[Albion] Mr Micheal Salisbury

[jimhigham]

With my lovely new cool head, I have done some digging.

The apology was for the Mitoma incident only, and the apology was for the error without explaining who was at fault, as if it were an error of procedure:

“Following Brighton & Hove Albion’s match at Tottenham Hotspur, PGMOL and the Club have been in contact regarding a number of incidents during the aforementioned fixture. During that dialogue, PGMOL acknowledged that an error was made in not awarding a second-half penalty for a foul on Kaoru Mitoma. The key match incidents from this fixture will be reviewed in line with our normal processes."

My view is because the final decision is always the referee's (apart from offside) the buck should stop with the ref, so if anyone deserves a reprimand it is the ref. However there may be mitigation, and grounds for focusing on the competence of the VAR official, as explained below. This post may seem tedious and pedantic but I think that it is important to separate possible honest errors with egregious breaches of protocol and, in one incidence, inexplicable incompetence. Maybe my ponderings may have some value....

With the penalty shouts, the VAR referee would have assumed the ref saw the Mitoma one (he was right in front of it) and therefore would not have called the ref out. But this was a clear and obvious error so he should have called the referee out. The VAR ref's judgement was certainly at fault twice, this incident, and the second disallowed goal (explained below). What he should have done is asked the ref to look at the screen (Mitoma pen) and use his eyes better (the second Dunk shove penalty - which 'could' be an honest mistake) but the VAR ref could no more see a handball with the second disallowed goal (Danny's deflected shot) than in the famous 'Murray's cock' episode, I would argue. If you can't see a handball you can't give it. The on field ref could have asked to see the replay, but didn't because the VAR official would have sounded certain (I assume). Keeping all this and only this in mind, I would be very interested to invite the VAR ref to go through those replays again to explain how he became certain - certain the Danny goal was deflect in by a handball, and certain Mitoma wasn't fouled.

The Dunk shirt pull was not a clear and obvious error (although it looks like an 80% likelihood a penalty should have been awarded). The VAR person acted logically there, but it was nevertheless questionable and if it were me I would have asked the ref to take a look at the replay.

If the ref decides to accept the advice of VAR about a handball without checking the video, it has to be the fault of the referee, unless the VAR official is vehement. This is an issue that should be pursued with respect to the second penalty episode.

Only offside decisions are made by VAR. They are supposed to be unequivocal (although as we have seen this requires that the VAR referee is doing his job carefully - and human error here is not forgivable in my opinion).

This explains why we got an apology only for the Mitoma incident. I don't like it, but it is just about defensible. The other decisions were probably (fist disallowed goal), certainly (second disallowed goal) and probably (Dunk penalty) wrong but they are all errors of judgement rather than errors of procedure (except that I will argue below that the second disallowed goal also looks like a procedure error). One of these is beyond credibility, with a VAR decision based on guesswork. A VAR decision that overruled a goal awarded by the on field referee.

So my questions would be these
1. To the VAR referee - why did you not alert the on-pitch ref to the foul on Mitoma (which PGMOL now admit should have been given as a penalty)?
- If he says didn't see it then he is admitting incompetence
- If he says he saw it and didn't ask the ref to look at a replay he should be asked whether he disagrees with PGMOL's verdict or admits he is incompetent.
2. To the VAR ref I would ask how certain he was that there was a handball with Danny's deflected goal
If he was certain, what does he think now?
- If he remains certain he should be asked to explain why. If it was a judgement call he did the wrong thing. Only the ref can make judgement calls so the Var man should have asked the ref to watch a replay. VAR refs should advise on judgement calls not make them. And the only judgement call they can offer is the ref did NOT make a clear and obvious error. In which case the VAR official did not follow correct procedure.
- If he now admits he made an error he should be asked to explain how he decided to persuade the on-field ref he should disallow the goal. If he was vehement then he is admitting he was incompetent. If he was lukewarm he should have asked the ref to check the recording. In fact if he was lukewarm the ref should have taken charge and sought to review the video.
If he was not certain, why did he not ask the referee to check the recording?
- If he says this is for the referee to decide then it is the on field ref who was ultimately responsible for the error, due to a procedural error of accepting a lukewatm suggestion to overrule his decision to award a goal based on the VAR refs suspicions of handball. In fact at that point the on field ref should have concluded he had not made an error (whether marginal or clear and obvious) and awarded the goal.

If anyone wants to forward this analysis (if they agree with it, and have the skill set to be able to judge it) then I'm happy for them to do so.

Apologies - I didn't have enough time to be succinct.

I’m sorry. I didn’t quite catch that. One more time please?

 

[nicko31]

It won't bring the points back but some justice...

 

[Clive Walker]

And
The handball in the area?
Two footed challenge?
March last Man foul?

