+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 953
Latest: Yorksref
New This Month: 21
New This Week: 3
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 75120
Total Topics: 5529
Most Online Today: 273
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 8
Guests: 168
Total: 176

Author Topic: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea  (Read 2721 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Scally Bob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #30 on: Tue 27 Apr 2021 09:21 »
It's strange because normally it is the player who "follows through" in clearing the ball who ends up rolling around on the floor and getting a free kick after their foot/leg makes the merest contact with the opposing player attempting to block the clearance.

This is a very valid point. In old money “leaving a foot in” will often mean a yellow card for the player attempting to stop the clearance. Again, it’s subjective: is it merely an accidental collision, a careless challenge, a reckless act or excessive force? Not many fall into the excessive force category in my opinion and experience.

The appeal will be interesting. Who’s going to admit two Select Group referees got it wrong or will they, as with the Pickford assault, brush it under the carpet?
Like Like x 1 View List

Leggy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: East Grinstead
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Long Retired Level 3
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #31 on: Tue 27 Apr 2021 11:00 »
It's strange because normally it is the player who "follows through" in clearing the ball who ends up rolling around on the floor and getting a free kick after their foot/leg makes the merest contact with the opposing player attempting to block the clearance.

This is a very valid point. In old money “leaving a foot in” will often mean a yellow card for the player attempting to stop the clearance. Again, it’s subjective: is it merely an accidental collision, a careless challenge, a reckless act or excessive force? Not many fall into the excessive force category in my opinion and experience.

The appeal will be interesting. Who’s going to admit two Select Group referees got it wrong or will they, as with the Pickford assault, brush it under the carpet?

They cannot "brush it under the carpet" as they did with Pickford because - during the game - nothing happened.  In this case they are either going to have to support the match referee and the VAR or state that they got it wrong.  No hiding place.

For those who listen to Fighting Talk on Five Live, justifying this red card would make a very challenging "defend the indefensible"!!

Scally Bob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #32 on: Tue 27 Apr 2021 11:23 »
It's strange because normally it is the player who "follows through" in clearing the ball who ends up rolling around on the floor and getting a free kick after their foot/leg makes the merest contact with the opposing player attempting to block the clearance.

This is a very valid point. In old money “leaving a foot in” will often mean a yellow card for the player attempting to stop the clearance. Again, it’s subjective: is it merely an accidental collision, a careless challenge, a reckless act or excessive force? Not many fall into the excessive force category in my opinion and experience.

The appeal will be interesting. Who’s going to admit two Select Group referees got it wrong or will they, as with the Pickford assault, brush it under the carpet?

They cannot "brush it under the carpet" as they did with Pickford because - during the game - nothing happened.  In this case they are either going to have to support the match referee and the VAR or state that they got it wrong.  No hiding place.

For those who listen to Fighting Talk on Five Live, justifying this red card would make a very challenging "defend the indefensible"!!

The Pickford incident was brushed under the carpet. It was a clear case of excessive force that the referee on the day didn’t see, VAR ignored and subsequently Oliver said had he seen it he would have sent Pickford off. There was no disciplinary action despite the protocol being in place to deal with it post-match if the referee didn’t see it. Punishment would have been admission that their VAR experiment isn’t fit for purpose.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Ref Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 977
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #33 on: Tue 27 Apr 2021 12:05 »
It's strange because normally it is the player who "follows through" in clearing the ball who ends up rolling around on the floor and getting a free kick after their foot/leg makes the merest contact with the opposing player attempting to block the clearance.

This is a very valid point. In old money “leaving a foot in” will often mean a yellow card for the player attempting to stop the clearance. Again, it’s subjective: is it merely an accidental collision, a careless challenge, a reckless act or excessive force? Not many fall into the excessive force category in my opinion and experience.

The appeal will be interesting. Who’s going to admit two Select Group referees got it wrong or will they, as with the Pickford assault, brush it under the carpet?

They cannot "brush it under the carpet" as they did with Pickford because - during the game - nothing happened.  In this case they are either going to have to support the match referee and the VAR or state that they got it wrong.  No hiding place.

For those who listen to Fighting Talk on Five Live, justifying this red card would make a very challenging "defend the indefensible"!!

The Pickford incident was brushed under the carpet. It was a clear case of excessive force that the referee on the day didn’t see, VAR ignored and subsequently Oliver said had he seen it he would have sent Pickford off. There was no disciplinary action despite the protocol being in place to deal with it post-match if the referee didn’t see it. Punishment would have been admission that their VAR experiment isn’t fit for purpose.

In the interview with Oliver Holt, I thought Oliver implied that he and VAR were so focused on the offside / penalty questions, they didn't properly consider the serious nature of the challenge.  He acknowledged Pickford should have been sent off but I don't believe he said he'd not seen it.  Wasn't it the fact that the incident had been seen by at least one of the officials that meant retrospective action couldn't be taken?

« Last Edit: Tue 27 Apr 2021 12:08 by Ref Fan »

Scally Bob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #34 on: Tue 27 Apr 2021 17:05 »
It's strange because normally it is the player who "follows through" in clearing the ball who ends up rolling around on the floor and getting a free kick after their foot/leg makes the merest contact with the opposing player attempting to block the clearance.

