That doesn't work though, as at least 2 SG1 referees thought it was a red card, as do some posters on here, myself included. Had Kavanagh not seen it, and Palace used an appeal, he might well then give a red card the same as he did tonight and we end up with exactly the same outcome.
NEW LIV
- Thread starter TheFoodieReferee
- Start date
R
Runner-Ref
Guest
But had Palace appealed it, he may not have gone red. Referees the vast vast vast majority of the time will go with the VAR as they don't want to disagree with their mate. Mike Dean even made a comment along these lines himself. After all, referees are basically seen as experts. If a club appealed it, referee is more likely to make their own mind up.
When you see how many apologies Howard Webb seems to be making due to errors; it's clear the onfield referee listening to the VAR doesn't work. VAR hasn't got a clue when it should and shouldn’t get involved. They've got involved tonight for a very contentious decision. Granted you can probably justify a red, but in no way was it C&O. Then you have a stonewall penalty in the Spurs vs Brighton game last season, in which HW had to apologise for. Referee didn't give pen and VAR didn't intervene. But the fact HW had to apologise, proves it was C&O.
So what?
You've just described a correct challenge - that's a feature, not a bug.
EDIT: Hadn't seen the Palace clip and misunderstood the series of events. The point is, no one is saying this gets 100% consistency (which is impossible), but Kav would be more empowered to make either decisions at the screen. Instead what happens is he's got another ref telling him it's a clear error and even though he clearly doesn't think so, he now has to have an incredibly high bar on disagreeing with them, so he just goes with the red.
Under a challenge system, it would be up to Palace to identify that as a missed red and call for the review, at which point he'd be a lot more able to go "nah, but I do think I probably missed a yellow there so we'll go with that" and everyone is much happier. I know he can do that in law currently, but it's so rare it may as well not be there - a challenge system changes the bar significantly.
Last edited:
Completely disagree that Kavanagh was unhappy with the review. We've seen referees in the past look truly unhappy being at the screen and clearly were conflicted about changing their mind, but I just don't see that here. His body language doesn't change from being told their was a review to leaving the screen to make the signal. I think he was just there for quite a long time as they were showing lots of angles to see the extent of the contact.
I honestly believe Kavanagh didn't see it at all real time, hence why he didn't even give a foul. So if there was a review and he was sent to the screen the outcome would have been exactly the same once he realised he had missed the contact.
How would you expect him to behave if he didn't agree with it? Throw a strop?
There's no possible way for us to come to an agreement on CK - analysing body language is basically guesswork even for people who make a living out of it!
Regardless, if this isn't the case where a referee isn't happy with the call but feels uncomfortable being certain enough that multiple colleagues are wrong, someone else will be. This doesn't need to be the specific example for the problem to still exist as a liklihood that's built into the system.
Funnily enough I have received professional training in analysing body language. Just saying
No, but we have seen several times where the referee looked uncertain. Classic case being the WC final where the referee kept leaving the screen and going back to it as if he needed to convince himself.