VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

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.

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.”

Good post, this didn't click for me.
*talking strictly about the interpretation of the law and not the law itself
 
Fergie would make him shave his head after that.
 
Because it happens about twice every 4 years to be fair.

True - but it's also blatantly obvious to the point where it should be more or less a binary decision. Just because I only step in shit every other year doesn't mean I need a tutorial to conclude it's bad!
 
Wil never forget Anthony Taylor giving this as a Spurs freekick. When Gazzaniga literally kung fu kicked Alonso mid air. These are just some of his BS decisions..

 
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.

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.”

I think most people get this, however in this instance how is that not a red card? Set's a very dangerous standard if that is only considered a foul/yellow. Could be open season on any lushed locked player from here on in.
 
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.

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.”
According to the law this incident should not be reviewed at all. The biggest problem is why VAR was activated at that moment, which began all the confusion and controversy.
 
Is it a coincidence that a bald VAR official on a hair pulling incident doesn't consider it violent conduct? I think not. He has no empathy at all for people with luscious locks.
 
According to the law this incident should not be reviewed at all. The biggest problem is why VAR was activated at that moment, which began all the confusion and controversy.
It was activated to review a red card incident. It can be used in these situations as it’s checking an off the ball incident.
 
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.

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.”
It's a red card. You can't yank his hair and pull him to the ground and not expect a red.

Fairly certain it's even a red in rugby
 
According to the law this incident should not be reviewed at all. The biggest problem is why VAR was activated at that moment, which began all the confusion and controversy.
Because it should be a red card, that's why they looked, and got it wrong
 
Fellaini didn't get a yellow for pulling someone's hair when at United (Gendouzi I think?)

This led to some pundits stating that pulling someone's hair is similar to pulling someone's shirt and a yellow card offence.

What is it with Chelsea fans and the incessant hounding of refs!
Remember Chelsea getting decision after decision in their favour against United for years, some you win some you lose.
 


Thank God they have their priorities right.
 
The sooner VAR stops being about a "High-bar" and starts to be a conversation between two officials officiating the same game, the better it'll be.

I honestly think the "high-bar" thing is there to act as an excuse for when they drop absolute howlers like yesterday.
 
Fellaini didn't get a yellow for pulling someone's hair when at United (Gendouzi I think?)

This led to some pundits stating that pulling someone's hair is similar to pulling someone's shirt and a yellow card offence.

What is it with Chelsea fans and the incessant hounding of refs!
Remember Chelsea getting decision after decision in their favour against United for years, some you win some you lose.
I honestly don't think it's a red card offence, and it shouldn't trigger VAR review either.
 
What do you mean by "even Sky think"? Skysports is now the gold standard of FIFA law?

It's textbook violent conduct, like pushing someone in the face.

We see the propaganda machine, the like of Dale Johnson try to justify it, no surprise there that's his job. No serious referee is going to bother because it's a clear red card.

You could say it's a coincidence, then you realise in the same fixture only two years ago Lo Celso got away with an equally obvious red card that also went to VAR review.
 


Thank God they have their priorities right.

As I always said, and will stand by it. If referees don't have to do interviews after games to explain decisions or have mics for everyone to hear, nothing will change. They can referee how they want and still TheFA will be fine with it.
 
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?

Surely it's different. For starters yanking down someone to the ground from their hair in that manner hurts like a motherfecker but pulling their shirt only slightly impedes with their movement. Even the latter is an immediate foul and a yellow card but the hair pulling is about as obvious violent conduct as it gets. Taylor didn't even think it was a foul despite having a perfect line of sight to the incident. :wenger:
 
Interesting to note Sky Sports pundits reaction after Huth and Fellaini had a similar incident...."There is a bit of a tangle and I tell you what, Huth is lucky as well as Fellaini. I say Huth is lucky because he has caught him under the chin. If that catches him full square across his face, then he's lost several teeth or broke his nose and I don't think he can stay on the pitch.

That's what Souness said, when Huth pulled Fellainis hair, not a single mention of the hair pull in his comments, so realistically what Sky sports or Dermot have to say about certain things are not worth discussing.
They contradict themselves season to season.
 
"Oh yeah and about those massive unbelievable refereeing errors that decided the outcome of the game, we already discussed them on Sunday" Nothing to see here, thanks David.
Weren't the VAR discussions supposed to be made public this season ?
 
It's textbook violent conduct, like pushing someone in the face.

We see the propaganda machine, the like of Dale Johnson try to justify it, no surprise there that's his job. No serious referee is going to bother because it's a clear red card.

You could say it's a coincidence, then you realise in the same fixture only two years ago Lo Celso got away with an equally obvious red card that also went to VAR review.
So "textbook" that there will be no retrospective action.
https://www.skysports.com/football/...ctive-action-for-pulling-marc-cucurellas-hair
 
It's textbook violent conduct, like pushing someone in the face.

