And now we have another dubious decision. THAT was offside? And clear enough to overturn the call on the field?
I must say I cannot see the sailboat pic.twitter.com/Rlhsvmq1Wq— James Tyler (still) (@JamesTylerESPN) October 17, 2020
SFP can only happen when the ball is in play. It means a challenge on the ball with the ball in play. VC occurs either with or without the ball in play. When it involves a situation where the ball is in play, it means the offender was not challenging for the ball. This isn’t written anywhere, but it’s almost axiomatically true: if something would be SFP when the ball is in play, it would automatically be VC if the ball isn’t. Note that the reverse is not true. Something that could be VC with the ball out of play would not always be SFP if the same act occurred while challenging for the ball in play (think about how we treat elbows and flailing arms). So in a case when the ball was literally “in play” when a challenge is made but we learn after it technically wasn’t in play because the referee decided to stop play but not yet whistle... yeah, you can argue either side. That’s why I say it truly doesn’t matter here. I personally think SFP is fairer because the ball was in play for the keeper when he made the challenge. But obviously others would disagree.
According to Dale Johnson on twitter, VAR never checked the Pickford incident for a possible red card... he then follows it up by saying "The VAR, David Coote, should have checked there was a genuine attempt to play the ball by Jordan Pickford." Thereby showing a bit more of a lack of understanding Clarification on Pickford/Van Dijk.... we all get one wrong now and then. Pickford could have been sent off (probably should have been). Had it confirmed that the VAR, David Coote, did NOT check for a red card. Appears he was too concerned with the offside. #EVELIV— Dale Johnson (@DaleJohnsonESPN) October 17, 2020
There were minutes between the Pickford tackle and the restart. We have two high level officials, VAR and Oliver, and neither thought, “Hey, I wonder if that challenge we were going to give a PK for but for the offside; the one that put a player out with a possible serious knee injury, was red worthy” Can anyone seriously defend that inaction?
As a biased observer, let me say this about everything that happened. i am going with fog of war on the Pickford play. Richarlson Tackle was a BRIGHT red. My wife called Mane OS in real time! (I still don’t think he was.) and one last thing, I still am of the belief that a LESSER credentialed VAR referee will not overrule a referee of the status of Michael Oliver.
But there is so much evidence to the contrary worldwide. Using stray examples where the wrong decision is reached as evidence to support this opinion makes no sense when there are innumerable examples of what you say won’t happen actually happening. Occam’s Razor points to two things happening here. A referee didn’t sanction a goalkeeper appropriately because they often do not do so and a VAR didn’t go through the processes correctly and check everything because English VARs have been poorly trained. Two things that happen all the time in the EPL happened simultaneously here.
Just madness. VAR sucking the soul out of the game. How people can continue to defend this is amazing.
At this point, who is still defending it? I think even the staunchest supporters of VAR (myself included) agree that it’s an utter mess at the moment.
Quite right. In the Dutch League I have seen both Kuipers and Makkelie both change their on field decisions because VAR saw it differently. I think this is more an issue that the EPL tolerates more dangerous play than other leagues. I suspect this is the only league that would NOT have sent off Pickford..
To this post and to @Orange14 ‘s post. A lot of this may also relate to adherence to hierarchy, which can be a part of culture. As someone who has lived in Europe for a time, I can say that the English are much more focused on hierarchy/seniority, while the Dutch are much less reliant on that type of hierarchy. It may very well be subconscious, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see that type of respect for hierarchy in England more than in Holland. Plus, I’ve always thought of Kuipers as someone who wouldn’t let his ego get in the way of a decision, where other referees might. I realize I’m going down something of a rabbit hole, so I’ll leave things here.
Right. I mean Taylor and Oliver and Dean and Atkinson have all given decisions via VAR, too. The contrary evidence is stronger worldwide because VAR interventions are more frequent elsewhere, but it exists in the EPL itself, too.
Uh the leagues and administrators who are backing its use and the referees themselves... Or the journalists/media personalities who say they believe VAR can be good for the game if it is "used properly." This issue isn't unique to the EPL. Similar debacle happen in other leagues (maybe not with the same frequency), but we just don't see them because we don't pay attention to those leagues. Not one has come out and had the courage to say this isn't working and its hurting the game.
