Chelsea v Man Utd

[Tealeaf]

I agreed with the on field call at the time, because it seemed to me that Hudson-Odoi’s arm was knocked toward the ball by Greenwood.

 

[PinnerPaul]

The fact that it's a debate means Atwell shouldn't have been anywhere near a monitor

Been here before as you know - 3 pages of opinion from referees hours after the event, and surely, surely, PLEASE, no one can argue that whatever way the original decision goes, it was NOT a clear and obvious error.

Good discussion on that very point on MOTD2 - as Alan Shearer said, the way VAR is being used is not how the 'dream' was sold when it was introduced.

They also went on to discuss how complex the handball law has become, which has led to wildly inconsistent decisions, with IFAB, apparently, promising to look at the law, again!!!!

 

[PinnerPaul]

Is it really a debate though? Majority of free kicks could be in some way debatable.

Yep it is, so its not clear and obvious - we don't debate many fks over 3 pages!

 

[PinnerPaul]

Yes, totally agree, what's the point of VAR if all they are going to do is refer of back to the referee.

The clue is in the word ASSISTANT. Like when we have the flag - there are a set of criteria for when you ASSIST the referee.

For VAR, its if there is a clear and obvious error, for the reasons I said above, whatever you think of the incident, this isn't an obvious error.

 

[es1]

Yep it is, so its not clear and obvious - we don't debate many fks over 3 pages!

as i said above, it's all about opinions still

your opinion is that it's not clear an obvious, mine is that it was and if the VAR shared my view then he's absolutely tight to get the ref over to the monitor.

until there's a definitive, clear and idiot proof definition of what clear and obvious* is you'll still get these discussions.

* defining clear and obvious is absolutely impossible for all subjective decisions but that appears to have been neglected in all of this!

 

[PinnerPaul]

Imo the need to get involved is there because it's an absolute nailed on pen! The VAR can't ask 100 people and then only refer it to the ref if 100 think he's wrong.


Clear and obvious makes no sense and has no boundaries or definitions so it's pointless using referring to it

IFAB should take it out of VAR guidelines then. There are many things in the LOTG I think are pointless, doesn't mean I can just ignore them because I want to!

As you can see from the comments from experienced referees on here, your 'nailed on pen' isn't to them and it wasn't to a SG1 official live or in replay, so surely not 'nailed on' nor an obvious error?

 

[PinnerPaul]

That's fine...But I on the exact opposite side of the argument that it's a stonewall pen. If the VAR sees it that way too then in his own mind he's right to get the ref to review it

but he's not surely. What's the difference if you disagree with the ref when you are AR, but, according to pre match, you have been told not to get involved - do you ignore the advice because you think its 'pointless'?

 

[es1]

IFAB should take it out of VAR guidelines then. There are many things in the LOTG I think are pointless, doesn't mean I can just ignore them because I want to!

As you can see from the comments from experienced referees on here, your 'nailed on pen' isn't to them and it wasn't to a SG1 official live or in replay, so surely not 'nailed on' nor an obvious error?

certainly agree with your first comment.

the second though i'll repeat what i said in response to one of rusty's posts. VAR cant take a poll of other refs to see if it's clear and obvious or not, he needs to make a call on his own and if his view is that the ref has clearly and obviously got it wrong then he's right in referring it.

i still cannot see how this is anything other than a pen

 

[PinnerPaul]

as i said above, it's all about opinions still

your opinion is that it's not clear an obvious, mine is that it was and if the VAR shared my view then he's absolutely tight to get the ref over to the monitor.

until there's a definitive, clear and idiot proof definition of what clear and obvious* is you'll still get these discussions.

* defining clear and obvious is absolutely impossible for all subjective decisions but that appears to have been neglected in all of this!

Fair point on the definition aspect, like many phrases in the LOTG, what they meant and what 'football' thinks they meant are different.

'Football' I believe, thought they meant Maradona, Henry handballs, not ones like this where referees need a forensic knowledge of the handball law and even with that STILL can't agree.

 

[es1]

but he's not surely. What's the difference if you disagree with the ref when you are AR, but, according to pre match, you have been told not to get involved - do you ignore the advice because you think its 'pointless'?

fair comment. and i suppose a lot of that might be explained by what the conversations between atwell and VAR were yesterday.

if says he didnt see the incident as his view was blocked, VAR would be right to get involved.
If atwell says he saw the incident but wasnt sure who handled first VAR would be right to get involved.
if atwell he saw the handball by CHO but deemed it a natural position (or similar) then i'd say VAR would be right to get involved if he thinks CHO did make himself unnaturally bigger / handle it above shoulder height etc

obviously we dont know what goes on between the ref and VAR in any context really so that's all hypothetical

looking at the replays though i'd wager atwell had no view on the incident whatsoever otherwise he'd have penalised the greenwood handball which was 100% intentional.

Fair point on the definition aspect, like many phrases in the LOTG, what they meant and what 'football' thinks they meant are different.

