England v Cameroon WWC

[RobOda]

Unfortunately I think I'd have to agree with the pundits I'm listening to, who are saying that by the end, the referee was ducking the tough decisions because she was scared of how the Cameroon players would react (both the potential penalty and red card).

The BBC called the non penalty award a "diplomatic" refereeing call for what its worth...

 

[RustyRef]

Lets upset players for the right reasons and not the wrong ones, I haven't seen the two other RC offences so can't comment but for a qualified ref and VAR to view what we all saw at the end and go yellow is simply scandalous...They should all be sent home in embarrassment that they had 3 chances to do the right thing, the ref missed it in normal play, the VAR saw it and then between them they concocted another fail in not doing the right thing AND not booking the irate plater poking her finger in the injured players and the referees face...shocking!!

VAR did its job in referring it to the referee, once they've done that their involvement is over. For the referee to be told there is a potential red card, and watch it only to conclude that wasn't SFP is shocking and she should play no further part in the tournament.

Overall, with the exception of missing the elbow, VAR got everything right. For the things it rules on without on on-pitch review, so the two offside decisions, it got those both totally correct. It highlighted the penalty that England should have had and the VC for the challenge on Houghton but the referee decided against penalising. That isn't a problem with VAR, it is down to technically deficiencies of the referee. As we say in IT - PICNIC - problem in chair not in computer.

 

[cwyeary]

The BBC called the non penalty award a "diplomatic" refereeing call for what its worth...

IMO that was an error from the VAR. I don't think it was a clear and obvious PK.

 

[RustyRef]

IMO that was an error from the VAR. I don't think it was a clear and obvious PK.

The defender got nowhere near the ball and stood on the attacker's foot, how isn't that a penalty?

 

[alexv]

Lets upset players for the right reasons and not the wrong ones, I haven't seen the two other RC offences so can't comment but for a qualified ref and VAR to view what we all saw at the end and go yellow is simply scandalous...They should all be sent home in embarrassment that they had 3 chances to do the right thing, the ref missed it in normal play, the VAR saw it and then between them they concocted another fail in not doing the right thing AND not booking the irate plater poking her finger in the injured players and the referees face...shocking!!

The captain’s behaviour was appalling, can’t believe she got away with that

 

[Sheffields Finest]

 

[socal lurker]

I think they were probably aggrieved because under normal circumstances, a flag on the play is final. Given that the ARs are not meant to flag for tight calls, it's a scenario that may not have been seen yet. Even so, fundamental VAR involvement so the players were wrong to behave as they did

This is just not true. ARS are supposed to call ever OS they identify. They only DELAY the flag if it is both close and a potential goal scoring opportunity.

 

[bester]

How can anybody claim the spitting wasn’t deliberate? She was trash talking, then had a look around before doing it!

 

[Big Cat]

They only DELAY the flag if it is both close and a potential goal scoring opportunity

Yes, i was aware of that, although my language was loose. Flag should have stayed down regardless of lingo
I'd be gutted if i'd given up a career to be an elite AR. Touch judge and all that. Whichever way you dress it up, they've massively deskilled the role because anything of any consequence has gone upstairs

 

[Big Cat]

IMO that was an error from the VAR. I don't think it was a clear and obvious PK.

Do you mean it wasn't C&O?
In which case i agree, they should've let it go
Once it went for review, I'd say it was a PK (another of the untold number of positively identified pens)

 

[cwyeary]

Do you mean it wasn't C&O?
In which case i agree, they should've let it go
Once it went for review, I'd say it was a PK (another of the untold number)

Yeah. Upon review she probably needs to give it. But it shouldn't have had an OFR IMO.

 

[JamesL]

I don't get this. If on review its a penalty, how should it not be reviewed.
Penalties are on the list of always checked, I thought, as a clear match changing incident, so I didn't think clear and obvious mantra was applied.
So if you look at a video and you see a penalty you have to review it, surely?

