TOT v LIV

[one]

Not at all, not shooting the messenger. If we can agree this was a really bad use of VAR then we are on the same page.
I think we know VAR can't review, he can only check. Only referee can review. And if VAR checks and thinks it's inly a yellow then no recommendation should be made on anything. In either case I don't see how VAR can see this on multi angle replay and think it's only a yellow.

 

[cwyeary]

I know a lot of media has picked up on them being in the UAE, but I'd wager if you look back a lot of people have had a game in the Europa/Conference League on Thursday and then a VAR role on Saturday.

 

[socal lurker]

I haven’t seen the play, and am going on what is described. Another possibility is that an AR or the 4O told him he missed a caution. It seems plausible to me that if that came as the review was taking place, he could have held delivering the card, but told the VAR the decision on the field was a caution. That isn’t really protocol, but it’s a minor breach, and I could see an R justifying that as better than a late card followed by an infield review that changes it as well.

 

[Tim Punter]

I think it’s a little disingenuous to suggest that a demand for a replay was not hinted at. As we all know, games have been replayed in the past due to the incorrect application of the laws of the game, and that’s exactly what Liverpool are getting at when they say “ It is clear that the correct application of the laws of the game did not occur, resulting in

I know a lot of media has picked up on them being in the UAE, but I'd wager if you look back a lot of people have had a game in the Europa/Conference League on Thursday and then a VAR role on Saturday.

But UAE is a 7hr flight, but the obvious problems with UAE owning Manchester City, which Howard Webb should be aware of. Mark Clattenburg I think wrote this week that he did a Sunday game after flying back from Russia on a Thursday night game and he couldn't remember anything about the game when it was finished, as he was absolutely wiped out. So I think both issues need reviewing.

 

[es1]

Agreed. As a first go, what about the following logic for offences in the tackle?

Studs-up = 1 point
Feet off the ground = 1 point
Force: Low = 0 points, Moderate = 1 point, High = 2 points
Impact: Above the foot = 1 point
Full contact with ball first = -1 point

0-1 points = no sanction
2 points = yellow card
3-5 points = red card

So Curtis Jones would be studs-up (1) with moderate force, impacting above the foot = 3 points (red).

Malo Gusto last week would be studs-up, feet off the ground, moderate force, impact above the foot, full contact with ball first = 4 - 1 = 3 points (red).

Referees would use these criteria to make clear decisions in a more objective way. Never going to remove subjectivity entirely, but could be a step in the right direction.

along similar lines this is what i came up with!

 

[Kinsleyr]

Yes there has been a lot of inconsistency with the application of the laws already this season, but to suggest Liverpool are being selectively targeted is utterly ridiculous and bordering on fandom. Chelsea Vs Liverpool first game of the season - player from each side was yellow carded for waving imaginary cards in the direction of the referee, first up was Chelsea's Jackson shortly followed by a Liverpool player. Infact all 5 of Jackson's yellow cards he has collected already have been dissent/card waving related and deservely so!

I shouldn't have said it about Liverpool but I only see it in the games that they play as I don't have time to watch other games. It is probably shown across the board but in games Liverpool have played the referee has only given out cards to their players for showing the card move compared to any other club.

 

[Matthew]

But UAE is a 7hr flight, but the obvious problems with UAE owning Manchester City, which Howard Webb should be aware of. Mark Clattenburg I think wrote this week that he did a Sunday game after flying back from Russia on a Thursday night game and he couldn't remember anything about the game when it was finished, as he was absolutely wiped out. So I think both issues need reviewing.

I've resisted on this so far, but what you (and others above) are saying is factually innacurate. City are not state owned, they are owned by CFG, a private company which is majority owned by Sheikh Mansour through another private company and also by a multitute of other investors (including from the US). Factually innacuracy aside, is your issue the 7hr flight, or is it that you are suggesting there's something more sinister at play?

I totally agree that officials may not be in the best shape to referee/VAR two days after a 7hr flight, which is absolutely an issue and one that needs to be looked at. To suggest that the location is an issue in itself is something very different.

 

[george.g]

View attachment 6862
along similar lines this is what i came up with!

And what score did you get for the Jones challenge?

I came up with 9 bang on, from memory though, didn’t rewatch it

 

[es1]

And what score did you get for the Jones challenge?

I came up with 9 bang on, from memory though, didn’t rewatch it

yeah i think it's 2-1-3-3

just on the threshold!

 

[GraemeS]

I think there's a case for a 2 on height, but also, no mitigation for either deflecting off the ball or being off balance from a pull?

 

[es1]

I think there's a case for a 2 on height, but also, no mitigation for either deflecting off the ball or being off balance from a pull?

oooh hadn't considered the mitigation! or what you actually do with it/how it impacts the decision

i dont think scraping the top of the ball should count in your favour, maybe a full ball strike like the gusto challenge should? i hadnt noticed a pull though (or again considered how to score it!)

 

[GraemeS]

oooh hadn't considered the mitigation! or what you actually do with it/how it impacts the decision

i dont think scraping the top of the ball should count in your favour, maybe a full ball strike like the gusto challenge should? i hadnt noticed a pull though (or again considered how to score it!)

Carragher makes a point of highlighting it when they discussed the red card on MNF if you can find that clip, his argument was that Jones would have been able to get to the ball in a proper 50:50 and would have been stretching less if he hadn't been slightly delayed.