I'm a low-grade "media personality," but I insist VAR is in the same place NFL replay was about 15 years ago. We need another pair of eyes on the game. We just need to get those eyes to understand the following: 1. Drawing a pair of lines a millimeter apart on an offside call when you're not down on the field to hear the thump of the ball is NOT the clear and obvious error you're supposed to be checking. 2. Restating -- "clear and obvious." A good craftsman never blames his tools. These are poor decisions, period. Doesn't matter if it was made by VAR or a seventh on-field official.
Ignoring VAR issues (at least partially) for a moment... if Van Dijk is out 8 months with an ACL injury, as reported, this is the type of tackle that so many of us have seen coming for awhile now. A horrible challenge that results in a terrible injury to a star player. And the horrific challenges have kept coming because they’ve been getting yellows or (here) getting ignored. It’s sexier to focus on the VAR failure, but the fact is it’s part of a systematic design failure to top-level refereeing at the moment. The exact sequence of events today wasn’t predictable, but the overall scenario was absolutely foreseeable. When you guide referees toward fewer red cards and a more lassez faire approach to discipline generally, there are, eventually, inevitable consequences. Unfortunately the focus is going to be on VAR, rather than permissive officiating generally. Michael Oliver looked at this and essentially thought it was okay. He’s one of the world’s best. Let that sink in.
Keepers get away with a lot. If they successfully punch the ball and inflict a concussion on someone then he is safe. But Pickford didn't play the ball, and I'd say it was both reckless and unnatural in the way he made his challenge. It's far away removed from textbook goalkeeping and also not even a natural reflex to dive in that way. Plenty examples around where goalkeepers receive their marching orders. With ample minutes around to review the scene properly. Plus, when the "triple punishment" got abolished one of the stipulations was to make a fair and reasonable attempt to play the ball. Thus modern revisions of the laws have had a look on how far a goalkeeper can go and dive in with their brain switched off. Goalkeepers have been sent off if their attempt to play the ball was totally reckless, especially after VAR review, and also if the attacker was offside anyway. This exactly. Possibly also that he's England's number one goalkeeper and diving/racism is only what bloody foreign footballers do. They're held to tougher standards (with plenty scientific studies around to back this up).
Former number one goalkeeper shields the current number one: Former England goalkeeper Rob Green on Radio 5 Live: "Jordan Pickford was out on control and he tried to do the Peter Schmeichel 'starfish' jump. He has wrapped his legs around Virgil van Dijk and it looks really bad. His eyes are only on the ball but it looks worse rather than any intent on causing harm to Van Dijk." https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/54585375 'Starfish jump'. Right.
I mean, the intent question really doesn’t matter at all. It’s the act and the result that is the issue and problem. It’s a red card. But I don’t take issue with anything that is quoted above. What’s the alternative? That Pickford was trying to injure VVD five minutes into the match and concede a penalty? The motive doesn’t matter. It’s the act and result. But “I’m going to recklessly use every part of my body in an attempt to stop a goal” does seem far more plausible than “I’m going to murder my opponent deliberately for no good reason five minutes in.”
Referee: Michael Oliver. Assistants: Stuart Burt, Simon Bennett. Fourth official: Paul Tierney. VAR: David Coote. Assistant VAR: Lee Betts. Previous highlight in his VAR career: He was the video assistant referee for the matchday 27 game between Chelsea FC and Tottenham Hotspur . During the game Giovani Lo Celso committed a serious foul when he stamped on Chelsea's Cesar Azpilicueta. On reviewing the incident Coote deemed the foul not worthy of a red card and Lo Celso escaped a sending off. Coote would later admit to having erred and stated he should have recommended a red card for Lo Celso.
The alternative is he had his brain switched off, pumped full with adrenaline in a local derby, and his attempt wasn't anywhere near a starfish jump or other standard pieces of goalkeeping. It was (imho) reckless and didn't play the ball either.