Maddison was superb there.
And then he wasn't.
And then he wasn't.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Premier League 1-3/4/25
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
Isn't it simply that had the ref given the foul but not a yellow then he can't be advised to change his decision? But having not seen the foul and that foul being reviewed as part of a goal review all options are open. Thought that was spot on - Sarr looked as guilty as Mitoma did yesterday
- Aug 24, 2020
- 8,576
Cole Palmer not happy at being subbed.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 17,027
Cold Palmer getting hot
Scappa
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2017
- 1,843
Could be. But then how many occasions where a dive has been missed has the offender been booked after VAR?
I'm not questioning the eventual outcome, it was a booking all day long - don't see how it took so long to decide there was even a foul - its the process and consistency of application that is baffling
kevo
Well-known member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 10,205
Just proves the major fallacy about VAR that it makes decisions 'objective'. The VAR refs are as subjective and inconsistent in their decision-making as the on-field refs are, last night being a prime example. So what's the point in having them?
A decision should only ever be changed when it is blatantly clear and obvious that a mistake has been made. By the very definition of the phrase, if you have to look at an incident multiple times over the course of several minutes it cannot be 'clear and obvious'.
It's unbelievable that PGMOL can't understand that.
We were shouting at the telly here. Why he needed to watch the replay a dozen times I don’t know. I can see how he missed it in real time (from the angle he was watching) but the first replay showed it was obvious he’d kicked Caicedo on the knee and missed the ball completely.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Touchy interview post match on Sky
AmexRuislip
Retired Spy 🕵️♂️
Steered clear of those touchy Spuds fans, especially the one who likes playing charades with Nescafe as the topic.
I‘d like the VAR officials to adjudicate on any key decision and to reverse it if wrong, and not be hemmed by the high bar clear and obvious to give silly historic weight to the power of the ref. Rugby Union and cricket video officials seek simply to deliver the correct ruling, regardless of what the on field official decided. No egos are hurt. Then this silly carry on the ref going to a TV screen, followed by pack of bullying footballers breaking the rules.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Imagine if you were on trial for something, and a VAR official was on the jury.
Kinell.
Kinell.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Not seen it yet, but he's always a bit CHIPPY innit. The interviewers know how to press his buttons.
Agree with this. The clear and obvious itself is subjective and should be removed. I'd also take away the pitch side review. The video ref is a qualified ref and has the benefit of replays and should therefore make the decision. Last night there was no need for Pawson to spend more time looking at replays.
GT49er
Well-known member
Trouble is, at the outset PGMOL made a completely false interpretation of 'clear and obvious', as Dermot Gallagher frequently used to explain on Refwatch on SSN. If, after close examination, drawing lines, five minutes deliberation it is shown that a toenail is offside, then it's clear and obvious that he was offside, so, ergo, it was a clear and obvious error.
Absolute bollocks of course, but once they'd set out their stall wrongly they were in a hole - and kept digging.
crookie
Well-known member
Agree, once they go there, they always agree with the VAR anyway, so pointless waste of more time. Might have been an occasion when the on field Ref stuck to their original decision but can't remember a recent one
Video analysis works brilliantly in other sports, delivering the correct decision on key moments. Refs/officials don’t have hurt feelings. None of this silly it was probably wrong, but not emphatically clear and obviously so, let’s allow the wrong decision to stand.