A&H

Carabao Final - CHE V LIV

GraemeS

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Not sure how Caicedo has ended the half not in the book. Nasty foul that resulted in a Liverpool player going off injured, was either missed or advantage was played and the card not given. Could easily have ended up getting one for PI for a minor foul immediately after too, but that was missed as well.

And it just makes Bradley's yellow look even softer - gets grabbed and squared up to, doesn't react meaningfully and gets booked anyway because it's easy to just default to 2xAA without having to put any thought into what actually happened.

Great bit of AR & VAR work for the disallowed goal mind, but it's the classic cup final refereeing performance where he's trying a bit too hard not to become the story.
 
The Referee Store
I know we don't get to see it on t.v, but there was no visual indication that the Caicedo challenge was even reviewed by VAR.

I've already posted on a thread, but it is borderline red card for me

"exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off" - whilst we shouldn't base decisions on the injury, he has ended an opponents game with a challenge that was; late, with force, careless and reckless.

As a minimum, it should've been a yellow for persistent fouling (in general, from what I have seen of Caicedo, he is a very reckless player. Should've been sent off against Man City).
 
IMHO offside player impacts an opponent challenging for the ball.

Good decision.

If you want to block defenders don't start from an offfside position!
 
DJIC said:
IMHO offside player impacts an opponent challenging for the ball.

Good decision.

If you want to block defenders don't start from an offfside position!
Click to expand...
Agreed. Endo knows exactly what he’s doing and it’s designed to impact Van Dijk
 
The Ginger Ref said:
I know we don't get to see it on t.v, but there was no visual indication that the Caicedo challenge was even reviewed by VAR.

I've already posted on a thread, but it is borderline red card for me
Click to expand...

It's not a clear red card and it wouldn't take more than one or two quick looks from the VAR.

I agree that it's a borderline red card and I think a red from Kav would have been supported. But enough about VAR. How did the ref, 4th, and even AR1 not even give a foul here!?!?!?!?!
 
DJIC said:
IMHO offside player impacts an opponent challenging for the ball.

Good decision.

If you want to block defenders don't start from an offfside position!
Click to expand...
Technically it is the correct decision.

But I think it sets a dangerous precedent because again it's a subjective decision
 
cwyeary said:
It's not a clear red card and it wouldn't take more than one or two quick looks from the VAR.

I agree that it's a borderline red card and I think a red from Kav would have been supported. But enough about VAR. How did the ref, 4th, and even AR1 not even give a foul here!?!?!?!?!
Click to expand...
Agreed it's not a clear red but it is a clear and obvious mistake.

Probably falls in the category of "seen them given" but Kavanagh isn't going to send someone off in a cup final.

But as you say, it has been missed by 3 different officials... baffling.

As a side note; Kavanagh is now flashing the cards.
 
The Ginger Ref said:
Technically it is the correct decision.

But I think it sets a dangerous precedent because again it's a subjective decision
Click to expand...
The fact it was a partially subjective decision is why Kavanagh went to the screen. 50% of the decision was factual, i.e. was he offside at the time the ball was played, which he clearly was. The other 50% was subjective, although I'd argue not that subjective given he very clearly blocked off an opponent and denied him any chance of getting to where the ball would drop.
 
I think that because it is an offside decision and a goal, it doesn’t necessarily have to meet the threshold. What was done well was that they got the ref to make the final call, which was sellable.
 
The Ginger Ref said:
Agreed it's not a clear red but it is a clear and obvious mistake.

Probably falls in the category of "seen them given" but Kavanagh isn't going to send someone off in a cup final.

But as you say, it has been missed by 3 different officials... baffling.

As a side note; Kavanagh is now flashing the cards.
Click to expand...
If it "is not a clear red" it can't possibly be "a clear and obvious mistake".

It was checked, Gary Neville discussed what he was hearing between the referee and VAR. But as it wasn't a red card they couldn't tell him he had missed an obvious caution.
 
RustyRef said:
If it "is not a clear red" it can't possibly be "a clear and obvious mistake".

It was checked, Gary Neville discussed what he was hearing between the referee and VAR. But as it wasn't a red card they couldn't tell him he had missed an obvious caution.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying.

My point was that the clear and obvious mistake is the fact 3 well placed officials managed to miss a tackle that ended a player's game. It should've been a yellow card minimum.

Whilst the law doesn't allow for a VAR review and issue of a yellow card, by definition, a clear and obvious mistake has been made.

Kavanagh even had an opportunity to make amends a few moments later and book Caicedo for PI and still chose not to.
 
The Ginger Ref said:
I understand what you are saying.

My point was that the clear and obvious mistake is the fact 3 well placed officials managed to miss a tackle that ended a player's game. It should've been a yellow card minimum.

Whilst the law doesn't allow for a VAR review and issue of a yellow card, by definition, a clear and obvious mistake has been made.

Kavanagh even had an opportunity to make amends a few moments later and book Caicedo for PI and still chose not to.
Click to expand...
With respect, you perhaps need to have a read of the VAR protocol. I absolutely agree that it should have been a caution, and that the on-pitch officials should have picked up on this, but missed cautions are not in the remit of VAR. You can't use clear and obvious and missed caution in the same VAR related sentence.
 
