A&H

Tottenham Hotspur vs Man City

For me - its not about the decsisions per se - apart from the 2nd yellow - all debateable - just don't think VAR bought anything to the party - just adds delay and another opinion to agree or disagree with.

Most worrying/laugahable/outrageous thing for me was the REPORTED PGMOL comment reported on MOTD2 that the Sterling challenge wasn't a red because it wasn't a deliberate attempt to endanger safety of an opponent:eek:
 
The Referee Store
Clear and obvious needs to be that. If you have to look at something over and over to make a decision it can't be clear and obvious, can it?

How many people feel that Michael Oliver's decision to award a handball against Glen Murray was a clear and obvious error? yet VAR undermined his authority by reversing his decision after far too long reviewing things.
 
How many people feel that Michael Oliver's decision to award a handball against Glen Murray was a clear and obvious error? yet VAR undermined his authority by reversing his decision after far too long reviewing things.
I am not sure what your argument is in the context of the debate?
All I am saying is that 2 full minutes of football played between a decision being made and play brought back to a penalty is unacceptable and highlights an issue with the protocol that needs to be addressed and that is the definition of what constitutes clear and obvious and how long a check takes place, before being a review, and a decision being made.
 
Most worrying/laugahable/outrageous thing for me was the REPORTED PGMOL comment reported on MOTD2 that the Sterling challenge wasn't a red because it wasn't a deliberate attempt to endanger safety of an opponent:eek:
It wasn't reported as the PGMOL explanation, it was claimed it was from the Premier League.
 
Of course they are they don't look at the monitor!
Of course it was a penalty. I think you have missed my point. Clear and obvious needs to be that. If you have to look at something over and over to make a decision it can't be clear and obvious, can it?
Again the point is we need to look at what and how things are checked and reviewed.
2 minutes whilst play continues is unacceptable which ever way you want to spin it

Precisely my point.

I understand the point that if it's clear and obvious it shouldn't take two minutes to make a decision but my point is that yesterday it DID take that amount of time and we're both agreed it was clear and obvious.

Why it took that long I don't know but presumably Kevin Friend wasn't able to make the decision in 30 seconds for whatever reason or he would have done so.

Is that because he lacked confidence to change Dean's decision? Is it because he wasn't sure it was a foul? Is it because it took time for him to see the best angle? Is it because he was also checking something else that had occurred first? Who knows.
 
It wasn't reported as the PGMOL explanation, it was claimed it was from the Premier League.

I think the BBC have used 'Premier League' before when they mean PGMOL - would be good to know for sure where the quote came from.

Would be odd for the PL to comment on different red card incidents wouldn't it?
 
The main point is avoiding the potential for a goal to be scored and then chalked off, I think that is preferable to everyone involved.

In this case, Man City had the ball most of the time so the chances of Spurs scoring were slim.

I can think of some cases where there's been a half-hearted appeal down one end, a team have gone up the other end and scored and the goal has been given. If you'd stopped the game just because there was a slim chance of a penalty being given then the opposition would have been denied a perfectly good goal.

If the match had been stopped right away yesterday and we'd spent a few minutes waiting for the decision I think people would just be frustrated at that procedure, especially in an instance where a penalty wasn't ultimately given.
 
I am not sure what your argument is in the context of the debate?
All I am saying is that 2 full minutes of football played between a decision being made and play brought back to a penalty is unacceptable and highlights an issue with the protocol that needs to be addressed and that is the definition of what constitutes clear and obvious and how long a check takes place, before being a review, and a decision being made.

Have to agree. We can argue about the exact wording of the VAR protocols but by any common sense understanding of the English language and using the 'what football expects' argument - you can't come to the conclusion that a 'clear and obvious' error has been made if it takes 2+ mins and multiple viewings to spot something that some haven't seen and half won't agree with. It just becomes another decision to debate/agree or not with. This sense of frustration is added to when a 'clear and obvious' act - Lloris moving before pen kick - is NOT picked up by VAR.
 
Anyone switch-over and watch the rugby - have you heard the arguments about the TMO?
Me neither.
Why is that?
Because IMO the TMO and Referee are seen to ‘work together’ to logically come to a conclusion AND you can hear their reasoning.

Another ‘why is that?’ A goalkeeper off his line, must be the easiest, quickest and most straight-forward decision for VAR to make – certainly ‘clear & obvious’ to anyone watching TV, so why not let VAR make the call and get an ‘easy one’ right?
 
