TOT v LIV

[santa sangria]

(Too much Talkspo*** again)

Just to say the RefSupport guy was on the radio this morning and was very eloquent and raised some good balanced points and reminded the commentators about the integrity of the officials. Actually it was so good that the presenters kinda sidelined as it didn’t play to their dramatic narrative.

But yeah was good work there from RS.

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

Once the game has restarted, it's 'game over'. That's enshrined in Law as far as I'm concerned and to renegade on that would set a precedent of unimaginable future consequences. Yes, there is a lot in Law that we ignore half the time, but there are some things which can't ever be breached.

Not to "fan post" but was that the case during the pandemic? Because we obviously saw united given a penalty after fulltime and all the players had gone in

 

[Big Cat]

Not to "fan post" but was that the case during the pandemic? Because we obviously saw united given a penalty after fulltime and all the players had gone in

That's an exception which is stated in Law

 

[Paul_10]

In the picture you post, it specifically states that referees are supposed to use both common sense and spirit of the game when deciding how to apply the LOTG.

"Law" has always been an inaccurate term, used by football to make its rules sound more grandiose. Any referee at any point has the choice to ignore any aspect of "law" if they're willing to defend that decision if questioned. That's literally the reality of football - a referee could blow his whistle and declare goalkeepers must wear blindfolds. The fact that's not in line with the laws doesn't physically stop it happening!

On the rare occasion that does happen, most referees will be told they're wrong to have done that and will be punished appropriately, a small percentage will be told they've made a sensible accommodation. And if the latter happens often enough, or in a high-profile enough game, laws will change subsequently to reflect that. This could have been one of the latter situations in my opinion if handled better by the VAR.

What yourself and some others in the media are forgetting that Tottenham have every right to refuse to allow Liverpool score a goal, what do you do then?

The laws should be changed that if a technical error has occured like this then aslong as the on field team are notified very quickly(before any possible dreaded scenario you stopping the game when the opposition has a golden chance to score for example) then the game can be stopped. I do find Darren England's lack of awareness in the whole sequence alarming, was he genuinely fatigued mentally because he was not at all switched on what the replay operator was trying to tell him. He even mistook "Oli" as the 4th official and did not responded back when Michael Oliver went "go on" when England went "Oli?" which as I said why nicknames should never be used although the replay operator in hindsight could of been clearer who he meant by Oli is saying delay the game.

Referees have made clangers before and came back(Marriner for example) so hopefully this will blow over and Darren will be back on the field of play soon enough.

 

[santa sangria]

Even Simon Jordan probing Pep’s comments and reminding that football culture is vehemently attacking officials. And that Pep asked for VAR. The coverage goes on. Is the Diaz ghost goal a pivotal moment…?

 

[DazN]

Pep's comments are basically just another attack on officials.

"And the Oscar goes to… They have to make a step back. It's the players. Some games, be more humble and leave the players to do what they have to do, and they will be better. They will be better."

Why not just let them play without any officials and see how that turns out.

 

[Big Cat]

Pep's comments are basically just another attack on officials.

"And the Oscar goes to… They have to make a step back. It's the players. Some games, be more humble and leave the players to do what they have to do, and they will be better. They will be better."

Why not just let them play without any officials and see how that turns out.

I really don't see it as that. Besides, even if it is an attack on the Officials, what do we expect? We're all over National News FGS
The game should always be about the players and we (as referees) should not be stealing their limelight

FWIW, I don't blame any of the individuals involved. They're just on-field referees involved in a broken process, not of their making

 

[santa sangria]

Pep's comments are basically just another attack on officials.

"And the Oscar goes to… They have to make a step back. It's the players. Some games, be more humble and leave the players to do what they have to do, and they will be better. They will be better."

Why not just let them play without any officials and see how that turns out.

Yes, exactly. That’s why I thought Jordan’s comments were remarkable as he highlighted the attack and football’s dysfunctional relationship with officials.

 

[GraemeS]

What yourself and some others in the media are forgetting that Tottenham have every right to refuse to allow Liverpool score a goal, what do you do then?

