A&H

Man Utd v Aston Villa (FA Cup)

Agreed, though, when I've seen refereeing experts on shows, they either play it too safe, or the pundits go 'thanks for that' and then peddle their nonsense out anyway.
I watched the video of Walton trying to explain the difference between the arsenal and Man City penalty VAR reviews, and Ferdinand and Lescott just kept shouting over him saying ‘it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t make sense’ when in fact, it did. These pundits aren’t paid to apply the laws of the game or even try and understand, they are paid to spark to debate and just simply argue. BBC/BT/Sky or whoever else don’t care if it’s correct, as long as they are getting content out and let’s face it, controversial statements and arguments get more views than a lesson in the laws of the game
 
The Referee Store
Whilst it looked a bit messy, I think they have got it absolutely spot on. It was a clear and obvious error, albeit an understandable one as he is looking through a crowd, as a player standing miles offside has clearly made an obvious action which clearly impacts on the abilty of an opponent to play the ball. Of course, we don't know if Cavani would have got back to prevent the goal, but he certainly can't get back if he has been blocked off and is on the floor.

I suspect the feedback from management will be that VAR should have just made the decision without a pitchside review. If the AR had seen it I'm sure he would have given it given just how far Ramsey was offside, so I think VAR can just deal with it themselves. That way they don't need to check the subsequent potential offsides and handling. Although I wonder if they did the same as I did and look at the initially Ramsey incident as a foul, rule that out but then eventually realise "hang on a minute, he was offside" and go back to it.
 
I watched the video of Walton trying to explain the difference between the arsenal and Man City penalty VAR reviews, and Ferdinand and Lescott just kept shouting over him saying ‘it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t make sense’ when in fact, it did. These pundits aren’t paid to apply the laws of the game or even try and understand, they are paid to spark to debate and just simply argue. BBC/BT/Sky or whoever else don’t care if it’s correct, as long as they are getting content out and let’s face it, controversial statements and arguments get more views than a lesson in the laws of the game

Yeah, the pundits will just disagree with any refereeing experts and look at things as they see it.

What it needs is someone from PGMOL, either a manager or an SG1 referee, to release a weekly video explaining the rationale behind every VAR decision, or at least any that led to discussion. Ideally also broadcast the VAR discussion, as I understand it the commentators can hear what VAR is saying but not what the on-pitch match officials say, so I can't see any reason why that can't go out.
 
Same match different incident that WILL happen again.

Ings offside ( a yard) pretty clear - for this level, play allowed to continue, Lindelöf ends up smashing his knee against goal post.

As commentator (correctly! :eek: ;)) said, AR flags, Lindelöf doesn't get hurt.
 
Howard Webb did an interview once (and again all this may be in his book) where he talked about a lot of this. Firstly, he talked about how he wanted for referees to be able to explain their decision post match, but PGMOL disagreed with him. I think this would be a great idea, or at the very least (again let’s go back to this old thing) mic up the refs so we know what discussions are going on.
What it needs is someone from PGMOL, either a manager or an SG1 referee, to release a weekly video explaining the rationale behind every VAR decision, or at least any that led to discussion. Ideally also broadcast the VAR discussion, as I understand it the commentators can hear what VAR is saying but not what the on-pitch match officials say, so I can't see any reason why that can't go out.
This would be a great idea as well tbf

Anyway, back to point 2 and again back to Mr Webb, I remember him saying he hated working on TV (BT I think?) because when a ref got a decision wrong he’d say that, but try and explain how the ref came to that conclusion because he knows how hard it is to get those calls right. He said he’d get mockery on social media for “always agreeing with the ref” and then get text messages from ex colleagues who accused him of basically throwing them under the bus. It seems to be a hard job being a refereeing expert on TV. Need someone who would speak open, honestly whilst being knowledgable.

I watched the video of Walton trying to explain the difference between the arsenal and Man City penalty VAR reviews, and Ferdinand and Lescott just kept shouting over him saying ‘it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t make sense’ when in fact, it did.
Ferdinand and Lescott were a disgrace that day, Rio especially I can’t stand as a pundit. Great footballer, United hero, can’t stand him as a pundit though. But Walton doesn’t help himself either. When Silva goes down, he talks about how it’s not a penalty and VAR won’t overturn it. 2 minutes later he’s concluding VAR made the right call when they overturn the penalty! It’s hard to take a refereeing expert seriously when they’re changing their mind. And I know I give Walton a fair bit of stick but I just don’t get why he’s on there.

