said that the other day, take var out of the equation why have neither jota or clyne been called out for cheating because thats what it is
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
VAR Discussion Thread - 2023/24 | PL clubs to vote on whether to scrap VAR (pg413)
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
Just seen the Everton one last night. Was there any contact ? Personally thought perhaps a yellow for both players ! But more a yellow for the palace player for play acting.
I've just watched the Calvert-Lewin red card after hearing all the fuss and I don't really understand why people think it's an outrageous red card?
Contact doesn't matter, it hasn't done for 20 years, the law is about endangering the opposition and going into challenges studs up and a foot off the ground has been a red card for about as long. It was a bit slow, which is why it's not a red 100 times out of 100, but I think most referees would give that if shown the full speed replay.
I actually think Roy Hodgson summed it up perfectly.
"Lots of people who played in the past watching that will say that's not a red card, but people playing recently will probably say it is a red card because of the way the studs were up and he [Calvert-Lewin] was leading with a straight leg."
SkyBlueFlux
Well-Known Member
Mentioned it in this thread a few months ago. Think it was a sending off for Celtic in the CL.
The referee being allowed to use slow-motion and freeze frame things continues to be a big issue. They absolutely need to consider the whole action, freeze framing robs the incident of context. If a decision is being made on the basis of one frame then it is outright wrong. It would be fine if the referees were smart enough to understand this but they’re clearly not as they keep making decisions like this where everything is slowed to a crawl, so the ability to do that needs to be taken away from them.
This was another prime example. Yes boot was high. Yes he’s clipped him. But with absolutely zero momentum and he’s not out of control or wreckless at all. It’s a clear yellow for me. A red is absurd.
The referee being allowed to use slow-motion and freeze frame things continues to be a big issue. They absolutely need to consider the whole action, freeze framing robs the incident of context. If a decision is being made on the basis of one frame then it is outright wrong. It would be fine if the referees were smart enough to understand this but they’re clearly not as they keep making decisions like this where everything is slowed to a crawl, so the ability to do that needs to be taken away from them.
This was another prime example. Yes boot was high. Yes he’s clipped him. But with absolutely zero momentum and he’s not out of control or wreckless at all. It’s a clear yellow for me. A red is absurd.
Last edited:
BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 36,994
I've just watched the Calvert-Lewin red card after hearing all the fuss and I don't really understand why people think it's an outrageous red card?
Contact doesn't matter, it hasn't done for 20 years, the law is about endangering the opposition and going into challenges studs up and a foot off the ground has been a red card for about as long. It was a bit slow, which is why it's not a red 100 times out of 100, but I think most referees would give that if shown the full speed replay.
I actually think Roy Hodgson summed it up perfectly.
"Lots of people who played in the past watching that will say that's not a red card, but people playing recently will probably say it is a red card because of the way the studs were up and he [Calvert-Lewin] was leading with a straight leg."
yep, I've just watched it, can totally see how that is a red, 'if' Clynes leg was couple inches across that could have done some serious damage. of course i'll now be accused of being a VAR loving WUM.
problem is as always, so many people see incidences like that differently - there would be loads outraged had that not been a red after watching the replay and the usual 'what is VAR for!'
tornandfrayed
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 414
Absolute rubbish, anyone who has played the game can see that there's not enough force to do any injury. It's a tackle that players do all the time - getting their foot between the player and the ball and hooking it away. Which is why the referee who was perfectly placed to see it didn't give a free kick.yep, I've just watched it, can totally see how that is a red, 'if' Clynes leg was couple inches across that could have done some serious damage. of course i'll now be accused of being a VAR loving WUM.
problem is as always, so many people see incidences like that differently - there would be loads outraged had that not been a red after watching the replay and the usual 'what is VAR for!'
BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 36,994
Absolute rubbish, anyone who has played the game can see that there's not enough force to do any injury. It's a tackle that players do all the time - getting their foot between the player and the ball and hooking it away. Which is why the referee who was perfectly placed to see it didn't give a free kick.
