The Ref Stop

United spurs.

For those who haven't seen/heard the Mic'd Up footage

https://twitter.com/x/status/1843953868989686150

Mentioned earlier in the thread about AR2 and how he was very agitated with the flag. The feedback he gives Kavanagh back up what I thought at the time and the influence he had in the decision.

VAR's got to recommend an On Field review though.
 
The Ref Stop
JA1989 said:
For those who haven't seen/heard the Mic'd Up footage

https://twitter.com/x/status/1843953868989686150

Mentioned earlier in the thread about AR2 and how he was very agitated with the flag. The feedback he gives Kavanagh back up what I thought at the time and the influence he had in the decision.

VAR's got to recommend an On Field review though.
Click to expand...
Boring innit?
VAR guilty of a judgment error regarding C&O or 'Ref's Call' instead of Ref making a judgment error regarding whether it was SFP
May as well copy this notion to a permanent clipboard so I can paste it into another thread next week and every week thereafter

Will it ever improve? Probably not. It is football after all, a game bound by an amateurish pamphlet they arrogantly call 'Law', a book that in no way is apt for both the 'beautiful game' and the forensic interrogation now required
If it does improve, we're talking small gains. Subjectivity merely takes on a different flavour

I couldn't watch that mic'ed up program. It would discourage me from being a referee
 
See this high bar nonsense is getting in the way of refereeing in terms of the laws of the game.

Does the tackle endanger the safety of the opponent? Not a chance when you look at the replays, it was with the side of the boot which will cause no danger to injury at all so in law it's reckless and should just be a yellow card. I certainly don't believe just because it "could" endanger the safety it should justify a red card, it really is the case of whether it's SFP or not, there should be no ambiguity here. I get there may be a bit more ambiguity when it comes to borderline yellow card tackles which could be a red but when a red card can really alter a game, it has to be more black and white whether the referee made the right decision or not.
 
Paul_10 said:
See this high bar nonsense is getting in the way of refereeing in terms of the laws of the game.

Does the tackle endanger the safety of the opponent? Not a chance when you look at the replays, it was with the side of the boot which will cause no danger to injury at all so in law it's reckless and should just be a yellow card. I certainly don't believe just because it "could" endanger the safety it should justify a red card, it really is the case of whether it's SFP or not, there should be no ambiguity here. I get there may be a bit more ambiguity when it comes to borderline yellow card tackles which could be a red but when a red card can really alter a game, it has to be more black and white whether the referee made the right decision or not.
Click to expand...
Having a high bar doesn't get in the way of the laws of the game. This is an error, as admitted by Howard Webb, where despite the higher bar, the referee should have been recommended a review.

You can't just have a scenario where a VAR is instructed to tell the referee to review it any time he thinks he would have awarded it differently, there has to be some threshold for when to get involved.
 
RefereeX said:
Having a high bar doesn't get in the way of the laws of the game. This is an error, as admitted by Howard Webb, where despite the higher bar, the referee should have been recommended a review.

You can't just have a scenario where a VAR is instructed to tell the referee to review it any time he thinks he would have awarded it differently, there has to be some threshold for when to get involved.
Click to expand...

Why not? If the pictures show it should be a different decision then you should get involved. At the end of the day, the referee can keep his original decision so it's not re-refereeing.

I accept some sort of threshold when it comes to a yellow card challenge which could be a red because a person's definition of reckless will no doubt vary but when it's a straight red then surely it's more straightforward whether it's SFP or not?
 
Paul_10 said:
Listening to the audio on the referee's mic'd up programme and I don't think it reflects well on the VAR unfortunately. Peter Bankes acknowledges it was not a tackle with studs, he questions whether it rakes down the leg but doesn't answer his own question and references that it's deliberate and then quickly went with the "refs call" terminology. I mean it just feels like he went with the safe option and just backed the referee and gave no opinion whether it's an error or not.
Click to expand...
I agree the VAR & AVAR have not used any expected language, “support the decision because it was endangering safety of an opponent or excessive force”. The AVAR should have challenged VAR, muttering “yeah, yeah” is hardly any benefit, should have used a checklist for SFP.

‘Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.’
 
DJIC said:
The AVAR should have challenged VAR, muttering “yeah, yeah” is hardly any benefit, should have used a checklist for SFP.
Click to expand...
this is what disappoints me the most about VAR and hearing the audio

AVAR comes across as a yes man all the time.
 
es1 said:
this is what disappoints me the most about VAR and hearing the audio

AVAR comes across as a yes man all the time.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t mean to say he/she is wrong or that there is a clear & obvious error. Surely they need to be mindful/certain of going against their colleagues initial decisions, though as we know, when there has been a goal scored from a potential offside the AR raises their flag vertically without indicating the position of the ball, so does get checked as a matter of course and I only think that the AR will want the correct outcome whatever that is.
.
 
David G said:
Doesn’t mean to say he/she is wrong or that there is a clear & obvious error. Surely they need to be mindful/certain of going against their colleagues initial decisions, though as we know, when there has been a goal scored from a potential offside the AR raises their flag vertically without indicating the position of the ball, so does get checked as a matter of course and I only think that the AR will want the correct outcome whatever that is.
.
Click to expand...

no, but there should be more discussion, more back and forth.

the ref is the leader of the discussion, that's fine and it has to be that way, but there has to be more of a challenge to the thought process and the outcome from AVAR. this weeks mic'd up demonstrates this.
 
