[Albion] Reviewing Red Card Decision

[BensGrandad]

The answer was wrong then.

Says who as nobody seems to know 100%, there is still much confusion. Perhaps somebody needs to ask the ref or VAR Ref. or the PGMO or whatever their body is called.

 

[Acker79]

If they were reviewing handball by a defender (or any infringement by the defending team), it would have been a 'review for a penalty' a red card would have resulted, but the penalty would be the decision. It was a goal mouth scramble, these often end with either goals or free kicks to the defending team for a foul. The ref had just awarded them a free kick. The VAR review was for a 'red card'.

Given all that, the most logical assumption is that the foul was being reviewed to see if it constituted a red card. Yeah, there are other possibilities, but none that come to my mind are as likely.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Looking at Friend I got the impression that he was hoping for a sending off. Really don’t like him reffing our games as I always feel that he is favouring the opposition. Could just be me I accept.

No he does. For some reason he is anti us.

Wasn’t terrible today though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zefarelly]

The first replay I saw (try harder with your streams) gave the game away. . . . And yes the stream showed the var replays too.
Maupay got off beacause it was a genuine goal mouth scramble and he got the benefit of the doubt in a 50/50 kick to get the ball.

My personal opinion is he slung a leg/foot out toward the leg, knowing exactly what he was doing. The ball was long gone.

I'm not French, so I don't know why. A trend that needs to stop however.

 

[Guinness Boy]

But just watching live in the ground you could see that Muapay made a foul. Unless you were not laying attention I am amazed you could not see what it was for!?

Another bit of hyperbolic over generalisation that fails to understand anything. As per.

You would not have seen much that was going on from the North Stand as it was a goal mouth scramble. From where we were in the WSU (back ish, just north of the half way line) the view of the foul was completely blocked by other players. Others in other seats would have had different views again.

But, of course, this is the typical after timing of a fundamentalist VAR nutter. You didn't post on the match thread saying exactly what was going on at the time, did you?

 

[Dorset Seagull]

"In the judgement of the referee' - is that like Umpire's call in cricket? In which case, I'm in.

That wont work because thats the way it used to be before VAR

 

[Driver8]

Says who as nobody seems to know 100%, there is still much confusion. Perhaps somebody needs to ask the ref or VAR Ref. or the PGMO or whatever their body is called.

It was a red card check not a penalty check so can only have been for Maupay’s challenge as backed up by the replays shown on the live stream.

 

[BensGrandad]

It was a red card check not a penalty check so can only have been for Maupay’s challenge as backed up by the replays shown on the live stream.

Surely a handball on the line preventing a goal would be a red card offense for which a penalty would follow.as part of the decision.

 

[perseus]

A Norwich player heading Maupay's foot?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Sounds like an issue with not understanding how VAR works.
The point of the system is to try to spot things that the ref may have missed.
It looks for any reason why a goal can't be awarded (offside / handball or foul in the build up, etc)
It looks at potential penalties as well as those given to make sure that it's really a penalty and the ref hasn't been conned.
It looks at all potential red card incidents (including those that happen off the ball and out of the view of the on-field ref
It looks at mistaken identify (ie wrong player gets a second yellow or red card and is wrongly sent off)

Forget about VAR looking for red cards. If the ref. gives a red card, it's a red card and the player goes off. Red card incidents - given or not given - could be reviewed retrospectively by the VAR and the ref. together. Red card given - but should not have been - rescind it; no suspension. No red card given, but it should have been - three match ban.
Not this faffing around during the game.

So the point of VAR is to try to make sure that the right outcome is reached during the match, meaning a team isn't unfairly punished (a dive given as a penalty, a player who should have been sent off stays on the pitch, etc...) Your suggestion means that a team can be unfairly punished by refereeing mistakes that would otherwise be corrected by VAR as the officials may not feel the need to review if it was just left for them to decide when one takes place

Another VAR farce for me. Have not seen the replay yet but isn't whether he should have gone slightly missing the whole point of the correct use of VAR?

Who actually made the call for VAR to review the incident? Nobody in the stadium had a clue. The ref made no indication that he thought he had seen something but just suddenly stopped to listen what was coming through his earpiece. So again the conclusion is that a VAR is working almost like a second independent ref scanning the game for possible incidents to check. If the ref thinks he has seen something and then asks VAR to check I don't have a problem.

No one has to make a call for the VAR official to review, they should be reviewing it automatically should there be an incident that falls into the 4 areas listed above. It is working exactly like a second ref scanning the game for possible incidents to check because that is exactly what it is meant for and how it should be operating under the current set up.

