DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 103063--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Chelsea vs Newcastle
By: Whistleblower Date: March 20, 2026, 11:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This information puts gives a different perspective. Previous
posters have commented that Tierney looked as if he didn't know
what to do. On the contrary I think he knew exactly what he was
doing. Chelsea were trying to force him to move away from the
centre circle and the ball and he was having none of it. His
expression to me seems to convey, 'perpetrate your silly antics
but you won't get me to budge'. I agree he was well within his
rights to caution but he was probably content with winning that
little battle of wills.
#Post#: 103065--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Chelsea vs Newcastle
By: El Referee Date: March 20, 2026, 1:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=7811.msg103063#msg103063
date=1774022413]
This information puts gives a different perspective. Previous
posters have commented that Tierney looked as if he didn't know
what to do. On the contrary I think he knew exactly what he was
doing. Chelsea were trying to force him to move away from the
centre circle and the ball and he was having none of it. His
expression to me seems to convey, 'perpetrate your silly antics
but you won't get me to budge'. I agree he was well within his
rights to caution but he was probably content with winning that
little battle of wills.
[/quote]
I see what you’re saying, but I don’t know if he won the battle.
I’d much rather he did what a previous poster said, and started
cautioning. As soon as he got that yellow out, I’m sure
Chelsea’s need to ‘respect the ball’ would have gone for a
burton!
#Post#: 103068--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Chelsea vs Newcastle
By: doowe Date: March 20, 2026, 1:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=El Referee link=topic=7811.msg103065#msg103065
date=1774029740]
[quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=7811.msg103063#msg103063
date=1774022413]
This information puts gives a different perspective. Previous
posters have commented that Tierney looked as if he didn't know
what to do. On the contrary I think he knew exactly what he was
doing. Chelsea were trying to force him to move away from the
centre circle and the ball and he was having none of it. His
expression to me seems to convey, 'perpetrate your silly antics
but you won't get me to budge'. I agree he was well within his
rights to caution but he was probably content with winning that
little battle of wills.
[/quote]
I see what you’re saying, but I don’t know if he won the battle.
I’d much rather he did what a previous poster, and started
cautioning. As soon as he got that yellow out, I’m sure Chelsea
need to ‘respect the ball’ would have gone for a burton!
[/quote]
And that’s exactly what PGMOL should have encouraged Tierney to
do
#Post#: 103262--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Chelsea vs Newcastle
By: Failed Ref Date: March 26, 2026, 9:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
KMI Panel has concluded that Chelsea defender Reece James pulled
back Newcastle United's Malick Thiaw inside the area and that a
penalty should have been awarded. An onfield error and VAR was
right not to intervene. I don't get that but it is what it is!
#Post#: 103264--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Chelsea vs Newcastle
By: TheThingFromLewes Date: March 26, 2026, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Failed Ref link=topic=7811.msg103262#msg103262
date=1774534739]
KMI Panel has concluded that Chelsea defender Reece James pulled
back Newcastle United's Malick Thiaw inside the area and that a
penalty should have been awarded. An onfield error and VAR was
right not to intervene. I don't get that but it is what it is!
[/quote]
Most of the time VAR doesn’t know what it’s doing.
#Post#: 103287--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Chelsea vs Newcastle
By: Claretman Date: March 26, 2026, 6:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=TheThingFromLewes
link=topic=7811.msg103264#msg103264 date=1774536898]
[quote author=Failed Ref link=topic=7811.msg103262#msg103262
date=1774534739]
KMI Panel has concluded that Chelsea defender Reece James pulled
back Newcastle United's Malick Thiaw inside the area and that a
penalty should have been awarded. An onfield error and VAR was
right not to intervene. I don't get that but it is what it is!
[/quote]
Most of the time VAR doesn’t know what it’s doing.
[/quote]
Mixed messaging, decision was wrong but it was right not to
intervene. Straight of donalds playbook.
#Post#: 103290--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Chelsea vs Newcastle
By: ShoeRef Date: March 27, 2026, 4:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Claretman link=topic=7811.msg103287#msg103287
date=1774566778]
[quote author=TheThingFromLewes
link=topic=7811.msg103264#msg103264 date=1774536898]
[quote author=Failed Ref link=topic=7811.msg103262#msg103262
date=1774534739]
KMI Panel has concluded that Chelsea defender Reece James pulled
back Newcastle United's Malick Thiaw inside the area and that a
penalty should have been awarded. An onfield error and VAR was
right not to intervene. I don't get that but it is what it is!