The handball in the area? Did Var look?
Two footed challenge? Did Var look?
March last Man foul? Did Var look?

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

The handball in the area? Did Var look?
Two footed challenge? Did Var look?
March last Man foul? Did Var look?

Exactly the way Attwell kept waving his arms in a very dramatic way suggests no.

 

[Clive Walker]

Exactly the way Attwell kept waving his arms in a very dramatic way suggests no.

But Var should still have checked.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

But Var should still have checked.

Yes indeed.

Interesting reading Keith Hackett's and Mike Dean's views on Twitter. Hackett certainly believes Attwell should not be near a game this weekend

 

[GT49er]

Did he say Attwell got it wrong ? Or VAR?

The referee under discussion was Salisbury (who was officiating at Burnley last night).

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

With my lovely new cool head, I have done some digging.

The apology was for the Mitoma incident only, and the apology was for the error without explaining who was at fault, as if it were an error of procedure:

“Following Brighton & Hove Albion’s match at Tottenham Hotspur, PGMOL and the Club have been in contact regarding a number of incidents during the aforementioned fixture. During that dialogue, PGMOL acknowledged that an error was made in not awarding a second-half penalty for a foul on Kaoru Mitoma. The key match incidents from this fixture will be reviewed in line with our normal processes."

My view is because the final decision is always the referee's (apart from offside) the buck should stop with the ref, so if anyone deserves a reprimand it is the ref. However there may be mitigation, and grounds for focusing on the competence of the VAR official, as explained below. This post may seem tedious and pedantic but I think that it is important to separate possible honest errors with egregious breaches of protocol and, in one incidence, inexplicable incompetence. Maybe my ponderings may have some value....

With the penalty shouts, the VAR referee would have assumed the ref saw the Mitoma one (he was right in front of it) and therefore would not have called the ref out. But this was a clear and obvious error so he should have called the referee out. The VAR ref's judgement was certainly at fault twice, this incident, and the second disallowed goal (explained below). What he should have done is asked the ref to look at the screen (Mitoma pen) and use his eyes better (the second Dunk shove penalty - which 'could' be an honest mistake) but the VAR ref could no more see a handball with the second disallowed goal (Danny's deflected shot) than in the famous 'Murray's cock' episode, I would argue. If you can't see a handball you can't give it. The on field ref could have asked to see the replay, but didn't because the VAR official would have sounded certain (I assume). Keeping all this and only this in mind, I would be very interested to invite the VAR ref to go through those replays again to explain how he became certain - certain the Danny goal was deflect in by a handball, and certain Mitoma wasn't fouled.

The Dunk shirt pull was not a clear and obvious error (although it looks like an 80% likelihood a penalty should have been awarded). The VAR person acted logically there, but it was nevertheless questionable and if it were me I would have asked the ref to take a look at the replay.

If the ref decides to accept the advice of VAR about a handball without checking the video, it has to be the fault of the referee, unless the VAR official is vehement. This is an issue that should be pursued with respect to the second penalty episode.

Only offside decisions are made by VAR. They are supposed to be unequivocal (although as we have seen this requires that the VAR referee is doing his job carefully - and human error here is not forgivable in my opinion).

This explains why we got an apology only for the Mitoma incident. I don't like it, but it is just about defensible. The other decisions were probably (fist disallowed goal), certainly (second disallowed goal) and probably (Dunk penalty) wrong but they are all errors of judgement rather than errors of procedure (except that I will argue below that the second disallowed goal also looks like a procedure error). One of these is beyond credibility, with a VAR decision based on guesswork. A VAR decision that overruled a goal awarded by the on field referee.

So my questions would be these
1. To the VAR referee - why did you not alert the on-pitch ref to the foul on Mitoma (which PGMOL now admit should have been given as a penalty)?
- If he says didn't see it then he is admitting incompetence
- If he says he saw it and didn't ask the ref to look at a replay he should be asked whether he disagrees with PGMOL's verdict or admits he is incompetent.
2. To the VAR ref I would ask how certain he was that there was a handball with Danny's deflected goal
If he was certain, what does he think now?
- If he remains certain he should be asked to explain why. If it was a judgement call he did the wrong thing. Only the ref can make judgement calls so the Var man should have asked the ref to watch a replay. VAR refs should advise on judgement calls not make them. And the only judgement call they can offer is the ref did NOT make a clear and obvious error. In which case the VAR official did not follow correct procedure.
- If he now admits he made an error he should be asked to explain how he decided to persuade the on-field ref he should disallow the goal. If he was vehement then he is admitting he was incompetent. If he was lukewarm he should have asked the ref to check the recording. In fact if he was lukewarm the ref should have taken charge and sought to review the video.
If he was not certain, why did he not ask the referee to check the recording?
- If he says this is for the referee to decide then it is the on field ref who was ultimately responsible for the error, due to a procedural error of accepting a lukewatm suggestion to overrule his decision to award a goal based on the VAR refs suspicions of handball. In fact at that point the on field ref should have concluded he had not made an error (whether marginal or clear and obvious) and awarded the goal.

