Crawley vs Crewe
- Thread starter Joshref
- Start date
Apparently the player was not booked afterwards so I'm guessing the referee thought it wasn't a dive and it was only the fact the keeper got a touch on the ball which prevented a penalty?
Who was the VAR on duty out of interest?
Michael Salisbury.
There has been some good use of VAR this weekend. I thought it was a penalty real time, but replays showed not only did the keeper get a touch on the ball, there was also zero contact with the attacker. Then West Ham's second goal being disallowed, very clearly handled into the goal but the officials were blocked off.
And yet the powers that be (Premier League clubs) want VAR gone!
Been done to death on the other thread so won't go into detail here, but imagine if that Soucek goal wasn't ruled out, Man City drew and Arsenal won and subsequently won the league. Or the Crewe penalty was allowed seeing them getting promoted ahead of Crawley.
The inquest would go on for months, and no doubt the blame would be pinned on the officials and clubs would attempt some kind of legal action (like when the goal line technology failed.)
For me, this is why VAR was brought in, not for toe nail offsides but for situations where the officials simply can't see the incident or something is missed simply due to the speed it happens.
Last edited:
They can't award a caution for simulation using VAR as far as I'm aware, unless it's different as it's all part of the non penalty incident.
The commentators made an absolute hash of the restart situation too. 'Crewe think they should have a corner, and if the keeper got a touch then they should, but it looks like the referee is awarding a free kick to Crawley for the dive instead'. No, the referee gave a penalty, it was no penalty so the restart is a drop ball to the Crawley keeper. It's not a complex part of law.
The ref absolutely can. A review can't be initiated purely to recommend a card for simulation, but if it's initiated for some other valid reason (such as overturning a penalty decision), the referee can decide on any sanction/restart once he's at the monitor.
But as you say, in this case, it seems like it was decided as "normal contact" rather than a dive, hence the drop ball. If he had decided it was simulation, restarting with a defensive FK as well as the card would have been correct.
Wasn't sure about this. I'm yet to receive my VAR training.
I suppose it then depends on why we're deeming it no penalty. It seems like the focus was on the fact that the Crawley goalkeeper got a touch on the ball as opposed to the lack of apparent contact.
Some PL want it gone, others don’t. 14 out of 20 votes needed to see it gone, though excludes offsides which will see the introduction of semi automated decisions being made from early next season.
As @GraemeS points out the referee can only be sent to the monitor to review and 1 of the 4 reviewable incidents. Once at the monitor he can then apply any other sanction. For example sent to monitor to review non award of SFP, he can decide the challenge only worthy of a caution and award that instead.
Similarly an award of a penalty can be overturned and a caution/idfk given for simulation instead.
I believe that it all depends on when play is stopped. It the ball was out of play for a corner before play was stopped then the restart should be a corner. It's only a dropped ball to the GK it the ball is last touched or in the PA when play was stopped.
Last edited: