comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 3 minutes ago
Tbh it could be debated all day but there's an issue when 2 high profile refs have such strong differing views on whether or not it was the right decision.
Which leads back to the point that VAR shouldn't have been consulted in the same way it wasn't for the Morelos goal a few months ago. Forget the rule or whether it was a foul because that seems completely subjective, that's the part I'd like to understand better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the ref saw the incident with Morelos, saw the contact and gave the foul. If there had been no contact, it would have been a clear and obvious error.
In this instance, there was contact that the ref missed, or else he would have given the foul.
VAR cannot overrule a referee-it can only suggest he takes a look at an incident where he might have missed something. VAR looks at every goal and the build up to check if the ref has missed something.
Sure this was covered at the time. You can say the ref maybe got the call wrong-I think it’s soft-but VAR can’t say there’s a clear error as there was pushing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks POV, its an interesting perspective but its still not clear to me.
When you say the ref saw the contact with Morelos and gave the foul its the same in this situation. The ref saw the contact and decided it wasn't a foul. He didn't make a clear and obvious error, he made a decision based on what he saw and that decision is one that other high profile refs have agreed with.
The fact that we and other high profile refs can't agree on it tells you the incident wasn't a clear and obvious error surely? Which is where I struggle to understand why VAR got involved.
That's not to suggest a conspiracy, I'd just like to understand why in two similar situations of coming togethers before a goal is scored there is one where VAR gets involved another it doesn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermot Gallagher is no longer a high profile referee. Neither are Conroy or the other ref. They haven’t refereed games for a number of years, so won’t be on any of the courses that current refs attend.
If Robertson had seen the contact first time round, he would have given a foul, because under current rules that’s what it is. See Morelos v Dortmund and sands v St Mirren.
For the Morelos ‘goal’, there’s enough contact for Clancy to decide it’s a foul. It’s not clear and obvious because it’s interpretation-VAR can’t overrule remember. Clear and obvious would be no contact at all-unlike the Dessers incident.
‘We’ can’t agree because of our allegiances. I’ve already said I reckon at best the Morelos push was harsh. This one is pretty clear cut.
Others won’t agree because everyone has an opinion. The biggest issue is suggesting they are similar incidents. One is an opinion on whether the push was enough to be deemed a foul, the other is-under current refereeing standards-clearly a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if you need to study a course for your opinion to be relevant then surely that means your opinoin means nothing also?
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 1 minute ago
Some extraordinary mental gymnastics going on to excuse a clear trip of a player in possession of the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
some mental gymnastic to justify a player being kicked as a foul against.
the fact of the matter is the rule is jobbies, you can accept either or decision as refs have also. So you need to accept the one given.
The only real contention for me as Smid says is VAR stepping in to rule it out for an obvious error when its not as has been applied in other scenarios.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So player A is about to kick the ball up the touchline, opponent B dangles a leg which gets kicked in the follow through by player A … who gets the free kick in 100% of cases?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it went over your head.... nevermind
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR checks every goal, because goals are match changing situations. And yes they do check the build up.
Nevermind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
whooooosh !! thats 2 now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The only real contention for me as Smid says is VAR stepping in to rule it out for an obvious error when it's not as has been applied in other scenarios"
Which other scenarios are you on about? Or explain WTF you're on about?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the one thats been discussed already
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 2 minutes ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well why didn't you just say that then!!
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 20 seconds ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scottish refereeing course? But I thought the only thing Scottish football fans can agree on is that Scottish refs are useless.
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I was a qualified referee. It's a clear foul.
Madness eh? <laughh>
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I was a qualified referee. It's a clear foul.
Madness eh? <laughh>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when though ... .did ye study the latest version of the course over the summer?
‘ if you need to study a course for your opinion to be relevant then surely that means your opinoin means nothing also?’
That’s pretty idiotic really. Gallagher is there because he USED to be a referee. They used 2 pundits to give their opinion as well-neither are or were referees. I doubt they’ll know all the current rules and nuances, but they’re there to give an opinion.
Gallagher is there because he’s supposed to have a considered opinion due to his experience. My point is that’s he’s out the loop a bit as he’s no longer currently refereeing and won’t be totally up to date.
He’s got his opinion, but we’ve got precedence as to why he’s wrong.
Difference between "I was" and "I am"?
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I was a qualified referee. It's a clear foul.