Anyone switch-over and watch the rugby - have you heard the arguments about the TMO?
Me neither.
Why is that?
Because IMO the TMO and Referee are seen to ‘work together’ to logically come to a conclusion AND you can hear their reasoning.

Another ‘why is that?’ A goalkeeper off his line, must be the easiest, quickest and most straight-forward decision for VAR to make – certainly ‘clear & obvious’ to anyone watching TV, so why not let VAR make the call and get an ‘easy one’ right?

To be fair, VAR was doing that all summer at the WWC and a lot of people were calling it farcical and saying they didn't want VAR to be used for that - so the PL decided they'd leave that to the on-field officials.
 
I asked this at a referee workshop and nobody knew the answer.

The other question asked was if Spurs scored in the two minutes would they get a penalty to go 2-0 up?

Maybe a VAR review means the game ALWAYS stops immediately. But what is the "non possible penalty team" with possession are 1-0 down in a cup match?

Who's the person off here that e-mails David Elleray all the time? Maybe they could ask the question.

Thinking about it some more, I have a vague recollection of reading something in the VAR handbook describing a situation similar to the one in the Newcastle V Liverpool game towards the end of last season (defenders handles the ball on the line, referee misses it, goal is scored anyway.)

I'm pretty certain it said that the goal must be awarded even if VAR spots the handball and it would be of greater tactical advantage for the team to have the penalty and a red card be shown.

That would suggest a goal should have been given if Man City had scored during the interim yesterday.
 
i suspect PP has mixed his words and means that Lloris was off his line before the kick was taken

Sigh - English language police about - yes that IS what I meant and as this IS a forum for qualified officials (in the main), thought that would be pretty evident, as was the movement OF HIS FEET OFF THE LINE - clear enough?:rolleyes:
 
To be fair, VAR was doing that all summer at the WWC and a lot of people were calling it farcical and saying they didn't want VAR to be used for that - so the PL decided they'd leave that to the on-field officials.

Yes that is the logic and most on here can follow that, if not agree, but to the vast majority watching who are NOT referees its a nonsense spending over 2 minutes looking at a penalty decision, THEN changing it and yet not 'correct' something so obvious.
 
Yes that is the logic and most on here can follow that, if not agree, but to the vast majority watching who are NOT referees its a nonsense spending over 2 minutes looking at a penalty decision, THEN changing it and yet not 'correct' something so obvious.

But most people watching the WWC were saying they didn't want that and saying 'the PL will be a farce with this next season'.

Look how people have reacted when encroachment has been penalised by VAR. I think in the wider public people aren't generally bothered about minor encroachment - or at least they only are when it's not being penalised! If penalties are made to be retaken regularly for it then they get frustrated.
 
Don’t know if anything has been said formally about the delay on the penalty but my first thought was a comms failure
 
I think the BBC have used 'Premier League' before when they mean PGMOL - would be good to know for sure where the quote came from.

Would be odd for the PL to comment on different red card incidents wouldn't it?

This has happened a few times where someone has given a baffling explanation, I suspect it is an FA media spokesperson rather than PGMOL.

But the continued silence from PGMOL towers doesn't help. They need to be explaining VAR decisions every week like they do in the USA, even if that means saying the wrong outcome was reached.
 
I watched it all again earlier and my opinion has changed after watching it live.

Sterling foul was a YC. Good call.
Lloris did not have one foot on the line. This was missed and C&O.
The save should have reset the penalty with YC to Lloris.
(On the rebound, I am happy with GK, no foul, no dive. Sterling anticipates contact and gets his knees down early but that doesn’t necessarily make it simulation and I am happy with no YC. If the ball was in play.)

So, my updated conclusion: smart video refereeing would have been to call the GK encroachment.

Extra point: for all those considering a 30cm or daylight margin for offside, please note that this encroachment snafu only happened because the guidance on GK encroachment was changed from being absolute black/white.

(And yes, I still think VAR is a shower. It did nothing for that massive game other than undermine the referee.)
 
Don’t know if anything has been said formally about the delay on the penalty but my first thought was a comms failure
That wasn't my first thought, and it wasn't what Dermot Gallagher said when they asked him about it in the post-match review. I thought (and so did he) that it was just down to the guidelines in the VAR protocol and which say:
In circumstances where the game continues, play can be stopped by the referee for a review but only when it is in a ‘neutral zone/situation’ i.e. neither team has a good promising attack; if a team is in a good attacking situation or a goal-scoring position, play continues until it is in a neutral zone/situation.
 
Back
Top