The laws should be changed that if a technical error has occured like this then aslong as the on field team are notified very quickly(before any possible dreaded scenario you stopping the game when the opposition has a golden chance to score for example) then the game can be stopped. I do find Darren England's lack of awareness in the whole sequence alarming, was he genuinely fatigued mentally because he was not at all switched on what the replay operator was trying to tell him. He even mistook "Oli" as the 4th official and did not responded back when Michael Oliver went "go on" when England went "Oli?" which as I said why nicknames should never be used although the replay operator in hindsight could of been clearer who he meant by Oli is saying delay the game.

Referees have made clangers before and came back(Marriner for example) so hopefully this will blow over and Darren will be back on the field of play soon enough.

I'm not forgetting that at all. My preference is that common sense was used and the goal is awarded, spirit of the law/common sense trumping a written clause that cannot possibly have anticipated this.

If we accept the idea that this isn't possible (which I don't, but for the sake of argument, fine), then appealing to Spurs is the next-best option.

If neither of those is acceptable, Spurs refuse or the referee decides he doesn't want to do those options, that's within his right to choose to play on and let the mistake stand, even if I disagree.

And then down here, in the position of 5th best option (if we take "just get the decision right in the first place" to be the implied top of the list) is what they actually did - hide what happened, obfuscate and fail to give the official in charge any of the information in order to let him make the decision.

The point is that they didn't just make a mistake - they were then unacceptably slow to realise the mistake (being beaten to the punch by a non-referee RO and a non-referee called Oli who wasn't even in the room!) and then chose not to even try and do anything about it or give the ref the information he needs to make an informed judgement. Both of those latter failing are what escalate this from a genuine forgivable mistake to something that does need actual individual punishment and retraining.

 

[David F]

Why not? People find themselves in jobs they're not suited for all the time, it's not a moral failing for England to have put years into being an on-field referee and find out that he's suited to that but not being in the VAR booth. For his sake, get him out of there, let him focus on being an on-field official and stop making him do a job he's clearly not good at.

I don’t think one mistake, where he’s made the right decision but got things the wrong way round on the original call, is enough to say he’s not suited for the job. My guess is that if you fix the protocols this won’t happen again.

 

[GraemeS]

I don’t think one mistake, where he’s made the right decision but got things the wrong way round on the original call, is enough to say he’s not suited for the job. My guess is that if you fix the protocols this won’t happen again.

He's also the official who missed an offside as VAR in the Arsenal Liverpool match last season, so this is at least his second strike on objectively wrong decisions and failing to use offside VAR tech correctly.

 

[Runner-Ref]

He's also the official who missed an offside as VAR in the Arsenal Liverpool match last season, so this is at least his second strike on objectively wrong decisions and failing to use offside VAR tech correctly.

If you’re referring to the game at The Emirates; this was down to a technical failure, not a human-error. Saka couldn’t been seen on the camera angles they have.

 

[GraemeS]

If you’re referring to the game at The Emirates; this was down to a technical failure, not a human-error. Saka couldn’t been seen on the camera angles they have.

He couldn't be seen on the camera angles that were calibrated for offside line-drawing. But he was clearly offside without any need for lines on a non-calibrated camera, England just failed to consider the possibility of using that angle.

 

[Runner-Ref]

He couldn't be seen on the camera angles that were calibrated for offside line-drawing. But he was clearly offside without any need for lines on a non-calibrated camera, England just failed to consider the possibility of using that angle.

The tactical camera cannot be used for offsides; they can only use the hawkeye ones.

Why? I'm not 100% sure. But I'd guess its because they don't have the same functionality as the hawkeye ones.

 

[GraemeS]

The tactical camera cannot be used for offsides; they can only use the hawkeye ones.

Why? I'm not 100% sure. But I'd guess its because they don't have the same functionality as the hawkeye ones.

Exactly. The VAR failed to successfully do their job because they insisted on rushing and following rigid protocols and didn't even consider looking for other out-of-the-box solutions that might have been better for the good of the game.

Am I talking about the Arsenal game last year or the Spurs game last weekend? The fact that the above sentence can be applied to both situations and that England was the man in charge in both cases is why he should be given other responsibilities.

 

[Runner-Ref]

Exactly. The VAR failed to successfully do their job because they insisted on rushing and following rigid protocols and didn't even consider looking for other out-of-the-box solutions that might have been better for the good of the game.

