RefSix

Everton Brighton

bloovee

RefChat Addict
#21
You seem to be mixing up what a check is and what a review is. I blame the EPL system where there is no OFR (on field review) and a check and review seem to be the same thing . What you are saying is not possible if the protocol is flowed correctly. In the first instance VAR 'checks' to see if the incident needs to be reviewed (there is a clear and obvious error). Once he concluded there was no serious foul play (there was no C&O error), the incident can not be reviewed and nothing can be changed.

However using the same challenge in your example, lets say

- A player commits a reckless challenge but the referee sends off the player for SFP.
-VAR checks and finds a clear and obvious error since the challenge clearly was not SFP
- VAR recommends a review and referee accepts it
- The incident is reviewed (by VAR or by referee as OFR)
- It is found that the challenge was only reckless, the red card is withdrawn and a caution is issued in line with LOTG.
If that's the process, it's stupid. "I've checked and it's clearly and obviously not SFP so if you're not going to look I'm going to review it and come to that conclusion."
 

one

RefChat Addict
#22
"Thought" it was deliberate? Wouldn't they have to "know" before it was a clear and obvious error?
I think you are just picking in my choice of words.

It was definately a clear and obvious error to allow the goal. The is what the review was for. In the process they also picked up on a caution able offence (supposedly).
 

bloovee

RefChat Addict
#23
I think you are just picking in my choice of words.

It was definately a clear and obvious error to allow the goal. The is what the review was for. In the process they also picked up on a caution able offence (supposedly).
Handling - C&O. Deliberate? Not C&O.
 

bloovee

RefChat Addict
#25
I think you've just convinced me that the law on VAR is irredeemable (at least as misapplied in the EPL where PGMOL seems to make it up as they go along and is not accountable to anyone). (What's "too far back" for a handball that leads to a goal? How many times can the defence play the ball after a marginal offside before it's reset?)
 

Nij

Well-Known Member
#26
[...] (What's "too far back" for a handball that leads to a goal? How many times can the defence play the ball after a marginal offside before it's reset?)
There is no such thing as "too far back" or a quota of touches to reset.
This is not a problem with VAR, it's a direct consequence of the laws for handball and for offside (the latter has been this way for years, and the former is likely to get guidance explaining how to discern a GSO).
 

one

RefChat Addict
#27
I am surprised no one has commented on the incident in the 5th minute. The OP vid is blocked for me but I am sure it would be on the highlights. Attacker (Everton) runs clear on goal with keeper to beat. Defender clearly tugs attacker's shoulder turning him 90 degrees. Attacker stays on foot and gets a shot away off balance, keeper blocking it. How does VAR not over turn this for a penalty. This is as clear foul as it comes. Surly there was no advantage played there. There was absolutely no benefit to the attacking team to play advantage there.

This is the type of incident that makes me think we are the reason player's dive when touched slightly. I can tell with a certain degree of confidence had he gone down, it would have been a penalty and a red card.
 

Eddie

Active Member
#28
I am surprised no one has commented on the incident in the 5th minute. The OP vid is blocked for me but I am sure it would be on the highlights. Attacker (Everton) runs clear on goal with keeper to beat. Defender clearly tugs attacker's shoulder turning him 90 degrees. Attacker stays on foot and gets a shot away off balance, keeper blocking it. How does VAR not over turn this for a penalty. This is as clear foul as it comes. Surly there was no advantage played there. There was absolutely no benefit to the attacking team to play advantage there.

This is the type of incident that makes me think we are the reason player's dive when touched slightly. I can tell with a certain degree of confidence had he gone down, it would have been a penalty and a red card.
It was as blatant as you could want it, for all of the referee, AR and VAR. I believe the latter looked at it for nearly 2 mins and came to the conclusion there was no foul!

I’ve said it in another thread but I’ll say it again. If the VAR has to come out that evening and explain his decisions, instead of being unaccountable to anyone besides the PGMOL, who lets be honest seem to be happy with this farce, then does he give it? How can you explain not deeming it a penalty without coming across as way out of your depth and incompetent?

The added pressure of having to explain them might lead to increase of correct decisions IMO.

At the moment they’re free to see and give what they want, with little or no consequence to outrageously erroneous decision making.

Telling you now if Walcott is in a Liverpool shirt it’s a penalty.
 

Eddie

Active Member
#30
I was following you pretty well until this. For all the problems with VAR (and, in some cases, with the Laws as they stand), I don't think there is any evidence of bias/cheating as a result and I think it's outrageous to suggest it.
The comment should be taken for what it is...a biased outburst from a frustrated football fan! The main frustration is how inconsistent VAR decisions have been, Liverpool have benefitted regularly from inconsistent/incorrect decisions. I guess that’s just co-incidence....

Going back to the penalty. MO has admitted there was contact but not enough to overturn the decision. 🤷🏼‍♂️ So it’s a penalty but not enough of a penalty to show his mate up.

Is anyone else perfectly happy for PL matches to be re-refereed using VAR providing we get the correct call? This ‘clear and obvious’ nonsense has created a massive grey area in which incorrect decisions (obvious and minor) are being justified.
 