Besides, how can the ref ask for VAR to review something if he missed it, how would he know to ask? or would you rather see dives given as penalties, red cards avoided when they would be clearly seen by a VAR official, etc.. or do you want the ref to get a review of all these things to make sure that the right decision has been reached (which is what is happening now) with the only difference being that it becomes more obvious to the crowd that the ref is having it reviewed? (including reviews that happen that the crowd isn't necessarily aware have even taken place and happen as the game goes on)

 

[Guinness Boy]

Another shocker for VAR as a clear and obvious error by the linesman to rule out Firminho’s goal isn’t overturned. Jonathan Pearce suitability incredulous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guinness Boy]

Well no I didn't post on NSC at the time to say what was going as...I WAS WATCHING THE GAME! Maybe if you lot stop pratting about on social media and NSC and watched the game you would see what was happening. Also, something like the words "No red card" in ****ing foot high letters gives the game away as to what it was for.

Do you have a problem not knowing what the referee and linesman are talking about when they get together sometimes?

People post on NSC & Twitter from the game. It takes about 10 seconds on your phone and the wireless is far better now.

As I said, I was at the game but sitting in a part of the ground where it wasn’t clear who was being checked for red card and why.

And why not hear the ref & linesman? You can in rugby (as well as seeing a replay on the big screen) and people are always harping on about how good TMO is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[trueblue]

Maupay’s challenge looked bad in slow motion but nothing more than a yellow real-time. Glad he didn’t go as it was micro-management again.

Taking of which, in the chance that led to Trossard’s goal, someone stood on their player’s foot (Tettey I think). He went down but no free-kick given. Showing 2 things .. a) it hurts and Connolly wasn’t play-acting/cheating last week as a lot of the press kept claiming and b) he was also dead lucky to get a penalty for it. Seems some referees are now scrutinising incidents to a ridiculous extent and other are more sensible. Let’s hope the latter group prevail for the sake of the sport.

 

[The Wizard]

Another one here who wasn’t paying attention from the North centre, I have very good vision but from over 100 yards away didn’t have a clue what it was for, just looked like a goal mouth scramble... guess I should pay more attention as should everyone around me

VAR is a farce, I hate hate hate it. I’d honestly prefer a normal bad refereeing decision every now and again, the Duffy goal I didn’t celebrate properly as I thought he looked offside and to me that’s a sad indication of the way football is heading, waiting for a stupid VAR referee to comb through every aspect of a goal before you can actually be happy, but it’s not the same as that proper goal celebration feeling. Sad.

 

[WATFORD zero]

On the radio they said it was for a possible handball on the goal line by a Norwich player but nobody in the ground knew what was happening and what the VAR was for.

From Lower West near the 18 yd line many near to me had to go to their radios or phones to find out what was being reviewed to warrant a possible red card. The answer was a possible handball on the line by a Norwich player stopping a goal.

Says who as nobody seems to know 100%, there is still much confusion. Perhaps somebody needs to ask the ref or VAR Ref. or the PGMO or whatever their body is called.

Surely a handball on the line preventing a goal would be a red card offense for which a penalty would follow.as part of the decision.

I was just about to say that you couldn't be more wrong.

Then I remembered your contributions on the Brexit thread

 

[Acker79]

Surely a handball on the line preventing a goal would be a red card offense for which a penalty would follow.as part of the decision.

Any time someone commits an offence that would result in a red card and a penalty, what decision does the ref make first? It is always penalty. Whistle goes, points to the spot. It's a penalty. Now what is going to be the punishment... it's a red card!

Given that is always the process, it stands to reason that the review of a handball on the line by a defender will be a penalty review first, and a red card review second.

Look to last weekend, any foul in the box would be looked at by VAR for a red card, so as slight as the challenge on connolly was last weekend, the VAR would have also considered if it was a red card (briefly, I'd hope given how accidental and slight it was). But that wasn't his primary question, his primary question, as it would be for a handball on the line is - did an offence occur that should/could result in a penalty.

 

[rothergull]

A Norwich player heading Maupay's foot?

Exactly what I thought after seeing replay on MOTD,his foot did look high but no contact.

 

[father_and_son]

Discussed on 606 on drive home. Yes, the stadium needs to hear the ref talking to VAR central, like in eggball. Won't happen until laws have been tweaked though. Concepts like 'intentional', 'not that kind of player', 'reckless' and 'handbags' need to be purged from the lexicon (even if it is only the lexicon of a referee's mind) and replaced by more objective criteria, and a rubric for dealing with impossibly tight calls. The latter may be 'in the judgement of the referee' which is fine by me. We are on a journey and we have only got half way.

"Is there a reason I should award the goal*?"

Versus...

"Is there I reason I should not award the goal*?"


...are the only things that should come from the referee. Yes/No from VAR plus the reason if required.

(*penalty/card/whatever)

 

[dazzer6666]

A Norwich player heading Maupay's foot?

I understood the VAR interjection was for Maupay kicking the player on the goal line, not the high foot. He took a swing at the loose ball, missed and kicked the defender in the shin.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I mean, what else was it going to be for!?

If the ref make the decision we all see the instant outcome (penalty, free kick, red card..whatever). The point here is that at the North end of the ground (at least) we couldn’t see what they were checking and we weren’t being told ie there was a long delay and no communication. I understand that you are a supporter of VAR but surely that does not preclude small improvements being made such as better information to improve the enjoyment of the fans in the ground.