Champions League Final

[one]

I've mentioned this before but the question is not whether they were clear and obvious fouls, it's whether they were clearly and obviously wrong decisions by the referee not to give them. It's a subtle but critical difference.

That's what I meant buy I had to put it in layman's terms

 

[santa sangria]

TBH I didn't really like the officials last night.

Pithy but the game started with an AR running while flagging and finished with the same.
I thought they got too many small things wrong - plenty of fouls that were not, wrong corner here... and the ARs didn't flag some obvious ones to support the referee.
The biggest decisions were a couple of tackles on defenders given as fouls that could have lead to great chances - these really stifled the game.
Then I thought Mbappe had a very strong penalty appeal that should have gone for a proper review.

That said, with both teams denying space most of the game, there was lots of contact and foul decisions to be made. I guess I just thought it could have gone better for the trio really.

 

[GraemeS]

TBH I didn't really like the officials last night.

Pithy but the game started with an AR running while flagging and finished with the same.
I thought they got too many small things wrong - plenty of fouls that were not, wrong corner here... and the ARs didn't flag some obvious ones to support the referee.
The biggest decisions were a couple of tackles on defenders given as fouls that could have lead to great chances - these really stifled the game.
Then I thought Mbappe had a very strong penalty appeal that should have gone for a proper review.

That said, with both teams denying space most of the game, there was lots of contact and foul decisions to be made. I guess I just thought it could have gone better for the trio really.

This is the one where I really agree with you. It felt like if an attacker managed to nick the ball in a dangerous area, his default reaction was to assume there was a foul and work backwards, wheras in at least 2 cases I can immediately think of, the fouls given were at best incredibly soft.

 

[es1]

This is the one where I really agree with you. It felt like if an attacker managed to nick the ball in a dangerous area, his default reaction was to assume there was a foul and work backwards, wheras in at least 2 cases I can immediately think of, the fouls given were at best incredibly soft.

It's the state of modern professional football.

The threshold for a defensive free kick is a lot lower than an attacking free kick. Mix that in with players falling over and screaming with minimal contact and a ref wanting to err on the side of caution and this is what happens!

 

[GraemeS]

It's the state of modern professional football.

The threshold for a defensive free kick is a lot lower than an attacking free kick. Mix that in with players falling over and screaming with minimal contact and a ref wanting to err on the side of caution and this is what happens!

I like a sweeping generalisation as much as the next guy, but actually in this case, I noticed it because it stood out beyond what I would call normal. In a world where if a goal is scored the VAR will help you out if you missed an obvious foul, I think the excuse for "safety first" refereeing like that is gone. The safer thing to do is to actually make a proper decision and then see what happens, not blow "just in case" there was a foul.

 

[one]

Agree that his 'safe refereeing' negatively impacted the spectacle the game should have been.

Then I thought Mbappe had a very strong penalty appeal that should have gone for a proper review.

Agree with all your post except for this. He was in such a great position and clear view that even if it did go to review I suspect the decision would have stood. With that view, this was one he should have called himself with the same tollorance he showed for many other fouls.

He was unpredictable on his fouls and some of the cautions I thought were soft too.

Having said that he didn't cause much cotroversy and I think that is what he wanted to achieve.

 

[santa sangria]

Agree that his 'safe refereeing' negatively impacted the spectacle the game should have been.


Agree with all your post except for this. He was in such a great position and clear view that even if it did go to review I suspect the decision would have stood. With that view, this was one he should have called himself with the same tollorance he showed for many other fouls.

He was unpredictable on his fouls and some of the cautions I thought were soft too.

Having said that he didn't cause much cotroversy and I think that is what he wanted to achieve.

I am honoured that you agree with me on so much!

 

[GraemeS]

Agree that his 'safe refereeing' negatively impacted the spectacle the game should have been.


Agree with all your post except for this. He was in such a great position and clear view that even if it did go to review I suspect the decision would have stood. With that view, this was one he should have called himself with the same tollorance he showed for many other fouls.

He was unpredictable on his fouls and some of the cautions I thought were soft too.

Having said that he didn't cause much cotroversy and I think that is what he wanted to achieve.

If you take each caution in isolation, I agree that they would look very inconsistent. He seemed to be very sensitive to the temperature of the game - one very soft one he gave just after the two he gave for handbags was clearly a reaction to the game temperature and attempt to calm things down. YMMV on how much you like that approach, but I do think the match context was key to understanding some of those decisions.

