Oh yeah, wasn't a dig at anyone here, just highlighting how those paid to talk about the game barely understand itShows how endemic the 'problem' is perhaps?
VAR
- Thread starter jofusref
- Start date
I missed the initial challenge but saw replays. And I confess to quoting a commentator/pundit in the Henderson point. They’d said something about him getting up reasonably quickly and not resorting to full on histrionics and rolling about.
Nothing doing imo and I was a GK so fully signed up member of the GK's union.
Someone mentioned in another forum that for two of the games yesterday the VAR had a senior ref to the referee on the pitch and in both cases asked the ref to review and in the end the decision was overruled. In the Liverpool match the roles were reversed. Do we have figures on how many times a senior ref has been asked to review an incident by a junior and less experienced referee?
Is this likely to be a problem if junior referees dont feel the need to ask senior referees to review even if the on field decision was obviously incorrect (in the case of the Henderson foul)?
Is this likely to be a problem if junior referees dont feel the need to ask senior referees to review even if the on field decision was obviously incorrect (in the case of the Henderson foul)?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
It shouldn’t be an issue. VARs are going to be evaluated based on whether they send the right plays down as C&O error for an OFR. But it certainly could be a subconscious factor in their evaluation of whether something was a C&O error, as they may not expect so-and-so to make a bad error.
Not the best record!
To be fair we're not comparing a FIFA list official to a level 8.
Then I type that's it because "reckless" sounds worse than "excessive force", so it's the fault of the rulemakers.
And what makes the senior ref better? In any case, are we really saying that a "junior" ref at Stockley Park would not recommend a review to a senior ref? That would just reinforce that VAR is pretty useless.
I’m sure those with a greater understanding of psychology than I will know the proper
term but there’s a definite unconscious deference to the senior referee, just by him being “senior”.
Maybe some junior refs share the same opinion as some of us about the senior refs....
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
And the other point, which I have made several times before is that while they're not using the correct term of art, they're also partially correct in a sense, since a challenge that uses excessive force is almost certainly reckless as well. The terms are not mutually exclusive.
You have to remember that the terms careless, reckless and excessive force were first introduced to replace intent. It still left the implied nonsense that it was not an offence to strike an opponent intentionally if you could do it carefully. There was orginally no "grading" of the offences. That came later when some bright spark at IFAB suggested making them grades of seriousness for disciplinary action, and IFAB defined them in seriousness following the original order (which was never intended).
Even now, the wording for reckless sounds more serious than the nebulous "excessive force". (Why should using just enough force not even be a free kick, but excessive force is a red card?)
Try this:
Even now, the wording for reckless sounds more serious than the nebulous "excessive force". (Why should using just enough force not even be a free kick, but excessive force is a red card?)
Try this:
- Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
- Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be cautioned
- Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be sent off
one
RefChat Addict
This assumption doesn't hold true. You can still use just enough force but be careless.
I see your point re swapping the last two, but I still think the book's description is 'more correct' in terms of seriousness/grading.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Depends on which school you went to in what part of the country I guess
- reckless DOES seem less serious to me than excessive force in purely English language meaning.PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Nope - your revised wording/changes make no sense to me but each to their own.
USING excessive force is a done deal so hence more serious that acting with a disregard for the consequences of his action (which may or may not cause injury.)
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
If you ever used the phrase "excessive force" at school I'd wonder what you were studying.
A while ago, we had a little debate that in a contact sport even an innocent challenge can cause injury so "endangers the safety of an opponent" could be called for every tackle that hurts, whereas "disregard" implies you were quite happy to endanger the safety of the opponent.
In the end, it's all semantics (with a bit of IFAB's careless writing), but I'm not going to criticise pundits who use plain English rather the LotG's often arcane phrases.
If you ever used the phrase "excessive force" at school I'd wonder what you were studying.
A while ago, we had a little debate that in a contact sport even an innocent challenge can cause injury so "endangers the safety of an opponent" could be called for every tackle that hurts, whereas "disregard" implies you were quite happy to endanger the safety of the opponent.
In the end, it's all semantics (with a bit of IFAB's careless writing), but I'm not going to criticise pundits who use plain English rather the LotG's often arcane phrases.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
I think Humpty Dumpty rather proves my point, but that isn't really the erm point.
If the pundits are using phrases from the LOTG, then it makes sense to use them correctly - no?
We (referees) know that some of the meaning in the LOTG is not the same as the English language meaning, but that doesn't mean that using the English language meaning to justify or criticise a decision is correct.
The phrases used in the offside law a perfect example - but if we all start using our own words and interpretations then we end up with what we often see/hear/read - nonsense justifications for/against a refereeing decision - while the poor referee is actually working within the LOTG, not just stating a subjective opinion with a few random words from said LOTG thrown in, as is often the case with the 'experts'