FGS.... when will folk get it in their heads that right and wrong are not always clear ( apart from when I say it is ;) )
Clear and Obvious is never binary
One person's 'supportable' will not always marry with another's viewpoint
VAR will always be mixed up in grey areas. Controversy will happen every week

This notion that VAR can work in this respect of subjectivity is nuts, regardless of how high or low the bar is
I don't even think it's right for Howard Webb to get allured by the temptation to declare intervention or non-intervention as definitively right or wrong. It's a very nuanced and subjective sport with unclear rules and interpretations that vary depending on a host of factors. Anyone who thinks VAR can quell this type of discussion (from happening every week) is completely deluded
 
Last edited:
Big Cat said:
FGS.... when will folk get it in their heads that right and wrong are not always clear ( apart from when I say it is ;) )
Clear and Obvious is never binary
One person's 'supportable' will not always marry with another's viewpoint
VAR will always be mixed up in grey areas. Controversy will happen every week

This notion that VAR can work in this respect of subjectivity is nuts, regardless of how high or low the bar is
I don't even think it's right for Howard Webb to get allured by the temptation to declare intervention or non-intervention as definitively right or wrong. It's a very nuanced and subjective sport with unclear rules and interpretations that vary depending on a host of factors. Anyone who thinks VAR can quell this type of discussion (from happening every week) is completely deluded
Click to expand...
Completely agree, said pretty much the same in a different topic. The only way they will remove subjectivity is to say that VAR can only get involved when the clanger is so obvious everyone knows it was wrong, there wouldn't be a single person saying it was correct. Gets trotted out as an example all the time, but things like the Thierry Henry handball versus Ireland, not a single person would say that was a correct decision, not even France fans. It would mean that, offside decisions aside, there would probably be less than 5 pitch side reviews a season, but I think that was the original intention and it has somehow morphed into something else.
 
es1 said:
no, but there should be more discussion, more back and forth.
Click to expand...
A zoom meeting perhaps? 😜 And maybe a few back and forth emails to IFAB? 🤣

But seriously, there is no winning in this. More discussions means more delays and we will be here saying it took x minutes and y seconds to make a decision. If it's going to take a discussion to decide an outcome then it's is not a clear and obvious error.
 
The other question I would have is does anyone think Webb would have come out and said that VAR should have intervened if the disciplinary panel / and or the independent KMD panel had come out and said the decision was correct? One thing me saying I still think it was a red card, or at least not wrong enough for a VAR review, but a whole lot different for the head of PGMOL to say that when two independent panels have come out and said the decision was wrong. He'd be pilloried in the press and it would be seriously career damaging.
 
one said:
A zoom meeting perhaps? 😜 And maybe a few back and forth emails to IFAB? 🤣

But seriously, there is no winning in this. More discussions means more delays and we will be here saying it took x minutes and y seconds to make a decision. If it's going to take a discussion to decide an outcome then it's is not a clear and obvious error.
Click to expand...
Literally anything.

Why can't we want to do better? Avar needs to be empowered to speak up and challenge the ref. Its more important to get it right rather than rush it through and get it wrong. Both the palace/Liverpool and United/spurs examples could have been handled better.

I get the response will be 'yes' more often than not, and these scenarios might have still ended with the same outcome, but there has to be better involvement.
 
es1 said:
Literally anything.

Why can't we want to do better? Avar needs to be empowered to speak up and challenge the ref. Its more important to get it right rather than rush it through and get it wrong. Both the palace/Liverpool and United/spurs examples could have been handled better.

I get the response will be 'yes' more often than not, and these scenarios might have still ended with the same outcome, but there has to be better involvement.
Click to expand...
In this instance we can say that it’s important to get it right rather than rush it. But when they have taken their time in previous years they have been criticised for the amount of time it takes.

If people want VAR, they have to accept there will be faults with it. Can it improve? Of course it can. Will it ever be some perfect system that people seem to think of? No chance.
 
one said:
A zoom meeting perhaps? 😜 And maybe a few back and forth emails to IFAB? 🤣

But seriously, there is no winning in this. More discussions means more delays and we will be here saying it took x minutes and y seconds to make a decision. If it's going to take a discussion to decide an outcome then it's is not a clear and obvious error.
Click to expand...
I would think a checklist on a piece of card would help, in a pressure situation to use the correct laws terminology. I.e. it was forceful &/or it endangers the opponent.

Likewise on a DOGSO, reconfirm DDDC.

As an aside the Fulham penalty, HW confirmed it was a careless foul so VAR was correct to intervene, but Forest player was carded for being reckless. 🤔
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
DJIC said:
I would think a checklist on a piece of card would help, in a pressure situation to use the correct laws terminology. I.e. it was forceful &/or it endangers the opponent.

Likewise on a DOGSO, reconfirm DDDC.

As an aside the Fulham penalty, HW confirmed it was a careless foul so VAR was correct to intervene, but Forest player was carded for being reckless. 🤔
Click to expand...
Surely SG officials don’t need a checklist to decide whether something is SFP, DOGSO etc. After all, they don’t get that luxury when on the pitch.

One improvement I think they could do is for VAR to ask the onfield officials what they have seen, or what they think they have seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top