Che v Bou - brooks challenge

[RustyRef]

It doesn't say that fans cannot interact here. Anyway, don't know why you don't want to answer my questions, but in any walk of life (not just refereeing) it makes sense to first look at the intentions of the rule breaker before even trying to look if it's necessary to look at the intentions of the one who was at the other end of the incident.

I don't know how a referee can think that just because a player might have been "looking for it" allows the offender to then smash his arm in the other's face (while fully looking at him beforehand and then making a deliberate movement towards the other player's face with his arm) and getting away with a yellow.

The very fact that when you register you have to provide your county FA, leagues you officiate on and your refereeing level should give you a very strong indication that this is a forum for referees only.

That said, if fans want to ask genuine questions, and then debate sensibly, we generally allow that. But what we won't permit is fans of clubs coming on here to moan about decisions that have gone against their team, there are many other suitable forums to go and do that. As someone else has pointed out, your only posts so far have been to complain about decisions going against Chelsea, so it isn't an auspicious start.

As @JamesL has said, most referees are fans of a professional football club. I will openly admit that I've had a moan about decisions that have gone against my team on other forums, but this isn't the place for it.

 

[Paul_10]

Have not seen the other posts the member has posted but I thought the question raised is a perfectly valid one? Does it matter if the Chelsea player deliberately ran into Brooks direction? Regardless whether it's natural or not, if Brooks take the bait and reacts, then he only got himself to blame if he gets punished for it? Likewise if Cucerella deliberately runs into Brooks and it gets spotted then he cant complain if he gets punished for it.

 

[Big Cat]

Id argue against this. VAR executed perfectly should really result in zero overturns at the monitor so when it happens, it's not great, but it means that we've created another error, be that the final decision or the decision to recommend an on field review.

Then there's little (or no) point of have OFRs
Actually, as I've said all along, 'there's little (or no) point of having OFRs!!!' The screen is almost exclusively there to perpetuate the dwindling notion that the Referee is the final arbiter. Notwithstanding the fact that he was the final arbiter on this one (in a hundred) occasion
99/100 the screen also perpetuates the mind-numbing experience of VAR for the fans

 

[Big Cat]

The very fact that when you register you have to provide your county FA, leagues you officiate on and your refereeing level should give you a very strong indication that this is a forum for referees only.

That said, if fans want to ask genuine questions, and then debate sensibly, we generally allow that. But what we won't permit is fans of clubs coming on here to moan about decisions that have gone against their team, there are many other suitable forums to go and do that. As someone else has pointed out, your only posts so far have been to complain about decisions going against Chelsea, so it isn't an auspicious start.

As @JamesL has said, most referees are fans of a professional football club. I will openly admit that I've had a moan about decisions that have gone against my team on other forums, but this isn't the place for it.

Despite obviously (and unfortunately) being a Chelski Fan, I think @TheCuriousOne has argued his viewpoints very reasonably. A lot of what we do makes little or no sense to non-referees. We should welcome the opportunity to discuss situations from opposite sides of the fence with reasonably minded fans
He has been unfairly replied to throughout this discussion IMO

 

[RustyRef]

Despite obviously (and unfortunately) being a Chelski Fan, I think @TheCuriousOne has argued his viewpoints very reasonably. A lot of what we do makes little or no sense to non-referees. We should welcome the opportunity to discuss situations from opposite sides of the fence with reasonably minded fans
He has been unfairly replied to throughout this discussion IMO

Don't disagree in principle, just pointing out we wouldn't expect a member to only contribute if they feel their team have been "wronged" by a refereeing decision. That isn't the purpose of the forum.

 

[Paul_10]

Then there's little (or no) point of have OFRs
Actually, as I've said all along, 'there's little (or no) point of having OFRs!!!' The screen is almost exclusively there to perpetuate the dwindling notion that the Referee is the final arbiter. Notwithstanding the fact that he was the final arbiter on this one (in a hundred) occasion
99/100 the screen also perpetuates the mind-numbing experience of VAR for the fans

The screen is there to sell the decision to the fans and for the referee to sell the decision to the players so he can explain it to them as he has seen it for himself. The PL(and the Bundesliga) did try to have the VAR make the decisions via the replays but it felt wrong a referee subjective on field decision was changed by someone who is not even at the ground and it caused a lot of uproar amongst fans and pundits. I also recalled reading Bundesliga refs felt undermined and were not happy with the original protocol and I have no doubt PL referees felt the same.

I'm happy with the use of monitors and I am happy that most of the time we dont see a referee rejecting a review however I dont think it should be seen as a negative when a referee does not agree with the VAR.

 

[Big Cat]

Don't disagree in principle, just pointing out we wouldn't expect a member to only contribute if they feel their team have been "wronged" by a refereeing decision. That isn't the purpose of the forum.

Come to think of it, maybe all Chelsea fans should be banned seeing as how they bought all their trophies
And City fans, as they (allegedly) grossly cheated on 100+ counts to get all theirs
Simplifies your job of deciding whether posts should go on a 'Fans Forum' or not

 

[RustyRef]

The screen is there to sell the decision to the fans and for the referee to sell the decision to the players so he can explain it to them as he has seen it for himself. The PL(and the Bundesliga) did try to have the VAR make the decisions via the replays but it felt wrong a referee subjective on field decision was changed by someone who is not even at the ground and it caused a lot of uproar amongst fans and pundits. I also recalled reading Bundesliga refs felt undermined and were not happy with the original protocol and I have no doubt PL referees felt the same.

I'm happy with the use of monitors and I am happy that most of the time we dont see a referee rejecting a review however I dont think it should be seen as a negative when a referee does not agree with the VAR.

It has to be seen as a negative from a refereeing perspective, anything even vaguely subjective shouldn't be getting reviewed, so them not agreeing after a review means one of VAR or referee has dropped a clanger. And I don't mean that from an on-pitch perspective, rather if two elite referees look at the same incident via multiple angles and replays and disagree it at best means it is subjective and shouldn't have been reviewed, or at worse one of them has been incompetent. Not really a great look either way.