VAR and Refs | General Discussion | Forest go into meltdown

Powderfinger

Full Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2015
Messages
2,222
Supports
Arsenal
I’m still puzzled how VAR literally reviewed that & came to the conclusion that there’s nothing in it and to allow play to go on :lol:

The mind boggles.
It really raises the question of what exactly you have to do for hair pulling to be considered violent conduct. Does it need to be two fisted? Face stomp the player after you yank him down by the hair?

 

Mb194dc

Full Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
4,654
Supports
Chelsea
There were two VAR mistakes last week, even Dale Johnson was struggling with the propaganda to try and justify it.

Lo Celso didn't even get sent off for a leg breaking stamp in our same fixture a few years ago.

If you want to watch games that are refereed properly don't watch the premier league. It's really as simple as that.
 

rimaldo

All about the essence
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
40,927
Supports
arse
it’s was only a cheeky little hair pull. just like a friendly spanking or the tweaking of a nipple or spitting on someone after you finish making love.
 

Chip

Full Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
2,722
I'd be absolutely livid if I were a Chelsea fan.
 

Idxomer

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
15,260
Sometimes I think that there's a good amount of match-fixing happening in the PL by the refs.
 

Guy Incognito

Full Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
17,775
Location
Somewhere
Chelsea can only blame themselves for not finishing Spurs off but the referee was dreadful. Conte must've had words pre-match.
 

Chief123

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
12,787
He isn't in their league. Get real!
Garbage

How did Romero not get sent off and Chelsea get a free kick when he yanked Cucerella down by his hair?!
I’m still puzzled how VAR literally reviewed that & came to the conclusion that there’s nothing in it and to allow play to go on :lol:

The mind boggles.
Shocking decision today by Taylor. I am suspecting VAR ref told him what happened and he decided it wasn't a foul.
They really should be forced to explain their reasoning in cases like this.
It is pretty shocking that they don’t have to, especially with the introduction of VAR. It literally changes games and is the difference between 3, 1 or 0 points.
They really should. The level of protection is absolutely insane
It really raises the question of what exactly you have to do for hair pulling to be considered violent conduct. Does it need to be two fisted? Face stomp the player after you yank him down by the hair?

There were two VAR mistakes last week, even Dale Johnson was struggling with the propaganda to try and justify it.

Lo Celso didn't even get sent off for a leg breaking stamp in our same fixture a few years ago.

If you want to watch games that are refereed properly don't watch the premier league. It's really as simple as that.
Unbelievable :mad:
I don’t believe VAR were allowed to call it back for a “foul”. The only thing they were allowed to check was if it’s a red card.

Because the foul didn’t lead to a goal or penalty, they aren’t allowed to call it back. If the goal had come from that particular corner, then it would probably have been ruled out because VAR would then call for the foul leading to the goal.

VAR were only checking to see if it was a red card or not.

This is the premier league law:
The VAR will not review incidents outside of the four match-changing situations: goals; penalty decisions; direct red-card incidents; and mistaken identity. It will not review, for example, fouls or handballs in the middle of the pitch when there is no goal or penalty decision.”
 

Remember the geese

Full Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
7,001
Location
Northampton
I don’t believe VAR were allowed to call it back for a “foul”. The only thing they were allowed to check was if it’s a red card.

Because the foul didn’t lead to a goal or penalty, they aren’t allowed to call it back. If the goal had come from that particular corner, then it would probably have been ruled out because VAR would then call for the foul leading to the goal.

VAR were only checking to see if it was a red card or not.

This is the premier league law:
The VAR will not review incidents outside of the four match-changing situations: goals; penalty decisions; direct red-card incidents; and mistaken identity. It will not review, for example, fouls or handballs in the middle of the pitch when there is no goal or penalty decision.”
Not sure why you quoted me.
 

Powderfinger

Full Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2015
Messages
2,222
Supports
Arsenal
I don’t believe VAR were allowed to call it back for a “foul”. The only thing they were allowed to check was if it’s a red card.

Because the foul didn’t lead to a goal or penalty, they aren’t allowed to call it back. If the goal had come from that particular corner, then it would probably have been ruled out because VAR would then call for the foul leading to the goal.

VAR were only checking to see if it was a red card or not.

This is the premier league law:
The VAR will not review incidents outside of the four match-changing situations: goals; penalty decisions; direct red-card incidents; and mistaken identity. It will not review, for example, fouls or handballs in the middle of the pitch when there is no goal or penalty decision.”
I think people get that. The question is why yanking a player down backward by the hair isn't deemed violent conduct, which is a red card.
 

Tony247

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
9,516
VAR were only checking to see if it was a red card or not.
So how this works? VAR didn't even tell Taylor what they were checking and then said carry on because they thought it wasn't a red? Or VAR did tell Taylor what happened and said they are checking if it was a red card. VAR decided it wasn't and then Taylor decided it wasn't even a foul? Surely say even if it wasn't a red, it was a foul anyway! So either a red or no foul at all?

Baffling.
 

