RateTheRef

How have two premier league officials who have multiple replays at all different angles not see a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR by Andre Marriner yet they can scrutinise the tiniest millimetre of offside

Another topic that needs to merged bmb   

That’s the 6 yard box l

Ok ok! I wasn't watching!! Man City player is standing on AFCB players foot though, not the other way round so unless having your foot stood on by an attacker is now a foul against you then probably a pretty good reason!

I would suggest you watch it, that still frame dosent show what actually happenned,never at any stage did Silva stand on the Defenders foot, but the defender did stand on Sivas foot

"Agree with th sentiments on VAR, although my position on it is quite clear. How long is it going to be before we get a penalty awarded by VAR when it is so uneager to actually intervene!"

I only saw bits if this game but judging by the comments above and yesterday's aberrations by officials at Old Trafford, we may have quite a wait before VAR intervenes.

Just as an aside, in my mature years I seem to be getting more cynical.  There seems to be a trend on this excellent forum to be less critical of errors by officials than was the case when I first joined.  I mean sensible criticism and constructive suggestions as to why a referee might have got it wrong. Some topics run to pages while other high profile games with a fair amount of controversy attract only a few posts.

Perhaps it's my imagination (and I'm sure we're not being discouraged from voicing criticism), but contributions from some of the knowledgeable longstanding posters are often focused on highly technical issues which, while interesting, don't necessarily impact the same as controversial, potential game changing decisions we've already seen this season. 

I'm not a referee and never have been, but I would love to hear what those that are made of Tierney's performance yesterday and Marriner's today.

All in all I think it was a sub par performance from Marriner yesterday.
Walker was very lucky to escape without a YC for his first challenge on Ake, and then was subsequently YC'd for a further robust challenged. I'd like to think had Walker been on a YC for the earlier challenge he wouldn't have committed the second, but it is Kyle Walker

The incident for the penalty on Silva just makes a complete mockery of the implementation of VAR imo. How on earth the VAR saw that and interpreted that is wasn't a clear and obvious error I will never know.
I may be way left field here, but my assumption of clear and obvious would be that very incident. Marriner clearly saw the incident and chose not to give a penalty and the replays were so conclusive of contact that it HAD to be overturned? Surely? 
The definition given for why VAR didn't overturn Marriner's decision was flaky at best. The way VAR is going, there's going to be WWIII before it gets any better.

"The definition given for why VAR didn't overturn Marriner's decision was flaky at best. The way VAR is going, there's going to be WWIII before it gets any better."

Has Swarbrick given the explanation flipmode?  If so, I wonder if he's commented on any of the other contentious decisions over the weekend.

We now seem to have contradictory concerns regarding VAR.  Initially, it was thought VAR was undermining the referee who should have the final say, if necessary by looking at the monitor e.g. the handball disallowed goal for City v Spurs.

This weekend, the perceived problem is that VAR is being too weak in not being prepared to intervene and inform the referee he's got it wrong.

I appreciate the difference between subjective and factual decisions in the application of law but it would seem the current situation is far from satisfactory.


Interestingly, Dermott Gallagher in reviewing the non-penalty decision for City last week v Spurs when Lamela looked to bundle over the City player, suggested that Oliver would have told VAR he saw the incident and didn't consider it a penalty and therefore VAR would not have intervened.  This strikes me as important if it means the referee can in some circumstances pre-empt VAR, but is Gallagher right?
 

Ah, thanks for that kelxref.

So, is it fair to say that if a referee or the ARs has not seen an incident e.g. a handball by a defender in the penalty area or by an attacker leading to a goal; or a VC off the ball incident, then VAR will intervene to overturn the decision. On the other hand, if the referee has clearly seen an incident and made his subjective judgement and informs VAR accordingly in any conversation they have, then VAR will not seek to overturn it. If this is the case, then I'd not fully appreciated it. It would probably explain why no action was taken in several of the incidents highlighted in various matches over the weekend, including what I saw at OT.

I guess situations which are not so clear cut would be SFP where a referee only had a partial view and may be glad of VAR help.  Another contentious one would be if a referee wrongly cautions an attacker in the PA for simulation and the VAR tells him there was definite contact enough for a penalty; or the reverse situation of a penalty being awarded when it was simulation.   

If this is how it's operating, then whether it's the right way is another matter. 

Sorry to have strayed off the specific topic.