one
RefChat Addict
https://cf-e2.streamablevideo.com/v...-rPVeeEk3vSx3IUWoPBeTT8acPNKMnm8V6GlPbiMufiY=
Penalty or not? 4.40 on the video
Penalty or not? 4.40 on the video
Barcelona vs Chelsea
- Thread starter one
- Start date
one
RefChat Addict
Hi Goldfish,
Had VAR been used CORRECTLY it would have not been a penalty because either way its not a clear error and the no penalty decision of the referee would have stood. I am not sure the amount of contact on the arm or feet would have amounted to 'careless' hence not a clear error.
EDIT: One of the major problems with VARs has been that they have been getting involved because "in my opinion the referee has made a mistake" rather than because "the referee is clearly wrong".
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
On first viewing, I was screaming that's a pen at the TV, but having seen replays, not convinced. There was contact, but not enough to put Alonso on the deck. More annoyed he was happy to go down so easily rather than take on the shot from a central position with only the keeper to beat.
No real complaints about the overall refereeing, however thought he was a tad inconsistent with the yellow cards for dissent. Willian & Giroud both yellow carded for dissent, rightly so and no complaints about that, however Barca's players were in the referee's face constantly throughout the 1st half including Messi waving a finger at the referee from close range and yet not a single yellow was shown for dissent.
Thought the scoreline flattered Barca a bit. Chelsea played some decent football at times and gave as good as they got Hit the post/bar 4 times over the course of both legs and created plenty of chances. Ultimately the difference between the 2 sides was Barcelona have an absolute genius who will punish every mistake!
No real complaints about the overall refereeing, however thought he was a tad inconsistent with the yellow cards for dissent. Willian & Giroud both yellow carded for dissent, rightly so and no complaints about that, however Barca's players were in the referee's face constantly throughout the 1st half including Messi waving a finger at the referee from close range and yet not a single yellow was shown for dissent.
Thought the scoreline flattered Barca a bit. Chelsea played some decent football at times and gave as good as they got Hit the post/bar 4 times over the course of both legs and created plenty of chances. Ultimately the difference between the 2 sides was Barcelona have an absolute genius who will punish every mistake!
When did Rylan sign for Chelsea and take acting lessons?? 
DIVE!!!
DIVE!!!
one
RefChat Addict
Hi Goldfish,
I am not sure which part of my post you find in contradiction with which part of Page 6.
Yes VAR automatically checks all reviewable decisions which includes pen/no-pen. But being a pen/no-pen is not enough for recommendation of a review to the referee. It has to be a clear error according to the same paragraph.
The referee's decision in this instance was not a clear error (the devised opinions on the decision in many online debates attest to that).
In fact the word error is preceded with the word 'clear' 45 times in the protocol. And the word 'wrong' is preceded with the word 'clearly' another 9 times.
And in addition to the quote above from page 6, this is from page 49 under "Judging if a ‘clear error’ has occurred"
Hi
It was not a clear error yet rather the OR part of the sentence which is ** if a serious incident / offence has been missed. If the VAR is communicating with the referee in the silent check that it was a penalty kick and a red card then the referee is entitled to go to review that serious incident under VAR or himself on the screen. The advice say that If the referee wants a review when play has not stopped, play should be stopped as soon as it is in a ‘neutral’ zone/situation i.e. when neither team has a good attacking possibility. It goes on to say that The VAR will automatically ‘check’ every situation/decision to see if a potential clear error has been made in a match-changing situation or if a serious incident/offence has been missed; there is thus no need for coaches or players to request a review as, if something has been missed, it will be seen by the VAR.
Referee allowed play to go to the next stoppage as there was a promising attack and then pulled it back when it came to nothing. The referee initiated the review
It was not a clear error yet rather the OR part of the sentence which is ** if a serious incident / offence has been missed. If the VAR is communicating with the referee in the silent check that it was a penalty kick and a red card then the referee is entitled to go to review that serious incident under VAR or himself on the screen. The advice say that If the referee wants a review when play has not stopped, play should be stopped as soon as it is in a ‘neutral’ zone/situation i.e. when neither team has a good attacking possibility. It goes on to say that The VAR will automatically ‘check’ every situation/decision to see if a potential clear error has been made in a match-changing situation or if a serious incident/offence has been missed; there is thus no need for coaches or players to request a review as, if something has been missed, it will be seen by the VAR.
Last edited:
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
You seem to be suffering under some kind of mistaken impression of what a silent check is. If it is a silent check then there is, by definition, no communication with the referee. Here is the definition from the VAR protocol:
one
RefChat Addict
You seem to be misinterpreting what "missing an offence" means. Neither the OP nor the example you posted are missed incidents. The were both seen by the referee and a judgement was made. The judgement from the OP was not a clear error but the one in your example was a clear error.
The definition of a missed incident (offence) is clarified or define on page 5
Also page 4
Last edited:
Hi
Poorly worded by me. If the VAR sees a missed incident such as the DHB in the video a‘check’ indicates that an incident should be reviewed, the referee should be informed immediately. If there is nothing to say then so be it. In this incident there would gave been .
One
On the Aussie one the referee was looking at it yet he did not see the DHB clearly which is the whole basis behind the review and the PK award. On the Chelsea one Pique pulls back Alonso and the ref believes that Alonso dived. IMO had VAR been available it could have been used to review the no penalty call and IMO would have resulted in a PK and a red card for Pique.
Poorly worded by me. If the VAR sees a missed incident such as the DHB in the video a‘check’ indicates that an incident should be reviewed, the referee should be informed immediately. If there is nothing to say then so be it. In this incident there would gave been .
One
On the Aussie one the referee was looking at it yet he did not see the DHB clearly which is the whole basis behind the review and the PK award. On the Chelsea one Pique pulls back Alonso and the ref believes that Alonso dived. IMO had VAR been available it could have been used to review the no penalty call and IMO would have resulted in a PK and a red card for Pique.
one
RefChat Addict
This seems to me a dangerous extension or interpretation of the VAR system and in my opinion is by no means the intention of IFAB. Using this logic then the VAR can intervene on any KMI s/he disagrees with the referee saying you looked at it but didn't see it clearly. It throws away the main VAR principles of "minimum interference" and "clear errors only".
For me the instructions are very clear. It has to be a clear error by the referee when he makes a decision on an incident for a review to take place. The only time it doesn't have to be a clear error is when he hasn't seen it altogether and cant make a decision on it (if no decision made it can't be an error). The quotes in my previous post clearly support this view. Neither of the above incidents fit the latter category [edited] so any intervention by VAR must be based on a "clear error".
The basis behind the the Aussie incident VAR review was not because the referee did not see the DHB clearly, it was because he made a clear error of judgement after seeing it.
I think we may be going around circles on this one.
Last edited:
I wonder which Lawyer drafted up this dogs dinner of application of VAR, what a bloody mess!!