Referees/Officials 2017/18 performances

[MillionMilesAway]

Interestingly the one area of contention - that pundits always get wrong - may actually be revealed to the world by VAR - i.e. At what point is offside judged. Guidence is that offside is actually judged from the moment the boot/head touches the ball to kick/head it (not from the moment It leaves tge boot/head). The lines superimposed on TV pictures for offside decisions are ALWAYS wrong on this point.
For example the Jesus goal from the David Silva pass after his movement beyond the (Arsenal?) back line - offside by TV punditry - was actually marginal and you would need to freeze frame it to judge offside correctly. Personally my opinion is if you need to freeze frame it then its not offside as the player is "level".

Not a bad guideline.
I agree that the TV line is often a bit odd, and I've seen two channels have different opinions, which just shows how even TV won't help. It's similar to cricket's 'umpire's call' - if it's too close to tell (as say for a goal at the weekend where they reckoned a player's foot was 6" ahead), then the onfield decision stands.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Yep, if we're looking for the correct decision then Sterling is penalised for holding Zaha around 25 yards out.

I also agree that it wasn't an obvious dive but would VAR ask that question? Wouldn't they ask if there was a foul in the penalty area instead?

Not if the Rugby direction is followed - ie did any thing happen to overturn the decision on the pitch.
That said as I have said elsewhere FIFA want VAR will be like an assistant referee with very quick decisions so it will be a fairly quick Yes or No decision.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

We all know Neil Warnock is a bit of a weirdo, but last night he said that that the standard of refereeing was lower than it's ever been. Not just in his own team's game, but he also referred to recent PL games he'd seen.
Wenger (monocular vision expert) also said that refs in the Italian league were far better than ours.
I know that managers have a biased view of decisions, but I think it's beginning to be made public that our refs are far from the perfectly impartial judges we used to like to think they were. (Presumably) impartial judges like Henry Winter (amazed how Moss refused to send Puncheon off for assault) and Clattenburg (there was barely any contact for Zaha to go down, it was never a pen, and Moss was too far away to give a decision) in yesterday's "Times" are starting to see this bunch for what they \re.

I have every sympathy with refs who have to make a decision on something borderline, but these incidents are far from borderline. Refs have hidden far too long behind the excuse that they "don't have action replays like armchair viewers do", or "players make mistakes why aren't refs allowed to".
They make a rod for their own back by giving outrageous decisions (or not doing) when it is blatantly obvious what has happened.
It' time for an overhaul.

Well firstly the rules are pretty daft. For example, Moss couldn't red card Puncheon and play the advantage (if he intended to send Puncheon off). Under the laws he can really only do one or the other, which is daft.
Secondly, because the rules are daft and deliberately vague in areas, they're too open to interpretation and decision-making is inconsistent.
Thirdly, there is no legitimate and effective mechanism to correct mistakes either during or post-match.

So this system is inherently flawed and suits a minority of influencers over the sport itself. There are very sensible suggestions, effectively implemented and clearly defined VAR, putting players on report whilst still issuing a caution and full scope to retrospectively review and punish misdemeanours.

Instead, we get a dubious and farcical diving ban rule which seems to only apply to foreign players. England players are given a mandatory yellow card for vicious tackles which are basically attempts to cripple rivals and take foreign players out of World Cup contention, and a different set of rules seems to be applied depending on the game.

I suspect not much will ever change, but I won't shed a tear when England are down to 10 men every game in the World Cup for a combination of leg-breaking tackles and dives that they have been conditioned to get away with here, but international referees will ping them for. They'll get what they deserve, they'll have no protection in Russia like they do now.

 

[Rolee]

Not if the Rugby direction is followed - ie did any thing happen to overturn the decision on the pitch.
That said as I have said elsewhere FIFA want VAR will be like an assistant referee with very quick Decisions.

If we're taking the rugby example then Moss asks 'is there any reason I can't award this penalty?', answer then should be 'yes, there's no foul you dumb twat'.

 

[BlueAnorak]

If we're taking the rugby example then Moss asks 'is there any reason I can't award this penalty?', answer then should be 'yes, there's no foul you dumb twat'.

LOL.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Well firstly the rules are pretty daft. For example, Moss couldn't red card Puncheon and play the advantage (if he intended to send Puncheon off). Under the laws he can really only do one or the other, which is daft.
<snip>.

I think they can, it's just discouraged in case a goal is scored by the offending team/player. The laws were changed this year and it now says this:

Advantage
If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / send off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution / send off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except when the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity results in a goal the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour.

Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player when the ball is next out of play but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick, unless the player committed a more serious offence.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

It is ever so typical of the FArce to instigate a system of referral some hours AFTER the penalty is won, AFTER the player is sent off, AFTER the three points are in the bag for the team with the cheat and then go through some variable charade of redressing the issue of cheats in the game! And then often at the insistence of a sports broadcaster. Why not do the referral at the time? Every other sport that uses video referral does just that! The FArce will never come up with a system that deals with the issue head on. Much better to fudge it, bury yer head in the sand and insult people's intelligence and suggest that we have the clearest method of removing cheats from the game the moment the cheating starts.

 

[Bozzie]

Is the '3 person panel' the same three for every referral or do they randomly select three people from an approved list? So did the same three people decide Niasse was guilty as found Gray and Zaha not guilty? Not sure which is the best/worst scenario or whether it really makes much difference, if it has to be unanimous then more often than not someone will have an interest in voting no. Personally I'd go 2 games for a full house and 1 game for a 2 to 1 majority.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Is the '3 person panel' the same three for every referral or do they randomly select three people from an approved list? So did the same three people decide Niasse was guilty as found Gray and Zaha not guilty? Not sure which is the best/worst scenario or whether it really makes much difference, if it has to be unanimous then more often than not someone will have an interest in voting no. Personally I'd go 2 games for a full house and 1 game for a 2 to 1 majority.

The fact that Niasse got done and Gray didn't just demonstrates to me that the system employed would not know an arse from an elbow. I've not seen the Zaha 'tumble' but if it's anything like the Grey one the system is no longer credible.

 

[Bob Smiles]

Maybe for VAR, they should have had a list of the issues they want it to resolve: offside goals, penalties, serious fouls, dives etc. and they could have introduced it step by step as and when they thought they had a decent solution to each issue. As has been mentioned earlier, VAR for offsides could have been implemented many years ago and also whether a ball has gone out of play or not (if you want to go that far). They are pretty clear cut, black and white decisions with no subjectivity involved. That would have prepared the officials/public/clubs for a more significant implementation of VAR. If there are problems with VAR, you wouldn't want them suspending it and losing what good it can do.

In other sports, I'm sure there have been teething issues such as in cricket but, I'm sure, most of the obvious howlers have a good chance to be overturned. I'm sure, using VAR, Kane would have seen red, Alli would have seen red, Murphy would have seen red, Puncheon would have seen red, maybe Dann too. And they would have seen it on the pitch too, almost immediately which is the best solution. The really incredulous thing is none of them received a retrospective ban because decisions were made on the pitch. That's stupid beyond belief.