A&H

This is what we have to put up with in Australia (laughable VAR RC)

C

CapnBloodbeard

RefChat Addict
https://www.a-league.com.au/video/ryan-lowry-shown-straight-red-after-var-intervention

I wish I could say that this is the only VAR red card we've had that's so absurdly incorrect, but that would be lying.
Funny thing is they've 'raised the bar' on VAR intervention - the first few weeks have been so disastrous that they decided the VAR shouldn't just intervene on a 'clear and obvious' error, but on a 'really really really clear and obvious error'.
Unless, of course, the referee has put down a penalty which is clearly and obviously wrong, then VAR won't do anything (that's another decision).

Even a foul alone here is questionable. Acceptable, but questionable.
Probably geoblocked, VPN should get past it for those using one.

It's also worth mentioning that this weekend, the VAR decided that a player who eye gouged another player in a mass confrontation should only receive a yellow card.
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
Yep. Here's something that somebody else commented on - we've never seen an A-league referee receive the advice to have a look at something, then go 'nah, I reckon I got it right' or 'look, I see what you're saying, but there's a bit of doubt, I'll leave it'.

If it goes to on-field review, the decision is guaranteed to change. And that's a big problem. Especially given how often decision is changed to a wrong one.

Another problem is that the referee on the ground only looks at it in slow motion. Things always look different in slow motion. Slo-mo is important, but they should have normal speed too. It wouldn't take much for the referee to have some very simple controls to change the speed.
But if they only see things in slo-mo, then they should be properly trained in recognising how different it looks - and be able to compensate for that. Not surprising, this appears to have not been the case.
Also, from the match clock, this was a very, very quick decision.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure it is that wrong. There's a second motion after he plays the ball, and look where his right leg ends up planting on the opponent's leg. I think there is every chance to say he has gone for him deliberately there.

f0tgte.jpg
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Another problem is that the referee on the ground only looks at it in slow motion. Things always look different in slow motion. Slo-mo is important, but they should have normal speed too. It wouldn't take much for the referee to have some very simple controls to change the speed.
But if they only see things in slo-mo, then they should be properly trained in recognising how different it looks - and be able to compensate for that. Not surprising, this appears to have not been the case.
Click to expand...

Funny I was typing this exact same thing when I saw you post yours. Slow mo is only to view point of contact after looking at severity in real speed. You look at it in real speed first then you realise any contact is incidental. Then slow mo or freeze frame becomes irrelevant. If you show him in slow mo first or a freeze frame, this is what he sees. You can't blame the protocol here, it's the lack of following process is that is the problem.

1543745803326.png
 
RustyRef said:
I'm not sure it is that wrong. There's a second motion after he plays the ball, and look where his right leg ends up planting on the opponent's leg. I think there is every chance to say he has gone for him deliberately there.

f0tgte.jpg
Click to expand...
@one has a good response to this - but I also disagree with your point about the 2nd motion. It looks more like his studs get caught in the turf and the feet spring forward and out as a natural, incidental outcome of that.

Though even IF it was deliberate, there's still not way this warrants VAR. Way too much doubt.
 
There's way too much doubt to send the player off in the OP
I want to have some degree of certainty in my mind before sending a player to the showers. A hunch or an intent based guess is not enough
 
The only doubt for me is force - is it excessive? He's already on the ground but he does catch him high and with two feet...
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
@one has a good response to this - but I also disagree with your point about the 2nd motion. It looks more like his studs get caught in the turf and the feet spring forward and out as a natural, incidental outcome of that.

Though even IF it was deliberate, there's still not way this warrants VAR. Way too much doubt.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree and disagree. I think it is definitely a red card, whether accidental or not for me he has clearly endangered the safety of his opponent and he is responsible for controlling his challenge. I'm not a VAR expert, but I guess where I probably do agree is whether it counts as a clear and obvious error.
 
I think it is harsh.

As been pointed out he slid in and cleanly took the ball and on his slide he clearly gets caught himself on the ground and his leg kind of reacted to that and it is highly unfortunate that the opponent was there.

I don't think it was deliberate or intentional etc at all.
 
AlexF said:
Two things that don't matter when determining if something is an offence or the level or severity of the offence.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree. Whilst 'careless, reckless and excessive force' are the three amigos, they all imply intent to some degree
Although I'd concede that the risk to the opponent's safety is the predominant factor; and we can't know what the offender is thinking with any certainty
 
AlexF said:
Two things that don't matter when determining if something is an offence or the level or severity of the offence.
Click to expand...

What I mean was that if you were to put yourself into his shoes there was nothing in his mind to suggest he is going for the man too and actually probably thought he would not even get close to the guy to even commit any offence.
I certainly have this in my mind when issuing a straight red.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
What I mean was that if you were to put yourself into his shoes there was nothing in his mind to suggest he is going for the man too and actually probably thought he would not even get close to the guy to even commit any offence.
I certainly have this in my mind when issuing a straight red.
Click to expand...

That shouldn't enter your mind. There are plenty of occasions where a players hasn't mean to hurt an opponent but should still be sent off, intent is totally irrelevant in the current laws when it comes to SFP.
 
If the ref gives this decision without VAR id say hes had a shocker, the fact he looked at it (probably a few times) and still thought it was a red card beggers belief.
 
I'm not saying it is the only thing that goes through my mind.

It's more the ones that I deem "orange".

I know it's not the correct procedure but it has done me well in determining a players intent first and foremost.
If I think the intent is clear, and he deliberately went in, it's a quick red from me.
I then process the rest of it such as serious foul play and whether that has an affect on whether it's red or yellow.
By putting myself in the players mind as they do any challenge gives me a clearer mind as to what any outcome should be.

Hope that clears it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top