NEW LIV

[Runner-Ref]

Regarding the advantage, the referee is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Off the top of my head, the advantage was a fairly decent one. At the top level, they want advantages played in these circumstances. We had a talk with Peter Walton a few years back and he mentioned how Prem clubs wanted advantages over free-kicks. The only exception to this rule was Sam Allardyce at Blackburn as he said he'd rather a FK. Which referees were fine to do, but under the understanding that SA couldn't have any complaints if they gave a FK when there was a clear advantage.

The foul by Joelinton was clear SPA, but once AT plays the advantage, there's not a lot else for him to do.

 

[Mr Dean]

If you are going to argue with someone that has read the protocol then you really ought to have read it yourself first...

View attachment 7038

As you can see @socal lurker is spot on.

Do you think Anthony Taylor could have self-initiated a review in this situation? He didn't miss anything serious; he saw the incident and awarded a penalty. I think he can only initiate a review after a VAR recommendation in this situation.

 

[JamesL]

Do you think Anthony Taylor could have self-initiated a review in this situation? He didn't miss anything serious; he saw the incident and awarded a penalty. I think he can only initiate a review after a VAR recommendation in this situation.

There would be nothing stopping him as the protocol is written. So long as he feels there is potentially a serious missed incident.

I also agree it would be highly unlikely, improbable, as close to no chance as you can get for this specific incident.

I was responding to the fact, as I read it, @DJIC was suggesting a referee can never initiate a review themselves, which, if you read the attachment I posted is not true.

 

[BCMilan]

If there is one thing that frustrates me the most it is seeing dives be rewarded, regardless of circumstances. It is not a brief error in judgement or a mistimed tackle, it is clear and deliberate cheating. In a game with VAR and the ability to endlessly review decisions, it is even more annoying to see it not just go unpunished, but be actively rewarded.

....and you have pundits on MOTD etc (talking to millions of grassroots players) saying players should be going down/ making the ref make a decision etc. NO...they should be saying it's cheating and it needs to stop !

 

[BCMilan]

VAR was never goin to work, once they confirmed it would get involved in Clear and Obvious errors. Clear and Obvious is too subjective !!!

 

[GraemeS]

....and you have pundits on MOTD etc (talking to millions of grassroots players) saying players should be going down/ making the ref make a decision etc. NO...they should be saying it's cheating and it needs to stop !

This is 100% the fault of refereeing/the laws. Jota is undeniably clipped, and it arguably makes it harder for him to score that goal - instead of just jogging on and tapping it in, he's been slowed down, has to regain his balance and sort his legs out, all while the ball is rolling further from goal and making the angle tighter.

Could he have stayed on his feet if he wanted to? Probably.
Does he get the penalty if he manages to stay on his feet and then slices the ball wide as a result of being off balance? Almost certainly not.

In an ideal world, he stays on his feet, attempts the shot and then if it doesn't go in, the foul is assessed and penalty given regardless. But I don't think anyone on here really believes that would happen. Falling over after limited contact is the only way players have of saying "I don't think the advantage is good enough, I'd rather have the penalty" - a refereeing mentality that allowed for this not to be seen as two bites of the cherry, or laws that allow for advantage to be declined would remove the need for this kind of action.

And AT had already shown that he was prepared to insist on advantages that Liverpool didn't really want, as in the Joelinton non-booking incident. We can debate the quality of that advantage, but it's undeniable that in the moment, Liverpool didn't want and didn't expect it until AT insisted they play on. I would absolutely expect him to do the same here if Jota stayed on his feet and then missed.

 

[Russell Jones]

This is 100% the fault of refereeing/the laws. Jota is undeniably clipped, and it arguably makes it harder for him to score that goal - instead of just jogging on and tapping it in, he's been slowed down, has to regain his balance and sort his legs out, all while the ball is rolling further from goal and making the angle tighter.

Could he have stayed on his feet if he wanted to? Probably.
Does he get the penalty if he manages to stay on his feet and then slices the ball wide as a result of being off balance? Almost certainly not.

In an ideal world, he stays on his feet, attempts the shot and then if it doesn't go in, the foul is assessed and penalty given regardless. But I don't think anyone on here really believes that would happen. Falling over after limited contact is the only way players have of saying "I don't think the advantage is good enough, I'd rather have the penalty" - a refereeing mentality that allowed for this not to be seen as two bites of the cherry, or laws that allow for advantage to be declined would remove the need for this kind of action.

