Author Topic: A MARRINER - Tottenham v Chelsea EFL  (Read 1074 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

ajb95

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,621
    • View Profile
Re: A MARRINER - Tottenham v Chelsea EFL
« Reply #15 on: Thu 13 Jan 2022 15:46 »
On another rather cynical note, maybe this game showed why Andre is not trusted with more big games?

Carter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: A MARRINER - Tottenham v Chelsea
« Reply #16 on: Thu 13 Jan 2022 16:37 »


There definately wasn’t a foul by Kepa , he took the ball cleanly , Marriner would have been better to let play develop and send the penalty appeal to VAR
[/quote]

I think there is too much of SG1 officals who in my view are letting too much go to VAR rather tham making the difficult decisions instantly, so in this instance even though he was clearly wrong good on Andre Marriner.

Its just far too easy not giving penalties at the time, because if they are 'very' wrong they get bailed out by VAR, as any doubt goes in their favour.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

nemesis

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 799
    • View Profile
Re: A MARRINER - Tottenham v Chelsea
« Reply #17 on: Thu 13 Jan 2022 17:33 »
Definitely not a penalty when Moura was fouled by Kepa. VAR correct to override for the second time.

I haven't seen the incident but if he was "fouled by Kepa" then why wouldn't it be a penalty? Or are you saying he wasn't fouled by Kepa?

I know they allow play to develop for VAR to check later when there is an offside "just in case" but surely they are not supposed to do that when a foul is involved.  That seems like a recipe for all sorts of retribution to take place.

But there wasn’t a foul the fact Kepa took the ball cleanly backs that up and one can only assume that Marriner guessed or was too quick with the whistle , No way Marriner could be 100% sure it was a penalty
There definately wasn’t a foul by Kepa , he took the ball cleanly , Marriner would have been better to let play develop and send the penalty appeal to VAR

(edited to fix quote-hertsref)
Whether there was a foul or not in this instance rather misses the point.  Andre Marriner thought there was a foul.  You are suggesting that despite that he should allow play to continue and let VAR decide.  My argument is that in general encouraging referees to play on despite a foul being committed (in their view) is dangerous.

Is that more or less dangerous than Assistants who let clearly offside attacks continue?
Agree Agree x 1 View List

rustyref

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 753
    • View Profile
Re: A MARRINER - Tottenham v Chelsea EFL
« Reply #18 on: Thu 13 Jan 2022 17:37 »
To be clear, aside from offsides they don't let play continue and let VAR decide.  Andre Marriner will get two incorrect KMIs from last night as VAR correcting your decision doesn't count with the observation.  VAR protocols say it can only get involved after the match referee has made a decision.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

nemesis

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 799
    • View Profile
Re: A MARRINER - Tottenham v Chelsea
« Reply #19 on: Thu 13 Jan 2022 17:37 »
Definitely not a penalty when Moura was fouled by Kepa. VAR correct to override for the second time.

I haven't seen the incident but if he was "fouled by Kepa" then why wouldn't it be a penalty? Or are you saying he wasn't fouled by Kepa?

There definately wasn’t a foul by Kepa , he took the ball cleanly , Marriner would have been better to let play develop and send the penalty appeal to VAR

I know they allow play to develop for VAR to check later when there is an offside "just in case" but surely they are not supposed to do that when a foul is involved.  That seems like a recipe for all sorts of retribution to take place.
But there wasn’t a foul the fact Kepa took the ball cleanly backs that up and one can only assume that Marriner guessed or was too quick with the whistle , No way Marriner could be 100% sure it was a penalty
There definately wasn’t a foul by Kepa , he took the ball cleanly , Marriner would have been better to let play develop and send the penalty appeal to VAR

(edited to fix quote-hertsref)
I am sure that Andre from his position was 100 pct sure there was a foul otherwise he wouldnt have given a penalty kick, the fact that other camera angles available to the var proved there wasnt a foul is exactly what var is there for to prevent a clear and obvious error. If Andre wasnt 100 pct sure he would not have give the penalty kick. Everyone makes mistakes or errors of judgement.

I love this notion that referees only give things if they are 100% sure !

All manner of decisions are given on the balance of probability and the majority of them are probably correct.

Players, by their duplicitous (is that okay?) behaviour, make 100% certainty very difficult indeed.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 3 View List

nemesis

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 799
    • View Profile
Re: A MARRINER - Tottenham v Chelsea EFL
« Reply #20 on: Thu 13 Jan 2022 17:39 »
To be clear, aside from offsides they don't let play continue and let VAR decide.  Andre Marriner will get two incorrect KMIs from last night as VAR correcting your decision doesn't count with the observation.  VAR protocols say it can only get involved after the match referee has made a decision.

Do you mean after he stops play? A decision to play on is still very much a decision.

rustyref

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 753
    • View Profile
Re: A MARRINER - Tottenham v Chelsea EFL
« Reply #21 on: Thu 13 Jan 2022 18:27 »
To be clear, aside from offsides they don't let play continue and let VAR decide.  Andre Marriner will get two incorrect KMIs from last night as VAR correcting your decision doesn't count with the observation.  VAR protocols say it can only get involved after the match referee has made a decision.

Do you mean after he stops play? A decision to play on is still very much a decision.

