RefSix

Arsenal-Newcastle

steakbridie

New Member
I think I accept that the opinion of those that don't say red, as much as Im probably in disagreement and feel it was a red card challenge. I feel the slow mo replays take away from how poor it is, but I think I am in the minority of that opinion.
But it takes me back to same old debate. What is clear and obvious. Was this red card clearly and obviously wrong. I don't think it was. I could accept people's opinion that it was wrong, but clearly and obviously, it was not.
Then the pen shout for Arsenal, Clarke trip on Aubameyang, that is a penalty all day long. How was that not reviewed?
The solution for me is to broadcast the conversation between ref and VAR.
It may have been a serious missed incident, which is where for example if the ref says to the VAR that the challenge was a two footed lunge with studs up and that doesn't match up with what the VAR sees on replay - then the VAR can recommend a review.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Serious missed incidents are for ones that referee hasn't seen at all. Like the ones behind his back. Not the ones he has seen differently. Otherwise any incident can can go under serious missed incident which makes C&O redundant.
 
Last edited:

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
The solution for me is to broadcast the conversation between ref and VAR.
Not sure that will get you everything you want. Where VAR does intervene, it will be illuminating. (The MLS videos on VAR events are very interesting.) But where VAR does not intervene, I don’t think you’ll get much—sometimes nothing, if the game isn’t held up, and if the game is held up, often as little as “check complete.” WhT would be more interesting and illuminating is the discussion happening in the VAR room as the VAR rolls through the video available and makes the decision not to send down—but that isn’t going to be on the open mic with the ref.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
It may have been a serious missed incident, which is where for example if the ref says to the VAR that the challenge was a two footed lunge with studs up and that doesn't match up with what the VAR sees on replay - then the VAR can recommend a review.
All red cards are checked as a matter of course. So it isn't coming under serious missed incident. Its been checked as a red card.
This has been sent for review as a clear and obvious error. I don't think it is a clear and obvious error. Again as with other decisions we've seen some say not a red. Some are happy with red. Some are happy with either. How can that be clear and obvious, even taking away my own feelings about the challenge?
 

Tealeaf

Lighting the darkest hour
Staff member
Level 5 Referee
I’m thinking aloud here, but what if it was an C&O error based on the comms?

EG:

Referee - he’s wiped him out, both feet in the shins.

VAR: Had a look and he hasn’t done him with both feet. It’s a glancing contact with the side of the foot. Have a look for yourself, might still be a case for excessive force.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
I’m thinking aloud here, but what if it was an C&O error based on the comms?

EG:

Referee - he’s wiped him out, both feet in the shins.

VAR: Had a look and he hasn’t done him with both feet. It’s a glancing contact with the side of the foot. Have a look for yourself, might still be a case for excessive force.
That's what I thought. But what is the point in that?
The question has to be, was it clearly and obviously wrong to send off?
Again this is where the broadcast would be helpful.
Is that what happens, does the referee constantly relay what he thinks he saw to the VAR? Surely not? They don't appear to, cameras are usually. Focused on the ref and there doesn't appear to be much conversation. Finger to ear, it's being checked is what I see mostly.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I’m thinking aloud here, but what if it was an C&O error based on the comms?

EG:

Referee - he’s wiped him out, both feet in the shins.

VAR: Had a look and he hasn’t done him with both feet. It’s a glancing contact with the side of the foot. Have a look for yourself, might still be a case for excessive force.
I don't think that's the way reviews are supposed to work. It's about if the final decision is clearly wrong and not how you got to it. My opinion of course.

Otherwise think of this scenario, there is a careless shirt hold in the box and ref gives a pen. Ref to var: there was a two handed shirt pull. VAR: that's a clear and obvious error. It was only a one handed shirt pull.

For me clear and obvious should not be debatable. No comms required. They stick out like a sore thumb. Not much analysis required. Everyone neutral (and most biased) would agree on the error. The type like Pickford on Van Dyke.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
I don't think that's the way reviews are supposed to work. It's about if the final decision is clearly wrong and not how you got to it. My opinion of course.

Otherwise think of this scenario, there is a careless shirt hold in the box and ref gives a pen. Ref to var: there was a two handed shirt pull. VAR: that's a clear and obvious error. It was only a one handed shirt pull.

