The Ref Stop

Wolves v Citee

One man's C&O is not that of another. That problem will never go away
I'd be confident that all EPL VARs are working to the mandate that 'a trodden on foot is a PK' because it's something which can be identified as 'black & white'. The PGMOL are known for targeting such consistency more that they are adherence to the LOTG
Conversely, the push on Mendi for the equaliser.... Without a set of scales on the defender's back, VAR can't go there like they routinely do with a trodden on trotter
 
The Ref Stop
So freaking bored with the same chats after every game. Couple of years ago it would just be a "dodgy penalty" (etc) and forgotten about next week, cos you get some and you also get away with some. In order to make everything clearly and obviously correct, no one's ever shut up about it.

But this is what you get when the clamour is for 100% accuracy via video review, things aren't opinion anymore or "benefit of the doubt", just box-ticking, millimetre-measuring rulings. Bleh.

I'm VAR fatigued. Might take up darts.
 
Last edited:
City fan here. I actually believe that the right outcome was reached on every KMI last night. Ederson red, the penalty and subsequent retake and no foul on Mendy for the Woleves equaliser.

The process during VAR is still horribly flawed and an awful experience for those at the ground. But the right decisions were made every time imo
 
RustyRef said:
I would guess the conversation went along the lines of ...

VAR: Did you see the defender tread on the attacker's foot before he went down?
REF: No I didn't see that
VAR: OK, had you have seen that would you have given a penalty?
REF: Yes, thanks I'll award the penalty

That makes it a clear and obvious error, the error being that he didn't see the contact. Especially as Dermot Gallagher said afterwards that referees have been told that if a defender treads on an attacker's foot and caused them to fall it must be given as a penalty.
Click to expand...
I think this is probably the correct reading of what happens and therefore a good use of VAR. The problem is that no one know that this is happening. A classic example where the benefits of referee audio being available would be huge for fan engagement.

I'd love it to be broadcast live and to fans in the ground (via earpieces like you can get at rugby I believe?), but I accept there are....disciplinary issues associated with that. But the absolute minimum requirement should be that the audio is provided to broadcasters for the post-match analysis. That way they can censor where required, but also it gives actual proper insight into the thought process. That way even if the thought process is something as inconclusive as "I've got nothing clear so stick with the on-field decision", it will make much more sense to everyone involved.
 
es1 said:
Was the decision not to award a penalty clear and obviously wrong?

Of course it was! He stood on his foot and it was missed by the ref
Click to expand...
I wasn't actually talking about this specific decision, I was talking about the general principle. Just because there was a foul and the referee didn't give it, that doesn't mean it was necessarily a clear and obvious error. That's inherent in the protocol.

However I'm still not sure quite what you're saying about this particular incident. Correct me if I'm wrong but it still seems as if you're saying that because the player stood on the opponent's foot then it a) had to be a foul and b) because it was a foul, it had to be a clear and obvious error not to give it.

I don't believe either proposition. Any potentially foul contact with an opponent still has to be at a minimum careless, before it's a foul. And any foul that is not given is not necessarily a clear and obvious error.

If you want to say that the player stood on the opponent's foot in a careless (or reckless, etc) manner, then yes, that would make it a foul. The mere fact that he happened to stand on the opponent's foot is not enough, in and of itself, to constitute a foul.

If you further want to say that it was such a blatant and egregious offence that it was a clear and obvious error not to give it, then that's also a valid argument. That doesn't seem to be what you're saying, though.
 
GraemeS said:
I think this is probably the correct reading of what happens and therefore a good use of VAR. The problem is that no one know that this is happening. A classic example where the benefits of referee audio being available would be huge for fan engagement.

I'd love it to be broadcast live and to fans in the ground (via earpieces like you can get at rugby I believe?), but I accept there are....disciplinary issues associated with that. But the absolute minimum requirement should be that the audio is provided to broadcasters for the post-match analysis. That way they can censor where required, but also it gives actual proper insight into the thought process. That way even if the thought process is something as inconclusive as "I've got nothing clear so stick with the on-field decision", it will make much more sense to everyone involved.
Click to expand...


I'll just leave this here
 
I see no reason why the referees wouldn't be capable of it.

But, PGMOL would never allow it. Probably more to do with the language that would be picked up and broadcast across the world from players and spectators rather than anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top