RefSix

Sea vs pool

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
No one has mention the DOGSO yet. Liklyhood of control wasn't enough for me. The foul was very cynical and very deliberate but that is not a factor.

VAR OFR was terrible too. First he looks at freeze frame for 5 seconds and then a slow mo and makes his decision.

Outside of that I thought he had a good game.
 

bester

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
His next touch is going to poke it past the 'keeper and there is no other defender anywhere near. Even if he takes a poor touch he's quick enough to catch it and knock it into an empty net
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
His next touch is going to poke it past the 'keeper and there is no other defender anywhere near. Even if he takes a poor touch he's quick enough to catch it and knock it into an empty net
Yes that is a good possibility but also a good chance that the keeper is going to have the next touch considering the ball the travelling fast towards keeper.
 

Russell Jones

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
No one has mention the DOGSO yet. Liklyhood of control wasn't enough for me. The foul was very cynical and very deliberate but that is not a factor.

VAR OFR was terrible too. First he looks at freeze frame for 5 seconds and then a slow mo and makes his decision.

Outside of that I thought he had a good game.
I could easily argue it either way whether or not Mane would get there first. So for me, the cynicism involved in the foul would likely sway the decision towards Red ....

Agree about the OFR process though
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Just illustrates that the DOGSO guidelines (when applied literally) are garbage
I don't care if some observer might mark me down because Mane didn't have the ball under control, it's irrelevant to me; because he was denied an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity... all day long. The fact that it was cynical is irrelevant, but as a human being, it's likely to sway the referee's decision.

Now, I'm not really Tierney's number one fan, but I strongly fancy he's pulling out the red card in the absence of his earpiece and the OFR monitor
Once at pitch side, they love a slo mo
 

Russell Jones

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
Just illustrates that the DOGSO guidelines (when applied literally) are garbage
I don't care if some observer might mark me down because Mane didn't have the ball under control, it's irrelevant to me; because he was denied an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity... all day long
Think that's very harsh on the guidelines. They specifically say 'control OR likelihood of gaining control' so I think all bases are covered :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Let's pretend the offending defender doesn't exist. With the way the keeper is running out, all Mane needs to do is get the first touch to poke it past him, and it then becomes a simple matter of avoiding the keeper (another potential DOGSO if he doesn't!), catching up with the ball in that 25 yards of empty pitch, and rolling it home.

If you look at the context of the whole situation, the fact the likelihood of full "control" coming from that one single touch is low can be considered almost irrelevant. In order to gain control a second later, all Mane has to do is take a single touch that knocks it past the keeper and isn't so hard that it goes straight out for a GK. Is it likely that without a man jumping on his back, he manages to meet that lowered threshold? For me, absolutely.

The only debate here is would the keeper have got the clearance first. The referee must have thought so, as that's the only way you could possibly give a yellow. And as soon as you've carried out a VAR check that confirms Mane likely would have managed to get the first touch, I think you have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that touch is more likely than not to produce a GSO.
 
Last edited:

onthebrink

Well-Known Member
If Mane's not fouled I think there's a likelihood of him gaining control of the ball.

I was surprised Tierney didn't produce red straight away as I think everyone was expecting it.

I agree the OFR didn't especially show enough but of course we didn't hear what Oliver was saying.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
If Mane's not fouled I think there's a likelihood of him gaining control of the ball.

I was surprised Tierney didn't produce red straight away as I think everyone was expecting it.

I agree the OFR didn't especially show enough but of course we didn't hear what Oliver was saying.
Excellent point - what the VAR shows him will vary depending on what aspect of the initial decision he got wrong.

If the stated reason for only going yellow was "I thought the keeper was getting there first" then a slow-mo to confirm the likely winner of the race and a still to confirm it was clearly a foul would probably be about right.

However if (somehow!) he hadn't given a foul, I would expect multiple full-speed replays, plus a still to confirm the contact. Same for if it was a question of control, as discussed above.

It's a long-standing flaw of VAR that no one (not even the commentators) are allowed to hear the official's discussion, but that aspect is only going to get more annoying as we see more and more OFR's that we can't listen in to.
 

onthebrink

Well-Known Member
I believe the commentators can hear the VAR (at least some of the time) - the BBC commentator Steve Wilson spoke about this last season and Mark Clattenburg said recently how he'd been able to listen in when working for BT last season and he'd been surprised how polished it was.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
[
If the stated reason for only going yellow was "I thought the keeper was getting there first" then a slow-mo to confirm the likely winner of the race and a still to confirm it was clearly a foul would probably be about right.
Disagree. The main reason the keeper could have got to the ball first is the speed the ball was traveling towards him. Slowing the replay and hence the speed of the ball would give the manipulated perceptiin in that regards. Showing a still image with no keeper in it (just off frame) is something I expect media to do to manipulate facts. I have seen replays in full speed and slow Mo and the two give different likelihoods of who gets there first (mind you the odds are both in favour of Mane).

