Ref4Me

Chelsea v Spurs

The Referee Store

Max2

Well-Known Member
Level 3 Referee
Be lovely if this section had to have some kind of context. Posts to include time, description of offence, video etc... rather than just reading like Twitter verbal diarrhoea. Fine if you're watching in live-time too, but often baffling if you've not elected to watch whatever game it is that afternoon.
 

cwyeary

RefChat Addict
Be lovely if this section had to have some kind of context. Posts to include time, description of offence, video etc... rather than just reading like Twitter verbal diarrhoea. Fine if you're watching in live-time too, but often baffling if you've not elected to watch whatever game it is that afternoon.

 

Joshref

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
Be lovely if this section had to have some kind of context. Posts to include time, description of offence, video etc... rather than just reading like Twitter verbal diarrhoea. Fine if you're watching in live-time too, but often baffling if you've not elected to watch whatever game it is that afternoon.

Here is the video Of the games highlights
 

gvu_ref

New Member
Level 7 Referee
Totally. If Kane had been “pushed” with such force he would have gone to ground 100% every single time.
controversial opinion, whilst i don't disagree with what your saying, is that the point here? its something of nothing, id go as far as saying its not even a push in the back. the defender's felt the arm of kane touch his back and gone down, used his "experience". thiago is running full speed to get back and is never going to change direction in time. we've all seen it when a player is looking for a decision, for me he's looking for it.
 

cwyeary

RefChat Addict
controversial opinion, whilst i don't disagree with what your saying, is that the point here? its something of nothing, id go as far as saying its not even a push in the back. the defender's felt the arm of kane touch his back and gone down, used his "experience". thiago is running full speed to get back and is never going to change direction in time. we've all seen it when a player is looking for a decision, for me he's looking for it.

Of course the defender was looking for it. But refs always give the defender this call rightly or wrongly.
 

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
What baffles me is the fact the referee actively delays the whistle until after the goal was scored. He was whistle to mouth before Kane taken the shot and just stood there. This to me looks like a referee not 100% sure and relying on a VAR bailout imo
 

cwyeary

RefChat Addict
What baffles me is the fact the referee actively delays the whistle until after the goal was scored. He was whistle to mouth before Kane taken the shot and just stood there. This to me looks like a referee not 100% sure and relying on a VAR bailout imo

I don't mind it. What if there was actually no contact and then the whistle blew before the shot went it? Two seconds to save yourself the out incase you've totally botched it? Worth it.
 

Max2

Well-Known Member
Level 3 Referee
What baffles me is the fact the referee actively delays the whistle until after the goal was scored. He was whistle to mouth before Kane taken the shot and just stood there. This to me looks like a referee not 100% sure and relying on a VAR bailout imo
Which seems the best route, under the circumstances, to deal with it. Give the "foul" and hit the whistle before it goes in, and VAR say the challenge was legit... good luck escaping that one.
 

cwyeary

RefChat Addict
Which seems the best route, under the circumstances, to deal with it. Give the "foul" and hit the whistle before it goes in, and VAR say the challenge was legit... good luck escaping that one.
It's like he bought a bit of insurance. If he blows right away he's good most of the time. But if he isn't? He's lost the game and become the main story and probably sees his worst marks of the year. Two seconds of insurance.
 

Mr Dean

Well-Known Member
What baffles me is the fact the referee actively delays the whistle until after the goal was scored. He was whistle to mouth before Kane taken the shot and just stood there. This to me looks like a referee not 100% sure and relying on a VAR bailout imo
This referee has learned the hard way to delay the whistle in these circumstances (recall the Jack Grealish "dive" a couple of seasons ago)

Edit: ignore me, it was a different referee
 
Last edited:

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
Which seems the best route, under the circumstances, to deal with it. Give the "foul" and hit the whistle before it goes in, and VAR say the challenge was legit... good luck escaping that one.
Why blow at all? We all know the mantra that if you’re not 100% sure, you don’t give it. Standing whistle to mouth waiting for the goal to be scored before blowing just looks like an attempt at re-refereeing a game for me.
 

Joshref

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
Why blow at all? We all know the mantra that if you’re not 100% sure, you don’t give it. Standing whistle to mouth waiting for the goal to be scored before blowing just looks like an attempt at re-refereeing a game for me.
Can see what you’re saying but it’s the same as Lino’s having to keep their flags down.
 

Paul_10

Active Member
Can see what you’re saying but it’s the same as Lino’s having to keep their flags down.

But that's the law though, is it the law for the referee to wait until the attack is over then whistle? Agree with Quaverref here in saying it feels like the ref is(albeit probably not intentionally) using VAR as some sort of insurance instead of just using his gut instinct and stopping play immediately.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
My understanding is that Rs are being taught to wait on the whistle if a goal is about to be scored. It’s not to re-referee, but only so VAR can correct a clear error. And that is completely consistent with what is in the VAR protocol in the magic book:

”Delaying the flag/whistle for an offence is only permissible in a very clear attacking situation when a player is about to score a goal or has a clear run into/towards the opponents’ penalty area”
 

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
My understanding is that Rs are being taught to wait on the whistle if a goal is about to be scored. It’s not to re-referee, but only so VAR can correct a clear error. And that is completely consistent with what is in the VAR protocol in the magic book:

”Delaying the flag/whistle for an offence is only permissible in a very clear attacking situation when a player is about to score a goal or has a clear run into/towards the opponents’ penalty area”
My problem with this though is that the delay of flag is designed around a more black and white decision of calling offside, whereas delaying a whistle for a foul is entirely subjective. The flag for me is almost redundant after a goal, it’s going to be checked for offside regardless of the clear and obvious criteria, however the scenario is totally changed if a whistle is blown:
no whistle - is it clear and obvious that it’s a foul. No, award the goal
Whistle - is it clear and obvious that it’s not a foul. No, award the foul
Flag or no flag - is it offside? Yes or no
 
Top