A&H

Tottenham v Sheffield United

ladbroke8745

RefChat Addict
Challenge by Fleck on Lo Celso, accidental or should Bankes have suggested Marriner to have a look?

Personally I think it should be a combination of both. I do think it may have been accidental but I think Marriner should have been the one to decide that.
 
The Referee Store
Red for me

Perhaps a failing of the VAR procedure as I'm sure marriner would appreciate a 2nd look
Thats what I was thinking though.
Give him the courtesy to decide whether he thinks it's accidental or not.
I can see why they may think accidental, but it seemed a quick look and to not get the main man's opinion is, in my opinion, criminal.
 
I agree - this is where being able to see it again adds value.

As for Fleck, he knows what he’s doing here.
 
Look at it in real time, before he has even fully carried out the damage Fleck is looking over in the direction of the referee. I have no doubt whatsoever that this was an intentional act.
 
Look at it in real time, before he has even fully carried out the damage Fleck is looking over in the direction of the referee. I have no doubt whatsoever that this was an intentional act.
Think the commentators alluded to this when they had another look at the video after it was ruled no action taken.
 
What minute is this? Haven't seen it.

Just on the terminology convention though, accidental contact can still be a foul and red card. A foul does not have to be deliberate. The term used for contact which is not a foul and accepted as part of football is "incidental".
 
Personally I think it should be a combination of both. I do think it may have been accidental but I think Marriner should have been the one to decide that.
The VAR can only recommend that Mariner take a second look if VAR believes it was a clear error not to give red. It was never intended as a way for refs to get a second look at every close call involving a send off.

i”m not convinced from this clip that it was a clear error not to give red; but I absolutely would not have thought there should be an OFR if red was given on the field.
 
Fleck is looking right at him just before and leading up to the stumping. Also took a short step (while running) to make sure the foot lands where he wants it to. A natural step motion here would have had the front foot straight and not bent at the knee. And it would have landed much further in front. He knew exactly what he was doing. Dirty dirty play.

The problem here is if the referee sends him off, a 3 man Pannel with two non-referees will rescind it. So the referee is protecting his reputation here. Well sort of.

Screenshot_20210503-175352__01.jpg
 
Last edited:
Fleck is looking right at him just before and leading up to the stumping. Also took a short step (while running) to make sure the foot lands where he wants it to. A natural step motion here would have had the front foot straight and not bent at the knee. And it would have landed much further in front. He knew exactly what he was doing. Dirty dirty play.

The problem here is if the referee sends him off, a 3 man Pannel with two non-referees will rescind it. So the referee is protecting his reputation here. Well sort of.

View attachment 4937
The 3-man panel tends to make better calls than the Refereeing team IMO
I don't think they would've rescinded this
I'm satisfied this was cowardly VC beyond any 'reasonable doubt. It not a step, it's a stamp. To make matters worse, he can't be charged retrospectively because the VAR has analysed it and made another balls-up
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
That just shows everything is stacked up against referee decisions. It's beyond me that:

- Two referees make a decision to send a player off with reviews and all, but a panel can reverse it.
- However if they make a decision not to send a player off (no replays for the main ref) no panel can reverse it.

So, referees can make mistakes sending players off but can't make mistakes keeping them on the field.
 
That just shows everything is stacked up against referee decisions. It's beyond me that:

- Two referees make a decision to send a player off with reviews and all, but a panel can reverse it.
- However if they make a decision not to send a player off (no replays for the main ref) no panel can reverse it.

So, referees can make mistakes sending players off but can't make mistakes keeping them on the field.
Arguably, with VAR, the panel shouldn't exist. But like I say, the panel does seem to reach better decisions when they're allowed to do so
 
I wonder after last week incident whether Peter Bankes went for the safe option and not recommended a review because we can't be 100% sure he meant it. Unless it's totally obvious, no one can say for sure he meant it therefore no red card.
 
I wonder after last week incident whether Peter Bankes went for the safe option and not recommended a review because we can't be 100% sure he meant it. Unless it's totally obvious, no one can say for sure he meant it therefore no red card.

That would seem to be the only explanation. If the VAR had felt it was C&E that it was an intentional stomp, he would absolutely have sent down.

I confess it wasn't C&E to me--I can easily see myself tangled up with someone with and ending up with that kind of landing while trying to escape without stepping on him. But then, I'm not a professional athlete.
 
That just shows everything is stacked up against referee decisions. It's beyond me that:

- Two referees make a decision to send a player off with reviews and all, but a panel can reverse it.
- However if they make a decision not to send a player off (no replays for the main ref) no panel can reverse it.

So, referees can make mistakes sending players off but can't make mistakes keeping them on the field.
Well, that is one way to reduce those nasty suspensions that keep stars off the field and make those folks paying the big TV bucks unhappy . . .
 
Back
Top