I know VAR isn't supposed to work this way, but isn't there a human element to the Taylor decision? Meaning, I think it's pretty clear that Taylor clearly saw the headbutt and just didn't think it rose to level of misconduct/send-off. Couldn't the VAR be saying to himself, "he obviously saw that, I don't think he will change his mind even if I send that down." Again, that's now how VAR is supposed to work, but you have to think subconsciously or even consciously that might be at play here. VAR has to be saying, "what's the point?" We practically saw that happen in an MLS game earlier this season where the referee made up his mind about the decision before even going over to the monitor. Nothing was going to change his mind. It is very similar to when a Croatian player got the ball kicked at him while prone on the floor after the whistle was blown in the World Cup in Russia. Irmatov gave a yellow and he clearly saw it. VAR probably just said "he's not going to change his mind" even if I send that down.
I tweeted back to Mustoe and Beglin the following. I'll be interested to see if they clarify. @robbiemustoe @jimbeglin I'm honestly shocked that a #pgmol rep would tell you the EVE-ARS throw-in was a foul throw. Law 15 clearly states "part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the touchline". Heel of lead foot is on touchline.
I think this is absolutely right. But it’s also a huge problem that undermines an argument for VAR as currently constructed. IFAB says red cards are reviewable if they are for VC because there can be clear errors. Essentially it’s saying there is some objectivity to this call. Then you get an act—the headbutt—that pretty much everyone agrees is objectively a red card. But pre-VAR we’ve all affected it gets missed. You hear something like “he was a lucky boy” that the referee didn’t see it. Well, now the mask comes off. This incident shows everyone that the referee DID see it and the VAR saw it too. They just didn’t care because, in their opinion, this isn’t actually an objective decision—it is subjective. They decided in this moment, in this match, given all other aspects and context, a headbutt was “okay” to accept without a red card. So to bring everything full circle... if the decision isn’t objective, how can it ever be clearly wrong? This sort of (non-)use of VAR is going to only further undermine trust in referees. Because the inconsistency of application is only going to become more glaring and it will now be indefensible. VAR was and is a tool that could be used to gain trust and increase credibility. It’s going to be the height of irony if it does the opposite in both regards relative to red cards.
Could the walker incident be because it really wasn't technically a headbutt? I mean their heads were together and Walker used his head to push hi backwards, he didn't strike his head because they were already touching?? I know I am reaching, I knew Walker was HOT after being stepped on not once but TWICE while shielding a ball over the endline. I thought he would be gone on VAR because I thought he actually used to the head to strike then on replay saw they were already touching.
But I think this is the key. Not everybody, certainly not Taylor, agrees THIS headbut is objectively a red card. The laws state: Here, Taylor and VAR could agree that the force used was negligible. It was negligible. The force was light. The force was down rather than in. There was zero chance of hurting the opponent.
Well of course Taylor didn't agree in this case. My use of "pretty much everyone" both allowed for exceptions from a universal consensus and was meant to stress that the football world expects red cards for headbutts. It's one of those things (excuse the figure of speech) that "everyone knows." Commentators know it. Players know it. Fans know it. Red cards have been given for less contact on headbutts. The attempt alone is good enough. Plenty of people have been sent off for doing exactly what Walker did. I am aware of what the Law states. I would disagree there is zero chance of hurting the opponent when you attempt to headbutt them, but regardless... not punishing a headbutt or attempted headbutt with a red card when it is clear as day on video is a problem. It's going to lead to problems. It's already a problem in MLS and it took one week to show it. Toledo sends a player off one week for this: https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...l-salt-lake-vs-fc-dallas/details/video/186627 And then Nani is not sent off for this a week later: 1114712476736806912 is not a valid tweet id In the past, you can have it both ways. Toledo saw his headbutt, Marrufo didn't catch the headbutts in his. It's natural variance and inherent inconsistency in a human game. But now you have video and you have an action (violent conduct) that is singled out as one of the few things that can be reviewed. It's not like the headbutt in Toledo's match is hard; in fact, Nani's attempts are much more aggressive (and to bring it back to this thread, Walker's intention seems much clearer). They all have a low level of force insofar as headbutts go. But the soccer world "knows" headbutts are red cards. So when you start excusing them with VAR, you're taking a step back. How does Toledo's red card hold up when, a week later, VAR doesn't punish Nani? How will the next red card in the FA Cup or EPL for a headbutt hold up after Taylor and his VAR ignored Walker's action?
Brighton's coach hits on this all pretty well and he takes the angle of his own player being honest and not going down. If Jahanbakhsh drops the turf, there's no way Taylor or the VAR allow Walker to stay on the field; their hands would be tied. It's pretty much what happened to Toledo in the first MLS clip above. With video review, the reaction shouldn't be the determinate factor. The act should stand alone and be judged on itself. VAR was supposed to help reduce play-acting; this could be demonstrating yet another missed opportunity.
