FA Cup - MNC vs MNU

[Runner-Ref]

The handball law is a law that optimises football and the state the game has and is in at the moment.

A chance for a load of pundits/ fans and other people who have no idea on the laws of the game to say ‘well that was handball’ and not be able to use the laws of the game to back it up as they don’t even know where to find them.

There seems to be a huge disparity between referees and most other people on the game, coaches, ex players, current players, parents etc .. until that changes there are always going to be problems.

Football is one of, if not the only sport in the world in that the people who play it, watch it, coach it and allegedly offer ‘expert analysis’; don’t actually know the laws to which the game is played.

If you watch something like a rugby, cricket or basketball match; the pundits know exactly what is going on and why the officials have given the decision that they. Football, not so much

 

[Kent Ref]

For me Grealish's arm goes down, he looked in the direction of the ball and his arm goes up again - penalty.

 

[SammyT5]

Football is one of, if not the only sport in the world in that the people who play it, watch it, coach it and allegedly offer ‘expert analysis’; don’t actually know the laws to which the game is played.

If you watch something like a rugby, cricket or basketball match; the pundits know exactly what is going on and why the officials have given the decision that they. Football, not so much

I’ve been tempted to write to the broadcasting channels about this problem for ages but don’t see what difference it would make. Maybe this year I’ll make a note of everything I hear on TV that is factually incorrect, and make a tally of how many times I hear it repeated back to me as the referee in my games. Pundits really need to take specialised LotG courses to educate themselves, as this trend of having an ex-referee on panels doesn’t seem to be working, they get shot down anyway by the players who seem to “know more”.

 

[Viridis1886]

Maybe this year I’ll make a note of everything I hear on TV that is factually incorrect,

You're going to need to buy a big note book!

When you're done with that, can you go and tidy up all the incorrect opinions on Twitter too?! So many on there this morning I had to leave. I was tempted to correct some, but figured what's the point.

 

[bloovee]

The handball law is a law that optimises football and the state the game has and is in at the moment.

A chance for a load of pundits/ fans and other people who have no idea on the laws of the game to say ‘well that was handball’ and not be able to use the laws of the game to back it up as they don’t even know where to find them.

There seems to be a huge disparity between referees and most other people on the game, coaches, ex players, current players, parents etc .. until that changes there are always going to be problems.

That's because these are cases where "what football expects" and what's written in the laws (this week) simply do not align. Where nearly everybody involved in football would say "giving a penalty for that is daft" and it's only qualified referees just saying "that's what the rules say", then maybe it's the law that's wrong.

 

[one]

You could well be right here. My understanding of VAR and its protocols probably isn’t the best.

Do you have the guidance that would back up that he could give yellow?

The old protocol (in a separate document to lotg) used to explicitly state that a no decision or a red card can be changed to a yellow after an 'allowable' review. I can't see this explicitly stated in the lotg now but it is implicitly there. The 'allowable' reviews are still the same and below two clauses mean there is nothing against changing a red or a no decision to a yellow after an allowable review.



And

 

[bloovee]

Football is one of, if not the only sport in the world in that the people who play it, watch it, coach it and allegedly offer ‘expert analysis’; don’t actually know the laws to which the game is played.

If you watch something like a rugby, cricket or basketball match; the pundits know exactly what is going on and why the officials have given the decision that they. Football, not so much

Most of the time, they do know the laws. They just think they're daft laws - and/or not applied consistently (and ITOOTR is no longer an easy get-out when every subjective decision can be analysed to death).

 

[one]

Isn't there a case for the VAR to say "that's a C&O error, it's a FK the other way, and it's a potential SFP so you should look at it"?

No. C&O error on the direction and existence of a FK can not trigger a review. C&O error on SFP can trigger a review but since you say it's a potential SFP, it means it is not C&O error on SFP. So overall your scenario is not a reviewable one.

 

[bloovee]

The old protocol (in a separate document to lotg) used to explicitly state that a no decision or a red card can be changed to a yellow after an 'allowable' review. I can't see this explicitly stated in the lotg now but it is implicitly there. The 'allowable' reviews are still the same and below two clauses mean there is nothing against changing a red to a no decision to a yellow after an allowable review.

View attachment 6682

And

View attachment 6680

Thanks for that. So my supposition was wrong.

That means Mr Coote's decision not to recommend a review for the potential red card for SFP must mean he didn't think it was a potential red card incident for "serious foul play (or reckless challenge)". (I hadn't noticed that wording before - were the lawmakers equating SFP with a reckless challenge or suggesting that in just such a case as this - Casemiro on Walker - the VAR can recommend an OFR so the referee could decide RC or YC for that what was an obvious C&O error in giving the FK the wrong way?)

Another nail in the coffin for VAR as practised in England.

