Maybe here? The working theory everywhere is supposed to be that if foul is reckless, then it's still a penalty. But what's "clearly reckless" in England for a VAR? And how much higher is that standard in an FA Cup QF? Let's not ignore the fact or idea that the referee should have had this without help. And that might be the key factor here for England; you've got to imagine the referee saw this well and once he chooses not to give it... "referee's call" looks awfully appealing to VARs who are conditioned to intervene as little as possible.
On an England ref board the statement was made that if a shot is gotten off, a fould is only expected for SFP . . . I’m pretty OK with the idea if it is t reckless and doesn’t affect the shot we then a blind eye; but I’m troubled by ignoring a reckless play
He keeps his red in his shirt pocket and his yellow in his back shorts pocket? This a English ref thing or are we taught "wrong" in the US? Is the AR supposed to hand signal opposite if he thinks there needs to be a card? I would be so confused.
Pocket and wallet usage is completely a referee-specific thing. There are many varieties of it. Hell, there’s at least one UEFA ref who I believe still keeps both cards in his wallet and takes the entire thing out every time he gives one
There are many, many theories on the best places for cards. And of course many refs carry more than one set. (When I started way back when, pockets were far from optimal and it was common around me for refs to keep the red card in their sock.)
I remember I used to keep an extra pen in my sock like a lot of people do or at least used to. Then on my first USSDA games the state referee coach/assignor was there and told me to get that pen out of there
Video should start at 3:27. A red card was given for this tackle today in the Championship. English fans are going mad saying that this should never be a red card...
I’d love another Nile, but it looks red to me. From behind with scissors action. (On the England ref board, most say red or orange.)
Probably one of the worst ways to ever concede a goal. 😂😂 pic.twitter.com/w09sC2sERt— Pukka (@CFC_Pukka) April 8, 2026 I don't know when this was (i don't think it's recent), but just abject English refereeing.
This is a gift link to an article about how refs feel about VAR https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/71...hared_gift_article_copylink&smid=url-share-ta
"The price being paid for greater accuracy feels far too high, especially for those who pay for their tickets and create the atmosphere that helps elevate the Premier League above its competitors." I think this can be applied across all sports when it comes to replay. It's a really great way to put it.
Im so tired of reading and hearing this bullshit. Everyone says how they hate how long/many reviews take (in all sports), but then they have no problem ripping into referees for not getting every call correct in live time and want it fixed. And even if referees could impossibly get every call technically correct in real time, people would still complain because they disagree with the interpretation Would be nice if every sport had theoretically objective reviews that could happen in seconds and be universally accepted like tennis and now ABS in baseball. SAOT is the closest soccer has to that, and people still complain about that by whining about the fundamental law itself.
He brings up a great point though about now that the VAR toothpaste is out of the tube, the expectation anytime that VAR is tasked with getting involved, they must correctly apply the LOTG and cannot get a call wrong lest they be called into question. So his example of the (paraphrasing) "forehead, kneecap, big toe" being slightly offside in the build-up, cannot be ignored, even though it had no practical impact on whether a goal was scored. They cannot apply "spirit of The Laws" when they have the time to and no excuse not to fully apply them. Also interesting that, the way he made it sound to me, was that there was initial discussion with VAR that it would only be done at game speed. I think that would help with the intent of the "clear and obvious error" threshold but would not ameliorate situations where video was used in super slow-mo by others as he brought up. My biggest issues with VAR are the time it takes to have the review and when VAR interjects itself when there is not a "clear and obvious" error. Having been a fan sitting in a stadium suffering through a 4 minute review with no real idea on what exactly is being looked at by review I commiserate in that regard. The second guessing on what amount to judgements made on a spectrum by a person removed from the heat of the action is irritating firstly. Secondly when the VAR becomes insistent with their opinion I don't think that is appropriate. I have watched the PRO VAR weekly reviews where you get the commentary from both sides and that is coming along more and more. I do not think the aim of VAR is to re-adjudicate the match decisions, but rather get the clear misses and clear misapplications, when they do or very likely could impact the outcomes, in front of the center referee with the benefit of a slower look, different angle and some degree of hindsight.
So if people are going to complain about referees either way (and they will), why not go with the path that has the least interruption and most game flow? Why not make the game more about the game and not about the officiating decisions? Also, just for the record this is part of the argument I made in the 2015 era. People absolutely were arguing that the advent of VAR would mean referees would get criticized less. I believe there were a few people on this board then that thought I was being crazily cynical for arguing it wouldn't help.
Yeah you’ve been banging the drum about that. I have a cop out opinion about review. I like that review is being expanded to review more things because I want to see correct calls. At the same time, I’m happy to see the players, the coaches, the fans, the analysts upset about replay review (which they have demanded for years), and being upset at its expansion into minutiae, because it’s so gratifying to see them wallow in the mess they’ve made by screaming at referees for years
The baseball people, when speaking of ABS, would tell you betting plays a role. I don't bet on sports so can't really comment what the overarching feeling is nor what the outcomes are from those taking the bets when there is an obvious reffing error. Can't say whether bets are voided and returned or tough luck.
At least for Americans, there is zero idea that game flow is something desirable or even the concept of it. America's two favorite sports are football and baseball, two sports that couldn't care less about game flow even before replay. People standing around is part of the spectacle.
20' into Sunderland-Spurs, Rob Jones sees a penalty that no one else in the stadium, including the Spurs player who was "fouled," is looking for. Rightly overturned by VAR. But his hallucination costs Spurs the corner kick they would have otherwise received because a VAR overturn always results in a drop ball. Brutal.
interesting red to ManU just now with a pull of the ponytail, I think it was the correct call, but you could say it was almost accidental.
Greg Barkey would categorize it as "glancing": Lisandro Martínez EXPULSO.Puxou o cabelo do adversário.Inacreditável. pic.twitter.com/0cu25QyBJ6— Thomas Alencar (@thomasalencr) April 13, 2026
I think this is the first time I have seen a Premier League game stopped for VAR during play, in the neutral zone, rather than on a dead ball.