Cash’s actions prevent Soucek from recovering the loose ball. No complaints there over a penalty.
I can understand the played the ball defence if it’s ball and man simultaneously but in this case it’s a wilfully misleading statement.
Premier League Matchweek 1 discussion
- Thread starter RefIADad
- Start date
Cash’s actions prevent Soucek from recovering the loose ball. No complaints there over a penalty.
I can understand the played the ball defence if it’s ball and man simultaneously but in this case it’s a wilfully misleading statement.
From the clips I've seen, the main screen wasn't working so he was using the backup screen which was in a box on the floor, hence some people thought he was staring at a blank screen.
The incident itself for me isn't a pen, DCL steps on Dunk's foot and then falls to the ground.
Whisper it quietly, but this is where VAR is good.
Looks for all the world in real time like a penalty, but it clearly wasn't.
It’s a shame SD didn’t see it the same way and complained about Hoppers decision costing his team the game, which it didn’t, because he correctly changed his mind and not an error.
deusex
RefChat Addict
That's fine if they RC for this all season, which they won't. The push before was more violent than anything Shar did.
Head to head contact like this has not been a red card for a number of years now
To deem the act brutality is laughable and it will get overturned on appeal. The opponents reaction was cheating
It should have been 2x AA without the circus that ensued
I disagree, there's clear movement of Schar's head towards Diaz but of course he totally milked it. We will never know if Pawson would of went red regardless if Diaz fell to the ground but you like to think he would of and he wasn't genuinely fooled by the contact.
Argument perhaps Diaz could of seen 2 yellows in one there, one for the shove and one for the heads going together, would be a big call to make and the ref would no doubt be accused of trying to even it up.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
Have to say, as a Bee I am delighted with the call.... But as a referee (or even a neutral/Palace fan) I'd be livid with the call.
I understand the as soon as blown for the start, you're looking and blowing quickly to avoid doubt if you spot a foul, but I am thinking that at my level.
He has VAR that can back him up if blown a second or two later if the ball was crossed and then scored and ruled for a free kick.
There are countless times I have told people nothing silly etc at free kicks, especially the first couple, and then blow if they're still fouling after the kick - but I don't have VAR to help me.
The free kick was very clever. And a very good spot by Palace to take advantage.
This is unfortunately what happens when directives are given out at the start of a season, in this case to crack down on blocking at set pieces. Referees naturally look for early examples to show they understand, as I think happened here. I don't really think there was much in it, at one point the attacking player was holding the defender.
Sky pundits spouting absolute nonsense as usual, including repeatedly saying that it was Sam Barrott's first Premier League game. And talking about how blowing early has stopped VAR from overruling it, but even if he'd blown after the ball had gone in the goal there's no way on earth that VAR would be getting involved with a subjective foul / no foul decision like that. There was a check, but I can only assume they were just making sure that the foul that was penalised happened before the ball entered the goal, as it had been after the goal should have obviously stood (it was well before).
Sky pundits spouting absolute nonsense as usual, including repeatedly saying that it was Sam Barrott's first Premier League game. And talking about how blowing early has stopped VAR from overruling it, but even if he'd blown after the ball had gone in the goal there's no way on earth that VAR would be getting involved with a subjective foul / no foul decision like that. There was a check, but I can only assume they were just making sure that the foul that was penalised happened before the ball entered the goal, as it had been after the goal should have obviously stood (it was well before).
It was the PGMOL who abruptly put out a message that VAR could not intervene because the whistle had gone before the ball crossed the goal line.
Don't know why they were so quick to put out a message as I agree that VAR wouldn't have reversed the decision anyway
BTW, why are we not using SAO FGS!?
That offside check for the City goal took forever, yet it was obviously onside
And why haven't Sky sacked off Mike Dean and hired Christina instead!?
Last edited:
It's coming in at some point before Christmas...
It is still being developed and tested. They can't use the same system as in the Euros as Adidas have a patent on the chip in the ball, and the EPL have a multi-year ball deal with Nike. So as I understand it they are using AI to detect the exact moment the ball it played, last I heard they were hoping to go live after the 2nd international break.
No the tech isn't in place yet. They're still doing it as they have done the last few seasons
That has too much grounds for error though, same as the current system where manually deciding when the ball is played cannot be 100% accurate. They want this to be done automatically.
Might be me but that sounds slightly contradicting. You say the VAR would never get involved in a subjective foul like that yet then say if the referee blew after the ball went into the goal, then the goal would obviously stand yet why would it stand if the referee blew for a foul and your claiming the VAR would never overrule such a subjective foul?
Not me, I'm saying that is what the Sky pundits were going on about.