DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10409--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: flipmode
Date: August 25, 2019, 5:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
All in all I think it was a sub par performance from Marriner
yesterday.
Walker was very lucky to escape without a YC for his first
challenge on Ake, and then was subsequently YC'd for a further
robust challenged. I'd like to think had Walker been on a YC for
the earlier challenge he wouldn't have committed the second, but
it is Kyle Walker ;)
The incident for the penalty on Silva just makes a complete
mockery of the implementation of VAR imo. How on earth the VAR
saw that and interpreted that is wasn't a clear and obvious
error I will never know.
I may be way left field here, but my assumption of clear and
obvious would be that very incident. Marriner clearly saw the
incident and chose not to give a penalty and the replays were so
conclusive of contact that it HAD to be overturned? Surely?
The definition given for why VAR didn't overturn Marriner's
decision was flaky at best. The way VAR is going, there's going
to be WWIII before it gets any better.
#Post#: 10411--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: fatso
Date: August 26, 2019, 2:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that referees, and assistants, are becoming lazy
and relying on VAR to make the difficult, and sometimes not so
difficult, decisions. At Brighton on Saturday we had a goal
disallowed, quite rightly, as Dan Burn was several yards offside
and holding hands with the keeper yet they still asked VAR for a
decision. It was so obvious I don't understand why the assistant
did not flag for the offside and the referee then decide Durn
was active. There were also 2 penalty shouts and for one of them
which was handball there is a photo of the defender with his arm
out in front of him and the ball against the arm. It was an
unnatural position but it was not even reviewed.
I am totally against VAR and this season's use has convinced me
even more that it should be got rid of. Great for the armchair
fans but it takes the passion away for those that are there.
Having seen all 3 Brighton games this season, and watched others
on TV, there seems to be a softer approach from referees towards
issuing cards as mentioned above in the Walker incident and
others that I have seen.
#Post#: 10412--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: August 26, 2019, 3:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"The definition given for why VAR didn't overturn Marriner's
decision was flaky at best. The way VAR is going, there's going
to be WWIII before it gets any better."
Has Swarbrick given the explanation flipmode? If so, I wonder
if he's commented on any of the other contentious decisions over
the weekend.
We now seem to have contradictory concerns regarding VAR.
Initially, it was thought VAR was undermining the referee who
should have the final say, if necessary by looking at the
monitor e.g. the handball disallowed goal for City v Spurs.
This weekend, the perceived problem is that VAR is being too
weak in not being prepared to intervene and inform the referee
he's got it wrong.
I appreciate the difference between subjective and factual
decisions in the application of law but it would seem the
current situation is far from satisfactory.
Interestingly, Dermott Gallagher in reviewing the non-penalty
decision for City last week v Spurs when Lamela looked to bundle
over the City player, suggested that Oliver would have told VAR
he saw the incident and didn't consider it a penalty and
therefore VAR would not have intervened. This strikes me as
important if it means the referee can in some circumstances
pre-empt VAR, but is Gallagher right?
#Post#: 10414--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: kelxref
Date: August 26, 2019, 4:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes I think Gallagher is right. In another thread (First Goal
disallowed...) Readingfan loaded a recording from last week on
BBC radio interviewing Neil Swarbrick. He refers to the Man City
penalty claim and says that MO saw the contact but felt the
player fell forward rather than back so exaggerating the contact
(not verbatim but that was the gist of it) and so that was why
VAR did not intervene.
#Post#: 10417--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: August 26, 2019, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ah, thanks for that kelxref.
So, is it fair to say that if a referee or the ARs has not seen
an incident e.g. a handball by a defender in the penalty area or
by an attacker leading to a goal; or a VC off the ball incident,
then VAR will intervene to overturn the decision. On the other
hand, if the referee has clearly seen an incident and made his
subjective judgement and informs VAR accordingly in any
conversation they have, then VAR will not seek to overturn it.
If this is the case, then I'd not fully appreciated it. It would
probably explain why no action was taken in several of the
incidents highlighted in various matches over the weekend,
including what I saw at OT.
I guess situations which are not so clear cut would be SFP where
a referee only had a partial view and may be glad of VAR help.