I am not too fussed with the end result, it's just the means to get there.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
[

Disagree. The main reason the keeper could have got to the ball first is the speed the ball was traveling towards him. Slowing the replay and hence the speed of the ball would give the manipulated perceptiin in that regards. Showing a still image with no keeper in it (just off frame) is something I expect media to do to manipulate facts. I have seen replays in full speed and slow Mo and the two give different likelihoods of who gets there first (mind you thy are both in favour of Mane).

I am not too fussed with the end result, it's just the means to get there.
Don't forget, a possible outcome from a red card review is the referee can decide that it wasn't actually a foul, rescinding the yellow and restarting with a drop ball. In order to make sure that doesn't happen, they do need to definitely confirm the foul, however obvious it might seem from the outside.

So therefore a still image with no keeper is 100% fine as long as the VAR is saying something like "and here's a still so you can see that the defender is clearly committing a foul". As you rightly say, it's 100% not OK if it's being used to judge anything related to the DOGSO/not-DOGSO question, but without a comms feed, we can't say for sure if it was done correctly or not.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
The fact that it was cynical is irrelevant, but as a human being, it's likely to sway the referee's decision.

I think it is unfortunate that it is not an official factor. DOGSO was brought in to stop cynical fouls. This is exactly the kind of foul that should be a send off--it's a take down from behind because the defender thinks there is an OGSO. Failures of refs to implement sufficiently led to the check-the-box application more than referee judgment. I'd love to see IFAB say that where, ITOOTR, there is a cynical foul (like this one) the thresholds on the other factors are diminished and the referee should err on the side of sending off the player.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
Yes that is a good possibility but also a good chance that the keeper is going to have the next touch considering the ball the travelling fast towards keeper.

If Kepa had got the first touch he would have probably knocked into his own goal anyway, or given it straight to Mane :)

For me it is obvious enough to be a red.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
For anyone saying he should have gone red first, I can't see that happening. It is a lot easier to go yellow and upgrade if necessary following a review than it is to red and then have to go and get the player back out of the changing room to downgrade it to a caution.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
For anyone saying he should have gone red first, I can't see that happening. It is a lot easier to go yellow and upgrade if necessary following a review than it is to red and then have to go and get the player back out of the changing room to downgrade it to a caution.

Well, on the few reds that I have seen that have been downgraded, the player hasn't been in the changing room yet, but hanging out in the exit area to see what happened.

I think it is a problem if (as I think is the case), refs are swallowing reds to only review and only give red if an OFR shows it was a clear and obvious error not to give the red. That means a fair share of deserved reds won't get given because of the threshold for review. IMHO, this is a red that should be been able to have been given on the field without review. (And yes, I know that is a lot easier to say sitting in the comfort of my chair.)
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Very similar incident just now Villa v Sheff (minus the O)
This was not a DOGSO IMO, but Scott pulls out the red seemingly to everyone's surprise
C&O error, maybe not, so decision stands
Wrong outcome, however it was arrived at
 

onthebrink

Well-Known Member
For anyone saying he should have gone red first, I can't see that happening. It is a lot easier to go yellow and upgrade if necessary following a review than it is to red and then have to go and get the player back out of the changing room to downgrade it to a caution.

Well, I don't agree with that!

There's been plenty of red cards downgraded and I don't think a player has ever been brought back form the dressing room - we saw the Sheffield United defender waiting today.

The referee needs to make the decision they believe is correct in real time and I presume/hope they get marked down a bit if they get it wrong - certainly I believe that's what happens in UEFA games.

Your approach also runs the risk that if the VAR believes it's a red card but isn't sure it's a clear and obvious error then a red card might not be shown.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Your approach also runs the risk that if the VAR believes it's a red card but isn't sure it's a clear and obvious error then a red card will not be shown.

I didn't think @RustyRef was so much advocating for it as observing it seems to be what's happening.

Fixed your sentence for you. ;) Unless the VAR believes it is a C&O error, he should not be recommending a review.
 
Top