Southampton vs Manchester United

[bloovee]

Yes it was a foul for me and I am sure it would have been called by the ref if the exact action happened the the penalty area to create a goal scoring opportunity. But the tolerance for fouls has been higher this season. So it not being called is consist and I am good with VAR not intervening.

That doesn't sound at all consistent. If it happens in one part of the pitch it's not a foul but it would be elsewhere on the pitch.

 

[cwyeary]

That doesn't sound at all consistent. If it happens in one part of the pitch it's not a foul but it would be elsewhere on the pitch.

Welcome to football officiating!

 

[QuaverRef]

united - I think Fernandes has been charged in the back so it’s a foul for me

Arsenal - James has got across Saka, and Saka has tripped over James leg and gone over. James doesn’t have to move out his way and is in playing distance of the ball. I’d actually argue Saka fouled him so no pen for me.

city - Clear trip in the build up, intentional or not. Correct decision to disallow goal

 

[one]

If it happens in one part of the pitch it's not a foul but it would be elsewhere on the pitch.

And that is the the same for both teams (unless one of them is City of course ) and it is applied the same by (almost) all referees in all games. That's what's consistent about it.

 

[OIREF!]

Not a foul for me, Fernandez felt the slightest bit of contact and flung himself over. Players will have to learn that they aren't getting those anymore, and hopefully that will mean they eventually stop doing it and lead to a much better game.

Having heard and read the reaction before seeing the incident I was surprised when I actually saw it. I'd err slightly on the side of foul while saying it was one of those sometimes you give, sometimes you don't type of decisions depending on exactly how you see it. We make that kind of call several times in a match. It's high profile because Southampton scored soon afterwards although I agree with Solskjaer's comments that MUFS switched off expecting the decision.

 

[Anubis]

I think it's about as clear and obvious as it gets for me

PT couldn't see it though from his position looking through the back of an arsenal player, then he guesses it isn't a pen by cutting the grass. In these situations var and the process I'd wrong

Agree, ref cant possibly see it so I have no idea how he can say there is no foul there
That signal to me means, I am,not giving a penalty here. To make that decision, you actually need to have seen the incident!

with the safety net of var, he could at least award it, then go to review

to wave away openly a decision that he cant see, is a very strange trait.

 

[bloovee]

And that is the the same for both teams (unless one of them is City of course ) and it is applied the same by (almost) all referees in all games. That's what's consistent about it.

Glad it's not just me recognises that! We already seem to have a moratorium on cautions for persistent offending and SPA against City...

I can't believe some of the stuff on here about not having to get out of the way and running into the player's leg which was in playing distance of the ball...

If you just miss the ball and trip the opponent, does it matter if the ball was in playing distance? I know players can dangle a foot over a stretched leg to "win" a foul but the stretched leg that misses the ball that an opponent is about to play sounds awfully like a trip to me.

 

[socal lurker]

with the safety net of var, he could at least award it, then go to review

WHAT?!?!

That is not at all how VAR is supposed to be used. The R and ARs on the field are supposed to make the same calls on the field that he would without VAR. (Except for GK encroachment in many competitions.) Certain calls on the field may be delayed to preserve a possible reversal, but no calls are supposed to be made differently on the theory the ref can review after the fact. I'm bewildered by the suggestion that he should award a PK without seeing a foul.

 

[cwyeary]

WHAT?!?!

That is not at all how VAR is supposed to be used. The R and ARs on the field are supposed to make the same calls on the field that he would without VAR. (Except for GK encroachment in many competitions.) Certain calls on the field may be delayed to preserve a possible reversal, but no calls are supposed to be made differently on the theory the ref can review after the fact. I'm bewildered by the suggestion that he should award a PK without seeing a foul.

You'd think people would have it down after 4 years, but they don't. VAR wasn't going to intervene on the Saka incident no matter what the ref decided. To say he should give a soft PK (or worse an incident he didn't see) just so VAR could look at it is just wrong.

 

[Anubis]

WHAT?!?!

That is not at all how VAR is supposed to be used. The R and ARs on the field are supposed to make the same calls on the field that he would without VAR. (Except for GK encroachment in many competitions.) Certain calls on the field may be delayed to preserve a possible reversal, but no calls are supposed to be made differently on the theory the ref can review after the fact. I'm bewildered by the suggestion that he should award a PK without seeing a foul.

I am aware of the VAR protocol.

The referee cannot see this incident, ( neither Ar can be credible)

We will never know if had he seen it, he would have awarded a penalty.

oh and its long established that the AR haa been using the var as a safety net for offsides, the AR has won a watch, flag when ball in net, just on off chance there was an offside...

 

[bloovee]

I am aware of the VAR protocol.

The referee cannot see this incident, ( neither Ar can be credible)

We will never know if had he seen it, he would have awarded a penalty.

oh and its long established that the AR haa been using the var as a safety net for offsides, the AR has won a watch, flag when ball in net, just on off chance there was an offside...

I think if the AR reckons VAR will get the lines out, the official signal for "I agree it's close" would be to flag with one hand and use thumb and forefinger on the other to indicate how close it might be.

 

[Mooseybaby]

Oh dear, yet another thread that's been dragged into the realms of "City are hard done by and suffer more than most" narrative. Pretty sure Bournemouth have more reasons than most to feel aggrieved consideing some of the horrendous VAR decisions that went against them as they slipped to relegation by one point and losing the club millions in the process, but you don't hear their supporters constantly claiming it's a conspiracy against them!

