The Master
-
Posts
13,002 -
Joined
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by The Master
-
-
2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:
He can make no decision
He can’t.
Quote
2. The referee must always make a decision, i.e. the referee is not permitted to give ‘no decision’ and then use the VAR to make the decision; a decision to allow play to continue after an alleged offence can be reviewed.https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#principles
0 -
6 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:
So you believe when robertson awarded the free kick, VAR checked back to the free kick incident and in a split second checked all the angles and agreed with him?
You and @RandomGuy. seem to have opposing perceptions of time.
He thought the referee played on for almost a minute (it was seven seconds), and you think everything was done and dusted in "a split second".
There was a full VAR check, announced in the stadium. That check will have included reviewing the incident that the referee deemed to be a foul that led to the award of the free kick.
6 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:Your last paragraph is correct, only issue is robertson didn't award the game changing event decision, what should have happened is
Robertson sees potential foul on johnston, but allows play to continue
Robertson sees vickers foul hoilett, awards penalty but indicates to VAR that johnston might have been foul (VAR will check back anyway as per its procedure)
Free kick is spotted after a VAR delay and robertson indicates celtic free kick
But he never once awarded the penalty
A potential game-changing event did arise, which is what led him to award the free-kick for the original foul. There is no obligation for the referee to give the penalty for VAR to intervene. He makes whatever decision he thinks is correct, and if VAR disagrees they can call him to the monitor.
It's fundamentally no different to a player putting the ball in the net, then the linesman flags and the referee gives a free kick for offside. The referee doesn't need to award the goal for the offside to be checked (the only difference is there's no subsequent call to the monitor if the on-field decision is incorrect).
0 -
2 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:
VAR wont have checked for any foul as robertson gave the free kick, the minute he blew hos whistle and awarded the free kick VAR became redundant in that situation
No, the whole reason for delaying was so VAR could review the free-kick should a game-changing event (penalty or goal) occur.
At the moment the whistle went to award the free kick, it was still possible for a VAR intervention to lead to a penalty for Aberdeen.
2 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:As for the last paragraph, if the ref believed it was a penalty so awarded the original free kick, why let play go on, just award the free kick as it happened
The delay was so that if a game-changing event subsequently occurred, VAR could review the award of the free-kick.
0 -
4 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:
But we are now at the point where refs wont blow for fouls they clearly see, its not a potential slight contact, ref might not have the best angle etc
The aberdeen boy jumped, missed the ball along with johnston, but jumped into him, some refs give that some wont, robertson obviously does so just fucking blow the whistle
As I've said, the fact people are debating whether or not it was even a foul indicates the referee was right to delay.
4 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:And he didnt do the procedure correctly either, when hoilett went down he immediately gave the free kick, if he's delaying then what for, its not like he allowed VAR to check for a foul in the build up, hoilett went down and he immediately gave the foul on johnston
What do you mean "allowed VAR to check for a foul in the build up"? VAR absolutely will have checked for a foul in the build-up - the foul that the referee originally gave.
As for the timing of the whistle, I'd have thought that was obvious. The referee believed it could be a penalty, and so awarded the original free-kick (in the same way it would have been awarded if a goal had been scored).
0 -
10 minutes ago, still_game said:
No its not, its manipulating the rules t suit a given situation, and then attempting to hide behind the rules to cover up the obvious cock up made.
Yes it is. The VAR protocol make specific reference to assistants delaying flags and referees delaying their decisions.
The very fact there was a potential penalty demonstrates precisely why the delay was correct.
0 -
10 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:
By blowing for the foul, that happened at the start of everything, VAR then couldn't do anything beyond that point.
Of course VAR could - that was the whole point of delaying.
10 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:He delayed for the best part of a minute,
Seven seconds elapsed between the foul on the defender and the referee giving the free kick.
10 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:let play unfold, then decided to make sure that whole part was ignored and he would blow for a foul he wasn't sure about instead and make the decision free kick or not free kick.
What do you mean "a foul he wasn't sure about"?
He believed it was a foul, otherwise he wouldn't have given it. However, he delayed the decision long enough to ensure that, if necessary depending on the subsequent play, VAR could intervene to ensure he was correct. This is exactly what happened.
