[Football] Clear and obvious error

[Birdie Boy]

If you kick a player like that in the middle of the pitch, it's a foul and will be given.
The ref missed a clear and obvious foul, hence var, it was in the penalty area, so penalty.

 

[drew]

its that good old common sense thing. of course its obvious what clear and obvious means, those incidents that occur but the ref misses due to position, speed of game, off ball etc. trouble is the video make every damn transgression obvious with 5x slow mo and 18 cameras. apply the rule, its clear and obvious to the 4th official, so he'll clearly will refer it. i say there should be a tight time limit, if 4th cant decide a ref missed something in a few seconds, it wasn't obvious and so play on. the irony is the condition is intended to stop every tiny incident being reviewed and refered to the ref. its not working.

seeing the Welbeck penalty, i couldnt even say its even a foul, two players go for ball, neither get it and one clips the other. despite benefiting from it, i dont like it, wasnt a deserved penalty.

Just to clarify, I'm not aware it is up to the 4th official to refer decisions to the video ref.

 

[maffew]

The "clear and obvious" thing is a load of bollocks. VAR decisions are almost NEVER clear and obvious. Practically every single one seems to be controversial. It has become an aide like photo finishes in horse racing. Scrutinising detail. Getting shit wrong. The biggest issue with it is lack of consistency. When a decision is reviewed by VAR then EVERYONE with a grasp of the laws of the game should be able to look at it and say "the ref got that wrong". Not this load of shite where the commentators even are split on whether a decision will be awarded watching stuff 8 times freezing frames from different camera angles

Its shit

 

[jessiejames]

The "clear and obvious" thing is a load of bollocks. VAR decisions are almost NEVER clear and obvious. Practically every single one seems to be controversial. It has become an aide like photo finishes in horse racing. Scrutinising detail. Getting shit wrong. The biggest issue with it is lack of consistency. When a decision is reviewed by VAR then EVERYONE with a grasp of the laws of the game should be able to look at it and say "the ref got that wrong". Not this load of shite where the commentators even are split on whether a decision will be awarded watching stuff 8 times freezing frames from different camera angles

Its shit

It's no so much the commentators, it's the ex professionals that argue over a slight touch to the player. If there is a touch then it's a foul, the law does not state how heavy the touch can be.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's no so much the commentators, it's the ex professionals that argue over a slight touch to the player. If there is a touch then it's a foul, the law does not state how heavy the touch can be.

its a contact sport, so thats not a clear and obvious interpretation of the rules.

 

[Questions]

Was it a penalty ?
Yes
Did the ref miss it ?
Yes

Does VAR work

 

[jessiejames]

Was it a penalty ?
Yes
Did the ref miss it ?
Yes

Does VAR work

Yes

 

[LlcoolJ]

its that good old common sense thing. of course its obvious what clear and obvious means, those incidents that occur but the ref misses due to position, speed of game, off ball etc. trouble is the video make every damn transgression obvious with 5x slow mo and 18 cameras. apply the rule, its clear and obvious to the 4th official, so he'll clearly will refer it. i say there should be a tight time limit, if 4th cant decide a ref missed something in a few seconds, it wasn't obvious and so play on. the irony is the condition is intended to stop every tiny incident being reviewed and refered to the ref. its not working.

seeing the Welbeck penalty, i couldnt even say its even a foul, two players go for ball, neither get it and one clips the other. despite benefiting from it, i dont like it, wasnt a deserved penalty.

How is it possible to go through life being totally and completely wrong about absolutely everything?

Do you not get pulled up be people on a daily basis, pointing out that your shoes are on the wrong feet and trousers aren't supposed to be worn on your head?

It's actually remarkable. Unless you're taking the piss, in which case well done. I have been WHOOSHED.

 

[LlcoolJ]

its a contact sport, so thats not a clear and obvious interpretation of the rules.

PLEASE STOP!!

Everything you write is factually incorrect.

 

[R. Slicker]

Peter Walton gives penalties when the foul is well outside the box. He's hardly an authority on penalty decisions.

 

[jessiejames]

its a contact sport, so thats not a clear and obvious interpretation of the rules.

