VAR and Refs | General Discussion

Damm he clearly gets him by the knee. He just didn’t make the contact as solid as it should have been. Simple red and will not get rescinded.
 
SER19 said:
Is that true? I've seen countless challenges through the years much higher, even reckless contact with midriffs, thighs and so on, that result in yellows. Ive also rarely seen such overwhelming consensus among professionals, including the player fouled, pundits etc, that think it simply wasnt a red. It seems such a strange one to argue over.

This is what the actual league said:

They said in a statement: "The referee issued a red card to Fernandes for a challenge on Maddison. The VAR checked and confirmed the referee’s call of serious foul play."

According to the FA's rulebook, serious foul play is defined as being: "A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play

"Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

I think you're in the extreme minority, maybe as much as ive ever seen for a red card, that thinks this was serious foul play or endangered the opponent's safety.
Click to expand...
As I said previously by the letter of the law it's a red.
You've laid it out for everyone to read, and yes I agree, a different Ref on a different day may have pulled a yellow, perhaps in this instance the Ref saw some thing worse about to happen than actually did, Maddison grabs his leg which suggests contact, had Maddison not done that, then it would probably been a yellow.
The ref see's it as a deiberate attempt to foul the player.
VAR sees the same thing and confirms it. Maybe they should have asked him to go to the screen, maybe not.

As I said to @Berbaclass we are never going to agree on this, so lets just agree to disagree.
 
Matt Varnish said:
As I said previously by the letter of the law it's a red.
You've laid it out for everyone to read, and yes I agree, a different Ref on a different day may have pulled a yellow, perhaps in this instance the Ref saw some thing worse about to happen than actually did, Maddison grabs his leg which suggests contact, had Maddison not done that, then it would probably been a yellow.
The ref see's it as a deiberate attempt to foul the player.
VAR sees the same thing and confirms it. Maybe they should have asked him to go to the screen, maybe not.

As I said to @Berbaclass we are never going to agree on this, so lets just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

We’ve got there in the end. This is precisely why the vast majority of people on here don’t think it should have been a red card. We all understand why the referee thought it should have been a red. But referees often makes mistakes. The purpose of VAR is to correct them.
 
Makes me laugh this one. I thought it was a bit soft but unsurprising. Watching the video above makes it look worse.

But at the end of the day, you can't steam in with studs at that height and foul a player and be super shocked when you end up with a red. It's hardly the craziest decision we've ever seen.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
We’ve got there in the end. This is precisely why the vast majority of people on here don’t think it should have been a red card. We all understand why the referee thought it should have been a red. But referees often makes mistakes. The purpose of VAR is to correct them.
Click to expand...
He was not saying it was a mistake, its just that not all refs would give it as a red.
 
Matt Varnish said:
As I said previously by the letter of the law it's a red.
You've laid it out for everyone to read, and yes I agree, a different Ref on a different day may have pulled a yellow, perhaps in this instance the Ref saw some thing worse about to happen than actually did, Maddison grabs his leg which suggests contact, had Maddison not done that, then it would probably been a yellow.
The ref see's it as a deiberate attempt to foul the player.
VAR sees the same thing and confirms it. Maybe they should have asked him to go to the screen, maybe not.

As I said to @Berbaclass we are never going to agree on this, so lets just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Letter of law it isn’t a red.

You could have at least tagged the right Berba you were talking to! You’ve left your glasses at home today, mate. :lol:
 
Matt Varnish said:
As I said previously by the letter of the law it's a red.
You've laid it out for everyone to read, and yes I agree, a different Ref on a different day may have pulled a yellow, perhaps in this instance the Ref saw some thing worse about to happen than actually did, Maddison grabs his leg which suggests contact, had Maddison not done that, then it would probably been a yellow.
The ref see's it as a deiberate attempt to foul the player.
VAR sees the same thing and confirms it. Maybe they should have asked him to go to the screen, maybe not.

As I said to @Berbaclass we are never going to agree on this, so lets just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Yes i was more asking as you seemed to suggest that a 'high tackle' by the letter of the law is a red. Maybe that's not what you meant and your post is just unclear, but I'm not certain that's correct.
 
Orange but much closer to yellow orange than red for me. Stupid tackle but that gets given as a red 1 in 10 times at most. Shoulda been a yellow.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
He’s saying that Maddison’s exaggerated reaction conned the ref into thinking the challenge was much more violent than it actually was. Which is a misconception that VAR should have corrected.
Click to expand...
Yea I guess, it's possible var might have changed the decision, but it's definitely not certain m
 
SER19 said:
Yes i was more asking as you seemed to suggest that a 'high tackle' by the letter of the law is a red. Maybe that's not what you meant and your post is just unclear, but I'm not certain that's correct.
Click to expand...
To clarify, it would seem that both myself and the Ref on the day is classing it as dangerous tackle and therefore falls into the "serious foul play" category
 
I dislike Bruno a lot but that wasn't a red card, it should've been a yellow. Hopefully though it's upheld and we don't see Bruno played for the next few games
 
Matt Varnish said:
To clarify, it would seem that both myself and the Ref on the day is classing it as dangerous tackle and therefore falls into the "serious foul play" category
Click to expand...

Im completely lost. The entire reason there's a discussion about it at all is because about 99% of people think it was a terrible call - you can't cite the ref as evidence of something, we're literally discussing his mistake :lol:
 
SER19 said:
Im completely lost. The entire reason there's a discussion about it at all is because about 99% of people think it was a terrible call - you can't cite the ref as evidence of something, we're literally discussing his mistake :lol:
Click to expand...
Only if you think it is a mistake, I don't.
 
