Login with your social network
0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.
This keeps coming up. Clear and obvious does NOT apply for offsides, it relates to when the decision could be in the opinion of the referee.Offside is black and white, either the player was on or off, there is no opinion involved.
a) there are no linesmen as you say …b) they have paid a lot of money for proven technology. If we are going to use technology then it has to be accepted as infallible.Technology is here and it is here to stay. People just need to accept this as it will not be changing.
Quote from: rustyref on Wed 16 Jan 2019 21:12This keeps coming up. Clear and obvious does NOT apply for offsides, it relates to when the decision could be in the opinion of the referee.Offside is black and white, either the player was on or off, there is no opinion involved.What about the referee's judgement on whether a player is interfering etc ?
Quote from: Ashington46 on Tue 08 Jan 2019 16:08Quote from: QuoCob on Tue 08 Jan 2019 07:25Quote from: nemesis on Sat 05 Jan 2019 21:40Why do VAR referees have to be actual referees? Opening up the position to those who are way short of those fitness levels and may not have the man-management skills of referees, such as they are, will give a massively larger pool from which to source the very best at making VAR decisions. It's such a different skill that it's unlikely the best at one will also be the best at the other.Agree, as long as the final decision remains with the on field official to retain their ability to interpret the Law as is required and appropriate.Am I correct in thinking that none of the VAR decisions made this weekend were actually reviewed by the onfield official?I was at Burnley on Saturday and the whole situation was farcical. Those of us who actually paid to go to the game had any idea what was happening because Simon Hooper just stood in the penalty area and then, after about 90 seconds, he blew the whistle which Vydra thought was the signal to take the penalty only then to be stopped in his tracks by Hooper's raised arm, quickly followed by the AR's raised flag and offside was given --not against Vydra but against Sam Vokes who had not interfered with play at all ---the ball having gone way over his head.At no point did Simon Hooper go to look at the incident and, on viewing the other incidents, I don't think that any other onfield official reviewed a decision.Is this going to be the normal procedure? I'm pretty sure that offside was given against Vydra. Hence there was no need for the referee t o look at the monitor.I think the procedure in England will generally be that the referee does not look at the monitor but accepts the information from the VAR. I know there has been mixed views on this. Personally I generally think it helps for the referee to go and look - the radio commentators for the Palace V Grimsby game were quite confused by Atkinson suddenly pulling a red card out after he'd shown a yellow. They were asking if it was for dissent, etc.I think going to the monitor can help with the referee's credibility, particularly when it's the second minute of a game, and make it clearer what is happening (it would be different if the officials were mic'ed up).
Quote from: QuoCob on Tue 08 Jan 2019 07:25Quote from: nemesis on Sat 05 Jan 2019 21:40Why do VAR referees have to be actual referees? Opening up the position to those who are way short of those fitness levels and may not have the man-management skills of referees, such as they are, will give a massively larger pool from which to source the very best at making VAR decisions. It's such a different skill that it's unlikely the best at one will also be the best at the other.Agree, as long as the final decision remains with the on field official to retain their ability to interpret the Law as is required and appropriate.Am I correct in thinking that none of the VAR decisions made this weekend were actually reviewed by the onfield official?I was at Burnley on Saturday and the whole situation was farcical. Those of us who actually paid to go to the game had any idea what was happening because Simon Hooper just stood in the penalty area and then, after about 90 seconds, he blew the whistle which Vydra thought was the signal to take the penalty only then to be stopped in his tracks by Hooper's raised arm, quickly followed by the AR's raised flag and offside was given --not against Vydra but against Sam Vokes who had not interfered with play at all ---the ball having gone way over his head.At no point did Simon Hooper go to look at the incident and, on viewing the other incidents, I don't think that any other onfield official reviewed a decision.Is this going to be the normal procedure?
Quote from: nemesis on Sat 05 Jan 2019 21:40Why do VAR referees have to be actual referees? Opening up the position to those who are way short of those fitness levels and may not have the man-management skills of referees, such as they are, will give a massively larger pool from which to source the very best at making VAR decisions. It's such a different skill that it's unlikely the best at one will also be the best at the other.Agree, as long as the final decision remains with the on field official to retain their ability to interpret the Law as is required and appropriate.
