics).
So in this case, considering the history of this very player and other Bournemouth players (they went down 3 times v Brentford in the final 10-15 minutes and only watched last night from the penalty as was busy before), where you mention about waiting for managers permission, you now dont know if it was a tactical one (no physio needed so therefore doesnt leave pitch for 30 seconds) or a genuine one and that delay on getting on could be costly.
Click to expand...
Don't think there was anything tactical about this, once the referee saw him looking dazed he was always going to wave the physio on, and once he's done that the player is going off even if Iraola told the physios not to go on.
 
dadofref said:
So he just had an absolute stinker then? If we're prepared to put up with that, why bother with VAR at all?

Even if neither decision on its own was a clear and obvious error, the second decision in the context of the first decision WAS a clear and obvious error...
Click to expand...
Because VAR isn't there to ensure consistency of decisions, it is to correct and clear and obvious errors. Both penalty shouts were about as subjective as you can get, my personal view is that, especially given PGMOLs very high bar when it comes to allowing physical contact to go, both players went down too easily for the challenges to be penalised. But I don't think anyone saying they were penalties is wrong, that's the very definition of subjective and VAR is not there for subjective decisions.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
Law says "If the referee has authorised the doctors and/or stretcher bearers to enter the field of play, the player must leave on a stretcher or on foot. A player who does not comply must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour"
Click to expand...
I am aware of this.
I was commenting on Rustys part about the physios seemingly awaiting permission from the manager.
Physios seemed hesitant to go on because, as a neutral would see it based on history, they were probably unsure if this was part of tactics or genuine.
We know it was more on the genuine side but, again, boy who cries wolf...
RustyRef said:
Don't think there was anything tactical about this, once the referee saw him looking dazed he was always going to wave the physio on, and once he's done that the player is going off even if Iraola told the physios not to go on.
Click to expand...
I dont think this one was tactical. It was clear he was hurt.

But it does not look good when near enough every game, when trying to preserve a point, or 3, they keep going down with head injuries in the area to stop the game, and always regain possession in the mean time.
Bournemouth have history. And its creeping in to the game far more with other teams too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top