[/quote]
Most of the time VAR doesn’t know what it’s doing.
[/quote]
Mixed messaging, decision was wrong but it was right not to
intervene. Straight of donalds playbook.
[/quote]
I don't personally get whats difficult to understand. VAR is
asked to only intervene for clear and obvious errors. The KMI
panel will vote on their preferred outcome for a situation. If
more people vote that their preferred outcome was for a
different outcome to the one given on field, it goes down as
incorrect. They then conduct a separate vote as to whether they
feel the decision given on field meets the clear and obvious
threshold for intervention. I have seen a fair few situations
where I would say the decision given on field is wrong in terms
of my preferred outcome, but not a clear obvious error. I gave a
penalty for a pull earlier this season. It was a pull and it did
affect restrict the players movement, but he probably wasn't
going to do anything even if he got to the ball and with him not
going down, it was probably 'too soft' for the expectation to be
a penalty. This fits perfectly in that category, because I think
I was wrong to award the pen, but I think VAR would find it very
difficult to intervene because factually, the player was pulled.
#Post#: 103295--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Chelsea vs Newcastle
By: El Referee Date: March 27, 2026, 6:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ShoeRef link=topic=7811.msg103290#msg103290
date=1774602704]
[quote author=Claretman link=topic=7811.msg103287#msg103287
date=1774566778]
[quote author=TheThingFromLewes
link=topic=7811.msg103264#msg103264 date=1774536898]
[quote author=Failed Ref link=topic=7811.msg103262#msg103262
date=1774534739]
KMI Panel has concluded that Chelsea defender Reece James pulled
back Newcastle United's Malick Thiaw inside the area and that a
penalty should have been awarded. An onfield error and VAR was
right not to intervene. I don't get that but it is what it is!
[/quote]
Most of the time VAR doesn’t know what it’s doing.
[/quote]
Mixed messaging, decision was wrong but it was right not to
intervene. Straight of donalds playbook.
[/quote]
I don't personally get whats difficult to understand. VAR is
asked to only intervene for clear and obvious errors. The KMI
panel will vote on their preferred outcome for a situation. If
more people vote that their preferred outcome was for a
different outcome to the one given on field, it goes down as
incorrect. They then conduct a separate vote as to whether they
feel the decision given on field meets the clear and obvious
threshold for intervention. I have seen a fair few situations
where I would say the decision given on field is wrong in terms
of my preferred outcome, but not a clear obvious error. I gave a
penalty for a pull earlier this season. It was a pull and it did
affect restrict the players movement, but he probably wasn't
going to do anything even if he got to the ball and with him not
going down, it was probably 'too soft' for the expectation to be
a penalty. This fits perfectly in that category, because I think
I was wrong to award the pen, but I think VAR would find it very
difficult to intervene because factually, the player was pulled.
[/quote]
Whilst I agree with what you're saying for the most part, the
bit I have put in bold is the issue. There are many instances in
which VAR intervenes for something that most wouldn't describe
as C&O, and then other in which they don't, even though most
would say it is C&O.
The entire VAR protocol of C&O painted itself into a corner from
the start, as no one really knows what C&O means or equates to.
So we're now in a situation of people wanting a correct decision
being given, as opposed to a C&O wrong decision being intervened
with. And those 2 things are very very different. I don't blame
fans or even clubs for this; I blame IFAB, UEFA, FIFA, PGMOL and
so on- they all made an absolute mess of all of this.
Also...... to me, if the panel vote for/against a decision 5-0;
that should automatically be enough to be classed as C&O
#Post#: 103296--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Chelsea vs Newcastle
By: Claretman Date: March 27, 2026, 7:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ShoeRef link=topic=7811.msg103290#msg103290
date=1774602704]
[quote author=Claretman link=topic=7811.msg103287#msg103287
date=1774566778]
[quote author=TheThingFromLewes
link=topic=7811.msg103264#msg103264 date=1774536898]
[quote author=Failed Ref link=topic=7811.msg103262#msg103262
date=1774534739]
KMI Panel has concluded that Chelsea defender Reece James pulled
back Newcastle United's Malick Thiaw inside the area and that a
penalty should have been awarded. An onfield error and VAR was
right not to intervene. I don't get that but it is what it is!