No, once the incident has happened and the referee has or hasn't stopped play VAR can get involved.  The specific text relating to this is below ...

The referee must always make a decision, i.e. the referee is not permitted to give ‘no decision’ and then use the VAR to make the decision; a decision to allow play to continue after an alleged offence can be reviewed.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

nemesis

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 799
    • View Profile
Re: A MARRINER - Tottenham v Chelsea EFL
« Reply #22 on: Thu 13 Jan 2022 22:29 »
To be clear, aside from offsides they don't let play continue and let VAR decide.  Andre Marriner will get two incorrect KMIs from last night as VAR correcting your decision doesn't count with the observation.  VAR protocols say it can only get involved after the match referee has made a decision.

Do you mean after he stops play? A decision to play on is still very much a decision.

No, once the incident has happened and the referee has or hasn't stopped play VAR can get involved.  The specific text relating to this is below ...

The referee must always make a decision, i.e. the referee is not permitted to give ‘no decision’ and then use the VAR to make the decision; a decision to allow play to continue after an alleged offence can be reviewed.

Thanks. I'm curious. How does VAR (or anyone else) differentiate between a decision not to award a foul and a "no decision".

Affy_Moose

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: A MARRINER - Tottenham v Chelsea EFL
« Reply #23 on: Fri 14 Jan 2022 10:53 »
To be clear, aside from offsides they don't let play continue and let VAR decide.  Andre Marriner will get two incorrect KMIs from last night as VAR correcting your decision doesn't count with the observation.  VAR protocols say it can only get involved after the match referee has made a decision.

Do you mean after he stops play? A decision to play on is still very much a decision.

No, once the incident has happened and the referee has or hasn't stopped play VAR can get involved.  The specific text relating to this is below ...

The referee must always make a decision, i.e. the referee is not permitted to give ‘no decision’ and then use the VAR to make the decision; a decision to allow play to continue after an alleged offence can be reviewed.

Thanks. I'm curious. How does VAR (or anyone else) differentiate between a decision not to award a foul and a "no decision".

I suppose there's two points to this.  The first is that it doesn't matter since the result is the same. 

The second is that VAR may recommend a review where a referee inputs nothing in respect to an incident, but will not recommend a review if the referee states "I saw xyz".  That's despite the initial outcomes being identical.

As we have seen recently with overly non-intrusive VAR reviews, if a referee states they saw an incident but didn't judge it to be a foul, the threshold for VAR review is much higher than if they missed it/saw nothing.  That is the correct approach, irrespective of where you put the bar for intervention.  Right now the bar is too high, but the logic doesn't change if you move its position.

"Clear and obvious" has a clearly defined meaning as per PGMOL.  It doesn't mean whatever pundits think it should or want it to, in the same way that "gaining an advantage" in Law 11 is defined, and doesn't allow for layman interpretation.

So, "clear and obvious" has a much lower threshold for review if a referee makes no decision, in comparison to a referee inputting they've made a 'decision' to do nothing. Either way, being over-ruled will be judged as a KMI, however, the chances of getting a 7.9 are going to not only be much higher if a referees make a "decision by omission", but also (as pointed out above) it is totally at odds to the Laws and their training.

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,770
    • View Profile
Re: A MARRINER - Tottenham v Chelsea EFL
« Reply #24 on: Fri 14 Jan 2022 12:57 »
To be clear, aside from offsides they don't let play continue and let VAR decide.  Andre Marriner will get two incorrect KMIs from last night as VAR correcting your decision doesn't count with the observation.  VAR protocols say it can only get involved after the match referee has made a decision.

Do you mean after he stops play? A decision to play on is still very much a decision.

No, once the incident has happened and the referee has or hasn't stopped play VAR can get involved.  The specific text relating to this is below ...

The referee must always make a decision, i.e. the referee is not permitted to give ‘no decision’ and then use the VAR to make the decision; a decision to allow play to continue after an alleged offence can be reviewed.

Thanks. I'm curious. How does VAR (or anyone else) differentiate between a decision not to award a foul and a "no decision".

I guess the point is that if there is something like a penalty appeal and the referee doesn't award a penalty then their decision is taken as no penalty - so the VAR would need to determine that no penalty was a clear and obvious error to intervene.

The referee's not allowed to stay neutral and say 'I'm 50/50 so we'll give whatever you think is best decision'.

Whether that is always fully how it operates is another matter of course!

I agree with Ref Watcher that it's important referees give decisions as they previously would have done as much as possible, so they aren't overly relying on VAR to make the decision or bail them out. Of course if it shouldn't be a penalty you'd ideally not want the referee to award a penalty initially but if it was that simple we wouldn't have VAR!

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,770
    • View Profile
Re: A MARRINER - Tottenham v Chelsea EFL
« Reply #25 on: Fri 14 Jan 2022 13:10 »
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
To be clear, aside from offsides they don't let play continue and let VAR decide.  Andre Marriner will get two incorrect KMIs from last night as VAR correcting your decision doesn't count with the observation.  VAR protocols say it can only get involved after the match referee has made a decision.

Even for offsides, I don't think they should let VAR decide. They are encouraged to let play continue in some circumstances but the assistant must always raise the flag if they believe it to be offside, either straight away or once the attacking move has broken down.