Referees' Performances | 2025/26

danielwood5 said:
Which is why VAR doesnt work and definitely, definitely shouldn't have been used in this instance.

The nature of the incident(s) itself, the Laws of the Game and the actual VAR protocol meant this was the worst possible type of incident for VAR to get involved with.
Multiple instances of holding, grappling, diving and shithousery going on at once from both sets of players, timing of the goal in the game, the likely ramifications at either end of the table, the precedence set all season particularly by one of the teams involved in this incident mean this was probably the stupidest VAR intervention of all time.

Let's face it, if the goal was allowed to stand Arsenal fans would be pissed off, the rest of the footballing world would be telling Arsenal fans that they've been doing the same all season so they dont get to whinge when they come a cropper to their own tactics, and the pundits would be telling us it was a great bit of refereeing as he spotted the foul from Trossard which caused Pablo to come into contact with the on rushing keeper who definitely "should have been stronger there" and "should have stood his ground rather than rush into the melee".

This was the kind of decision that the whole "clear and obvious" guidance was written for, instead they've dived in on an incident that's been happening all season for the first time in almost 2 seasons and effectively decided the top and bottom of the table making the Premier League look as much like a sporting competition as WWE.

Also, if Pablo had headed over after being held then it should be a penalty. Contrary to what we've seen the last two seasons, it's an offence to impede the progress of a player without making an attempt to play the ball therefore a foul in the box which under 99% of circumstances is a penalty.
Click to expand...
I largely agree.

The last paragraph creates a paradox though as in this instance, it’s an offence to impede the progress of a player (attempt at playing the ball is only relevant in DOGSOs), which applies to both Pablo and Trossard.

Had I been in charge, I’d have not got involved as the VAR ref, but can see how they’ve got to their decision, without fully agreeing with it.

Perhaps there needs to be an amendment to the law. Refs generally leave mutual holding alone, but that’s currently only for two players. Perhaps if a third player is holding the second player, who then subsequently impedes the first player, than that should fall in the mutual holding rule.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
What does asking this question ever achieve? It didn’t happen at the other end, so it’s a hypothetical scenario, as was whoever was asking about the Liverpool CL tie.

The answers are emotional ones, not borne out of fact.
Click to expand...
Sorry that's a very silly reply. What does debating anything achieve? Why are you even on this forum?
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Sure, but shy of having robo-refs, that’s never going to change.

Either that or send it to a random VAR somewhere else in the world in black and white with all semblance of stadium identity removed.

There’s also the refs choosing the “safest” option.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it matters who referees it’s depends on the backlash. It’s natural like the cup final, instead of the refs spoilt the occasion it was ignored & all about the giant killing now just imagine if that was the other way.

The fans & the club don’t make any noise but Pep uses that to say we need to be better, other teams get emotional.

There’s certain things that stand out for me & that’s yellow cards, there’s a directive not to give yellows for fouls when playing with a low block. Now if you wanted to screw a team over you can give directives that inadvertently benefit teams.

We are receiving higher yellows per foul than our opponents, that puts Nunes & Oreilly at a higher risk than the bloke marking Doku.
 
cheekybids said:
I don’t think it matters who referees it’s depends on the backlash. It’s natural like the cup final, instead of the refs spoilt the occasion it was ignored & all about the giant killing now just imagine if that was the other way.

The fans & the club don’t make any noise but Pep uses that to say we need to be better, other teams get emotional.

There’s certain things that stand out for me & that’s yellow cards, there’s a directive not to give yellows for fouls when playing with a low block. Now if you wanted to screw a team over you can give directives that inadvertently benefit teams.

We are receiving higher yellows per foul than our opponents, that puts Nunes & Oreilly at a higher risk than the bloke marking Doku.
Click to expand...
The yellow card issue is another minefield. Take our last game. 8 fouls, 4 yellow cards. Corrupt right?

Then when it’s broken down;

Bernardo gets booked for “punching” an opponent. (Not a foul)
Nunes gets booked for pushing Henderson. (Not a foul)
Marmoush stops a quick corner being taken. (Not a foul)
O’Reilly gets booked for blatantly dragging back their player to kill a promising attack. A nailed on booking.

So 8 fouls, 1 booking.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I largely agree.

The last paragraph creates a paradox though as in this instance, it’s an offence to impede the progress of a player (attempt at playing the ball is only relevant in DOGSOs), which applies to both Pablo and Trossard.

Had I been in charge, I’d have not got involved as the VAR ref, but can see how they’ve got to their decision, without fully agreeing with it.

Perhaps there needs to be an amendment to the law. Refs generally leave mutual holding alone, but that’s currently only for two players. Perhaps if a third player is holding the second player, who then subsequently impedes the first player, than that should fall in the mutual holding rule.
Click to expand...
I actually got it wrong, impeding the progress of a player is an indirect freekick but holding a player, I.e. what Trossard, Rice, Saliba, Gabriel and Pablo were doing is an indirect freekick offence so if the only offence was Trossard holding Pablo, who then couldn't get his header off cleanly, then it would be a penalty.

I dont think they need to change the laws at all, just apply the rules as they are already written. It's in there in plain black and white;

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)

holds an opponent

impedes an opponent with contact

bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official

throws an object at the ball, an opponent or a match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object"

I dont think asking referees to apply the Laws as they're written should be that controversial really, however, if they're going to use a 'loose' interpretation of the laws then they should use that same interpretation throughout the entire season.

