Tottenham - Chelsea
- Thread starter Tealeaf
- Start date
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
(Whichever way, the officials did get this right IMHO - even though it was horrible viewing and took ages - and, fan moment, Harry Kane was majestic, just a different planet)
I think they have made a bit of a mess of the protocol. It looks like Attwell has effectively asked for help in identifying who the offender was, which makes it a referee initiated review, which is allowed if the referee believes that something serious has been missed. The VAR then describes to the referee what he has seen and the referee can either show the TV signal and go for a look, or make a final decision based on the information from the VAR.
I've highlighted the word final as he didn't make a TV signal initially before showing the red card, so it has to be that second possibility, and that is clear that this is a final decision. It can't be a final decision if you then go and have a look at the screen and change your mind. What we think has happened is ...
- on-pitch officials see what they believe was VC but don't get the offender
- referee asks VAR to identifier offender
- VAR give Ziyech's number
- Attwell shows the red card
- VAR recommend a review as they don't feel it was VC
- Attwell watches footage and downgrades to caution
As far as I can see only two outcomes are supportable.
I've highlighted the word final as he didn't make a TV signal initially before showing the red card, so it has to be that second possibility, and that is clear that this is a final decision. It can't be a final decision if you then go and have a look at the screen and change your mind. What we think has happened is ...
- on-pitch officials see what they believe was VC but don't get the offender
- referee asks VAR to identifier offender
- VAR give Ziyech's number
- Attwell shows the red card
- VAR recommend a review as they don't feel it was VC
- Attwell watches footage and downgrades to caution
As far as I can see only two outcomes are supportable.
- No card is given in which case VAR review to see if there has been a clear and obvious error
- Red or yellow card is given to who they think it was and VAR review to see if there has been a clear and obvious error. This could result in ...
- review being recommended due to colour of card being viewed as a clear and obvious error
- VAR can advise the referee that the card was correct but issued to the wrong player, in which case it is switched to the correct player. No need for an on-pitch review for this. VAR can only check for mistaken identity after a card has been shown.
That was my thought/assumption...Dale Johnson says otherwise
But then a missed incident ties into the review text I posted above. He effectively did both of those final bullet points: the second one first, and then despite that being stated as final he went onto do the first one. The fact there is an "or" in between them means you can't do both.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
MOTD said PGMOL said the process was followed correctly.
Sooooooo 5 minutes to issue a red card and then change to a yellow is "correct"?
Sorry Paul, but I really hate the obsession over time when it comes to VAR. I can't think of many jobs in the world where time pressure increases quality of results, yet it's constantly trotted out that making the VAR faster will make the system better.
What they're saying is that there were no procedural errors. And in reality, we can also actually say that the correct end-result was reached. Both of these are good things, neither of these implies it couldn't possibly have gone better. You seem to be reading "PGMOL patting themselves on the back" where I'm reading them just confirming boxes were correctly ticked.
The huge amount of time it took was in part because a bunch of man-babies got stroppy that another man-baby kicked/pushed their friend. Because of how many of them chose to unnecessarily get involved, the officials then had to consult to determine what actually happened. And then once all of that had happened, the VAR getting them to downgrade to yellow was relatively fast.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Its not an obsession, was actually mentioned on MOTD that it completely killed the atmosphere in the stadium.
Personally think its about time the paying spectator - be that live or via pay TV is moved a bit further up the priority list myself.
Plus its a bit of a nonsense to say that it doesn't matter IMHO. You take 5 minutes to reach a decision with one of your real life ARs and see how well that goes down?
Ah but that's VAR, its an 'improvement' you will say - can't see that myself.
Similar to the discussion we had on match fees, how can receiving your fee 48 hours after the match be an 'improvement' on receiving a few minutes after the match, or even before in some (rare) cases?
File me away in the 'old school' drawer if you like, but there can't be many walks of life - sport or not - where slower is seen as better.
Rant over - sorry everyone!
Completely agree that more can be done to make the experience better for spectators in the ground and at home.
I fail to see how introducing a rush that will inevitably result in a worse quality of decision is the go-to way to make fans happier.
Rugby is often cited as a gold-standard for VAR-type decisions. A sport in which the clock is stopped and the officials are empowered to take as long as they want to reach the right decision. Time pressure isn't what makes that a good system - being clear, accessible and generally correct is what makes it a good system.
I don't really see the relevance of the match-fee comparison, and it's a straw man to put that argument into my mouth.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Good discussion Graeme. "Gold Standard" may be a tad subjective. I know a Rugby (League) fan who maintains that VAR has killed the game, with pretty much EVERY try checked - just because they can.
Surely one of the reasons football became the popular sport it is, was because of the speed & continuous nature of the game.
Its slowly but surely being strangled, not only by VAR, but fake injuries, atmosphere stopping ploys and very slow restarts.
Now before Rusty gets agitated, just saying QPR could have all 4 officials as ST holders and we wouldn't win and these incidents had NO effcet on Saturday's result, but here is a selection of what I witnessed at QPR v Blackburn on Saturday.