10 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:Why do that and delay when you're not sure about that, when you can blow for the penalty you're not sure about and they can check the foul and penalty at the same time, give him another chance to view the whole play, then decide?
Because that's not how this works. The referee has to give the decision he believes is the correct one.
He believed there was a foul on the defender, but (per VAR protocol) let play unfold to ensure that if he were wrong, any subsequent game-changing incidents would be allowed to stand.
0 -
2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:
The whole point of the delay now is so VAR can check an entire sequence. Trying to referee the "same way" as before VAR by stopping the play at the start of a move, while including a delay, is entirely counter-intuitive and defeats the entire point of it.
Who said anything about stopping the play at the start of a move while including a delay? Those things are contradictory - either play is stopped at the start of a move, or there is a delay. It can't be both.
I also never said referees referee in the "same way" as before VAR. I said they make their decisions as they would have done.
2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:The penalty was more clear cut than the foul, so it that not the fairer decision?
No, because it happened after the incident that the referee believed was a foul on the defender.
2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:You literally said in the post I'd previously quoted that any referee who sees a foul as clear cut will blow for it instantly, yet now you're saying he was certain it was a foul from the moment it happened?
You're the one who introduces the notion of a referee being "certain" or not.
As has been said repeatedly, it's exactly the same principle as assistants delaying their flags.
0 -
8 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:
Which would be the correct way of doing it, so the whole play could be reviewed.
No it's not.
The "correct way" is for the referee to make the decision he would have done had VAR not been involved - possibly with a delay. The role of VAR is then to determine if the referee has made an error.
8 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:Instead he "stopped play" at the free kick, which you yourself admits was inconclusive about whether it was a foul or not, and VAR couldn't over rule the on field decision as it wasn't clearly wrong and so the chances of the penalty being awarded become zero.
By the same argument, had he not given the free kick then VAR couldn't have overruled that either and so the chances of the penalty being awarded were significantly higher.
The referee has to make a decision on the field. The referee's decision was that there was a foul on the defender, and the delay was absolutely the right thing to do to ensure that a "clear and obvious error" wasn't made in coming to that decision if something potentially "game changing" went on to develop.
8 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:You yourself admit the referee wasn't certain the foul was a foul yet he decided to make that stopping point for the review instead of the penalty.
I never said he wasn't certain it was a foul. I said it wasn't clear-cut enough to stop play when the ball was in an attacking area. Those two things are not the same.
8 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:Do you understand yet why thats bad refereeing and how it shafted Aberdeen and benefited Celtic?
It's not bad refereeing. It was, in terms of process, very good refereeing because it's exactly what the VAR protocol sets out.
Whether the outcome was ultimately correct is a separate debate.
0 -
32 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:
I've lived in Dundee since September 2014. There has been one orange march here since. I know because it went down the street I live on.
0 -
5 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:
He clearly thought it was clear cut if he blew for that as the foul, otherwise he'd have blown for the penalty, which was a clear foul.
No, he believed there was a foul but it wasn't clear-cut enough to stop the game while the ball was in an attacking area. In the same way that an assistant can believe a player is offside, but it isn't clear-cut enough to flag immediately.
5 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:Otherwise he's just guessing in Celtics favour and weighting things towards them, as if its not a clear foul by the Aberdeen player then VAR can't overturn his decision to give the free kick.
If he had given the penalty then VAR absolutely could intervene to recommend an on-field review for a foul in the build-up. If, after visiting the monitor, the referee agreed there was a foul, the penalty would be overturned and play restarted with the same free-kick we saw.
0 -
1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:
Which is why I've asked for examples.
You're unlikely to find examples, because you not only need a delayed decision but also something of note actually happening after it. Only then will it make it into highlights packages, and/or be remembered by people at the game.
0 -
Just now, RandomGuy. said:
I understand you're talking about rules being rules, but I'm saying I've never seen that particular method of referereing actually applied today.
There was about 3 examples in our previous game alone of a defender going down after an aerial foul and the ref blowing instantly despite an attacking moment coming from it.
Todays example of refereeing was a first for me.
If the referee believes it to be a clear-cut decision, they'll still blow for a foul immediately, in the same way that assistants still flag immediately for blatant offsides.
The very fact people are arguing about whether it was or wasn't a foul tells you that it wasn't a clear-cut decision.
