Var

[Vault Boy]

Shame.

[greenlex]

Enjoyed that.

[HoboHarry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If everyone fell down the way footballers do at the slightest touch Princes Street would be littered with bodies.

Exactly. If it happened in a nightclub they would be swapping punches and not hitting the floor. Managers can criticize referees all they like but until they stop their own players from cheating there will continue to be be a problem.

[angus hibby]

I thought the ref was very good tonight. After not giving Willian the penalty (rightly IMO), how often do you see the next penalty claim given. Morata went down far too easily so a booking was right for him too. A show of dissent from him and red card quickly out. If only more refs were like this, would soon put a stop to diving and dissent. Well played the ref 👏

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not sure how much more blatant it could have been to be honest.

Quite incredible that we can have video evidence in place and a player still gets booked for diving when he should have had a penalty.

I know the technology and the implementation of it is still in the early days but hopefully this kind of thing can be ironed out.

I thought he left his foot in so it caught the defenders leg, hence the clumsy way he fell.

If he'd wanted to avoid a collision he could have so no penalty for me.

[Sir David Gray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Looked pretty bad from the far side angle IMO.

The defender definitely had a hand on his back. If it had happened in the middle of the park, it probably would have been a free kick.

[Real Emerald]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I personally thought it was a blatant foul and penalty. One thing he absolutely didn't do was dive but I know VAR can't be used for yellow cards.

I still can't understand how a penalty wasn't given.

Re the Morata incident, I don't think he dived either but I think a penalty would have been soft.

I thought it was a penalty as the defender slid straight in front of the attacker, didn’t get the ball and caught the attackers foot which unbalanced him and impeded him from scoring. The attacker went down easily but had he tried to stay on his feet the illegal challenge would have denied him from trying to score. In my view a foul, in the box a penalty, VAR failed.

[greenlex]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The defender definitely had a hand on his back. If it had happened in the middle of the park, it probably would have been a free kick.

The hand on his back didn’t cause him to fall like he did. It was s Dive. He could have been more clever and actually been awarded one. It was very similar to Sinclair’s against Motherwell.

[silverhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Chelsea v Norwich. Tonight. Ref books Willian for diving. There was contact and it could have been a pen. VAR reckoned it wasn’t a clear mistake by the ref (ie it’s the refs interpretation of the incident) so no pen. The booking was harsh I thought.

Ps they’re into extra time after a well deserved 94th minute equaliser from. Norwich.
Angus Gunn is having a very good game tonight. A chip of the old block?

The way I seen the Wiian incident was that he was going down before the contact and dragged his foot to make the contact, actually thought the ref had a good game, and as you say, Gunn was superb for Norwich tonight, on loan from Man Citeh, very good prospect but will Citeh ever give him a chance.

[Danderhall Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I thought it was a penalty as the defender slid straight in front of the attacker, didn’t get the ball and caught the attackers foot which unbalanced him and impeded him from scoring. The attacker went down easily but had he tried to stay on his feet the illegal challenge would have denied him from trying to score. In my view a foul, in the box a penalty, VAR failed.

Did it fail though? I’ve just read elsewhere that var can only be used to over rule if it’s an obvious error - they must’ve deemed it wasn’t and given the 50/50 split on here they were probably right to?

[Real Emerald]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Did it fail though? I’ve just read elsewhere that var can only be used to over rule if it’s an obvious error - they must’ve deemed it wasn’t and given the 50/50 split on here they were probably right to?

Said on tv it had been reviewed and no pen.

[silverhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don’t think the VAR gets involved unless it’s a clear cock up or if the ref asks for help. I think the ref thought his decision was correct and didn’t need help. It wasn’t 100% a clear pen so var wouldn’t intervene. I think they thought he was going down before the.contact.

I'm no lip reader but it certainly looked like the ref shouted " it's my decision " to the Chelsea moaners.

[silverhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think he's got it spot on without video assistance. "Entitled to go down" is a truly horrible phrase. Chucking yourself to the ground under little or no contact should be punished so well done to tonight's ref.

