A&H

Burnley v Luton

DazN said:
If he was stationary I would say no foul, but he steps directly into him and also sticks his leg across him. I am surprised that the ref didn’t give it in real time, but the fact that VAR don’t suggest another look is beyond belief.
Click to expand...
Nit pick. VARs never “suggest another look.” VARs recommend a review when the VAR believes a C&O error occurred. (But I agree with you that this clear enough that it should have gone to review—and I think it would have in most leagues, but the Pl has been a bit of a crap shoot she. It comes to where the standard is for C&O.)
 
The Referee Store
Faris said:
.

I really do want to learn, but I have looked through the lotg and I can't see anything that makes this a foul.
Click to expand...
Read the definition of "impeding the progress of an opponent"

And then apply that to impeding the progress of an opponent with contact
 
I can see this as a foul but not a C&O error because the GK appears to be already running into the attacker, rather than the attacker stepping across.
 
Foul for me too. Striker definitely has no intention of playing the ball there. Not even looking at it, except to work out where he needs to get to to impede the keeper.
 
socal lurker said:
Nit pick. VARs never “suggest another look.” VARs recommend a review when the VAR believes a C&O error occurred.
Click to expand...

No nitpicking, my bad choice of wording! But I think this is the problem. Suggesting a review is essentially telling the referee they think they got it wrong and they seem reluctant to do it sometimes, so it isn’t doing what it is supposed to… Correct errors!

In rugby the referee asks ‘Is there any reason not to award the try?’ Football should be the same. In this case ‘Yes there has been a foul on the keeper’
 
Of course it's NOT A CLEAR FOUL because if it happens anywhere else on the pitch it's unlikely to be even noticed
A goalkeeper running into that space with opposition players in the way may not get to their destination

HOWEVER, refereeing is an art and not a science. The game currently expects a foul in that specific scenario, so of course IT IS A FOUL
Was the VAR right to let it go. F*$k knows, because VAR is a science and the game is not. It's another bad night for VAR, but a great one if the intention of VAR is to stir up 24/7 News (which is what it's true value to the game is). Well done, VAR 🤔
 
Big Cat said:
Of course it's NOT A CLEAR FOUL because if it happens anywhere else on the pitch it's unlikely to be even noticed
A goalkeeper running into that space with opposition players in the way may not get to their destination

HOWEVER, refereeing is an art and not a science. The game currently expects a foul in that specific scenario, so of course IT IS A FOUL
Was the VAR right to let it go. F*$k knows, because VAR is a science and the game is not. It's another bad night for VAR, but a great one if the intention of VAR is to stir up 24/7 News (which is what it's true value to the game is). Well done, VAR 🤔
Click to expand...
As you say, goes back to same old 'Clear & Obvious', would be quicker for the referee to go straight to the monitor, "let me just check what I think I saw", did the attacker deliberately impede the GK or not, don't need any input from VAR. Earlier thread confirmed referee can do this they just don't.
 
DJIC said:
As you say, goes back to same old 'Clear & Obvious', would be quicker for the referee to go straight to the monitor, "let me just check what I think I saw", did the attacker deliberately impede the GK or not, don't need any input from VAR. Earlier thread confirmed referee can do this they just don't.
Click to expand...
Pretty much all of the VAR protocol suggests that this isn't the case, it is written many times that the referee has to make a decision ...

The referee must always make a decision, i.e. the referee is not permitted to give ‘no decision’ and then use the VAR to make the decision

The referee and other match officials must always make an initial decision (including any disciplinary action) as if there was no VAR (except for a ‘missed’ incident)

The referee and other match officials are not permitted to give ‘no decision’ as this will lead to ‘weak/indecisive’ officiating, too many ‘reviews’ and significant problems if there is a technology failure

The only real thing that support this view is this part in the procedures section ...

The referee can initiate a ‘review’ for a potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ when:

• the VAR (or another match official) recommends a ‘review’
• the referee suspects that something serious has been ‘missed’

But I would say two things override this. Firstly the principles of VAR section makes a clear distinction between a "clear and obvious error" and a "serious missed incident, I take a serious missed incident to be something like VC off the ball, rather than a decision on a footballing action. The procedures section also clearly says that VAR checks every goal or potential goal, so even if the referee decides he wants to check it VAR will have already looked at it by the time he gets to the monitor.

For all I think it was a foul, I don't really think this incident is something VAR should be getting involved in as it is too subjective. Some referees think it was a foul, some don't, I personally think because of that it doesn't constitute a clear and obvious error. Unfortunately they have been far from consistent in this approach though.
 
Keeper has made a meal of it and tried to buy a foul.

Whilst as referees on the pitch we have to be impartial and give what we see, after the Burnley keeper's Pickfordesque gamesmanship with the theatrical delayed collapsing over the ball throughout, I zero sympathy for him or Burnley. Sometimes natural justice is served, looked one of those occasions.

I long for the day a top level referee applies the 6 second law especially when a keeper so blatantly takes the proverbial in this manor!
 
i would have liked to see the VAR and AVAR take the time to discuss this in a bit more depth between them as there was clearly some disagreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top