Match Official Mic'd up

[Mr Dean]

PGMOL have released the audio from the Liverpool v Man City game and it doesn't sound great for PGMOL imo. The VAR and AVAR seemed way to engrossed in whether DOKU touched the ball perpetuating the myth to millions of viewers that touching the ball means no foul. It sounded like a couple of fans were in the VAR booth - the language used should have been much more centred around law. I'm tired of telling players that it doesn't matter if they've played the ball and these 'elite refs' do not help the grassroots game.

To top it all off: "they both come it high" ???

 

[RefereeX]

PGMOL have released the audio from the Liverpool v Man City game and it doesn't sound great for PGMOL imo. The VAR and AVAR seemed way to engrossed in whether DOKU touched the ball perpetuating the myth to millions of viewers that touching the ball means no foul. It sounded like a couple of fans were in the VAR booth - the language used should have been much more centred around law. I'm tired of telling players that it doesn't matter if they've played the ball and these 'elite refs' do not help the grassroots game.

To top it all off: "they both come it high" ???

I mean the last thing I want to do is turn this thread in to a debate matching the one we had before, but pleasing that Mr Webb agrees it doesn't meet the C&O threshold (even if somewhat relucatantly).

I fully appreciate what you say about playing the ball not meaning it isn't a foul, and there being nothing in law about playing the ball, but it IS a consideration in terms of what constitutes a foul. It isn't the be all and end all but all of football expects it as a consideration.

Edit to add: I haven't actually watched it yet, but I read an article about it that implied Webb agreed that VAR was correct not to get involved but almost slightly reluctantly.

 

[GraemeS]

When you listen to the audio, "They both come in high" is simultaneously a key part of the reasoning for the VAR seeing this as not being C&O, and also clear nonsense. If they've somehow managed to see MacAllister "going in high" in a careless manner as well then I actually do understand why this isn't C&O. It's just a shame that doesn't actually happen.

 

[es1]

The worst clip was the West ham one. Var went down a rabbit hole, happily bailed out by avar then ref to get the process right.

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

The worst clip was the West ham one. Var went down a rabbit hole, happily bailed out by avar then ref to get the process right.

They're a good argument for specialised VARs like we have for ARs

 

[RefereeX]

They're a good argument for specialised VARs like we have for ARs

You would imagine that, if we persist with the current system for another decade or so we will have naturally specialised VARs as SG1 referees retire. No idea if that's a plan or not.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

Webb's responses are overly evasive and risk undermining public perceptions of referees and refereeing. He should at least be able to admit it's a foul and a mistake to not award on the field.

 

[Paul_10]

The issue here though Oliver describes what he saw and it sort of matches up with the pictures the VAR is seeing, Oliver acknowledges there may of been contact but not enough for a penalty.

I think Webb sums it up perfectly, if the referee gave the pen on field, it would not be overturned. I don't think it's a clear and obvious error not to give a pen imo and Michael Oliver's description of it backs that up even more.

 

[Kinsleyr]

I think this sums up the purpose of the VAR though. THey are there to see the angles that the referee can't see and all they have done here is back up the referee from the point of view of the referee. If they used their common sense and realised that the referee is standing behind Mac Allister then they would have realised he couldn't see the raised boot of Doku and the fact that only one of them went in with a raised boot and not both were doing it.

But I don't expect anything else from Attwell as he is probably the worse referee who is currently VAR giving very few decisions against referees on the pitch and generally just agreeing with whoever is out in the middle (which to me takes away the whole purpose of the thing). The sooner we get specialist VAR referees the better.

 

[santa sangria]

Mac Allister plays the ball first. Shocking that they did not use the angles here.

 

[Kinsleyr]

The issue here though Oliver describes what he saw and it sort of matches up with the pictures the VAR is seeing, Oliver acknowledges there may of been contact but not enough for a penalty.

I think Webb sums it up perfectly, if the referee gave the pen on field, it would not be overturned. I don't think it's a clear and obvious error not to give a pen imo and Michael Oliver's description of it backs that up even more.

But the referee cannot possibly see the correct view that gives the correct outcome so how is it not a C&O error?

 

[Paul_10]

But the referee cannot possibly see the correct view that gives the correct outcome so how is it not a C&O error?

Because Oliver says there might be some contact but not enough for a penalty.

I would say this is probably more of a penalty than not but its not a clear and obvious error so no overturn.

 

[ladbroke8745]

Or the old one....
Michael Oliver is the top dog and we never send him to the monitor...

 

[RustyRef]

I think this sums up the purpose of the VAR though. THey are there to see the angles that the referee can't see

No they are not, that is absolutely not what VAR is there for. VAR is only to correct clear and obvious errors, no re-referee the game because the match officials had a dodgy angle.