He incredibly seems to be wrong as often as he’s right (there was a joke on social media a while back of “Peter Walton has said it’s not a penalty in a million years which means VAR is about to change it to a penalty) and then when he’s wrong he does a complete 180 and agrees with whatever VAR and the ref go with. He has no credibility with this sadly. Couple this in with the fact I find him relatively boring, and I think there’s got be a better refereeing expert out there
 
Howard Webb did an interview once (and again all this may be in his book) where he talked about a lot of this. Firstly, he talked about how he wanted for referees to be able to explain their decision post match, but PGMOL disagreed with him. I think this would be a great idea, or at the very least (again let’s go back to this old thing) mic up the refs so we know what discussions are going on.

This would be a great idea as well tbf

Anyway, back to point 2 and again back to Mr Webb, I remember him saying he hated working on TV (BT I think?) because when a ref got a decision wrong he’d say that, but try and explain how the ref came to that conclusion because he knows how hard it is to get those calls right. He said he’d get mockery on social media for “always agreeing with the ref” and then get text messages from ex colleagues who accused him of basically throwing them under the bus. It seems to be a hard job being a refereeing expert on TV. Need someone who would speak open, honestly whilst being knowledgable.


Ferdinand and Lescott were a disgrace that day, Rio especially I can’t stand as a pundit. Great footballer, United hero, can’t stand him as a pundit though. But Walton doesn’t help himself either. When Silva goes down, he talks about how it’s not a penalty and VAR won’t overturn it. 2 minutes later he’s concluding VAR made the right call when they overturn the penalty! It’s hard to take a refereeing expert seriously when they’re changing their mind. And I know I give Walton a fair bit of stick but I just don’t get why he’s on there.

He incredibly seems to be wrong as often as he’s right (there was a joke on social media a while back of “Peter Walton has said it’s not a penalty in a million years which means VAR is about to change it to a penalty) and then when he’s wrong he does a complete 180 and agrees with whatever VAR and the ref go with. He has no credibility with this sadly. Couple this in with the fact I find him relatively boring, and I think there’s got be a better refereeing expert out there
The problem with micing up is when the referee says they saw something and it just is not the case.

A habit I need to stop is gesturing what offences have occurred, like pointing to shoulder or pulling my shirt or similar, because it can/could make you look a bit silly when you look back and you're wrong.

I know we all like to trust our peepers but sometimes they play tricks.. Do we really want a world where non reviewable decision s are wrong and the referee is telling all. And sundry he has seen something that hasn't happened.
 
The problem with micing up is when the referee says they saw something and it just is not the case.

A habit I need to stop is gesturing what offences have occurred, like pointing to shoulder or pulling my shirt or similar, because it can/could make you look a bit silly when you look back and you're wrong.

I know we all like to trust our peepers but sometimes they play tricks.. Do we really want a world where non reviewable decision s are wrong and the referee is telling all. And sundry he has seen something that hasn't happened.
There are a lot of issues with VAR, but I think you've hit on something here - the biggest problem with acceptance of VAR comes from the culture of football.

We're human. Our eyes will play tricks on us. It would be a lot easier to implement a system that corrects those mistakes if every referee wasn't forced to spend the preceding 15+ years having to pretend they're infallible for fear of being yelled at and at the higher-non-PL levels, receiving social media abuse.

You shouldn't have to refuse to explain a decision because you might be wrong - you should feel comfortable explaining what you've seen and then if a review shows you were wrong, be comfortable accepting the correction. The fact you can't is where the high bar and "clear and obvious" come from, both of which are key reasons why the PL VAR has problems.
 
I'm not sold on this decision being correct. For an offside offence, the AV player would have to "make an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball".

He does NOT have to make an obvious action. The subsequent bullet (thanks for the drafting IFAB! :rolleyes: ) makes crystal clear that being in the way is enough for an OSP player to interfere with an opponent. @bester pointed this out above:

a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12​
Given the timing of this clash, we're speculating as to what Cavani would have gone on to do and if he would have otherwise played the ball - that's not reaching the bar of "clearly impacting" for me, and the goal should have stood (or at least, gone on to a more detailed analysis of if there was a flick that played Ings offside for the finish!)
The "clearly impacting" doesn't apply, merely "impacts" as per language above. IFAB clearly doesn't want OSP attackers getting in the way of defenders. (But they have done a poor job of drafting, as 99% of referees will say there are only 4 ways to interfere with an opponent from the main four bullets, but there is this fifth way set out separately.
 
