Unintentional violent conduct...

[socal lurker]

But surely VAR recommendations are just another Refs view of an incident......Dean can still say NO having watched the footage himself and then discussed it Mason after the match.
If West Ham appeal it will be interesting to see the outcome with Dean having one overturned already this week

If they are following the protocols, you are right. But what a couple of posters are suggesting is that PGMOL has told Rs not to make their own decision, but just to go to the monitor as a form of theatre and accept whatever the VAR says. If true, I think its scandalous. But I can't prove it isn't.

 

[es1]

You have been selective in quoting the law - the previous paragraph does not require that the act be deliberate.

Didn't read the previous para tbh, just looked for this one!

I'd say this para further reinforces that it's not a red

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

 

[Paul_10]

Because they are told by their bosses to go with the VAR recommendation. Remember that PGMOL didn't want the monitors used at all, they are little more than a token gesture to prove to FIFA that they are using VAR correctly.

So Graham Scott and Andre Marriner was naughty referees for going against Mike Rileys protocol!?

Apparently Germany in their first year of VAR also discourage the refs not using monitors but that was scrapped mid season as the referees were not supportive of it.

Too me VAR should not be making the final decision, it should be the man in the middle. Who remembers the Fred Neymar(?) incident in the Champions League a little while back where Fred headbutted the PSG player but contact was very minimal and the PSG player made the most of it and the ref went to the screen for a red card review) and only gave a yellow(which was something I applude a ref doing because faking contact should not help to get a fellow pro sent off). This looks similar too me hence MD could be of easily given a yellow I'm sure.

 

[RefIADad]

MD was a better R without VAR... absolutely no doubt

I think that also goes for Taylor and Oliver as well. I've said before that I think Anthony Taylor is a completely different referee when he works UEFA matches (Champions League, Euro qualifiers, etc.) compared to the Premier League. I have to think one reason is because VAR is not nearly the dog and pony show that it is in England.

I have no idea whatsoever how Lee Mason could look at that play and recommend an on-field review for Mike Dean. There has to also be some sort of directive from PGMOL on these reviews as others have mentioned. From a common sense perspective, there is just no real reason to call this one down for a review.

I have to think Mike Dean's hands were tied. He looked like he wanted to be anywhere else than in front of that monitor.

 

[Wolf_Ref]

My opinion is that that was clumsy if anything. I disagree with the decision totally, but also think that there needs to be a PANEL on VAR to make sure they only intervene when it is clear that the ref has made a boo boo!

it also doesn’t help when players go down like a sack of potatoes...

 

[Paul_10]

I have to think Mike Dean's hands were tied. He looked like he wanted to be anywhere else than in front of that monitor.

I disagree, he spent long enough looking at it to make his own judgement. He could not of agreed with Lee Mason's thoughts that it might of been a red card and given a yellow or nothing at all. The refs on the field want to be in charge and unless we definately know otherwise, I believe it was his decision. Also the fact Mike Dean no doubt on average has the most red cards per game over every referee meant he was more likely to produce a red than say Chris Kavanagh who actually produced only 5 red cards in his PL career so far and Mike Dean has produced 6 red cards in around 15 games.

 

[bloovee]

It was very obvious that Mike Dean did not want to go red here, and another example of no one knowing what a clear and obvious error is. He was looking straight at it real time and immediately blew his whistle to stop the corner being taken so there is no suggestion that he didn't see the incident.

The problem here is with Lee Mason, how on earth has he watched that multiple times and deemed it VC? I wouldn't be at all surprised if PGMOL have told the referees not to go against the advice of VAR if they are sent to watch it on the screen. This is a mess, and is likely to be another situation where VAR has intervened and the decision will be overturned on appeal.

I really feel sorry for Mike Dean here, he is going to get the blame but it was obvious from his body language and the amount of time he took looking at the screen that he didn't want to go red. Yet again I say it is not the technology that is at fault, rather the guidance and directives of how to use it.

Don't feel sorry for Mike Dean. He's a big boy. Whatever PGMOL might or might not have said, the referee makes all the decisions, not VAR.

Let's face it, English referees aren't likely to be going to the World Cup, again. It doesn't have to be like this.

 

[Wolf_Ref]

Just watched it again, and I’m totally flabbergasted as to how this is a red for VC.

