[Albion] Lee Mason at it again

[jessiejames]

Agreed, but I also think that's right. It's the footballing equivalent of cricket's "umpire's call", giving the benefit to the on-the-field official.

I think if this incident happened last season, then the ref is sent to the pitchside monitor by the VAR official and the penalty is given. This season, under Mike Riley's new direction, there is less inclination to re-ref the game, and the original decision is left to stand.

But if every goal is checked, then we are at some stage re-reffing the game.

 

[tigertim68]

Agreed, but I also think that's right. It's the footballing equivalent of cricket's "umpire's call", giving the benefit to the on-the-field official.

I think if this incident happened last season, then the ref is sent to the pitchside monitor by the VAR official and the penalty is given. This season, under Mike Riley's new direction, there is less inclination to re-ref the game, and the original decision is left to stand.

Apart from when it involves a big 6 club

 

[tigertim68]

But if every goal is checked, then we are at some stage re-reffing the game.

Every goal is checked

 

[Deadly Danson]

Agreed, but I also think that's right. It's the footballing equivalent of cricket's "umpire's call", giving the benefit to the on-the-field official.

I think if this incident happened last season, then the ref is sent to the pitchside monitor by the VAR official and the penalty is given. This season, under Mike Riley's new direction, there is less inclination to re-ref the game, and the original decision is left to stand.

Which is fine - until you take into account the disallowing of Southampton's goal yesterday which was for a slighter foul than the one on Welbeck.

 

[hampshirebrightonboy]

Should remember that it was his mistakes in our game against WBA that effectively ended his on field career. Not saying he holds a grudge!!!

I don’t think he holds a grudge. I just think that he is absolutely fcuking useless

 

[trueblue]

This is the kind of challenge that I wish wasn't a penalty but these are given all the time. I wonder if his going down easily (and fairly theatrically) affected the refs decision.

Agreed. That’s an issue. Just watching MOTD and I think it shows one reason VAR is unpopular. It’s such a negative tool. They’re very adept at finding multiple ways to rule out goals but less likely to award a penalty.

So, Southampton score. There’s a foul on the defender in the build-up. The offender sets up the goal. It seems fairly reasonable for even that borderline amount of contact to be deemed enough to chalk it off as it’s such a key moment in the game.

In our case, the foul on Welbeck was of a similar level offence-wise. It definitely SHOULD be a key moment in the game but it’s simply safer for VAR not to get involved than award an almost certain goal.

 

[Justice]

Of course he wasn't perfect - Brighton didnt win the game...

And?

 

[tronnogull]

I completely in the ' scrap VAR completely ' it is squeezing so much joy from the game. ( Or keep it with the set of rules...1. VAR officials view video in real time only, not slo mo, 2. No drawing lines on the pitch. 3. Allowed no more than 15 seconds. If in that time they don't spit out their tea because there is such an obvious error, then move on. )

However, if VAR is going to stay, then it is critical that there is consistency. That foul on Welbeck would have resulted in a penalty 7 times out of 10.

 

[trueblue]

Exactly. Can't remember which game it was but I think it was Veltman touching the back of a player at a corner who went down like he'd been pole axed and we got a pen against us.

The thing I don't get about VAR is that the broadcasters get different angles and sometimes better shots of the tackles than the officials.

If you are going to hinge a game on a decision (ok may or may not be in this case) then surely VAR should have many multiple cameras or access to the broadcasters cameras to get different angles.

The trouble is, no matter how many angles you have, you still need to select the relevant shots within seconds. In the broadcast set-up, there’s a whole team of people watching several cameras each and shouting out the best ones to then be shown almost instantly in the coverage in one sequence. It’s really a production within a production. I’m not sure of the VAR approach but if you’re overwhelmed with angles it could just muddy the waters even more. When there’s that one angle like yesterday that clearly shows Welbeck’s foot being crushed, I agree it makes a fool of the system if the ref isn’t shown it. Of course, it could have just been plain old ineptitude. That wouldn’t be much of a surprise given those involved. It’s strange how the same people pop up time and again when there are these sort of issues.

 

[Justice]

I completely in the ' scrap VAR completely ' it is squeezing so much joy from the game. ( Or keep it with the set of rules...1. VAR officials view video in real time only, not slo mo, 2. No drawing lines on the pitch. 3. Allowed no more than 15 seconds. If in that time they don't spit out their tea because there is such an obvious error, then move on. )

However, if VAR is going to stay, then it is critical that there is consistency. That foul on Welbeck would have resulted in a penalty 7 times out of 10.

I don’t think so from yesterday’s ref, he played an advantage from a foul inside the box and then realised his blunder. He was useless all game.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Keith Hackett on twatter reckons it was a stone wall penalty BUT the refereee should have given it and if checked stuck by his decision.

he is suggesting that VAR has destroyed any confidence a referee has at making a decision.

