The Ref Stop

Sunderland v Brighton DOGSO

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

D

DJIC

RefChat Addict
Interesting this, where does everyone sit, clear & obvious for VAR?

Then appealed, panel have agreed an error so no one match ban.

Could have been worse, Brighton could have scored after the offence & play being stopped by VAR intervention, which would have chalked goal off.

The resultant free kick was taken a long way from the offence & could have been scored.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cv4g18gk8xzgo
 
The Ref Stop
Seems I'm in the minority but this looks like a DOGSO too me, the keeper was not running towards the ball and the ball was much closer to the attacker when the foul happened.

If the keeper was running towards the ball then fair enough but for me the attacker was most definately getting to that ball if the defender didn't foul him.
 
This did not meet the VAR threshold, but the sending off was a justifiable decision so overturning it is usurping the role of the referee.
 
This is getting ridiculous. VAR is rerefereeing the game and the appeals panel is rerefereeing the rerefereeing.

There is enough arguments for this eather way. It sits right in the middle of obvious/not obvious for me. I would have had no issue if the referee had decided DOGSO without the VAR. But VAR should not have intervened no mater what the decision was. And for the same reason the appeals panel should have left whatever the outcome was alone.
 
one said:
This is getting ridiculous. VAR is rerefereeing the game and the appeals panel is rerefereeing the rerefereeing.

There is enough arguments for this eather way. It sits right in the middle of obvious/not obvious for me. I would have had no issue if the referee had decided DOGSO without the VAR. But VAR should not have intervened no mater what the decision was. And for the same reason the appeals panel should have left whatever the outcome was alone.
Click to expand...

Think the issue was that the referee did not even award a foul so there's a clear and obvious error and that foul in the VAR mind was a DOGSO hence the review.

I really don't see the debate here though, if the defender did not foul the attacker, he would of regained the ball and have a shot at goal because the ball was nowhere near the keeper(who was largely static and was not running towards the ball) and was only a few yards away from the attacker.
 
I don't think the attacker had a cat in hell's chance of getting to the ball before the keeper, so a big mistake for VAR to get involved. I was very confident their appeal would be successful on this. I think the independent panel will go to town on this one and say 5-0 that the original decision was correct and 5-0 that the VAR intervention was incorrect.
 
Having watched it, looks like a coming together to me. Though I could potentially understand it being given at low levels on one view of it at the time. But with all the evidence available, I'm leaning towards no foul.
 
Paul_10 said:
if the defender did not foul the attacker, he would of regained the ball
Click to expand...
There is a good argument that this is a very likely outcome but not an obvious one. And that is the issue.

VAR can't intervene because not calling the foul is a clear and onvious error. They can only intervene if not calling a DOGSO is. So not calling the foul shouldn’t have any impact on VAR intervention unless it was a missed (unseen) incident.
 
If I remember rightly, the referee didn't give a foul on field did he?

Had he given a foul and a caution I think VAR would have found it a lot easier not to get involved, but as no foul was given it made it trickier.
 
RefereeX said:
If I remember rightly, the referee didn't give a foul on field did he?

Had he given a foul and a caution I think VAR would have found it a lot easier not to get involved, but as no foul was given it made it trickier.
Click to expand...

Yes, but…it shouldn’t. The technical standard is exactly the same whether the foul was called, with or without a caution. The standard is whether there was a C&O send off. And I think the VAR would be evaluated the same on the call regardless of what the call on the field was. But I agree with you from a practical perspective that the VAR would probably be more reluctant to intervene had there been a decision on the field of foul but not DOGSO.

One side note. It is conceivable that the R told the VAR (I didn’t have a foul, but I have DOGSO if there was a foul. In that case the VAR might only have been looking at whether there was a foul. I’m not sure how likely that kind of communication would be on a play like that.
 
