DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 27343--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: bruntyboy
Date: February 22, 2021, 5:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: PhiltheRef link ---
>
> Does it not normally say on the (Very big) screen what a
review is about - providing of course there is such a screen?
>
--- End Quote ---
I think Anfield and Old Trafford are the only 2 grounds without
a big screen.
#Post#: 27349--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: ajb95
Date: February 22, 2021, 6:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bruntyboy link ---
>
> [quote author=PhiltheRef link=topic=2192.msg27331#msg27331
date=1613987434]
> Does it not normally say on the (Very big) screen what a
review is about - providing of course there is such a screen?
>
--- End Quote ---
I think Anfield and Old Trafford are the only 2 grounds without
a big screen.
[/quote]
Correct - just the way they are built being old converted
grounds with large stands there isn’t anywhere to put a big
screen
#Post#: 27359--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: Claretman
Date: February 22, 2021, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ajb95 link ---
>
>
> Correct - just the way they are built being old converted
grounds with large stands there isn’t anywhere to put a big
screen
>
--- End Quote ---
of course if they were to reduce capacity and thus revenue they
could have a big screen.
I believe they do at old trafford when hosting the rugby league
grand final, often above the players tunnel.
Another option is the screen is above the stand similar to
stamford bridge and craven cottage.
#Post#: 27363--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: GingerReferee
Date: February 22, 2021, 9:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
a tiny bit late :)
but for me clear penalty i thought that before i saw the replay,
it was only until the 2nd replay i saw the little flick/kick out
from TAA. I am happy Chris Kavanagh didnt spend long at the
monitor as he clearly knew what he saw. IDK why Marriner sent
him over there, suprised DOGSO didnt come more into it, as had
he not brought him down DCL would have more than likely would
have scored
#Post#: 27365--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: Dumbo
Date: February 22, 2021, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The really hilarious thing here is, contact = foul.
All over this forum are the phrases "contact does not mean
foul", "football is a contact game"
It seems to be that the referees want a contact free game?
Maybe the conversation between VAR and REF went like this
"Chris, what game are you watching?, Blue 9 kneed Red 66 in the
head and was already going down before any contact you think
you've seen has happened?"
"No Andre, clearly the initial foul was red 66"
"Chris, have a look at the moment, you'll see the initial foul
is by blue"
"Andre, I don't see anything, I'm sticking with my initial
decision"
"Chris, where you going? Come back to the monitor I have more
angles to show you?"
"Chris, your body language is awful."
who knows?!
#Post#: 27366--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: GingerReferee
Date: February 22, 2021, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Dumbo link ---
>
> The really hilarious thing here is, contact = foul.
>
> All over this forum are the phrases "contact does not mean
foul", "football is a contact game"
>
> It seems to be that the referees want a contact free game?
>
> Maybe the conversation between VAR and REF went like this
>
> "Chris, what game are you watching?, Blue 9 kneed Red 66 in
the head and was already going down before any contact you think
you've seen has happened?"
> "No Andre, clearly the initial foul was red 66"
> "Chris, have a look at the moment, you'll see the initial foul
is by blue"
> "Andre, I don't see anything, I'm sticking with my initial
decision"
> "Chris, where you going? Come back to the monitor I have more
angles to show you?"
> "Chris, your body language is awful."
>
> who knows?!
>
--- End Quote ---
after a quite bad day, that has cheered me up thank you
#Post#: 27367--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: ajb95
Date: February 22, 2021, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Claretman link ---
>
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=2192.msg27349#msg27349
date=1613995606]
>
> Correct - just the way they are built being old converted
grounds with large stands there isn’t anywhere to put a big
screen
>
--- End Quote ---
of course if they were to reduce capacity and thus revenue they
could have a big screen.
I believe they do at old trafford when hosting the rugby league
grand final, often above the players tunnel.
Another option is the screen is above the stand similar to
stamford bridge and craven cottage.
[/quote]
Why would the two biggest supporting clubs in the country want
to reduce capacity to put up a big screen? It’s the most
ridiculous thing I’ve heard this year.
They are able to put one up for the grand final because there
are far fewer supporters there on the day than watch United on a
weekend. I know I’ve been
#Post#: 27400--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: Claretman
Date: February 22, 2021, 4:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ajb95 link ---
>
> [quote author=Claretman link=topic=2192.msg27359#msg27359
date=1614005208]
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=2192.msg27349#msg27349
date=1613995606]
>
> Correct - just the way they are built being old converted
grounds with large stands there isn’t anywhere to put a big
screen
>
--- End Quote ---
of course if they were to reduce capacity and thus revenue they
could have a big screen.
I believe they do at old trafford when hosting the rugby league
grand final, often above the players tunnel.
Another option is the screen is above the stand similar to
stamford bridge and craven cottage.
[/quote]
Why would the two biggest supporting clubs in the country want
to reduce capacity to put up a big screen? It’s the most
ridiculous thing I’ve heard this year.
They are able to put one up for the grand final because there
are far fewer supporters there on the day than watch United on a
weekend. I know I’ve been
[/quote]
I dont disagree with you ajb just pointing out that they could
have one if they wanted or if it was to be mandatory.
I fully ustand the reasons why the two grounds dont have a
screen, not having one doesnt sell var or their decisions to the
fans in those grounds, but then some of our colleagues dont help
sell some decisions either.
#Post#: 27457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: bmb
Date: February 23, 2021, 8:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sky sports news had a poll and 61% agreed it was a penalty (24%
said penalty & red card, 37% just penalty) - or 39% disagreed as
was the slant put on it by skysports!
HTML https://twitter.com/SkySportsNews/status/1363843724971810816
#Post#: 27463--------------------------------------------------
Re: Chris Kavanagh - Liverpool v Everton
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: February 23, 2021, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bmb link ---
>
> Sky sports news had a poll and 61% agreed it was a penalty
(24% said penalty & red card, 37% just penalty) - or 39%
disagreed as was the slant put on it by skysports!
>
>
HTML https://twitter.com/SkySportsNews/status/1363843724971810816
>
--- End Quote ---
On Ref Watch, Dermot as you would expect said penalty was
correct but RC should have been issued for DOGSO.
Sue Smith was undecided but thought penalty was probably ok.
Stephen Warnock said no penalty and claimed (as some have on
here) that there was contact first by DCL to TAA's head which
should have negated a penalty claim.
The poll does show a majority of 61% but 39% is a significant
minority if you take any store by these polls.
All I would suggest is that it shows it wasn't as clear cut
perhaps either way as some have suggested.
Dermot also implied the recommended review by Marriner was for
the penalty and he thought the RC aspect had been 'lost in the
process' by Kavanagh I think were his words.
*****************************************************
Page 8 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page