OK, let's nip this one in the bud. This is a referees forum, if you want to do general referee baiting you can toddle off to somewhere else.
And yes, that is a warning ...
Man United v Liverpool
- Thread starter bester
- Start date
OK, let's nip this one in the bud. This is a referees forum, if you want to do general referee baiting you can toddle off to somewhere else.
And yes, that is a warning ...
The principle of only using VAR for clear and obvious errors is a great sound bite but it's subjective and without any clear boundaries or definitions from ifab will continue to cause controversy.
Easy to forget the pressure these referees are under as well and even though we can have this back and fourth about clear and obvious criteria, there is an incredibly high demand on referees to just simply get the decision right which is where I believe some of this re-refereeing has crept in
oh absolutely
they want automotron / robot refs who give the right decision, every time in every circumstance.
football and reffing doesnt work like that and thats why we've seen 'clear and obvious' go out the window
just let the refs view the replay and use their judgement, it's what every other sport who uses VAR does
Can't really recall? But based on that Taylor had a poor game?
I thought Taylor had a good game last night. Apart from the penalty, whose talking about him? No one. And even then its more about VAR than AT.
The problem these days is players roll over at the slightest touches, so you'd be stopping the game every 10 seconds. It's okay to let some trivial fouls go, especially if players embellish the foul or its trivial and has minimal impact.
Fact is AT is one of our finest and I wouldn't be surprised if he referees the euro final, providing England don't make it
one
RefChat Addict
I think I've said this before. If there is a conversation between the ref and VAR to determine C&O error then it's re-refereeing the game. The referee made a penalty decision. If its clearly and obviously wrong then there is no need for "depends what AT told VAR". It should stand out without a conversation.
On this incident, no way it was clearly and obviously wrong. Had it not been reviewed you would have found plenty of supporters for both the decision and the non-review.
On this incident, no way it was clearly and obviously wrong. Had it not been reviewed you would have found plenty of supporters for both the decision and the non-review.
If Liverpool hadn't won comfortably, I think the failure to dismiss McTominay would have been a much bigger talking point. And the fact he let Mane off with a blatant yellow card foul seconds after that showed he'd lost his head and was trying to re-balance the game, something that should have been trained out of him at L5.
I've long had a theory that post-Collina, bald referees are assumed by pundits to be tough disciplinarians and as such, get away with being wildly inconsistent because it's just put down to them "managing the game" where most referees would simply be accused of bottling decisions. Taylor bottled that decision, he gave Fernandes the talking to for dissent and then completely bottled the easy yellow he'd set him up for when he continued chirping seconds later and he gets away with it because he looks a bit intimidating and the poor decisions didn't actually affect the end result on this occasion.
The fact people rate him as better than MO genuinely astonishes me!
AT does not look intimidating at all... Neither do I, I also have shaved head, but it does not affect my ability as a referee.
In terms of game and event management he did this perfectly. What gets trained out at level 5 has nothing to do with how the paymasters want games reffed at Premier league level.
I think if Mane or Liverpool make anything out of the 'foul' from McTominay he probably goes ahead and does the card. I think that was a real accident, which I know doesn't negate a foul, but every single player, including Mane, but for a brief second, recognised that and accepted it and were happy to play on.
I think I'd be disappointed to see a player sent off for that at any level, correct decision or no and sometimes that is the art, do you do exactly to the book and letter of law, or do you judge the game and work within the framework of the laws. Those most skilled at the latter tend to be those that progress the furthest.
I didn't say anywhere that AT is better than MO. I think AT is rated highly by FA and UEFA and my prediction is AT is in with a shout of the final (as is Oliver) and it will come down to tournament performance
Yes it's a slip, but that's still followed up with enough conscious grappling that it's a definite missed foul. And let's not forget, he didn't give the foul and then bottle the card (which is what would match your concept of game management) - he looked directly at it and pretended there was no foul there, because he knew it was a mandatory yellow if he gave the foul. Liverpool weren't given the opportunity to make anything of it, because the game continued and the ball was booted away!
Had United gone on to draw or win the game, it probably would have ended Liverpool's chances of getting into the CL next season - and at that point, I believe the game was at 3-2. I'm sorry, but I'm not prepared to accept the idea that referees should be able to make laws up when they affect things of that importance and with that much money behind it. Everyone on here quite rightly hated the idea of the ESL, but when Liverpool's fate can end up being in the hands of a referee who's making it up as he goes along, you can suddenly have some sympathy with owners who aren't prepared to risk their club's finances on that kind of nonsense!
And that last bit about the rating of AT wasn't specifically directed at you, but it is well established that the FA prefers AT. There are a lot of very credible theories surrounding the lack of English referees at the 2018 WC being because the FA preferred AT where FIFA preferred MO, and they constantly get similar-profile matches where for me MO is clearly the better referee.
The bit in bold there is really interesting. Was having a conversation with my Dad last night about how it felt like AT is getting A LOT of big games at the moment; not sure how much of this is down to me having more time to watch games, but off the top of my head he's had both Mcr derbies this season and City v Chelsea/United v Liverpool just in the last week. Aside from that, he made a big error in not giving a pen on Sterling on Saturday and immediately gets given another huge game.
That's because referees aren't rated on a single decision.
Totally aware of that, but it feels slightly foolish to give somebody another high profile game immediately after missing a KMI in a high profile game.
Why? Any referee can miss a KMI at any time. Just because he made one last week, doesn't mean he will this week. And the referee you replace him with may be just as susceptible to making a mistake.
There are no credible theories, there is one reason and one reason only why England didn't have any referees at the 2018 World Cup, and that was Mark Clattenburg quitting. He had already been selected for the tournament, and the timing of him quitting meant it was too late to replace him. Additionally, I seem to remember at the time there weren't any Elite Category referees to replace him as Martin Atkinson came off FIFA before the tournament.
The long list for the tournament was created in 2016, and given Michael Oliver and Anthony Taylor were only promoted to the elite list in December 2017 there was zero chance of them being at the 2018 WC.
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
That's just not true. I can't speak to "every" sport, but both the NFL and NBA require clear evidence to reverse the call on the field/court.
But they also review far fewer judgment calls than soccer does. In the NFL, pretty much everything re-viewable is objective; in the NBA, the calls that can be reviewed are primarily objective, but also the upgrade to a flagrant foul (a loose equivalent to yellow/red cards), and each coach gets a single review request per game that can be used for almost anything.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Those advocating no foul on this one seemed to have forgotten that game earlier in the season where an Everton (I think?) player was sent off after playing the ball and following through - although in that game a very similar challenge wasn't even a yellow and then we have this one that isn't even a foul?
Now you can quote me 'VAR protocols' all day long but the average fan (and manager) fails to see why 3 very similar incidents such as this are treated in 3 different ways, WITH the benefit of video review.
Now you can quote me 'VAR protocols' all day long but the average fan (and manager) fails to see why 3 very similar incidents such as this are treated in 3 different ways, WITH the benefit of video review.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I think this was an issue widely discussed among referees before VAR was instituted: re-watching on video can never change a judgment decision into an objective decision. Video review can be very effective for black and white decisions (putting aside margin of error issues). But there is never going to be absolute consistency on judgment calls. And as I noted before, unlike most sports using video review, soccer is applying the video review to the most important judgment calls that take place in the game: PKs and fouls that would negate goals.