The Ref Stop

Pal v Eve

Enough that HW has had to make a number of apologies over the last 12 months
I thought we weren't trying to remove all errors? Most of the errors that we have seen all potentially still exist in a challenge world so HW may still have to apologise.

I reckon that there will be more games with teams unfairly losing their reviews than there are with serious errors like the Liv - TH one.
 
The Ref Stop
I thought we weren't trying to remove all errors? Most of the errors that we have seen all potentially still exist in a challenge world so HW may still have to apologise.

I reckon that there will be more games with teams unfairly losing their reviews than there are with serious errors like the Liv - TH one.
Eh? We're trying to remove as many errors as we can, but we know it will never ever be 100%.

But the fact HW has had to go to clubs and apologise on multiple occasions, proves this current setup doesn't work.

Onfield referees making a mistake is understandable. But for it to then go to a VAR who then also c*cks up is not acceptable. It all comes down to C&O. No one knows what this means and I don't think they ever will. As @GraemeS said, the Man Utd vs Wolves game is a prime example. We can all see that its a foul, but VAR got so wrapped up in C&O, they've practically paid no attention to what happened.

Then you have the other end of the scale and you get a 'busy' VAR getting involved in the DCL red card. That is somehow seen as a C&O, but Onana flattening the Wolves player wasn't
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought we weren't trying to remove all errors? Most of the errors that we have seen all potentially still exist in a challenge world so HW may still have to apologise.

I reckon that there will be more games with teams unfairly losing their reviews than there are with serious errors like the Liv - TH one.
My feeling is that C&O introduces additional ways for errors to occur. Not only does the VAR have the possibility of making the wrong decision, but they also have the possibility of making the wrong call on C&O - which might prevent them from intervening when they should, or cause them to intervene when other VARs haven't for comparable incidents.

Stripping away C&O means you're reducing the number of judgements that can be wrong - it's as simple as "what does the on field official think is the correct call?". The Wolves penalty that was missed vs United at the start of the season is a great example - clearly a foul, but the VAR got himself in a tangle over C&O and didn't intervene because he decided it didn't meet some poorly-defined level of obviousness. That's where C&O causes problems.
 
Does anyone know why there were 2 VARs last night?
This is what it says on the FA website:

Support VARs will be in place for the FA Cup third round proper ties where the technology is in operation. A role utilised for a number of UEFA, FIFA and other international fixtures, the Support VAR's duties will include assisting the VAR and AVAR with evaluating incidents and assisting with the communication between the officials.
 
The more I look at it...and the more I think of myself in Calvert-Lewin's eyes...the more I think it's a red !
What I don't like is professionals play-acting, mind. If Clyne is overdoing the injury with a view to getting him sent off, then that situation will just get worse rather than better.
 
Then there's no help 🤣

Then its highlighting the subjective. Was there excessive force? No. Reckless? Seems in control and the player is not going to top him. Am I chucking around reds for that sunday at a U16 game? No way. does the ref make a clear and obvious error? no.

its only a red in one part of football. That should be a problem.
 
Then its highlighting the subjective. Was there excessive force? No. Reckless? Seems in control and the player is not going to top him. Am I chucking around reds for that sunday at a U16 game? No way. does the ref make a clear and obvious error? no.

its only a red in one part of football. That should be a problem.
Isn't that because we only have one look at it at match speed ? In real time CK was happy with it. It was only when VAR sent him to the screen that he saw how high the foot was and switched it to a red. We don't have that benefit in grassroots
 
Then its highlighting the subjective. Was there excessive force? No. Reckless? Seems in control and the player is not going to top him. Am I chucking around reds for that sunday at a U16 game? No way. does the ref make a clear and obvious error? no.

its only a red in one part of football. That should be a problem.
There was a reason I only captured the "I can't see a foul."
I can accept a difference of opinion on card colour. Absolutely.
1 thing it can't be, with the benefit of replay of course, is no foul.
Leading foot with studs showing, contact with player in the mid shin. It lacks force I agree but that doesn't take away the dangerous element to the challenge.

I can support a red card here as this was so close to a much more severe outcome for the fouled player. As I regularly say, the players leg does not have to be hanging off before a foul is a red card. Football seems to be less and less accepting of this though.

I think if the referee gives a foul and yellow this doesn't get reviewed..I think it's the absence of a foul at all that then pushes the two VARs to send this down.
 
I think if the referee gives a foul and yellow this doesn't get reviewed..I think it's the absence of a foul at all that then pushes the two VARs to send this down.
I don't understand this reasoning. Surely, they should be sending for a review if the ref gave a yellow card and a free kick. My understanding is that SFP is a red card, if a yellow is given then that is not the correct decision and should be reviewed.
 
