Liverpool v Chelsea

[RefIADad]

Just saw the replay - first thought yellow, but seeing from the side angle, there appears to be movement of the arm towards the face.

I do feel that this could have very easily been a red card.

I feel like this one is a textbook case of referee’s opinion. I can easily see cases for yellow and red. In any case, good non-intervention by VAR. I just don’t think there’s enough to change a call, whatever the on-field call was.

Live on TV, my first instinct was yellow. But of course, that was still in the initial wide angle camera shot. But like I said, there is enough there to defend a red card. It really would have been interesting to see what the on field call would have been if this was on the AR1 touch line, as AR1 would have been in a better position to offer more information to Taylor. My guess it would still be yellow, but it would have been interesting.

 

[one]

Mane's elbow (it's his wrist/forearm actually) is a common play on headers. There are at least a dozen FIFA training videos like it and guidelines. The general rule of thumb, was it used as a tool or as a weapon? For me it was the former. If it was not challenging for the ball it would have been a clear a red. But as it stands, yellow was a good decision.

Mount's should have been a red. It was an angry kick out. I have seen red for less than that. But it was good to see VAR not intervening. Ref's on field decision should have been the end of it.

 

[RefIADad]

Mane's elbow (it his wrist/forearm actually) is a common play on headers. There are at least a dozen FIFA training videos like it and guidelines. The general rule of thumb, was it used as a tool or as a weapon? For me it was the former. If it was not challenging for the ball it would have been a clear a red. But as it stands, yellow was a good decision.

Pulisic's should have been a red. It was an angry kick out. I have seen red for less than that. But it was good to see VAR not intervening. Ref's on field decision should have been the end of it.

Just checking-did you mean Mount instead of Pulisic? I know Pulisic had a solid yellow for a reckless challenge after he had a heavy touch. I didn’t think that was a red, but it wasn’t terribly far from SFP.

 

[one]

Just checking-did you mean Mount instead of Pulisic? I know Pulisic had a solid yellow for a reckless challenge after he had a heavy touch. I didn’t think that was a red, but it wasn’t terribly far from SFP.

Yes I did. Corrected. With Pulisic, I thought it was very dark orange. Studs flat on the side of the shin of a planted foot. I like how AT gave himself thinking time. What saved Pulisic was that he played the ball first and more importantly his knee was bent and kept on getting further bent as his momentum took forward. I am Happy with yellow in the context of this game but in a Sunday league I expect a red. If you go yellow in a Sunday league for this you set the bar for a potential broken leg later in the game.

 

[Redster]

Mane's elbow (it's his wrist/forearm actually) is a common play on headers. There are at least a dozen FIFA training videos like it and guidelines. The general rule of thumb, was it used as a tool or as a weapon?

I do wonder about this guidance sometimes. It has obvious VC overtones and doesn't really leave room for SFP.

One could use the arm as a tool and not as a weapon but still endanger the safety of their opponent or use excessive force.

 

[Anubis]

Red for the elbow.
Are the arms being used as a tool, or, weapon,
Here, its as a weapon.

There was an international red after 20 secs or so few weeks back for the exact same elbow. Happily on that night the referee was strong. And, correct


edit, now watching highlights and the player who should not be on the pitch, scores.
Chelsea can thank the match officials for that one

 

[one]

I do wonder about this guidance sometimes. It has obvious VC overtones and doesn't really leave room for SFP.

One could use the arm as a tool and not as a weapon but still endanger the safety of their opponent or use excessive force.

Fair statement. I guess that's why it is a guidance and not a criteria. The final decision is at the discresssion of the referee.

In Mane's case I don't see how it could be deemed a red card and be consistent with other similar incident.

 

[GraemeS]

Mane's elbow (it's his wrist/forearm actually) is a common play on headers. There are at least a dozen FIFA training videos like it and guidelines. The general rule of thumb, was it used as a tool or as a weapon? For me it was the former. If it was not challenging for the ball it would have been a clear a red. But as it stands, yellow was a good decision.

Mount's should have been a red. It was an angry kick out. I have seen red for less than that. But it was good to see VAR not intervening. Ref's on field decision should have been the end of it.

