The Ref Stop

City v Sheff United

Status
Not open for further replies.
zarathustra said:
Or, and i know it's a crazy idea, they felt he had committed an offence by handling the ball?

Handling the ball and creating a goalscoring opportunity is an offence. No need for "spirit of the game".
Click to expand...
Only if the player who handled gains control/possession ... spirit of the game again...

Back to the OP: the defender should have gone through the ref to get to the ball. I said a few weeks ago that refs are in the way too much and acting as an extra defender and one day a ref was going to get carted.
Spirit of the game and all that....
 
The Ref Stop
Oh and I don't think it's a fandom thing to say that no top referee who wants to officiate in the top games is going to say they support one of the top clubs.

Mark Halsey supported QPR and after he gave Millwall two big decisions in a game against QPR he asked not to ref in their games again. But then QPR were never a top club...
 
bloovee said:
Only if the player who handled gains control/possession ... spirit of the game again...

Back to the OP: the defender should have gone through the ref to get to the ball. I said a few weeks ago that refs are in the way too much and acting as an extra defender and one day a ref was going to get carted.
Spirit of the game and all that....
Click to expand...
So, it's impossible that they just decided the City players had committed an offence by handling the ball?

If it had been the other way, your opponents having goals ruled out it would have been superb refereeing by the VAR team.
 
I will concede that the very close offsides are always going to be a tough sell, but there is nothing in the laws to allow the VAR to have a margin of error.

If a players toe is offside, or appears to be offside they have to give it, to not would open up a whole can of worms. Offside is black and white, there is no "in opinion of the referee".

As for clear and obvious, if a referee sees something and decides that it is not a foul, that isn't a clear and obvious error.

If a referee doesn't see something, but would have awarded a penalty if they had seen it then that would be a clear and obvious error.

Edit: Quotes deleted content
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For the record, even though they thought Aguero had been fouled in the build-up to when Sheff U had their goal disallowed, there were plenty of City fans joining in the Blades' fans' chant of "F... VAR" (less so their "It's not football any more").
 
I had a more significant incident earlier in the season in which a player collided with me in the centre circle as i was running backwards
Of course, the opponents went on to score 10 or 15 seconds later
I don't think it was my fault, but I lost all respect from the team who conceded
If a similar thing happens again, I've programmed myself to feign injury because I'm wanting a DB in that situation in the interests of fair-play & MC
CK was guilty of getting in the way. If he had stopped play, claiming contact with the ball, the outcome would've been better
 
Big Cat said:
I had a more significant incident earlier in the season in which a player collided with me in the centre circle as i was running backwards
Of course, the opponents went on to score 10 or 15 seconds later
I don't think it was my fault, but I lost all respect from the team who conceded
If a similar thing happens again, I've programmed myself to feign injury because I'm wanting a DB in that situation in the interests of fair-play & MC
Click to expand...

I had it once, I was running backwards out of the penalty area, and a defender ran into the back of me, I was probably 10-15 yds from the ball, so wasn't massively in the way, nothing came from it, just one of those things.

I think I'd gotten too focused on what was going on Infront of me, so lost a bit of my awareness of where other players were.
 
one said:
Only after they gain control/posession of the ball which never happen. You are missing the point though. That was just one example.
Click to expand...
Intentionally handling the ball is still an offence which is punishable with a direct free kick.

Or, are you saying that it wasn't intentional and that they awarded a free kick when no offence had been committed and are therefore incorrect in law?
 
zarathustra said:
Handling the ball is still an offence which is punishable with a direct free kick.

Or, are you saying that they awarded a free kick when no offence had been committed and are therefore incorrect in law?
Click to expand...
Handling the ball is not always an offence. This handling was not deliberate and there was plenty of discussion about it.

Correct. Technically there was no offence commited but the spirit of the new law of non deliberate handling offence dictated for the goal to be disallowed and that is what the referee did.
 
one said:
Handling the ball is not always an offence. This handling was not deliberate and there was plenty of discussion about it.

Correct. Technically there was no offence commited but the spirit of the new law of non deliberate handling offence dictated for the goal to be disallowed and that is what the referee did.
Click to expand...

So much of this discussion is around what constitutes an offence and what constitutes something not permitted by law. While neither is permitted by law, an offence is something which LOTG say must not be done. If x is done (a foul being the obvious example) then the opponent will receive the restart (DFK/IFK/PK) and the offending player is liable to receive a disciplinary sanction. By contrast, while the ball may not brush off the arm of a player before he scores (natural position or not), the LOTG the player is not deemed to have done anything wrong and so no sanction can be given, and it arguably shouldn't be a FK but a DB.

Another example of the line between an offence and not allowed in law is related to the new GK rule. When IFAB sent round their clarification at the start of the season that a 'keeper couldn't pass the ball to a teammate who would head it back into their hands, many were confused about how this wasn't allowed and yet 'it was not an offence'. They simply meant - as I've tried to explain above - that the laws prohibit it but no IFK/PK/DFK or YC would be awarded, the restart was wrong in law but not an offence so a retake must be ordered.
 
one said:
I give up. See my first post on this topic. :)
Click to expand...
I did and it makes no sense.

Either the referee decided the player intentionally handled the ball, in which case it was correct to rule the goal out.

Or, the used the spirit of the game to rule the goal out, which is allowed.

So either way they weren't incorrect to rule it out, so I'm not sure why it is a problem.
 
Aside from the time it takes to review an incident VAR hasn't created more problems.

It has gotten rid of problems where pundits would talk for hours about how the assistant didn't see that an attacker had their left foot offside when the ball was played, and it has replaced it with problems where pundits talk for hours about how VAR could tell that an attacker a foot was a cm offside.

The "pointless precision" mentioned in the MEN article is exactly what the club's wanted. And it was the club's who pressured for the introduction of VAR.

Having a goal ruled out for a player being 1cm offside is frustrating for the players and fans, but club's wanted to stop goals being allowed to stand when the player was 1cm offside.
 
Big Cat said:
References please
Click to expand...
No, because there aren't any official ones, although I'm sure if you care enough you could make freedom of information requests to get details of any petitions made towards The FA about the introduction of VAR.

However, I'm sure if I cared enough to try I could find loads of post match interviews where managers are demanding VAR be introduced because they are fed up of refereeing mistakes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top