I only heard this on the radio and can't find anything to substantiate it, but they said that the independent panel were split on the Doku challenge, with 3 saying penalty and 2 saying no. But they were unanimous that VAR should not have got involved as it was not a clear and obvious error.

 

[Mr Dean]

Webb's responses are overly evasive and risk undermining public perceptions of referees and refereeing. He should at least be able to admit it's a foul and a mistake to not award on the field.

To be fair to Webb, admitting to yet another game-changing error against Liverpool in such a tight title race would have led to mass hysteria from the media and fans. The only way to avoid such headlines is to be evasive. I don't agree with it but I understand why he does it.

 

[GraemeS]

To be fair to Webb, admitting to yet another game-changing error against Liverpool in such a tight title race would have led to mass hysteria from the media and fans. The only way to avoid such headlines is to be evasive. I don't agree with it but I understand why he does it.

He shouldn't get dressed up and go on TV then if he's not going to actually attempt to clarify anything. No one made him volunteer to do this show. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that referees will sometimes make mistakes - trying to pretend this isn't a howler undermines his entire "transparency" agenda.

 

[RefereeX]

He shouldn't get dressed up and go on TV then if he's not going to actually attempt to clarify anything. No one made him volunteer to do this show. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that referees will sometimes make mistakes - trying to pretend this isn't a howler undermines his entire "transparency" agenda.

But it isn't a howler... if it was a howler the whole of football would still be going on about it and EVERYONE would be saying it's another example of incompetent referees. It has NOT caused that amount of backlash. That should tell you something.

Another thought I had on this... we don't want players to have to go down for it to be a foul no? But if MacAllister doesn't go down as if shot (and nobody can convince me that he doesn't massively exaggerate what is minimal contact), then I don't think anyone is expecting anything.

 

[GraemeS]

No they are not, that is absolutely not what VAR is there for. VAR is only to correct clear and obvious errors, no re-referee the game because the match officials had a dodgy angle.

I only heard this on the radio and can't find anything to substantiate it, but they said that the independent panel were split on the Doku challenge, with 3 saying penalty and 2 saying no. But they were unanimous that VAR should not have got involved as it was not a clear and obvious error.

Dale Johnson often references said panel. About half the time it's to back up the stance he's chosen to take and about half the time it's to point out that they're not made up of referees and shouldn't be relied on to determine what is correct in law. I like his articles and insight a lot, but the way he decides if the panel decision is trustworthy or not depending on if they agree with him or not is one of the few consistent flaws his articles have.

When we actually discussed this incident in reference to the law, I don't think any referee on this forum still took the stance that it isn't a foul. The VAR clip we now have seems to indicate that the reason for it not being C&O is based on either an incorrect assumption that they were both high, an incorrect assumption that Doku got the ball first (not that this is technically correct in law either) or some other factor that isn't stated in the audio.

It explains the VAR mistake and I don't supposed I'm going to get any further arguing that - they somehow saw things in the video that weren't there and those imagined things introduced enough doubt. But outside of the VAR room, the problem I had before still remains - once you're not imagining both players playing the ball dangerously high or Doku getting the ball first, I can't see any reason why this isn't an obvious foul?

 

[RefereeX]

Dale Johnson often references said panel. About half the time it's to back up the stance he's chosen to take and about half the time it's to point out that they're not made up of referees and shouldn't be relied on to determine what is correct in law. I like his articles and insight a lot, but the way he decides if the panel decision is trustworthy or not depending on if they agree with him or not is one of the few consistent flaws his articles have.

When we actually discussed this incident in reference to the law, I don't think any referee on this forum still took the stance that it isn't a foul. The VAR clip we now have seems to indicate that the reason for it not being C&O is based on either an incorrect assumption that they were both high, an incorrect assumption that Doku got the ball first (not that this is technically correct in law either) or some other factor that isn't stated in the audio.

It explains the VAR mistake and I don't supposed I'm going to get any further arguing that - they somehow saw things in the video that weren't there and those imagined things introduced enough doubt. But outside of the VAR room, the problem I had before still remains - once you're not imagining both players playing the ball dangerously high or Doku getting the ball first, I can't see any reason why this isn't an obvious foul?

I think you're taking 'they both come in high' to mean that both players lift their feet when in reality it was mean that both players attempted to play the ball with it quite high, but not high enough to head it.

 

[GraemeS]

I think you're taking 'they both come in high' to mean that both players lift their feet when in reality it was mean that both players attempted to play the ball with it quite high, but not high enough to head it.

But then how is that in any way mitigation for a foul? The only way "they both come in high" can mean it might not be a foul is if both players have chosen to try and play a chest-high ball with their feet - at which point I agree, I'm not interested in picking an offender out of two players doing basically the same thing.

As soon as Doku puts his studs in an area where MacAllister can reasonably expect to be able to safely chest or even head that ball, that's what makes it careless.