 

[aolstudios]

Exactly. Can't remember which game it was but I think it was Veltman touching the back of a player at a corner who went down like he'd been pole axed and we got a pen against us.

The thing I don't get about VAR is that the broadcasters get different angles and sometimes better shots of the tackles than the officials.

If you are going to hinge a game on a decision (ok may or may not be in this case) then surely VAR should have many multiple cameras or access to the broadcasters cameras to get different angles.

Brentford

 

[FRED BINNEYS HEAD BANDAGE]

On field and VAR referees should be made to come out after the game and explain their collective decisions when there are different opinions between them and the 'expert' analysts. I don't think there was one analyst who didn't think it a penalty and I include Jeff Stelling in the that so how is it two 'professional' referees saw it differently. If they have to go on camera and are shown the footage again they may well improve future decisions.

 

[Bodian]

No I haven't seen that footage. What I did see was Welbeck going down in a bit of an over the top manner. Deliberate or not, I don't know but I believe this may have been what influenced the refs decision.

Perhaps what is going on is that refs are trying to avoid being conned by divers. In the last few years cheating has become endemic in the game. This season there has been an attempted reset and games have flowed better. There are bound to be a few decisions that would have gone the other way last year. I’m not saying this is one necessarily but I’m not going to make a fuss and call for refs to be sacked. This needs to continue to happen.

I can see why the onfield ref didn't give it - as Welbeck did sort of jump a bit and roll, and so on.

But there is absolutely no excuse for VAR not giving it. If we hadn't got VAR, and the ref hadn't given it - we would have just accepted it and got on with it - but when you have something that is pretty much the sole reason for VAR existing, and it/they don't do their job - we end up more aggrieved!

 

[Stato]

All VAR has done is given the officials a cover to hide behind. Everybody now says blame VAR, not blame the referee, but all VAR really does is have two referees instead of one. They are all inclined to cover for each other's errors and their credibility is always prioritised over accuracy and consistency. They're like a corrupt company or church, always doing whatever is needed to defend their own reputation. Even when they are retired they won't criticise each other. They just rake in a salary off the TV companies that started all this tosh, getting paid to jump through whatever hoops are necessary to say that the referee is right. The system provides no more justice and the only way it is different from the century old system of 'the ref's always right, even when he's wrong' is that it costs more, slows decision making and ruins the spontaneous outbursts of emotion that make the game so enjoyable. The chumps in charge won't ever admit that they were wrong, so we're all stuck with a game that cares more about officialdom than it does about entertainment.

Thomas Bramall made the mistake yesterday. That's forgivable. It happens in football and always has. Lee Mason and all the technology was essentially being employed to say ' ah well, the referee has made a mistake. That happens in football,' except for times when he, subjectively decided that it shouldn't happen in football. It really is an absolute load of old bollo.

 

[METALMICKY]

Not sure VAR can do that though. If the angle’s not clear enough, wasting more time by sending the ref to look at an inconclusive replay would go down like a lead balloon. There really was only one angle that made the mistake ‘clear and obvious’. Even then, as a neutral, you might wonder whether Welbeck made a meal of the contact. I think it was a penalty all day long but can see how they might have missed it.

Good point. Whilst undoubtedly a foul the slightly over dramatic fall does us no favours.

 

[Easy 10]

No I haven't seen that footage. What I did see was Welbeck going down in a bit of an over the top manner. Deliberate or not, I don't know but I believe this may have been what influenced the refs decision.

The problem is, rightly or wrongly, if you don't "make a show" of going down then its even less likely you'll get the decision. Players who stay on their feet despite being fouled will, 9 times out of 10, get absolutely nothing.

In this instance it WAS clearly a foul. The defender caught him on the foot with a wild challenge, with the ball in the next postcode, just as he was about to pull the trigger. I can see the train of thought that "he made the most of it", but regardless of that, it WAS a clear foul and a straightforward penalty decision. Except it was Mason, who hates us for him self-destroying the rag-arse of his on field career at West Brom.

 

[kevo]

The reaction here says it all:

 

[Uh_huh_him]

No I haven't seen that footage. What I did see was Welbeck going down in a bit of an over the top manner. Deliberate or not, I don't know but I believe this may have been what influenced the refs decision.

Sure he's gone down "easy"
It's the age old conundrum, if you are fouled and don't go down, you won't get a penalty.
Or stay on their feet having been put off balance/slowed down and lose the opportunity.

Until refs give penalties for all fouls in the box, players will still have to draw their attention to them by being "theatrical"

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

So I think we are all agreed. Welbz needs more practice in his diving technique. In particular the appearance of realism element. Does anyone know Harry Kane’s phone number ?