A&H

Baggies v Reds

Unless we change the Laws as @GraemeS notes above, once the R allows the restart, it’s too late to go back. There are three o5er teammates of the ref on the field who should have stopped this. I guess I wouldn’t have a problem with VARs speaking up if a pan incorrect-in-law restart is about to happen, but they are so rare in doesn’t seem to me something worth changing the Laws for. And I don’t think the VAR, paying attention to primary duties, is in a better position than the ARs or 4O to see such an error in time to stop it.
 
The Referee Store
RefIADad said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. Fell into the twitter trap once or twice. I've protected my tweets now 🤣
 
RustyRef said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree in essence. However, I was indicating that this error was more of a technical issue than ball in/out which is often subjective
I just think MD had a momentary lapse of concentration and the mistake was over and done with in a couple of seconds. He was probably unaware of what happened until after the game. I'd like to think VAR was aware, but who knows? Not reviewable though, I know that
 
socal lurker said:
Unless we change the Laws as @GraemeS notes above, once the R allows the restart, it’s too late to go back. There are three o5er teammates of the ref on the field who should have stopped this. I guess I wouldn’t have a problem with VARs speaking up if a pan incorrect-in-law restart is about to happen, but they are so rare in doesn’t seem to me something worth changing the Laws for. And I don’t think the VAR, paying attention to primary duties, is in a better position than the ARs or 4O to see such an error in time to stop it.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that too, you would have thought one of the other officials saying something like "Mike, what are you doing, there's no foul". At least then he could pull it back and say that he had given a dropped ball not a free kick, although you still have a potential problem if they score from it. Whatever happens you have a problem with not being allowed to use a contested dropped ball.
 
I think it's an interesting occurrence anyway. The only reason there was no instant furore, was because nobody in attendance would know a mistake had been made (inc. commentators). They (commentators) only started mentioning it (10 mins later that was), probably after deciphering VAR comms
 
Big Cat said:
Yet we get a goal from an unusual incorrect restart in
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean here but I want it to be clear that the incorrect restart did not contribute to the goal here (unless you want to attribute a storm in Florida to a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil) . The free kick was taken short which had pretty much the same outcome as a dropped ball. So my point is while a goal can be attributed to a incorrect corner instead of a goal kick, here we can not attribute the goal to the incorrect restart.

If we use VAR for this then how far back do we go for a goal to disallow it? What if in this play, hypothetically the keeper saved it and kicked it long to the other end and a goal was scored. Do we disallow that? What if a goal was scored after two minutes of non stop play with posession changing multiple times?

While I agree this was a bad error, I do not want VAR to intervene here.
 
Peter Grove said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agree with just about everything here. I am more interested in your thoughts on
- if the goal should have been disallowed for this error in this exact scenario?
- Should this be intervened by VAR if ball goes out of play without a goal being scored?
- should the VAR intervene if a goal is scored but after multiple possession changes?
 
one said:
Agree with just about everything here. I am more interested in your thoughts on
- if the goal should have been disallowed for this error in this exact scenario?
- Should this be intervened by VAR if ball goes out of play without a goal being scored?
- should the VAR intervene if a goal is scored but after multiple possession changes?
Click to expand...
After all my counter debating here I'd fall back to my original thought where I wrongly thought it was ignored due to a breakdown of that specific attacking phase, and say even still probably wouldn't have intervened as a result of that.
It just highlights though that we're still a long way from using the technology how people want it to be used.
 
one said:
I am not sure what you mean here but I want it to be clear that the incorrect restart did not contribute to the goal here (unless you want to attribute a storm in Florida to a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil) . The free kick was taken short which had pretty much the same outcome as a dropped ball. So my point is while a goal can be attributed to a incorrect corner instead of a goal kick, here we can not attribute the goal to the incorrect restart.

If we use VAR for this then how far back do we go for a goal to disallow it? What if in this play, hypothetically the keeper saved it and kicked it long to the other end and a goal was scored. Do we disallow that? What if a goal was scored after two minutes of non stop play with posession changing multiple times?

While I agree this was a bad error, I do not want VAR to intervene here.
Click to expand...
It was inconsequential, but it wouldn't have been say, if it was scored direct. So do we only review consequential mistakes or technical errors in Law etc.? Anyway, it's a debate. An unusual scenario, sort of thing we're bound to latch on to
 
one said:
I am not sure what you mean here but I want it to be clear that the incorrect restart did not contribute to the goal here (unless you want to attribute a storm in Florida to a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil) . The free kick was taken short which had pretty much the same outcome as a dropped ball. So my point is while a goal can be attributed to a incorrect corner instead of a goal kick, here we can not attribute the goal to the incorrect restart.

If we use VAR for this then how far back do we go for a goal to disallow it? What if in this play, hypothetically the keeper saved it and kicked it long to the other end and a goal was scored. Do we disallow that? What if a goal was scored after two minutes of non stop play with posession changing multiple times?

While I agree this was a bad error, I do not want VAR to intervene here.
Click to expand...

disagree tbh

had the restart been a drop ball then there would have been a delaty between the whistle being blown and play restarting. what happened was fabinho taking the FK very quickly and bypassing the midfield getting the ball into the attacking third, there's no way it would have played out like that with a drop ball
 
Big Cat said:
It was inconsequential, but it wouldn't have been say, if it was scored direct. So do we only review consequential mistakes or technical errors in Law etc.? Anyway, it's a debate. An unusual scenario, sort of thing we're bound to latch on to
Click to expand...
I think it would be a good addition if VAR protocol included clear incorrect restarts that directly lead to a goal a reviewable incident. Similar to a foul in lead up to a goal.
 
es1 said:
disagree tbh

had the restart been a drop ball then there would have been a delaty between the whistle being blown and play restarting. what happened was fabinho taking the FK very quickly and bypassing the midfield getting the ball into the attacking third, there's no way it would have played out like that with a drop ball
Click to expand...
I did say in an early post that a dropped ball would have changed the course of play (and yes unlikely a goal would have been scored). But again this is the butterfly effect. The goal was not because of the error. If we say it was then we can blame a goal in 20th minute to a clear error in 10th minute because the course of the game would have changed if that error was corrected. How far back would you go to 'blame' and error for a goal?
 
one said:
I did say in an early post that a dropped ball would have changed the course of play (and yes unlikely a goal would have been scored). But again this is the butterfly effect. The goal was not because of the error. If we say it was then we can blame a goal in 20th minute to a clear error in 10th minute because the course of the game would have changed if that error was corrected. How far back would you go to 'blame' and error for a goal?
Click to expand...

the outcome is a product of everything before it

if the team that won the toss had chosen to switch ends rather than take kick off then the game would have panned out completely different.

i think the goal gets scored as a result of the error, much like it was as a result of every throw in, pass etc taken previously in the game

it just so happens that it was 10/15 seconds from incident to goal that it's been brought to our attention so clearly
 
Do we think that the vertical dimension is relevant when considering obstructed views? This side camera shot shows that the keeper was not blocked from being able to see the ball in any practical sense.

Picture3.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top