 

[RefIADad]

Don't feel sorry for Mike Dean. He's a big boy. Whatever PGMOL might or might not have said, the referee makes all the decisions, not VAR.

Let's face it, English referees aren't likely to be going to the World Cup, again. It doesn't have to be like this.

But if the referee wants to keep getting good assignments, he will continue to call games in the manner his managers want him to call it.

Like everyone else, these referees have a boss. If the boss says "do it this way", you either do it "this way" or you don't get the rewards.

 

[socal lurker]

Finally saw the clip, and I’m not at all surprised this was red. Contact with the head has been such a focus, I am guessing that PGMOL is telling Rs that this kind of conduct is a red—the player moving his elbow is responsible for knowing where opponents are and not popping them in the face. (Whether it should be or we have gone too far with the face is another issue.)

 

[Peter Grove]

Didn't read the previous para tbh, just looked for this one!

I'd say this para further reinforces that it's not a red

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

That paragraph refers to violent conduct in general. As I see it, you could actually use that paragraph to argue that it is a red card. However, there is also the following paragraph that deals specifically with contact to the face (and which was quoted earlier).

It says:

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

As that paragraph is written, for me it means that the contact has first of all to be deliberate, before even looking at whether it was negligible or not.

I actually disagree with the poster who said earlier that the contact here was negligible but as I read it, the requirement that it be deliberate supercedes that and makes it irrelevant.

Of the two paragraphs, which I think are slightly contradictory, I believe the second is the more applicable so I think I'd be agreeing with those who say no red card here.

I can see where others might disagree with that, though.

 

[bloovee]

But if the referee wants to keep getting good assignments, he will continue to call games in the manner his managers want him to call it.

Like everyone else, these referees have a boss. If the boss says "do it this way", you either do it "this way" or you don't get the rewards.

What rewards?

International tournaments? Beyond the boss's control - and doing what the boss says makes getting those rewards less likely.

Unless you think PGMOL (and the PL itself) wants controversy as a TV audience booster.

Let's face it - "last week's ref" is no longer a problem, it's last week's VAR (whether intervening or not intervening).

 

[one]

Finally saw the clip, and I’m not at all surprised this was red. Contact with the head has been such a focus, I am guessing that PGMOL is telling Rs that this kind of conduct is a red—the player moving his elbow is responsible for knowing where opponents are and not popping them in the face. (Whether it should be or we have gone too far with the face is another issue.)

Do you think contact here was deliberate?

Or are PGMOL directing against what's in the lotg? The directions for contact with head applies only when it is deliberate. Yes I agree with responsibility comment but in this case I am not deeming it deliberate and I don't S3 how anyone can. The only way this can be a send off is if you deem it brutal or UEF (the general definition of VC) and under that definition I disagree with a VAR review recommendation.

This is in the orange zone. I would accept either card from the referee (prefer yellow) but VAR needs to keep quiet on it as it would not be a C&O error.

 

[Big Cat]

have to think one reason is because VAR is not nearly the dog and pony show that it is in England.

VAR is a dog's dinner in the Champions League too. Maybe the fans on the Continent are more accepting of it... I don't know... I lost interest in European Competitions a good while back

 

[jofusref]

cmon guys watch it again clear elbow to the nose,remember deliberate dunno about
the spelling, and intentional are no longer in the laws thats why so many refereees
are b...s ing handball up this season

 

[es1]

cmon guys watch it again clear elbow to the nose,remember deliberate dunno about
the spelling, and intentional are no longer in the laws thats why so many refereees
are b...s ing handball up this season

It literally is in the laws though...as posted in this thread

 

[RefIADad]

It literally is in the laws though...as posted in this thread

And this is another example of how trying to make the Laws more objective and black and white makes the game worse. Maybe this send off is objectively correct by the Laws, but common sense has a far different correct answer to this play.

 

[Degnann]

And this is another example of how trying to make the Laws more objective and black and white makes the game worse. Maybe this send off is objectively correct by the Laws, but common sense has a far different correct answer to this play.

But its not objectively correct by the laws either

 

[Kes]

(Not so) cleverly disguised reaction to Mitrovic's hands being on his chest.
VC all day long for me....

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Red for VC for me - elbow in opponent's face followed by two hands up to say "I'm innocent, honest"