Madness eh? <laughh>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when though ... .did ye study the latest version of the course over the summer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t no. I’m pretty certain however that doesn’t exclude me from seeing a free kick when it’s played out in slow motion.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
‘ if you need to study a course for your opinion to be relevant then surely that means your opinoin means nothing also?’
That’s pretty idiotic really. Gallagher is there because he USED to be a referee. They used 2 pundits to give their opinion as well-neither are or were referees. I doubt they’ll know all the current rules and nuances, but they’re there to give an opinion.
Gallagher is there because he’s supposed to have a considered opinion due to his experience. My point is that’s he’s out the loop a bit as he’s no longer currently refereeing and won’t be totally up to date.
He’s got his opinion, but we’ve got precedence as to why he’s wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out the loop? I imagine his job means he needs to be right up to date with the rules , and you have no idea what courses he has been involved in.
It was a stupid comment to make much like you cant tell me that food tastes rotten cos your no a chef
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I was a qualified referee. It's a clear foul.
Madness eh? <laughh>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when though ... .did ye study the latest version of the course over the summer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t no. I’m pretty certain however that doesn’t exclude me from seeing a free kick when it’s played out in slow motion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly..... people wanna critique the refs and say how poor they are, then are the voice of reason the next minute and know better all the time.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I was a qualified referee. It's a clear foul.
Madness eh? <laughh>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when though ... .did ye study the latest version of the course over the summer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t no. I’m pretty certain however that doesn’t exclude me from seeing a free kick when it’s played out in slow motion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly..... people wanna critique the refs and say how poor they are, then are the voice of reason the next minute and know better all the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usually when it suits
Yeah he can't be out the loop as the refereeing voice on the biggest sports broadcasting station in the UK. Its more likely just different interpretation of the rule and the incident. Which is fine. But given how subjective the incident seems to have been I can't understand how the on pitch decision could be viewed as an obvious and clear error.
But anyway its done and it doesn't detract from the bigger picture.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I was a qualified referee. It's a clear foul.
Madness eh? <laughh>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when though ... .did ye study the latest version of the course over the summer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t no. I’m pretty certain however that doesn’t exclude me from seeing a free kick when it’s played out in slow motion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly..... people wanna critique the refs and say how poor they are, then are the voice of reason the next minute and know better all the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usually when it suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iv said the call is 50/50. I dont have too many complaints about the actual foul, more the process.
And I dont see that decision as being the reason we lost either.
comment by CelticTornado (U4316)
posted 45 minutes ago
Yang dived
Cantwell dived ( again )
Both nowhere near penalties
Both were desperate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah the yang was a pen for me.
Does a drag back and has his feet taken away from him. Suprised more wasn't made of it.
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by CelticTornado (U4316)
posted 45 minutes ago
Yang dived
Cantwell dived ( again )
Both nowhere near penalties
Both were desperate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah the yang was a pen for me.
Does a drag back and has his feet taken away from him. Suprised more wasn't made of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
right hands up who has this guy on filter and who doesnt ?!
"VAR cannot overrule a referee-it can only suggest he takes a look at an incident where he might have missed something."
Utter bollox
Clear and obvious error is the criteria...whether the ref sees it or not
Like saying offside calls can't be overturned if the linesman puts his flag up, which is also nonsense
VAR could easily have suggested the ref takes another look at the Morelos incident, didn't bother as felt there wasn't a "clear and obvious error"....that's it
On this occasion, exact opposite
Still don't agree with it though, for me that's not a foul and never will be...no matter if it's been awarded in the past
If a defender has ample time to play the ball, but dallies and an attacker gets near him and uses his body to edge him out...for me that's no different to a defender using his body to ease an attacker off the ball
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
‘ if you need to study a course for your opinion to be relevant then surely that means your opinoin means nothing also?’
That’s pretty idiotic really. Gallagher is there because he USED to be a referee. They used 2 pundits to give their opinion as well-neither are or were referees. I doubt they’ll know all the current rules and nuances, but they’re there to give an opinion.
Gallagher is there because he’s supposed to have a considered opinion due to his experience. My point is that’s he’s out the loop a bit as he’s no longer currently refereeing and won’t be totally up to date.
He’s got his opinion, but we’ve got precedence as to why he’s wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out the loop? I imagine his job means he needs to be right up to date with the rules , and you have no idea what courses he has been involved in.
It was a stupid comment to make much like you cant tell me that food tastes rotten cos your no a chef
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, he clearly isn’t up to date if we’ve got evidence of what the rule actually is!
