A&H

CHE Spurs

So, yes, I'm outspoken that the standard of officiating in football at all levels is not good enough. To clarify, it's not the Referees at fault so much, but the Governance in the game and the instructions the Refs are forced to adhere to

As long as Laws are blatantly ignored on TV, nothing will change in that respect

Either, re-write the Laws to match the game or have numerous Rule books for the pro/amateur game etc... but it will never work when the televised game is making its own rules up to suit the Commercial demands

The Chelsea goal involving offside.... perhaps the EPL is therefore the only League in the world to get this interpretation of offside correct because the player in the offside had no impact on the game

AT did OK, I'm sure he followed his instructions to the letter. Not his fault
 
The Referee Store
My take on the incidents
The offside is not clear enough for me. Mendy has clear line of sight to the ball at the moment of the shot, Richarlison is not close to him and he almost gets to the ball inside the post. Throw in a Chelsea defender in the mix in front of Richarlison and its not offside.
On the possible "foul" on Havertz, AT motions that the ball was played in the challenge. It looks like that from ATs angle. Anyway too far back in play plus Chelsea had the ball back in subsequent play so its not a review situation. EPL seems to be allowing more contact now than in the past.
On the hair pull incident I'm unsure after it was reviewed why it was not dealt with? I can only assume no VC. Play was held up to review it so there was a clear opportunity to deal with it. No action was taken. Clearly it could only be dealt with under VAR if it was seen as violent conduct or a goal was scored. Then it becomes a DFK and a card. If it is not VC then VAR does not have the power to deal with it as a caution or a foul. It will be interesting to see if anything further comes of it. Unseen VC can be dealt with retrospectively after the game yet this was reviewed? Or has VAR eliminated that option? The key question is pulling a player back / down by his arm or whatever part of the body violent conduct? The hair part makes it look nasty and perhaps it was seen as USB rather than VC so if AT did not deal with it in real time he could not go back for the caution. FWIW I think the game has allowed all sorts of shenanigans at set pieces for a long time with pushing, holding, pulling. It is not dealt with and players know that so it just continues. I think that there is also an element of two players up to no good and one gets pulled and goes down easily. AT is stood no more than 7/8 yards from it with a clear sight of both players. Did VAR feel that there was not enough excessive force to make it VC which is what could only be reviewed. AT is so close and he does not sense VC from what he saw.
As to the red cards I think that the two cautions for the manager would have been adequate. The game was over and it was nothing more than a spat. No VC involved just silliness, Cards were more for the camera rather than anything else. Sure according to the letter of the law deliberately entering the technical area of the opposing team (non-confrontational) is a caution yet that was not given. How many will give that card.
Chelsea gave away two soft goals. The first one should have been cleared away when they got the ball back and the 2nd one was just poor defending and goalkeeping. Three Spurs player uncontested in the goal area. GK needs to come and punch away or else Chelsea defenders need to be goal side winning the ball in the air. As usual the focus on the referee rather than on the play.
 
Have see the hair pull, getting things wrong like that in most jobs would result in action. so fully expect Mike Dean to be appointed VAR to next weeks Utd Liverpool game

staggering how a vastly experienced official watching multiple replays cannot see anything amiss, Taylor, might be off the hook as he might be waching the drop zone but even still, he really should not be missing violent conduct five yards away from him, with an unobstructed view.
 
My take on the incidents
The offside is not clear enough for me. Mendy has clear line of sight to the ball at the moment of the shot, Richarlison is not close to him and he almost gets to the ball inside the post. Throw in a Chelsea defender in the mix in front of Richarlison and its not offside.
On the possible "foul" on Havertz, AT motions that the ball was played in the challenge. It looks like that from ATs angle. Anyway too far back in play plus Chelsea had the ball back in subsequent play so its not a review situation. EPL seems to be allowing more contact now than in the past.
On the hair pull incident I'm unsure after it was reviewed why it was not dealt with? I can only assume no VC. Play was held up to review it so there was a clear opportunity to deal with it. No action was taken. Clearly it could only be dealt with under VAR if it was seen as violent conduct or a goal was scored. Then it becomes a DFK and a card. If it is not VC then VAR does not have the power to deal with it as a caution or a foul. It will be interesting to see if anything further comes of it. Unseen VC can be dealt with retrospectively after the game yet this was reviewed? Or has VAR eliminated that option? The key question is pulling a player back / down by his arm or whatever part of the body violent conduct? The hair part makes it look nasty and perhaps it was seen as USB rather than VC so if AT did not deal with it in real time he could not go back for the caution. FWIW I think the game has allowed all sorts of shenanigans at set pieces for a long time with pushing, holding, pulling. It is not dealt with and players know that so it just continues. I think that there is also an element of two players up to no good and one gets pulled and goes down easily. AT is stood no more than 7/8 yards from it with a clear sight of both players. Did VAR feel that there was not enough excessive force to make it VC which is what could only be reviewed. AT is so close and he does not sense VC from what he saw.
As to the red cards I think that the two cautions for the manager would have been adequate. The game was over and it was nothing more than a spat. No VC involved just silliness, Cards were more for the camera rather than anything else. Sure according to the letter of the law deliberately entering the technical area of the opposing team (non-confrontational) is a caution yet that was not given. How many will give that card.
Chelsea gave away two soft goals. The first one should have been cleared away when they got the ball back and the 2nd one was just poor defending and goalkeeping. Three Spurs player uncontested in the goal area. GK needs to come and punch away or else Chelsea defenders need to be goal side winning the ball in the air. As usual the focus on the referee rather than on the play.
Yes to all, great points. Though the managers had already received yellows earlier, so the straight reds at the end were easier than faffing with second yellows and the right decision I think.
 
