I was conflating to make a point, the wording "clear and obvious" is arbitrary because everyone's idea of clear and obvious is going to be different - once again I say, the issue is in the wording of the protocol - they need to remove the clear and obvious part and call it like it is which is down to the refs discretion as that is how VAR is being used in this trial.
I'm not even sure what we're debating anymore. I think we're pretty much on the same page? The mistake wasn't clear and obvious but the decision on review was clear and obvious.
You put that replay in front of five referees and all five of them would've said penalty.
Either a TV ref or a challenge system to flag a howler (we can all see a very obviously black and white 'howler' compared to tonight) where it then has to be obviously wrong or it stays with the same decision.
The type of decision where any ref would know they dropped a bollock. Some refs tonight would have seen that and still thought it wasn't a foul (like I did).
The odd thing about this when compared to tennis and cricket, is that in those sports it's the players who control the use of VAR when they don't like a decision, not the officials, it's not there for when an umpire can't decide whether a batsman is lbw or not.
He gives the decision, and the players can review it if they want to (and have reviews left), i.e. they decide which decisions are the "howlers" which need the technology review
I can see the argument for a players review system in place of what's currently being used.
The problem with VAR is often the apparent arbitrary nature of what is and what isn't reviewed. If you put that control in the hands of the players, it takes that problem away.
Said it before and I'll say it again. VAR = football is a farce.
Five or so pages about one decision in a meaningless friendly.
Just wait until it really matters in the World Cup.
Puts to bed the "VAR stops me and my mates talking about the game down the pub" argument though. :-)
I have never argued that. I can understand reviews in tennis, cricket and rugby plus goal line technology where the video ref is dealing in matters of fact.
However, it will never solve anything in football when decisions are a matter of opinion. And to hand that power over to a faceless official is a disaster imho.
Said it before and I'll say it again. VAR = football is a farce.
Five or so pages about one decision in a meaningless friendly.
Just wait until it really matters in the World Cup.
Puts to bed the "VAR stops me and my mates talking about the game down the pub" argument though. :-)
I have never argued that. I can understand reviews in tennis, cricket and rugby plus goal line technology where the video ref is dealing in matters of fact.
However, it will never solve anything in football when decisions are a matter of opinion. And to hand that power over to a faceless official is a disaster imho.
But both the original decision and the correction were made by the referee on the pitch - neither decision was made by a faceless official. That's a common misunderstanding of how VAR in football works.
It was a CLEAR & OBVIOUS foul on replay. The referee was in a position where he was damned if he awarded it and damned if he didn't.
Going forward it needs to be somehow clearer what is and isn't to be reviewed. This could be solved by using a player appeal system.
Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks... Had both 1-0 and 1-0 vardy fgs... Only just seen it... Bollocks was that a pen, he was already on the floor when Tarkowski put the challenge in. Not happy
The odd thing about this when compared to tennis and cricket, is that in those sports it's the players who control the use of VAR when they don't like a decision, not the officials, it's not there for when an umpire can't decide whether a batsman is lbw or not.
He gives the decision, and the players can review it if they want to (and have reviews left), i.e. they decide which decisions are the "howlers" which need the technology review
In cricket the umpire calls for a replay in run out situations (even when the player is ten yards past the stumps on some occasions* "just in case").
Josh Magennis has been called up by Northern Ireland for their next Friendlies at the end of March - With Jay Dasilva injured, it looks as though Ezri Konsa is the only other likely to disappear for England duty meaning that our game against Plymouth Argyle on the 24th March wont be cancelled
Who else expects to see Harry Kane back for Spurs on the 1st April against Chelsea?
Pochettino on Kane: ‘I cannot say no, but I cannot say yes. Maybe next weekend. But the most important is that we are so positive about his recovery, and we are doing fantastic, and we are so happy’.
Even if he does play so what? Why risk him 5 days earlier for a meaningless friendly match - it's not like he is fighting for a place on the plane is it?
Even if he does play so what? Why risk him 5 days earlier for a meaningless friendly match - it's not like he is fighting for a place on the plane is it?
Exactly. Didn't Ryan Giggs miss every Wales friendly for about 7-8 years? Who cares as long as Kane is fit for the first group game that's all that matters.
Comments
You put that replay in front of five referees and all five of them would've said penalty.
Either a TV ref or a challenge system to flag a howler (we can all see a very obviously black and white 'howler' compared to tonight) where it then has to be obviously wrong or it stays with the same decision.
The type of decision where any ref would know they dropped a bollock. Some refs tonight would have seen that and still thought it wasn't a foul (like I did).
He gives the decision, and the players can review it if they want to (and have reviews left), i.e. they decide which decisions are the "howlers" which need the technology review
Five or so pages about one decision in a meaningless friendly.
Just wait until it really matters in the World Cup.
The problem with VAR is often the apparent arbitrary nature of what is and what isn't reviewed. If you put that control in the hands of the players, it takes that problem away.
However, it will never solve anything in football when decisions are a matter of opinion. And to hand that power over to a faceless official is a disaster imho.
It was a CLEAR & OBVIOUS foul on replay. The referee was in a position where he was damned if he awarded it and damned if he didn't.
Going forward it needs to be somehow clearer what is and isn't to be reviewed. This could be solved by using a player appeal system.
* I may have exaggerated for effect.
Konsa played the 90mins in a 3-0 win over Portugal last night
I doubt he plays tbh.