I don't understand this reasoning. Surely, they should be sending for a review if the ref gave a yellow card and a free kick. My understanding is that SFP is a red card, if a yellow is given then that is not the correct decision and should be reviewed.
Because it's less a clear and obvious error.
I think not recognising the foul at all here takes the VARs down looking even closer at it and towards red.
Had the referee given a foul and a caution, this might have changed their own interpretation as to whether an intervention was warranted or not.
 
Because it's less a clear and obvious error.
I think not recognising the foul at all here takes the VARs down looking even closer at it and towards red.
Had the referee given a foul and a caution, this might have changed their own interpretation as to whether an intervention was warranted or not.
True, because at least the ref has acknowledged he's seen it (and thinks it's reckless as opposed to excessive force). Whereas in this situation it looks like he didn't realise the height of the boot until shown the slo mo
 
I completely agree that tennis is more of an objective call. But I domy believe that rugby is.

On the examples you mentioned, how many games actually have the need for that many challenges in reality? You may get the odd one where a team do genuinely run out of challenges, but that's the way it goes. It's on the clubs to use them wisely. And as part of that, educate themselves on not only law, but the actualy application of it. Maybe clubs will even employ someone who would actually decide whether its worth challenging a decision.
Rugby is way less subjective than football. Most of the decisions are factual, like forward pass, try over line, foot out of play before try. The only real one that isn't is dangerous tackling, but even that has very strict guidelines that the referees have to follow. "Spike tackles", where they pick someone up and drop them on their head are pretty obvious to see, and even the new "no arms tackling" is pretty obvious, if you tackle without using your arms and there is head to head contact you are sent off even if you haven't initiated the contact. Yes, there was controversy over the Tom Curry WC red card, but it was correct as for all the opponent pretty much landed on his head Curry had gone into a tackle without his arms.

There's probably a reason why the only sports that have a challenge system are the ones with black and white decisions. I seem to remember that rugby union in New Zealand brought in a trial where each captain got one trial per game, but don't think it was taken forward.
 
I seem to remember that rugby union in New Zealand brought in a trial where each captain got one trial per game, but don't think it was taken forward.
This exists in Australian rugby league and has done for a few seasons
 
Rugby is way less subjective than football. Most of the decisions are factual, like forward pass, try over line, foot out of play before try. The only real one that isn't is dangerous tackling, but even that has very strict guidelines that the referees have to follow. "Spike tackles", where they pick someone up and drop them on their head are pretty obvious to see, and even the new "no arms tackling" is pretty obvious, if you tackle without using your arms and there is head to head contact you are sent off even if you haven't initiated the contact. Yes, there was controversy over the Tom Curry WC red card, but it was correct as for all the opponent pretty much landed on his head Curry had gone into a tackle without his arms.

There's probably a reason why the only sports that have a challenge system are the ones with black and white decisions. I seem to remember that rugby union in New Zealand brought in a trial where each captain got one trial per game, but don't think it was taken forward.
So if football is way more subjective, what's the point in having VAR at all? Technically the VAR is challenging the onfield referees decision anyway.

So why not let the clubs be the ones that challenge?
 
This is what it says on the FA website:

Support VARs will be in place for the FA Cup third round proper ties where the technology is in operation. A role utilised for a number of UEFA, FIFA and other international fixtures, the Support VAR's duties will include assisting the VAR and AVAR with evaluating incidents and assisting with the communication between the officials.
Also seen places say it allows them to give referees with little to none VAR experience at it. Potentially broadening the scope
 
So if football is way more subjective, what's the point in having VAR at all? Technically the VAR is challenging the onfield referees decision anyway.

So why not let the clubs be the ones that challenge?
Because players, managers, commentators, pundits, spectators, etc, spent decades demanding technology because they were unhappy with decisions. FIFA and IFAB didn't rollout VAR off their own initiative, it had been demanded. Now the same people don't want it because it hasn't been as perfect as they hoped it would be and, without wanting to blow my trumpet, I said from the day they started talking about VAR that this would happen.

As I've said, I'm not against a challenge system, but I don't think it will make any difference, there will still be controversy. But there won't be a challenge system because FIFA and IFAB won't be moving away from the current system anytime soon. Let's also not forget that it has worked really well at FIFA and UEFA finals with very little controversy, certainly nowhere near the level it has in the EPL, and they aren't going to scrap it just because it isn't working in good old Blighty. Somehow Howard Webb has to find a way of making it work, and I don't think he has long before the clubs force him the same was as Mike Riley.
 
Back
Top