DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 27240--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: February 20, 2021, 5:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Whatever was said in the conversation between Referee and VAR
before Kavanagh got to the monitor, I would have thought it
unlikely, although just conceivable, Marriner would have changed
his mind about it being a clear and obvious error having looked
at various angles. However, I don't know what statistics would
show, but I suspect Marriner (and probably Atkinson) is less
likely to award penalties than some of the other SG1 officials
based on what I've seen over recent seasons.
One can only speculate what the outcome would have been had the
roles been reversed with Marriner as referee - and not awarding
a penalty - and with Kavanagh as VAR.
#Post#: 27241--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: dtrv2
Date: February 20, 2021, 5:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought but was the VAR sending Kavanagh to the screen to
review a potential red for DOGSO?
#Post#: 27243--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: Scally Bob
Date: February 20, 2021, 6:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How do you work that out? Calvert-Lewin didn’t have control of
the ball and there was a defender behind Alisson. He tripped
over Alexander-Arnold and it wasn’t even a foul.
An atrocious decision magnified by the fact that all concerned
had adequate opportunity to correct it.
#Post#: 27244--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: bruntyboy
Date: February 20, 2021, 6:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: dtrv2 link ---
>
> Just a thought but was the VAR sending Kavanagh to the screen
to review a potential red for DOGSO?
>
--- End Quote ---
Exactly. Until the viewers (and fans at the game in due course)
get to hear the communications live as they do at the cricket
and rugby then we're none the wiser as to what is being looked
at and reviewed.
#Post#: 27256--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: February 21, 2021, 4:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's really interesting how different people can look at the
same incident, several times, and with varying degrees of
certainty come to totally opposite conclusions. This goes for TV
pundits, RTR correspondents, everyone I suppose. Here's my
twopennyworth from having seen it on Match of the Day. I think
it is by no means clear cut either way but I tend to the view
that awarding a penalty kick was not wrong. I think VAR was
quite justified in asking Kavanagh to review his decision on the
monitor because there may have been some uncertainty in the mind
of the VAR also. Kavanagh goes over to the monitor and his
viewing confirms what he saw and in his opinion it is a penalty
kick. I don't see why he needed to spend ages viewing and
re-viewing the incident once he was assured that his original
decision was correct. Also I see no trace of arrogance in the
way Kavanagh conducted himself, rather an efficient way of
referee and VAR working.
#Post#: 27257--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: Beryl
Date: February 21, 2021, 4:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Whistleblower link ---
>
> It's really interesting how different people can look at the
same incident, several times, and with varying degrees of
certainty come to totally opposite conclusions. This goes for TV
pundits, RTR correspondents, everyone I suppose. Here's my
twopennyworth from having seen it on Match of the Day. I think
it is by no means clear cut either way but I tend to the view
that awarding a penalty kick was not wrong. I think VAR was
quite justified in asking Kavanagh to review his decision on the
monitor because there may have been some uncertainty in the mind
of the VAR also. Kavanagh goes over to the monitor and his
viewing confirms what he saw and in his opinion it is a penalty
kick. I don't see why he needed to spend ages viewing and
re-viewing the incident once he was assured that his original
decision was correct. Also I see no trace of arrogance in the
way Kavanagh conducted himself, rather an efficient way of
referee and VAR working.
>
--- End Quote ---
A common complaint of the ref viewing pitchside has been, the
length of time, number of views etc
On this occasion it was done the polar opposite, yet still there
is an outcry
What chance does one have.......
#Post#: 27259--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: ARF
Date: February 21, 2021, 4:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Scally Bob link ---
>
> How do you work that out? Calvert-Lewin didn’t have control of
the ball and there was a defender behind Alisson. He tripped
over Alexander-Arnold and it wasn’t even a foul.
>
> An atrocious decision magnified by the fact that all concerned
had adequate opportunity to correct it.
>
--- End Quote ---
DCL would have most likely regained control of the ball with an
open goal had it not been for the 'foul' and the other defender
was too late getting back to have had any involvement.
--- Quote from: rustyref link ---
>
> I was initially a bit baffled, but if you watch it after the
initial contact TAA raises his leg and sweeps it around, and
that brings down Calvert-Lewin. I get the argument that he was
already on the way down, but it looked to me like he was trying
to stay on his feet and that final action took him out.