Chief123

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
12,787
So how this works? VAR didn't even tell Taylor what they were checking and then said carry on because they thought it wasn't a red? Or VAR did tell Taylor what happened and said they are checking if it was a red card. VAR decided it wasn't and then Taylor decided it wasn't even a foul? Surely say even if it wasn't a red, it was a foul anyway! So either a red or no foul at all?

Baffling.
VAR was checking for a red card incident. They decided it wasn’t a red. After that there’s nothing else they can do. Spurs have to carry on and take the corner. If the ref had seen it and called it a foul then there would have been no follow up corner.

The ref missed it or saw it but didn’t think it was a foul. I’m leaning towards him not even seeing it.
 

Tony247

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
9,516
VAR was checking for a red card incident. They decided it wasn’t a red. After that there’s nothing else they can do. Spurs have to carry on and take the corner. If the ref had seen it and called it a foul then there would have been no follow up corner.

The ref missed it or saw it but didn’t think it was a foul. I’m leaning towards him not even seeing it.
I get that, Thanks. But didn't VAR tell Taylor what they are checking? And if they did then Taylor should he giving a foul albeit not a red one. Right? If Taylor is not informed at all then I can understand it is either red or nothing. But I highly doubt if that was the case.
 

Chief123

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
12,787
I get that, Thanks. But didn't VAR tell Taylor what they are checking? And if they did then Taylor should he giving a foul albeit not a red one. Right? If Taylor is not informed at all then I can understand it is either red or nothing. But I highly doubt if that was the case.
VAR would only be checking red card. So no doubt the ref knows what they are checking. Because it can only be a penalty or a red card in that particular passage of play. If VAR decide it’s not a red card offence, the ref can’t then decide it’s a foul because he should have called for it in the first place. He can’t retrospectively call for the foul.
 

Tony247

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
9,516
VAR would only be checking red card. So no doubt the ref knows what they are checking. Because it can only be a penalty or a red card in that particular passage of play. If VAR decide it’s not a red card offence, the ref can’t then decide it’s a foul because he should have called for it in the first place. He can’t retrospectively call for the foul.
That's so weird if true.
 

Chief123

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
12,787
That's so weird if true.
It is strange but I guess they don’t want to use VAR for anything other than major incidents.

The irony is that if Mendy didn’t save the header and tip it over the bar, it would have been a disallowed goal and chelsea would have won 2-1 because VAR could call for the foul now as it’s led to a goal.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
34,063
Surprised hair pulling like that isn't an automatic straight red.
 

Ish

Lights on for Luke
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
32,179
Location
Voted the best city in the world
They really should be forced to explain their reasoning in cases like this.
Yeah agreed.
It really raises the question of what exactly you have to do for hair pulling to be considered violent conduct. Does it need to be two fisted? Face stomp the player after you yank him down by the hair?

It’s insane. Someone will get sent off for the exact same offence again.
 

Chief123

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
12,787
Playing devils advocate, is pulling his hair any different to pulling his shirt. Cucurella obviously has longer hair than normal and is much easier to grab than any other player. In this scenario, pulling his hair is the same as pulling his shirt no?
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
30,470
Supports
Everton
I disagree with the notion that VAR should only check if it was a red card. It’s not fair that a yellow card offence can influence a game as such. Though on this occasion it was definitely a red.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
49,923
Location
W.Yorks
I disagree with the notion that VAR should only check if it was a red card. It’s not fair that a yellow card offence can influence a game as such.
VAR literally can't reverse second yellow card decisions....that's how dumb the system is.
 

Mb194dc

Full Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
4,654
Supports
Chelsea
Playing devils advocate, is pulling his hair any different to pulling his shirt. Cucurella obviously has longer hair than normal and is much easier to grab than any other player. In this scenario, pulling his hair is the same as pulling his shirt no?
Hair pulling in that manner is violent conduct should be a red imo. The difference is hair is attached to the body. Like pushing someone in the face will get you a red too.

Ronaldo got sent off in the CL for a much tamer hair pull than that.
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
30,470
Supports
Everton
VAR literally can't reverse second yellow card decisions....that's how dumb the system is.
Yes, I’ve never understood why PL clubs accept it being used for some things but not for others. It makes no sense when the things they don’t use it for or can’t use it for can have just as much of an impact on points.
 

Andycoleno9

matchday malcontent
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
28,972
Location
Croatia
Nothing to do with Var today. Ref should have seen hair pulling and give a,foul to Chelsea. Ref literally cost Chelsea two points today
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
6,583
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
VAR was checking for a red card incident. They decided it wasn’t a red. After that there’s nothing else they can do. Spurs have to carry on and take the corner. If the ref had seen it and called it a foul then there would have been no follow up corner.

The ref missed it or saw it but didn’t think it was a foul. I’m leaning towards him not even seeing it.
Because Mike Dean is a bald cnut with shit for brains.

Textbook violent conduct. There's been an effort in the women's game to stamp this shit out - why is it allowed in the men's game?