Incorrect. The rules only indicate the situations where VAR could be triggered. Once it's triggered, any outcome is possible.
Google "VAR for a yellow card: is it allowed?" and look at Bolivia's Saucedo as an example.
VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Google "VAR for a yellow card: is it allowed?" and look at Bolivia's Saucedo as an example.
Im fairly certain they can't give a foul and a yellow card if no foul was given initially.
Google "VAR for a yellow card: is it allowed?" and look at Bolivia's Saucedo as an example.
Any examples of the PL? Every league has their own interpretations
I'm not sure if this example satisfies you. Point is, the four situations are only the thresholds for triggering VAR, and any outcome is possible after review (not red or nothing). This rule is universal and applies to all leagues.
https://www.goal.com/en/news/premie...ar-man-utd-burnley/1jic7crgz63ve159wd72wjlh71
You said VAR can give a foul. They can’t unless it’s one of the 4 specific circumstances which the hair pull incident wasn’t. As VAR didn’t deem it a red card incident, they couldn’t call for a foul. VAR were not allowed to call back the hair pull for a foul as it didn’t lead to a penalty or a goal and they did not feel it was a red card incident.
Last edited:
This is what you need to look at.
What incidents does the VAR check?
VAR will be used only for “clear and obvious errors” or “serious missed incidents” in four match-changing situations: goals; penalty decisions; direct red-card incidents; and mistaken identity.
What incidents does the VAR not check?
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 will not review the decision to award a corner instead of a goal-kick, even if the corner produces a goal.
This is because the VAR will only check the attacking possession phase that led to the goal, and the starting point is limited to the immediate phase, in this instance the corner being taken.
Source: https://www.premierleague.com/news/1293321
Last edited:
The example above shows VAR called for a foul on Shaw (which was missed initially), although the VAR was triggered by a DOGSO on the other end of the pitch. Anyway, it's not red or nothing which you have been misleading people into, not even close.
Regarding the Cucurella incident, VAR had been triggered already because a red card incident was suspected. Whether a goal had been scored was irrelevant. If Dean and Taylor felt there was a misconduct, they could give a red or a yellow to Romero, or simply an indirect free kick to Chelsea.
In case you don't know, VAR has been used already to check the Cucurella incident, very likely based on a suspected direct red-card incident. Hence there was a delay in taking the 2nd corner. Do you have a clue on what you're talking?
The Sky report says this:
"Unlike rugby, football laws do not specifically mention hair-pulling. The officials must decide whether the extent of the hair pulling is forceful enough to be considered violent conduct, if it is not then it would probably be considered unsporting behaviour and result in a yellow card".
So the pull on Cucarella was forceful enough to floor him but not forceful enough to be considered violent conduct, I genuinely don't understand where the line is, it couldn't have been any more forceful.
To me, a cheeky pull to put someone off would be "unsporting behaviour". A yank strong enough to floor someone is the definition of violent.
I just wish the refs would explain their decisions.
"Unlike rugby, football laws do not specifically mention hair-pulling. The officials must decide whether the extent of the hair pulling is forceful enough to be considered violent conduct, if it is not then it would probably be considered unsporting behaviour and result in a yellow card".
So the pull on Cucarella was forceful enough to floor him but not forceful enough to be considered violent conduct, I genuinely don't understand where the line is, it couldn't have been any more forceful.
To me, a cheeky pull to put someone off would be "unsporting behaviour". A yank strong enough to floor someone is the definition of violent.
I just wish the refs would explain their decisions.
He should obviously have seen red for violent conduct. If I was a Chelsea fan I would feel robbed.
You’re still not getting it. You made the point VAR reviewed that incident and could have given a yellow, red or foul. That’s not true. They couldn’t call it back and say it was a foul. The only time they could call it a foul is if they scored or it led to a penalty. As they didn’t, they can’t call it a foul. That’s the point.
The fact that it should have been a red and wasn’t is a different discussion.
Of course. I'm still annoyed!
I could ask you the same question after I’ve shown you the law. Your nonsense of they can review it and call it a yellow, red or foul is a load of shite.
Very understandable. Especially given how fierce the fight for top 4 is. A decision like this can in the end have a very big impact on the season.
You're still not getting it. If they couldn't call it back, why would they pause the 2nd corner, review and look into the incident at all? The law you cited shows when VAR can be USED, and it has been USED already. Your reading comprehension is a load of shite.
They are stopping the incident because they are checking for a “red card incident”. You either get it or you don’t. Your understanding comprehension is….never mind.
Instead of coming across like a tool, you should maybe read the explanation of the review for that particular incident then question your own comprehension. Here I’ll help you:
The bold part is exactly what you need to fill the gap in your education. VAR can not “cancel the corner and call a foul” like you suggested. Next time I’d spend a bit of time understanding the facts before coming across as condescending.
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/eng...charlison-offsideleicester-penalty-overturned
Finally you are talking sense, at least you now agree the threshold was passed and VAR was USED. Now let's move on to the next part. The Saucedo incident, which triggered VAR for a suspected red card incident (no goal or penalty involved), finally resulted in a yellow card. In a very similar situation, which law you think has prevented referee from giving Romero a yellow card? Another example, VAR looked into Brady's DOGSO as a suspected red card incident (also no goal or penalty involved), later called a foul on Shaw for the buildup. So why referee couldn't give a foul after VAR review?