And AT had already shown that he was prepared to insist on advantages that Liverpool didn't really want, as in the Joelinton non-booking incident. We can debate the quality of that advantage, but it's undeniable that in the moment, Liverpool didn't want and didn't expect it until AT insisted they play on. I would absolutely expect him to do the same here if Jota stayed on his feet and then missed.

It's a New Year and a fresh start here on Refchat ... in that context (and I scarce believe I am saying this!), I agree with @GraemeS

 

[Runner-Ref]

Does he get the penalty if he manages to stay on his feet and then slices the ball wide as a result of being off balance? Almost certainly not.

Tbf to AT, he gave a penalty for exactly this in the Championship the other week and got widely criticised.

 

[GraemeS]

Tbf to AT, he gave a penalty for exactly this in the Championship the other week and got widely criticised.

Not even close to comparable decisions IMO.

 

[QuaverRef]

What I'm saying is, if the teams get challenges, the referee has to go to the screen. There is no VAR.

Then it's down to onfield referee whether they'd like to overturn their original decision or not

This keeps coming up and it would be awful. There would be constant debates about managers having no challenges left and missing out the opportunity to overturn a decision later in the game.

The only reason people think this would work is because it’s used in the NFL but they don’t use it for anything subjective, only black and white decisions. They brought in the use of challenges for pass interference (a decision based on opinion) and scrapped it shortly after because it didn’t work

 

[JamesL]

This keeps coming up and it would be awful. There would be constant debates about managers having no challenges left and missing out the opportunity to overturn a decision later in the game.

The only reason people think this would work is because it’s used in the NFL but they don’t use it for anything subjective, only black and white decisions. They brought in the use of challenges for pass interference (a decision based on opinion) and scrapped it shortly after because it didn’t work

There's also the issue it creates when a challenge happens and the referee still doesn't agree it's an error.

It solves none of the ongoing debates around VAR except what is and isn't reviewed. And then, when there is a challenge what angles, replays etc that should be shown.

I agree, i really don't see how it could work and get over the existing hurdles and not create more hurdles in the process.

Prime example (if all true.)
Rob Jones have a penalty, I think it was wolves v Sheff utd.
Gary O'Neill would have challenged that.
Rob Jones, allegedly, after the game having viewed it (I do doubt this somewhat but work with me) maintains it was a penalty.
Review panel voted refereeing error.

Nothing is solved in that example by a challenge system. Except mid-game the referee ends up in a dispute with the wolves manager about his refusal to overturn a decision he believes to be correct on replay.

 

[GraemeS]

I don't really see why that's any more of an issue than we have now when a referee makes a decision on-field and it is later decided to have been wrong, or the VAR decides not to review something they should have?

You're catastrophising something that already happens (and that should happen less if the referee is actually the one making the call more often rather than relying on a VAR to guess what C&O means this week) into a reason a different system couldn't possibly work?

To expand further on that bracketed section, C&O exists to stop the VAR interfering with trifling or subjective issues, but has become a huge issue in an of itself because it's an unclear and constantly changing concept. A challenge system removes that C&O confusion - so a VAR no longer has to decide if an error is C&O before calling the referee over, they simply do it because the manager/captain has thrown a flag/pushed a button/drawn a TV in the air etc. And the referee is no longer beholden to C&O either, because they're now much more entitled to stick with their original decision after a review, but can also change their mind based on a much lower subjective bar if they choose to.

No one has to worry about "is it C&O or not" any more, they would just have to look at a screen and decide what they think the right decision is. It takes it back to basics a little. I'm not sure it's a fix-all and it would obviously need to be trialled and refined. But I think you're being unnecessarily dismissive and not seeing the potential benefits.

 

[GraemeS]

This keeps coming up and it would be awful. There would be constant debates about managers having no challenges left and missing out the opportunity to overturn a decision later in the game.

The only reason people think this would work is because it’s used in the NFL but they don’t use it for anything subjective, only black and white decisions. They brought in the use of challenges for pass interference (a decision based on opinion) and scrapped it shortly after because it didn’t work

Again, this is not an unfixable problem and it's a little disingenuous to pretend that it is. It's widely accepted in any other sport's challenge system that you will generally be allowed only X amount of incorrect challenges, after which if you've done it wrong enough times, it's entirely your own fault. Football isn't special and would come to accept the same limitations as well.

