ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
This here is likely the reason why it wasn't overturned.
Wolves vs Coventry
- Thread starter RustyRef
- Start date
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
The sleeve is not the line. It is the almost impossible to discern spot on the arm that would be the bottom of the armpit.
Before that was added to the Laws, what was taught in the UK as to where the arm starts? In the US we were taught it was top vs side, which was much easier to discern than where the armpit would be. (Complete aside: I almost scored a goal last week having misjudged a header and used the part of the shoulder that used to HB but no longer is. …)
What we don’t want is referees making decisions based on assumptions
From that still, it is not even close to blatant for me
This thread feels like a repeat of last week's Liverpool/City thread
Again, there is no clear and obvious error, they would be guessing that he has scored with his arm, there is no conclusive evidence either way.
You can't disallow a goal by guessing
Again, there is no clear and obvious error, they would be guessing that he has scored with his arm, there is no conclusive evidence either way.
You can't disallow a goal by guessing
I had a similar incident in my match on Saturday. Goalkeeper goes down with injury, while he is receiving treatment, one of his team mates changes his boots. The opposition manager is screaming that this is clearly a tactic they're deliberately doing so that he can change his boots while play is stopped. I went over and explained that unfortunately there is absolutely nothing I can do regardless of how obvious it may seem, unfortunately if a player tells me they need treatment, I have to take them at their word.
Exactly, although there is far less debate to be had with this one to be fair! They couldn't be 100% certain an error had been made so the on field decision stands. Had the on field decision been handball, then that also would have stood. This is exactly how VAR should be used.
We don't referee outcomes, so the fact it broke his nose isn't relevant.
I've been reliably informed on here recently that a high boot with minimal contact means it's not C&O. So while I personally think that opinion is nonsense and both this and the other incident are clear missed offences, a certain RefChat staff member has repeatedly told me that's not the case. And while this might be 6 inches higher than last week's, this one is outside the PA, so needs to reach a higher bar in terms of force to get the VAR involved.
On a less facetious note, you also definitely know the referee isn't sent to "have a look". Either you think this is a C&O missed red card and the VAR should have recommended that, or you think it isn't and so know he's right to stay quiet. "Have another look, what do you think?" isn't how VAR currently works.
We aren't supposed to, but that doesn't mean we don't. Lots of referees will have been unsure about what the extent of contact in a challenge was but had their minds made up when seeing the state of someone's injury. It has happened in the Premier League and at major tournaments, the Son challenge on Andre Gomes springs to mind, the referee showed no sign of giving any kind of sanction, then once he saw Gomes's foot hanging off he sent Son off.
This was nothing like the challenge on Mac Allister last week (who, incidentally, kicked Harry Maguire in the chest yesterday and got away with it, and even got the free kick, so swings and roundabouts and all that). It was with significant force, completely off the floor, and made contact with the opponent's face. Clear SFP for me, so yes I do think it was a a clear and obvious error by the referee real time.
This one still irks me to this day.
The ref had his yellow card in his hand until he saw the injury and then sent Son off.
It was the first season of VAR I believe, and VAR didn’t overturn it.
That was never, ever a red card. The injury was an unfortunate result of the way Gomes fell after the tackle.
While I can understand the thinking behind the decision by the on field referee, how on earth VAR didn’t overturn it I will never know.
Agree. Once he's decided on yellow, he should stick to it. Outcome was unfortunate but the challenge was reckless, not dangerous or using excessive force.
That was just one example though, there have been loads over the years where referees have reacted to the injury, or even lack of injury, and let that affect the outcome they reach. It is probably just human nature, not dissimilar to where you think you see an SFP challenge but no one reacts to it and the fouled player pops straight back up, it puts a seed of doubt in your mind as to whether you saw it wrong.
Absolutely. I wasn’t disagreeing with you, it was just an anecdote about that example.
I’ve no issue with the referee changing his mind to red upon seeing the injury (although it isn’t a great look when he initially had the yellow in his hand), but how on earth nobody queried that Son was sent off for a tackle that was not even remotely close to SFP I’ll never understand. I can only wonder if perhaps it was purely the fact the officials, totally new to VAR, thought it was inappropriate to get involved given how bad the injury was and Son was probably in no fit state to continue anyway, but that doesn’t make it right.
As @RefereeX has pointed out, that's the textbook example of when refereeing based on outcomes results in the wrong decision. And is exactly why we're expected not to do so and why it's wrong for you to use outcomes as evidence of C&O. I couldn't have made the point better if I'd had a week to look through footage to come up with an example!
And to your second point - two wrongs make a right now?
* MacAllister kicked a player in the chest vs Utd, it absolutely should have been a foul and maybe should have been a yellow for him. But not reviewable because it was only ever yellow at most and outside the PA.
* A week earlier, he was kicked in the chest - and it absolutely should have been a foul and probably a yellow card, reviewable because it's in the PA (IFAB's rules, not how I would design VAR!) and therefore a missed VAR intervention.
* And in this incident, the kick was a few inches higher but to quote you from post #11:
Again, definite missed foul, definite yellow, probably worth a red and I wouldn't argue with a VAR who felt they had to intervene to make that recommendation. But the VAR SFP bar is high and (unless your name is Curtis Jones) has been fairly consistently difficult to clear this season.
I feel I'm being extremely consistent here. If I were in the VAR booth, all 3 are missed fouls, and the two that are eligible for VAR review are both missed reviews I would like to think I would send down. You're the one who's been trying to tell me this is a clear missed SFP, but a very similar kick a few inches lower that didn't happen by bad luck to break a player's nose isn't even a clear missed careless foul. That's the inconsistency that glares out here.
One thing I will say, for balance, is that we've no idea how many times a referee has mentally changed his mind to a red card for SFP upon seeing the injury as a result of a tackle and been correct to do so...
Fair, but that's a hypothetical vs actual evidence of it being done to turn a correct decision to incorrect. And there are occasions where it's been theorised that this happened, but it's also equally plausible that a changed decision was via a shout over comms from an AR with a better view - wheras the Son incident was very visibly in response to the injury.
As a former keeper (not at any high level mind so probably contributed to this) you do a lot and warm up and then cool down if the ball is up the other end for a while.
Partially because the wolves defender is holding him!
I'll consider a reply once you've taken your red shirt off. You've even managed to reference an incident that happened over 5 months ago.
Oh lucky me, you'll deign to consider a reply? Anyone else on this forum posted that they'd be getting a warning from you and you know it - hypocritical and inconsistent use of mod powers to go with an inconsistent view of these incidents because you haven't got anywhere else to go.
I've been entirely fair and reasonable here. I've admitted my bias, but that doesn't automatically make me wrong. And whatever the reason for your anti-Liverpool bias, not admitting that makes yours more of a fan opinion than mine.
Last edited:
What anti-Liverpool bias have I shown, I am just pointing out that you are far from impartial and in trying to make your point have brought up an incident that happened many months ago? And no one posting what I did would be getting a warning as they would have done nothing wrong.
For what it is worth I want Liverpool to win the league, so I certainly have no agenda against them.