If anyone wants to forward this analysis (if they agree with it, and have the skill set to be able to judge it) then I'm happy for them to do so.

Apologies - I didn't have enough time to be succinct.

I think the influence Attwell exerted by his flat waving on his arms in an aggressive exaggerated manner would had a huge bearing on the VAR official to not look too deeply at the events. This is what Gallagher referenced in his blurb of excuses on Ref Watch.

Attwell's manner was one of I'm in charge.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think the influence Attwell exerted by his flat waving on his arms in an aggressive exaggerated manner would had a huge bearing on the VAR official to not look too deeply at the events. This is what Gallagher referenced in his blurb of excuses on Ref Watch.

Attwell's manner was one of I'm in charge.

Maps to the VAP man reffing well at Bumley yestarday

 

[Bodian]

With my lovely new cool head, I have done some digging.

Super post. I have been wondering about the Welbeck / MacAllister goal. I'm wondering whether actually Atwell asked VAR 'was it handball?' - thus subconsciously putting it into the mind of the VAR ref that it was - so they looked for it, and said 'probably', or 'yes'. In which case he wouldn't need to go to the monitor, because it's a factual thing, not subjective ('yes ref - it hit his hand') - so he could overturn his own decision.

And the two penalty calls - Atwell was so vehement that he had seen the incidents and it was no penalty (his aeroplane arm waving) that, who knows, even the VAR man may not have wished to raise the possibility of him possibly being wrong, that he didn't alert him to it.

 

[Icy Gull]

Super post. I have been wondering about the Welbeck / MacAllister goal. I'm wondering whether actually Atwell asked VAR 'was it handball?' - thus subconsciously putting it into the mind of the VAR ref that it was - so they looked for it, and said 'probably', or 'yes'. In which case he wouldn't need to go to the monitor, because it's a factual thing, not subjective ('yes ref - it hit his hand') - so he could overturn his own decision.

And the two penalty calls - Atwell was so vehement that he had seen the incidents and it was no penalty (his aeroplane arm waving) that, who knows, even the VAR man may not have wished to raise the possibility of him possibly being wrong, that he didn't alert him to it.

I wonder if he’s a bully and Salisbury is scared of him

That is a joke btw not an accusation

 

[Seagull58]

Salisbury has a reffing gig in the Championship this weekend. He hasn't been "stood down" at all, as it's quite usual for EPL refs to do Championship matches.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Yes indeed.

Interesting reading Keith Hackett's and Mike Dean's views on Twitter. Hackett certainly believes Attwell should not be near a game this weekend

What did Michael say?

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

What did Michael say?

He reckons VAR should be scrapped and then reintroduced with very defined uses

 

[Triggaaar]

Super post. I have been wondering about the Welbeck / MacAllister goal. I'm wondering whether actually Atwell asked VAR 'was it handball?'

If he thought it was handball, he should have given handball, but he didn't he gave the goal and the players celebrate (for ages).

And the two penalty calls - Atwell was so vehement that he had seen the incidents and it was no penalty (his aeroplane arm waving) that, who knows, even the VAR man may not have wished to raise the possibility of him possibly being wrong, that he didn't alert him to it.

Well that would be a mistake - VAR's job is to check.

It's not as if VAR only check when the ref doesn't look confident with their decision.

 

[kemptown kid]

With my lovely new cool head, I have done some digging.

The apology was for the Mitoma incident only, and the apology was for the error without explaining who was at fault, as if it were an error of procedure:

“Following Brighton & Hove Albion’s match at Tottenham Hotspur, PGMOL and the Club have been in contact regarding a number of incidents during the aforementioned fixture. During that dialogue, PGMOL acknowledged that an error was made in not awarding a second-half penalty for a foul on Kaoru Mitoma. The key match incidents from this fixture will be reviewed in line with our normal processes."

My view is because the final decision is always the referee's (apart from offside) the buck should stop with the ref, so if anyone deserves a reprimand it is the ref. However there may be mitigation, and grounds for focusing on the competence of the VAR official, as explained below. This post may seem tedious and pedantic but I think that it is important to separate possible honest errors with egregious breaches of protocol and, in one incidence, inexplicable incompetence. Maybe my ponderings may have some value....