I played for about 30 years and can't recall ever going into a tackle with studs up over the ball.
On reflection perhaps a yellow would have been more justified as mentioned there wasn't much speed or force but I can see how it was a red.
Ultimately the ref was placed to see it, he had a second look on the monitor and deemed it a red. it's the refs decision. no one else's.
Rugby Union has a framework for high tackles / shoulder charges etc which allows the refs to reach the right decision. They also have the discussion with the TMO and their line judges but ultimately it's the refs decision. I think this is the latest framework
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://passport.world.rugby/media/0w1dhpp1/2019-playerwelfare-hightackledecision_v2_en.pdf
Refs in football have nothing like this to help them make a decision and of course we don't get to hear how they have reached their decision. The LOTG state the following should be red card offences:
SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality 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 or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
VIOLENT CONDUCT
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.
In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.
Why didn't the ref have the balls to say fuck off it isn't a red, at best a yellow. Everton should demand the transcripts and then release it to the world. Webb needs to either come out and say under his watch it's getting worse or just resign. The other oddity is that if Neverton had been playing away at a Championship side or below then there wouldn't have been VAR to interfere. Same competition, different rules.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://passport.world.rugby/media/0w1dhpp1/2019-playerwelfare-hightackledecision_v2_en.pdf
Refs in football have nothing like this to help them make a decision and of course we don't get to hear how they have reached their decision. The LOTG state the following should be red card offences:
SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality 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 or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
VIOLENT CONDUCT
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.
In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.
Why didn't the ref have the balls to say fuck off it isn't a red, at best a yellow. Everton should demand the transcripts and then release it to the world. Webb needs to either come out and say under his watch it's getting worse or just resign. The other oddity is that if Neverton had been playing away at a Championship side or below then there wouldn't have been VAR to interfere. Same competition, different rules.
It's been hard to avoid articles about Jota diving - and most pundits have come out against him.said that the other day, take var out of the equation why have neither jota or clyne been called out for cheating because thats what it is
However, there were also quite a few about Dubravka saying it was a penalty, which I think are wrong. As far as I can see, he was stating a fact, i.e. the penalty was given, so that can't be changed now. I got the impression that he agreed it shouldn't have been given.
fair play i tend to try and stay away from the media as much as possible as their bias tendencies get on my nerves but im glad theyve called it out.It's been hard to avoid articles about Jota diving - and most pundits have come out against him.
However, there were also quite a few about Dubravka saying it was a penalty, which I think are wrong. As far as I can see, he was stating a fact, i.e. the penalty was given, so that can't be changed now. I got the impression that he agreed it shouldn't have been given.
Rugby Union has a framework for high tackles / shoulder charges etc which allows the refs to reach the right decision. They also have the discussion with the TMO and their line judges but ultimately it's the refs decision. I think this is the latest framework
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://passport.world.rugby/media/0w1dhpp1/2019-playerwelfare-hightackledecision_v2_en.pdf
Refs in football have nothing like this to help them make a decision and of course we don't get to hear how they have reached their decision. The LOTG state the following should be red card offences:
SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality 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 or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
VIOLENT CONDUCT
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.
In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.
Why didn't the ref have the balls to say fuck off it isn't a red, at best a yellow. Everton should demand the transcripts and then release it to the world. Webb needs to either come out and say under his watch it's getting worse or just resign. The other oddity is that if Neverton had been playing away at a Championship side or below then there wouldn't have been VAR to interfere. Same competition, different rules.
This is because Rugby has had VAR for 23 years now as opposed to football's 5, and the rule book has been rewritten to reflect the TMO existing. Football's showing real resistance to doing that, but they'll have to eventually.
Bringing in decisions trees for all red card offences (There's only 7!) would immediately cut out 75% of VAR and refereeing complaints, it allows the fan to understand the thought process even if they disagree.