Absolutely not excessive force, but the law is excessive force OR endangering. There can't be any question that it endangered the opponent, so as law is written it has to be a red.
TOT v LIV
- Thread starter GraemeS
- Start date
- Status
Really? Liverpool had gone down to 10 men and scored a perfectly good goal, which would have changed the dynamics of the game completely. Klopp was very magnanimous after the game, and the club however has every right to hear the full story of what happened, especially as a lot of the officials had only arrived from a 7hr plane trip on Friday. So far we are only going on what Dale Johnson is stating, as I don't think anyone else has confirmed what has happened. What part of that response from the club showed any sense of a lack of class or 'respect for the game'?
Liverpool haven't asked for a reply, they just want the full facts of what happened. Think that is a very reasonable response after such a calamitous error
David F
Member
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.
I didn't say they had, but a lot of their fans, and some pundits, are demanding it.
Fair point,
The club has made a formal request to PGMOL to receive the match officials’ audio from the game. So if Howard Webb thinks there is nothing to hide, just release it, and let's move on, if the explanation matches what has been said. As Klopp said after the game, people make mistakes
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.
R
Runner-Ref
Guest
Correct. And then they’d be demanding VAR.
After a game or 2 over the weekend, WSL clubs have been asking for VAR.
People want VAR when it suits, but then don’t want it when it suits.
As I’ve said previously in the chain, it’s a really poor decision by the AR initially. At their level, that’s a long way onside. Then VAR has made it 100x worse due to either poor communication or lack of concentration.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's nearly exactly what I said. What I am saying is that I think this one is more open to subjectivity of the on field referee and does not require a VAR intervention.
I'll say again, as referees, of course this is a red cards but I'd say that apart from referees, the percentage of those supporting a red card here is very low.
That tells me somewhere something isn't right, be that education of football, or as rugby have done allowing some mitigating factors or whatever else we can think of to align views.
For anyone else that wants to quote me to tell me this is a red card, for the last time.... I AGREE!
R
Runner-Ref
Guest
I agree that non-referees here will say it’s not a red- but on the flip side, I’d say this is a fairly British thing. If this challenge happened abroad, I don’t think anyone would bat an eyelid at the red.That's nearly exactly what I said. What I am saying is that I think this one is more open to subjectivity of the on field referee and does not require a VAR intervention.
I'll say again, as referees, of course this is a red cards but I'd say that apart from referees, the percentage of those supporting a red card here is very low.
That tells me somewhere something isn't right, be that education of football, or as rugby have done allowing some mitigating factors or whatever else we can think of to align views.
For anyone else that wants to quote me to tell me this is a red card, for the last time.... I AGREE!
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.skysports.com/football/...erpool-demand-thorough-and-transparent-review
Interesting
“Sky Sports News understands the club do not want to single out an official and have taken umbrage with PGMOL's framing of events as "a significant human error", which unfairly pits an entire breakdown in the application of the Laws of the Game solely on the VAR for the match, Darren England
Liverpool want a thorough examination of the process and a terms of reference for the review. This would range from the appointment of the refereeing team - given three of them had worked in the United Arab Emirates 48 hours before the game, prompting questions of workload, fatigue and the quality of preparation”
A demand for the game to be replayed was not mentioned or hinted at in their communique”
Interesting
“Sky Sports News understands the club do not want to single out an official and have taken umbrage with PGMOL's framing of events as "a significant human error", which unfairly pits an entire breakdown in the application of the Laws of the Game solely on the VAR for the match, Darren England
Liverpool want a thorough examination of the process and a terms of reference for the review. This would range from the appointment of the refereeing team - given three of them had worked in the United Arab Emirates 48 hours before the game, prompting questions of workload, fatigue and the quality of preparation”
A demand for the game to be replayed was not mentioned or hinted at in their communique”
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 sporting integrity being undermined.”
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
If the yellow came from the VAR, it would be an egregious breach of protocols. But if the VAR recommended an on field review for a red, the R could reject the red, but give a yellow based on what he saw in the review.