With the penalty shouts, the VAR referee would have assumed the ref saw the Mitoma one (he was right in front of it) and therefore would not have called the ref out. But this was a clear and obvious error so he should have called the referee out. The VAR ref's judgement was certainly at fault twice, this incident, and the second disallowed goal (explained below). What he should have done is asked the ref to look at the screen (Mitoma pen) and use his eyes better (the second Dunk shove penalty - which 'could' be an honest mistake) but the VAR ref could no more see a handball with the second disallowed goal (Danny's deflected shot) than in the famous 'Murray's cock' episode, I would argue. If you can't see a handball you can't give it. The on field ref could have asked to see the replay, but didn't because the VAR official would have sounded certain (I assume). Keeping all this and only this in mind, I would be very interested to invite the VAR ref to go through those replays again to explain how he became certain - certain the Danny goal was deflect in by a handball, and certain Mitoma wasn't fouled.

The Dunk shirt pull was not a clear and obvious error (although it looks like an 80% likelihood a penalty should have been awarded). The VAR person acted logically there, but it was nevertheless questionable and if it were me I would have asked the ref to take a look at the replay.

If the ref decides to accept the advice of VAR about a handball without checking the video, it has to be the fault of the referee, unless the VAR official is vehement. This is an issue that should be pursued with respect to the second penalty episode.

Only offside decisions are made by VAR. They are supposed to be unequivocal (although as we have seen this requires that the VAR referee is doing his job carefully - and human error here is not forgivable in my opinion).

This explains why we got an apology only for the Mitoma incident. I don't like it, but it is just about defensible. The other decisions were probably (fist disallowed goal), certainly (second disallowed goal) and probably (Dunk penalty) wrong but they are all errors of judgement rather than errors of procedure (except that I will argue below that the second disallowed goal also looks like a procedure error). One of these is beyond credibility, with a VAR decision based on guesswork. A VAR decision that overruled a goal awarded by the on field referee.

So my questions would be these
1. To the VAR referee - why did you not alert the on-pitch ref to the foul on Mitoma (which PGMOL now admit should have been given as a penalty)?
- If he says didn't see it then he is admitting incompetence
- If he says he saw it and didn't ask the ref to look at a replay he should be asked whether he disagrees with PGMOL's verdict or admits he is incompetent.
2. To the VAR ref I would ask how certain he was that there was a handball with Danny's deflected goal
If he was certain, what does he think now?
- If he remains certain he should be asked to explain why. If it was a judgement call he did the wrong thing. Only the ref can make judgement calls so the Var man should have asked the ref to watch a replay. VAR refs should advise on judgement calls not make them. And the only judgement call they can offer is the ref did NOT make a clear and obvious error. In which case the VAR official did not follow correct procedure.
- If he now admits he made an error he should be asked to explain how he decided to persuade the on-field ref he should disallow the goal. If he was vehement then he is admitting he was incompetent. If he was lukewarm he should have asked the ref to check the recording. In fact if he was lukewarm the ref should have taken charge and sought to review the video.
If he was not certain, why did he not ask the referee to check the recording?
- If he says this is for the referee to decide then it is the on field ref who was ultimately responsible for the error, due to a procedural error of accepting a lukewatm suggestion to overrule his decision to award a goal based on the VAR refs suspicions of handball. In fact at that point the on field ref should have concluded he had not made an error (whether marginal or clear and obvious) and awarded the goal.

If anyone wants to forward this analysis (if they agree with it, and have the skill set to be able to judge it) then I'm happy for them to do so.

Apologies - I didn't have enough time to be succinct.

Given the abundance of grey areas outlined here, has football been enhanced by the pursuit of the illusion that VAR will provide significantly more reliable/fair decisions? The delays VAR causes frequently undermine the emotional experience of fans in the ground and even watching on TV - an unacceptably heavy price to pay for a marginal increase in accuracy of certain decisions in certain elite level games.
Goal line technology gives an instant yes/no answer on a matter of fact and should stay, the rest of the technological 'assistance' should go.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

 

[Justice]

If anyone watched Burnley v Sunderland Salisbury was absolutely awful, how he got near a game at the top end of the PL is baffling.

 

[Triggaaar]

If anyone watched Burnley v Sunderland Salisbury was absolutely awful, how he got near a game at the top end of the PL is baffling.

Maybe he was awful on purpose, to give the impression he's awful in general, as opposed to a corrupt official.

Lol, I'm such a joker. For the avoidance of doubt, I have complete faith in Mr Salisbury's integrity and am 100% sure that he is not corrupt, and that he is indeed simply ****ing shit at his job.

 

[Baldseagull]

After cooling down, I do recall early in the season there being something said about refs not giving fouls if they felt the player went down too easily, could this be the reason for Mitoma and Dunk penalty decisions, both refs felt the players threw themselves?
Still wondering how a Tottenham player poking the ball with his hand is not a penalty though.