Am I talking about the Arsenal game last year or the Spurs game last weekend? The fact that the above sentence can be applied to both situations and that England was the man in charge in both cases is why he should be given other responsibilities.

No, he followed the guidance and laws that he needs to do for his job. If a taxi driver or van delivery person is going to be late to a drop off, they cannot look for the 'outside-of-the-box solution' and drive over the speed limit because it will be for the good of the customer.

England messed up this weekend, and I don't think anyone can or will disagree with that. But to then blame him for an offside a year ago which was proven to be a technical fault is ridiculous

 

[GraemeS]

No, he followed the guidance and laws that he needs to do for his job. If a taxi driver or van delivery person is going to be late to a drop off, they cannot look for the 'outside-of-the-box solution' and drive over the speed limit because it will be for the good of the customer.

England messed up this weekend, and I don't think anyone can or will disagree with that. But to then blame him for an offside a year ago which was proven to be a technical fault is ridiculous

And we're in a worse situation that we would have been if he'd been sensible instead of dogmatic. In both cases.

Again, we're struggling with the fact that football chooses to call its rules "laws" and that confuses people into thinking there's something morally wrong with looking outside them, in the way there can be with actual laws. Or as is impossible as with laws of nature.

It wouldn't have been a moral failing to decide that the laws aren't fit for purpose in this instance, or that spirit of the game might trump them. Or even to go one step up my "hierarchy of solutions" and refer it to the lead official for them to make the call.

 

[Runner-Ref]

And we're in a worse situation that we would have been if he'd been sensible instead of dogmatic. In both cases.

Again, we're struggling with the fact that football chooses to call its rules "laws" and that confuses people into thinking there's something morally wrong with looking outside them, in the way there can be with actual laws. Or as is impossible as with laws of nature.

It wouldn't have been a moral failing to decide that the laws aren't fit for purpose in this instance, or that spirit of the game might trump them. Or even to go one step up my "hierarchy of solutions" and refer it to the lead official for them to make the call.

It doesn't matter whether you call them rules, laws, instructions or the bible; if you go out to play or referee the game, they're what you need to follow. If you aren't going to bother following them, you might as well go and play a different sport.

Referee in the below article decided to follow the hierarchy of solutions and went with the think outside the box solution. It didn't end too well for him.

Ref suspended for watching replay on fan's phone

An Egyptian referee has been suspended indefinitely after using a mobile phone before disallowing a goal in a second division match last week.

www.espn.co.uk

 

[Matthew]

Klopp is now calling for the match to be replayed. Not unexpected following the wording in the original statement from Liverpool, but this isn't going away any time soon.

Jurgen Klopp demands Liverpool replay against Tottenham after VAR error disallowed Luis Diaz goal

Luis Diazs goal for Liverpool at Tottenham was mistakenly disallowed; PGMOL released the audio from the decision made by VAR officials Darren England and Dan Cook; Sky Sports News understands Premier Leagues stance remains unchanged - that a replay would not be considered

www.skysports.com

 

[GraemeS]

It doesn't matter whether you call them rules, laws, instructions or the bible; if you go out to play or referee the game, they're what you need to follow. If you aren't going to bother following them, you might as well go and play a different sport.

Referee in the below article decided to follow the hierarchy of solutions and went with the think outside the box solution. It didn't end too well for him.

Ref suspended for watching replay on fan's phone

An Egyptian referee has been suspended indefinitely after using a mobile phone before disallowing a goal in a second division match last week.

www.espn.co.uk

I don't deny that sometimes it will be the wrong thing to do and that we shouldn't be wildly making up rules with no thought. But to quote myself from earlier:

On the rare occasion that does happen, most referees will be told they're wrong to have done that and will be punished appropriately, a small percentage will be told they've made a sensible accommodation. And if the latter happens often enough, or in a high-profile enough game, laws will change subsequently to reflect that. This could have been one of the latter situations in my opinion if handled better by the VAR.

In some specific occasions, spirit of the game and common sense can be applied. As has been pointed out while I was typing this, Klopp has now floated the concept of a replay - surely you see that just fixing it in the moment would have been preferable to the possibility of the entire match having to be re-done?