Curtis Jones...Red card all day long. Anybody that's played the game would know that he's "gone over the ball". ie a tackle that's so high it catches the top of the ball, but they know full well the follow through will leave the studs high.
The VAR decison is ridiculous. I'd like to see a wider image showing when the ball was kicked. Either way, Liverpool deserve an explanation...aswell as many other teams that have deserved one this season.
The VAR decison is ridiculous. I'd like to see a wider image showing when the ball was kicked. Either way, Liverpool deserve an explanation...aswell as many other teams that have deserved one this season.
I know that you know it is a red, the point I was trying to make is it was so much of a red it was a very clear and obvious error. If Hooper had seen it from the angle that he eventually got to look at he would have certainly have gone red, and I would guess that was part of his discussion with VAR.That's nearly exactly what I said. What I am saying is that I think this one is more open to subjectivity of the on field referee and does not require a VAR intervention.
I'll say again, as referees, of course this is a red cards but I'd say that apart from referees, the percentage of those supporting a red card here is very low.
That tells me somewhere something isn't right, be that education of football, or as rugby have done allowing some mitigating factors or whatever else we can think of to align views.
For anyone else that wants to quote me to tell me this is a red card, for the last time.... I AGREE!
Totally agree, in Europe an eyelid isn't even lifted at that being a red card.
I agree; it's such a regular state of affairs that punditry and common perceptions are out of alignment with referees' application of the laws that it is accepted. But it has a whole host of negative consequences, as we have seen. Frustration and bewilderment are arguably major causes of abuse. Communication of course helps. However, I would argue that referees and clubs need to work together to educate coaches, parents and players from a younger age, almost quoting and teaching the laws (repeating 'excessive force' every time to add credibility) as decisions are awarded. Eventually this will filter through to media and the average fan. I don't think this has happened in time for the millennial generation, who will soon inherit many public spaces in football--they are probably closer to law as applied than their elders, but it's still not coming from knowledge of the laws themselves--but it would be invaluable for current U18s.That's nearly exactly what I said. What I am saying is that I think this one is more open to subjectivity of the on field referee and does not require a VAR intervention.
I'll say again, as referees, of course this is a red cards but I'd say that apart from referees, the percentage of those supporting a red card here is very low.
That tells me somewhere something isn't right, be that education of football, or as rugby have done allowing some mitigating factors or whatever else we can think of to align views.
For anyone else that wants to quote me to tell me this is a red card, for the last time.... I AGREE!
Last edited:
I suppose if you could prove that the current operators are lacking in ability and professionalism, which I doubt, you would still need to recruit and train new officials. Until then VAR only adds another layer of media intrigue, confusion for spectators and perceived injustice from players. All this, which VAR was intended to combat, existed in a healthier way before VAR. I would argue that people actually did tolerate inaccuracy on a weekly basis without VAR and certainly did not use terms like 'existential crisis'. Now we have more focus on errors and more antagonism.
We have laws that are written with interpretation in mind, which are brushing up with friction against a VAR mentality of black and white.
Thus, put in place a fully reliable and efficient system or return to a game for 4 officials to manage as capably as possible.
Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen, so we are left with a game falling into disrepute due to a flawed search for officiating perfection.
one
RefChat Addict
Not reviewing would have been bad but this would be worse, on multiple levels. For starters I don't think a sanction was decided on on field before a review. Yes we can argue it was decided on no sanction but I doubt it was the case. Second, if a review is recommended for a clear red then 'negotiating' a sanction without an onfield review will be, at best, a very poor application of the VAR protocol.
Tierney either saw it or didn't. If he saw it how can he decide stamping on the back of someone's calf is no sanction at all? If he didn't see it, if VAR says clear red, how can he 'negotiate' it down to a yellow without even seeing it on screen?
Don't shoot the messenger. He took an age to show the second yellow, and the TV commentators said there there was a VAR review ongoing. So it can only look like that VAR reviewed it, decided no SFP but told Tierney it was a clear caution. Let's not forget that England have a bit of history for not following VAR protocol.
- Status