Of course he can have an opinion-he’s clearly not that informed though if he doesn’t know what the current rules are. I’ll keep saying it-we’ve got precedence for this involving rangers. Once against Dortmund, and once against St Mirren.
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 23 seconds ago
"VAR cannot overrule a referee-it can only suggest he takes a look at an incident where he might have missed something."
Utter bollox
Clear and obvious error is the criteria...whether the ref sees it or not
Like saying offside calls can't be overturned if the linesman puts his flag up, which is also nonsense
VAR could easily have suggested the ref takes another look at the Morelos incident, didn't bother as felt there wasn't a "clear and obvious error"....that's it
On this occasion, exact opposite
Still don't agree with it though, for me that's not a foul and never will be...no matter if it's been awarded in the past
If a defender has ample time to play the ball, but dallies and an attacker gets near him and uses his body to edge him out...for me that's no different to a defender using his body to ease an attacker off the ball
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside isn’t an opinion. Are you being deliberately obtuse?! I thought that would be obvious.
The rest just confirms that you accept it’s a rule, you just don’t agree with it. That’s completely different.
Funny how the current refs are now seen as bastions of the truth and never ever make mistakes
"Offside isn’t an opinion."
It is without the involvement of VAR, which is the point
comment by lauders (U9757)
posted 5 hours, 35 minutes ago
No plan no clue
Gtf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, he clearly isn’t up to date if we’ve got evidence of what the rule actually is!
Of course he can have an opinion-he’s clearly not that informed though if he doesn’t know what the current rules are. I’ll keep saying it-we’ve got precedence for this involving rangers. Once against Dortmund, and once against St Mirren.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you have no idea what courses he has attended or how up to date he is on the rules. You would like to thin and his employers would be the same that he is up to date on the latest rules, every bit as much as acitve referees are.
Sign in if you want to comment
Times up for me
Page 7 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 4/9/23
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 3 minutes ago
Tbh it could be debated all day but there's an issue when 2 high profile refs have such strong differing views on whether or not it was the right decision.
Which leads back to the point that VAR shouldn't have been consulted in the same way it wasn't for the Morelos goal a few months ago. Forget the rule or whether it was a foul because that seems completely subjective, that's the part I'd like to understand better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the ref saw the incident with Morelos, saw the contact and gave the foul. If there had been no contact, it would have been a clear and obvious error.
In this instance, there was contact that the ref missed, or else he would have given the foul.
VAR cannot overrule a referee-it can only suggest he takes a look at an incident where he might have missed something. VAR looks at every goal and the build up to check if the ref has missed something.
Sure this was covered at the time. You can say the ref maybe got the call wrong-I think it’s soft-but VAR can’t say there’s a clear error as there was pushing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks POV, its an interesting perspective but its still not clear to me.
When you say the ref saw the contact with Morelos and gave the foul its the same in this situation. The ref saw the contact and decided it wasn't a foul. He didn't make a clear and obvious error, he made a decision based on what he saw and that decision is one that other high profile refs have agreed with.
The fact that we and other high profile refs can't agree on it tells you the incident wasn't a clear and obvious error surely? Which is where I struggle to understand why VAR got involved.
That's not to suggest a conspiracy, I'd just like to understand why in two similar situations of coming togethers before a goal is scored there is one where VAR gets involved another it doesn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermot Gallagher is no longer a high profile referee. Neither are Conroy or the other ref. They haven’t refereed games for a number of years, so won’t be on any of the courses that current refs attend.
If Robertson had seen the contact first time round, he would have given a foul, because under current rules that’s what it is. See Morelos v Dortmund and sands v St Mirren.
For the Morelos ‘goal’, there’s enough contact for Clancy to decide it’s a foul. It’s not clear and obvious because it’s interpretation-VAR can’t overrule remember. Clear and obvious would be no contact at all-unlike the Dessers incident.
‘We’ can’t agree because of our allegiances. I’ve already said I reckon at best the Morelos push was harsh. This one is pretty clear cut.
Others won’t agree because everyone has an opinion. The biggest issue is suggesting they are similar incidents. One is an opinion on whether the push was enough to be deemed a foul, the other is-under current refereeing standards-clearly a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if you need to study a course for your opinion to be relevant then surely that means your opinoin means nothing also?
posted on 4/9/23
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 1 minute ago
Some extraordinary mental gymnastics going on to excuse a clear trip of a player in possession of the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
some mental gymnastic to justify a player being kicked as a foul against.
the fact of the matter is the rule is jobbies, you can accept either or decision as refs have also. So you need to accept the one given.