If the ref had given an on-field yellow then I would have supported sticking to the on-field decision. But failing to do anything at all cannot be correct. I know it's not how VAR is set up at the moment, but this is a great example of when a system that lets the ref "take another look" would be much stronger than what we currently have.

 

[one]

If the ref had given an on-field yellow then I would have supported sticking to the on-field decision. But failing to do anything at all cannot be correct. I know it's not how VAR is set up at the moment, but this is a great example of when a system that lets the ref "take another look" would be much stronger than what we currently have.

depends by what you mean by "stronger". We would probably get more final decisions right but football would be all the worse for it because of referees wil be reluctant to make decisions and relying on it more than they should. Too many stop starts...

The problem we have with VAR is not that its a bad system. It's that no one can implement it effectively. We need to consider the same for any new system.

 

[socal lurker]

depends by what you mean by "stronger". We would probably get more final decisions right but football would be all the worse for it because of referees wil be reluctant to make decisions and relying on it more than they should. Too many stop starts...

The problem we have with VAR is not that its a bad system. It's that no one can implement it effectively. We need to consider the same for any new system.

I've said before, I think the best implementation has (perhaps surprisingly) been in the US. It's still not perfect and I'd still rather not have it, but the MLS seems to have the most consistent application of a when-to-recommend-an-OFR standard, and by not drawing lines, has effectively defer to the live call when OSP is too close to tell without line drawing.

I don't at all think the VAR experience would be improved by a "take another look" model. Beyond what impact it would have on live decision making, it would do much more to interfere with flow. And I think that would be fundamentally bad for the game.

 

[GraemeS]

depends by what you mean by "stronger". We would probably get more final decisions right but football would be all the worse for it because of referees wil be reluctant to make decisions and relying on it more than they should. Too many stop starts...

The problem we have with VAR is not that its a bad system. It's that no one can implement it effectively. We need to consider the same for any new system.

There are two possible arguably "correct" calls: red or yellow card. I don't really see how we can look at an incident where the result isn't either of those options and not think it could maybe do with some improving?

 

[socal lurker]

There are two possible arguably "correct" calls: red or yellow card. I don't really see how we can look at an incident where the result isn't either of those options and not think it could maybe do with some improving?

The question is at what cost? Just how many times do we want to delay the game to re-referee incidents? admittedly I still favor jettisoning video review completely, so that colors my opinion, but I certainly would not support the idea of expanding the scope of what is reviewed (with the possible exception of GK/CK, and that one is because it will usually be very quick and as factual would not require an OFR).

 

[Redster]

Just watched this

My view - yellow for the forearm, plus yellow for going down holding his face equals everybody is right

 

[Ryanj91]

I suppose the only way out of this horror show is...
1) refs view every bad incident.
Or
2) VAR works as it is, but teams get 2/3 calls a match like in tennis/cricket to challenge the decision.

Unfortunately both will probably still cause issues, but more importantly, both will waste sooo much time.

A third - rules are properly rewritten with managers and players, so less dodgy interpretation is allowed to occur L.

A fourth - make VAR for offsides and punch ups/brawls only.

 

[santa sangria]

I also came to post: arm as a tool or as a weapon?

It's quire clearly weapon for me and an easy red card on reply. In real time I hope to hod I'm catching that and showing a red card. That it was after 6 seconds has saved him. Mount also red for me.

And I also favour ditching VAR completely. Again, for me, in this game, that's two clear and obvious errors not dealt with. Instead we get the ridiculous delay on the Chelsea goal.

 

[PinnerPaul]

I suppose the only way out of this horror show is...
1) refs view every bad incident.
Or
2) VAR works as it is, but teams get 2/3 calls a match like in tennis/cricket to challenge the decision.

Unfortunately both will probably still cause issues, but more importantly, both will waste sooo much time.

A third - rules are properly rewritten with managers and players, so less dodgy interpretation is allowed to occur L.

A fourth - make VAR for offsides and punch ups/brawls only.

A 5th way and a bit of a halfway house, is to use the hockey method, referee only requests review.

Obvious drawbacks are that anything he or the other 3 officials miss completly would be missed, but most referees know when they need to see something again. Would take away the 'consitency' argument within a game.

Of course there would STILL be disagreements, but as I've said before from no VAR to VAR reviewing much more and all steps in between that's always going to be the case.

