Tottenham vs Liverpool FC - EPL - Sept 30 [R]

I think that should be "When does your logic start?"

 

I just realized ....

the line from PGMOL is that the VARs said "check complete" assuming the goal had been given.

but for goals with a potential for offside, the ref waits for the VAR to TELL him if it should be given or not. at that point in time the ref hasn't "given" anything to anyone as the decision is pending.

so the VAR saying "check complete" and nothing else ..... that's total 100% bullshit!

is this more PGMOL deflection bollocks, or am I incorrect in this?

 

The audio will tell.

 

If it hasn't been doctored.

 

but that's what they've been telling everyone so far - no?

 

There are ways to uncover that sort of manipulation.

For as incompetent as PGMOL are - I don’t think even they would do that. That’s sets up legal/fraud claims which would be much much more significant than the ‘error’ on Saturday.

It would be hilarious if they tried and found out, but no way would they do that.

 

jeez, I wouldn't stretch that far.

although tbh my first reaction to us not getting the whole audio was to think that they're hiding the piece when the VARs say "that'll teach the scouse bastards".

 

I repped this as generally sound. But, that said - My biggest problem with this kind of yellow to red card stuff (via VAR) is that there's often an absolute instant change in the primary person in charge's psychology (often) when he is shown a slow motion of the outcome of a challenge. As in this case where nothing of the impetus has essentially changed. Just some pedant up in the viewing box flexing his dubious authority to say look at it, because it looks worse in some ways than what you decided.

What did the field ref think he had missed here? I'd like to ask him that. Obviously Bissouma got hit as he was rolling around like John Dillinger's Studebaker had just sped by.....
But he got hit at the end of something that did not start out as a reckless situation. That's all that was there to be determined by the review. (As I said, these are not games played to rugby rules.)

Could/should he (Jones) have been expected to challenge differently? No.
Had he not hit him would any ref have subsequently thought that he challenged with overt foot action? Again the answer is no.

It's a farce.

 

I suspect they were listening to the entire audio and establishing 1) what actually happened and 2) talking points and 3) deciding on mitigation strategies. I can understand why it took a full day

 

Do you think we will ever hear it?

 

Anfield have it atm, so we’re led to believe. Ooops, who leaked that again? LFC will release it, even if through back channels.

 

yes according to this, although waiting for a once-a-month tv show seems ludicrous. I expect it might get leaked.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ol-audio-relating-to-luis-diaz-gaffe-at-spurs
The referees’ body, Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL), has sent Liverpool the audio relating to the controversial VAR error that cost them a goal at Tottenham on Saturday. An interval review of the incident is ongoing but the relevant audio has been shared with Liverpool after the club formally requested a copy on Monday.

Liverpool were left seething over the failure of the VAR, Darren England, and assistant VAR, Dan Cook, to overturn the incorrect on-pitch decision to disallow Luis Díaz’s goal for offside, one that would have put them 1-0 up against Spurs having had Curtis Jones sent off following VAR intervention. They went on to lose the game 2-1, having also had Diogo Jota sent off, and, the following day, released a statement criticising PGMOL’s assessment that “significant human error” was to blame and calling for a wide-ranging, fully transparent review into the entire process. That was followed 24 hours later by a request for the audio that led to Díaz’s goal not being given to be released.

PGMOL was happy to do so in order to be as open and transparent as possible and provided Liverpool with the audio on Tuesday. The club are now in the process of reviewing it.

The audio is also likely to be released publicly and that could occur before it is potentially presented on Match Officials Mic’d Up, a monthly television programme hosted by former England striker Michael Owen and the PGMOL’s chief refereeing officer, Howard Webb, designed to display greater transparency around some of the biggest refereeing incidents and talking points. The next Mic’d Up show, which airs previously unheard audio between on-field officials and the VAR team at Stockley Park, is slated for the beginning of next week.

The last Mic’d Up show, aired last month, saw Webb admit that Simon Hooper, who was the referee at Tottenham on Saturday, should have awarded Wolves a penalty in their 1-0 defeat at Manchester United in August after Andre Onana clattered Sasa Kalajdzic in stoppage time of the game. Hooper and the VAR, Michael Salisbury, and assistant VAR, Richard West, were stood down from the following round of matches.

 

Enjoy lads and lasses

https://www.premierleague.com/news/3718057?sf269410963=1

nothing but incompetence

 

jesus. ********ing clown show.

 

And there it is..."can't do anything...can't do anything"
Yes you bloody can!
Stop the game - look at the monitor, explain the mistake, award Liverpool the goal...it's not that difficult!

 

If the ref asks after every goal/no goal “Is there any reason to deny/allow the goal, on field decision is goal/no goal?” and VAR is forced to answer in the affirmative, that gets rid of all that.

 

Unfortunately (the ugly freeze-framing aside) there's one glaring problem here - the game was played in the present, not the future, and these rules don't exist.

In formulating such a rule change the problem could easily be solved by saying that there isn't any duty beyond a simple reasonable evaluation of intent to be reckless. Beyond this, if people absolutely don't wish to get hurt they could choose to play chess or darts instead of football.

 

it is if you have been affixed by LocTite Super-Glue to the Protocol board....

 

Is there anyone here saying anything even remotely close to that?

 

It was the VTR tech and not the VAR or assistant VAR is twigged the mistake. Wow.

 

This is essentially what I have been ranting about. In a nutshell. As to the "I don't think so answer to the question -

I don't even think anyone can even reasonably think so.

Anyway, time to let it go .... grrrrr.........

 

Darts?

 

Exactly - it is not that difficult!