Premier League

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

If it's Carragher your referring to then be just be speaking with forked tongue because in the clip he calls it as a red.

https://www.skysports.com/football/video/33727/13477696/chelsea-v-arsenal-jamie-carragher-analyses-moises-caicedos-red-card

 

No it wasn't Carragher. I'll see if I can find the recording.

[Guy N. Cognito]

4 hours ago, arbitro said:

If it's Carragher your referring to then be just be speaking with forked tongue because in the clip he calls it as a red.

https://www.skysports.com/football/video/33727/13477696/chelsea-v-arsenal-jamie-carragher-analyses-moises-caicedos-red-card

 

Carragher's lucky to even have a media career. People have been cancelled for much less.

[RevidgeBlue]

8 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

No it wasn't Carragher. I'll see if I can find the recording.

Was Theo Walcott and another black player I didnt recognise called Daniel.

There was a similar sort of incident in the Birmingham v Watford game last night. Two players challenged for a bouncing ball simultaneously and the Watford player might have got a tiny bit of the ball but caught the Birmingham player studs up high up on the knee.

A much worse tackle than the Caicedo one imo but again the onfield decision was a yellow.

[arbitro]

5 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Was Theo Walcott and another black player I didnt recognise called Daniel.

There was a similar sort of incident in the Birmingham v Watford game last night. Two players challenged for a bouncing ball simultaneously and the Watford player might have got a tiny bit of the ball but caught the Birmingham player studs up high up on the knee.

A much worse tackle than the Caicedo one imo but again the onfield decision was a yellow.

But with VAR it would almost certainly been an OFR and very likely upgraded to a red as would Whiteman for his challenge on Tronstadt.

[RevidgeBlue]

30 minutes ago, arbitro said:

But with VAR it would almost certainly been an OFR and very likely upgraded to a red as would Whiteman for his challenge on Tronstadt.

Arguably for me that's the only time VAR is useful rather than simply being a means to chalk off great goals for the most trivial of infractions. (On the Tronstad one I thought that should have been yellow, the one on Baradji should have been red and was so extreme it warranted an additional ban on top of the standard three games)

For me the Watford one should have been red, the Chelsea one definitely shouldnt, and VAR shouldn't have got involved in the first place.

On a similar note, I think it's an absolute nonsense that VAR can only intervene in straight red card offences but can't in the case of a second yellow leading to a red. 

Ditto when something factual happens like a corner or a throw wrongly being given or not given which could obviously lead to a goal being scored or stop a crucial opportunity.

[arbitro]

2 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Arguably for me that's the only time VAR is useful rather than simply being a means to chalk off great goals for the most trivial of infractions. (On the Tronstad one I thought that should have been yellow, the one on Baradji should have been red and was so extreme it warranted an additional ban on top of the standard three games)

For me the Watford one should have been red, the Chelsea one definitely shouldnt, and VAR shouldn't have got involved in the first place.

On a similar note, I think it's an absolute nonsense that VAR can only intervene in straight red card offences but can't in the case of a second yellow leading to a red. 

Ditto when something factual happens like a corner or a throw wrongly being given or not given which could obviously lead to a goal being scored or stop a crucial opportunity.

Both challenges ticked every box for a red card including endangering an opponents safety and therefore should have been dealt with accordingly.

In my opinion VAR has done what it should by sending the referee for an OFR in the Chelsea game. Had VAR been used at Birmingham I have no doubt the same process and outcome would have happened.

Tackles that could badly injure players should be dealt with accordingly in my view.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, arbitro said:

Both challenges ticked every box for a red card including endangering an opponents safety and therefore should have been dealt with accordingly.

In my opinion VAR has done what it should by sending the referee for an OFR in the Chelsea game. Had VAR been used at Birmingham I have no doubt the same process and outcome would have happened.

Tackles that could badly injure players should be dealt with accordingly in my view.

We'll have to agree to disagree, the Chelsea one was studs down, Caicedo didn't leave the ground and his body wasn't out of control. There was no malicious intent whatsoever, and it was a purely accidental collision due to the Arsenal player getting there a fraction earlier.

For me it ticked every single box why it shouldnt be a red. Not every single foul should be a yellow or red as Im sure you'd agree.

[K-Hod]

I think the worst thing about VAR is that they seem more interested in disallowing goals than allowing them.

It's over-complicated things which don't need so much thought. 

Football has already changed far too much for the worse in my view, this just adds to it, for me.

[RevidgeBlue]

7 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

I think the worst thing about VAR is that they seem more interested in disallowing goals than allowing them

100%.

Id scrap VAR but given we're probably stuck with it permanently, the only way it becomes tolerable overall for me is if the offside law is amended to require clear daylight.

Other tweaks I'd make are as alluded to above, they should be able to intervene where a second yellow is clearly wrongly given/not given or if a corner or throw in is clearly wrongly given/not given as the latter are factual in the same way as whether the ball is over the line or not.

 

[roversfan99]

If you started checking every throw in and corner though then you very much would be re-refereeing the game and it would take ages.

With the offsides as it becomes more and more reliant on technology to speed up the process, I think bringing terms like daylight into it actually then brings in more subjectivity.

The second yellow if it is clearly a wrong decision I agree should be changed.

Caicedo definitely was correct to be sent off.

[arbitro]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

We'll have to agree to disagree, the Chelsea one was studs down, Caicedo didn't leave the ground and his body wasn't out of control. There was no malicious intent whatsoever, and it was a purely accidental collision due to the Arsenal player getting there a fraction earlier.

For me it ticked every single box why it shouldnt be a red. Not every single foul should be a yellow or red as Im sure you'd agree.

