It would be absolute bedlam if they broadcast these discussions live instead of 2 weeks after the fact.
VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Referee also got punished for it.
"Tayls"
Would be hysterical.
I don’t really understand the chain of thought. AR1 and AR2 seemingly agree that it’s accidental, reckless act, trying to stop but lands in the wrong place. Why would it matter if he steps on his schlong, calf or whatnot when you’ve already said it looks accidental. Where you land can be a complete coincidence, no matter if it’s accidental or if you intentionally try to step on someone. How on earth does he go «i’m going with red»
Also: With that fecking logic behind his decision making, why isn’t VAR stepping in?
"Tayls". God that annoys me so much!
Oliver is Sonic
Proper Leeeeeeroy Jeeeeeenkins feel about it
Am I the only one confused as to how Isac is allowed to push someone with 2 hands in the back to make space for his goal ?.
True, absolutely crazy how they reacted to the media noise… has there been similar consequences since or before for such a call (wasn‘t even the worst decision)? One reason why refs seem to be scared to give us anything
Well, basically, Taylor (or Tayls) is now getting brown envelopes from Newkies owners, so if he can help them in any way…
Thats shocking wtf?
You guys think Taylor will get some backlash or "punishment" for that?
Someone posted this link earlier.
It's already been glossed over and explained away by Webb.
https://www.skysports.com/football/...ewcastle-the-right-decision-by-anthony-taylor
I still laugh at the «hang on, he’s holding somewhere else here, he’s holding between his legs», as if it’s some sort of shocking twist of events.
If Taylor decided it looked like a deliberate act from Duran to put his studs into Schar then obviously it’s a red card from his perspective, but i don’t understand the «hang on, he’s holding somewhere else here». Does it really matter if Duran stamped his thigh, schlong, buttocks or back if he intentionally stepped on him? Ofcourse not, it’s the deliberate act itself and not where he steps that would land him the red card.
«But the best placed match official by a long way is the referee, who is right behind the situation.»
The best placed match official, the referee, didn’t even see the extent of it until he noticed Schar was holding between his legs, which would go a fairly decent way of indicating that Taylor didn’t really have a good enough view to hand out the red card.
«Referee Taylor, speaking to the players: "If it's wrong I'll change it, ok?"»
Imo, the entire dialogue just gives off the impression that he pulls out the red card without being certain of what has actually happened. Duran looks completely out of balance and Schar is moving as well, imo it looks accidental rather than on purpose. It is however difficult to base it on the clip we’ve seen in this thread, as we don’t get to see if there’s any odd movements that would indicate Duran is trying to step on him. I still think it’s fecking weird that they don’t send him to the screen simply on the basis of the communication itself.
I also think Webb is arguing against himself.
"It's always hard to read players' minds, you have to judge the actions that we see, the physical evidence to make our judgements. And in this situation, the referee saw the action, felt it was a red card offence.
"And the VAR saw the movement of that leg onto the back of Schar and didn't feel that the on-field referee's call was obviously wrong - he probably agreed with it - and it stayed as an on-field call as a red card."
"But the referee felt the action of the right leg coming down on the back of the opponent's back was violent conduct and he sent him off. It was always going to be check complete once that referee's call had been given as a red card for violent conduct."
I can quite understand the difficulty the refs/var sometimes have in arriving at an initial decision and then having got more info via var, change it/or not. What really pisses me off is when a fecking lino stands 2 yards away from a player having his fecking arm pulled off and does absolutely nothing. I know it’s United and I’m biased but feck me… I also know it’s United and so are they. There’s no other explanation.
Oh, it's total nonsense from Webb. Taylor made a decision in the spur of the moment seemingly based on an emotional reaction to your man holding his junk, after being told it looked accidental. Then of course the VAR looks to justify that decision. Saying I'll overturn it if I'm wrong is all well and good but there was no need to go there, especially with the clear and obvious bar for overturning decisions being so high.
Of course Webb contradicts himself because he's again trying to justify the ref's process, and there was enough in it that you can't say the red card is objectively wrong, even though we can all see that the reasoning behind giving it was insane.
I don't understand what they can't just start of with potential red card for these ones where clearly no one had a good enough view of it. Then at least we might get some consistency if we start from the same frame of mind in that it's definitely a yellow and we're looking for a reason to upgrade to red.
This wasn't given because he didn't have time to react and arm was in a natural position apparently.
They always come across as extremely amateur in these recordings.
This is not incompetency. Just bias. "Tayls" had already made up his mind.
That is piss funny. They're basically in the middle of a conversation and he goes "feck it, I'm going red card". He may as well have said the feck it bit because his tone clearly indicated it.
Yeah, it’s like parody. You would have thought now that the refs are aware these recordings are occasionally released to the public, that they would behave with at least some professionalism, but apparently not.