Why do VAR referees have to be actual referees? Opening up the position to those who are way short of those fitness levels and may not have the man-management skills of referees, such as they are, will give a massively larger pool from which to source the very best at making VAR decisions. It's such a different skill that it's unlikely the best at one will also be the best at the other.
Quote from: Readingfan on Tue 08 Jan 2019 16:28Quote from: Ashington46 on Tue 08 Jan 2019 16:08Quote from: QuoCob on Tue 08 Jan 2019 07:25Quote from: nemesis on Sat 05 Jan 2019 21:40Why do VAR referees have to be actual referees? Opening up the position to those who are way short of those fitness levels and may not have the man-management skills of referees, such as they are, will give a massively larger pool from which to source the very best at making VAR decisions. It's such a different skill that it's unlikely the best at one will also be the best at the other.Agree, as long as the final decision remains with the on field official to retain their ability to interpret the Law as is required and appropriate.Am I correct in thinking that none of the VAR decisions made this weekend were actually reviewed by the onfield official?I was at Burnley on Saturday and the whole situation was farcical. Those of us who actually paid to go to the game had any idea what was happening because Simon Hooper just stood in the penalty area and then, after about 90 seconds, he blew the whistle which Vydra thought was the signal to take the penalty only then to be stopped in his tracks by Hooper's raised arm, quickly followed by the AR's raised flag and offside was given --not against Vydra but against Sam Vokes who had not interfered with play at all ---the ball having gone way over his head.At no point did Simon Hooper go to look at the incident and, on viewing the other incidents, I don't think that any other onfield official reviewed a decision.Is this going to be the normal procedure? I'm pretty sure that offside was given against Vydra. Hence there was no need for the referee t o look at the monitor.I think the procedure in England will generally be that the referee does not look at the monitor but accepts the information from the VAR. I know there has been mixed views on this. Personally I generally think it helps for the referee to go and look - the radio commentators for the Palace V Grimsby game were quite confused by Atkinson suddenly pulling a red card out after he'd shown a yellow. They were asking if it was for dissent, etc.I think going to the monitor can help with the referee's credibility, particularly when it's the second minute of a game, and make it clearer what is happening (it would be different if the officials were mic'ed up).How will this work if say the referee has already cautioned a couple of players for "orange" tackles but then another similar tackle occurs which is not seen by the referee but is seen by the reviewer (and which in his opinion is a red but would be deemed by the referee as orange and a caution under the way he has been refereeing the game)? Also presumably even if he looks at the monitor the referee is not allowed to show a yellow (which could also potentially be a second yellow for that player).
Quote from: bruntyboy on Thu 17 Jan 2019 01:02Quote from: Readingfan on Tue 08 Jan 2019 16:28Quote from: Ashington46 on Tue 08 Jan 2019 16:08Quote from: QuoCob on Tue 08 Jan 2019 07:25Quote from: nemesis on Sat 05 Jan 2019 21:40Why do VAR referees have to be actual referees? Opening up the position to those who are way short of those fitness levels and may not have the man-management skills of referees, such as they are, will give a massively larger pool from which to source the very best at making VAR decisions. It's such a different skill that it's unlikely the best at one will also be the best at the other.Agree, as long as the final decision remains with the on field official to retain their ability to interpret the Law as is required and appropriate.Am I correct in thinking that none of the VAR decisions made this weekend were actually reviewed by the onfield official?I was at Burnley on Saturday and the whole situation was farcical. Those of us who actually paid to go to the game had any idea what was happening because Simon Hooper just stood in the penalty area and then, after about 90 seconds, he blew the whistle which Vydra thought was the signal to take the penalty only then to be stopped in his tracks by Hooper's raised arm, quickly followed by the AR's raised flag and offside was given --not against Vydra but against Sam Vokes who had not interfered with play at all ---the ball having gone way over his head.At no point did Simon Hooper go to look at the incident and, on viewing the other incidents, I don't think that any other onfield official reviewed a decision.Is this going to be the normal procedure? I'm pretty sure that offside was given against Vydra. Hence there was no need for the referee t o look at the monitor.I think the procedure in England will generally be that the referee does not look at the monitor but accepts the information from the VAR. I know there has been mixed views on this. Personally I generally think it helps for the referee to go and look - the radio commentators for the Palace V Grimsby game were quite confused by Atkinson suddenly pulling a red card out after he'd shown a yellow. They were asking if it was for dissent, etc.I think going to the monitor can help with the referee's credibility, particularly when it's the second minute of a game, and make it clearer what is happening (it would be different if the officials were mic'ed up).How will this work if say the referee has already cautioned a couple of players for "orange" tackles but then another similar tackle occurs which is not seen by the referee but is seen by the reviewer (and which in his opinion is a red but would be deemed by the referee as orange and a caution under the way he has been refereeing the game)? Also presumably even if he looks at the monitor the referee is not allowed to show a yellow (which could also potentially be a second yellow for that player).I'm not sure I fully understand the question - the VAR looks at everything anyway so if there were two similar tackles in the 8th and 82nd minute of the match, one of which resulted in the referee showing a yellow card and the second of which the referee didn't show a yellow card, the VAR should theoretically either recommend a red card for both challenges if they think it was SFP or allow the referee's decision to stand in both cases if they don't think they were red card tackles.