For me clear and obvious should not be debatable. No comms required. They stick out like a sore thumb. Not much analysis required. Everyone neutral (and most biased) would agree on the error. The type like Pickford on Van Dyke.
Problem being however, I think this was never a dismissal... so C&O is meaningless

Besides, I think they want a 'return on investment' from VAR. They're not gonna accept VAR stepping in, say once in a dozen games to overturn a clanger. So we're actually closer to a dozen 'interventions' per game. By 'intervention', I mean re-refereeing KMIs silently or not so silently. They have far too many toys not to use them, at every opportunity
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Problem being however, I think this was never a dismissal... so C&O is meaningless

Besides, I think they want a 'return on investment' from VAR. They're not gonna accept VAR stepping in, say once in a dozen games to overturn a clanger. So we're actually closer to a dozen 'interventions' per game. By 'intervention', I mean re-refereeing KMIs silently or not so silently. They have far too many toys not to use them, at every opportunity
We can all make up stats off the top of our heads, but even with that caveat in place, stating a "dozen interventions per game" is stretching it a bit! Either you mean full reviews - in which case the most I can remember is about 3 or 4. Or you mean "silent checks", in which case the number will be much higher - but who cares as they just happen in the background?
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
By 'intervention', I mean re-refereeing KMIs silently or not so silently. They have far too many toys not to use them, at every opportunity
I don't know how a silent check by the VAR to see if there is a clear error is "re-refereeing."

When they don't see a clear error, they are not intervening.
 

Nij

Well-Known Member
Thought it was red, based on point of contact, think the slow mo made the force look low, and I thought it was a poor challenge.
Danny Murphy is a terrible pundit.
I don't know who that is, but being a pundit, was anything different really expected? They're all terrible.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
I am sure @Big Cat made that statement with his cynicism hat on :) VAR does that to you.

@Big Cat I am glad I didn't buy the fire extinguisher for my home with the same 'return on investment' concept that you think the FA has for VAR :)
The thing with the 'return on investment' analogy, the only way to achieve it is if VAR is used sparingly. It's all gone pear shaped because it dominates every weekend. Just tonight in the EPL, only a handful of games, but the hype regarding Match Officiating is always at the fore. As many controversial outcomes emanate from VAR as happens in its absence, but VAR purely serves to elevate the outcry

24/7 News Channels thrive and Sponsors get the air time they want. That's the main reason for the longevity of VAR
It makes me sick and I yearn for grass-roots 'football' to return to escape
Refereeing and referees should always be the last thing to take away from a game. Now, it's usually the first memory. I really do despair at where FIFA has taken the game
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: one

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
The thing with the 'return on investment' analogy, the only way to achieve it is if VAR is used sparingly. It's all gone pear shaped because it dominates every weekend. Just tonight in the EPL, only a handful of games, but the hype regarding Match Officiating is always at the fore. As many controversial outcomes emanate from VAR as happens in its absence, but VAR purely serves to elevate the outcry

24/7 News Channels thrive and Sponsors get the air time they want. That's the main reason for the longevity of VAR
It makes me sick and I yearn for grass-roots 'football' to return to escape
Refereeing and referees should always be the last thing to take away from a game. Now, it's usually the first memory. I really do despair at where FIFA has taken the game
Again, the idea that this is a new trend, or something that's the result of VAR is a very blinkered view. Post-match discussion has been massively focused on the referee for years - in fact, that's a huge factor in why some kick of technology was introduced in the first place.

You argue constantly against VAR, but the version of the sport you seem to want isn't the version we had 3 years ago, it's the version we had 30+ years ago. Trying to blame VAR for the problems you have with today's PL football is massively misguided.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nij

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Again, the idea that this is a new trend, or something that's the result of VAR is a very blinkered view. Post-match discussion has been massively focused on the referee for years - in fact, that's a huge factor in why some kick of technology was introduced in the first place.