Read my latest post. Thank you.
Okay we are back to square one...
You are back to square one because you don’t want to accept you’re wrong. Here I’ll paste it again…
Meanwhile you’re still scratching your head wondering why they didn’t call it a foul. Amazing.
Citing from your very own article: The only way the VAR can get involved in this situation is if they feel there has been a red-card offence.
Citing from your very own reply #137: They are stopping the incident because they are checking for a “red card incident”.
Clearly, VAR felt there had been a red-card offence, at least a suspected one, so they paused the game and got involved in the situation by checking the play. Using the terms in the law, VAR was used.
Also in your very own article: Dean could send Taylor to the monitor for a possible red card even if he wasn't absolutely certain Romero should be sent off. If the referee disagrees it's a red, he could still issue a yellow -- though it's highly likely Taylor would have sent Romero off. If Taylor only issued a yellow, at the very least it would have allowed the Romero incident to be dealt with and a free kick awarded to Chelsea, and the corner from which Spurs scored wouldn't have happened.
Still, red or nothing?
Riiight, and that’s not the point you’ve been harping on about. Or do you finally accept they can’t award a foul?
The point I've been harping on about is you have been misleading people into the idea of "red or nothing".
Misleading people. Nothing like a classic tangent to back pedal
You came in with your Hollywood line that it was a misconception everyone had that VAR were unable to give a red, yellow or a foul. But you were the only person in the world to have that understanding.
VAR doesn’t give anything. It’s always the ref. VAR can, if they feel that the incident could warrant a red card, send the referee to the monitor, at which point every possible outcome is available to the referee. Ie, no change, free kick, free kick and yellow or free kick and red. So yes, if Mike Dean had said “this could be a red card, come have a look”, the referee could’ve gone to the monitor and given a yellow and a foul which would’ve cancelled the corner that Spurs scored from.Misleading people. Nothing like a classic tangent to back pedal
You came in with your Hollywood line that it was a misconception everyone had that VAR were unable to give a red, yellow or a foul. But you were the only person in the world to have that understanding.
This has already been discussed and explained in the article I posted. I don’t really want to get involved at length with this again, but it’s worth reading the explanation as there’s clearly a lot of misunderstanding of how VAR is used in the premier league.
In this situation and particular incident it was either a red card or nothing. VAR can not give the foul. And they will not send the referee to the monitor to review the incident as VAR is only looking for an “indisputable red card” as mentioned below. I’ve already cited above as well why VAR isn’t allowed to call it back for a foul. There was no possibility of a yellow card because only the ref could have given a yellow on review of the incident but they are not sending them to review for this type of incident.
It states:
“In the Premier League, the VAR is looking for an indisputable red card, so a referee won't be sent to the monitor just for another look. This isn't the case in some other competitions, so the best outcome may be missed, with players not receiving any disciplinary action. With a lower bar, Dean could send Taylor to the monitor for a possible red card even if he wasn't absolutely certain Romero should be sent off. If the referee disagrees it's a red, he could still issue a yellow -- though it's highly likely Taylor would have sent Romero off.”
The whole article is worth a read.
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/eng...charlison-offsideleicester-penalty-overturned
Fecking idiot…. “studied the footage”?!
And what’s with “few seconds” to make a decision? Sometimes they take minutes pondering over crap, that needed two seconds… Stevie Wonder would have referred that.
And what’s with “few seconds” to make a decision? Sometimes they take minutes pondering over crap, that needed two seconds… Stevie Wonder would have referred that.
It's a fecking start admitting it but that means nothing to Chelsea.
How did he deem that not violent conduct ffs? He yanked him to the ground by his hair, you can see his neck pull back! Madness
Is this scrutiny something that is new or is Dean coming out by himself to state that he fecked up?
It's quite the funny one that the PGMOL always refuses requests for greater transparency and post match referee interviews so the only time we ever hear from a ref is if they have a paid column in a tabloid. fecking joke.
It's just unbelievable to the point I don't believe there's not something fishy going on. I'm not suggesting fixed games but more that VAR are deliberately creating these divisive moments to try and get it scrapped/give refs more power back - there are literally multiple instances of them ignoring the basics of footballing rules every season.
The fact that he needs to review it again multiple times and speak to other referees tells you that he's either incompetent or more probable just toying with results without fear of repercussions. Keep in mind that this man will be in charge of VAR protocol from next season...
Non Mail link:
Amazing people defending it. Work for PGMOL or similar? Frankly PGMOL should be getting a knock on the door. Football isn't meant to be like the WWE. If they want it to be admit it and stop allowing betting etc.
Amazing people defending it. Work for PGMOL or similar? Frankly PGMOL should be getting a knock on the door. Football isn't meant to be like the WWE. If they want it to be admit it and stop allowing betting etc.
He’s a paid columnist now, so he’s coming out himself to say he fecked up. Pretty sure he’s also a retired on pitch referee, and a full time VAR ref now.
Gotcha. Thanks!
"A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent 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 and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."
Tackling someone at knee height where the ball is nowhere to be seen? No, clearly not endangering the safety at all.