Intent was removed from law several years ago so whether he meant to to it is a moot point. It won't matter as your mind is made up but these are the considerations taken into account.

"Serious foul play" is a term used in sports, particularly soccer, to describe a challenge on an opponent with excessive force or brutality that endangers their safety. It is a severe offense, typically resulting in a direct red card, and can involve lunging tackles from any direction or challenges with studs exposed that endanger the opponent's safety. 

 

Key characteristics of serious foul play

• Excessive force: The challenge is made with brutality and excessive force, not just a normal attempt to win the ball.
• Endangers safety: The action poses a risk of serious injury to the opponent.
• Excessive force or brutality: This can include lunging with both legs from the front, side, or behind, or making contact with studs up.
• Dangerous: Even if the ball is played, a foul can still be serious foul play if the follow-through endangers the opponent, such as a studs-up tackle.
• Punishment: It is always punished with a red card. 

[arbitro]

30 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

I think the worst thing about VAR is that they seem more interested in disallowing goals than allowing them.

It's over-complicated things which don't need so much thought. 

Football has already changed far too much for the worse in my view, this just adds to it, for me.

It is too forensic in many situations for sure but for serious foul play and violent conduct I think it has been a success.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

If you started checking every throw in and corner though then you very much would be re-refereeing the game and it would take ages.

With the offsides as it becomes more and more reliant on technology to speed up the process, I think bringing terms like daylight into it actually then brings in more subjectivity.

Throw ins maybe but it ought to be possible to make a fairly snap decision. Corners there's a natural break in play anyway and the wrong decision either way could prove absolutely crucial.

Off sides - if they can determine if someone has a toe nail off - why on earth wouldnt the technology be able to detect "daylight"? 

Wouldn't be subjective at all.

 

[chaddyrovers]

7 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Was Theo Walcott and another black player I didnt recognise called Daniel.

Daniel Sturridge? Former Man City, Liverpool and Chelsea striker?.

[RevidgeBlue]

4 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Intent was removed from law several years ago so whether he meant to to it is a moot point. It won't matter as your mind is made up but these are the considerations taken into account.

"Serious foul play" is a term used in sports, particularly soccer, to describe a challenge on an opponent with excessive force or brutality that endangers their safety. It is a severe offense, typically resulting in a direct red card, and can involve lunging tackles from any direction or challenges with studs exposed that endanger the opponent's safety. 

 

Key characteristics of serious foul play

• Excessive force: The challenge is made with brutality and excessive force, not just a normal attempt to win the ball.
• Endangers safety: The action poses a risk of serious injury to the opponent.
• Excessive force or brutality: This can include lunging with both legs from the front, side, or behind, or making contact with studs up.
• Dangerous: Even if the ball is played, a foul can still be serious foul play if the follow-through endangers the opponent, such as a studs-up tackle.
• Punishment: It is always punished with a red card. 

Caicedo challenge

- Normal attempt to win the ball, no brutality or excessive force from either player, two genuine attempts to win the ball,  one just got there fractionally before the other.

- Any tackle presents a risk of serious injury to the opponent if you get it wrong.

- In this case studs down not up. His foot has to go somewhere.

It doesn't matter because your mind is made up as well but that's part of my point it's a very contentious and subjective decision. The referee on the spot made (imo) the correct decision on the field having witnessed it close up at normal speed and VAR shouldnt have intervened.

Of course it's going to look horrendous in slow motion and winding a freeze frame back and forward.

 

 

[RevidgeBlue]

9 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Daniel Sturridge? Former Man City, Liverpool and Chelsea striker?.

Quite possibly. 🙂

Having taken a bit more notice of what they actually said in detail they sort of contradicted themselves a bit.

They said the referee saw it close up and made his decision and that the challenge wasn't as bad in real time as it looked in slow motion but that once called over to the monitor to look at the freeze frame a ref is realistically only going to award a red.

It was the presenter who made the point that Taylor awarded a yellow, so was that "a clear and obvious" error and maybe VAR shouldnt have intervened.

[arbitro]

7 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Caicedo challenge

- Normal attempt to win the ball, no brutality or excessive force from either player, two genuine attempts to win the ball,  one just got there fractionally before the other.

- Any tackle presents a risk of serious injury to the opponent if you get it wrong.

- In this case studs down not up. His foot has to go somewhere.

It doesn't matter because your mind is made up as well but that's part of my point it's a very contentious and subjective decision. The referee on the spot made (imo) the correct decision on the field having witnessed it close up at normal speed and VAR shouldnt have intervened.

Of course it's going to look horrendous in slow motion and winding a freeze frame back and forward.

 

 

Those are the guidelines and of course not every one will apply - each case can be different.

You don't think it's a sending off and that's fine but when the Chelsea manager says the red card was justified I think it can be accepted by the vast majority that the decision was correct.

[chaddyrovers]

5 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Quite possibly. 🙂

Having taken a bit more notice of what they actually said in detail they sort of contradicted themselves a bit.

They said the referee saw it close up and made his decision and that the challenge wasn't as bad in real time as it looked in slow motion but that once called over to the monitor to look at the freeze frame a ref is realistically only going to award a red.

It was the presenter who made the point that Taylor awarded a yellow, so was that "a clear and obvious" error and maybe VAR shouldnt have intervened.

For me, it was a clear red when watching it. I stand by that still

[RevidgeBlue]

6 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Those are the guidelines and of course not every one will apply - each case can be different.

You don't think it's a sending off and that's fine but when the Chelsea manager says the red card was justified I think it can be accepted by the vast majority that the decision was correct.

Several posters on here thought it was a yellow and one didnt even think it was worthy of a card.