APurpleChair
New Member
Wow!
That is the first time I've ever seen a free kick awarded for a foul by the referee!
This is exactly the situation VAR _should_ be getting involved in, rather than the armpit offsides...
Baggies v Reds
- Thread starter Big Cat
- Start date
That is the first time I've ever seen a free kick awarded for a foul by the referee!
This is exactly the situation VAR _should_ be getting involved in, rather than the armpit offsides...
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Disagree. Totally outside of the scope of what VAR does—not something to review. But there are two ARs and one 4O who should be yelling in his ear . . .
one
RefChat Addict
For the error, it is not about the referee not knowing what to do. For me it's fairly clear it's about him not concentrating and not being quick enough to figure out the restart. It's about awareness. He would have known (in general) he can't stop play for interfering with a player and if he did it's a dropped ball. But at that very moment, it was a brain fart. Like the offside I gave from a goal kick years ago. Sh!t happens.
And no way VAR can get involved. WBA lost the ball to LIV for the goal. Anything before that is not reviewable for the goal.
And no way VAR can get involved. WBA lost the ball to LIV for the goal. Anything before that is not reviewable for the goal.
APurpleChair
New Member
I appreciate it's currently outside the scope of VAR. But it shouldn't be.
If we are going to have VAR at all it should be to correct OBVIOUS errors.
I'd rather it corrected _this_ than some of the "armpit" offsides.
one
RefChat Addict
I can see why you don't like the armpit decisions. But including this type of things would just make the game unbearable from the VAR stop/start. No one would have even mentioned this if a goal was not scored shortly after it. But while if the error(s) was not made the course of the game would have changed, the goal was not scored because of this error.
Almost as bad as the referee's.
It needs more than being in the line of vision to be offside.
"...preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision"
OK, let's use an example. There are countless occasions where a corner is awarded when it should be a goal kick and a goal is scored. That is absolutely no different to a free kick being given when play should have carried on. Are you advocating that every corner should be reviewed?
I'm not so bothered that Mike Dean guessed and guessed wrong, but once again it's the failings of VAR that stands out. I know it's not a reviewable mistake, but that's a failing in itself. Stuff happens in football all the time that is difficult to pre-empt and specify in a process. Yet we get a goal from an unusual incorrect restart in Law, whilst enjoyment of the game is constantly interrupted for unacceptable amounts of time for forensic analysis of lines and subjective calls
Agreed. How VAR can't change this is crazy. Its wrong to stop it. And even more wrong to restart as a free kick.
I know it opens up the whole checking every corner, or free kick awarded prior to a goal but this surely the exact kind of error VAR is there to correct.
Exactly, once the genie's out the bottle, there's no end to it. But this was skin to Keith Stroud's IDFK fiasco for a PK scored with encroachment (NUFC)
It's black'n'white wrong in Law and is a bit different from ball in/out of play
Its a good job WBA we're gone anyway, as this would have been a major major talking point. Actually, we can also see it as a bad thing as it papers over the crack as it is essentially inconsequential.
Hang on, I'm confused? You now want VAR checking every restart?
The laws (note, laws, not VAR rules) are clear - once play has restarted, a decision cannot be changed. So for this to be corrected, MD would have had to say "Free Kick", then he holds play up for VAR to check and decide that it should actually be a drop ball, then off we go. Repeat that 75 times a match. And the upshot of this decision being correct? instead of Fabinho placing the ball and then playing a short pass to a teammate, MD would have dropped the ball to him and then Fabinho would have played a short pass to a teammate.
Honestly, for VAR-haters to jump on this, of all things as an example of broken VAR is genuinely bizzarre! I think there's a good chance that FK vs drop ball here might qualify for the most inconsequential wrong decision MD has made in his entire career...
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I agree it's not reviewable but at the same time it's not comparable to goal kick/corner kick decision. If the ball goes out of play over the end line, either a goal kick or a corner kick is an allowable decision and it's up to the referee's judgement as to which it is. This is giving a restart that is not even allowable under the law. This is more like seeing a player who loses a boot and awarding a penalty kick against them for it.
The way it looked to me is that he's impeded a player, thought to himself that it was unfair they lost the ball and has tried to redress the situation by giving them a free kick. Unless I'm wrong and he actually thought there was a foul, so that's what he was giving, he's just got it totally incorrect and in fact, I reckon this must come perilously close to being a referee technical error.
If referees were allowed to give interviews after matches (as they were in Australia for a while) it would be fascinating to see what Mr Dean had to say for himself.
Where do you draw the line though? Goals have frequently been scored from incorrectly awarded free kicks or corners, and to prevent that you'd essentially have to review every single decision. Or just review ones in potentially goal scoring positions, which would almost certainly have not included this one as the free kick was so far from goal.
That's all this was - an incorrectly awarded free kick. As referees I'm sure we have all given a foul then realised from reactions we have probably messed up, and you just finding yourself hoping nothing comes out of it. Although, interestingly here, West Brom didn't bat an eyelid at the free kick being given, the reaction only came after the game.
I think Peter has made the best argument so I won't repeat that.
But to suggest the outcome would have been the same is not correct. It may hav been but, there would at least have been a greater delay between the restart and the element of surprise of Fabinho's quick free kick would have been lost. Beari g in mind quick FKs are there as an advantage to a team that have been offended against, which, in this case hasn't happened.
I could just about believe that if he had given a dropped ball, would be wrong in law but perhaps understandable on the basis that he inadvertently broke up the attack, perhaps call it spirit of the law. I find it impossible to believe though that the most experienced PL referee thought it was OK to give it as a DFK, as I've said before I am as certain as I can be that he just guessed there had been a foul and guessed wrong.
I do agree though that someone, whether Mike himself or a PGMOL spokesperson, really has to come out and explain exactly what happened and the thought process.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
I know I shouldn't ever look at social media comments as they are the dregs of modern society, but it continues to blow my mind just how badly the general public messes up the Laws of the Game. Regarding the WBA offside, the knots into which people are twisting themselves to say the WBA goal for offside shouldn't have been waved off is truly mesmerizing. Even when I have quoted the Law to people verbatim from the magic book and identify that the WBA player is standing right in Alisson's line of vision, people still put their tinfoil hats on and talk about "LiVARpool", "if the teams had switched this wouldn't have happened", etc.
I've pretty much given up on trying to offer reasonable, fact-based justification of refereeing decisions. Fans don't want to hear it.
I've pretty much given up on trying to offer reasonable, fact-based justification of refereeing decisions. Fans don't want to hear it.