0 -
Just now, RandomGuy. said:
Because, my point was I've never seen a defender fouled in the box and play allowed to continue for multiple events to happen before its blown for.
Just because you've never seen it happen, it doesn't mean it can't.
0 -
Just now, RandomGuy. said:
Again, thats not in the box, and a player was clean through.
Today it was in a crowded box.
I'm not sure why you think it being in the box makes a difference.
If anything, there's more reason to delay the decision in a "crowded box" because more can happen - and indeed, something did happen that led to a VAR review.
0 -
1 hour ago, bob_mcshug said:
You can quote yourself as much as you want, you're still talking pish.
Never in the history of football do referees routinely allow attacking teams time to develop attacks in the box after fouling the defending team's players.
The introduction of VAR must have passed you by.
Referees can and do allow play to continue before blowing the whistle so that if a goal is scored or a penalty is conceded, VAR can review the foul to determine if it should have been given.
If it’s given too early and turns out not to be a foul, the goal or penalty can’t be given.
1 -
4 minutes ago, bob_mcshug said:
That decision is wild. If he's deemed it a free kick why allow Aberdeen the chance to continue to attack/score when they've allegedly already committed a foul.
2 hours ago, The Master said:For the same reason that assistants flag late.
Play is allowed to develop so that if the ball ends up in the net or an attacker is fouled in the box, the goal/penalty can subsequently be awarded if a VAR review determines that the original free kick should not have been given.
I’m going to set a new record for self-quoting the same post at this rate.
0 -
7 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:
I've never once seen a referee allow "play to develop" like that if they see a foul in the box on the defending side.
Not once since VAR came in.
That’s more of a slight on those referees than Don Robertson.
It’s very much what referees should be doing, lest a perfectly legitimate goal/penalty is ruled-out because a decision to give a free kick to the defending team was wrong.
0 -
1 minute ago, Molotov said:
Why did he not stop for the “foul” before the CCV made his challenge?
He took ages to make his mind up.
1 hour ago, The Master said:For the same reason that assistants flag late.
Play is allowed to develop so that if the ball ends up in the net or an attacker is fouled in the box, the goal/penalty can subsequently be awarded if a VAR review determines that the original free kick should not have been given.
-1 -
1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:
Genuinely just seen him signal for the free kick to Celtic and if anything it's even worse he does that. Why does he wait until an Aberdeen player is fouled to stop play?
1 hour ago, The Master said:For the same reason that assistants flag late.
Play is allowed to develop so that if the ball ends up in the net or an attacker is fouled in the box, the goal/penalty can subsequently be awarded if a VAR review determines that the original free kick should not have been given.
0 -
1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:
Watch this and explain to me when the referee gives a foul to Celtic and not a penalty.
Here, when his arm is pointing to the centre circle:
0 -
2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:
Interesting that for Aberdeens next penalty shout, they were miraculously able to not just check the penalty incident and awarded a foul and free kick instead.
The free kick was awarded by the referee.
But even if a free kick hadn’t been given by the referee, it could still have been given as a result of a VAR review of the subsequently “penalty” foul.
That’s how VAR has always worked.
0 -
On 19/04/2024 at 13:15, Lurkst said:
Agreed, remember some great midweek replays in the past
This one was tremendous, albeit stressful. We don’t then talk about what happened in the semi-final.
0 -
3 minutes ago, kent_don said:
Why did he let play continue and not blow for it straight away?
For the same reason that assistants flag late.
Play is allowed to develop so that if the ball ends up in the net or an attacker is fouled in the box, the goal/penalty can subsequently be awarded if a VAR review determines that the original free kick should not have been given.
1 -
Just now, Leith Green said:
Can't be a pen if ref blew for a foul earlier in that move.
Which he did.
I think he blew after the second "incident", so it could have been a penalty.
But I suspect VAR agreed it was a free kick.
0
Semi Final: Aberdeen vs Celtic
in Domestic Cup Football
Posted
No, because his on-field determination was that there was a foul on the defender. He let the play run not because of a lack of certainty, but because that’s what is now supposed to happen under the VAR protocol.
Once a potential game-changing event happened, he stopped the play and awarded the free kick that, without VAR, he would have awarded straight away.