It always sounds so frantic as well. Where do they find these people?
This is like var if it was used in the 90’s 
So basically Liverpool can dive as much as they like without getting booked
That’s one of the main flaws. There’s no actual communication going on. It’s all in a mad panic, with no dialogue between the ref and the VAR team. A lot of this is because the ref is inevitably having a simultaneous argument with a bunch of players, as well as under intense pressure to make a decision as quickly as possible. In rugby and cricket the referee can step away and have a proper conversation about what happened without any player going near them. But that’s just not the way football works. Which is a big factor in why it’s so unsuitable for use with this sport.
A large reason why it's so chaotic is because they just don't have the balls to punish players running over screaming; "CHECK IT! CHECK IT! THAT'S A FOUL/RED/PENALTY!" etc and they get hurried and worried and panic and rush a decision.
They should get some top rugby refs to give them a seminar how to ref with authority and composure but they're far too prideful for that and think they're celebrities in their own right now. Feck the players, feck the crowd, get the decision correct.
They should get some top rugby refs to give them a seminar how to ref with authority and composure but they're far too prideful for that and think they're celebrities in their own right now. Feck the players, feck the crowd, get the decision correct.
I'd like there to be two separate VAR panels, who both need to independently agree on a verdict for it to be made. If they don't both reach the.same verdict then it's unclear and penalties/reds wouldn't be given.
Another fundamental issue is that the clock doesn't stop, which remains bizarre and antiquated as far as I'm concerned.
The game should be two 35 minute halves with the clock stopping when the ball goes out and when there are fouls. Eliminate time-wasting entirely and let the refs have the time needed to get decisions correct.
I'm not sure players would survive two 35 minute halfs to be honest.
But yeah it absolutely needs to happen. Can start with the handball approach of stopping clock for bigger interruptions like dangerous freekicks, penalty shouts and so on
Last edited:
These are all unintended consequences of introducing a technology that wasn’t needed. You do need a clock stop to use VAR properly but the pace and non stop nature of football is one of its main selling points. Even in its current iteration VAR has slowed the game down to a painful extent. Throw in a stopped clock for every decision and you’re basically watching a different sport. The whole thing is a total mess, which has made football worse to watch. The idea that fixing it involves making the spectacle even worse than it is now is infuriating.
Honestly, that just sounds like over engineering something that already doesn't work. It would complexify things further and wouldn't solve the core issues.
Yeah maybe 30 minute halves makes more sense?
Agreed by and large - but I do also think time-wasting is completely out of hand (in large part because refs are too cowardly to enforce the rules properly anyhow).
Pulis, Dyche, and Arteta have all pushed the envelope way too far in terms of exploiting the constantly-running clock in my opinion.
It's true that the rules cannot be enforced to an extent in football compared to that of rugby and cricket. But they can absolutely sort out some of the blatant cheating. Players all legging it over to the ref and screaming for VAR, forcefully using foul language in their faces and aggressiveness (See Wilson of Fulham at the weekend for example), players diving, rolling around holding their heads trying to get the game stopped then standing up a second later. Sounds like I'm moaning for the sake of it but all of the cheating (and time wasting as mentioned above) is bloody tiresome to watch, and the referee's could easily be doing far more to combat it.
I'd like to see punishment retroactively for cheating. I don't think refs in real time can do much but players should fear some punishment later if caught and several angles show there was no contact or for example holding your face when you've been hit in the shoulder. I'd issue a 3 game ban for cheating.
Because they never have the balls or consistency to enforce it, one minute they book someone for dissent and the next they let someone throw abuse at them and do nothing.
If for the first few weeks it finished 9 vs 8 then so be it, but teams/players would learn pretty quickly not to surround the ref etc when they are finishing every game with 9 players.
Decisions would most likely take even longer.
There are so many small things that have been allowed to creep into the game, diving, faking injury, waving imaginary cards etc.. referees won't punish it. Yellow cards and retrospective punishment should be used. Teams now use fake injuries as a time out to get drinks onboard and ruin the flow of games. Newcastle do it all the time.
My personal favourite is that guy Montiel, who would just go down holding his face when a player ran past him, to try and get the game stopped. He did it against Utd land when the ref wasn't having any of it, he was up in an instant.
Players just do it, because they know the referee will stop the game and it's become such an easy tactic to exploit, to waste time, relieve pressure, slow the game down and stop attacks etc.
I honestly think they should just play on if someone is lying on the ground. If they need treatment on the pitch they are inactive and the game goes on around them. Only stop it if they need to be stretchered off, which rarely happens. Otherwise, if you're on the ground, you're still active and can still potentially play people onside.
Potential head injury or someone goes down holding their head/face, just send them off for a period of time, 5 minutes minimum for HIA. Being down to 10 men regularly would soon stop them taking the piss.