The only real contention for me as Smid says is VAR stepping in to rule it out for an obvious error when its not as has been applied in other scenarios.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So player A is about to kick the ball up the touchline, opponent B dangles a leg which gets kicked in the follow through by player A … who gets the free kick in 100% of cases?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it went over your head.... nevermind
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR checks every goal, because goals are match changing situations. And yes they do check the build up.
Nevermind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
whooooosh !! thats 2 now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The only real contention for me as Smid says is VAR stepping in to rule it out for an obvious error when it's not as has been applied in other scenarios"
Which other scenarios are you on about? Or explain WTF you're on about?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the one thats been discussed already
posted on 4/9/23
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
posted on 4/9/23
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 2 minutes ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well why didn't you just say that then!!
posted on 4/9/23
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 20 seconds ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scottish refereeing course? But I thought the only thing Scottish football fans can agree on is that Scottish refs are useless.
posted on 4/9/23
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I was a qualified referee. It's a clear foul.
Madness eh? <laughh>
posted on 4/9/23
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I was a qualified referee. It's a clear foul.
Madness eh? <laughh>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when though ... .did ye study the latest version of the course over the summer?
posted on 4/9/23
‘ if you need to study a course for your opinion to be relevant then surely that means your opinoin means nothing also?’
That’s pretty idiotic really. Gallagher is there because he USED to be a referee. They used 2 pundits to give their opinion as well-neither are or were referees. I doubt they’ll know all the current rules and nuances, but they’re there to give an opinion.
Gallagher is there because he’s supposed to have a considered opinion due to his experience. My point is that’s he’s out the loop a bit as he’s no longer currently refereeing and won’t be totally up to date.
He’s got his opinion, but we’ve got precedence as to why he’s wrong.
posted on 4/9/23
Difference between "I was" and "I am"?
posted on 4/9/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I was a qualified referee. It's a clear foul.
Madness eh? <laughh>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when though ... .did ye study the latest version of the course over the summer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t no. I’m pretty certain however that doesn’t exclude me from seeing a free kick when it’s played out in slow motion.
posted on 4/9/23
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
‘ if you need to study a course for your opinion to be relevant then surely that means your opinoin means nothing also?’
That’s pretty idiotic really. Gallagher is there because he USED to be a referee. They used 2 pundits to give their opinion as well-neither are or were referees. I doubt they’ll know all the current rules and nuances, but they’re there to give an opinion.
Gallagher is there because he’s supposed to have a considered opinion due to his experience. My point is that’s he’s out the loop a bit as he’s no longer currently refereeing and won’t be totally up to date.
He’s got his opinion, but we’ve got precedence as to why he’s wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out the loop? I imagine his job means he needs to be right up to date with the rules , and you have no idea what courses he has been involved in.
It was a stupid comment to make much like you cant tell me that food tastes rotten cos your no a chef
posted on 4/9/23
*or a critique
posted on 4/9/23
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I was a qualified referee. It's a clear foul.
Madness eh? <laughh>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when though ... .did ye study the latest version of the course over the summer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t no. I’m pretty certain however that doesn’t exclude me from seeing a free kick when it’s played out in slow motion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly..... people wanna critique the refs and say how poor they are, then are the voice of reason the next minute and know better all the time.
posted on 4/9/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I was a qualified referee. It's a clear foul.
Madness eh? <laughh>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when though ... .did ye study the latest version of the course over the summer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t no. I’m pretty certain however that doesn’t exclude me from seeing a free kick when it’s played out in slow motion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly..... people wanna critique the refs and say how poor they are, then are the voice of reason the next minute and know better all the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usually when it suits
posted on 4/9/23
Yeah he can't be out the loop as the refereeing voice on the biggest sports broadcasting station in the UK. Its more likely just different interpretation of the rule and the incident. Which is fine. But given how subjective the incident seems to have been I can't understand how the on pitch decision could be viewed as an obvious and clear error.
But anyway its done and it doesn't detract from the bigger picture.
posted on 4/9/23
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
The referees course I was on all agreed the goal should’ve stood. Enough said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I was a qualified referee. It's a clear foul.
