A&H

Newcastle Vs Arsenal

Trip said:
I think bein sports used a technology called guesswork.
Click to expand...
Whilst Bein's might not be sophisticated and probably is a bit of guesswork. Im.surprised its not possible with technology that is available today.
Given semi automated offside can track several moving human body parts and then present that back in a 3d image to definitively prove (margin of error aside) the position of the players the doing the same with a ball and a static line ought to easily be in reach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
The Referee Store
Not sure we can trust BEIN technology when the corner flag is nowhere near the correct position.
 

Attachments

  • 20231106_153613.jpg
    20231106_153613.jpg
    55.9 KB · Views: 15
bester said:
Not sure we can trust BEIN technology when the corner flag is nowhere near the correct position.
Click to expand...
Ah yes as the corner flag is clearly to scale 🙂

I'm not saying this is the tech exactly, what I'm saying is it is 2023, the tech is there to easily eradicate the questionability of these decisions to within mm and very quickly.
 
The ball in out out of play I can understand not getting right. Although it looked out to me in real time. Tough call.
The push on Gabrielle is an obvious one for me.
The Havertz is a red card for me. Off the ground and out of control.
Elbow to face. Clear red card. VAR should have called red to screen to decide that one.
A few second yellows also not given.

I don’t like sayings refs have had a bad game as it’s a tough job, but if I’d got these decisions wrong in a u18 match I would say I had a bad game.
 
So Eddie Howe is reportedly unhappy with the yellow card Guimarães received in the 2md half. Didn't see the challenge in question that brought the card, but Howe believes it was very harsh and not deserving of his 5th yellow of the season. His first half performance alone suggested he was very lucky to still be on the pitch, so good old persistent infringement would be an easy sell to justify the eventual card.
 
Mooseybaby said:
So Eddie Howe is reportedly unhappy with the yellow card Guimarães received in the 2md half. Didn't see the challenge in question that brought the card, but Howe believes it was very harsh and not deserving of his 5th yellow of the season. His first half performance alone suggested he was very lucky to still be on the pitch, so good old persistent infringement would be an easy sell to justify the eventual card.
Click to expand...
From memory he fended off an opponent by pushing his hand into his face, something he does have a habit of doing. Looked a caution to me.

This is the problem, managers can't look beyond one game and make contradictory comments. Just a month ago Arteta was recorded saying that people needed to give referees and VAR a break and just leave them to it, this was relating to a game not involving his team. It has suddenly gone from that to it being a disgrace because his team are now affected. He's bemoaning the goal, but is overlooking the fact that one of his players was somewhat fortunate not to be sent off. Same for Howe, saying the caution is soft but completely ignoring the fact that he should have already been back in the changing room well before he was able to get that caution. They are hypocrites.
 
Paul_10 said:
I agree, the Havertz one is the orange card category where some will go yellow and some will go red and therefore it's not a clear and obvious error for VAR to get involved.

The Bruno one is where VAR should be a positive but yet again it's a negative because how is that not VC I will never know. I wonder if Stuart Attwell even saw it because he never gave a foul.

Regarding the goal then I do sometimes wish when a ball has cross the line it's the bottom of the ball that only matters, not this nonsense where 90% of the ball is over the line but only a tiny bit is on the line, it would make it much more easier for officials to be able to know whether it's in or out. I do think it's a foul though but it's that grey area whether it reaches the clear and obvious threshold.
Click to expand...
Have you ever run a line? Easier to see whole of the ball out than half.
 
Ball out of play and offside are both good decisions and it’s good to hear the analysis, but I still fail to see how they are not recommending a trip to the monitor for the push. The C&O part of VAR is such a grey area.
 
The lack of offside shows you how bad the VAR decision was in my opinion.

VAR states incorrect law as going by Gabriel shoulder.
AVAR tried to correct him, but VAR just says yeah yeah yeah and stops the AVAR explaining who then changes mid sentence to not conclusive evidence.

VAR has locked into their head there is no chance of offside due to the incorrect application of the law that he has originally said. Consequently, he can't see a way of it being offside as he hasn't been corrected by anyone.

IMHO, VAR has got a bit flustered with the sequence of checks, knows time is ticking and people will be getting annoyed, incorrectly analysed an offside, ignored the AVAR and due to the incorrect analysis cannot possibly consider an offside, so awarded the goal.
 
DazN said:
Ball out of play and offside are both good decisions and it’s good to hear the analysis, but I still fail to see how they are not recommending a trip to the monitor for the push. The C&O part of VAR is such a grey area.
Click to expand...
I disagree. As does the independent panel who unanimously cleared all 3 decisions on this one (which includes the PGMO rep).

It is not a push. There isn't a forward motion of the arms. The movement of Gabriel is due to him attempting to flick the ball which gives the swan like pose as if he has been pushed but ultimately there is close to no impact on the defender, and certainly not enough for a foul to be given at this level and the contact is 'expected contact'.

I think at our levels we give this as a 'safe foul' but at this level it's not expected. The telling part for me is there is no appeal from Arsenal for a foul and Gabriel himself is not suggesting he has been fouled.
 
JamesL said:
It is not a push. There isn't a forward motion of the arms.
Click to expand...

Do the arms need a forward motion to qualify as a push? To me it looks like Joelinton uses his bodyweight to facilitate the ‘push’ using his already locked arms, but obviously I’m not VAR nor the panel that reviews it’s decisions.

I do agree though at my level I’m definitely giving that as a foul.
 
JamesL said:
I disagree. As does the independent panel who unanimously cleared all 3 decisions on this one (which includes the PGMO rep).

It is not a push. There isn't a forward motion of the arms. The movement of Gabriel is due to him attempting to flick the ball which gives the swan like pose as if he has been pushed but ultimately there is close to no impact on the defender, and certainly not enough for a foul to be given at this level and the contact is 'expected contact'.

I think at our levels we give this as a 'safe foul' but at this level it's not expected. The telling part for me is there is no appeal from Arsenal for a foul and Gabriel himself is not suggesting he has been fouled.
Click to expand...
Agree with that fully. And the key thing is, which Howard Webb tried to address, is football participants can't agree on whether it was a foul or not. We can't even agree on here as referees, so there is no way VAR can say it was a clear and obvious error. Sticking with the on-pitch decision was the only possible option here.
 
DazN said:
Do the arms need a forward motion to qualify as a push? To me it looks like Joelinton uses his bodyweight to facilitate the ‘push’ using his already locked arms, but obviously I’m not VAR nor the panel that reviews it’s decisions.

I do agree though at my level I’m definitely giving that as a foul.
Click to expand...
Yes, you do need forward motion of the arms to qualify as a push. However what you describe could instead be given as a 'charging' foul. Personally, I think it could be called either way --> hard to justify as a clear and obvious error.
 
Rather interestingly there is some 'leaked' VAR audio regarding the check on the Guimaraes elbow. The audio sounds legit and it suggests the VAR does not think the elbow was used as an weapon and whilst the AVAR thinks it doesn't look nice, both of them agreed the sanction is just a yellow at worse hence the non intervention.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1724794015042900069
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top