DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10437--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: August 26, 2019, 10:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
IF it is correct that Oliver told the VAR not to look at it
because he had seen it then that suggests to me a degree of
arrogance that goes beyond the normal self-confidence you would
expect in a top referee; and certainly means that my
understanding of the purpose of VAR is not in tune with Oliver's
and presumably Swarbrick's.
If this the Rodri claim was not a penalty (and I don't seem to
be able to attach an image but go to
HTML http://dail.me.uk/rodri.html
to see) then I don't know what is.
I am 99% certain that this is a foul. Looking at the two United
ones I would be about 90% convinced that they should have been
penalties.
On Sunday I had the choice between travelling to Girvan with my
BLFG to discuss the arrangements for her Aunt's funeral or
watching to see what novel ways the referee plus VAR could find
to influence the scoreline. I went to Girvan and missed the
first half of the game, I switched on just as VAR was concluding
its assement of the Silva penalty claim. At first sight it
looked like a penalty and I only saw a couple of run throughs
which weren't too clear so I would say about 75% confident that
it was a penalty - so not surprised that it wasn't reversed.
However, a few minutes later after City had scored again there
was a pretty similar looking challenge on a Bournemouth defender
as he broke out of defence and that was immediately called as a
foul. There were no replays so I didn't get to see it in detail
but that was how it seemed on first sight.
#Post#: 10438--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: August 26, 2019, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Microscopist, I didn't mean to imply that Oliver said something
to VAR immediately like "Don't bother mate, I saw that and no
penalty". Surely, much more likely there was a professional
conversation between them, and VAR, rightly or wrongly, went
along with the referees reasoning and felt it was not a clear
and obvious error. You may not agree with that or the protocol,
but I really don't think it's a question of arrogance on
Oliver's part. Readingfan makes some good points on this which,
along with Dermot Gallagher's comments, have certainly helped me
to understand the situation better.
#Post#: 10440--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: August 26, 2019, 12:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, Ref Fan we clearly don't know the nature of the
conversation but VAR didn't appear to give much attention to
reviewing the decision compared to the handball at the end of
the game. As I recall there was no formal review just Michael
Oliver pointing to his ear, which seems odd unless he had made
it pretty clear that he wasn't interested in having it reviewed;
I doubt whether he said "Oh! can you have a look at that one".
Obviously the VAR could have been more forceful.
Quoting Swarbrick from the Manchester Evening News - "We don’t
want VAR to be re-refereeing games, we want our referees to make
a decision, explain why and whether in his opinion that decision
is right or wrong, that’s irrelevant, it’s all about the referee
refereeing the game and VAR will only step in if he’s made a
clear and obvious error.". Whilst being a bit incoherent it
could suggest that VAR will only intervene if referees
themselves admit the possibility of error.
#Post#: 10441--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: nemesis
Date: August 26, 2019, 12:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well VAR is certainly good at providing "jobs for the boys".
Instead of one referee making mistakes at each match, we now
have two.
#Post#: 10445--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: Ashington46
Date: August 26, 2019, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: nemesis link ---
>
>
> Well VAR is certainly good at providing "jobs for the boys".
Instead of one referee making mistakes at each match, we now
have two.
>
--- End Quote ---
Which just goes to show that all that VAR is doing is
introducing another opinion to further cloud the issue.
Question:- Do the Laws still say things to the effect
".......in the opinion of the referee......" or have they
changed all that now in order to accommodate VAR.?
#Post#: 10451--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: bmb
Date: August 26, 2019, 5:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ashington46 link ---
>
> [quote author=nemesis link=topic=974.msg10441#msg10441
date=1566839628]
>
> Well VAR is certainly good at providing "jobs for the boys".
Instead of one referee making mistakes at each match, we now
have two.
>
--- End Quote ---
Which just goes to show that all that VAR is doing is
introducing another opinion to further cloud the issue.
Question:- Do the Laws still say things to the effect
".......in the opinion of the referee......" or have they
changed all that now in order to accommodate VAR.?
[/quote]
in the opinion of the referees
#Post#: 10452--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bournemouth v Man City - topics merged
DIR By: flipmode
Date: August 26, 2019, 8:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Microscopist link ---
>
> Well, Ref Fan we clearly don't know the nature of the
conversation but VAR didn't appear to give much attention to
reviewing the decision compared to the handball at the end of
the game. As I recall there was no formal review just Michael
Oliver pointing to his ear, which seems odd unless he had made
it pretty clear that he wasn't interested in having it reviewed;
I doubt whether he said "Oh! can you have a look at that one".
Obviously the VAR could have been more forceful.
>
> Quoting Swarbrick from the Manchester Evening News - "We don’t
want VAR to be re-refereeing games, we want our referees to make
a decision, explain why and whether in his opinion that decision
is right or wrong, that’s irrelevant, it’s all about the referee
refereeing the game and VAR will only step in if he’s made a
clear and obvious error.". Whilst being a bit incoherent it
could suggest that VAR will only intervene if referees
themselves admit the possibility of error.
>
--- End Quote ---
This is the point I was making though. If Andre Marriner decided
that wasn't a penalty, whether he thought that or not, shouldn't
the VAR then come in and be saying that it's actually a penalty?
Where is the line drawn on what is, and what isn't a clear and
obvious error?
Looking at the PL website and their info on VAR, it seems even
they don't know what clear and obvious is
--- Quote ---
> What qualifies as a “clear and obvious error”?
>
> In testing, there has been no unanimity. Different VARs came
up with different outcomes.
>
> But the VAR should not be asking, "Do I think it's right or
wrong?" The question is, "Is what the match officials have done
a clear and obvious error?"
>
> There is a very high bar for that intervention.
--- End Quote ---
In response to the bolded above, the answer is yes, and VAR
still didn't intervene.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page