A&H

France V Australia

The Referee Store
Any decision which takes multiple replay angles, and analysis, then does not result in instant unanimity, can't surely be classed as clear and obvious. Even though I'm agreeing this was a penalty (80% certainty for me), this type of decision should not be part of the process
 
one said:
Fouls are subjective decisions. Unless it's a clear and obvious foul it can't be clear and obvious error.
Click to expand...
You are reading something into the "laws" and guidance that is not there.
Is a small foul a clear and obvious foul? (trip on Pavon)
Is an obscure technical offence a clear and obvious foul? (VAR sees a wedding ring?)
That's a whole can of worms that shouldn't be part of the decision making process imho - just clouds things further
 
santa sangria said:
You are reading something into the "laws" and guidance that is not there.
Is a small foul a clear and obvious foul? (trip on Pavon)
Is an obscure technical offence a clear and obvious foul? (VAR sees a wedding ring?)
That's a whole can of worms that shouldn't be part of the decision making process imho - just clouds things further
Click to expand...
Not sure where you are going with this. Fouls are completely different to the ring example you make.
What does the 'size' of a foul has to do with how obvious it is? Think of the defention of obvious the same way it is used in DOGSO. It's about certainty that it is a foul. Not about how big or severe the foul is.

CAOE can also be in the application of the law but they should have an impact on one of four reviewable incidents (Eg a direct goal scored from an IFK offence).

It seems that your understanding of when VAR can be used is somewhat different to mine.
 
one said:
Not sure where you are going with this. Fouls are completely different to the ring example you make.
What does the 'size' of a foul has to do with how obvious it is? Think of the defention of obvious the same way it is used in DOGSO. It's about certainty that it is a foul. Not about how big or severe the foul is.

CAOE can also be in the application of the law but they should have an impact on one of four reviewable incidents (Eg a direct goal scored from an IFK offence).

It seems that your understanding of when VAR can be used is somewhat different to mine.
Click to expand...
I am lost because VAR is not being used for clear and obvious errors but then is being used for non clear and obvious errors (error)
 
As for the Pk against Australia.... I can't decide if it was a foul or not. Perhaps I'm biased. But given that there was very little contact on an attacker who had overhit the ball, and a natural tackle from a defender, was it clear and obvious? I don't think so. As normal play is be surprised to see that awarded in the box.
I'd like to know why the ref didn't give it to start with. This looked like re-refereeing.
I didnt think the defender touched the ball. If he did then no way was it a foul, it would be incidental contact after the tackle
 
Last edited:
Ciley Myrus said:
Yip, I dont think that would have been given other than GLT
Click to expand...
I didn't even know glt was a thing. Presumably hawkeye software? I thought it was interesting that the tv replays seemed to clearly indicate the ball was on the line so I was surprised when the graphic came on.
 
https://streamable.com/llvog

The more I watch it the worse this decision gets.
It was purely incidental contact after the challenge. There was contact on the ball (not much, but similarly the contact on the player was very little), and the attacker had lost the ball anyway.
No impact on play and at the very, very bottom of the 'careless' scale - at worst - should lead towards a 'no penalty' decision.

But even worse is the fact that the VAR got involved - even IF it was an error, it definitely wasn't 'clear and obvious'.
 
I'll continue to disagree. But if you think Ronaldo's PK was a dive then I'm not shocked you don't think this is PK. You appear to have an unusually high bar for what constitutes a penalty kick.

mcQr96Q.jpg


This is a foul right here. He didn't cleanly win the ball. He slightly touched the ball and then tripped his opponents trailing heel.
 
A still photo doesn't show much. It was incidental contact after touching the ball on a player who looked like he probably wasn't going to retain possession. Clipping somebody's feet after touching the ball doesn't necessarily mean it's a foul.
Heck, you also have the issue that the referee wasn't provided with the camera angle that most clearly shows the defensive touch on the ball. That's a definite problem with the application of the VAR here.

But as I said, there are 2 aspects here - was it a foul, and was it a clear and obvious error?

Not going to discuss Ronaldo's on here as it's the wrong thread.
 
Last edited:
I don't really understand why this is a foul. If a defender goes for the ball, gets it, and then subsequently makes contact with the attacker, that's a legal challenge surely?

The fact that he "didn't get much on the ball" is not a factor. Non-dangerous contact you can't avoid while going for the ball is legal so long as you get the ball first, right?
 
Trip said:
I don't really understand why this is a foul. If a defender goes for the ball, gets it, and then subsequently makes contact with the attacker, that's a legal challenge surely?

The fact that he "didn't get much on the ball" is not a factor. Non-dangerous contact you can't avoid while going for the ball is legal so long as you get the ball first, right?
Click to expand...
This may help you understand the flip side. Getting the ball is a consideration but it doesn't mean you can deny an opponent a fair chance of chasing the ball after you connected with the ball. While you say non-dangerous contact (in such case) is allowed, the LOTG says careless is not allowed. You say 'you can't avoid', the law says nothing about intent. Many fouls can be accidental.

Having said that after looking at a few more replays, I can see how some may not consider this a foul and a see the point on it not being a clear and obvious error.
 
but as we all know a foul to one referee isnt always a foul to a different ref, so what happens f the match referees says no foul, but the var says it is
i mean andre marriner and mike dean two qualified referees, but dont tell me they have, the same refereeing style
 
jofusref said:
but as we all know a foul to one referee isnt always a foul to a different ref, so what happens f the match referees says no foul, but the var says it is
i mean andre marriner and mike dean two qualified referees, but dont tell me they have, the same refereeing style
Click to expand...


Thats a point. Another is, without var, what would the decision have been yesterday? Am thinking, no foul
 
arbitre said:
Should Umtiti not have been given a yellow for the handball which gave the Aussies a penalty?
Click to expand...
Not for me. The ball was dropping to another French defender (which as the commentators/pundits said, made the handball even more incomprehensible) so it did not stop a promising attack.
 
Peter Grove said:
Not for me. The ball was dropping to another French defender (which as the commentators/pundits said, made the handball even more incomprehensible) so it did not stop a promising attack.
Click to expand...


Agreed, back to basics that not every handball is a caution, he never prevented an opponent from getting the ball, just a daft thing to do, and only he will know why
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top