- Mar 23, 2023
- 2,122
Just listened to the podcast he said he missed it not that he saw it and ignored it 
funny enough the crappy newspapers are miss reporting it!
funny enough the crappy newspapers are miss reporting it!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] ‘the ref was a mate so i didn’t send him to VAR’
- Thread starter macbeth
- Start date
Same way as you.What id like to know is how you can say cuntishness without the stars that ****s gets
Sssssh!
No. It is sometimes operated by ****s.
Most VAR decisions are now reasonable.
That's why there is such a shitstorm when it goes wrong.
When it goes wrong this is due to the cuntishness of the officials.
When there was no VAR there were more ****ish decisions by referees because there was no VAR to invite them to give their head a wobble.
VAR does not always wobble the heads, because some heads spend some of their time being ****ish,
But at least we have VAR, and referees who are not so ****ish that they are ****s all the time, and so therefore mostly take note of VAR most of the time.
Here endeth my explanation of the role of VAR in a ****ish world.
I am now fascinated by what the swear filter will and won't pick up. Unless you are using a word I have never heard of and can't work out!
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 16,025
VAR *is* a referee. Literally, it's a Video Assistant one!
It wasn't fit for purpose (not properly tested or rolled out) when it was introduced and it probably never will be. It's caused the same amount of debate about contentious decisions as we had before but there's a lot of people making money out of it, so there won't be any plans to get rid of it anytime soon.
It's the Brexit of the football world
The ability to freeze vid of events and make judgements is not *a referee*. It is technology. Which is looked at by an oaf. Sorry, a referee.VAR *is* a referee. Literally, it's a Video Assistant one!
It wasn't fit for purpose (not properly tested or rolled out) when it was introduced and it probably never will be. It's caused the same amount of debate about contentious decisions as we had before but there's a lot of people making money out of it, so there won't be any plans to get rid of it anytime soon.
It's the Brexit of the football world
VAR initially wasn't fit for purpose because the rubric (how it should be used) was wrong. And indeed the FA and referees then started f***ing about with the rules and rule rubric in a random and ill considered manner. A new definition of handball. Hang on, let's change it again. Etc.
The reason decisions are contentious is because we can see the VAR videos. In the lower leagues blatant offsides and maiming are missed because there is no VAR. Decisions are therefore rarely contentious. Just because nobody seems to give a shit doesn't make it right or better, though.
I remember when drink driving laws were brought in there was a clamour to scrap them because the breathalyzer wasn't always accurate. Sounds mad, now, doesn't it.
The same will be true in years to come when we look back at the silly-arse reasons why many bleated for the removal of VAR. I have only one more word on this. Luddites.
Jimmy Grimble
Well-known member
Dean coming out with this has reminded me of the comments from our players on that game, where they said Dean was acting all pally with the Middlesbrough players before the match.
Still a ****.
I am shocked…SHOCKED…that Mike Dean didn’t referee properly
However, I don’t agree.
It’s spoiling/spoiled football, all it has achieved is moving controversy from what’s on the pitch, to a faceless wonder looking at something remotely.
- Mar 23, 2023
- 2,122
I guess the noun form slips through as swear filter have had to be desensitised somewhat so as not to discriminate against people from Scunthorpe and Penistone.
The Scunthorpe Problem
- Mar 23, 2023
- 2,122
I wonder if Mr Fuckworth is allowed to post?
Official Old Man
Uckfield Seagull
I've just checked and he's not got a game this weekend so must have been dropped from the rota!
On this subject though, when a ref gets dropped, do they still get paid? As full time staff I guess they do.
Yes, I know he's retired.
On this subject though, when a ref gets dropped, do they still get paid? As full time staff I guess they do.
Yes, I know he's retired.
- Jun 27, 2012
- 14,612
He really doesn't say in the podcast its *because* he's a mate that he didn't refer the ref (Cucurella's hair being pulled) to the screen to have a look He just reminds the audience that Anthony Taylor is also his friend as well as a colleague but certainly doesn't imply that affected his decision in the VAR booth. . Or at least thats how i heard it. I've played it back about 4-5 times.
Dean also said at the time he didn't consider it a violent act in the couple of mins he had to review it on VAR, but on reflection that was an error and he shouldn't have overlooked it and he said so after the game. He also reflects more widely about VAR in the podcast and explains why he stepped down from it. (He's now a media pundit for Sky Soccer Saturday on Saturday afternoons).
