Coronation Street, I believe
Villa v Blades
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
I'm 100% not asking for a game to be replayed or anything like that but I've seen Social Media where certain relegation faced clubs could seek legal advice if the point Villa earned saves them come the end of the season, (never mind the two points dropped by SUFC at the other end)
There are precedents in UK football for games being replayed due to admitted Referee errors http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_conf/6050830.stm and I know its very messy and sometimes subjective, but lawyers can be lawyers and there are big sums of money at stake here!!!!
There are precedents in UK football for games being replayed due to admitted Referee errors http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_conf/6050830.stm and I know its very messy and sometimes subjective, but lawyers can be lawyers and there are big sums of money at stake here!!!!
onthebrink
Well-Known Member
That was an error in interpreting the laws though, rather than just missing something.
The LOTG make clear games shouldn't be replayed in a situation such as this.
"
In principle, a match is not invalidated because of:
- malfunction(s) of the VAR technology (as for goal line technology (GLT))
- wrong decision(s) involving the VAR (as the VAR is a match official)
- decision(s) not to review an incident
- review(s) of a non-reviewable situation/decision"
The error has been admitted, the laws state a goal shall be given if it goes in, It clearly did, the tech failed!
Yampy
RefChat Addict
And who would sue who?
The match officials made a subjective decision not an error in application of law. How are they at fault or liable?
Aston Villa are guilty of what?
Hawkeye has never claimed their system is 100% foolproof or 100% accurate. Are you going to take them to court?
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Sorry no, a wrong DOGSO is an interpretation of law error
Because, afterall, it can be, up for interpretation
A ball out of play, in this case, over the line, under the bar, between the posts, is, factual, you cant have an interpretation of something which has a definitive answer, which in this case, is, goal
The error here, certainly on my assessing sheet and the accompanying guideance notes is, Error in law.
disclaimer, other supervision forms may be available.
Don't shoot the messenger, there was a piece in The Guardian too???
Dino Ref
Well-Known Member
My personal opinion is that you cannot blame the onfield officials.
GDS has been used for 8 years, over 9000 matches and before this had a 100% success rate. It would take a very brave official to overrule it and I personally cannot say that I would have and I would also question anyone who says they would.
I also think that VAR should have got it considering I see a replay of it on TV within 10 seconds. I don't see why they couldn't have.
GDS has been used for 8 years, over 9000 matches and before this had a 100% success rate. It would take a very brave official to overrule it and I personally cannot say that I would have and I would also question anyone who says they would.
I also think that VAR should have got it considering I see a replay of it on TV within 10 seconds. I don't see why they couldn't have.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
This is where I stand, 100%. The on-field crew can't be expected to get this one right. GLT didn't buzz. Although I haven't seen a definitive angle, the position of the Villa defender and goalkeeper make it appear that the AR would not have had a clear view of the ball being over the line. You can't guess on that one. If your view of the ball is blocked, you can't give it. You just can't assume that because of where the keeper is that the ball is fully over the line.
VAR, on the other hand, should have caught it. There is a view right on the line that clearly shows the ball being over the line. I fail to see how they wouldn't have been able to spot that issue.
Regarding a replay or other litigation efforts, I can't see how this could be classified as anything other than a (badly) missed judgment call. This is not like awarding a goal on an indirect free kick that never touched anyone. That's an error in law and can be protested. I can't see how anyone could spin this as an error in law. The officiating crew working the game missed the call. The one and only thing I could possibly see that would go against this is if th match report said, "VAR didn't overturn the decision because protocol said they can't overrule GLT" when they are absolutely able to do so (I know it will be more legalese than that, but you get my point). If the match report says they reviewed the situation and did not see enough evidence to overturn the call, that's a judgment error and shouldn't be litigated. It stinks for Sheffield, but I have a hard time thinking a judge or competition authority would order a replay based on that.
Last edited:
onthebrink
Well-Known Member
Yes, but the ball even more clearly went in with the Lampard goal in 2010 World Cup or Pedro Mendes at Old Trafford and they weren't replayed.
If the goal hadn't been given because, for instance, they thought you couldn't score direct from a direct free kick you could say that was an error in interpretation. This was just failing to realise that the ball had crossed the line.
Yes the tech failed but as I said in my post the LOTG state such a malfunction doesn't invalidate the result.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Obvious diff being those two up you can entirely clear the AR of any neglect
No AR ever, in history of game, was going to call those.
Weds AR was on the goal line...
There are two separate things here. Making an incorrect decision and being incorrect in law. The former is where the referee just makes a mistake, that might not be giving a penalty that should have been, or in this case not giving a goal when the ball has crossed the line. No game has ever been replayed off the back of one of those decisions.
The latter is where the referee sees it clearly but then incorrectly applies law. The classic example here is getting the restart on penalty encroachment incorrect, and many games have been replayed because of this. Also, whilst not law as such, incidents of incorrectly playing ET, or not playing ET when it should have been, have seen games be replayed.
In the case in question the officials failed, for whatever reason, to see the ball cross the line. That has never been grounds for a game to be replayed and has happened hundreds if not thousands of times over the years.
The latter is where the referee sees it clearly but then incorrectly applies law. The classic example here is getting the restart on penalty encroachment incorrect, and many games have been replayed because of this. Also, whilst not law as such, incidents of incorrectly playing ET, or not playing ET when it should have been, have seen games be replayed.
In the case in question the officials failed, for whatever reason, to see the ball cross the line. That has never been grounds for a game to be replayed and has happened hundreds if not thousands of times over the years.
Dino Ref
Well-Known Member
Did they fail to see it cross the line or were they just not 100% certain?
Arsenal v Blades FA Cup was replayed after the Kanu Limpar incident, technically a goal but they still replayed it!!
Because the clubs agreed, it wasn't replayed following an appeal.
That's the same thing, no one should be giving a goal unless they are 100% certain. Even when Attwell and Bannister somehow ruled that a goal had been scored at Watford when it had gone nowhere near there was no replay nor any chance of one. They would have been 100% certain (or at least one of them was and convinced the other), unfortunately just 100% wrong. We don't know the facts about Wednesday's game and probably never will as they will close shop. I think Burt's view was probably blocked by Nyland's left shoulder and arm, but that obviously doesn't explain VAR not seeing it.
One thing I would say though is only the closest Sheffield United players made a big deal of it, so not even all of the players were clear at the time. They probably thought the same as the officials in that Hawkeye had never been wrong.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
With a defender, the goalkeeper, and the post very likely blocking or at least obscuring his view of the ball. Go back to the still shot earlier in the thread.
Again, if we cannot clearly see that the entire ball is over the entire line, we cannot give the goal. We cannot guess on that type of play. I know that even if I have a clear view of the ball, unless I know with 100% certainty that the ball is completely over the back part of the line, I'm not giving the goal.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Reading some of the posts, whats the actual point of the AR moving from the half way line?
offside, VAR will pick it up
Goal...GLT will get that...
car with flat tyre, TPS warning not displayed on dash..you still have a flat tyre!
offside, VAR will pick it up
Goal...GLT will get that...
car with flat tyre, TPS warning not displayed on dash..you still have a flat tyre!
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Am 100% he knew it was in, Yet cos his watch never beeped, he abandoned what he saw
Course only he will know, and maybe in times to come we will get his version