Madness eh? <laughh>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when though ... .did ye study the latest version of the course over the summer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t no. I’m pretty certain however that doesn’t exclude me from seeing a free kick when it’s played out in slow motion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly..... people wanna critique the refs and say how poor they are, then are the voice of reason the next minute and know better all the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usually when it suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Iv said the call is 50/50. I dont have too many complaints about the actual foul, more the process.
And I dont see that decision as being the reason we lost either.
posted on 4/9/23
comment by CelticTornado (U4316)
posted 45 minutes ago
Yang dived
Cantwell dived ( again )
Both nowhere near penalties
Both were desperate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah the yang was a pen for me.
Does a drag back and has his feet taken away from him. Suprised more wasn't made of it.
posted on 4/9/23
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by CelticTornado (U4316)
posted 45 minutes ago
Yang dived
Cantwell dived ( again )
Both nowhere near penalties
Both were desperate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah the yang was a pen for me.
Does a drag back and has his feet taken away from him. Suprised more wasn't made of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
right hands up who has this guy on filter and who doesnt ?!
posted on 4/9/23
"VAR cannot overrule a referee-it can only suggest he takes a look at an incident where he might have missed something."
Utter bollox
Clear and obvious error is the criteria...whether the ref sees it or not
Like saying offside calls can't be overturned if the linesman puts his flag up, which is also nonsense
VAR could easily have suggested the ref takes another look at the Morelos incident, didn't bother as felt there wasn't a "clear and obvious error"....that's it
On this occasion, exact opposite
Still don't agree with it though, for me that's not a foul and never will be...no matter if it's been awarded in the past
If a defender has ample time to play the ball, but dallies and an attacker gets near him and uses his body to edge him out...for me that's no different to a defender using his body to ease an attacker off the ball
posted on 4/9/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
‘ if you need to study a course for your opinion to be relevant then surely that means your opinoin means nothing also?’
That’s pretty idiotic really. Gallagher is there because he USED to be a referee. They used 2 pundits to give their opinion as well-neither are or were referees. I doubt they’ll know all the current rules and nuances, but they’re there to give an opinion.
Gallagher is there because he’s supposed to have a considered opinion due to his experience. My point is that’s he’s out the loop a bit as he’s no longer currently refereeing and won’t be totally up to date.
He’s got his opinion, but we’ve got precedence as to why he’s wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out the loop? I imagine his job means he needs to be right up to date with the rules , and you have no idea what courses he has been involved in.
It was a stupid comment to make much like you cant tell me that food tastes rotten cos your no a chef
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, he clearly isn’t up to date if we’ve got evidence of what the rule actually is!
Of course he can have an opinion-he’s clearly not that informed though if he doesn’t know what the current rules are. I’ll keep saying it-we’ve got precedence for this involving rangers. Once against Dortmund, and once against St Mirren.
posted on 4/9/23
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 23 seconds ago
"VAR cannot overrule a referee-it can only suggest he takes a look at an incident where he might have missed something."
Utter bollox
Clear and obvious error is the criteria...whether the ref sees it or not
Like saying offside calls can't be overturned if the linesman puts his flag up, which is also nonsense
VAR could easily have suggested the ref takes another look at the Morelos incident, didn't bother as felt there wasn't a "clear and obvious error"....that's it
On this occasion, exact opposite
Still don't agree with it though, for me that's not a foul and never will be...no matter if it's been awarded in the past
If a defender has ample time to play the ball, but dallies and an attacker gets near him and uses his body to edge him out...for me that's no different to a defender using his body to ease an attacker off the ball
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside isn’t an opinion. Are you being deliberately obtuse?! I thought that would be obvious.
The rest just confirms that you accept it’s a rule, you just don’t agree with it. That’s completely different.
posted on 4/9/23
Funny how the current refs are now seen as bastions of the truth and never ever make mistakes
posted on 4/9/23
"Offside isn’t an opinion."
It is without the involvement of VAR, which is the point
posted on 4/9/23
comment by lauders (U9757)
posted 5 hours, 35 minutes ago
No plan no clue
Gtf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok.
posted on 4/9/23
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, he clearly isn’t up to date if we’ve got evidence of what the rule actually is!
Of course he can have an opinion-he’s clearly not that informed though if he doesn’t know what the current rules are. I’ll keep saying it-we’ve got precedence for this involving rangers. Once against Dortmund, and once against St Mirren.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you have no idea what courses he has attended or how up to date he is on the rules. You would like to thin and his employers would be the same that he is up to date on the latest rules, every bit as much as acitve referees are.
Page 7 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10