A&H

Chelsea v Sheff Wed

Kieran W said:
In case of an extraordinary incident where to aid credibility it would benefit the referee 'reviewing' the screen
Click to expand...
The laws are the laws, and the LOTG section on VAR requires the option of a screen if the referee deems it necessary (either to confirm the VAR's suggestion or to aid credibility). The FA may have made suggestions regarding how they'd like the protocol to be implemented (ie. use the screen as little as possible), but they can't go against the way IFAB have said VAR should work. And so, even if the FA were to instantly ban any referee who used it, there will always have to be a screen available.
 
The Referee Store
JamesL said:
Correct..but the alternative outcome was obvious and thus there is an opportunity to restore the balance following the mistake. Particularly as the error was clear and obvious.
Click to expand...
Taking the law into your own hands to restore balance could have serious consequences. If a goal is scored from that corner it opens the door for an appeal to replay the match for error in application of the law.

Using my offside analogy, if you stop play for offside and immidiately realise a defender at the far end had put him on, you still restart with a dropped ball. You can't restore balance by giving them a free kick etc.
 
one said:
Taking the law into your own hands to restore balance could have serious consequences. If a goal is scored from that corner it opens the door for an appeal to replay the match for error in application of the law.

Using my offside analogy, if you stop play for offside and immidiately realise a defender at the far end had put him on, you still restart with a dropped ball. You can't restore balance by giving them a free kick etc.
Click to expand...
Missed the point. I am not saying do it off your own back. I am saying lotg could do it if it was written that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
ladbroke8745 said:
If a drop ball, he should have done it uncontested and edge of the area.

The referee drops the ball at the position where it was when play was stopped, unless play was stopped inside the goal area in which case the ball is dropped on the goal area line which is parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was when play was stopped.
Click to expand...
You're mixing up goal area and penalty area. You cannot have a dropped ball inside the '6-yard box' but you can have one inside the penalty area.
 
RustyRef said:
The penalty decision was wrong so no problem with it being overturned. Really don't agree with the dropped ball though, and certainly not dropping it back to the keeper.

I also thought that Westwood's shirt was too close to Chelsea's kit, and it isn't the first time that I've heard it said it is too close to the Wednesday outfield players.
Click to expand...

Indeed I mentioned/noticed it when they played us (QPR)
 
GraemeS said:
The laws are the laws, and the LOTG section on VAR requires the option of a screen if the referee deems it necessary (either to confirm the VAR's suggestion or to aid credibility). The FA may have made suggestions regarding how they'd like the protocol to be implemented (ie. use the screen as little as possible), but they can't go against the way IFAB have said VAR should work. And so, even if the FA were to instantly ban any referee who used it, there will always have to be a screen available.
Click to expand...
I understand that pitch-side review is still available, but match officials are being encouraged to use it less frequently to speed things up
Personally, I think this approach is working well. If only they could be encouraged to swerve the rest of the process while they're at it....
 
PinnerPaul said:
Yes I know that - but the reason given for having at some FA cup ties and not others was that it couldn't be used at non PL grounds.
Click to expand...
Different organiser, different competition, different budgets, different broadcasters and most probably different motives.
Plus the number of non league clubs in the FA Cup far outweigh the league clubs if not in finance. They'll want the money as prize money not bring spent on R&D which will very rarely impact them.
 
Yampy said:
Different organiser, different competition, different budgets, different broadcasters and most probably different motives.
Plus the number of non league clubs in the FA Cup far outweigh the league clubs if not in finance. They'll want the money as prize money not bring spent on R&D which will very rarely impact them.
Click to expand...

Someone told me that was because they had all the kit needed to use it at St George's Park as had been testing it there, so they wheeled it the 7 miles down the road ... :)

They don't have enough equipment to use it in every FA Cup game.
 
RustyRef said:
Someone told me that was because they had all the kit needed to use it at St George's Park as had been testing it there, so they wheeled it the 7 miles down the road ... :)

They don't have enough equipment to use it in every FA Cup game.
Click to expand...
I suspect there's a lot of truth in what you said.
But isn't the lack of equipment a big issue. In the EPL, 20 sets of kit are required (assuming each team has the equipment installed). In the EFL, that number increases to 72 (possibly 36 if the equipment is portable and can be used by the home team only). However, in the FA Cup there are more than 730 teams to accommodate. (737 entered last season). At grassroots, the FA simply does not have the money to source the gear in those sorts of numbers (even accounting for the 92 clubs in the pro structure).
Personally, I think there are many integrity questions raised by the use of VAR in both competitions and possibly, both organisers reacted with haste after the 'Charlie Austin' incident.
Nothing much changes, eh?
 
One of the issues with VAR has been team work (at least her in A-League). VAR's seem not to realise that "the referee is the boss". The general approach for them is, here is what I would do instead of here is what the referee would do. I go so far as to say VAR on occasions make decisions based on when makes them look good (i'm better than the referee) with no consideration to consequences for the overall managing of an incident and teamwork.

Once the VAR gets 100% trust of the referee, there is no need for OFR (On Field Review) at all, unless as the handbook puts it "OFRs will be mainly for ‘subjective’ decisions or to assist match control or to ‘sell’ a decision"
 
ladbroke8745 said:
Would have overruled the penalty at Barnet for Brentford which was highly undeserved, as in a caution was best option for that by Watkins.
Click to expand...
Still, that game was brilliant, the referee did fantastic I thought, apart from that KMI when he and thd AR saw a phantom trip. It lead to a goal so it was massive, potentially result-altering... but... TBH I don’t care... I was just totally in love with that match!
 
Yampy said:
Different organiser, different competition, different budgets, different broadcasters and most probably different motives.
Plus the number of non league clubs in the FA Cup far outweigh the league clubs if not in finance. They'll want the money as prize money not bring spent on R&D which will very rarely impact them.
Click to expand...

Yes I get that as well - but to the man in the street and me as well - to use it on a Non PL ground for the first time with the score at 0-9 seems a bit silly!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top