I took today off of work and was gifted with this beauty. No referee analysis just an appreciation for why we watch so many games and spend our days baking out on the pitch. https://www.nbcsports.com/video/chelseas-eden-hazard-scores-solo-goal-v-west-ham
Can a few share their thoughts/consideration points on Red #24's contact/trip after the shot? The two angles at 0:54-1:08 show it well. I'd think if that contact was at midfield after a pass (instead of shot) with no advantage, it's a tripping foul. At this level, he scores the goal and no one gives any more thought to it. No problem. If the shot had NOT gone in, would it have been a penalty? How about at < U20 non-elite levels? If not, any particular thoughts behind the no-call? I've had some (<U20 games) suggest that when an attacker gets the shot off cleanly just before contact like that, or had a heavy touch while dribbling and could not regain control of the ball, then unless it was reckless to never award a penalty for this. They might have been trying to pass along wisdom of experience, their own M.O., or just complete BS... it's hard to tell sometimes. They just said "he wasn't going to control the ball again so no penalty". I disagreed with that carte blanche reasoning on several no-calls, but am most willing to hear things to consider or simply be set straight here. That video is a perfect case. Thanks.
I would say that the concept in play is trifling. Fouls are a way of punishing a team when they gain an unfair advantage. When a foul happens after the ball is away, it has less impact. So the threshold for calling the foul is higher. Where exactly that bar moves to is another question. I would agree that any reckless foul has to be called, even if the ball is away (so long, of course, as the ball has not left the field prior to the foul). Where below the reckless threshold a foul needs to be called is more subjective. And I think there are fouls below that threshold that need to be called in the games most of us do that may not need to be called in a professional game.
I think @socal lurker did a very good job summarizing the concept of trifling fouls. I thought the same thing but since the ball went into the back of the net no one is going to think PK.
Friday, 12 April 20:00 Leicester v Newcastle Referee: Chris Kavanagh Assistants: Daniel Cook, Sian Massey-Ellis Fourth official: Paul Tierney Saturday, 13 April 12:30 Tottenham Hotspur v Huddersfield Referee: Lee Mason Assistants: Harry Lennard, Andy Halliday Fourth official: Paul Tierney Brighton v AFC Bournemouth Referee: Kevin Friend Assistants: Matthew Wilkes, Derek Eaton Fourth official: Stuart Attwell Burnley v Cardiff Referee: Mike Dean Assistants: Ian Hussin, Darren Cann Fourth official: Anthony Taylor Fulham v Everton Referee: Lee Probert Assistants: Andy Garratt, Adrian Holmes Fourth official: Keith Stroud Southampton v Wolves Referee: Jonathan Moss Assistants: Marc Perry, Constantine Hatzidakis Fourth official: Andre Marriner 17:30 Man Utd v West Ham Referee: Graham Scott Assistants: Mick McDonough, Neil Davies Fourth official: Michael Oliver Sunday, 14 April 14:05 Crystal Palace v Man City Referee: Martin Atkinson Assistants: Lee Betts, Adam Nunn Fourth official: David Coote 16:30 Liverpool v Chelsea Referee: Michael Oliver Assistants: Stuart Burt, Simon Bennett Fourth official: Craig Pawson Monday, 15 April 20:00 Watford v Arsenal Referee: Craig Pawson Assistants: Gary Beswick, Richard West Fourth official: Simon Hooper Tuesday, 16 April 20:00 Brighton v Cardiff Referee: Andre Marriner Assistants: Scott Ledger, Simon Long Fourth official: Chris Kavanagh Oliver for Liverpool - Chelsea, Atkinson with a crucial away match for Man City.
I just noticed Oliver has a QF Europa league game today. And then he turns around and takes the Chelsea v. Liverpool match Sunday.
And the tea leaves seem to point to him having City-Spurs a week later. Can't be Dean, it seems. Won't be Atkinson back-to-back on City. Will Taylor get that after the FA semi when he didn't send off Walker? I would think not, but it seems like the only alternative left to handing Oliver the two big ones back-to-back. No idea what PGMOL will do if Oliver faces controversy this weekend.
I don't see why they should worry. Moss and Mason are still around On a more serious note, Pawson is another possibility.
Yeah, he seems like the default option if it can't be Oliver and they don't want to go back to Taylor. I wonder if he is the option already, now that you raise it. A possible FA Cup Final appointment might complicate that, though? It's tricky.
Min 30 Burnley at Cardiff, goal awarded and offside missed: burnley striker parks in front of keeper on a corner. Doesn’t play him but is definitely smack in front of him as a piop as the ball is headed down. This is the exact situation where the ref team should talk about the details- the AR did not move up after the ball went in so I presume they did. But if these guys can’t get this right, I guess VAR is the only way.
BUR:CAR Well done reversing that handling decision without benefit of VAR. And well done to the announcers for saying so.
That was strange. Dean appeared to have a good look at it and made no call originally. His AR flagged it but could not have had a good view. It was all the way across the area and the player was facing away. Dean did a good job coming over, talking it through and waving it off. Of course Cardiff will think that everyone wants them relegated.
I'm sorry to bring this back up, but has there been any follow up to the Throw in call? Does PGMOL say this is an illegal throw? Am I interpreting the law wrong in all my games now?
You mean that 1/2 of Jesus's foot? I don't think that would've reset the offside in that situation, but if VAR overturns that, I am going to have a bad time watching next year. I would think that would've been a VERY hard call fro the AR to make, but again, I can see VAR pulling that one back out of the net.