 

[bloovee]

No. C&O error on the direction and existence of a FK can not trigger a review. C&O error on SFP can trigger a review but since you say it's a potential SFP, it means it is not C&O error on SFP. So overall your scenario is not a reviewable one.

See above. The Protocol says "potential or actual". Either way, it's reviewable.

"The VAR automatically ‘checks’ the TV camera footage for every potential or actual goal, penalty or direct red card decision/incident, or a case of mistaken identity, using different camera angles and replay speeds"

(That could simply be read as actual applies to where the referee has given a goal or penalty or sent someone off in error, and potential to where he hasn't and should have.)

 

[socal lurker]

That means Mr Coote's decision not to recommend a review for the potential red card for SFP must mean he didn't think it was a potential red card incident

Nit pick: it means the VAR did not think it was a C&O error not to give the red card; he may well have thought a red card would have been a better choice, but not that not giving it was C&O error.

 

[socal lurker]

See above. The Protocol says "potential or actual". Either way, it's reviewable.

"The VAR automatically ‘checks’ the TV camera footage for every potential or actual goal, penalty or direct red card decision/incident, or a case of mistaken identity, using different camera angles and replay speeds"

(That could simply be read as actual applies to where the referee has given a goal or penalty or sent someone off in error, and potential to where he hasn't and should have.)

The VAR checks every red card given or that might have been given, but the VAR onlynsends to the R for an onfield review if the VAR believes a C&O error was made by giving or not giving the red card.

 

[bloovee]

The VAR checks every red card given or that might have been given, but the VAR onlynsends to the R for an onfield review if the VAR believes a C&O error was made by giving or not giving the red card.

I'm sorry, but that's making a linguistic nonsense of any distinction between a "potential" and "actual" red card. If that wasn't a potential RC incident, what is? If the VAR is only recommending a review of an actual clear and obvious error, there's not much point in having an OFR (for the referee to decide).

 

[socal lurker]

If the VAR is only recommending a review of an actual clear and obvious error, there's not much point in having an OFR (for the referee to decide).

that’s why it is very rare for an R not to change the call on an OFR. The VAR only recommends onfield review if the VAR believes it was a C&O error, and the R only changes the decision if he believes it was a C&O error. The reason for the OFR is so that the R gets to make the final decision (for subjective calls) and Thus remains the final arbiter of all decisions.

 

[one]

See above. The Protocol says "potential or actual". Either way, it's reviewable.

I feel that you may not be clear on the distinction between a check and a review.

VAR checks every protentional or actual ‘clear and obvious error’
Referee reviews actual ‘clear and obvious error’ only

If you are clear on this but reading it a different way that any potential C&O has to be reviewed also then I can say this is not what has been happening in the past several year.

 

[one]

If the VAR is only recommending a review of an actual clear and obvious error, there's not much point in having an OFR (for the referee to decide).

that’s why it is very rare for an R not to change the call on an OFR. The VAR only recommends onfield review if the VAR believes it was a C&O error, and the R only changes the decision if he believes it was a C&O error. The reason for the OFR is so that the R gets to make the final decision (for subjective calls) and Thus remains the final arbiter of all decisions.

I will add to this. What is an actual C&O error is also a subjective decision just like the original on field decision. The OFR is necessary to 'review' the 'check' by the chief decision maker.

 

[cwyeary]

If the ball hits Grealish in the palm and drops straight down to the ground, then no one has an issue with this. So do pundits want refs to judge whether the ball hitting the fingertips was enough of an impact? Doesn't that just add in more ambiguity?

 

[Runner-Ref]

The old protocol (in a separate document to lotg) used to explicitly state that a no decision or a red card can be changed to a yellow after an 'allowable' review. I can't see this explicitly stated in the lotg now but it is implicitly there. The 'allowable' reviews are still the same and below two clauses mean there is nothing against changing a red or a no decision to a yellow after an allowable review.

View attachment 6682

And

View attachment 6680

Im happy to be corrected, but I’m not convinced that this guidance suggests the VAR can award a caution.

The attached shows the incidents that VAR can get involved in, and cautions are not one of the criteria

 

[Tim Punter]

A well-argued article here.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...up-final-further-proves-absurdity-of-handball

 

[one]

Im happy to be corrected, but I’m not convinced that this guidance suggests the VAR can award a caution.

The attached shows the incidents that VAR can get involved in, and cautions are not one of the criteria

That (when can a review be done) is not the argument here though. We all agree what incidents VAR can get involved in. What we are questioning is that, once a VAR is correctly involved and possibly an on field review is done by the referee, can the referee's final decision be a caution instead of a red card or instead of a no sanction original decision.

For example a referee makes a decision of a penalty with no sanctions issues to any player. VAR recommends a review for the penalty. After the review the referee decides it was not a foul but a dive by the attacker. Can the referee now change his decision to an indirect free kick to the defenders as well as caution the attacker. Of course he can.