But yes, the fact Hooper wasn't shown that as part of the VAR review is definitely a part of why the process feels like it wasn't carried out properly. And is the kind of thing that a rugby referee would look for automatically.

 

[george.g]

I do quite like rugby’s process of mitigation, and how they work through the factors.

You often hear; ‘High degree of danger, no attempt to wrap’ etc etc.

Obviously there are issues in what the law actually allows as a mitigating factor (nothing really?), but it does intrigue me

 

[es1]

Carragher makes a point of highlighting it when they discussed the red card on MNF if you can find that clip, his argument was that Jones would have been able to get to the ball in a proper 50:50 and would have been stretching less if he hadn't been slightly delayed.

But yes, the fact Hooper wasn't shown that as part of the VAR review is definitely a part of why the process feels like it wasn't carried out properly. And is the kind of thing that a rugby referee would look for automatically.

yeah i feel there has to be a consideration of 'mitigation', especially in tackles where the player is of balance (the one that springs to mind is ayoze perez for leicester against southampton maybe 2 seasons ago?)

 

[Big Cat]

View attachment 6862
along similar lines this is what i came up with!

Good post

Some of us will steadfastly refute that 'winning the ball' is not a factor when judging foul play, but it's clearly the primary consideration when differentiating between 'fair' and 'careless'. That does not hold true for 'reckless or dangerous' however

 

[The Gump]

Apart from it was decisions like this that led to the clamour by pretty much everyone in the game to demand technology. Let's not forget here that the on-pitch decision was offside, so pre-VAR the outcome would have been exactly the same as yesterday. Sky would have then drawn lines on to show how poor the assistant's decision was, and Liverpool players and fans would be demanding that the officials get some help through technology.

I don't disagree, and am cautious about going overboard based on one, admittedly bad, failing. But if we're in the same boat as we were before, I struggle to see what's ultimately been achieved.

There are clearly some good suggestions on here and elsewhere, and have been for many months, about ways to improve it, especially around transparency, and formalising/professionalising comms between the ref and VAR is surely a must after this.

 

[GraemeS]

There's definitely an element of Liverpool support who are convinced this delay in releasing the audio is to give PGMOL time to doctor or re-record the audio to fit their story. It's likely tin-hat nonsense of course, but if they're telling the truth about what happened, it's so easy to avoid claims like that by just putting the relevant audio clip out.

I don't think there would have been any argument if it had been "exclusively" provided to MNF, given the prominence of that show and the fact they were obviously going to be discussing the incident. I accept the argument that IFAB don't want VAR/comms audio played out live - but we're 3 days post-match now, about to move on to the mid-week schedule. What possible excuse is there not to have produced it by now, aside from obfuscation or a daft hope that the problem will just go away?

 

[es1]

There's definitely an element of Liverpool support who are convinced this delay in releasing the audio is to give PGMOL time to doctor or re-record the audio to fit their story. It's likely tin-hat nonsense of course, but if they're telling the truth about what happened, it's so easy to avoid claims like that by just putting the relevant audio clip out.

I don't think there would have been any argument if it had been "exclusively" provided to MNF, given the prominence of that show and the fact they were obviously going to be discussing the incident. I accept the argument that IFAB don't want VAR/comms audio played out live - but we're 3 days post-match now, about to move on to the mid-week schedule. What possible excuse is there not to have produced it by now, aside from obfuscation or a daft hope that the problem will just go away?

i think the recording is pretty embarrassing for PGMOL but i dont think anyone will be satisfied if they're not released or even if they're partly redacted. for transparency we need to hear them.

as an aside to this, this must be the most impresisve case of 'SUMO' (shut up, move on) i've ever seen. knowing there's been a huge game changing error and then putting that to the back of your mind and dealing with the rest of the game in the manner it needs to be dealt with. would have been easy to try and even it up

 

[GraemeS]

i think the recording is pretty embarrassing for PGMOL but i dont think anyone will be satisfied if they're not released or even if they're partly redacted. for transparency we need to hear them.

as an aside to this, this must be the most impresisve case of 'SUMO' (shut up, move on) i've ever seen. knowing there's been a huge game changing error and then putting that to the back of your mind and dealing with the rest of the game in the manner it needs to be dealt with. would have been easy to try and even it up

Again, to "report from the Liverpool twitter mines", there's a feeling he lurched too far the other way and wanted to show he wasn't trying to even it up - particularly with the Jota first yellow and the Robertson yellow. Before then overcorrecting a bit with a couple of very soft Spurs yellows in the last 5-10 minutes.

The fact that game ended with 11 yellows and 2 reds is wild. An incredibly minor raising of the bar and that ends as a 2 x YC game (Jones and Jota) and I don't think anyone would have been too upset.

 

[Tim Punter]

I've resisted on this so far, but what you (and others above) are saying is factually innacurate. City are not state owned, they are owned by CFG, a private company which is majority owned by Sheikh Mansour through another private company and also by a multitute of other investors (including from the US). Factually innacuracy aside, is your issue the 7hr flight, or is it that you are suggesting there's something more sinister at play?

I totally agree that officials may not be in the best shape to referee/VAR two days after a 7hr flight, which is absolutely an issue and one that needs to be looked at. To suggest that the location is an issue in itself is something very different.

Would that be Sheik Mansour the deputy prime minister and Vice president of the UAE and a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi?
I am not suggesting for one moment that I know referees are coming back with suitcases full of cash, but the link is being questioned by serious football journalists. Again, something for a proper independent review to address.