 

[santa sangria]

Again, this is not an unfixable problem and it's a little disingenuous to pretend that it is. It's widely accepted in any other sport's challenge system that you will generally be allowed only X amount of incorrect challenges, after which if you've done it wrong enough times, it's entirely your own fault. Football isn't special and would come to accept the same limitations as well.

Hmm except no other sport AFAIK has anything like the level of abuse towards referees by players, coaches and the media that football has. Not even close. That is the underlying problem and why a challenge system will not work the same in football. “The referee was so incompetent I had to use my three challenges and then his/her mistake at the end of the game has cost my team the 3 points. It’s disgraceful…” etc.

 

[GraemeS]

Hmm except no other sport AFAIK has anything like the level of abuse towards referees by players, coaches and the media that football has. Not even close. That is the underlying problem and why a challenge system will not work the same in football. “The referee was so incompetent I had to use my three challenges and then his/her mistake at the end of the game has cost my team the 3 points. It’s disgraceful…” etc.

Again, you're imagining a poorly designed system. In a sensible system, if a manager "had to use" his challenges and so has none left, he's wasted them on incorrect uses. And If a media is going to blame referees for a manager incorrectly challenging multiple times so that they don't have it left for the next occurrence, we may as well just give up trying to fix it.

 

[SammyT5]

Again, you're imagining a poorly designed system. In a sensible system, if a manager "had to use" his challenges and so has none left, he's wasted them on incorrect uses. And If a media is going to blame referees for a manager incorrectly challenging multiple times so that they don't have it left for the next occurrence, we may as well just give up trying to fix it.

Exactly. The system would only work if managers retained challenges for correct usage, but lost them for incorrect. Of course for subjective decisions there’d still be debate, but it would work to some degree.

 

[es1]

Exactly. The system would only work if managers retained challenges for correct usage, but lost them for incorrect. Of course for subjective decisions there’d still be debate, but it would work to some degree.

max two challenges, can be used on anything (throw ins/corners etc.).

you could have a VAR reviewing anything factual to speed things up with the ref reviewing anything subjective at the monitor.

 

[JamesL]

I don't really see why that's any more of an issue than we have now when a referee makes a decision on-field and it is later decided to have been wrong, or the VAR decides not to review something they should have?

You're catastrophising something that already happens (and that should happen less if the referee is actually the one making the call more often rather than relying on a VAR to guess what C&O means this week) into a reason a different system couldn't possibly work?

To expand further on that bracketed section, C&O exists to stop the VAR interfering with trifling or subjective issues, but has become a huge issue in an of itself because it's an unclear and constantly changing concept. A challenge system removes that C&O confusion - so a VAR no longer has to decide if an error is C&O before calling the referee over, they simply do it because the manager/captain has thrown a flag/pushed a button/drawn a TV in the air etc. And the referee is no longer beholden to C&O either, because they're now much more entitled to stick with their original decision after a review, but can also change their mind based on a much lower subjective bar if they choose to.

No one has to worry about "is it C&O or not" any more, they would just have to look at a screen and decide what they think the right decision is. It takes it back to basics a little. I'm not sure it's a fix-all and it would obviously need to be trialled and refined. But I think you're being unnecessarily dismissive and not seeing the potential benefits.

A challenge system is not as straight forward as some seem to think it is.

First of all there would need to be direct engagement to understand what it is that is being challenged. That in itself is the first potential conflict for a lot of reasons.

It's not like tennis/cricket where you can wave a hand to initiate a challenge where everyone knows what you are challenging. (Which for both, although differently, is In / Out).

Then there is an issue of who decides which frames/angles to show.

Then there are the things that are automatically checked... Yes pen, red card, mistaken identity easily transfer over to a challenge system but checking offside in a goal/no goal situation takes a replay operator up to a couple of minutes so how long do they get to challenge. And whose fault is it if there wasn't enough time to challenge but after the fact it turns out it was offside. This just won't be acceptable to the average fan, player, manager or club.

I dont think any of the issues are solved with a challenge based system. I think there would be more issues as a result of it. I'd love to see a trial of course as it would prove / disprove theories.

 

[JamesL]

max two challenges, can be used on anything (throw ins/corners etc.).

you could have a VAR reviewing anything factual to speed things up with the ref reviewing anything subjective at the monitor.

Stop/start, stop /start.

Would totally ruin the game imo.

 

[es1]

Stop/start, stop /start.

Would totally ruin the game imo.

Pretty sure you're describing current VAR there