RateTheRef

Quote from: bmb on Sat 17 Oct 2020 14:08

No that should be dealt with. The only difference would be if it was classed as Serious foul play or Violent conduct. You didn't mention what the incident was in your first post just that you didn't think Pickford should escape sanction so I answered in general terms. 

I mentioned a serious foul.

You then mentioned a punch to the face, which judging by the photo added above it certainly wasn't that! A serious foul can take many forms, not of all of which will be red cards as they are by and large subjective for a start plus other factors like DOGSO coming into play if applicable to that particular incident.

Unfortunately the facts are that in checking whether it was a penalty or not the first thing the VAR will check will be whether the attacking player was offside, as he was that then negates the rest of the check. That is a fault of the VAR protocol. As the player was offside & that was the first offence it is not a penalty within the LOTG. Do I agree with the fact that is where the check ends - no certainly not especially when a bad tackle ends up being unpunished. That is just the sort of thing that VAR should have been bought in to ensure does not go unsanctioned and certainly more so than if a toenail is offside. I don't however write the LOTG or the VAR protocol & those who do do not factor in common sense or that an incident can continue after the first part of it (in this case the offside) occurs.

Liverpool have asked for an explanation on the VAR decisions for today, specifically looking at 3 areas.

• Why no review and subsequent action on Pickford chall?
  
• Which part of Mane's body deemed offside?
• At what moment did VAR decide to freeze-frame?

Source - https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11669/12106875/liverpool-ask-premier-league-to-investigate-var-decisions-during-draw-at-everton

1st part is easy - VAR protocol does not factor it in.  To determine if it was a penalty/red the first thing to establish was whether he was offside or not. As he was then the check effectively ends as there can be no penalty. Hopefully if nothing else it will lead to another review of the VAR protocol as it currently stands and it will be extended to allow for review to determine if there is a red card offence that follows despite the offside ruling out a penalty. There has to be more common sense allowed to be used, imo. For me this is exactly what VAR should be looking at instead of seeing if a toenail or eyelash or something equally ridiculous is 0.1mm offside!

Quote from: Matt on Sat 17 Oct 2020 19:53

Quote from: bmb on Sat 17 Oct 2020 19:50

Unfortunately the facts are that in checking whether it was a penalty or not the first thing the VAR will check will be whether the attacking player was offside, as he was that then negates the rest of the check. That is a fault of the VAR protocol. As the player was offside & that was the first offence it is not a penalty within the LOTG. Do I agree with the fact that is where the check ends - no certainly not especially when a bad tackle ends up being unpunished. That is just the sort of thing that VAR should have been bought in to ensure does not go unsanctioned and certainly more so than if a toenail is offside. I don't however write the LOTG or the VAR protocol & those who do do not factor in common sense or that an incident can continue after the first part of it (in this case the offside) occurs.

Well, according to the PGMOL it could have been a red card, VAR should've checked the tackle, could've recommended Oliver view it.

I think that should be "should have been a red" not "could have" !!

Quote from: Matt on Sat 17 Oct 2020 19:49

Liverpool have asked for an explanation on the VAR decisions for today, specifically looking at 3 areas.

• Why no review and subsequent action on Pickford chall?
  
• Which part of Mane's body deemed offside?
• At what moment did VAR decide to freeze-frame?

Source - https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11669/12106875/liverpool-ask-premier-league-to-investigate-var-decisions-during-draw-at-everton

1st part is easy - VAR protocol does not factor it in.  To determine if it was a penalty/red the first thing to establish was whether he was offside or not. As he was then the check effectively ends as there can be no penalty. Hopefully if nothing else it will lead to another review of the VAR protocol as it currently stands and it will be extended to allow for review to determine if there is a red card offence that follows despite the offside ruling out a penalty. There has to be more common sense allowed to be used, imo. For me this is exactly what VAR should be looking at instead of seeing if a toenail or eyelash or something equally ridiculous is 0.1mm offside!

Point 1 - PGMOL have contradicted you. The reasoning is insufficient in the protection of players. As I said earlier, if this below par protection of players continue it will go down the litigious route . If reports of Van Dijk being out for 8-9 months are accurate, that's a lot of of compensation that could be claimed back.

No they said it could have been a red but would be under the "SUBJECTIVE" category.

The risk of injury is accepted as part of the game but by any measure that assault by Pickford deserves a red card. He endangered an opponent, wasn’t in control, used excessive force and the speed of his lunge all warranted a red card. Is Coote in awe of Oliver so won’t criticise his decision or is he simply unaware that violent conduct when the ball is dead needs to be punished?

The rumour mill says Van Dijk may be out for eight months. He was fortunate he didn’t get as badly injured as Jim Beglin many years ago at Goodison. The Dogs of War where once was the School of Science indeed.

Quote from: bmb on Sat 17 Oct 2020 19:56

Quote from: Matt on Sat 17 Oct 2020 19:49

Liverpool have asked for an explanation on the VAR decisions for today, specifically looking at 3 areas.

• Why no review and subsequent action on Pickford chall?
  
• Which part of Mane's body deemed offside?
• At what moment did VAR decide to freeze-frame?

Source - https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11669/12106875/liverpool-ask-premier-league-to-investigate-var-decisions-during-draw-at-everton

1st part is easy - VAR protocol does not factor it in.  To determine if it was a penalty/red the first thing to establish was whether he was offside or not. As he was then the check effectively ends as there can be no penalty. Hopefully if nothing else it will lead to another review of the VAR protocol as it currently stands and it will be extended to allow for review to determine if there is a red card offence that follows despite the offside ruling out a penalty. There has to be more common sense allowed to be used, imo. For me this is exactly what VAR should be looking at instead of seeing if a toenail or eyelash or something equally ridiculous is 0.1mm offside!

I think you're wrong about the VAR protoocl.

The fact it's offside means it can't be a penalty - but a red card for SFP/VC is sitll possible.

Coote messed up.

Agree, VAR might not be able to review it for a penalty given the offside, they they can check any potential red card.  And SFP can happen even after play has been stopped or a previous offence has occurred.

The Athletic were reporting that David Coote had looked at the Pickford challenge but not deemed it SFP, whilst various other media outlets have been told he didn't look at it at all...

The PGMO's communication as good as ever I see!

(I'm not such which of the above - looking and not thinking red, or not looking at all - is worse.)

Quote from: bmb on Sat 17 Oct 2020 19:56

Quote from: Matt on Sat 17 Oct 2020 19:49

Liverpool have asked for an explanation on the VAR decisions for today, specifically looking at 3 areas.

• Why no review and subsequent action on Pickford chall?
  
• Which part of Mane's body deemed offside?
• At what moment did VAR decide to freeze-frame?

Source - https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11669/12106875/liverpool-ask-premier-league-to-investigate-var-decisions-during-draw-at-everton

1st part is easy - VAR protocol does not factor it in.  To determine if it was a penalty/red the first thing to establish was whether he was offside or not. As he was then the check effectively ends as there can be no penalty. Hopefully if nothing else it will lead to another review of the VAR protocol as it currently stands and it will be extended to allow for review to determine if there is a red card offence that follows despite the offside ruling out a penalty. There has to be more common sense allowed to be used, imo. For me this is exactly what VAR should be looking at instead of seeing if a toenail or eyelash or something equally ridiculous is 0.1mm offside!

I think you're wrong about the VAR protoocl.

The fact it's offside means it can't be a penalty - but a red card for SFP/VC is sitll possible.

Coote messed up.

Quite probably and I hope I am to be honest because otherwise it's even more of a complete and utter nonsense than I already think it is! Have asked my man at IFAB for his view of the whole thing - he knows far more than I ever will!