Quote from: Readingfan on Thu 17 Jan 2019 13:16Quote from: bruntyboy on Thu 17 Jan 2019 01:02Quote from: Readingfan on Tue 08 Jan 2019 16:28Quote from: Ashington46 on Tue 08 Jan 2019 16:08Quote from: QuoCob on Tue 08 Jan 2019 07:25Quote from: nemesis on Sat 05 Jan 2019 21:40Why do VAR referees have to be actual referees? Opening up the position to those who are way short of those fitness levels and may not have the man-management skills of referees, such as they are, will give a massively larger pool from which to source the very best at making VAR decisions. It's such a different skill that it's unlikely the best at one will also be the best at the other.Agree, as long as the final decision remains with the on field official to retain their ability to interpret the Law as is required and appropriate.Am I correct in thinking that none of the VAR decisions made this weekend were actually reviewed by the onfield official?I was at Burnley on Saturday and the whole situation was farcical. Those of us who actually paid to go to the game had any idea what was happening because Simon Hooper just stood in the penalty area and then, after about 90 seconds, he blew the whistle which Vydra thought was the signal to take the penalty only then to be stopped in his tracks by Hooper's raised arm, quickly followed by the AR's raised flag and offside was given --not against Vydra but against Sam Vokes who had not interfered with play at all ---the ball having gone way over his head.At no point did Simon Hooper go to look at the incident and, on viewing the other incidents, I don't think that any other onfield official reviewed a decision.Is this going to be the normal procedure? I'm pretty sure that offside was given against Vydra. Hence there was no need for the referee t o look at the monitor.I think the procedure in England will generally be that the referee does not look at the monitor but accepts the information from the VAR. I know there has been mixed views on this. Personally I generally think it helps for the referee to go and look - the radio commentators for the Palace V Grimsby game were quite confused by Atkinson suddenly pulling a red card out after he'd shown a yellow. They were asking if it was for dissent, etc.I think going to the monitor can help with the referee's credibility, particularly when it's the second minute of a game, and make it clearer what is happening (it would be different if the officials were mic'ed up).How will this work if say the referee has already cautioned a couple of players for "orange" tackles but then another similar tackle occurs which is not seen by the referee but is seen by the reviewer (and which in his opinion is a red but would be deemed by the referee as orange and a caution under the way he has been refereeing the game)? Also presumably even if he looks at the monitor the referee is not allowed to show a yellow (which could also potentially be a second yellow for that player).I'm not sure I fully understand the question - the VAR looks at everything anyway so if there were two similar tackles in the 8th and 82nd minute of the match, one of which resulted in the referee showing a yellow card and the second of which the referee didn't show a yellow card, the VAR should theoretically either recommend a red card for both challenges if they think it was SFP or allow the referee's decision to stand in both cases if they don't think they were red card tackles.If the referee has fully seen the first incident and is happy with YC why should he be overruled by VAR suggesting a RC (especially if the protocol in England is that the referee doesn't go and look at a monitor)? If there is a suggestion for RC then surely the onfield referee should be the final arbiter and must review it on the monitor. As shown on here regularly one man's YC foul is another's orange is another's RC.
Home
Forum
Search
Contact
Login
Register
