Well sure - but the issue is the initial call for a hand in the face came from the linesman, so that implies that Atwell didn't see it somehow. I don't think it's crazy to think that a lino from 25m away would be able to tell exactly what had happened - and again I would draw a distinction between shoving someone on the shoulder and it deflecting up oddly with hitting someone in the face directly (I do appreciate that this is perhaps some Olympic-level hair-splitting, though).
VAR and Refs | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
It doesn't really matter though. The ref and his assistants are a team. The call on the pitch was a red card based on the input from the linesman. The linesman doesn't make the call. The linesman says what he sees and the main official makes the call. It's the same with offsides, the linesman raises his flag but the flag doesn't stop play, play stops when the ref blows his whistle.
It's the same as if a linesman flags for a pen and the ref gives it on the pitch. It doesn't mean there's another set of rules where the clear and obvious threshold doesn't apply. VAR intervenes if the call on the pitch is a clear and obvious error, no matter if it's based on the referee, the assistant or the fourth official seeing the incident.
We can argue all day about deflections here or there, but his hand was up there so it could deflect up to the face, and the referee gave a red card. Was it a clear and obvious error to show a red card, given the high threshold for VAR interventions that they've applied recently? It's a no for me, based on how they have been applying the law. Based on what I personally think I think yellow's a fair decision.
But surely if the lino doesn't actually know who committed the offense to the point where VAR is required it's a strong indication that he didn't have the best view?
The downgrading of the Ziyech red to yellow goes down in English refereeing infamy. We all understand a referee not seeing an incident, but there is no plausible explanation for seeing in real time what is a red card offense, then confirming it on VAR -- no can dispute that Ziyech struck the face of Richarlison (a player I don't like) -- and then downgrading it to a yellow card.
If the argument is that Atwell actually didn't see the hand-to-face strike in real time, then what did he give him a red card in the first place?
The contact was not incidental, as in two players innocently going for a live ball and a stray hand made contact with an opposing face, which would be a yellow card offense. It was undeniably retaliation. And even if the contact was minimal -- meaning the opposing player was in danger of being injured from the strike, then we need to establish as the basis for the red/yellow decision and make sure red card decisions like the one that Casemiro received never happens again.
If the argument is that Atwell actually didn't see the hand-to-face strike in real time, then what did he give him a red card in the first place?
The contact was not incidental, as in two players innocently going for a live ball and a stray hand made contact with an opposing face, which would be a yellow card offense. It was undeniably retaliation. And even if the contact was minimal -- meaning the opposing player was in danger of being injured from the strike, then we need to establish as the basis for the red/yellow decision and make sure red card decisions like the one that Casemiro received never happens again.
Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that he saw a blue-sleeved arm hit the face of a Spurs player without seeing exactly who the arm belonged to in a messy situation. If you subscribe to the "hand in the face is automatic red" then the criteria for a red card has been fulfilled, and obviously at that point it's better to ask the guy with the monitor than guessing and seinding the wrong player off.
Right - but he apparently missed that Ziyech pushed Royal in the shoulder first and wasn't trying to hit him in the face at all, hence the overturned decision.
Again - I fully acknowledge that this is splitting hairs, but given how much was being let go in the match I do think it's an important distinction.
It shouldn’t have been overturned in my opinion. He struck another player in the face and there was no clear or obvious error.
Another bizarre VAR decision.
Probably not - but the whole process is a shambles.
That said knowing now how the game turned out having Ziyech banned for 3 games wouldn't have been unwelcome, so damn you VAR anyways
Has he been that bad? I was wondering why he keeps playing but assumed he’d been doing well. Potter seems to be a fan?
He has been a total trainwreck. Possibly the most disinterested player I've ever seen - looks completely different compared to what he was doing for Morocco. Which makes sense, considering he was literally pleading to leave the club in January. Potter has for some reason responded by increasing his minutes - which has of course been disastrous.
Literally the only thing he does is cut inside and hit crosses with his left foot - and Chelsea currently seem to be set up to never actually cross the ball, so Ziyech just loafs around unable to do anything. He's not fast or physical enough to take players on off the dribble and he has no right foot whatsoever, so he absolutely cannot create any separation whatsoever. Him continuing to play is as damning an indictment of Potter as our form is, in my opinion.
Very strange one then mate. I’m not really sure what’s going on at your place at the moment but it’s been chaos since Tuchel left.
Potter seems to be losing it a bit quite publicly too. Just seen him joking with the media pre Spurs that he was late as he’d been in a crisis meeting.. looks a bit silly now after the result?
Honestly see so many similarities with our Moyes/Woodward era except you’ve blown 600m along the way.
Ziyech getting minutes despite him very publicly wanting to leave sends a very odd message to other players too. He’s clearly not the future so surely he should be minimised?
Why isn’t the ref letting that attack develop and let VAR deal with whether it’s a foul or not?
Because he thought it was a foul and the ball was still in our half. And isn't it only potential offsides they let fly to be checked during attacks? Fouls (or what the ref thinks is a foul) are usually blown for no matter how big the chance is?
We were attacking with an overload. It was a good chance we were going to score, if we did and it was a foul VAR would have ruled it out.
That’s how they’ve been directed to use VAR. If the referee blows he doesn’t have VAR to fall back on. It’s poor refereeing.
Who the feck is this twat tonight? I swear the new ones are even worse than the useless and corrupt old guard.
The bigger question is why did he not blow and then decide to when he seen we had an overload?
The "foul" when we had the 5 on 2 counter was a fecking joke.
But to be honest, we probably would've cocked it up.
But to be honest, we probably would've cocked it up.
Exactly my point. The logical thing is to let it play out and rely on VAR.
But he didn't think it was a foul. He only gave after the complaints from the WH player on the ground.
Did you ask him during half-time? A lot of the time the ref won't react 100% immediately. Needs to have a think, look over to a linesman and so on.
Why the defense of him? He got conned by a dive when we had a 5 on 2 counter
Not showing the replays? From the one angle, it looked out.
Ridiculous
Did they really only have one angle of it? Show us the others.
Supposedly only have the angle we saw on tv. Incredible.
Linesman should see it anyway
Linesman should see it anyway
I'm sure the media will make a song and dance about that like they would if it had been us that scored that....... cnuts
feck off that was never a goal..
Bullshit
Bullshit
But refs favour us or something don't they?
Clowns
Won't hear a word said about it as well. Joke
Second angle looks clearly out
They've just shown another angle as a replay and I swear I could pause it on my box and see it was out of play, clearly.
That was clearly out 
Are people forgetting about the Japan goal at the world cup? The ball on the ground was definitely past the white line, but was the hovering part of the ball past the line? Difficult to tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't. Looked close, but without definitive proof, you go with the onfield decision.
The media will just say play to the whistle.
Clearly out.
Weird that they have a clear angle available that’s not shown until 5 mins after the decision needs to be made
Honest to God, every VAR bar City has gone against us this season. Forget 50/50 calls we don’t get the 80/20 calls
I'm not defending the ref for the actual decision, it was the wrong call. What I'm saying is that as long as he thought it was a foul then it was the right call to blow his whistle.
Tackles are usually not black and white to be decided by VAR like potential offsides would be.
They’ll just make up some new rule on the spot again
“it counts because even though the ball went out, the left foot back pass in the first half made any build up to goals stand.. erm yeah that’ll do”
“it counts because even though the ball went out, the left foot back pass in the first half made any build up to goals stand.. erm yeah that’ll do”