 

[socal lurker]

I don't get this. If on review its a penalty, how should it not be reviewed.
Penalties are on the list of always checked, I thought, as a clear match changing incident, so I didn't think clear and obvious mantra was applied.
So if you look at a video and you see a penalty you have to review it, surely?

No, not exactly. Review is only supposed to for clear and obvious PK fouls. We are not, in theory, re-refereeing on video
, but only correcting clear errors.

Yeah. Upon review she probably needs to give it. But it shouldn't have had an OFR IMO.

The standard for OFR is still clear error. If it shouldn’t have gone down, then the RShould not make the call either.

 

[JamesL]

So as a serious missed incident this should have been sent for a review. If the referee sees it and has to give a pen then the VAR probably has to send it for review.
The referee can only change their decision for a clear and obvious error.
As the referee if you have seen something, decided no, then look at it, and probably have to give it then you personally are going to see it as a clear and obvious error particularly if you see something you didn't see originally

 

[JamesL]

No, not exactly. Review is only supposed to for clear and obvious PK fouls. We are not, in theory, re-refereeing on video
, but only correcting clear errors.



The standard for OFR is still clear error. If it shouldn’t have gone down, then the RShould not make the call either.

Protocol says

The categories of decision/incident which may be reviewed in the event of a
potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ are:

......
• penalty kick offence not penalised

Also the liner who raised the flag was correct to do so...


• If an assistant referee delays a flag for an offence, the assistant referee must
raise the flag if a goal/penalty/corner or attacking free kick or throw-in
results as this decision will be the basis for any ‘check’/‘review’

 

[deusex]

Cameroon'd conduct was a appalling.
Really was like watching a bunch of children.
The manager encouraged it and they all followed suit.
For me, much like the men's world cup, a minority of the refs are simply out of their depth at this level.

 

[Peter Grove]

I don't get this. If on review its a penalty, how should it not be reviewed.

Because the protocol specifically says that's not how it works.

The referee’s decision can only be changed if the video review shows a clear error i.e. not ‘was the decision correct?’ but:

“was the decision clearly wrong?”

 

[StiltonRef]

I hope that FIFA looks at the antics of the Cameroon players and Coach but I feel the majority of the problems come down to weak refereeing. Issue the red card after 3 minutes and the players will know not to take liberties, by not doing so she showed them she is potentially a bottler. By taking over 3 minutes to get the players on the line (and failing) for the IFK in the box and then not taking action when the same player rushed out before the kick was taken she confirmed it.

All game long the captain showed clear dissent, ignoring everything the referee said, but stayed out of the book - how?

So many other things wrong with her game as well, including no action when she was barged out of the way (clearly not an accident because there was no apology). RefSupport on twitter says that she cannot be blamed for the Cameroon players losing control, I beg to differ.

 

[JamesL]

Because the protocol specifically says that's not how it works.

Yes. Wasn't really my point. My point was that if, as people have said, once you look at it, it has to be a penalty then really it has to be sent for review as a serious missed incident.
Only the referee can change their decision.
If the VAR said have another look, serious missed incident. And then she she looks at it and sees something she didn't originally see AND as people have said above she probably has to give it on video then the referee is going to see that as clearly wrong.
I dont think the protocol is particularly clear, nor clear cut as you say, around what is and isn't reviewed.
It specifically says, as above:
The categories of decision/incident which may be reviewed in the event of a
potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ are:
......
• penalty kick offence not penalised

It repeatedly makes reference to serious missed incident as a separate entity as well as C&O/clearly wrong.

Like I say, if as stated above, once she sees the replay she has to give a penalty, then once a VAR sees the replay they have to send it for review.
If you say no foul has occurred, when in fact a certain foul has and its within the 4 checkable categories then it is going to be sent for a review.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Surely this a perfect example of a tiring flustered referee who had basically lost the plot being entrusted with the final say in correctly referred VARse decisions. Who’s to say that all refs don’t really need this level of unfair pressure and these calls can be easily made upstairs without his/ her involvement. Works effortlessly in all other sports??

It doesn’t undermine a referee, it strengthens them surely as the players can’t influence VAR with histrionics!