Dean also said at the time he didn't consider it a violent act in the couple of mins he had to review it on VAR, but on reflection that was an error and he shouldn't have overlooked it and he said so after the game. He also reflects more widely about VAR in the podcast and explains why he stepped down from it. (He's now a media pundit for Sky Soccer Saturday on Saturday afternoons).
Jam The Man
Well-known member
The BBC report of this story reports the incident cost Chelsea a penalty.
Given that Cucurella was defending a Spurs corner at the time, it highlights again how bad BBC researchers are.
Given that Cucurella was defending a Spurs corner at the time, it highlights again how bad BBC researchers are.
Pevenseagull
meh
- Jul 20, 2003
- 20,666
Jesus wept, he's on SSN at the moment.
What a dickhead
What a dickhead
BRIGHT ON Q
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 9,248
How arrogant is that bloke then?
CaergybiGull
Active member
I was happily looking forward to a Merson-free edition of SSN and what happens? This absolute twonk does.
The obtuse-ness of Dean is off the charts. His sense of doing nothing wrong is amazing. Most people admitting to doing that would not be awarded with a pundit job. Going for the sympathy vote by saying ‘Oh, you can’t say ‘mate’ can you, has to be ‘colleague.’ No, dipstick, you are inventing something that never happened to make yourself feel better.
They don’t have a clue. Be nice to see / hear someone call him out instead of wringing their hands over him…
I just saw this clip from soccer saturday.
He doesn't claim he 'missed it', his first comment is that he saw it multiple times.
But I'm finding his explanation a bit of a fudge, and I do wonder if too much is being made of the whole thing.
The term 'mate' is misleading, and they're not actually friends, but for the duration of the match they have that approach. He didn't send him to the screen, not because he was a mate, but because he was protecting the referee - that it is the official's job to protect the referee.
The best way to protect the referee is to catch his mistakes, to highlight the things he has missed. Seeing he has missed something and not drawing his attention to it makes him look worse than giving him a second opportunity to review the footage. As long as officials realise this (and I would like to think most of them do), I'm not sure this is any bigger than one VAR ref having a howler.
Essentially it all boils down to Mike Dean made a mistake. He saw the incident and didn't act. If, as he says, he was sat down for three weeks following the incident, he was punished for it, too. To me that should be the end of it (subject to any further revelations that officials are choosing to ignore incidents in a misguided attempt to protect a ref).
He doesn't claim he 'missed it', his first comment is that he saw it multiple times.
But I'm finding his explanation a bit of a fudge, and I do wonder if too much is being made of the whole thing.
The term 'mate' is misleading, and they're not actually friends, but for the duration of the match they have that approach. He didn't send him to the screen, not because he was a mate, but because he was protecting the referee - that it is the official's job to protect the referee.
The best way to protect the referee is to catch his mistakes, to highlight the things he has missed. Seeing he has missed something and not drawing his attention to it makes him look worse than giving him a second opportunity to review the footage. As long as officials realise this (and I would like to think most of them do), I'm not sure this is any bigger than one VAR ref having a howler.
Essentially it all boils down to Mike Dean made a mistake. He saw the incident and didn't act. If, as he says, he was sat down for three weeks following the incident, he was punished for it, too. To me that should be the end of it (subject to any further revelations that officials are choosing to ignore incidents in a misguided attempt to protect a ref).
CaergybiGull
Active member
All well and good, but like many aspects of the way things are generally (not just in football) there is a lack of trust with how football referees explain themselves. Compare with how cricket has managed the DRS. The whole process is completely transparent, the decision is communicated clearly to everyone and, crucially, the on field umpire in no way appears undermined or second guessed.
Football is arbitrated by the equivalent of Shakoor Rana when Steve Foster would be better. (No, not ours
(no offence @Steve Foster )
)
Question, if Dean had said he’d fluffed a decision that negatively affected us, would you be quite so sanguine? Refereeing omertà is just another blight and I for one am not so forgiving in this regard.
Your point about saving the ref from mistakes, I agree with but to protect them? Um, no, don’t think so. I’d like to see more accountability rather than joshing with the guys and gals on the panel.
Football is arbitrated by the equivalent of Shakoor Rana when Steve Foster would be better. (No, not ours
(no offence @Steve Foster ))
Question, if Dean had said he’d fluffed a decision that negatively affected us, would you be quite so sanguine? Refereeing omertà is just another blight and I for one am not so forgiving in this regard.
Your point about saving the ref from mistakes, I agree with but to protect them? Um, no, don’t think so. I’d like to see more accountability rather than joshing with the guys and gals on the panel.