You argue constantly against VAR, but the version of the sport you seem to want isn't the version we had 3 years ago, it's the version we had 30+ years ago. Trying to blame VAR for the problems you have with today's PL football is massively misguided.
You presume to know what I want without knowing what I want

The Philosophy & Spirit of the Laws;
The best matches are those where the referee is rarely needed


I'd like to see the game moving forward, not backward, but VAR has spiralled in a regrettable direction in which the focus on refereeing is exacerbated

IMO, VAR has a synergy with some deep problems in the game. I care more about these things than I once did, simply because I'm part of the problem; 'the refereeing community'. I want refereeing standards to be much better, but I'm dismayed that this can't happen with the direction the game is headed
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
You presume to know what I want without knowing what I want

The Philosophy & Spirit of the Laws;
The best matches are those where the referee is rarely needed


I'd like to see the game moving forward, not backward, but VAR has spiralled in a regrettable direction in which the focus on refereeing is exacerbated

IMO, VAR has a synergy with some deep problems in the game. I care more about these things than I once did, simply because I'm part of the problem; 'the refereeing community'. I want refereeing standards to be much better, but I'm dismayed that this can't happen with the direction the game is headed
This is a VAR discussion. Coming into a VAR discussion and moaning that TV are over-analysing refereeing decisions is either evidence of you badly misunderstanding the problem, or deliberately trying to derail/confuse the issue. Neither of which is helpful and both of which are fair game for me to point out.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
you badly misunderstanding the problem
Go on, enlighten me with your patronizing viewpoint on 'what the problem' is
Perhaps I can learn something from your privileged superior understanding. After all, there's nothing to learn from like-minded opinions
In a discussion on VAR, It's perfectly reasonable of me to tally VAR with the broader state of the game. The two are Wed to one another
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Go on, enlighten me with your patronizing viewpoint on 'what the problem' is
Perhaps I can learn something from your privileged superior understanding. After all, there's nothing to learn from like-minded opinions
In a discussion on VAR, It's perfectly reasonable of me to tally VAR with the broader state of the game. The two are Wed to one another
Glad to see your willingness to learn! OK, let me put this a different way. Either:

a) As you initially claimed, you genuinely think the over-analysis we see in the media is the fault of VAR, in which case it's 100% fair to point out that's an incorrect remembering of how football was pre-VAR.
b) You don't think the above at all, in which case you've chosen to disrupt a thread on a specific decision that was going along perfectly well in order to have the same boring moan about the "state of modern football" that you've already had 16 thousand times on here. Yes they're "wed" in the sense that they're both about football, but that doesn't justify derailing yet another thread with the same boring non-constructive complaining. My thoughts on Newcastle's kit design is similarly "wed" to this discussion that was going on previously - that wouldn't make it any less of a tangent to suddenly interrupt with.

I accept that I may have been patronising initially, but that's because I chose to take the good-faith assumption that you'd simply misunderstood what the thread was about. The less good faith assumption is that you're being deliberately disruptive and trying to deliberately move off on a tangent - I tried to steer away from that, but your responses haven't left me with much choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nij

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Glad to see your willingness to learn! OK, let me put this a different way. Either:

a) As you initially claimed, you genuinely think the over-analysis we see in the media is the fault of VAR, in which case it's 100% fair to point out that's an incorrect remembering of how football was pre-VAR.
b) You don't think the above at all, in which case you've chosen to disrupt a thread on a specific decision that was going along perfectly well in order to have the same boring moan about the "state of modern football" that you've already had 16 thousand times on here. Yes they're "wed" in the sense that they're both about football, but that doesn't justify derailing yet another thread with the same boring non-constructive complaining. My thoughts on Newcastle's kit design is similarly "wed" to this discussion that was going on previously - that wouldn't make it any less of a tangent to suddenly interrupt with.

I accept that I may have been patronising initially, but that's because I chose to take the good-faith assumption that you'd simply misunderstood what the thread was about. The less good faith assumption is that you're being deliberately disruptive and trying to deliberately move off on a tangent - I tried to steer away from that, but your responses haven't left me with much choice.
It's not your duty to moderate the thread
Unlike Members who've since left the Forum, I won't rise to your provocation. So the Moderators need not worry
I want a brighter future for the game. I want the standard of refereeing to improve. I don't want either of those things misrepresented, but I can't stop you from doing that
 
Top