Correct

[greenlex]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Said on tv it had been reviewed and no pen.

They are talking nonsense. It’s reviewed and it’s reviewed as not an obvious error. So therefore the refs decision stands and no pen.

[Danderhall Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Said on tv it had been reviewed and no pen.

I know but on tv the co commentator also said surely they’re not using var to check if it’s a corner when clearly it was the penalty shout he was checking. And also on tv lineker said it was the Abba penalty system.

So basically the tv aren’t always correct.

[Real Emerald]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They are talking nonsense. It’s reviewed and it’s reviewed as not an obvious error. So therefore the refs decision stands and no pen.

So it’s like, we didn’t actually review it but if we had our decision would have been whatever. Kind of like ‘Bullseye’ and this is what you could’ve won 🙄

[greenlex]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Did it fail though? I’ve just read elsewhere that var can only be used to over rule if it’s an obvious error - they must’ve deemed it wasn’t and given the 50/50 split on here they were probably right to?

Correct. It’s only used on wrong decisions that are fact like the offside the other day. The goal was going to be chalked off for offside. A quick check and the linesman had factually called it incorrect and the goal stood. No grey area or officials interpretation. He was either off or on.

[greenlex]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So it’s like, we didn’t actually review it but if we had our decision would have been whatever. Kind of like ‘Bullseye’ and this is what you could’ve won 🙄

Not really. It’s the refs decision. If it’s blatantly wrong they will be told. If it’s open to interpretation then the ref has the final say just like it’s always been. It’s your opinion and interpretation rather than fact his decisions were wrong.

[Real Emerald]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They are talking nonsense. It’s reviewed and it’s reviewed as not an obvious error. So therefore the refs decision stands and no pen.

I don’t know if you agree with it or not. If you can’t challenge the ref or VAR can’t intervene, what’s the point. Every old firm decision would not be reviewed if the ref didn’t think he was wrong, or am I not understanding the rules?

[Eyrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I thought he left his foot in so it caught the defenders leg, hence the clumsy way he fell.

If he'd wanted to avoid a collision he could have so no penalty for me.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The way I seen the Wiian incident was that he was going down before the contact and dragged his foot to make the contact, actually thought the ref had a good game, and as you say, Gunn was superb for Norwich tonight, on loan from Man Citeh, very good prospect but will Citeh ever give him a chance.

Agree with both of you.

I get pissed off with players getting fouls when they are the ones initiating the contact and not the defender. Willian knew what he was doing and then made a meal of going down.

[Real Emerald]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Agree with both of you.

I get pissed off with players getting fouls when they are the ones initiating the contact and not the defender. Willian knew what he was doing and then made a meal of going down.

The challenge would have been a free kick anywhere else on the park and no one would have questioned it. The fact he went down easy and was looking for the decision I agree with you, It was still a clumsy challenge not getting the ball and catching the attacker. Not easy eh? 😂

[Alan62]

Top performance by that ref this evening in what was an entertaining, end to end game. I shouted 'penalty' both times and even initially thought the replays supported the penalty calls. From the ref's angles though, he got the first one spot on. The second one the Norwich defender does put his hand on Morata's shoulder but doesn't push him or pull him down. Morata takes the slightest bit of contact as permission to launch himself to the turf. Good call by the ref to book him for simulation. Even better call to book him again for the subsequent dissent. I think refs should do that much more often and I hate it when a player continues to dish out abuse to the ref after he's been booked.

[greenlex]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don’t know if you agree with it or not. If you can’t challenge the ref or VAR can’t intervene, what’s the point. Every old firm decision would not be reviewed if the ref didn’t think he was wrong, or am I not understanding the rules?

I think it’s only to be used for decisions of fact. Offside at goals. Penalties given inside or outside the box incorrectly Straight reds (I think) things like that. It don’t think it’s used for anything where an individuals interpretation of incidents is questioned.I think if the refs not sure he can ask. If he’s sure he won’t ask. His decision is final.