'Football' I believe, thought they meant Maradona, Henry handballs, not ones like this where referees need a forensic knowledge of the handball law and even with that STILL can't agree.

genuine howlers like that might happen once a season? twice? we need a system that allows the right decisions to be made in line with what 'football expects' and that does not align to the current VAR procedure at all with hairline offsides and surprise decisions every other weekend.

 

[PinnerPaul]

fair comment. and i suppose a lot of that might be explained by what the conversations between atwell and VAR were yesterday.

if says he didnt see the incident as his view was blocked, VAR would be right to get involved.
If atwell says he saw the incident but wasnt sure who handled first VAR would be right to get involved.
if atwell he saw the handball by CHO but deemed it a natural position (or similar) then i'd say VAR would be right to get involved if he thinks CHO did make himself unnaturally bigger / handle it above shoulder height etc

obviously we dont know what goes on between the ref and VAR in any context really so that's all hypothetical

looking at the replays though i'd wager atwell had no view on the incident whatsoever otherwise he'd have penalised the greenwood handball which was 100% intentional.


genuine howlers like that might happen once a season? twice? we need a system that allows the right decisions to be made in line with what 'football expects' and that does not align to the current VAR procedure at all with hairline offsides and surprise decisions every other weekend.

After all that, I don't think we're 100% in agreement, we're closer than we were though & we've agreed to get on with the game and no cards were involved!

 

[es1]

i'm a massive fan of football and (obviously) am also a ref. there's so so so so much more that both the football and refereeing authorities can do to make football at all levels a better game to play and officiate and a better game to watch at the top level but they dont seem particularly bothered about actually changing things for the better

i think we're probably on the same page there!

 

[Kes]

Having seen them pouring over it today on Sky and had the chance to watch it several times in slow mo I can see why there are demands for a penalty but my view is that the Chelsea player's hand is knocked onto the ball by the Mank player's arm.
What made it all the more confusing was all the Chelsea players appealing for the decision after the obvious handball by the Mank player that followed.
I think the right decision was reached. It's not like Man Utd Utd don't get their share of penalty decisions is it?

 

[RustyRef]

The one thing that this incident screams out is that the discussion between referee and VAR MUST be broadcast on TV, and in stadiums when fans are back in there. Doing so would clear up so much of the current confusion, people still might not agree, but at least they would know the rationale for the decision and the thought process.

 

[JamesL]

The one thing that this incident screams out is that the discussion between referee and VAR MUST be broadcast on TV, and in stadiums when fans are back in there. Doing so would clear up so much of the current confusion, people still might not agree, but at least they would know the rationale for the decision and the thought process.

Been saying it for a long time rusty...

 

[socal lurker]

I don't see any chance of that happening until referees are much more adept at using VAR--right now I think it risks being more embarrassing than illuminating. (And I understands refs being reluctant just as they would be reluctant to have their conversations with ARs broadcast over the stadium speakers.) But they could at least provide more information post game--which MLS in the US has done very effectively IMO.

 

[Big Cat]

The one thing that this incident screams out is that the discussion between referee and VAR MUST be broadcast on TV, and in stadiums when fans are back in there. Doing so would clear up so much of the current confusion, people still might not agree, but at least they would know the rationale for the decision and the thought process.

It will only hype the controversy up further. If that's at all possible. Digging an even deeper hole. The R's reputations will be slaughtered. Maybe it works in other countries, but as we've already found out WRT VAR, this is not 'other countries'
I might be wrong like, but as you know, that's quite unlikely

 

[santa sangria]

I agreed with the on field call at the time, because it seemed to me that Hudson-Odoi’s arm was knocked toward the ball by Greenwood.
View attachment 4839

I’ll ping this because I agree and I think this perfectly explains why this was not a penalty.

(It would also highlight that VAR shouldn’t have got involved but that’s another story)

 

[Mr Dean]

Considering no Manchester United player appealed for a penalty kick, I wonder if Manchester United would've used a 'challenge' if football had a challenge system like tennis. I think not.

And, that's the underlying problem with VAR: unnecessary delays to forensicaly analyse a situation which no team has asked for. Just give each team one 'challenge' each and let them decide when VAR should intervene - I guarantee they'll only use the challenge in 'clear and obvious' situations.

 

[Martiju]

Fair enough - we don't always get those tidbits on this side of the Atlantic. But I would say that a statement like that from Shaw, if false and not supported in fact whatsoever, deserves a pretty significant punishment. Insinuating that a referee isn't making a decision because of perceived media pressure is a terrible look. We're in an age where commentators and pundits are spewing completely wrong information about the Laws of the Game and throwing referees under the bus. A false statement like that from a player certainly does not help things. Maybe it's not quite as bad as calling a referee a cheat, but it does call a referee's integrity into question.

Yeah. Whatever the response might be was clearly enough to get McGuire worried! 'Misheard'?!