VAR is trying to give referees more agency and not interfere so much (feck knows why, thats literally the point of it, to avoid mistakes) so they are backing the referee unless hes made a whopper. If there was no contact they would have reversed it, there was contact so they left it to the referee who had given a red.
 
Matt Varnish said:
It's you who needs to lay off the sauce if you thought there was nothing wrong with that tackle.
I wonder which one of us was a referee for 15yrs?
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is arguing that there was nothing wrong with the tackle to be fair. It's a foul for sure and a yellow card at worst. I was a referee as well and if I was given that tackle as a reference for serious foul play I'd have to start giving out several red cards per game to stay consistent, it just doesn't make sense.
 
The decision to send Bruno off was completely wrong and everyone knows that but tbe question is why didnt Peter Bankes instruct the referee to go over to the pitchside monitor and review it because if he had he would have rescinded the red card and instead issued a yellow.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
The decision to send Bruno off was completely wrong and everyone knows that but tbe question is why didnt Peter Bankes instruct the referee to go over to the pitchside monitor and review it because if he had he would have rescinded the red card and instead issued a yellow.
Click to expand...
Sending him over to the monitor seems like such a fecking simple idea. They’ve put too much pressure around that with the idea that any time the referee goes over it’s an objective mistake and they must revert it. If they’re going to back the referees more they need to send them over for subjective decisions on big, game changing decisions like this. Have another look, do you think you were right? They have the opportunity to stand by their original decision but it can’t hurt to use the benefit of technology can it?
 
RedRocket9908 said:
The decision to send Bruno off was completely wrong and everyone knows that but tbe question is why didnt Peter Bankes instruct the referee to go over to the pitchside monitor and review it because if he had he would have rescinded the red card and instead issued a yellow.
Click to expand...
VARs are asbolute joke and it was 100% disastrous decision to send Bruno off.

However, the truth it - it could be blessing in disguise for us. We were going to lose that match even with Bruno on, probably still with 0-3 or possibly even worse. We actually played better in the second half. Now that Bruno has 3 match ban, it forces Erik to play without him and change something about this damned team, so here's a hope he comes up with something. Whether it is playing Ugarte and Casemiro in pivot and Mount or Eriksen as #10 or whatever it is, you would hope it works

Otherwise, if he plays Eriksen/Mount - Mainoo - Ugarte/Casemiro, we will lose enough games for him to get sacked and it is game over
 
Pexbo said:
Sending him over to the monitor seems like such a fecking simple idea. They’ve put too much pressure around that with the idea that any time the referee goes over it’s an objective mistake and they must revert it. If they’re going to back the referees more they need to send them over for subjective decisions on big, game changing decisions like this. Have another look, do you think you were right? They have the opportunity to stand by their original decision but it can’t hurt to use the benefit of technology can it?
Click to expand...

I actually think they should just do away with the VAR ref. Just send the on-field ref to review it all. He's the official in charge, so let him take ownership of it all. It takes long enough for them to make a call anyway, so what's a few extra seconds of him jogging to the monitor.
 
Alex99 said:
I actually think they should just do away with the VAR ref. Just send the on-field ref to review it all. He's the official in charge, so let him take ownership of it all. It takes long enough for them to make a call anyway, so what's a few extra seconds of him jogging to the monitor.
Click to expand...
TV stream on his iPhone on his wrist
 
Alex99 said:
I actually think they should just do away with the VAR ref. Just send the on-field ref to review it all. He's the official in charge, so let him take ownership of it all. It takes long enough for them to make a call anyway, so what's a few extra seconds of him jogging to the monitor.
Click to expand...
But who lets the ref know he even has to review it?
Unless you think he just checks every single challenge on the monitor all game?
 
Sandikan said:
But who lets the ref know he even has to review it?
Unless you think he just checks every single challenge on the monitor all game?
Click to expand...

The ref decides if he wants to review it and the linesman and fourth official can suggest things he might want to review.

I'm sick to death of them trawling through every frame in the build up to a goal to see if the ball grazed someone's finger nail. If neither the ref or his assistants saw anything in the build up that might be cause to disallow it, then just get on with it.

Similar for red cards. Refs are making decisions on the pitch, then VAR are calling them back to have a second look, when, using today as an example, we could have seen him call a foul, then stroll over to check the replay to determine the card. If he decides it's still a red, then fair enough.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
The decision to send Bruno off was completely wrong and everyone knows that but tbe question is why didnt Peter Bankes instruct the referee to go over to the pitchside monitor and review it because if he had he would have rescinded the red card and instead issued a yellow.
Click to expand...

The problem is consistency, it shouldn't really matter if pure luck decides that he doesn't plant his studs in him or not, Bruno is an utter tit for lifting his foot that high. As soon as the VAR takes a look at how high he comes in, there's no way he's going to ask the referee to review it on the monitor.
 
Why does the ref have to go to the monitor? Is it really so hard for someone in the studio, who’s had a second look, tell the referee to give the correct call?
 
It was never a red - it was a joke decision. But we wouldn't have won with 12 players on the pitch
 
Matt Varnish said:
The tackling foot is off the ground and catches the players leg between the ankle and the knee, which make it high.
Take off your red tinted glasses
Click to expand...

But how did he catch him between the ankle and the knee ? With his studs ? NO!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.