Liverpool vs Ipswich

[Runner Ref]

What do we think on this one? I don’t like commenting on Liverpool games as it’s very easy to have rose-tinted glasses, but I can’t see anything but SFP

✂️ Ensico

24 seconds · Clipped by Camden · Original video "Gakpo scores twice as Reds thump Ipswich | Liverpool 4-1 Ipswich | Premier League Highlights" by Sky Sports ...

youtube.com

 

[es1]

Ref has no chance seeing the severity of the contact unfortunately. Definitely an orange tackle

 

[Runner Ref]

Ref has no chance seeing the severity of the contact unfortunately. Definitely an orange tackle

He’s maybe a tad square on, but I’m not convinced he should miss it. I’ve said many a time that I don’t think our elite are very good at determining SFP

 

[RustyRef]

He’s maybe a tad square on, but I’m not convinced he should miss it. I’ve said many a time that I don’t think our elite are very good at determining SFP

Angles again make a difference, there is absolutely zero chance he can see the extent of the content from this view.

 

[Runner Ref]

Angles again make a difference, there is absolutely zero chance he can see the extent of the content from this view.

View attachment 7879

He won’t see the point of contact, no. But he’ll see him off the ground and the force in which he connects.

But again, any VAR intervention is down to what MS says he saw.

Challenges like this are a prime example of why I’d like to see a challenge based system.

 

[RustyRef]

He won’t see the point of contact, no. But he’ll see him off the ground and the force in which he connects.

But again, any VAR intervention is down to what MS says he saw.

Challenges like this are a prime example of why I’d like to see a challenge based system.

Not really sure he'll see him off the ground or the force of connection, unless he has x-ray vision, Endo's body blocks the whole extent of the challenge. That isn't to say that ARs and 4th officials shouldn't be getting involved though.

 

[Runner Ref]

Not really sure he'll see him off the ground or the force of connection, unless he has x-ray vision, Endo's body blocks the whole extent of the challenge. That isn't to say that ARs and 4th officials shouldn't be getting involved though.

I can live with agreeing he doesn’t see point of contact, but I’m not buying he doesn’t see him off the ground or the force in which contact is made.

 

[GraemeS]

Speaking of high challenges in a Liverpool game....

 

[Runner Ref]

Speaking of high challenges in a Liverpool game....

View attachment 7891

I wanted to post this but couldn’t decide on the thread. Very nearly put it into the ‘true story…’ thread.

But much like PGMOL haven’t helped themselves with their rubbish justification on the Arsenal red card; Premier League are not helping by publishing this!

 

[Kinsleyr]

I guess it just proves that challenges like this are only fouls if outside the box as there is a higher expectation of proof needed. And generally when Stuart Atwell is involved you are unlikely to get a VAR over-rule.

 

[Archer]

I’d say it’s almost like organisations can learn from previous errors and aim not repeat them… but…

 

[Homer Ref]

This actually looks like a move from MMA than a challenge for the ball!

 

[RefereeX]

I will say that still image is not entirely representative of the challenge made also. But I'm certainly not about to get in to a pages long debate about that again!

 

[Runner Ref]

This challenge probably sums up VAR more than the Arsenal one did. I can just about live with the referee missing point of contact due to the angle. But we’ve then got someone sat in a studio with various TV’s and angles to see it, and then still ignore it. All because of what the referee will have told them what they think they saw.

Proves VAR in its current guise doesn’t work. Change it or scrap it.

 

[DavidObs]

This challenge probably sums up VAR more than the Arsenal one did. I can just about live with the referee missing point of contact due to the angle. But we’ve then got someone sat in a studio with various TV’s and angles to see it, and then still ignore it. All because of what the referee will have told them what they think they saw.

Proves VAR in its current guise doesn’t work. Change it or scrap it.

Harsh but imo not incorrect in Law (despite the appeal having been won in respect of the suspension, though the red card remains on the record of the offender) & therefore, not a clear & obvious error. The best that VAR could have done was to try and convince MO to have looked at the monitor, which they perhaps never did, or they did, but MO was content with what he identified.

 

[RefereeX]

Harsh but imo not incorrect in Law (despite the appeal having been won in respect of the suspension, though the red card remains on the record of the offender) & therefore, not a clear & obvious error. The best that VAR could have done was to try and convince MO to have looked at the monitor, which they perhaps never did, or they did, but MO was content with what he identified.

I've never really considered this - is this a possibility? Surely not? Even though the VAR is only technically 'recommending a review', surely no referee ever has or ever would refuse that review without seeing the video

 

[Runner Ref]

Harsh but imo not incorrect in Law (despite the appeal having been won in respect of the suspension, though the red card remains on the record of the offender) & therefore, not a clear & obvious error. The best that VAR could have done was to try and convince MO to have looked at the monitor, which they perhaps never did, or they did, but MO was content with what he identified.

Not obvious to you or Michael Oliver, but it was to the appeals committee. MO will have told VAR that the Arsenal lad caught him high and late. VAR doesn’t really have anywhere to go then.

I highly doubt VAR has to ‘convince’ a referee to look at the screen. They can recommend it, which id be very surprised if MO refused to look

 

[DavidObs]

I've never really considered this - is this a possibility? Surely not? Even though the VAR is only technically 'recommending a review', surely no referee ever has or ever would refuse that review without seeing the video

I think in this case, there was every possibility, but that’s only my view & I don’t whether it happened or it didn’t. The reason why I think it’s a possibility is because of i) being MO & 2) the position he was in & the view that he had, as well as being in no doubt with what he saw (evidenced by the speed of the red card).

 

[DavidObs]

Not obvious to you or Michael Oliver, but it was to the appeals committee. MO will have told VAR that the Arsenal lad caught him high and late. VAR doesn’t really have anywhere to go then.

I highly doubt VAR has to ‘convince’ a referee to look at the screen. They can recommend it, which id be very surprised if MO refused to look

You would be surprised if MO refused to look at the monitor if “recommended”, whereas I would not be surprised. We will have to agree to disagree. It looks like from reports from last nights game MO put in a decent performance in his game at Barcelona, so it looks like he has done well to put the past couple of days behind him as best he could & moved on.

 

[RefereeX]

Not obvious to you or Michael Oliver, but it was to the appeals committee.

The fact it was overturned doesn't mean it's obvious. The appeals committee aren't deciding on whether it was a clear and obvious error. They're voting if they think the red card was correct or not. All of the committee could easily have been unsure but just come down on the side of no red card and that would imply the decision to be unanimous when in reality it was a closely run thing... (and I'm not saying this is how it went, just pointing out that it could be)