DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 90418--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool v Everton Sam Barrott
DIR By: bruntyboy
Date: April 3, 2025, 4:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rustyref link ---
>
> [quote author=PhiltheRef link=topic=6864.msg90364#msg90364
date=1743633803]
> I am indeed still active although after 35+ years I will
concede that I'm somewhat in decline physically at least.
>
> Despite the best efforts of folk to persuade us that Offside
decisions are factual rather than subjective I would still aver
that I have seen them given.
>
> My major grouse is that Sam Barrott allowed Van Dyke far, far
too much latitude in terms of dissent by not punishing him for
repeatedly "chipping in" on too many decisions.
>
> With your Observer hat on do you have a view?
>
--- End Quote ---
You won't have seen them given like that, where the attacker
stands still and makes no movement at all, for several years.
There's just no scope in the current laws to penalise that.
Van Dijk was indeed seemingly having a lot to say, but equally
he is the captain and that gives him a certain amount of leeway.
[/quote]
It's funny how Bruno Fernandes (the captain) doesn't get given
the same amount of leeway on here.
Also how is it ok for a YC to be given for "waving the imaginary
card" and yet players are regularly allowed to go towards the
referee telling them to send a player off for what they consider
to be either a second YC offence or a RC offence?
#Post#: 90422--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool v Everton Sam Barrott
DIR By: Scally Bob
Date: April 3, 2025, 4:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rustyref link ---
>
> [quote author=Scally Bob link=topic=6864.msg90414#msg90414
date=1743714149]
> I have to take issue with Leggy’s opinion. VAR wasn’t
introduced to protect officials it was introduced to ensure that
the Laws are properly applied. A Match Official is there to
apply the Laws without fear or favour and prior to VAR that
blatant red card could be understood if not accepted but now we
are subjected to it there’s no excuse.
>
> Howard Webb makes Mike Riley appear competent.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would counter your taking issue and take further issue. VAR
was absolutely not introduced to ensure that the laws are
properly applied, it was introduced with a view to trying to
correct clear and obvious errors.
[/quote]
Semantics. Clear and obvious errors are effectively the Laws not
being correctly applied. Protecting officials was never part of
VAR being introduced.
#Post#: 90429--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool v Everton Sam Barrott
DIR By: ajb95
Date: April 4, 2025, 1:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And last night 6 MINUTES to review and then disallow a goal for
spurs. How is that clear and obvious?
I hate VAR as many posts on here support, but I have now
concluded that clear and obvious is a ruse to hide behind poor
and incompetent officials
#Post#: 90430--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool v Everton Sam Barrott
DIR By: Failed Ref
Date: April 4, 2025, 1:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ajb95 link ---
>
> And last night 6 MINUTES to review and then disallow a goal
for spurs. How is that clear and obvious?
> I hate VAR as many posts on here support, but I have now
concluded that clear and obvious is a ruse to hide behind poor
and incompetent officials
>
--- End Quote ---
Dale Johnson put VAR in some perspective yesterday pointing out
that it has much improved compared with the same period last
year and there have been no errors since January. Sadly, each
time VAR gets involved, decisions are magnified and disected to
such an extent which is often out of all proportion. The 6
minute review was probably not to decide whether to disallowed
the goal but what card to issue. Different camera angles would
be required to ascertain if SFP had been committed. Slow motion,
full speed and so forth. Given what happened at Anfield the
night before, who can blame the officials for taking their time.
6 minutes is not ideal but it is more important to get the
decision right.
#Post#: 90437--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool v Everton Sam Barrott
DIR By: Ref Watcher
Date: April 4, 2025, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bruntyboy link ---
>
> [quote author=rustyref link=topic=6864.msg90385#msg90385
date=1743690427]
> [quote author=PhiltheRef link=topic=6864.msg90364#msg90364
date=1743633803]
> I am indeed still active although after 35+ years I will
concede that I'm somewhat in decline physically at least.
>
> Despite the best efforts of folk to persuade us that Offside
decisions are factual rather than subjective I would still aver
that I have seen them given.
>
> My major grouse is that Sam Barrott allowed Van Dyke far, far
too much latitude in terms of dissent by not punishing him for
repeatedly "chipping in" on too many decisions.
>
> With your Observer hat on do you have a view?
>
--- End Quote ---
You won't have seen them given like that, where the attacker
stands still and makes no movement at all, for several years.