Another contentious one would be if a referee wrongly cautions
an attacker in the PA for simulation and the VAR tells him there
was definite contact enough for a penalty; or the reverse
situation of a penalty being awarded when it was simulation.
If this is how it's operating, then whether it's the right way
is another matter.
Sorry to have strayed off the specific topic.
#Post#: 10420--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: August 26, 2019, 6:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dermot Gallagher said that he thought this one should have been
given as a penalty by VAR.
#Post#: 10422--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: Carter
Date: August 26, 2019, 7:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"On the other hand, if the referee has clearly seen an incident
and made his subjective judgement and informs VAR accordingly in
any conversation they have, then VAR will not seek to overturn
it. If this is the case, then I'd not fully appreciated it. It
would probably explain why no action was taken in several of the
incidents highlighted in various matches over the weekend,
including what I saw at OT."
If this is correct what is the point of VAR, if the ref informs
them he has seen it and VAR will not look to overturn, thats
complete nonsense
SCRAP IT :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
#Post#: 10423--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: August 26, 2019, 7:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Carter, it's a tricky one if the aim of VAR is not to re-referee
a game, but to pick up on incidents the on field officials have
missed. Just a personal view but I would have thought that if
VAR felt strongly that a referee had badly misjudged an incident
he had seen, that would be a situation when he should advise the
referee to go and look at the monitor. Could/should Friend,
Taylor and Pawson have done that at Bournemouth, Spurs and Old
Trafford in what were generally considered to be KMI errors by
the referee?
#Post#: 10424--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: August 26, 2019, 8:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The IFAB VAR protocol has always said that the VAR should not
ask themselves 'was the referee's decision correct?' but 'was
the referee's decision clearly wrong?'
If you look at the Kyle Walker incident in the FA Cup semi last
season for instance then whilst some people thought it was a red
card I would say that VAR was correct not to get involved as
Anthony Taylor had seen the incident, shown a yellow card and
presumably his description as to what he had seen and his
reasons for giving a yellow card tallies with the images so Paul
Tierney was right not to get involved as that would have been
re-refereeing the incident.
It could obviously be the case that a referee has seen an
incident but misjudged what has happened - if the referee says
'the defender played the ball' but replays show this not to be
the case and a foul instead committed then they would have
greater scope to intervene.
I do think the process would be much better if we could hear the
audio because at least then we would know the rationale for the
initial decision and the VAR's reasoning for whether or not to
intervene. There are always differing opinions with subjective
incidents and if you heard Mike Dean/Anthony Taylor's reasoning
for not giving Tottenham a penalty yesterday then the decision
might have more acceptance, even if you personally think that it
was a penalty.
I think the reasoning behind not generally using the pitchside
monitors in the PL, in that if the error is clear and obvious it
shouldn't need examining again, is a reasonable one but at the
moment it seems to be having the unintended consequence that it
is putting more pressure on the VARs as they don't have their
own safety net in place if they change a decision. When VAR was
introduced to England it felt like there were too many
interventions (think of the Tottenham V Rochdale match for
instance) but now it seems to have gone too far the other way.
Hopefully a balance will be struck over time. I think at the
moment the VARs are overly cautious because they don't want to
be that one who intervenes too hastily and everyone says 'VAR is
getting involved too much' - as things settle down and it
becomes more a general part of officiating, this swill hopefully
improve.
#Post#: 10432--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: guest320
Date: August 26, 2019, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The longer we get into this season the less point I am seeing in
having VAR. From bits I've heard and seen from ex-officials it
seems they are absolutely obsessed with setting a high threshold
for intervening and not re-refereeing subjective decisions. For
me, this basic principle is wrong.
Essentially we are in a situation where as long as the referee
has seen a subjective decision then VAR will not overturn his
decision. This seems ludicrous. If you take that to an extreme
example, a player could commit an appalling 2-footed tackle on
an opponent and despite seeing it and giving only a yellow card
- under the current principles - VAR would not intervene.
Surely the point of VAR was to increase the number of important
correct decisions. IMO, too many important decisions have
already been called incorrectly this season because of the way
they are using VAR's with subjective calls and it has to change.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page