I have to say, former referees really don't help themselves with their reputation for contradicting themselves.

Mike Dean initially saying he thinks the goal will be rewarded but soon changed his mind when the referee was at the screen. I think the sarcastic tone Carragher spoke to him says it all really how former players and former referees are not on the same page and it does not help when former refs come across as backing the refs decision all the time.

I actually thought Mike Dean in the media would come across better than other former refs but sadly he really is in the Walton/Gallagher category where former players and fans see him as someone to mock because of the way they come across on screen. Only Howard Webb seems to have any credibility and you can see pundits really listening and respecting what he is saying.
 
Paul_10 said:
I have to say, former referees really don't help themselves with their reputation for contradicting themselves.

Mike Dean initially saying he thinks the goal will be rewarded but soon changed his mind when the referee was at the screen. I think the sarcastic tone Carragher spoke to him says it all really how former players and former referees are not on the same page and it does not help when former refs come across as backing the refs decision all the time.

I actually thought Mike Dean in the media would come across better than other former refs but sadly he really is in the Walton/Gallagher category where former players and fans see him as someone to mock because of the way they come across on screen. Only Howard Webb seems to have any credibility and you can see pundits really listening and respecting what he is saying.
Click to expand...
Webb is the only one licensed to say sorry. And he is at the top of a very hierarchical pyramid.
 
Wolf_Ref said:
I think that because it is an offside decision and a goal, it doesn’t necessarily have to meet the threshold. What was done well was that they got the ref to make the final call, which was sellable.
Click to expand...
Eeeeeh. We all know a ref being called to the monitor in a cup final isn't going to disagree with the VAR.

The idea of the monitor being an effective tool to "sell" decisions is something that only remains true in the heads of referees IMO. Players, managers, commutators, fans etc all know that when he starts to jog over, the only question is how long he'll spend at the monitor before agreeing with the VAR. As @Paul_10 rightly points out, Mike Dean is switched onto this enough that as soon as the ref is called over to the monitor, he takes that as his cue to change his stance.
 
Would have been good to hear what the VAR was saying to the ref regarding that Caicedo challenge. I've been watching the Six Nations and it's so refreshing to hear the conversations between the video ref and on-field ref; they always talk clearly and professionally and, even when they reach a decision that appears 'incorrect', we understand the rationale for reaching that decision. In football, the VAR and ref routinely reach a decision perceived as 'wrong' and we have no idea how they got there.
 
Absolutely. Commentators were suggesting CK was asking the VAR what happened - that's about as close to an on-field-initiated review I think I've ever actually seen.

But even when he knows he's missed something, the VAR can't just go "yup, definite yellow card missed, probably not enough for a red but you may as well give that yellow while they're jogging over with the stretcher".
 
The last 3 posts sum up the main issues with VAR for me.

Firstly, when a referee is sent to a monitor, we know that 99% of the time the decision is going to be changed. (someone correct me, but I believe there has been one occasion where the ref has stuck with their decision? In the PL at least). So it begs the question, why bother with the monitor review?

They argue that it's because the on field ref has the final say, but the process suggests otherwise (as they seemingly always overturned).

However, IMHO there is no solution to this scenario, because there was a lot of frustration when decisions were being made at Stockley Park, so it was changed so that the decision was made by the on field referee, yet the frustrations are still present.

Mr Dean said:
Would have been good to hear what the VAR was saying to the ref regarding that Caicedo challenge. I've been watching the Six Nations and it's so refreshing to hear the conversations between the video ref and on-field ref; they always talk clearly and professionally and, even when they reach a decision that appears 'incorrect', we understand the rationale for reaching that decision.
Click to expand...
100% this!

I think its a bit embarrassing when they have released the audio decisions and the communication is packed with "mate", Michael Oliver being referred to as "Oli" and the amount of expletives used when they made the TOT LIV mistake. All but confirming the comments by Mike Dean that they are all 'mates' and want to avoid embarrassing each other.

The audio should be broadcast and the process referees go through to make a decision should be heard, thus making the decision they come to more understandable and also to reduce errors.

I still have nightmares of Jon Moss guessing and deciding to give a penalty to Tottenham (pre-VAR), it did nothing for the image of referees or the respect towards them. (https://www.skysports.com/watch/vid...37171/what-ref-moss-said-to-assistant-in-full

(it's actually a really good process/discussion, right up until Moss says "I don't know", surely the correct decision or 'easier' decision is offside? Because he can't give decision for something he hasn't seen?)
 
The Ginger Ref said:
Firstly, when a referee is sent to a monitor, we know that 99% of the time the decision is going to be changed. (someone correct me, but I believe there has been one occasion where the ref has stuck with their decision? In the PL at least). So it begs the question, why bother with the monitor review?
Click to expand...
Managers and pundits keep making the argument that it’s inevitable that it’ll be awarded if they go to the screen but I’d argue that’s exactly the outcome we want. They are being brought to the monitor being told that after review, they’ve potentially made a clear and obvious mistake. We don’t want the mistake to be the review itself with the referee rejecting what they are seeing on the monitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top