Chelsea v Man City

[socal lurker]

On the bit in bold..... this would be the maximum amount of times the referee would go to the screens. The vast majority of the times, you would not see that number. As things are, the referee could go to the screen an infinite amount of times.

But it doesn’t happen because the C&O standard. If you give teams three challenges with no consequence for being wrong, they are going to take long shot challenges (especially in the second half) because, well, why not? And you’ll see them used tactically as a time out. Right now I believe the general stat is the R goes to the screen once every three games. I think it would be a very unusual game that doesn’t have multiple OFRs if you have that many challenges with no consequence for being wrong.

 

[Runner-Ref]

I think they would, as teams would use it as a tactic to break up play and slow the game down. Or at least the team leading the score would.

But this is where teams having to pick & choose their moments to use it comes in.

If the teams use it as a tactic to slow the game down, this is on them. At the moment, the blame is on VAR for checking everything and taking too long. If the clubs choose to do it, they can argue it amongst themselves for killing the game.

I don't think most game would, though. You get games like the Spurs vs Chelsea game where there could be 6 checks. But for everyone of them, you would probably get 10 games that barely use 1 (liverpool vs Brentford today as an example)

 

[RustyRef]

But this is where teams having to pick & choose their moments to use it comes in.

If the teams use it as a tactic to slow the game down, this is on them. At the moment, the blame is on VAR for checking everything and taking too long. If the clubs choose to do it, they can argue it amongst themselves for killing the game.

I don't think most game would, though. You get games like the Spurs vs Chelsea game where there could be 6 checks. But for everyone of them, you would probably get 10 games that barely use 1 (liverpool vs Brentford today as an example)

You obviously hold a higher opinion of Premier League managers than I do. Let's say Mourinho returns to the EPL to manage, and his team are 1-0 up going into added time and still having three reviews left. He would absolutely, 100%, use those reviews in the added time just to break up any momentum the opposition might be building. They already do it with substitutions, telling players to go down injured, etc, we'd just be giving them another tool in their armoury.

 

[Kes]

I'm struggling to understand how Taylor even awarded the penalty since on the replay, it seems pretty clear he's looking in the opposite direction to the Haaland tomfoolery.
Did his AR give it over comms maybe?

 

[SammyT5]

The number of checks and how they are spent would be something that someone with access to much more data about VAR and how it works would be in a better position to decide. 3 was purely an example which could or could not work. It might be the case that one is enough, with that one challenge kept if the challenge turns out to be correct. It might be that two or three are needed to avoid issues surrounding teams losing their challenge because of a subjective decision.

Time wasting towards the end could be limited as teams would have to name specifically what offence they want looking at - though if it became a major issue they could perhaps apply some sort of time limit between the use of challenges? I don’t know if that would work practically but is possibly something else to try?

 

[Runner-Ref]

But it doesn’t happen because the C&O standard. If you give teams three challenges with no consequence for being wrong, they are going to take long shot challenges (especially in the second half) because, well, why not? And you’ll see them used tactically as a time out. Right now I believe the general stat is the R goes to the screen once every three games. I think it would be a very unusual game that doesn’t have multiple OFRs if you have that many challenges with no consequence for being wrong.

But it doesn’t happen because the C&O standard. If you give teams three challenges with no consequence for being wrong, they are going to take long shot challenges (especially in the second half) because, well, why not? And you’ll see them used tactically as a time out. Right now I believe the general stat is the R goes to the screen once every three games. I think it would be a very unusual game that doesn’t have multiple OFRs if you have that many challenges with no consequence for being wrong.

But C&O isn't really a thing. No one can pin down what this means.

As I said earlier, there would need to be specific matters on what the clubs can and can't challenge. If they're wrong, they lose the challenge. Maybe giving them just the 1 challenge to this is the answer. But this is the nitty-gritty for IFAB to discuss.

As I also said earlier, if the game gets slowed down because of the clubs challenging, that's on them. Right now, fans/clubs get frustrated because its the referees slowing it down.

 

[Runner-Ref]

You obviously hold a higher opinion of Premier League managers than I do. Let's say Mourinho returns to the EPL to manage, and his team are 1-0 up going into added time and still having three reviews left. He would absolutely, 100%, use those reviews in the added time just to break up any momentum the opposition might be building. They already do it with substitutions, telling players to go down injured, etc, we'd just be giving them another tool in their armoury.

I certainly don't as I know clubs will do anything they can to gain an advantage (I feel like I say that in most threads these days!). As I've just said in my last reply here, maybe you only give them the 1 challenge. This stuff is for the stakeholders to discuss. But if the clubs slow the game down, I'm more comfortable with this than the referees doing it

 

[RustyRef]

I'm struggling to understand how Taylor even awarded the penalty since on the replay, it seems pretty clear he's looking in the opposite direction to the Haaland tomfoolery.
Did his AR give it over comms maybe?

Pretty sure that Gary Beswick gave it.

 

[JamesL]

There is just something inherently wrong with giving managers a button to say you've got that wrong and then the R looks again and has to say, no I haven't. Especially where it is subjective.

An example, being the SHU v Wolves (might have already said that)...
But imagine Gary O'Neil challenges the penalty, Rob Jones looks at it, says no it's a penalty.

Since that basically 90% of football thinks no pen, the independent panel say no pen. This is not good for football and would not be good for refereeing. And I just can't look past that.

Many times on here we've all agreed with decisions yet there been uproar in the media with pundits etc.

Just don't see it working any better than what is there today.

 

[RustyRef]

There is just something inherently wrong with giving managers a button to say you've got that wrong and then the R looks again and has to say, no I haven't. Especially where it is subjective.

An example, being the SHU v Wolves (might have already said that)...
But imagine Gary O'Neil challenges the penalty, Rob Jones looks at it, says no it's a penalty.

Since that basically 90% of football thinks no pen, the independent panel say no pen. This is not good for football and would not be good for refereeing. And I just can't look past that.

Many times on here we've all agreed with decisions yet there been uproar in the media with pundits etc.

Just don't see it working any better than what is there today.

Yeah, I'm in this mindset as well.