[/quote]
Most of the time VAR doesn’t know what it’s doing.
[/quote]
Mixed messaging, decision was wrong but it was right not to
intervene. Straight of donalds playbook.
[/quote]
I don't personally get whats difficult to understand. VAR is
asked to only intervene for clear and obvious errors. The KMI
panel will vote on their preferred outcome for a situation. If
more people vote that their preferred outcome was for a
different outcome to the one given on field, it goes down as
incorrect. They then conduct a separate vote as to whether they
feel the decision given on field meets the clear and obvious
threshold for intervention. I have seen a fair few situations
where I would say the decision given on field is wrong in terms
of my preferred outcome, but not a clear obvious error. I gave a
penalty for a pull earlier this season. It was a pull and it did
affect restrict the players movement, but he probably wasn't
going to do anything even if he got to the ball and with him not
going down, it was probably 'too soft' for the expectation to be
a penalty. This fits perfectly in that category, because I think
I was wrong to award the pen, but I think VAR would find it very
difficult to intervene because factually, the player was pulled.
[/quote]
There lies the problem the definition if what is a pull is now
subjective where a pull should be a pull and a foul.
#Post#: 103297--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Chelsea vs Newcastle
By: ShoeRef Date: March 27, 2026, 7:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=El Referee link=topic=7811.msg103295#msg103295
date=1774612195]
[quote author=ShoeRef link=topic=7811.msg103290#msg103290
date=1774602704]
[quote author=Claretman link=topic=7811.msg103287#msg103287
date=1774566778]
[quote author=TheThingFromLewes
link=topic=7811.msg103264#msg103264 date=1774536898]
[quote author=Failed Ref link=topic=7811.msg103262#msg103262
date=1774534739]
KMI Panel has concluded that Chelsea defender Reece James pulled
back Newcastle United's Malick Thiaw inside the area and that a
penalty should have been awarded. An onfield error and VAR was
right not to intervene. I don't get that but it is what it is!
[/quote]
Most of the time VAR doesn’t know what it’s doing.
[/quote]
Mixed messaging, decision was wrong but it was right not to
intervene. Straight of donalds playbook.
[/quote]
I don't personally get whats difficult to understand. VAR is
asked to only intervene for clear and obvious errors. The KMI
panel will vote on their preferred outcome for a situation. If
more people vote that their preferred outcome was for a
different outcome to the one given on field, it goes down as
incorrect. They then conduct a separate vote as to whether they
feel the decision given on field meets the clear and obvious
threshold for intervention. I have seen a fair few situations
where I would say the decision given on field is wrong in terms
of my preferred outcome, but not a clear obvious error. I gave a
penalty for a pull earlier this season. It was a pull and it did
affect restrict the players movement, but he probably wasn't
going to do anything even if he got to the ball and with him not
going down, it was probably 'too soft' for the expectation to be
a penalty. This fits perfectly in that category, because I think
I was wrong to award the pen, but I think VAR would find it very
difficult to intervene because factually, the player was pulled.
[/quote]
Whilst I agree with what you're saying for the most part, the
bit I have put in bold is the issue. There are many instances in
which VAR intervenes for something that most wouldn't describe
as C&O, and then other in which they don't, even though most
would say it is C&O.
The entire VAR protocol of C&O painted itself into a corner from
the start, as no one really knows what C&O means or equates to.
So we're now in a situation of people wanting a correct decision
being given, as opposed to a C&O wrong decision being intervened
with. And those 2 things are very very different. I don't blame
fans or even clubs for this; I blame IFAB, UEFA, FIFA, PGMOL and
so on- they all made an absolute mess of all of this.
Also...... to me, if the panel vote for/against a decision 5-0;
that should automatically be enough to be classed as C&O
[/quote]
Agree that it's difficult to define clear and obvious. I think
the many instances you suggest about in your first paragraph are
VAR errors, not a problem with the system as such.
I also kind of agree with your bottom line, but then that
doesn't work with the way the panel are asked to vote, otherwise
you'd scrap the VAR intervention vote and just judge it by what
percentage said the original decision was right /wrong
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page