As for Southampton Vs Man Utd, had the non-decision gone against Southampton, would it got anywhere near the same attention or coverage? Probably not!

 

[RustyRef]

Oh dear, yet another thread that's been dragged into the realms of "City are hard done by and suffer more than most" narrative. Pretty sure Bournemouth have more reasons than most to feel aggrieved consideing some of the horrendous VAR decisions that went against them as they slipped to relegation by one point and losing the club millions in the process, but you don't hear their supporters constantly claiming it's a conspiracy against them!

As for Southampton Vs Man Utd, had the non-decision gone against Southampton, would it got anywhere near the same attention or coverage? Probably not!

Agree, anyone continuing with the "my team woz robbed" line will be having a rest. Disappear off to a fan's forum if that is the route you want to take.

 

[QuaverRef]

with the safety net of var, he could at least award it, then go to review

The referee cannot see this incident, ( neither Ar can be credible)

Awarding a penalty we cannot see goes against absolutely everything we are taught as referees. VAR is not a ‘safety net’, it’s something use to correct mistakes and a referee simply cannot award a penalty he didn’t see, and say ‘bail me out guys’

 

[JamesL]

Awarding a penalty we cannot see goes against absolutely everything we are taught as referees. VAR is not a ‘safety net’, it’s something use to correct mistakes and a referee simply cannot award a penalty he didn’t see, and say ‘bail me out guys’

Absolutely. In reality if you've missed a pen then the VAR should be bailing you out anyway. Give it and be over rules is the same as dont give it and be over ruled.

 

[es1]

Awarding a penalty we cannot see goes against absolutely everything we are taught as referees. VAR is not a ‘safety net’, it’s something use to correct mistakes and a referee simply cannot award a penalty he didn’t see, and say ‘bail me out guys’

Hasn't he (almost) done the opposite though? By giving a positive signal he's told everyone he's sure it's not a pen, when there's no chance he could be sure?

Appreciate the existing var protocol but to me this is something not addressed. A ref who isn't sure on a kmi should have the option through var to check, not be forced to make a positive decision either way.

 

[Anubis]

Hasn't he (almost) done the opposite though? By giving a positive signal he's told everyone he's sure it's not a pen, when there's no chance he could be sure?

Appreciate the existing var protocol but to me this is something not addressed. A ref who isn't sure on a kmi should have the option through var to check, not be forced to make a positive decision either way.

you make my point better than how i put it

without his signal, fine.

to make that signal tells me ( but might mean something diff to someone else), that I have seen it and am not giving it.
He cant make any call on something that he has not seen

 

[es1]

It's possibly a learning point for select group refs going forward.

For years we've been taught to give everything confidently even if you're not sure / wrong. By doing that with var you almost prevent the opportunity for a review.

 

[QuaverRef]

Hasn't he (almost) done the opposite though? By giving a positive signal he's told everyone he's sure it's not a pen, when there's no chance he could be sure?

Appreciate the existing var protocol but to me this is something not addressed. A ref who isn't sure on a kmi should have the option through var to check, not be forced to make a positive decision either way.

not necessarily. If you don’t see the challenge you can still give the signal to say ‘no penalty’, The signal is all for show, but If then VAR then overturns it then so be it. That’s not using it as a safety net, it’s calling it as you see it (or maybe don’t in this scenario).

 

[socal lurker]

I am aware of the VAR protocol.

The referee cannot see this incident, ( neither Ar can be credible)

We will never know if had he seen it, he would have awarded a penalty.

oh and its long established that the AR haa been using the var as a safety net for offsides, the AR has won a watch, flag when ball in net, just on off chance there was an offside...

I'm impressed that folks on here know exactly what the R saw . . .

The R did what he is supposed to do: make a call based on what he saw or didn't see. Here he believed there was no foul. It is not the R's job to second guess himself. The VAR is charged with recommending a review in the case of a clear error. The R will, in appropriate cases, share what he saw with the VAR. But if there was a clear error and the VAR did not recommend review, that is 100% a failure by the VAR.

As to ARs, no, that's not at all what ARs are doing. ARs are instructed to make calls exactly as they would have without VAR--the difference is they wait to raise the flag until an immediate scoring opportunity passes if it was a close decision. They get evaluated on their calls--if they raise the flag "just in case," they will get dinged for wrong calls.

For years we've been taught to give everything confidently even if you're not sure / wrong. By doing that with var you almost prevent the opportunity for a review.

This is not true. If the VAR sees a clear error--the standard for review--he is obligated to recommend an OFR to the R. Any signal the R made is totally irrelevant. VARs get evaluated on what they recommend to be sent down and have every incentive to do it properly. (And Rs who reject the recommendation to do an OFR will get evaluated on that decision, too.)

Appreciate the existing var protocol but to me this is something not addressed. A ref who isn't sure on a kmi should have the option through var to check, not be forced to make a positive decision either way.

IMO, this is a horrible idea. VAR is not there to make the game perfect. It is there to fix clear errors. There has to be a call on the field. And what do we call as refs if we don't see a foul? Nothing. The same is true for us in our lower level games and for the pros doing the top flight games with VAR.