GK taking 20 seconds to release the ball from hands, 25 - 30 seconds to take a goal kick, player allowed 30 seconds to tie his boot laces, player 'injured' after a yellow card challenge, suddenly realising he can stay on the pitch if he gets up quickly - physios literally sprint off as he springs to his feet, defender goes down 'injured' before a corner, after being persuaded by oppo and the ref to get up, he does so with no sign of an injury, sub made with 10 seconds (of added time) to play with side 3-1 up.
The game is getting slower and slower and adding more time or a stop/start clock isn't going to change that, as most is seen as 'game management' these days and a legitimate way to stop oppo momentum.
I suppose Graeme the crux is, with VAR, is getting the right decision a higher % of the time worth the downsides (time taken being one of them) - in your view yes, in my view no.
BTW re read my post I have no idea what side of the BACs v Cash argument you are on and didn't imply either way (I didn't think)
Surely one of the reasons football became the popular sport it is, was because of the speed & continuous nature of the game.
Its slowly but surely being strangled, not only by VAR, but fake injuries, atmosphere stopping ploys and very slow restarts.
Now before Rusty gets agitated, just saying QPR could have all 4 officials as ST holders and we wouldn't win and these incidents had NO effcet on Saturday's result, but here is a selection of what I witnessed at QPR v Blackburn on Saturday.
GK taking 20 seconds to release the ball from hands, 25 - 30 seconds to take a goal kick, player allowed 30 seconds to tie his boot laces, player 'injured' after a yellow card challenge, suddenly realising he can stay on the pitch if he gets up quickly - physios literally sprint off as he springs to his feet, defender goes down 'injured' before a corner, after being persuaded by oppo and the ref to get up, he does so with no sign of an injury, sub made with 10 seconds (of added time) to play with side 3-1 up.
The game is getting slower and slower and adding more time or a stop/start clock isn't going to change that, as most is seen as 'game management' these days and a legitimate way to stop oppo momentum.
I suppose Graeme the crux is, with VAR, is getting the right decision a higher % of the time worth the downsides (time taken being one of them) - in your view yes, in my view no.
BTW re read my post I have no idea what side of the BACs v Cash argument you are on and didn't imply either way (I didn't think)
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Seems to me multiple things are true. Speed for the sake of speed leads to errors. EPL VARs are often too slow. Speed comes with practice and experience. The EPL's clear reluctance to take VARs seriously hampered the ability to raise the quality and efficiency of their VARs. Not all of what many of us see as problems with officiating in EPL are due to VAR, and not all of them can be fixed by Webb. Some of what we see as bugs appear to be features in the mind of EPL management. And it is unfortunate that, rather than aiding consistency across professional leagues, implementation of VAR, if anything, has created further divergence than there was before.
Maybe I'm being a little straightforward, but it seems to me like you've listed a bunch of problems, all of which need solutions but none of which mean speeding up VAR makes it better. The way I see that list of events is a bunch of opportunities to remove timewasting and add pace and excitement to the game that potentially makes room for VAR to work their way to the correct decision.
Were I in Webb's shoes, I would absolutely see this all as one interconnected issue. Fix all your issues and it both speeds up the game generally, while also introducing space for VAR to breathe. Win-win!
Were I in Webb's shoes, I would absolutely see this all as one interconnected issue. Fix all your issues and it both speeds up the game generally, while also introducing space for VAR to breathe. Win-win!
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Fair enough, I suppose where I was coming from, was if I have to suffer all those delaying tactics, every match and its no exaggeration to say that I do, then adding VAR to the list would send me over the edge!
I'm not sure many of them ARE solvable by Webb and us alone - it needs buy in from those actioning them - the clubs!
Its clear no one 'in the game' wants to see yellow cards for delaying the restart or Fks for GKs taking 20 seconds to release the ball for example.
As far as tactical injuries are concerned, that one IS 100% down to the clubs, nothing we can do as referees if a player says he is injured - who is going to be the first ref to ignore a serious injury?
I'm not sure many of them ARE solvable by Webb and us alone - it needs buy in from those actioning them - the clubs!
Its clear no one 'in the game' wants to see yellow cards for delaying the restart or Fks for GKs taking 20 seconds to release the ball for example.
As far as tactical injuries are concerned, that one IS 100% down to the clubs, nothing we can do as referees if a player says he is injured - who is going to be the first ref to ignore a serious injury?
Is there a way of continuing the match while a player is receiving treatment, in certain neutral areas of the pitch, aka rugby? Newcastle had a player, Guimaraes I think, he was injured rolled off the pitch then more rolls later was back on the pitch. His side were losing 2-0, so just a given players expect the game to be stopped for all players to receive treatment.
Rugby is a lot different, play and players are bunched into a relatively small area of the pitch and it can take a long time to move. Football is a lot more dynamic and therefore a much higher chance of a downed player and the physios getting caught up in play.
Rugby players are also very different, and generally if they are down there is something wrong. I heard Mike Tindall on the Chris Moyles show this morning and he said how he used to tell the England physios that if he was down on the floor and rolling around he would be fine and they could leave him alone, but if he was completely still he needed help. He then went onto talk about the time when a challenge broke two of his ribs, punctured his lung and lacerated his liver. The physio asked him if he wanted a stretcher, he said no chance, this is at Twickenham, I'm not going off on a stretcher. He was then helped up, immediately fell over and said "OK, I'll have a stretcher then". Can you really imagine a footballer behaving that way, even the hardest of them?