A&H

MUFC v LFC

The Referee Store
It's baffling that it wasn't at least sent down to the pitchside monitor. There's clear contact that the referee clearly hasn't seen and it's a subjective question of if it was "enough" for a foul.

That decision shouldn't be being taken by a different referee in a room miles away, it HAS to be a decision made by the same referee who's making every other decision in the match. That's how it's done everywhere else that uses VAR, that's how the laws say it should be done and it's madness that the FA are allowed to implement a different procedure to that laid out in the LOTG!
 
GraemeS said:
It's baffling that it wasn't at least sent down to the pitchside monitor. There's clear contact that the referee clearly hasn't seen and it's a subjective question of if it was "enough" for a foul.

That decision shouldn't be being taken by a different referee in a room miles away, it HAS to be a decision made by the same referee who's making every other decision in the match. That's how it's done everywhere else that uses VAR, that's how the laws say it should be done and it's madness that the FA are allowed to implement a different procedure to that laid out in the LOTG!
Click to expand...

Not that baffling, they haven't sent a single decision to the pitch side monitor all season. I'm not even completely convinced they are plugged in … :)
 
Isn't the prem version of VAR that no subjective decision about something the ref has seen is going to be "challenged".

The decisions here are consistent with that.

One one hand it's a foul on Origi and clear and obviously an error not to give the foul.
On the other hand, in this game, Taylor has "let them play" from the off. He has not penalised trifling fouls, even if the ball has been lost, from the first minute, so I think it's easy to argue that VAR has not interfered with his foul line.

As a Pool fan, I am gutted. And I think VAR is a steaming hot t**d, always have.
But I understand the decisions in this game.
 
santa sangria said:
Isn't the prem version of VAR that no subjective decision about something the ref has seen is going to be "challenged".

The decisions here are consistent with that.

One one hand it's a foul on Origi and clear and obviously an error not to give the foul.
On the other hand, in this game, Taylor has "let them play" from the off. He has not penalised trifling fouls, even if the ball has been lost, from the first minute, so I think it's easy to argue that VAR has not interfered with his foul line.

As a Pool fan, I am gutted. And I think VAR is a steaming hot t**d, always have.
But I understand the decisions in this game.
Click to expand...


Unless my eyes deceive me I’m pretty sure it’s Martin Atkinson
 
santa sangria said:
Isn't the prem version of VAR that no subjective decision about something the ref has seen is going to be "challenged".

The decisions here are consistent with that.

One one hand it's a foul on Origi and clear and obviously an error not to give the foul.
On the other hand, in this game, Taylor has "let them play" from the off. He has not penalised trifling fouls, even if the ball has been lost, from the first minute, so I think it's easy to argue that VAR has not interfered with his foul line.

As a Pool fan, I am gutted. And I think VAR is a steaming hot t**d, always have.
But I understand the decisions in this game.
Click to expand...
I don't think a referee in a booth can fully implement another person's thought process. Which is exactly why the monitors are part of the process and exactly why they should have been used here.
 
GraemeS said:
It's baffling that it wasn't at least sent down to the pitchside monitor. There's clear contact that the referee clearly hasn't seen and it's a subjective question of if it was "enough" for a foul.

That decision shouldn't be being taken by a different referee in a room miles away, it HAS to be a decision made by the same referee who's making every other decision in the match. That's how it's done everywhere else that uses VAR, that's how the laws say it should be done and it's madness that the FA are allowed to implement a different procedure to that laid out in the LOTG!
Click to expand...

I don't believe it says in the LOTG/protocol that the referee has to go and look at the monitor although it's true that pretty much everywhere else do it.

I disagree slightly about someone else making the decision - I think the problem is that VARs generally aren't making any decisions at all. They're just leaving it with whatever the referee gave originally

If they put someone in Stockley Park who'd never refereed a game before but knew how to do the offside line and could spot if the ball hit the hand of an attacking player then you'd get virtually the same results. .
 
Having watched MOD now, i'm lost
Villa v Brighton.... a subjective decision overturned a goal (and it was soft!). So the one consistency of VAR is now inconsistent. What a mess
Add to that the Burnley thing and one can understand the immense controversy in the game.
From the outset, VAR has only added to or intensified the controversy. Perfect for 24/7 news channels and the overall value of the product; which i long since divorced myself from
 
Last edited:
Also having seen the Watford Spurs game, i don't think the media furore is justified. But there's the thing, the very existence of VAR magnifies and multiplies the controversy. Perfect for the money men in the game because everyone's talking about it. The younger generation have pushed me down the leagues, having never missed a game at one time
Edit: added to that, VAR further breeds the culture of questioning the ref's decision
 
Last edited:
My view on why the Origi foul isn't given by VAR is that he is looking for it... He is falling before the contact to his calf. I am not saying it was not a foul as there is careless contact to the calf but had that not happened the result would have been the same, Origi rolling on the floor clutching the opposite leg to the one that was caught.
 
JamesL said:
My view on why the Origi foul isn't given by VAR is that he is looking for it... He is falling before the contact to his calf. I am not saying it was not a foul as there is careless contact to the calf but had that not happened the result would have been the same, Origi rolling on the floor clutching the opposite leg to the one that was caught.
Click to expand...


100% agree he made the most of the contact but at the end of the day it is 100%. Foul and it should have been disallowed
 
willt2004 said:
100% agree he made the most of the contact but at the end of the day it is 100%. Foul and it should have been disallowed
Click to expand...
Agree with 50%. Yes it was a foul if the ref sees it.
You can only chalk off a clear and obvious error. That is not clear and obvious. Even less so when the player is trying to make it appear worse than it is or are trying to win it contact or not.
We are very slowly heading towards a no contact sport like basket ball as every small amount of contact is placed under a microscope at slow motion speed and of course everyone is then up in arms about a goal.
I was happy for that goal to stand. It was more annoying that Mane goal was ruled out despite being correct in law. I think that law has gone too far.
 
JamesL said:
Agree with 50%. Yes it was a foul if the ref sees it.
You can only chalk off a clear and obvious error. That is not clear and obvious. Even less so when the player is trying to make it appear worse than it is or are trying to win it contact or not.
We are very slowly heading towardscontact sport like basket ball as every small amount of contact is placed under a microscope at slow motion speed and of course everyone is then up in arms about a goal.
I was happy for that goal to stand. It was more annoying that Mane goal was ruled out despite being correct in law. I think that law has gone too far.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree mane would have felt hard done by but they are the new laws
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top