I can only assume Mike Dean (VAR) was hamstrung by the BS protocols the Premier League have in place regarding use of VAR, can be the only logical explanation why such a blatant act of VC was ignored. Can remember Robert Huth got a 3 match ban for the same thing.

There was talk of the ref/VAR conversations being made public, don't believe that has happened yet, but the PL need to grown a pair and come out an explain why some of these decisions were or wasn't given. The hair pull and the Brighton penalty appeal at Old Trafford are prime examples of why greater clarity is required.
 
Last edited:
I can only assume Mike Dean (VAR) was hamstrung by the BS protocols the Premier League have in place regarding use of VAR, can be the only logical explanation why such a blatant act of VC was ignored. Can remember Robert Huth got a 3 match ban for the same thing.

The hair pull is the exact type of thing that Mike Dean would give a straight red without a second thought when he was the referee. And if he sends down that to Taylor then he's getting pretty much none of the heat that he's getting today because Chelsea won the game. He bottled it.
 
Long before the introduction of VAR, I always thought since Sky came along with their detailed coverage, extra cameras etc, that having a man in the stand with a TV and link to the referee would be good for the game...

I love the game and have done for the past 40+ years. When was younger I would watch every game possible, even the thought of Scunthorpe Vs Lincoln on a Thursday night would appeal to me. Over the years and more recently, that hardened appetite has lost it's edge. I will watch my beloved Chelsea, sometimes Bournemouth as I have lived in the area for the past 15 years, some CL, World Cups & Euros. I watch the Premier League but not bothered if I miss games, which I would have been when I was younger, but have zero interest in friendlies or qualifiers.

We hear a lot about "the show", particularly on this forum and discussed it many times. For me it works both ways and the way the FA/PL are handling "the show" is at times nothing short of embarrassing. As former referee (and fan) it seriously winds me up see the laws so selectively applied when it suits them. VAR was supposed to help reduce errors, inconsistencies and controversy, if anything it's making it worse with how it's used. The Premier League use their invisible so called high bar and "clear and obvious" as excuse to turn a blind eye and manipulate outcomes and are making experienced top referees look incompetent due to the directives they have been given and the protocols they have to follow. For me "the show" is becoming a toxic turn off and I genuinely fear for the future of game if things continue as they are!
 
I’m astounded. The most disappointing thing is, I regard Anthony Taylor as one of the best referees in the league, and I think this is shown by the fact it is consistently him and Michael Oliver representing England at international level, however, today, he has had an absolute shocker.
I couldn't agree less. He refereed the game really well, and the only real debatable decision that had an impact on the game not under the scope of VAR was the foul on Havertz not given. And it is a push to say that it had a direct impact on the game, as Chelsea had chances to clear after it, including Jorgino who wasn't forced to try a drag back in his own area.

The offside decision is down to VAR, and as we can't even all agree on here I can see why VAR said no. I personally think Mendy had clear sight of it all the way so I would lean to onside, but respect the opinion of those saying offside. What is clear is that the active AR has no chance, he can see that Richarlison is stood offside but no way of knowing if he was blocking Mendy's view. Similar for Taylor, he was in a better position but he would still be guessing if the AR asked for help over comms. Mendy's reaction, or rather lack of reaction, also strongly suggests to me he saw it the whole way.

Should Taylor have seen the hair pull? Possibly as he was in a good position, but at a corner after 5 minutes of stoppage time there is a lot going on and you can't see everything even if your positioning is good.

I think using the phrase absolute shocker is a push even for VAR as it is only one obviously incorrect decision, but it certainly can't be applied to Anthony Taylor.
 
There was at least one clear and obvious error by the officials that changed the result - and it was 5 yards in front of the referee, blatant snd VC.

The only mitigation once again is that referees hsve obviously been instructed to avoid cards as much as possible.

Thing is, that’s still a shocker, it’s not even handed, in the end it’s not fair play. Watching leaves a dirty taste.
 
