VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
I’m still puzzled how VAR literally reviewed that & came to the conclusion that there’s nothing in it and to allow play to go on
The mind boggles.
It really raises the question of what exactly you have to do for hair pulling to be considered violent conduct. Does it need to be two fisted? Face stomp the player after you yank him down by the hair?
There were two VAR mistakes last week, even Dale Johnson was struggling with the propaganda to try and justify it.
Lo Celso didn't even get sent off for a leg breaking stamp in our same fixture a few years ago.
If you want to watch games that are refereed properly don't watch the premier league. It's really as simple as that.
Lo Celso didn't even get sent off for a leg breaking stamp in our same fixture a few years ago.
If you want to watch games that are refereed properly don't watch the premier league. It's really as simple as that.
it’s was only a cheeky little hair pull. just like a friendly spanking or the tweaking of a nipple or spitting on someone after you finish making love.
I'd be absolutely livid if I were a Chelsea fan.
Sometimes I think that there's a good amount of match-fixing happening in the PL by the refs.
Chelsea can only blame themselves for not finishing Spurs off but the referee was dreadful. Conte must've had words pre-match.
I guess these are the inherent dangers of having a bald referee
me too. imagine having to do that horrible ‘chewsea, chewsea’ chant. yuck.
Red cards for Wigfield and Dracula were the only things the officials got correct today
I'd be spitting feathers if that was against us, ridiculous decisions.
Referring is in the bin.
That was extremely bad. Shame for the league.
I’m still puzzled how VAR literally reviewed that & came to the conclusion that there’s nothing in it and to allow play to go on
The mind boggles.
I don’t believe VAR were allowed to call it back for a “foul”. The only thing they were allowed to check was if it’s a red card.Unbelievable
Because the foul didn’t lead to a goal or penalty, they aren’t allowed to call it back. If the goal had come from that particular corner, then it would probably have been ruled out because VAR would then call for the foul leading to the goal.
VAR were only checking to see if it was a red card or not.
This is the premier league law:
“The VAR will not review incidents outside of the four match-changing situations: goals; penalty decisions; direct red-card incidents; and mistaken identity. It will not review, for example, fouls or handballs in the middle of the pitch when there is no goal or penalty decision.”
Taylor is few feet away looking at it ffs 
Yes that’s the only thing that could have stopped play. The ref needed to spot it himself and call it. VAR couldn’t call it up.Taylor is few feet away looking at it ffs
Not sure why you quoted me.
I think people get that. The question is why yanking a player down backward by the hair isn't deemed violent conduct, which is a red card.
So how this works? VAR didn't even tell Taylor what they were checking and then said carry on because they thought it wasn't a red? Or VAR did tell Taylor what happened and said they are checking if it was a red card. VAR decided it wasn't and then Taylor decided it wasn't even a foul? Surely say even if it wasn't a red, it was a foul anyway! So either a red or no foul at all?
Baffling.
VAR was checking for a red card incident. They decided it wasn’t a red. After that there’s nothing else they can do. Spurs have to carry on and take the corner. If the ref had seen it and called it a foul then there would have been no follow up corner.
The ref missed it or saw it but didn’t think it was a foul. I’m leaning towards him not even seeing it.
I get that, Thanks. But didn't VAR tell Taylor what they are checking? And if they did then Taylor should he giving a foul albeit not a red one. Right? If Taylor is not informed at all then I can understand it is either red or nothing. But I highly doubt if that was the case.
VAR would only be checking red card. So no doubt the ref knows what they are checking. Because it can only be a penalty or a red card in that particular passage of play. If VAR decide it’s not a red card offence, the ref can’t then decide it’s a foul because he should have called for it in the first place. He can’t retrospectively call for the foul.
That's so weird if true.
It is strange but I guess they don’t want to use VAR for anything other than major incidents.
The irony is that if Mendy didn’t save the header and tip it over the bar, it would have been a disallowed goal and chelsea would have won 2-1 because VAR could call for the foul now as it’s led to a goal.
Surprised hair pulling like that isn't an automatic straight red.
Every season the standard gets lower and lower
Yeah agreed.
It’s insane. Someone will get sent off for the exact same offence again.
Playing devils advocate, is pulling his hair any different to pulling his shirt. Cucurella obviously has longer hair than normal and is much easier to grab than any other player. In this scenario, pulling his hair is the same as pulling his shirt no?
I disagree with the notion that VAR should only check if it was a red card. It’s not fair that a yellow card offence can influence a game as such. Though on this occasion it was definitely a red.
VAR literally can't reverse second yellow card decisions....that's how dumb the system is.
Game's gone if you can't give someone a cheeky hair pull
Hair pulling in that manner is violent conduct should be a red imo. The difference is hair is attached to the body. Like pushing someone in the face will get you a red too.
Ronaldo got sent off in the CL for a much tamer hair pull than that.
Yes, I’ve never understood why PL clubs accept it being used for some things but not for others. It makes no sense when the things they don’t use it for or can’t use it for can have just as much of an impact on points.
Nothing to do with Var today. Ref should have seen hair pulling and give a,foul to Chelsea. Ref literally cost Chelsea two points today
Because Mike Dean is a bald cnut with shit for brains.
Textbook violent conduct. There's been an effort in the women's game to stamp this shit out - why is it allowed in the men's game?
Because it happens about twice every 4 years to be fair.