The Ref Stop

West Ham v Chelsea

The Ref Stop
DJIC said:
Excellent advantage four Chelsea 3rd goal, & back for the caution, textbook.

His fitness & workrate exceptional.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxvPTOHrSo1OiFbJO-WIKZ88uPQaPcsK0h?si=hgLFBeUTjSSiymmZ

Should VAR have intervened for the pull back?
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxPmn6L2f9yMxN4EVvLkn7oJT6OstO_nNs?si=XRIKg-Xf0h7GSFxd
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxPmn6L2f9yMxN4EVvLkn7oJT6OstO_nNs?si=XRIKg-Xf0h7GSFxd
Click to expand...
I knew you it was going to be Sam Barrott when you posted about fitness and work rate.
CaptainsPlease said:
Yes I think that is a C&O error not to penalise the pull back/holding and VAR should have intervened.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think it is just about on the edge of being a foul... But the holding isn't really sustained. It's in the PA so we've got the higher threshold for contact and we have to be sure the opponents movement is impeded. I think that the way the attacker goes down having seemingly not being impeded makes the referee think about the motivation of the attacker and ultimately this is not a VAR intervention for me this is an referees call situation
 
JamesL said:
I disagree. I think it is just about on the edge of being a foul... But the holding isn't really sustained. It's in the PA so we've got the higher threshold for contact and we have to be sure the opponents movement is impeded. I think that the way the attacker goes down having seemingly not being impeded makes the referee think about the motivation of the attacker and ultimately this is not a VAR intervention for me this is an referees call situation
Click to expand...
Law does not require any higher threshold for penalising contact in the PA or for holding to be 'sustained'. The video evidence clearly shows there is holding and the attacker's movement is momentarily impeded. The intention is also there to help the covering defender reach the ball before the attacker. It's a cynical action.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Law does not require any higher threshold for contact in the PA or for holding to be 'sustained'. The video evidence clearly shows there is holding and the attacker's movement is momentarily impeded. The intention is also there to help the covering defender reach the ball before the attacker. It's a cynical action.
Click to expand...
There is law and then there is how it should be applied. This is the case in all walks of life, which is why we have case law.
Ultimately, the FA and PGMOL and UEFA are saying that there is a higher threshold for contact in the penalty area. You can give this on a Sunday morning/Saturday afternoon and it is fine, i would support you but in the context of a game in the premier league it is not a reviewable incident.
 
JamesL said:
There is law and then there is how it should be applied. This is the case in all walks of life, which is why we have case law.
Ultimately, the FA and PGMOL and UEFA are saying that there is a higher threshold for contact in the penalty area. You can give this on a Sunday morning/Saturday afternoon and it is fine, i would support you but in the context of a game in the premier league it is not a reviewable incident.
Click to expand...
Sure as long as we are clear on a forum mainly read by grassroots refs that according to Law this should be a foul but the directives in the professional game may be causing a difference in application for incidents like this.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Sure as long as we are clear on a forum mainly read by grassroots refs that according to Law this should be a foul but the directives in the professional game may be causing a difference in application for incidents like this.
Click to expand...
Hmm I haven’t seen the clip.
It’s natural and “what football expects” that our foul tolerance will vary according to context, and that can mean position on the field, including the penalty area.

IMHO a higher bar for penalties has always existed in football. The advent of VAR meant there were some trifling contact “fouls” given as penalties that football did not expect. (There was still one early on Sunday for Forest though!)

IMHO surprisingly common sense for the prem/pgmol to articulate on this.
 
santa sangria said:
Hmm I haven’t seen the clip.
It’s natural and “what football expects” that our foul tolerance will vary according to context, and that can mean position on the field, including the penalty area.

IMHO a higher bar for penalties has always existed in football. The advent of VAR meant there were some trifling contact “fouls” given as penalties that football did not expect. (There was still one early on Sunday for Forest though!)

