[Albion] Premier League 30/12/23 - 2/1/24

[Seagull58]

On this occasion I disagree as there was contact. Was it enough to make Jota fall over? Only Jota knows that, and that's the point. VAR cannot be subjective, it has to be black and white, therefore Umpire's call on this one.

Anyway as predicted Smug has done a brilliant job of using this to deflect away from the fact that his expensively assembled team were totally outplayed for 90 minutes and he had no answer, he didn't change a thing. 4-2 massively flattered Newcastle.

Whether watching at full speed or slo-mo, it's a clear as day that he takes a few strides after the "contact" and then decides to swallow dive into the turf. The ref's penalty call was as clear and obvious an error as you will see this season.

 

[Stat Brother]

I take it nobody asked Smug about the Journo Killers now being joint bottom, with Brentford, in the current form table.

1 win & 5 defeats in their last 6.

 

[Milano]

Whether watching at full speed or slo-mo, it's a clear as day that he takes a few strides after the "contact" and then decides to swallow dive into the turf. The ref's penalty call was as clear and obvious an error as you will see this season.

But you (and VAR) do not know that 100% Did he dive? Yes I agree with you, yep I THINK so, but I don't KNOW so. I don't know so because there was contact. Therefore VAR can't overturn it. Had the replay shown no contact then VAR can get involved. 99% he's a diving cheat but VAR can't operate on subjection. Had the ref not given it then there wouldn't have been enough in it to send the ref to the monitor. Ref's call. Which ironically we've been asking for more of.

 

[Stat Brother]

All rather striking to see Neville and Carra standing in front of a big screen, forensically, frame by frame, pontificating over referees decision making.

5 years ago they were doing the exact same thing demanding VAR and they're still not happy - only now they've screwed us all over.

 

[Seagull58]

But you (and VAR) do not know that 100% Did he dive? Yes I agree with you, yep I THINK so, but I don't KNOW so. I don't know so because there was contact. Therefore VAR can't overturn it. Had the replay shown no contact then VAR can get involved. 99% he's a diving cheat but VAR can't operate on subjection. Had the ref not given it then there wouldn't have been enough in it to send the ref to the monitor. Ref's call. Which ironically we've been asking for more of.

It's not a criminal case. It doesn't have to be "beyond reasonable doubt". On the balance of probabilities he's a cheating **** so VAR should recommend the decision is overturned and the bald prick should book him.

 

[Milano]

It's not a criminal case. It doesn't have to be "beyond reasonable doubt". On the balance of probabilities he's a cheating **** so VAR should recommend the decision is overturned and the bald prick should book him.

There......was........contact. Therefore it's not 'clear and obvious'. That would require zero contact. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
I don't want VAR re-refereeing matches. If you are wanting VAR to step in on situations like Jota then that is essentially what you're asking it to do.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I take it nobody asked Smug about the Journo Killers now being joint bottom, with Brentford, in the current form table.

1 win & 5 defeats in their last 6.

That is not a fair and accurate sample of their form though. That is only the Premier League matches in that period. It's only fair to look at the matches in all competitions over the run.

So add in LOSING to Milan to finish BOTTOM of their CL group, and LOSING to Chelsea to get knocked out of the Rumbelows Cup.

 

[Berty23]

The bit where it becomes tricky is if the goalie comes sliding out and a player has to take evasive action to avoid being clattered and potentially injured and isn’t touched but loses possession of the ball then is this a foul? The actions of a player changed what a player was doing but then by avoiding a potential injury does this mean there is not a foul?

I think that if someone avoids contact and loses the ball then this is therefore not a foul when it probably should be. Is that right?

 

[SeagullsoverLondon]

But you (and VAR) do not know that 100% Did he dive? Yes I agree with you, yep I THINK so, but I don't KNOW so. I don't know so because there was contact. Therefore VAR can't overturn it. Had the replay shown no contact then VAR can get involved. 99% he's a diving cheat but VAR can't operate on subjection. Had the ref not given it then there wouldn't have been enough in it to send the ref to the monitor. Ref's call. Which ironically we've been asking for more of.

If the ref had said "no penalty" and booked Jota for diving, would the VAR have intervened and said actually there is minimal contact?

What I would like is for the ref to say I think it is a penalty, but I want to have a look myself, and not have to be directed by VAR.
Then the ref makes all the decisions themselves, and everyone now knows exactly who to blame if they disagree.
Leave VAR to purely offside decisions and off the ball incidents not seen by the ref.

 

[Acker79]

I don't want VAR re-refereeing matches.

I think this is something that referees were concerned about. But it just seem to make sense to me.

Authorities seem to think that by having the referee look at the video, they are avoiding "re-refereeing the game". But they're not, are they? The very nature of VAR means the referee makes a call (i.e. he referees the game), then VAR looks to see if there is an error, and when relevant advises the referee to look again, then the referee reviews the footage and makes a new decision (i.e. he re-referees the game).

The game is being re-refereed simply by having VAR in place. The only way it's not 're-refereed' is if the ref doesn't make a call, and looks at the video before making confirming the decision (which seems to me to be what @SeagullsoverLondon is suggesting). I don't know how popular that idea is, but can imagine it also has a bunch of negatives (when is the game stopped and what if there is no infringement?).

Even if the argument is that 're-refereeing' somehow implies a second person reviewing, the nature of looking at the footage and reviewing it to see if what the ref says he saw actually happened, to determine a clear and obvious error, by it's nature requires an video assistant referee to look at the footage and use his knowledge and training as a referee to judge if the decision is sound, which involves him refereeing the game himself to a degree, a game that has already had the ref make a call.

VAR is, in essence and all relevant ways, 're-refereeing'.

 

[Seagull58]

There......was........contact. Therefore it's not 'clear and obvious'. That would require zero contact. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
I don't want VAR re-refereeing matches. If you are wanting VAR to step in on situations like Jota then that is essentially what you're asking it to do.

The minimal contact did not cause him to fall. Why is that so difficult to grasp? He's a cheat. He dived after taking several steps and deciding he'd rather fall over than chase after the ball.