[Sir David Gray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think it’s only to be used for decisions of fact. Offside at goals. Penalties given inside or outside the box incorrectly Straight reds (I think) things like that. It don’t think it’s used for anything where an individuals interpretation of incidents is questioned.I think if the refs not sure he can ask. If he’s sure he won’t ask. His decision is final.

The VAR can be used in any of the following scenarios;

1-Straight red cards
2-Mistaken identity
3-Penalties
4-Goals

It is possible for the VAR to contact the referee to inform him that they believe he has made an error with awarding a penalty but for the original decision to still stand.

Once the VAR has contacted the referee to say that they believe a mistake has been made, the referee then has 3 choices.

1-Immediately reverse his decision.
2-Review the incident on a monitor at the side of the pitch.
3-Stick to his original decision.

Basically the VAR can only advise the referee that they think a mistake has been made, but considering that they should only be getting involved when they believe a "clear and obvious error" has been made, I can't understand why any referee would ignore the advice of the VAR.

[greenlex]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The VAR can be used in any of the following scenarios;

1-Straight red cards
2-Mistaken identity
3-Penalties
4-Goals

It is possible for the VAR to contact the referee to inform him that they believe he has made an error with awarding a penalty but for the original decision to still stand.

Once the VAR has contacted the referee to say that they believe a mistake has been made, the referee then has 3 choices.

1-Immediately reverse his decision.
2-Review the incident on a monitor at the side of the pitch.
3-Stick to his original decision.

Basically the VAR can only advise the referee that they think a mistake has been made, but considering that they should only be getting involved when they believe a "clear and obvious error" has been made, I can't understand why any referee would ignore the advice of the VAR.

Thanks for that. The guess the decisions last night were not so clear and obvious that the VAR would advise the ref he got them wrong.

[Hibee87]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The VAR can be used in any of the following scenarios;

1-Straight red cards
2-Mistaken identity
3-Penalties
4-Goals

It is possible for the VAR to contact the referee to inform him that they believe he has made an error with awarding a penalty but for the original decision to still stand.

Once the VAR has contacted the referee to say that they believe a mistake has been made, the referee then has 3 choices.

1-Immediately reverse his decision.
2-Review the incident on a monitor at the side of the pitch.
3-Stick to his original decision.

Basically the VAR can only advise the referee that they think a mistake has been made, but considering that they should only be getting involved when they believe a "clear and obvious error" has been made, I can't understand why any referee would ignore the advice of the VAR.

Point 3 makes no sense to me. If VAR says it needs reviewed or a Mistake has been made then it should be reviewd.
What happens if Oli Shaw goal was queried by the VAR and the ref says 'nae I dont want to review it'? He is then going to be accused of cheating, which with out refs is highly likely they wouldn't want to review their decisions due to their incompetence.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Point 3 makes no sense to me. If VAR says it needs reviewed or a Mistake has been made then it should be reviewd.
What happens if Oli Shaw goal was queried by the VAR and the ref says 'nae I dont want to review it'? He is then going to be accused of cheating, which with out refs is highly likely they wouldn't want to review their decisions due to their incompetence.

It wouldn't be reviewed by the VAR as goal-line technology would tell him it's a goal.

On the wider point, refusing to have it reviewed would be reflected in the disciplinary process, no?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Hibee87]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It wouldn't be reviewed by the VAR as goal-line technology would tell him it's a goal.

On the wider point, refusing to have it reviewed would be reflected in the disciplinary process, no?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Good point

Yes, if refusing to have it reviewed when it should have been should result in a the ref having to explain why he refused to review it publicly and also some sort of disciplinary.
Even without VAR I would like refs to explain themselves, they get FAR to much protection.

[SaulGoodman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Did Linekar not say it was the ABBA penalty system?

It was an ABBA penalty system.

The winner takes it all.

[PatHead]

Thought the ref got most, if not all the decisions correct. Hope the referee on Sunday is as strong and can see through their cheating and moaning at every decision.