I didn't have the benefit of a replay, but from what I saw live it looked like Josh nicked the ball away from the tackle and happened to land on the lads ankle in a natural step. The tackle was obviously late so if anything it should have been a free kick the other way. I don't have any sound on (watching at work anyone?) so I couldn't hear. But I suspect there was a yelp from the Mexican which alerted the lino/ref and having given a free kick and then yellow card is the obvious follow up if you think he's trodden on him on purpose. Looks like the ref got it wrong.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
I didn't have the benefit of a replay, but from what I saw live it looked like Josh nicked the ball away from the tackle and happened to land on the lads ankle in a natural step. The tackle was obviously late so if anything it should have been a free kick the other way. I don't have any sound on (watching at work anyone?) so I couldn't hear. But I suspect there was a yelp from the Mexican which alerted the lino/ref and having given a free kick and then yellow card is the obvious follow up if you think he's trodden on him on purpose. Looks like the ref got it wrong.
Yep, not having a pop at Walker-Peters he's doing his job well. When he plays on the left he doesn't get forward as much as he does when playing on the right. This may be also be a tactical decision for this game but I love watching him dribble with the ball.
Ref had a fucking shocker. Made even worse by the fact that he has video technology to fall back on, all he had to do was review that and its a no-brainer.
Does anyone know what decisions they are allowed to use the video replays for?
They used it in the game between England and Argentina where a player was sent off for elbowing someone.
I imagine they haven't used it because the ref has given the decision? Though you'd think they'd review that now England are through.
You would hope a red card decision would be one of them.
Strictly speaking wouldn't that be deemed a yellow decision tho (albeit 2nd yellow)?
It's a red card decision though. With so many games changing on red cards should always take caution when dishing them out, unless the guys has punched someone in the face. (I'm against VARS though, bring them in and wear do you draw the line. Think ref's will use them too often and the game will slow, the review time will then be used to sneak in an advert, when rights buyers are paying a billion they will exploit at first opportunity, but I digress).
From the FIFA site regarding VAR
These are the types of decision where VAR's can be employed:
GOALS
The role of the VARs is to assist the referee to determine whether there was an infringement that means a goal should not be awarded. As the ball has crossed the line, play is interrupted so there is no direct impact on the game.
PENALTY DECISIONS
The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with the award or non-award of a penalty kick.
RED CARD INCIDENTS
The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with sending off or not sending off a player.
MISTAKEN IDENTITY
The referee cautions or sends off the wrong player, or is unsure which player should be sanctioned. The VARs will inform the referee so that the correct player can be disciplined.
So yes it could/should have been used as it was a decision that was "clearly wrong..." and "made in conjunction with sending off or not sending off a player."
Haven't seen anything about right of appeal yet.
These are the types of decision where VAR's can be employed:
GOALS
The role of the VARs is to assist the referee to determine whether there was an infringement that means a goal should not be awarded. As the ball has crossed the line, play is interrupted so there is no direct impact on the game.
PENALTY DECISIONS
The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with the award or non-award of a penalty kick.
RED CARD INCIDENTS
The role of the VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with sending off or not sending off a player.
MISTAKEN IDENTITY
The referee cautions or sends off the wrong player, or is unsure which player should be sanctioned. The VARs will inform the referee so that the correct player can be disciplined.
So yes it could/should have been used as it was a decision that was "clearly wrong..." and "made in conjunction with sending off or not sending off a player."
Haven't seen anything about right of appeal yet.
On the contrary, he made a yellow card decision. You're essentially saying he should have assessed the scenario differently cos of the existing 1st yellow.
Shakey ground that.
I might understand a bit more where u are coming from if the ref got the extent of the punishment wrong (i.e. Does that challenge warrant a straight red, a yellow or a mere warning?) or simillarly if the ref gave a harsh straight red (in a scenario where Josh wasnt already on a yellow) but he didn't, he simply fluffed the call all together.
But he issued a red card.
I understand what
Airfixx
is saying. The ref actually issued a 2nd yellow. It was only (in his eyes) a yellow card offence and not the ref's fault that 2 yellows = red. However the guidance is pretty clear for me and it suggests he could have consulted the VAR's as it was a decision which was "made in conjunction with sending off or not sending off a player." It doesn't specifically say that he could only use the VAR in straight red situations. Equally that does seem suggest that the second incident carries more weight than the first. Shaky ground or not, that's how I would interpret it.
Of all the bad red cards I've seen, that's the worst.
No, he issued 2 x yellows.
(C'mon dude... You don't genuinely don't see the distinction?)
Two yellows and a red card. In order to send off a player you have to issue a red card, had he done a Graham Pole the player would have remained on the pitch. A red card is a red card, it's the only purpose is to remove a player from the field of play. A player will remain on the pitch until it is issued but it has to be issued before a player leaves the field.
I understand what
Indeed.
I guess what this scenario throws up is; if a ref makes what he naturally believes to be the correct call, why would he then proceed to second guess himself and opt to call for VAR to intervene?
Part of me feels were essentially in the same place we have been all along; where 9 times out of 10 the ref will trust their own judgement over consulting any secondary officiating; be it lino, 4th official or a video-ref.
Personally, I think the 'status' of the refs need to be addressed; make it all a more open book; publish statements re controversial incidents and alleviate some of the exclusive-responsibility from the refs and establish a better way to implement retrospective punishments.
Then the tech may well be put to far more effective use in the guise of being there to help the ref's rather than over-rule them as the current (or likely revisions to the) rules/implementations suggest.