But if you make contact with the player without touching the ball first it's a foul. Pundits are saying that it was only a slight touch, it doesn't matter. If I stab someone with a knife but don't push the blade all the way in, I have still stabbed them, not slightly stabbed them.first

The question is keep VAR we will have to live with what is happening now, including every goal looked at, even 1 millionth of a mm offside, or to back to the old way, scrap VAR let ref decide and allow for mistakes.
Whatever happens people will still question the decisions.

 

[Billy the Fish]

"Clear and obvious error" is now just a phrase people use when they know the correct decision was reached but they don't want to admit it because it didn't go the way they wanted.

 

[Baldseagull]

Peter Walton gives penalties when the foul is well outside the box. He's hardly an authority on penalty decisions.

He had a shocker that day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgpjyATaWU

 

[beorhthelm]

PLEASE STOP!!

Everything you write is factually incorrect.

i welcome being informed, please point the regulation that states touching another player is a foul.

 

[LlcoolJ]

i welcome being informed, please point the regulation that states touching another player is a foul.

Kicking someone in the foot is a foul. This stuff really isn't complicated.

 

[beorhthelm]

But if you make contact with the player without touching the ball first it's a foul.

yet players make contact with each other continuously with it being a foul.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Alan Smith normalising diving, Part 7: "You don't know what a penalty these days. You've got to force the question." i.e. if you feel ANY contact, go down and see what VAR comes up with.

 

[Acker79]

I seem to remember there being a point made at the start of last season that 'clear and obvious' wasn't going to be the measure for premier league VAR like it was in the world cup that summer, but it seems like people were so used to it at that point that it forced it's way in.

To me, we've introduced VAR so that means we can look at every incident and make the "right" call - we can look at a tight offside, apply our lines and see that the attacker is offside, we can review a challenge and see where the defender caught his opponent. Since we can now 'know' an infringement has occurred, we are in a position where the options are a) ignore it because it wasn't caught in real time, meaning we are willingly letting illegal goals stand, or ruling out legal goals, we are letting teams miss out on legitimate penalties or letting them score from penalties we know shouldn't be given b) make the right call so that the laws are applied in line with the competition, in the way the people who run the competition want them applied.

Isn't allowing a goal to stand when you know it is offside a clear and obvious error? Isn't not giving a penalty when you know a foul has occurred in the box a clear and obvious error? Even if the offside is marginal and it's understandable that the assistant called it wrong, the technology has given us, and the officiating team via VAR, the right decision. Even if the foul is borderline, technology allows the ref to look at it again and double check, so the officiating team will know it was a foul (even allowing for subjectivity, the referee, in whose opinion a challenge is deemed a foul, is the one that looks at it again now so the subjectivity of fouls is accounted for - the ref is still making the call).

Look at the anger - and the impact - of the Sheffield United non-goal v Villa last season. We could all see the ball had crossed the line, but because the goal line technology didn't work it wasn't given. There was a lot of frustration about how such an error can be made, when we can all clearly see it. All else being equal, that sent Bournemouth down and allowed Villa to stay up. If replays show a mistake but we don't make the right decision simply because we can all understand why the mistake was made we will see a lot more frustration and anger about incidents that are equally as clear but didn't meet some arbitrary (and probably inconsistent) 'clear and obvious' remit.

 

[jessiejames]

yet players make contact with each other continuously with it being a foul.

Not sure what you mean,
Make contact with ball first then player, no foul. It's only a foul if you don't make contact with the ball first. If you stop a player from getting to the ball by pulling him back o r impeding him then it's a foul.

 

[Brighton Lines]

Alan Smith normalising diving, Part 7: "You don't know what a penalty these days. You've got to force the question." i.e. if you feel ANY contact, go down and see what VAR comes up with.

Which is what DW did yesterday.

Players will go down. That's normal. If they are fouled they want the foul. When I did coaching years back I always told players to go down if fouled. But only if fouled. Refs just don't give them otherwise.

With VAR a player will be conscious that he could be missing out on something another might get. It could be the difference between winning and losing.

I really don't blame them.