Been here before as you know - 3 pages of opinion from referees hours after the event, and surely, surely, PLEASE, no one can argue that whatever way the original decision goes, it was NOT a clear and obvious error.The fact that it's a debate means Atwell shouldn't have been anywhere near a monitor
Yep it is, so its not clear and obvious - we don't debate many fks over 3 pages!Is it really a debate though? Majority of free kicks could be in some way debatable.
The clue is in the word ASSISTANT. Like when we have the flag - there are a set of criteria for when you ASSIST the referee.Yes, totally agree, what's the point of VAR if all they are going to do is refer of back to the referee.
Yep it is, so its not clear and obvious - we don't debate many fks over 3 pages!
IFAB should take it out of VAR guidelines then. There are many things in the LOTG I think are pointless, doesn't mean I can just ignore them because I want to!Imo the need to get involved is there because it's an absolute nailed on pen! The VAR can't ask 100 people and then only refer it to the ref if 100 think he's wrong.
Clear and obvious makes no sense and has no boundaries or definitions so it's pointless using referring to it
but he's not surely. What's the difference if you disagree with the ref when you are AR, but, according to pre match, you have been told not to get involved - do you ignore the advice because you think its 'pointless'?That's fine...But I on the exact opposite side of the argument that it's a stonewall pen. If the VAR sees it that way too then in his own mind he's right to get the ref to review it
IFAB should take it out of VAR guidelines then. There are many things in the LOTG I think are pointless, doesn't mean I can just ignore them because I want to!
As you can see from the comments from experienced referees on here, your 'nailed on pen' isn't to them and it wasn't to a SG1 official live or in replay, so surely not 'nailed on' nor an obvious error?
Fair point on the definition aspect, like many phrases in the LOTG, what they meant and what 'football' thinks they meant are different.as i said above, it's all about opinions still
your opinion is that it's not clear an obvious, mine is that it was and if the VAR shared my view then he's absolutely tight to get the ref over to the monitor.
until there's a definitive, clear and idiot proof definition of what clear and obvious* is you'll still get these discussions.
* defining clear and obvious is absolutely impossible for all subjective decisions but that appears to have been neglected in all of this!
but he's not surely. What's the difference if you disagree with the ref when you are AR, but, according to pre match, you have been told not to get involved - do you ignore the advice because you think its 'pointless'?
Fair point on the definition aspect, like many phrases in the LOTG, what they meant and what 'football' thinks they meant are different.
'Football' I believe, thought they meant Maradona, Henry handballs, not ones like this where referees need a forensic knowledge of the handball law and even with that STILL can't agree.
After all that, I don't think we're 100% in agreement, we're closer than we were though & we've agreed to get on with the game and no cards were involved!fair comment. and i suppose a lot of that might be explained by what the conversations between atwell and VAR were yesterday.
if says he didnt see the incident as his view was blocked, VAR would be right to get involved.
If atwell says he saw the incident but wasnt sure who handled first VAR would be right to get involved.
if atwell he saw the handball by CHO but deemed it a natural position (or similar) then i'd say VAR would be right to get involved if he thinks CHO did make himself unnaturally bigger / handle it above shoulder height etc
obviously we dont know what goes on between the ref and VAR in any context really so that's all hypothetical
looking at the replays though i'd wager atwell had no view on the incident whatsoever otherwise he'd have penalised the greenwood handball which was 100% intentional.
genuine howlers like that might happen once a season? twice? we need a system that allows the right decisions to be made in line with what 'football expects' and that does not align to the current VAR procedure at all with hairline offsides and surprise decisions every other weekend.
Been saying it for a long time rusty...The one thing that this incident screams out is that the discussion between referee and VAR MUST be broadcast on TV, and in stadiums when fans are back in there. Doing so would clear up so much of the current confusion, people still might not agree, but at least they would know the rationale for the decision and the thought process.
It will only hype the controversy up further. If that's at all possible. Digging an even deeper hole. The R's reputations will be slaughtered. Maybe it works in other countries, but as we've already found out WRT VAR, this is not 'other countries'The one thing that this incident screams out is that the discussion between referee and VAR MUST be broadcast on TV, and in stadiums when fans are back in there. Doing so would clear up so much of the current confusion, people still might not agree, but at least they would know the rationale for the decision and the thought process.
I’ll ping this because I agree and I think this perfectly explains why this was not a penalty.I agreed with the on field call at the time, because it seemed to me that Hudson-Odoi’s arm was knocked toward the ball by Greenwood.
View attachment 4839
Yeah. Whatever the response might be was clearly enough to get McGuire worried! 'Misheard'?!Fair enough - we don't always get those tidbits on this side of the Atlantic. But I would say that a statement like that from Shaw, if false and not supported in fact whatsoever, deserves a pretty significant punishment. Insinuating that a referee isn't making a decision because of perceived media pressure is a terrible look. We're in an age where commentators and pundits are spewing completely wrong information about the Laws of the Game and throwing referees under the bus. A false statement like that from a player certainly does not help things. Maybe it's not quite as bad as calling a referee a cheat, but it does call a referee's integrity into question.