There was at least one clear and obvious error by the officials that changed the result - and it was 5 yards in front of the referee, blatant snd VC.

The only mitigation once again is that referees hsve obviously been instructed to avoid cards as much as possible.

Thing is, that’s still a shocker, it’s not even handed, in the end it’s not fair play. Watching leaves a dirty taste.
I keep saying this, but the game tonight dispells the myth that referees are relying on VAR. Paul Tierney saw the headbut and sent him off, had Taylor seen the hair pulling I suspect he might have done the same. Why Dean as VAR didn't alert him to it I have absolutely no idea.

Just because someone is stood next to something doesn't meant they can see it, especially at a last minute corner where a hell of a lot is going on.
 
Just because someone is stood next to something doesn't meant they can see it, especially at a last minute corner where a hell of a lot is going on.

Pretty much every Spurs corner was going near post. That's where Taylor was looking. People who haven't refereed don't realize just because you're looking at the direction of something doesn't mean you're actually seeing it.
 
I couldn't agree less. He refereed the game really well, and the only real debatable decision that had an impact on the game not under the scope of VAR was the foul on Havertz not given. And it is a push to say that it had a direct impact on the game, as Chelsea had chances to clear after it, including Jorgino who wasn't forced to try a drag back in his own area.

The offside decision is down to VAR, and as we can't even all agree on here I can see why VAR said no. I personally think Mendy had clear sight of it all the way so I would lean to onside, but respect the opinion of those saying offside. What is clear is that the active AR has no chance, he can see that Richarlison is stood offside but no way of knowing if he was blocking Mendy's view. Similar for Taylor, he was in a better position but he would still be guessing if the AR asked for help over comms. Mendy's reaction, or rather lack of reaction, also strongly suggests to me he saw it the whole way.

Should Taylor have seen the hair pull? Possibly as he was in a good position, but at a corner after 5 minutes of stoppage time there is a lot going on and you can't see everything even if your positioning is good.

I think using the phrase absolute shocker is a push even for VAR as it is only one obviously incorrect decision, but it certainly can't be applied to Anthony Taylor.
Whilst I agree that VAR was a big scope of the game, I think Taylor’s man management and overall grip on the game was just not good enough. The technical areas weren’t dealt with, Tuchel should have walked before he eventually did, when at the end of the game, it means nothing and it had already kicked off again anyway. There were a lot of challenges that went unpunished. He was inconsistent with the cards.

We are taught to be proactive and not reactive, yet I think his proactiveness was nowhere near good enough.
 
For me Oliver is the best PL ref. He seems to deal with the high threshold foul selection of the PL very well. I think Taylor is the best in UEFA (from England) when it comes to a more standard European style of football.
 
Play was held up for over a minute before the corner kick to allow VAR to look at the incident. Dermot Gallagher said on Sky that if AT had seen the incident on the monitor it would have been a red card. Seemed to know something? That begs the question what was VAR's opinion on it. Was it not seen as VC by MD just a caution which is not a possible VAR decision? Was there an element of "sure you were looking at it some 5/7 yards away and did not give it" so why are you asking me about it. The only possible outcome then was a red card to deal with it under VAR and they decided to bottle that red card decision.
To me AT should be getting this without VAR. Its a blatant offence and if he did not want to red card it was certainly a yellow. Free out, card , end of
The advice it to forget about the VAR BEFORE giving a decision and to remember the VAR AFTER giving a decision
This means that the referee (and other match officials) should make decisions as if there was no VAR – they should not ‘take risks’ thinking that the VAR could ‘save’ them.
 
Has anyone got a clip as I haven't seen this incident (I have seen a still) but not the actual clip.
My questions, was the ball in play when the hair pull happened?
If it was then of course the outcome is Def DFK and red card. If not, then it's a red card and CK restart.
Could this be jotted down to a VAR protocol issue, in that play had restarted after the offence had happened?
I know the protocol allows for that to happen, but the goal would still stand so perhaps it was an error in VAR application, or otherwise. I can't see how this is not viewed as VC just based on the stills.
 
Last edited:
It was an attacker pulling the defenders hair. Spurs equalised from the next corner kick iirc.

Not seen a wide angle but hair pull seemed to start before the ball was in play and end after.
 
It was an attacker pulling the defenders hair. Spurs equalised from the next corner kick iirc.

Not seen a wide angle but hair pull seemed to start before the ball was in play and end after.
Yep got the directions wrong.
 
It looks to have started just as the CK was taken and continued until the ball was headed. I think Mike Dean will be getting some serious flak from PGMOL. Especially when it's safe to assume he's probably been penciled in to do a lot of these top matches as VAR and in his first one after retirement he's made a massive mistake which has negatively impacted the referee and his ability to handle Chelsea games going forward.
 
And Mike Dean got the week off for this upcoming weekend which probably confirms what pgmol thinks of the lack of intervention.
 
Back
Top