The entire decision to ignore the laws at set plays isn't just 1 particularly easygoing referee ignoring it while the others played to the rules, nor was the decision to pull up the foul at the weekend down to a particularly strict referee as is evidenced by the other similar incidents in games they've referee'd in the last 2 seasons. All referees have different personalities and some are fussier than others, some easier to con with a dive, etc but the decision to ignore holding for the past two seasons by all referees in all games means this is the standard that they've been refereeing to and players have become accustomed to, adjusting tactics accordingly. To then choose the one time they apply the laws correctly in regard to 1 possible foul, while simultaneously ignoring the multiple fouls occurring before the goalkeeper is even touched, in the dying minutes of a game at the arse end of the season to rule out a goal that in all likelihood has now decided the league winners and the final relegated team is baffling beyond belief.
I genuinely believe that if this scenario happened in Italy fans of all clubs over here, Arsenal fans included, would be pretty convinced that it was just another Calciopoli scandal waiting to be broken.
 
Last edited:
Chris in London said:
I have to say, the chances that neville is simply repeating the issues being discussed at Stocksley Park seem infinitely more likely than the chances that they are waiting to see what the Great Gary has to say about the matter before making the decision.

What matters is that nobody seems to be making the point that the decision to award the goal was not clearly and obviously wrong. In other words, for one game only, the threshold at which VAR interventions are permissible was lowered considerably.

Why is nobody, not the BBC, not Sky Sports, not Football 365, talking about that?

Putting the same point a different way, during game 36 of a 38 game season, they decided to change the rules in a way that benefits two of the teams that were instrumental in creating the Premier League.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I didn't suggest that they were effecively wating for some TV pundit's comments. What I said what that those comments could influnce their decsion if they herd them. I think it' unlikely but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
The yellow card issue is another minefield. Take our last game. 8 fouls, 4 yellow cards. Corrupt right?

Then when it’s broken down;

Bernardo gets booked for “punching” an opponent. (Not a foul)
Nunes gets booked for pushing Henderson. (Not a foul)
Marmoush stops a quick corner being taken. (Not a foul)
O’Reilly gets booked for blatantly dragging back their player to kill a promising attack. A nailed on booking.

So 8 fouls, 1 booking.
Click to expand...
Bernardo got sent off for handball after deliberately leaning into the path of the ball. Gabriel did exactly the same thing and it was dismissed by VAR. What's the difference? The difference is inconsistency.
 
Stephen230 said:
The International Football Association Board (Ifab) believes fans should be informed of decisions, but not hear them being made live.

"I categorically say no, they shouldn't," Ifab secretary and chief executive Lukas Brud told BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast's Rick Edwards.

"I was allowed to observe and see communication between match officials during a review and it is quite a chaotic situation, not in a negative sense but there's many people talking at the same time and I think it would be counterproductive for anyone to listen to all those voices talking to each other."

"Then you have the VAR and the assistant VAR, the replay operators, the referee and maybe even the assistant referees and fourth official, so all of a sudden it becomes quite a chaotic experience. We have given the green light to test the announcement of decisions to bring a little more transparency to decision making, but we are not prepared at this point to open up communication live to the audience."

There have also been calls for football to follow other sports such as rugby and cricket in how they communicate on field decisions to fans, but Brud feels direct comparisons are unrealistic.

"They are different sports with different set ups," he added. "We cannot compare by simply saying it is the same. In football, processes are slightly different.

"Football is different because everyone is putting a magnifying glass on every decision and every single word would then be analysed in the media and it would create a very unsafe environment for referees."
Click to expand...
Then what you do is simply state that whoever is in charge in the VAR hut speaks only to the match referee. Besides, Brud doesn't say whether that's the norm or whether that was one incident in one match so you can't really derive anything from that. Just like these comments. it's just one man's opinion, doesn't mean he's right.
 
coolcity said:
Bernardo got sent off for handball after deliberately leaning into the path of the ball. Gabriel did exactly the same thing and it was dismissed by VAR. What's the difference? The difference is inconsistency.
Click to expand...
Different competitions. One was higher up the arm.

Fans will eat themselves if they’re going to compare decisions all the time. There will never be 100% consistency. That’s the goal to strive for, but there will always be some subjective element to decision making whilst humans are involved in the process.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
The yellow card issue is another minefield. Take our last game. 8 fouls, 4 yellow cards. Corrupt right?

Then when it’s broken down;

Bernardo gets booked for “punching” an opponent. (Not a foul)
Nunes gets booked for pushing Henderson. (Not a foul)
Marmoush stops a quick corner being taken. (Not a foul)
O’Reilly gets booked for blatantly dragging back their player to kill a promising attack. A nailed on booking.

So 8 fouls, 1 booking.
Click to expand...
Marmoush booking annoyed me because it came seconds after Tiago stood way too close to one of our free kicks for about 30 seconds with the ref doing fuck all about it.
 
We were told when Haaland scored the third at Klanfield that the old fashioned “2 wrongs don’t even themselves out” so the first foul resulted in the scouser being sent off. Re the West Ham goal however the first foul doesn’t count because there was another foul considered more important. Which is it? I have said all season this corner shit will end at the end of the season once Arsenal win the league and the laws and interpretations are changed - this joke of a decision at weekend has just made it a certainty
 
Read a "inside VAR" piece earlier this year. The assistant VAR (wtf?) Was quoted as saying " the TV is focussing on this".

TV is 100% influencing decisions.
 
Just watched the incident on Match Officials Mic'd Up. The VAR team watched replays of the incident 47 times and the referee watched the on screen review 23 times. That's 70 viewings in total. Clear and obvious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top