RefSix

LIV vs SHU

BrumRef

Regular Contributor
Level 8 Referee
Opinions on Fabinho pen vs Oli McBurnie? IMO no foul but contact was on the line so if given as foul pen was correct decision although I thought the tackle was OK personally?
 

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
I watched the 2H and just saw the highlights.

Very surprised it was given.

But MD seemed totally sure and then had it confirmed. Pethsps MD felt the contact looked worse. I trust him.

I think it could have gone either way. File under soft.

(Thought SU were great. And just saw the TAA long shot: he’s back! But Fabinho looked too slow. I note that Fernandinho has the same issue. And there’s only so much Gomez/Walker can do to cover... they are going to get burned one on one.)
 

BrumRef

Regular Contributor
Level 8 Referee
Very fair point, I think part of what baffled me is that Maguire didn’t get that penalty given against him earlier but that was given. Agree with the point about Fabinho the one he got turned in about the 80th minute and Burke went through exposed that especially. Apparently (don’t shoot the messenger) VAR checked where the contact was but not the contact, If someone can advise the protocol on this that would be great.
 

Tealeaf

Lighting the darkest hour
Staff member
Level 5 Referee
Apparently (don’t shoot the messenger) VAR checked where the contact was but not the contact, If someone can advise the protocol on this that would be great.

Been confirmed that was NOT the case. Fabinho catches the attackers foot so it’s going to be given as a foul. Not the first one this season and won’t be the last
 

bester

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Not a foul for me, very minor contact foot to foot contact before playing the ball.
It was the natural follow through that caused the fall.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Not a foul for me, very minor contact foot to foot contact before playing the ball.
It was the natural follow through that caused the fall.

But it’s also an artifact of the VAR system. It was clear and obvious that it was on the line, so the only possible call is a PK. Even if the “better” call may have been nothing, it was not clear and obviously not a foul. Only possible VAR result is what happened. This is nothing more than VAR working as intended.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
One that could go either way. Similar contact from Kante on Rashford was not given. Not very consistent.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
But it’s also an artifact of the VAR system. It was clear and obvious that it was on the line, so the only possible call is a PK. Even if the “better” call may have been nothing, it was not clear and obviously not a foul. Only possible VAR result is what happened. This is nothing more than VAR working as intended.
I believe once you are reviewing for something then the "clear and obvious" criteria doesn't apply for other things.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
I believe once you are reviewing for something then the "clear and obvious" criteria doesn't apply for other things.

I don’t believe that is correct. Reference?

The whole point of VAR is to correct clear and obvious errors. It is true that with VAR if reviewing X and the R sees Y the R can address Y, and that if doing a review for a red card, the R can disagree and give a yellow.

But on this play, once the position made it a PK, the VAR must review the foul, and as far as I understand, the clear and obvious standard applies to the review of the foul that resulted in the PK.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I don’t believe that is correct. Reference?

The whole point of VAR is to correct clear and obvious errors. It is true that with VAR if reviewing X and the R sees Y the R can address Y, and that if doing a review for a red card, the R can disagree and give a yellow.

But on this play, once the position made it a PK, the VAR must review the foul, and as far as I understand, the clear and obvious standard applies to the review of the foul that resulted in the PK.
I based that on a logical inference rather that a direct reference. If during a review a yellow card offence (which is not reviewable) is identified then the yellow card can be issued.

There probably is some sort of reference that can directly support or reject this but I won't hold my breath and can't be bothered going to look for it :)
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
I’m not looking either. 🙂

But I think logic is failing if you have a non-clear and obvious review of the foul that led to a PK, which is what you’re suggesting. And I don’t think anything in the caution scenario permits a caution that is not clear and obvious.
 
Top