He does NOT have to make an obvious action. The subsequent bullet (thanks for the drafting IFAB! :rolleyes: ) makes crystal clear that being in the way is enough for an OSP player to interfere with an opponent. @bester pointed this out above:

a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12​

The "clearly impacting" doesn't apply, merely "impacts" as per language above. IFAB clearly doesn't want OSP attackers getting in the way of defenders. (But they have done a poor job of drafting, as 99% of referees will say there are only 4 ways to interfere with an opponent from the main four bullets, but there is this fifth way set out separately.
I suspect this sort of confusion reflects disagreements within IFAB. So we end up with what are really not merely "clarifications" but contradictions.

Thus, it must be obvious and "clearly impacting" (except when it's neither obvious nor clear). You might as well go back to any player IOP at a FK is offside, because the chances are that they do make it more difficult (impacting) for a defender to get to the ball.
 
The problem with micing up is when the referee says they saw something and it just is not the case.

The problem I have with micing up is the referee says he saw something and it is the case, and he's explained it correctly, but the fans/pundits are gonna lambast him anyway.

Personally, I don't think football is ready for mic'd up referees or decisions being explained by the referee.

They're struggling to deal with VAR in England as it is, and for years we had to put up with them whinging about getting it in, and they're still not happy and I bet you £10 (no adjusting for future inflation, it's a ten quid note!) that in 10 years time they'll still be whinging about VAR in England.
 
I suspect this sort of confusion reflects disagreements within IFAB. So we end up with what are really not merely "clarifications" but contradictions.

Thus, it must be obvious and "clearly impacting" (except when it's neither obvious nor clear). You might as well go back to any player IOP at a FK is offside, because the chances are that they do make it more difficult (impacting) for a defender to get to the ball.

I actually don't have any problem with the 5th wheel of interfering with an opponent. I think it probably did derive from the FK scenario, though it isn't necessarily the only time it comes into play. But I totally agree with the concept that an OSP player should not be able to be in the way, but merely standing somewhere can't be impeding because the player hasn't done anything. What I do have an issue with is how awkwardly it's written--appearing to be an example of something that isn't supported by the prior elaboration. (Well, and also an issue with the confusion of some elements having to be clear and others not, which either means nothing or is quite confusing.)
 
Let's not forget here that this was clearly a pre-rehearsed tactic to block off an opponent, so it is absolutely right that it is penalised if the player doing the blocking is stood offside as the ball is played.
 
All this talk about the refs being mic-Ed up not working and I can see why, but just looking at the comments on the Jared Gillet video (I’m sure we’ve all seen it so I won’t link it, but it’s the one where the Australian referee has got a mic on) shows me it could work. A lot of talk about newfound respect for the ref, how people didn’t realise how much conferring was involved.

I mean, how can refs potentially get more abuse than they do now?
 
All this talk about the refs being mic-Ed up not working and I can see why, but just looking at the comments on the Jared Gillet video (I’m sure we’ve all seen it so I won’t link it, but it’s the one where the Australian referee has got a mic on) shows me it could work. A lot of talk about newfound respect for the ref, how people didn’t realise how much conferring was involved.

I mean, how can refs potentially get more abuse than they do now?
The clip from Gillet shouldn't be used as a benchmark. It was only released because it looks good and everything was spot on.

By virtue of no observation is a perfect 10, there would be some things that are not done correctly and giving media access to it would be a disaster. It's like releasing the observation reports in full to media.
 
Last edited:
The clip from Gillet shouldn't be use as a benchmark. It was only release because it looks go and everything was to spot on.

By virtue of no observation is a perfect 10, there would be some that is not done correctly and given media access to it would be a disaster. It like release the observation reports in full to media.
Can see what you’re saying. Also helped Gillet’s game was definitely an easy one to ref.

Even VAR explaining what’s going on though would help. Again, there’s no way the situation can be worse than it is now

It works well enough in rugby though, I can’t see why it would be as ineffective as people say in Football
 
It works well enough in rugby though, I can’t see why it would be as ineffective as people say in Football
Different sport. Different level of media and public respect for referees. Different approach. In football media and public blame everything on officials. In rugby while there is some scrutiny of decisions, most of the analysis is on players and play themselves. I also find the quality of refereeing at top level in Rugby higher that that of football. Of course all my opinion.
 
Back
Top