There's just no scope in the current laws to penalise that.
Van Dijk was indeed seemingly having a lot to say, but equally
he is the captain and that gives him a certain amount of leeway.
[/quote]
It's funny how Bruno Fernandes (the captain) doesn't get given
the same amount of leeway on here.
Also how is it ok for a YC to be given for "waving the imaginary
card" and yet players are regularly allowed to go towards the
referee telling them to send a player off for what they consider
to be either a second YC offence or a RC offence?
[/quote]
Because, firstly, you don't know what the players are saying
when they are talking to the referee and, secondly, they are
quite entitled to speak to the referee about anything they like
provided the referee is happy with the way they are doing it.
The waving of an imaginary card, on the other hand, is a clear
expression of dissent visible to everyone.
#Post#: 90445--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool v Everton Sam Barrott
DIR By: Leggy
Date: April 4, 2025, 11:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, I respect the opinions shared on here in response to my
post. There is a good chance they are right and I am wrong.
If, by some chance, there is a grain of truth in what I have
suggested, there is never going to be an admission to confirm
it. If not overt, st may be that there is something going on in
the sub-conscious.
Secondly, I was clearly a very poor call from the VAR. Calls
for his dismissal are over-blown and wrong. Where are the calls
for the player's dismissal (from his job, not the field of
play)?
Finally, I 100% agree that VAR is now trying to operate to a set
format, almost "tick-box" approach. This may be in response to
the Darren England farrago that exposed the somewhat haphazard
way in which discussions took place. But, refereeing is often
about "feel", and - hard that it may be - VAR needs to
understand the overall feel of the game and respond accordingly.
Only by doing that can VAR help to make the on-field referee to
make more accurate decisions.
#Post#: 90447--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool v Everton Sam Barrott
DIR By: Failed Ref
Date: April 4, 2025, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dale Johnson made a similar point to Leggy's last comment, VAR
isn't getting a true feel for the game. VAR only works on
replays.
#Post#: 90450--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool v Everton Sam Barrott
DIR By: ajb95
Date: April 4, 2025, 4:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Leggy link ---
>
> Firstly, I respect the opinions shared on here in response to
my post. There is a good chance they are right and I am wrong.
If, by some chance, there is a grain of truth in what I have
suggested, there is never going to be an admission to confirm
it. If not overt, st may be that there is something going on in
the sub-conscious.
>
> Secondly, I was clearly a very poor call from the VAR. Calls
for his dismissal are over-blown and wrong. Where are the calls
for the player's dismissal (from his job, not the field of
play)?
>
> Finally, I 100% agree that VAR is now trying to operate to a
set format, almost "tick-box" approach. This may be in response
to the Darren England farrago that exposed the somewhat
haphazard way in which discussions took place. But, refereeing
is often about "feel", and - hard that it may be - VAR needs to
understand the overall feel of the game and respond accordingly.
Only by doing that can VAR help to make the on-field referee to
make more accurate decisions.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry but how can you have a “feel” for the game sat behind a tv
screen?
#Post#: 90470--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool v Everton Sam Barrott
DIR By: Leggy
Date: April 5, 2025, 11:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ajb95 link ---
>
> [quote author=Leggy link=topic=6864.msg90445#msg90445
date=1743784934]
> Firstly, I respect the opinions shared on here in response to
my post. There is a good chance they are right and I am wrong.
If, by some chance, there is a grain of truth in what I have
suggested, there is never going to be an admission to confirm
it. If not overt, st may be that there is something going on in
the sub-conscious.
>
> Secondly, I was clearly a very poor call from the VAR. Calls
for his dismissal are over-blown and wrong. Where are the calls
for the player's dismissal (from his job, not the field of
play)?
>
> Finally, I 100% agree that VAR is now trying to operate to a
set format, almost "tick-box" approach. This may be in response
to the Darren England farrago that exposed the somewhat
haphazard way in which discussions took place. But, refereeing
is often about "feel", and - hard that it may be - VAR needs to
understand the overall feel of the game and respond accordingly.
Only by doing that can VAR help to make the on-field referee to
make more accurate decisions.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry but how can you have a “feel” for the game sat behind a tv
screen?
[/quote]
Good question. VAR solves some problems but creates others. I
think you have just identified one.
*****************************************************
Page 8 of 8
DIR Previous Page