RustyRef said:
I don't think the attacker had a cat in hell's chance of getting to the ball before the keeper, so a big mistake for VAR to get involved. I was very confident their appeal would be successful on this. I think the independent panel will go to town on this one and say 5-0 that the original decision was correct and 5-0 that the VAR intervention was incorrect.
Click to expand...
Narrator: The KMI panel did not.
www.premierleague.com

Premier League Match Round 6 - Key Match Incidents Panel outcomes

See key decisions taken by match officials including VAR on which the panel provided independent assessment
www.premierleague.com www.premierleague.com
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Narrator: The KMI panel did not.
www.premierleague.com

Premier League Match Round 6 - Key Match Incidents Panel outcomes

See key decisions taken by match officials including VAR on which the panel provided independent assessment
www.premierleague.com www.premierleague.com
Click to expand...
Yes, DOGSO for me. I looked at the positions and momentum of the fouled attacker and goalkeeper and felt the attacker would've got there first

But then, DOGSO threshold is generally too high for me. All too often, the threshold is applied only when ALL considerations are met, which is not the way it should be. The last letter is not given enough weight (Opportunity)
The threshold is too high in professional football because they're worried about the commercial product. But that makes a 'professional foul' appealing. I can see why this one was a marginal decision and I wouldn't go binary in either direction, but I'm 70/30 in favour of the KMI Panel outcome, even is the notion of such a panel is daft
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Narrator: The KMI panel did not.
www.premierleague.com

Premier League Match Round 6 - Key Match Incidents Panel outcomes

See key decisions taken by match officials including VAR on which the panel provided independent assessment
www.premierleague.com www.premierleague.com
Click to expand...

Couldn’t really make this up. Original decision was no red card. VAR recommended review and red card issued. Brighton appealed and were successful with suspension being removed. KMI panel say the red card was correct.

That for me demonstrates why it can't have been a clear and obvious error, we have 4 different opinions and they are split 50/50.
 
RustyRef said:
Couldn’t really make this up. Original decision was no red card. VAR recommended review and red card issued. Brighton appealed and were successful with suspension being removed. KMI panel say the red card was correct.

That for me demonstrates why it can't have been a clear and obvious error, we have 4 different opinions and they are split 50/50.
Click to expand...
Came here to say the same thing.

This is how challenging refereeing is whilst everyone demands perfection we don't even get agreement between commission and panel.
 
RustyRef said:
Couldn’t really make this up. Original decision was no red card. VAR recommended review and red card issued. Brighton appealed and were successful with suspension being removed. KMI panel say the red card was correct.

That for me demonstrates why it can't have been a clear and obvious error, we have 4 different opinions and they are split 50/50.
Click to expand...

What's really disappointing for me is this incident was not included on mic'd up show but instead show a straight forward obvious refereeing error in the City Ipswich game which then you have Webb claiming this is a good use of VAR which it was but it was such an obvious situation there was barely anything to analyse.

Unlike this situation where that has been such a wide range mixed of opinion. As a fan, I am interested in how the on field referee did not seen the initial offense as a foul and how and why the VAR/AVAR believe it was a DOGSO and enough of an error to recommend a review. Also to hear Webb's thoughts and see which way he seen it.

Be interesting if they show the Ipswich Forest incident where the ref(same one ironically) rejected a red card review for DOGSO.
 
JamesL said:
Came here to say the same thing.

This is how challenging refereeing is whilst everyone demands perfection we don't even get agreement between commission and panel.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why the KMI panel had to comment after the event - they had made their decision and the commission made theirs. It doesn’t surprise me that there are occasions when their is a discourse between the two bodies simply because of the make up of the two, with the KMi Panel mainly made up of coaches, ex players etc, albeit with a representative from Pro Ref etc.
 
I would like them to drop the scores and just call a decision subjective, when it is a 50/50 (e.g. 2:3/3:2).

Must be so frustrating being a Referee or VAR when your decision is classified an error when your interpretation with one look/review is subjective & 50% of analysts agree with you.

Will this ’error’ be recorded against the referee & impact his scores going forward?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top