The Ref Stop

MUN v NFO

Paul_10 said:
For me, I have no issues with the VAR recommending a review nor do I have an issue with the ref over ruling him, I think it's a bit of a grey area in all honesty.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is VAR shouldn't be recommending a review if it is a grey area, they should only be doing so it they believe the referee has made a clear and obvious error. And that is why it should be extremely rare for a referee to stick with his decision at the screen as a referee of the same level has already determined that he made a clear and obvious error.
 
The Ref Stop
bester said:
Listened on TalkSport. Matterface said straight away that it was accidental and shouldn't be referred.
Explained the law quite well.

Steve Bruce spent the time opining he didn't know what the rules were anymore without committing either way until the referee stuck with his decision.
Click to expand...
Matterface is the best commentator in terms of knowing the laws, he at least makes an effort to know what he is talking about. Similar could be said for Martin Tyler before he retired.
 
RustyRef said:
The problem with that is VAR shouldn't be recommending a review if it is a grey area, they should only be doing so it they believe the referee has made a clear and obvious error. And that is why it should be extremely rare for a referee to stick with his decision at the screen as a referee of the same level has already determined that he made a clear and obvious error.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, the VAR thinks it's intentional therefore recommending a review whilst the ref think it's accidental and that's the grey area and probably why handball incidents are the most likely cases of when we will see a referee rejecting a review. I'm not sure the referee using the word accidental is helpful as we seen on the mic'd up show recently, Salisbury using the word accidental for not giving a penalty is not supported within the laws and perhaps he could of mentioned there is a deflection and the arm was in a natural position at the time for not ruling out the goal.

RustyRef said:
Matterface is the best commentator in terms of knowing the laws, he at least makes an effort to know what he is talking about. Similar could be said for Martin Tyler before he retired.
Click to expand...

It's really disappointing Talksport dropped it's "men in black" feature with Sam and Chris Foy as I feel you had a presenter who clearly done his research and asked the right questions to Chris to answer whilst respecting Chris's answers back even if he didn't agree. Compare and contrast to a couple of videos I see of Jeff Stelling and Chris Foy and Chris's reactions to Jeff has the look of if I'm not on air I would tell him to do one(in more colourful language), quite awkward to watch to be honest.
 
My only issue with what Salisbury did isn't even his use of the word accidental, it's the fact he said 'the handball offence is accidental' which still implies a handball offence has taken place. A better announcement would have been 'the contact by the ball on the arm is accidental and doesn't constitute an offence' or similar.
 
RefereeX said:
My only issue with what Salisbury did isn't even his use of the word accidental, it's the fact he said 'the handball offence is accidental' which still implies a handball offence has taken place. A better announcement would have been 'the contact by the ball on the arm is accidental and doesn't constitute an offence' or similar.
Click to expand...
Or "the perceived hand ball offence was accidental and therefore not an offence"
 
RustyRef said:
The problem with that is VAR shouldn't be recommending a review if it is a grey area, they should only be doing so it they believe the referee has made a clear and obvious error. And that is why it should be extremely rare for a referee to stick with his decision at the screen as a referee of the same level has already determined that he made a clear and obvious error.
Click to expand...
I can't think of any scenario where the VAR recommends a review, the referee doesn't change his/her decision, and neither are wrong.

I think the reason it is rare is because referees are reluctant to effectively imply that the country's highest referees are wrong on a KMI in a top flight game, even with the benefit of replay.
 
one said:
I can't think of any scenario where the VAR recommends a review, the referee doesn't change his/her decision, and neither are wrong.

I think the reason it is rare is because referees are reluctant to effectively imply that the country's highest referees are wrong on a KMI in a top flight game, even with the benefit of replay.
Click to expand...
Well PGMO have seemingly said that the goal should have been disallowed, so in this case they are backing VAR and blaming the referee. But I suspect Howard Webb will be playing the "what the game expects" and "what stakeholders" have told us cards, which doesn't necessarily mean that Michael Salisbury was wrong.
 
Russell Jones said:
If you genuinely believe that he has deliberately moved his arm toward the ball (post 15) then of course this should be given. If, however, you believe what you say in your first sentence above, then you absolutely can’t give this as handball in accordance with the laws. It is a fundamental principle of the law, as it’s currently written, that the ONLY advantage you cannot get from an accidental handball is for that player to immediately score a goal.

The fact that many players / commentators etc believe it’s unfair to gain ANY advantage from the ball accidentally striking the arm is irrelevant
Click to expand...
The Handball Specialist has spoken!!

I think the rule has gone utterly pear shaped. I know you had very high hopes for the current iteration, but the powers that be have done their usual thing of tearing up what's written in the book, all to a greater or lesser degree on a geographical basis. To the extent that nobody has a clue what HB is now, with all sorts of nonsense spouted in the media about natural position, deflections, gaining an advantage... with all of that terminology emanating from the refereeing fraternity at source! The game is mad in terms of rules/laws

I've said it many times before, I just preferred deliberate with considerations... 'distance ball has travelled and hand to ball or ball to hand'. This can also infer whether the offender has been 'careless' in terms of his/her guilt. Keep it simple. I don't like accidental Handballs, as that merely equates to luck

So I think you and I would both deem Mbeumogate a non-offence by the letter of the law and the original intent
But the football world had adamantly and unanimously disagreed with this notion. I have to say, I agree strongly with them

I don't think fondling the ball should be allowed, even if nothing in the body has been made unnaturally bigger ;)
 
RustyRef said:
Well PGMO have seemingly said that the goal should have been disallowed, so in this case they are backing VAR and blaming the referee. But I suspect Howard Webb will be playing the "what the game expects" and "what stakeholders" have told us cards, which doesn't necessarily mean that Michael Salisbury was wrong.
Click to expand...

Yet again Webb cares more about the clubs and stakeholders of the game than the actual laws, whilst i think disallowing the goal would of been more the right decision, I'm not a referee and nor are the clubs and this is a really subjective decision where Salisbury rejecting the review is not wrong yet the PGMO effectively saying it is.

So much for the words of "the referee has every right to reject the VAR" and "the referee has the final say".

No doubts in my mind if that decision was the other end, there would much less media scrutiny and we probably would not hear anything from PGMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top