• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

***Spurs vs West Ham Untd***, PL, 13th September 2025 at The London Stadium

SteveAWOL said:
At least that judo throw by Fernandes has been highlighted in Sky Sports’ Ref Watch segment, as was the ridiculous chalked off goal on MotD, so the gaffer can plant that seed in the mind of officials for future matches so they might not treat MvdV so badly in future matches.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967501780285038851
Click to expand...
Amazing the ex ref still can’t call it and it needs and ex player to say
 
SteveAWOL said:
At least that judo throw by Fernandes has been highlighted in Sky Sports’ Ref Watch segment, as was the ridiculous chalked off goal on MotD, so the gaffer can plant that seed in the mind of officials for future matches so they might not treat MvdV so badly in future matches.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967501780285038851
Click to expand...
That guy and people like him should be on var, not refs protecting their own.
 
I don’t get the “clear and obvious error” benchmark. I assume it means if the ref gave a decision based on what he could see at the time and he didn’t obviously get it wrong, then the decision can stand.
But if VAR checks it and the decision was wrong, regardless of whether clear and obvious or not in real time, then VAR should be able to overrule it on the basis that the officials did not have seen the full picture.
I’ve been a defender/supporter of VAR but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to understand it.
I don’t watch much European football but are there the same problems with implementation there?
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I don’t get the “clear and obvious error” benchmark. I assume it means if the ref gave a decision based on what he could see at the time and he didn’t obviously get it wrong, then the decision can stand.
But if VAR checks it and the decision was wrong, regardless of whether clear and obvious or not in real time, then VAR should be able to overrule it on the basis that the officials did not have seen the full picture.
I’ve been a defender/supporter of VAR but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to understand it.
I don’t watch much European football but are there the same problems with implementation there?
Click to expand...

The clear and obvious determination means VAR can stick with the original on-pitch decision regardless if it is right or wrong based on the laws. They are only looking at whether the ref can be forgiven for getting it wrong.

Unfortunately, the video ref making the call works for the same team as the on-pitch ref and is measured on the same KPI's. Therefore, you see so many decisions staying with the on-pitch decision even though the entire world knows they were wrong based on the laws of the game.

Been saying it for years. The only thing the video ref should be saying to the on pitch ref is what would be the decision based on the laws. That is what all football stakeholders need in the game to restore some sanity.

It is the fox watching over the hen house as my US friends would say.
 
Muttley said:
The clear and obvious determination means VAR can stick with the original on-pitch decision regardless if it is right or wrong based on the laws. They are only looking at whether the ref can be forgiven for getting it wrong.

Unfortunately, the video ref making the call works for the same team as the on-pitch ref and is measured on the same KPI's. Therefore, you see so many decisions staying with the on-pitch decision even though the entire world knows they were wrong based on the laws of the game.

Been saying it for years. The only thing the video ref should be saying to the on pitch ref is what would be the decision based on the laws. That is what all football stakeholders need in the game to restore some sanity.

It is the fox watching over the hen house as my US friends would say.
Click to expand...
Seems to me the standard has become "clear and obvious, no not like that, get involved a bit less, oh fudge it just figure it out".

Same as the annual "clamp down" on whatever is the latest clamp down. Strict at first, then oh that won't work, ease it back a bit, oh just do whatever.
 
braineclipse said:
Seems to me the standard has become "clear and obvious, no not like that, get involved a bit less, oh fudge it just figure it out".

Same as the annual "clamp down" on whatever is the latest clamp down. Strict at first, then oh that won't work, ease it back a bit, oh just do whatever.
Click to expand...

The wording looks exactly like the memo the PGMOL sent to their members.
 
Muttley said:
Exactly this.

Here's an idea. Use the laws of the game and measure the refs on whether they are following them.

In pure terms I doubt they'd score more than 60% over the 90 mins of measured against the laws.
Click to expand...
100%. The terrible application of the obstruction laws is the best example of this. According to the laws of the game, you can only shield the ball from an opponent or block your opponent when the ball is within playing distance. It staggers me how little this law is applied, or indeed referred to by commentators or pundits.

By simply applying this, every instance of a centre half stepping across a forward as they run to close down a ball played back to the keeper from the kick-off would be given as a foul – because it is. (I loved it when Richarlison barrelled into someone (was it Gabriel?) last season as they did this – he was the one being obstructed.) Every time a player moves their body into the path of an opponent at a corner or free kick when the ball isn't within playing distance would be a foul. Every time a player stands in front of the keeper and blocks him from jumping for a cross would be a foul. Simply following the existing laws would stop these offences overnight. The law is in place, its application isn't.
 
Push and run said:
100%. The terrible application of the obstruction laws is the best example of this. According to the laws of the game, you can only shield the ball from an opponent or block your opponent when the ball is within playing distance. It staggers me how little this law is applied, or indeed referred to by commentators or pundits.

By simply applying this, every instance of a centre half stepping across a forward as they run to close down a ball played back to the keeper from the kick-off would be given as a foul – because it is. (I loved it when Richarlison barrelled into someone (was it Gabriel?) last season as they did this – he was the one being obstructed.) Every time a player moves their body into the path of an opponent at a corner or free kick when the ball isn't within playing distance would be a foul. Every time a player stands in front of the keeper and blocks him from jumping for a cross would be a foul. Simply following the existing laws would stop these offences overnight. The law is in place, its application isn't.
Click to expand...
Far worse than that is what I refer to as a "Chelsea foul"

It's where a player runs out of options with the ball and wishes to win a free kick. So they dive but grab the ball as they do so. It clearly a dive, everyone knows it's a dive. The referee can see it's a dive. But it's so much easier to give a nothing free kick than it is to book or send off a player, they always give the free kick. When Mourinho was at Chelsea, he really had the team perfect this - to the point where they were winning around 5-10 free kicks a match that otherwise would have left them under pressure.

VAR is perfect for this. It can conclusively say that there was no contact (or that the contact was initiated by the diver) and can award a yellow for the dive and one for the handball, making it a sending off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back