IMHO surprisingly common sense for the prem/pgmol to articulate on this.
Click to expand...
Holding offences are much less subjective decisions than other typical fouls so tolerance is less of a factor.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Sure as long as we are clear on a forum mainly read by grassroots refs that according to Law this should be a foul but the directives in the professional game may be causing a difference in application for incidents like this.
Click to expand...
Well no that still isn't clear. A holding offence has to impede the movement of the opponent and I still think that's a debatable aspect of this clip. Basically it is still subjective and either decision is not clearly and obviously wrong.
There isn't anything in law that says this has to be a foul.
 
JamesL said:
Well no that still isn't clear. A holding offence has to impede the movement of the opponent and I still think that's a debatable aspect of this clip. Basically it is still subjective and either decision is not clearly and obviously wrong.
There isn't anything in law that says this has to be a foul.
Click to expand...
OK, to go into the minutiae of this you can see in the footage that the defender is holding onto the attackers arm as it is fully extended, so the attacker is unable to move away from the defender. Therefore Law says this is a foul.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
OK, to go into the minutiae of this you can see in the footage that the defender is holding onto the attackers arm as it is fully extended, so the attacker is unable to move away from the defender. Therefore Law says this is a foul.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. It is subjective. Law says it is in the opinion of the referee who makes decisions within the spirit and framework of the laws.
This is not an objective decision. It might be for you, personally, but it is not a fact.
 
JamesL said:
No it doesn't. It is subjective. Law says it is in the opinion of the referee who makes decisions within the spirit and framework of the laws.
This is not an objective decision. It might be for you, personally, but it is not a fact.
Click to expand...
You have partially quoted that passage from Law 5 which also states 'Decisions will be made to the best of the referee’s ability according to the Laws of the Game'. Opinion of the referee is about what we have seen, not adding arbitrary criteria on top of whatever Law requires.

It is rather stretching to call this subjective when video footage confirms there is holding with the attacker being unable to move away from the defender due to the hold. That objectively meets the definition for holding offences stated in Law.
 
Decisions will be made to the best of the referee’s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game.

I think the parts I pulled out more accurately convey the whole meaning of that section but for accuracy sake we'll copy and paste the whole lot.

Ultimately it is down to the referee to decide (his opinion/discretion) whether the holding was sufficient enough to impede the opponents movement. This isn't objective because there are factors to consider. Just because you see a player holding another player, does not automatically mean, objectively, a holding offence occurred. It is still down to the referee to make that decision about whether the holding impedes the movement of the opponent.

Again, at grassroots, either call here is fine because if the referee says in my opinion the holding did not impede the attackers movement then I can support that. Conversely, I'd also support the awarding of a penalty kick if in the opinion of the referee he feels that the holding does.

I'm not debating your opinion, if you think it's a foul, crack on. But its not a clear and obvious error and certainly not one that VAR would be interested in.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Law does not require any higher threshold for penalising contact in the PA or for holding to be 'sustained'. The video evidence clearly shows there is holding and the attacker's movement is momentarily impeded. The intention is also there to help the covering defender reach the ball before the attacker. It's a cynical action.
Click to expand...
It may not do, but Howard Webb, Roberto Rossetti and Collina have all said that the game expects there to be a higher threshold in the penalty area. Whether you like it or not there are different expectations when refereeing at senior levels.
 
KMI Panel:

The other contentious incident on matchday five saw West Ham United denied a penalty when Chelsea defender Wesley Fofana held onto the arm of Crysencio Summerville as the forward broke into the penalty area. Referee Sam Barrott and the VAR, Stuart Attwell, opted not to award a spot kick.

The panel voted 3-2 that the penalty should have been given on the field, stating that "Summerville's wrist is held as he gets away from Fofana, and this impacts his progress towards the ball." However, the panel did not feel the threshold had been reached for a VAR intervention, by a vote of 4-1.
Click to expand...

Source: Dale Johnson ESPN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top