The Ref Stop

VAR England v Italy

The Ref Stop
Don't agree guys, with the benefit of replays that is a clear penalty and even Tarkowski accepted he trod on his foot. Remember there is no requirement for intent, and therefore he clearly tripped him.

The only complaint I would have is why Atkeyin had to go and look at the monitor, it was obvious so he should have gone on the advice of his VAR.
 
That was never a penalty - VAR or not.
He knocked the ball out, tried running between players, stuck his foot out a little and got trod on.
If that's the case there should be many penalties every game.
He gave us sod all in that match, especially in the 2nd half.
This VAR system is rubbish.

I think the caution for Young was a bit dramatic. Oxlade-Chamberlain deserved his. But their guy done the same on an offside decision after the penalty. Their guy hacked at sterling twice in the lead up to our goal. No caution. Wasn't first time they hacked at us. Not a single caution all game for them.
He was bad.
And I don't like criticising referees.
 
I thought the decision for allowing England's goal was interesting. The quick free kick, was clearly not where the foul was committed. But if there was a VAR check, it only seemed to be whether the ball was moving or not.
Any thoughts?
 
Hi
This is the debate that I had on another topic Barca v Chelsea. It was argued that it could only be used on clear errors. The VaR handbook says that Video technology will only be used to correct clear errors and for missed serious incidents in defined match-changing decisions:goal, penalty / no penalty, direct red card and mistaken identity(e.g.the referee cautions/sends off the wrong player).
So the referee was entitled to use VAR for a missed serious incident as he did and as the player trod on the opponents it was a careless foul and a penalty kick.
 
This is where I get confused and frustrated. People have complained for years about mistakes by referees so VAR has been brought in. Whilst there is an argument to question whether not giving a penalty here was an obvious error, there cannot be any argument in my mind that it was a foul, even Tarkowski is accepting of that. Would it have been given in a game without VAR? No. Is it in the soft category? Yes.

But this will happen with VAR. All they can look at is did Tarkowski trip the forward and the only possible answer is yes he did. He didn't mean to trip him, but that is irrelevant, he tripped him no matter how accidental it was. Without VAR referees may well take the "safe option" for minor fouls in the box, that goes away with VAR as it isn't soft or hard, and rather it is black or white. Did he trip him or didn't he is all they can look at.
 
Goldfish said:
Hi
This is the debate that I had on another topic Barca v Chelsea. It was argued that it could only be used on clear errors. The VaR handbook says that Video technology will only be used to correct clear errors and for missed serious incidents in defined match-changing decisions:goal, penalty / no penalty, direct red card and mistaken identity(e.g.the referee cautions/sends off the wrong player).
So the referee was entitled to use VAR for a missed serious incident as he did and as the player trod on the opponents it was a careless foul and a penalty kick.
Click to expand...
Was it missed?
Define missed.

If you watch the replays, he had a clear unobstructed view of the challenge and gave a corner. This to me suggests he did not miss anything.
And how was it careless? The Italian moved his foot into an unnatural position (by this I mean it wasn't in his natural stride) and Tarkowski, who never changed his direction at all or even motioned to block his run, accidently trod on the foot.
 
RustyRef said:
This is where I get confused and frustrated. People have complained for years about mistakes by referees so VAR has been brought in. Whilst there is an argument to question whether not giving a penalty here was an obvious error, there cannot be any argument in my mind that it was a foul, even Tarkowski is accepting of that. Would it have been given in a game without VAR? No. Is it in the soft category? Yes.

But this will happen with VAR. All they can look at is did Tarkowski trip the forward and the only possible answer is yes he did. He didn't mean to trip him, but that is irrelevant, he tripped him no matter how accidental it was. Without VAR referees may well take the "safe option" for minor fouls in the box, that goes away with VAR as it isn't soft or hard, and rather it is black or white. Did he trip him or didn't he is all they can look at.
Click to expand...