No mistakes in a game by the human refereeing team? - NEVER going to happen.

 

[GraemeS]

The question is at what cost? Just how many times do we want to delay the game to re-referee incidents? admittedly I still favor jettisoning video review completely, so that colors my opinion, but I certainly would not support the idea of expanding the scope of what is reviewed (with the possible exception of GK/CK, and that one is because it will usually be very quick and as factual would not require an OFR).

I'm not trying to be rude here, because I know you're representing a view many people (up to and including IFAB) hold. But football is nowhere near as special as it likes to think it is. The game is already hugely stop-start and games are nowhere near 90 minutes of actual play time, because IFAB refuse to do anything useful about timewasting. Many other sports have "momentum" as a factor and still manage to have a functional review system in place. You could change VAR so that it reviews twice as many incidents and it would still be possible to more than make back the lost time by simply introducing a proper timekeeper and stop/start clock or similar.

In relation to this specific incident, we had a minute or two of handbags and the like after the kick out. The LFC player actually got up fairly quickly (which may have influenced the lack of a card), but it wouldn't be unusual for a player to roll around for a few minutes and insist on treatment in order to "prove" that they are hurt. So I've already found you the time required for the VAR to review footage and decide what they think should happen, most reviews take around 1:15-1:30 on average and that includes the on-field aspect.

And lack of a card shows us that the referee has somehow clearly not seen what's happened. So remove the time-wasting requirement for the ref to jog over to a little screen (which only exists because IFAB doesn't think fans can behave themselves) and it's a piece of cake for the VAR here to say "AT, you've clearly missed a kick-out by the Chelsea #19 - this is a non-playing retaliation so requires a red card/force is minimal so a yellow card is sufficient (delete as appropriate)". Genuinely think that if you give the Video Assistant Referee some actual authority and judgement as you would if that exact same person was wearing kit and holding a whistle, this could easily have resulted in either of the possible correct outcomes in the exact same amount of time it took to deal with the players squabbling.

 

[socal lurker]

(which only exists because IFAB doesn't think fans can behave themselves)

This is fundamentally false. It exists because the R is the ultimate decider, which has been fundamental to soccer for a very long time. By removing OFR on judgment calls, you've made the VAR the ultimate decider, which is a fundamental change to the game. (And a fundamental change to the interactions between players on the pitch and the R as the one in charge. Indeed, the example you give is a perfect one where the player would have more incentive to roll around "hurt" to make sure the VAR noticed and had time to look at it before the restart.)

As to the rest, we just fundamentally disagree as to the value of VAR vs the damage to flow. The fact that there are other damages to flow isn't a reason to insert more.

 

[es1]

This is fundamentally false. It exists because the R is the ultimate decider, which has been fundamental to soccer for a very long time. By removing OFR on judgment calls, you've made the VAR the ultimate decider, which is a fundamental change to the game. (And a fundamental change to the interactions between players on the pitch and the R as the one in charge. Indeed, the example you give is a perfect one where the player would have more incentive to roll around "hurt" to make sure the VAR noticed and had time to look at it before the restart.)

and that system seems to work perfectly well in many other sports which utilise VAR. i see no reason why we should be so precious about having the ref as the ultimate decision maker

 

[GraemeS]

This is fundamentally false. It exists because the R is the ultimate decider, which has been fundamental to soccer for a very long time. By removing OFR on judgment calls, you've made the VAR the ultimate decider, which is a fundamental change to the game. (And a fundamental change to the interactions between players on the pitch and the R as the one in charge. Indeed, the example you give is a perfect one where the player would have more incentive to roll around "hurt" to make sure the VAR noticed and had time to look at it before the restart.)

As to the rest, we just fundamentally disagree as to the value of VAR vs the damage to flow. The fact that there are other damages to flow isn't a reason to insert more.

That particular statement refers to the decision to make the referee take time out of the game to wander over to a hidden screen vs showing it on a big screen that he can see immediately from anywhere on the pitch (as is how it tends to work in rugby). Apologies for the slightly ambiguous phrasing, I can see how that wasn't clear.

And the referee being a final decider is a law of the game, any of which IFAB can change whenever they want. We already trust the VAR to make a call on offside without needing the referee to have any input whatsoever - so how do you square that with the law stating the referee needs to make the ultimate decision?