>
> Regardless of what we all think though, there is no way on
earth it could be described as a clear and obvious error.
>
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://streamable.com/z5m3y7
Watch the video from inside the goal (around 0:57) - the only
thing that causes DCL to fall is him inadvertently kneeing TAA
in the head.
#Post#: 27263--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: Leggy
Date: February 21, 2021, 5:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Beryl link ---
>
> Read thro the posts before only now seeing the incident
>
> The defender has, wittingly or otherwise, tripped the striker
by being where he was, grounded or not
>
> Thats a penalty kick, clear as day. The only issue i see is
VAR even suggesting the referee reviewed it
>
> I too would concur with the apparent bewilderment as referee
being advised to have another look at what is in reality a
straightforward call.
>
> A similar clip was doing rounds on a UEFA coaching course
around ten years ago,
>
> Does it look. Fair? Prob not,
> Is it the attacker who is tripped by the defender, in the box?
Yes. Penalty kick
>
--- End Quote ---
This was a foul challenge. It was not intentional but it was a
foul challenge, by a defender, on an attacker within the penalty
area. So the outcome is a penalty kick.
There was also a strong argument for DOGSO. Had the foul
challenge not taken place, then the attacker would have been on
his feet and able to put the ball into a goal unguarded by the
goal-keeper. There was a defender in the vicinity, but not in a
position to prevent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. The
DOGSO "defence" that the defender was making a genuine attempt
to play the ball does not apply and the fact that the contact
was accidental does not prevent a red card for DOGSO (perhaps it
should?).
Finally, Kavanaugh's brief stint looking at the monitor reminded
me of a number of time when we were trying to persuade a young
child to try a food that they had already decided they did not
like. ("Just have a taste, you have never eaten it before, you
might like it") After the most tiny taste, the pre-decided
conclusion is confirmed. ;)
#Post#: 27265--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: Beryl
Date: February 21, 2021, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Leggy link ---
>
> [quote author=Beryl link=topic=2192.msg27225#msg27225
date=1613852195]
> Read thro the posts before only now seeing the incident
>
> The defender has, wittingly or otherwise, tripped the striker
by being where he was, grounded or not
>
> Thats a penalty kick, clear as day. The only issue i see is
VAR even suggesting the referee reviewed it
>
> I too would concur with the apparent bewilderment as referee
being advised to have another look at what is in reality a
straightforward call.
>
> A similar clip was doing rounds on a UEFA coaching course
around ten years ago,
>
> Does it look. Fair? Prob not,
> Is it the attacker who is tripped by the defender, in the box?
Yes. Penalty kick
>
--- End Quote ---
This was a foul challenge. It was not intentional but it was a
foul challenge, by a defender, on an attacker within the penalty
area. So the outcome is a penalty kick.
There was also a strong argument for DOGSO. Had the foul
challenge not taken place, then the attacker would have been on
his feet and able to put the ball into a goal unguarded by the
goal-keeper. There was a defender in the vicinity, but not in a
position to prevent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. The
DOGSO "defence" that the defender was making a genuine attempt
to play the ball does not apply and the fact that the contact
was accidental does not prevent a red card for DOGSO (perhaps it
should?).
Finally, Kavanaugh's brief stint looking at the monitor reminded
me of a number of time when we were trying to persuade a young
child to try a food that they had already decided they did not
like. ("Just have a taste, you have never eaten it before, you
might like it") After the most tiny taste, the pre-decided
conclusion is confirmed. ;)
[/quote]
Maybe referee thought game managjent wise they could not fully
sell a red card. Might not be that, just a random suggestion,
Even when Riley or whoever confirm the penalty was correct,
there still be a magnitude of folk who say otherwise
#Post#: 27266--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: February 21, 2021, 5:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What is the protocol here? Does the VAR suggest to the referee
that they consult the pitch side monitor but the referee is in
no way obliged to act on the suggestion ? I suspect that in
this case Kavanagh was quite clear as to what he had seen and
was entirely comfortable in his award of a penalty kick. His VAR
is a very experienced and well regarded referee, far more
experienced than Kavanagh and therefore in due deference to his
colleague, Kavanagh does take up the invitation to view the
monitor whilst still being pretty sure about the rightness of
his decision. A viewing of the monitor then confirms his view.
If this is the scenario, rather than showing arrogance I think
Kavanagh comes out of this rather well.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page