Clear and obvious

[Paladin]

This appears on the PL website from July 2019.

"VAR can be used to overturn a subjective decision if a "clear and obvious error" has been identified.

The referee will explain their decision to the VAR, and what they have seen.

If the evidence provided by the broadcast footage does not accord with what the referee believes they have seen, then the VAR can recommend an overturn."

VAR: Clear and obvious explained

www.premierleague.com

What's is neither clear or obvious is why the PL chooses to apply both these words to an error by the referee as their criteria for a VAR overturn. Clear and obvious are synonyms of each other, and there they are not both needed. Using both does not reinforce or strengthen the case for a referral to the VAR.

In the Maguire incident this weekend, the referee should have to explain what he saw to the VAR. In order for him not to have given a penalty, he would have had to describe something quite innocuous. The VAR would have then looked at all the camera angles and said back to the referee, "No, you've got it wrong, there is a definite foul. You should award a penalty, or at least go to the monitor yourself and review your original decision, because I'm not having this one come back on me if a penalty is not awarded."

Instead, we have been told that a penalty was not awarded because there wasn't enough of an error by the referee.

This selective use of VAR is clearly and obviously corruption, right in front of our eyes. Not only should the officials involved have to explain why there was no VAR overturn, they should also have to explain why their own criteria was not used.

 

[Gazza]

Strange how they've used of picture of with Chris Smalling playing for United - did he ever play a game in this country under VAR rules?

 

[flook]

Said it before and I'll say it again, until the refs are miked up and accountable for their decisions incidents like this will continue. If the conspiracy theorists are correct and VAR/officialdom in general favours the red agenda, then this will never happen

 

[Gordyola]

Instead, we have been told that a penalty was not awarded because there wasn't enough of an error by the referee.

When the incident is viewed from all angles the only decision that could be given is penalty, suggesting that the error wasn’t enough is a nonsense.
Maguire has his arm around his neck he’s pull to ground yet it’s not enough to give a pen Then you see an incident where a player is touched, no pressure or force, he goes to ground and the ref gives a pen the pundits verdict,
well there was contact

 

[laserblue]

When the incident is viewed from all angles the only decision that could be given is penalty, suggesting that the error wasn’t enough is a nonsense.
Maguire has his arm around his neck he’s pull to ground yet it’s not enough to give a pen Then you see an incident where a player is touched, no pressure or force, he goes to ground and the ref gives a pen the pundits verdict,
well there was contact

Or even worse "He was entitled to go down".

 

[Saddleworth2]

This appears on the PL website from July 2019.

"VAR can be used to overturn a subjective decision if a "clear and obvious error" has been identified.

The referee will explain their decision to the VAR, and what they have seen.

If the evidence provided by the broadcast footage does not accord with what the referee believes they have seen, then the VAR can recommend an overturn."

VAR: Clear and obvious explained

www.premierleague.com

What's is neither clear or obvious is why the PL chooses to apply both these words to an error by the referee as their criteria for a VAR overturn. Clear and obvious are synonyms of each other, and there they are not both needed. Using both does not reinforce or strengthen the case for a referral to the VAR.

In the Maguire incident this weekend, the referee should have to explain what he saw to the VAR. In order for him not to have given a penalty, he would have had to describe something quite innocuous. The VAR would have then looked at all the camera angles and said back to the referee, "No, you've got it wrong, there is a definite foul. You should award a penalty, or at least go to the monitor yourself and review your original decision, because I'm not having this one come back on me if a penalty is not awarded."

Instead, we have been told that a penalty was not awarded because there wasn't enough of an error by the referee.

This selective use of VAR is clearly and obviously corruption, right in front of our eyes. Not only should the officials involved have to explain why there was no VAR overturn, they should also have to explain why their own criteria was not used.

And why are the sports press not asking exactly that question and demanding a credible answer. Oh wait.....

 

[manchester blue]

When the referee gives a foul when there was the slightest hand on a back and the player goes down with the customary backflip yet this cheat deems that was not a foul. Officiating/cheating is ruining the game.

 

[red 2 hats]

Clear and obvious has one true meaning, if it clearly doesn't benefit united or Liverpool, it's obviously the wrong decision.
That Maguire incident was not only a penalty it was a straight red for assault.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I think 'clear and obvious' referrers to the colour of the team shirt.

 

[dario2739]

This appears on the PL website from July 2019.

"VAR can be used to overturn a subjective decision if a "clear and obvious error" has been identified.

The referee will explain their decision to the VAR, and what they have seen.

If the evidence provided by the broadcast footage does not accord with what the referee believes they have seen, then the VAR can recommend an overturn."

VAR: Clear and obvious explained

www.premierleague.com

What's is neither clear or obvious is why the PL chooses to apply both these words to an error by the referee as their criteria for a VAR overturn. Clear and obvious are synonyms of each other, and there they are not both needed. Using both does not reinforce or strengthen the case for a referral to the VAR.

In the Maguire incident this weekend, the referee should have to explain what he saw to the VAR. In order for him not to have given a penalty, he would have had to describe something quite innocuous. The VAR would have then looked at all the camera angles and said back to the referee, "No, you've got it wrong, there is a definite foul. You should award a penalty, or at least go to the monitor yourself and review your original decision, because I'm not having this one come back on me if a penalty is not awarded."

Instead, we have been told that a penalty was not awarded because there wasn't enough of an error by the referee.

This selective use of VAR is clearly and obviously corruption, right in front of our eyes. Not only should the officials involved have to explain why there was no VAR overturn, they should also have to explain why their own criteria was not used.

VAR is being used to script the outcome of the league – and it's laughable how blatant they're being about it!