This is a very valid point. In old money “leaving a foot in” will often mean a yellow card for the player attempting to stop the clearance. Again, it’s subjective: is it merely an accidental collision, a careless challenge, a reckless act or excessive force? Not many fall into the excessive force category in my opinion and experience.

The appeal will be interesting. Who’s going to admit two Select Group referees got it wrong or will they, as with the Pickford assault, brush it under the carpet?

They cannot "brush it under the carpet" as they did with Pickford because - during the game - nothing happened.  In this case they are either going to have to support the match referee and the VAR or state that they got it wrong.  No hiding place.

For those who listen to Fighting Talk on Five Live, justifying this red card would make a very challenging "defend the indefensible"!!

The Pickford incident was brushed under the carpet. It was a clear case of excessive force that the referee on the day didn’t see, VAR ignored and subsequently Oliver said had he seen it he would have sent Pickford off. There was no disciplinary action despite the protocol being in place to deal with it post-match if the referee didn’t see it. Punishment would have been admission that their VAR experiment isn’t fit for purpose.

In the interview with Oliver Holt, I thought Oliver implied that he and VAR were so focused on the offside / penalty questions, they didn't properly consider the serious nature of the challenge.  He acknowledged Pickford should have been sent off but I don't believe he said he'd not seen it.  Wasn't it the fact that the incident had been seen by at least one of the officials that meant retrospective action couldn't be taken?

If Oliver and the VAR didn’t consider it that says they didn’t see it. Any referee who saw that challenge would issue a red card. If “at least one of the officials” had seen it then that official didn’t do his job properly because the referee should have been alerted. VAR failed spectacularly.

Scally Bob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #35 on: Tue 27 Apr 2021 18:35 »
Red card overturned. Who’s going to be accountable then?

VAR is a joke.
Like Like x 3 View List

Claretman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,119
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Nth lincs
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Retired local league
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #36 on: Tue 27 Apr 2021 22:28 »
Red card overturned. Who’s going to be accountable then?

VAR is a joke.

If you think the red card should have been over turned then;

It should be The people in charge of refereeing/var for not asking the var official to show the on field referee a view of incident In real time as well as still images, to me still images a bit like figures and stats can be portrayed in many Different ways.

The on field referee makes the final decision so he has to be accountable, even if he was stitched up.
« Last Edit: Tue 27 Apr 2021 22:31 by Claretman »
Agree Agree x 2 View List

sastley

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #37 on: Wed 28 Apr 2021 11:41 »
Red card rightly overturned. Will both officials be held accountable?
Agree Agree x 1 Funny Funny x 1 Creative Creative x 1 View List

Ref Watcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #38 on: Wed 28 Apr 2021 12:00 »
Red card rightly overturned. Will both officials be held accountable?
Yes.  Their marks will be affected.  If you are hoping for them both to be suspended, sacked or taken outside and shot you will be disappointed.

ajb95

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,392
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #39 on: Wed 28 Apr 2021 12:02 »
Red card rightly overturned. Will both officials be held accountable?
Yes.  Their marks will be affected.  If you are hoping for them both to be suspended, sacked or taken outside and shot you will be disappointed.

True their marks are affected but clearly not enough to be stepped down from a game this week ?

ARF

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #40 on: Wed 28 Apr 2021 16:32 »
PGMOL evaluator will have already made a decision on whether they believe the decision was correct or not, and the appeal panel's decision to overturn the red card won't affect that either way.

Acme Thunderer

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,397
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #41 on: Wed 28 Apr 2021 17:01 »
Very borderline in my view and, whilst I wouldn't necessarily want to criticise Kavanagh for issuing a red card in the circumstances presented to him at the time, I am personally pleased that the red card has been overturned. 

Scally Bob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #42 on: Wed 28 Apr 2021 19:49 »
Red card rightly overturned. Will both officials be held accountable?
Yes.  Their marks will be affected.  If you are hoping for them both to be suspended, sacked or taken outside and shot you will be disappointed.

I don’t care about anyone being suspended or shot (obviously) but I would hope that the ludicrous way VAR interferes with minor incidents like this will be reviewed. There have been some brainless interventions by VAR and this one was right up there.

No doubt there’s going to be another at the weekend, after which Riley will carry on.
Agree Agree x 2 View List

ajb95

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,392
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #43 on: Wed 28 Apr 2021 20:35 »
Riley was IMO a poor/overrated referee and to me his time in charge of PGMOL is up. The situation has become a circus.
He needs to move on and appoint someone with the leadership that’s required to get English refereeing back to the pinnacle
Agree Agree x 2 Winner Winner x 1 View List

Hendo

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,270
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #44 on: Wed 28 Apr 2021 22:22 »
Riley was IMO a poor/overrated referee and to me his time in charge of PGMOL is up. The situation has become a circus.
He needs to move on and appoint someone with the leadership that’s required to get English refereeing back to the pinnacle

We may disagree (in the nicest possible way!) on many things ajb but couldn’t agree more with you here. Riley was a poor official whose appointments inexplicably far exceeded his ability and his management of PGMOL is just as bad.
Long overdue taxi for Mr Riley please
Like Like x 1 View List