We see the propaganda machine, the like of Dale Johnson try to justify it, no surprise there that's his job. No serious referee is going to bother because it's a clear red card.

You could say it's a coincidence, then you realise in the same fixture only two years ago Lo Celso got away with an equally obvious red card that also went to VAR review.
When Toney had a penalty shout against Chelsea last year, the very same Taylor simply trusted the flag and gave an offside. There was no VAR review at the decision. Coincidence?
 

You obviously have no idea how these things work. The article you linked even explains what's going on:

And because VAR took a look at the decision, Romero will not face any further punishment for violent conduct. Retrospective action can only be given when both the match and video officials fail to spot an incident on the pitch in real time and do not mention it in their post-match report.

There can be no retrospective action because the ref and VAR looked at it during the game. It's another one of those nonsensical rules they have in place to not have to admit they can be or are wrong.
 
Have they given a reason why they would look at the Cucurella incident, agree it’s not a red but then ignore that it’s a foul completely? That’s the most silly thing about VAR for me. You’re literally ignoring foul play. This clear and obvious stuff is nonsense. It’s a foul. Address it. cnuts.
 
Have they given a reason why they would look at the Cucurella incident, agree it’s not a red but then ignore that it’s a foul completely? That’s the most silly thing about VAR for me. You’re literally ignoring foul play. This clear and obvious stuff is nonsense. It’s a foul. Address it. cnuts.
Red or nothing is completely ridiculous.
 
Have they given a reason why they would look at the Cucurella incident, agree it’s not a red but then ignore that it’s a foul completely? That’s the most silly thing about VAR for me. You’re literally ignoring foul play. This clear and obvious stuff is nonsense. It’s a foul. Address it. cnuts.

Why don't you think it's a red out of curiosity? It's definitely a red for me... it's violent conduct, and players have been sent off for it in the past.

But to answer your question - unless VAR think its a red card it cannot intervene at all in this instance.

Now if they had scored, VAR would be allowed to call it as a foul - though as it didn't interfere with play i'm not sure they actually would have done.
 
Why don't you think it's a red out of curiosity? It's definitely a red for me... it's violent conduct, and players have been sent off for it in the past.

But to answer your question - unless VAR think its a red card it cannot intervene at all in this instance.

Now if they had scored, VAR would be allowed to call it as a foul - though as it didn't interfere with play i'm not sure they actually would have done.

Sorry, I do think it’s a red, what I mean is that it’s stupid that it can only see things as a red or they move on. It’s a foul at the very least. You have checked for a red, decided that it isn’t, but you’ve still observed a foul happening at the very least. Its not fair and fecking dumb that they just ignore that and move on.
 
You obviously have no idea how these things work. The article you linked even explains what's going on:



There can be no retrospective action because the ref and VAR looked at it during the game. It's another one of those nonsensical rules they have in place to not have to admit they can be or are wrong.
Don't you think the FA would step in if the incident was so "textbook" and "violent"?

"If they confirm they did see it then in almost all cases no further action is taken. There are extraordinary exceptions, such as in the case involving Ben Thatcher [Manchester City versus Portsmouth in 2006]."
 
Red or nothing is completely ridiculous.
This is also a huge misconception. If the VAR suspects it's a red card incident, he could ask the referee to check the replay, whom can decide to give a red, a yellow, or just simply a foul.
 
This is also a huge misconception. If the VAR suspects it's a red card incident, he could ask the referee to check the replay, whom can decide to give a red, a yellow, or just simply a foul.
That's what my understanding too. But @Chief123 explained me otherwise.
 
Sorry, I do think it’s a red, what I mean is that it’s stupid that it can only see things as a red or they move on. It’s a foul at the very least. You have checked for a red, decided that it isn’t, but you’ve still observed a foul happening at the very least. Its not fair and fecking dumb that they just ignore that and move on.
I agree they probably shouldn't be looking at every single tackle to determine if its a foul. But when somethings been potentially missed and youre are looking at it anyway to determine if it should be a pen or a red or whatever it is, they should be allowed to over rule to the correct outcome they deem it to be.

So in this case, ok I don't think it's a red but its a clear foul you missed so give a fk out.
 
This is also a huge misconception. If the VAR suspects it's a red card incident, he could ask the referee to check the replay, whom can decide to give a red, a yellow, or just simply a foul.
That's wrong actually, but that's what it should be
 
the most stupid thing about VAR is they cannot check 2nd yellow cards.

If its a straight red they can, but if you win the ball and they think you didn't, you're off and there's no checking it. Daft.
 
This is also a huge misconception. If the VAR suspects it's a red card incident, he could ask the referee to check the replay, whom can decide to give a red, a yellow, or just simply a foul.
Incorrect. VAR isn’t allowed to go back and give a foul or yellow card. A red card can be changed to a yellow by VAR. They can only change something to a foul if it leads to a goal or penalty. I posted the rules earlier.