The Ref Stop

England v Scotland VAR penalty

socal lurker said:
They check all potential PKs. They send down to the field for an OFR if the VAR believes there was a clear and obvious error in not awarding the PK. That means it should be unusual that an OFR does not result in a PK.

Many of us don't like some of the interpretations coming down. But under current interpretations, once it is determined the ball hit her arm, that was a clear and obvious PK according to how IFAB and FIFA interpret "deliberate" within the meaning of Law 12.
Click to expand...

So the decision was still made by the referee after an infield review, which is what I said.

It is a penalty under the new laws, but it's unlikely it would have been caught without VAR
 
The Ref Stop
RustyRef said:
Remember this game was being played under the new laws. Like it or not, that is a penalty now so you are all just going to have to get used to it, not to mention penalise such situations in your own games. I don't really agree with it, but that has to be a penalty now.
Click to expand...

That made today confusing as hell...
First England match under old laws, 2nd under new.
 
zarathustra said:
So the decision was still made by the referee after an infield review, which is what I said.

It is a penalty under the new laws, but it's unlikely it would have been caught without VAR
Click to expand...

I don't think we are disagreeing. What I was trying to clarify is that the VAR checks everything (well, everything within the sc ope of VR). A review is by the referee, and only occurs if the VAR concludes there was a clear and obvious error that requires a change. The R always makes the final decision (except on objective things such as OSP and ball out of play).
 
Also noted that the referee blew the whistle while the ball was still in play, should she have waited for a stoppage or not?
 
brimac said:
Also noted that the referee blew the whistle while the ball was still in play, should she have waited for a stoppage or not?
Click to expand...

The protocol allows the Referee to stop play in a neutral position if the VAR is recommending a review. That prevents any situations where the other team scores or gets a PK when the VAR knows they are going to recommend a review.
 
RustyRef said:
Remember this game was being played under the new laws. Like it or not, that is a penalty now so you are all just going to have to get used to it, not to mention penalise such situations in your own games. I don't really agree with it, but that has to be a penalty now.
Click to expand...
Still does not make it correct......just further *******#$%@=^& of a simple law......
Glad I've given up the whistle.....
 
Actually, the laws say:

It is usually an offence if a player:

touches the ball with their hand/arm when:

the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger

the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

Therefore it does not always have to be an offence under the guidance above.
 
cwyeary said:
No by definition it was correct because the laws said it was. You don't have to like it but it was correct.
Click to expand...
Unlike you to be worshiping the Law makers...
I'm generally against goals which are undeserved and the big increase in the number of games decided from the spot is bad for the game
 
Big Cat said:
Unlike you to be worshiping the Law makers...
I'm generally against goals which are undeserved and the big increase in the number of games decided from the spot is bad for the game
Click to expand...

It isn't about worshipping, but in signing up as a referee you agree to apply the laws as defined by IFAB. You can't pick and choose ones that you do and don't agree with, it is what it is. Like me you can have reservations about the new handling law, but once on the green stuff you have to apply it as written.

This is a cyclical thing and happened when previous laws, deemed by many referees to be wrong, were introduced and referees moaned. That included the "back pass law", various offside changes, rolling subs, sin bin, etc.
 
RustyRef said:
It isn't about worshipping, but in signing up as a referee you agree to apply the laws as defined by IFAB. You can't pick and choose ones that you do and don't agree with, it is what it is. Like me you can have reservations about the new handling law, but once on the green stuff you have to apply it as written.

This is a cyclical thing and happened when previous laws, deemed by many referees to be wrong, were introduced and referees moaned. That included the "back pass law", various offside changes, rolling subs, sin bin, etc.
Click to expand...
and the changes to these laws have improved the game, not
 
zarathustra said:
Actually, the laws say:

It is usually an offence if a player:

touches the ball with their hand/arm when:

the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger

the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

Therefore it does not always have to be an offence under the guidance above.
Click to expand...
I was going to say exactly this. Even under the new laws, this is not automatically a penalty. Her arm was not above shoulder level and I'm not sure how much unnaturally bigger that arm position has made her body. You could argue (and the Scottish co-commentator did) that this was not a totally unnatural arm position. I was of course, totally unsurprised to see it a) referred for OFR and b) given as a penalty after OFR.

There's also the question of what the old laws called an "unexpected ball." The new law still has this, in essence, as follows:
it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
  • directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RustyRef said:
It isn't about worshipping, but in signing up as a referee you agree to apply the laws as defined by IFAB. You can't pick and choose ones that you do and don't agree with, it is what it is. Like me you can have reservations about the new handling law, but once on the green stuff you have to apply it as written.

This is a cyclical thing and happened when previous laws, deemed by many referees to be wrong, were introduced and referees moaned. That included the "back pass law", various offside changes, rolling subs, sin bin, etc.
Click to expand...
I don't really agree with that sentiment. Approving of a Law change, is not a prerequisite to effectively applying it.
As refs, we're entitled to care about the good of the game, as opposed to the commercial motivations for change
 
Big Cat said:
I don't really agree with that sentiment. Approving of a Law change, is not a prerequisite to effectively applying it.
As refs, we're entitled to care about the good of the game, as opposed to the commercial motivations for change
Click to expand...
What commercial motivations could there possibly be for this particular change?
 
zarathustra said:
What commercial motivations could there possibly be for this particular change?
Click to expand...
More goals, specifically from the increased number of undeserved penalties (HB) which are deciding games unfairly. VAR also positively identifies many more penalties than it overturns, which exacerbates this effect. The spectacle of VAR disallowed goals for offside offsets this somewhat, but the hypothesis being that more goals = more $
To me, this seems obvious
 
Last edited:
Big Cat said:
I don't really agree with that sentiment. Approving of a Law change, is not a prerequisite to effectively applying it.
As refs, we're entitled to care about the good of the game, as opposed to the commercial motivations for change
Click to expand...

That's the same as I said isn't it? We might not like the laws, and to re-iterate I don't like this one, but we still have to apply it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top