VAR thread 2022/23

[Deleted member 77198]

Trippier's intention was to take out the player, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking about the consequences.

From Kev's reaction he knew the outcome could have been serious. If Kev had have been half a step closer it would have been excessive.

That again is in the wording for a yellow card.

If Kev was a step closer and the tackle was different maybe excessive force may have been used… but it wasn’t.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

If it had been a different tackle, it would have been judged on how it happened.

Being half a step different is irrelevant to this particular decision.

If the referee had deemed it to be a Yellow card at the time, I'd have had no argument. But he gave a Red and it didn't top the high bar that the PL state when considering intervention from the VAR Ref for a 'Clear & Obvious error.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

If the referee had deemed it to be a Yellow card at the time, I'd have had no argument. But he gave a Red and it didn't top the high bar that the PL state when considering intervention from the VAR Ref for a 'Clear & Obvious error.

Sure and that’s been debated on here for pages.

Either clear and obvious needs specifying or it needs binning.

 

[Bill]

new champions required so VAR goes to work .

 

[Eds]

For all the half wits on here these are the laws of the game regarding red cards

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.

For the past few seasons all we have heard about is when a player, making a tackle, has two feet off the ground he is out of control. Trippier lunged, from a distance, at KDB who was running a full tilt, both feet were off the ground, thus out of control and therefore was endangering the safety of the player. The challenge doesn't have to have excessive force. Once the red card had been shown we are then told about the high bar required for it to be overturned. The bar suddenly dropped to the ground as their is no cleat and obvious error made by the ref.

Did Trippier lunge? Yes
From the side? Yes
Out of control? Yes
Endangering the safety of the player? Given that contact was at knee height then the answer is more than likely, yes.

So where are the ground for an overturn. There are none so this debate should end now.

In rugby the ref and TMO would look at a red card incident and work through a framework to ensure the correct decision is made https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/13

I have just gone through the framework for football and still arrived at a red, there is no question in my mind that the ref made the correct decision in the first instance and was then 'persuaded' to change his mind. Have to protect the brand don't we, don't want little nasty City winning game after game. Utterly corrupt and not sure why people on here can't see it unless of course you are all WUM.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

For all the half wits on here these are the laws of the game regarding red cards

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.

For the past few seasons all we have heard about is when a player, making a tackle, has two feet off the ground he is out of control. Trippier lunged, from a distance, at KDB who was running a full tilt, both feet were off the ground, thus out of control and therefore was endangering the safety of the player. The challenge doesn't have to have excessive force. Once the red card had been shown we are then told about the high bar required for it to be overturned. The bar suddenly dropped to the ground as their is no cleat and obvious error made by the ref.

Did Trippier lunge? Yes
From the side? Yes
Out of control? Yes
Endangering the safety of the player? Given that contact was at knee height then the answer is more than likely, yes.

So where are the ground for an overturn. There are none so this debate should end now.

In rugby the ref and TMO would look at a red card incident and work through a framework to ensure the correct decision is made https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/13

I have just gone through the framework for football and still arrived at a red, there is no question in my mind that the ref made the correct decision in the first instance and was then 'persuaded' to change his mind. Have to protect the brand don't we, don't want little nasty City winning game after game. Utterly corrupt and not sure why people on here can't see it unless of course you are all WUM.

The big in bold- that’s from pundits who don’t know the laws of the game.

You’ve literally just posted the wording for a red card and then used wording that aren’t in the laws that are used by pundits.

“Off the ground” and “out of control” are not worded in the laws of the game.

This is the wording for a yellow card:

• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned

The key bit to make it a red card is “excessive force” and there wasn’t any.

 

[Blue Mist]

You’ve just described a yellow card.

As I said, tell that to KDB. Perhaps we should scrap var and just say if a bloke goes off on a stretcher it's a red, anything else is a yellow.
It was reckless, it could have seriously injured Kev that it didn't is just down to luck.
My point is a professional footballer knows a bad/reckless tackle, one likely to cause serious injury. Kevs reaction said it all.

 

[Eds]

The big in bold- that’s from pundits who don’t know the laws of the game.

You’ve literally just posted the wording for a red card and then used wording that aren’t in the laws that are used by pundits.

“Off the ground” and “out of control” are not worded in the laws of the game.

This is the wording for a yellow card:


The key bit to make it a red card is “excessive force” and there wasn’t any.

Oh here we go. Read the LOTG, there doesn't need to be excessive force so it's not the key bit. Please read this part again ' 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.

And whilst I agree about off the ground and out of control it's what everyone has been banging on about for many seasons. Regardless Trippier was lunging at KDB from the side, two footed and over the ball. That in my mind was endangering his safety hence the card and having given the card there was no logical reason to overturn his own decision.

 

[halfcenturyup]

To be a red card it has to be excessive force and it clearly and obviously wasn’t. He only dinked the side of de Bruyne’s leg with the side of his toe.

The ref’s initial opinion from seeing it once, at one speed, from one angle was that it was red. After a number of replays from a number of angles and speeds, he came to a much more informed and the correct decision.

One replay was all I needed to show he’d hardly touched him and there was no excessive force.

Excessive force OR endangering an opponent.

 

[old blue]

yep

dodgy replay and in a flash goal given

After being told by Neville he was not offside.