#31
I think the situation was one where an OFR would have been a good idea.

From what I've read and from Demrot Gallagher said on Sky, it seems Coote's on-field verdict was that he'd seen contact but the defender had let go very quickly and he didn't think there was enough for a penalty.

I can sort of understand why a VAR might feel unable to categorically say that is wrong. But I think this is one instance where letting us hear their explanations would be good because there are certain cases where referees might make decisions for reasons that don't fully tally with the laws so it might be useful to take it to a stricter application rather than 'well he let go pretty quickly and Walcott got a shot away anyway so perhaps we can let it go?' sort of thing.
 

Eddie

Active Member
#32
I think the situation was one where an OFR would have been a good idea.

From what I've read and from Demrot Gallagher said on Sky, it seems Coote's on-field verdict was that he'd seen contact but the defender had let go very quickly and he didn't think there was enough for a penalty.

I can sort of understand why a VAR might feel unable to categorically say that is wrong. But I think this is one instance where letting us hear their explanations would be good because there are certain cases where referees might make decisions for reasons that don't fully tally with the laws so it might be useful to take it to a stricter application rather than 'well he let go pretty quickly and Walcott got a shot away anyway so perhaps we can let it go?' sort of thing.
It doesn’t fly with me. Duration of the foul is irrelevant, yes he got his shot away but he was clearly off balance as a result of the pull, no advantage. Do we stop giving trips because there was minimal contact time?

I’d argue force/nature of the contact is relevant in this circumstance. If for example, VAR has seen the contact was the defenders little finger, you could argue he couldn’t have generated enough force to spin Walcott around. The fact is you only need a split second of contact for any type of foul.

I appreciate you’re playing devils advocate so the above is no way directed at you. I just can’t get my head around how they’re getting it so wrong.

The PGMOL apparently appealed to players to stop going down easy and be more honest. Walcott did, and he got punished for it.
 
#33
It doesn’t fly with me. Duration of the foul is irrelevant, yes he got his shot away but he was clearly off balance as a result of the pull, no advantage. Do we stop giving trips because there was minimal contact time?

I’d argue force/nature of the contact is relevant in this circumstance. If for example, VAR has seen the contact was the defenders little finger, you could argue he couldn’t have generated enough force to spin Walcott around. The fact is you only need a split second of contact for any type of foul.

I appreciate you’re playing devils advocate so the above is no way directed at you. I just can’t get my head around how they’re getting it so wrong.

The PGMOL apparently appealed to players to stop going down easy and be more honest. Walcott did, and he got punished for it.
I agree with you really - but it does seem that sometimes referees make interpretations that don't really have a basis in law. Hence, mic'ing them up would mean more transparency and require them to have a sound reason for their judgement. You certainly couldn't have a referee saying 'he didn't commit the foul for long enough' or anything like that then!
 

bloovee

RefChat Addict
#34
There is no such thing as "too far back" or a quota of touches to reset.
This is not a problem with VAR, it's a direct consequence of the laws for handball and for offside (the latter has been this way for years, and the former is likely to get guidance explaining how to discern a GSO).
"But according to beIN Sports, the match referee Anthony Taylor told Wolves’ technical staff that Van Dijk’s handball was ‘too far back in the move’ to be considered."
https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/29/refe...n-dijk-handball-liverpool-vs-wolves-11973534/

I'd mention the blatant Alexander-Arnold handball v City at Anfield before the Liverpool goal, but that wasn't given as deliberate handball - The Premier League released a statement during the game, explaining: "The VAR checked the penalty appeal for handball against Trent Alexander-Arnold and confirmed the on-field decision that it did not meet the considerations for a deliberate handball." That was cobblers but even accidental handball should rule out the goal - unless it was too far back.

However, mindful of the caution against fandom posts, I'd never point out which team seems to benefit from these arbitrary arbitrations.
 
Last edited:

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#35
"But according to beIN Sports, the match referee Anthony Taylor told Wolves’ technical staff that Van Dijk’s handball was ‘too far back in the move’ to be considered."
https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/29/refe...n-dijk-handball-liverpool-vs-wolves-11973534/

I'd mention the blatant Alexander-Arnold handball v City at Anfield before the Liverpool goal, but that wasn't given as deliberate handball - The Premier League released a statement during the game, explaining: "The VAR checked the penalty appeal for handball against Trent Alexander-Arnold and confirmed the on-field decision that it did not meet the considerations for a deliberate handball." That was cobblers but even accidental handball should rule out the goal - unless it was too far back.

However, mindful of the caution against fandom posts, I'd never point out which team seems to benefit from these arbitrary arbitrations.
But that is comparing apples and pears again. The Calvert Lewin one, and van Dyke's if you consider that created a goal scoring chance, have no option to judge intent, if the ball hits the hand or arm no matter how unintentional the goal has to be disallowed. Whereas for the Alexander-Arnold one that was in his own area and therefore has to be judged as intentional handling to be penalised.

I also wouldn't necessarily believe what a TV company repeat what a club claimed the referee told them, by that point it has turned into Chinese whispers.
 
Top