 

[santa sangria]

If you take each caution in isolation, I agree that they would look very inconsistent. He seemed to be very reactive to the temperature of the game - one very soft one he gave just after the two he gave for handbags was clearly a reaction to the game temperature and attempt to calm things down. YMMV on how much you like that approach, but I do think the match context was key to understanding some of those decisions.

I thought it was only one for handbags and quite clearly deserved for Paredes

 

[ASM]

I thought it was only one for handbags and quite clearly deserved for Paredes

There were 2 in the incident around the handbags. Gnabry for the foul on Neymar and Paredes for escalating the handbags situation

 

[GraemeS]

There were 2 in the incident around the handbags. Gnabry for the foul on Neymar and Paredes for escalating the handbags situation

Yeah, but the "soft" one was a few minutes later - a fairly nothing foul by Sule resulted in a card due to context more than anything else.

 

[Tealeaf]

It took BT sport’s team the length of the as break to find a justification for giving a penalty in the first half, so that’s approximately 3 minutes?

3 whole minutes of looking at minutiae to “suggest” an error. And they complain at the length of time a VAR check can take for a yes/no answer...

 

[Jtpetherick1]

TBH I didn't really like the officials last night.

Pithy but the game started with an AR running while flagging and finished with the same.

This is an interesting one but you are judging based on U.K. practices. Yes, IFAB say that the AR should stop running (not as part of the laws, incidentally but in the the Guidance for MO section) but it is very much the norm in other European nations to run while flagging for a throw. Even if this is not 'coached' its certainly allowed - even at the elite level.

 

[bloovee]

It took BT sport’s team the length of the as break to find a justification for giving a penalty in the first half, so that’s approximately 3 minutes?

3 whole minutes of looking at minutiae to “suggest” an error. And they complain at the length of time a VAR check can take for a yes/no answer...

They decided within a few seconds during the game.

I really don't get this distinction between "clear and obvious foul" and "clear and obvious error". Was Mbappe fouled? Yes. That's clear and obvious. Did the referee call it right? No. That's clear and obvious. We had this all through the PL first season of VAR. "It should have been a penalty" but PGMOL apparently couldn't bring themselves to admit that one of their number had made a mistake. The "high bar" was someone saying "I can see how he missed that clear and obvious foul".

 

[santa sangria]

This is an interesting one but you are judging based on U.K. practices. Yes, IFAB say that the AR should stop running (not as part of the laws, incidentally but in the the Guidance for MO section) but it is very much the norm in other European nations to run while flagging for a throw. Even if this is not 'coached' its certainly allowed - even at the elite level.

I know - but I thought it looked poor on the night.
And it's not the norm across Europe - in Santa land we flag still... but bizarrely our flag angle for throws is lower than Greenwich flag-time

 

[socal lurker]

The problem with applying VAR to subjective decisions is trying to draw lines on when you intervene. If you aren't correcting all errors, then by design there are recognizable errors that are not being fixed. And it is extremely difficult to define when a subjective error falls within the "bad enough" zone or the "too bad, so sad" zone--something many of us said from before the implementation of VR in the first place. Based on how UEFA seems to have used VR, both of these plays seem to me plays that would not have received an OFR had the call gone in either direction. (But necessarily so in some other competitions.)

So, did VAR reduce controversy from this game and increase it?

 

[Ben448844]

"Let's bring in Peter Walton for his view on that penalty decision" ☹

Que no opinion at all. He's an analyst that doesn't actually analyse. This isn't a criticism of him as a referee btw, he was clearly a top class referee to get to the PL. But has he ever managed to be anything other than mind numbingly dull whilst perched firmly on the fence?

He did give an opinion (after much waffle) on the Mbappe penalty which was a welcome surprise. He said that it probably wasn't checked because of the referees excellent position to be able to sell the decision? Surely that its not relevant with games that have VAR?

 

[Big Cat]

Best to watch BT Sport with the mute button firmly pressed

 

[Jtpetherick1]

I know - but I thought it looked poor on the night.
And it's not the norm across Europe - in Santa land we flag still... but bizarrely our flag angle for throws is lower than Greenwich flag-time

Don't ask me about angles (never been a great AR ) but its certainly the norm to see variation is technique - both in movement/still running and the length a signal is held for.