Villa v Blades


Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
Am 100% he knew it was in, Yet cos his watch never beeped, he abandoned what he saw
Course only he will know, and maybe in times to come we will get his version

You are stirring the pot. There is absolutely no way you can know that for sure. Based on the comments on this thread, I'd say you are in the vast minority on this.

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Whilst out running a ridiculous thought came into my head.
Am not shy so here goes..

we all know a dive in the box is, simulation, is, attempts to deceive the referee.

Has the Villa gk committed an offence by deceiving the referee?
You might say straight away, but its up to us to spot the balls over the line

its also of course up to us to spot the dive.......

the referee team have been deceived. They thought the gk had the ball the right side of the line....

So, were your running between pubs? :D No way can you fault a GK for not acting like a goal was scored. Far different form a dive.

I think we all agree this is an awful miss, especially with the available technology.

But I still don't think we have enough information to place blame--we don't know (at least I haven't seen) what the actual PL instructions are to ARs and VARs about goal line events involving GLT. As the powers that be want everyone to believe it is reliable, I wouldn't be surprised if ARs are instructed to rely on it unless obvious. And while this seems to be discernible, I don't think the views I've seen (especially considering the AR has traffic there) make it obvious. It would be nice if the powers that be would say what the actual expectations of the field team and the VAR were. (I haven't seen the details, but I heard that Clattenberg made comments that the VAR should have looked at it--if that is the actual expectation, it's a huge VAR miss. But I haven't seen anything that actually spells out what the VARs are told to do.)

If the powers that be didn't expect the AR or VAR to be involved on this, we can imagine those instructions have already changed--at least to the VARs.

This does seem to me an overconfidence in technology--either in the instructions or the execution. On one hand, that confidence seems reasonable--how many games have been played with GLT? As far as I know, this is the first failure of this kind. But games played is really irrelevant in understanding real world accuracy--that s about close decisions. Someone mentioned 9,000 games above. That sounds good. But how often do we actually have key GLT decisions that are within a few centimetres? I'd love to see data on how many decisions there have been, say, within 50 mm either way--that's the true reliability Q. Are those 1 per 100 games? If so, we don't have 9000 games, we have 90 events. That's still (apparently) almost 99%, but not enough to take VAR out of the picture.


Level 7 Referee
Numerous times over the last 7 years we have seen goals given that were millimetres over the line. There’s no way the officials knew for definite that those goals had crossed the line - however the technology said it had, it was trusted, and ultimately was right. Surely those goals shouldn’t have been given? (As the officials shouldn’t rely on the technology)

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
Level 7 Referee
We’ve been shown computer generated images for years and 100% accepted they are real and accurate. Are they, I’m not really sure now?