But then any contact is going to be deemed a foul then. In my opinion he didn't trip him. The Italian certain made a meal of it. But Tarkowski never tripped him.
Tarkowski never complains about decisions. He has always accepted whatever the ref gives.
 
Still disagree that is a foul, no trip, accidental foot on foot......if that's a foul then I've been 'sassaulted' by a player several times in my career..........
 
I think some of you are stuck on laws from ten years ago. These days intent is absolutely, 100%, irrelevant, if you stand on someone's foot you have tripped them. The offending player isn't complaining, the pundits are agreeing with the decision, this really isn't a difficult decision. The referee didn't see it real time as he was looking through a lot of legs. He took just one view of the pitch side monitor and immediately walked away signalling penalty, that's how easy a decision it was. No delays, no watching the same decision for or five times, he made his decision within seconds.

We can't have it both ways. I'm still not sure how agreed I am on VAR, but it is now here. This means that penalty decisions will go from not getting given due to being on the soft side, to getting given because if it gets to the VAR they can only look at black and white. And looking at black and white here it is absolutely a foul, no matter how soft.
 
Maybe we should teach our guys (Alli is a good teacher) to throw themselves at defenders and get a penalty each and every time as contact was made and therefore must be a foul.
 
RustyRef said:
The referee didn't see it real time as he was looking through a lot of legs.
Click to expand...

That would have been one hell of a spot if he did tbf. :)

I just saw it, can't really argue with that. Doubt I'd have seen it on the field in real time myself though. ;_;
 
Ashleigh Goodall said:
Maybe we should teach our guys (Alli is a good teacher) to throw themselves at defenders and get a penalty each and every time as contact was made and therefore must be a foul.
Click to expand...

He didn't throw himself at anyone or any body. Tarkowski stood on his foot, it was a clear foul.
 
For me this is a clear foul and therefore a clear error by the referee. Although I am now doubting the 'clear' part due to some opinions here but I am putting that on being a UK based forum and a pen against England... :p

There is no way the referee has missed this under the definition of VAR guidelines . If the VAR considers this a missed foul then he can review any KMI as a missed foul. Why do we need the 'clear' error/wrong criteria for? which is mnetioed in the guidelines over 50 times.
 
Last edited:
The middle letter of VAR is important. Like a NAR, they are there to assist, not insist. Not having seen the game (tried watching, very boring, no atmosphere), I would assume that when this happened the VAR quickly reviewed, and then got on the comms to the ref asking whether he had seen the boot on foot. Here, the ref can either reply that he did, and decided no offence, or no, he hadn't seen it - and then goes to review. I can't envisage this as the VAR screaming down the comms to the ref "Penalty! PENALTY!". So whilst there may be debate about whether it was a missed incident or not, it should be largely irrelevant, as the ref should be given the information from all his assistants to help him make an informed - and correct - decision.

PS/ Declaration of interest - I don't think we should have VARs, so it feels strange arguing the positive side of them above.
 
VAR has a full 360 degree view, denied to the on-field referee.

On the reverse angle the foul is clear. I'm in a similar position to the referee on my next game. Do I see the challenge being made? Yes. Can I give it as a penalty? No. Direction the ball travels and the challenge being made says corner to my mind. I give it as such.

If I am 180 degrees further around to that position I have the chance to see the trip. All of a sudden my view changes, and so does my decision.

Treading on his foot whilst they're running is always going to trip him. Heck, even stepping on your own bootlace whilst running is enough to make you stumble!

And as for the vitriol being poured forth by some, let me point out that if that was an Italian defender, and and English attacker the applause for the penalty award would be deafening.

On a couple of other points:

Ashley Young caution - I suggest persistent infringement. Not the worst of the lot (that was by the other corner flag) and irrespective of "skimming the top of the ball" *from Glenn Hoddle on commentary* it didn't look clever and I half expected a red.

The penalty call leading to Ali et al throwing themselves around - If anything it'll catch them out. A hip bump will likely be ruled out and a deliberate attempt to engineer a foul by charging the defender then turf-munching I would also expect to see spotted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top