Sheffield United v Villa

[RefIADad]

I personally think that a DOGSO send-off is the right call, but I also think this is one of those calls where the call on the field should stand regardless of what it was. I think a caution is the incorrect call, but I also think that a caution is not a clear and obvious error. Therefore, I don't believe VAR should have stepped in to recommend an on-field review.

What this type of situation does for me is provide more evidence that VAR is re-refereeing the game more than just correcting clear and obvious errors. I'm not sure where the line is between clear & obvious error and not, but in my opinion this play is on the "keep the call on the field" side.

 

[one]

I have had a chance now to look at this from 3 different camera angles and a freeze frame at the moment of foul from each of those angels. Each of of those giving a very different impression. My conclusion, the 2D representation on a tv screen is no match for what the referee sees in 3D (with a few extra dimmetions like real time and game feel). So unless you have very conclusive contrary evidence on the replay, stick with the referee's decision.

 

[bester]

What concerns me is they don't run these through in real time at all. You can't judge relative speeds before a still.

 

[GraemeS]

What concerns me is they don't run these through in real time at all. You can't judge relative speeds before a still.

They should be. The protocol is clear that still should only be used to determine point of contact - anything else should be judged using full speed replays.

 

[Peter Grove]

@Peter Grove that computer generated image make it a lot more of GSO that it actually was. Its put the attacker a lot more central (he was wider) and the keeper out of position

Possibly - here's another angle of exactly what the referee was looking at on the VAR monitor. Looking at the grass-cutting lines on the field I think it shows the defender was closer to the goal line than the attacker at the time the foul occurred so again, yellow not a C&O error for me.

Incidentally, while this is a still, the video I took it from shows the referee watching a moving clip of the incident, so he wasn't just looking at stills of it, as implied in another post.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Interestingly on a Referees Association training video I attended recently the 'tutors' - both current EFL officials - recommended trying to 'freeze frame' the foul in your mind when deciding, if AT POINT OF CONTACT' defenders could reasonably have been expected to prevent the obvious opportunity.

Using freeze frame here, seems to imply they are following that method.

 

[santa sangria]

Interestingly on a Referees Association training video I attended recently the 'tutors' - both current EFL officials - recommended trying to 'freeze frame' the foul in your mind when deciding, if AT POINT OF CONTACT' defenders could reasonably have been expected to prevent the obvious opportunity.

Using freeze frame here, seems to imply they are following that method.

I think that makes total sense. We are encouraged to do that - and of course that's what you do if you are lucky enough to get a video assessment.
Different sport I know, but in futsal, the freeze frame idea is also essential, as you need to figure our if the GK was in the triangle between the goalposts and the foul at the time of the offence (otherwise no DOGSO).

 

[Redster]

On viewing it myself, it looks to me as though, at the time for the challenge, the attacker had slowed because if some difficulties with controlling the ball. I have no doubt he would have knocked it around the defender and run into it, but I don't think he'd have been in a particularly good position, especially in relation to the covering defenders.