Dogawful Officiating - Dave Coote suspended

[gjohnson]

Difficult to argue that the decision wasn't correct by the letter of the law. In the spirit of the law and game it should have stood, given that the (debatable) foul had no relevance to the actual goal

[geordiesteve710]

19 minutes ago, CPL said:

Also now that the game has finished and it probably helped that we won. I think the goal for us was correctly disallowed. 

 

Still though, VAR is being used too much to over referee games and should only be used if there is a blatant and obvious error. Subjective fouls should stay with the on field decision.

 

Couldn't agree more with this.

[midds]

I also think that in situations like today VAR have to take into account the way the referee has officiated the game from first whistle until they're called upon. The ref today was great imo, he looked like he was going to let the game flow and he would never have given the Burn challenge as a foul in the centre circle if they were contesting a goal kick, it would have been play on. For VAR to analyse it once it's gone in, lower the ref's bar for that particular incident and give a free kick (even though it wasn't in keeping with the ref's overall decisions for the first 70 minutes) is a massive flaw. 

 

I also think that more refs need to dig their heels in and disagree with the VAR more. If they think they've made a huge mistake then fine, change it. But if they look at it 13 times and are even thinking "nah, I think I got that right tbh" then they need to have the bottle to say so. they just look like subservient little wankers when they just robotically do as VAR suggest 100% of the time

[gjohnson]

4 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Difficult to argue that the decision wasn't correct by the letter of the law. In the spirit of the law and game it should have stood, given that the (debatable) foul had no relevance to the actual goal

If it was against us I'd argue black was white that it shouldn't have stood because of the foul in the lead up...but whether it was actually a foul is debatable as I would have said it was a 50/50 at best.

 

Regardless, we won so doesn't actually matter in the end

[Rod]

1 minute ago, gjohnson said:

If it was against us I'd argue black was white that it shouldn't have stood because of the foul in the lead up...but whether it was actually a foul is debatable as I would have said it was a 50/50 at best.

 

Regardless, we won so doesn't actually matter in the end

It does matter.  Regardless of the result decisions by VAR and or the referee should be called out.  The referees should be more accountable.  The Ref watch on Sky sports is the closest we have to put them in the spotlight and even then the dodgey decisions are greeted with a laugh and joke.  Get these shit referees named and shamed.  It would be great viewing.  Channel 4 get your finger out.

[gjohnson]

1 minute ago, Rod said:

It does matter.  Regardless of the result decisions by VAR and or the referee should be called out.  The referees should be more accountable.  The Ref watch on Sky sports is the closest we have to put them in the spotlight and even then the dodgey decisions are greeted with a laugh and joke.  Get these shit referees named and shamed.  It would be great viewing.  Channel 4 get your finger out.

Ultimately yes, but these new rules are making a simple game far more complicated than it needs to be...kind of agree that there is some conspiracy in the name of entertainment/talking value. Can only criticise the ref on this for not having the courage of his conviction. Tbf looking at the so called foul, he was in a sh***** of a situation having to rule on a goal based on something that was at best a 50/50

[Jordan]

It’s an annoying one today as I thought the ref had a good game but still we’re talking about a shit decision due to VAR. 

[Rod]

Just now, Jordan said:

It’s an annoying one today as I thought the ref had a good game but still we’re talking about a shit decision due to VAR. 

No not VAR.  A bloke sitting at home with his earphones on is the problem.  Stop blaming VAR!  

[Tsunami]

Burn jumped earlier and was higher than the Fulham player who was jumping backwards. Contact is allowed, neither player got near the ball, there’s no way that Burn’s “push” prevented the defender reaching the ball. Only Burn had a chance of that. In fact the push took place after the ball had cleared the pair of them.

 

Never a foul, never clear and obvious. VAR seemingly were looking for something that really wasn’t there and the referee should have shown some balls and stuck with his onfield decision. 

[gjohnson]

It would be worth looking at how many times var is called into use on different teams. Yes arguably it cost us a goal today, and ultimately correct against Everton due to Dummets brain fart, but something makes me think that if  Liverpool/Arsenal/Man U/City/Tottenham were involved it would never have even gone to VAR.

 

Football is starting to look like orchestrated entertainment ala WWE. An illusion of a title challenge, with an upstart team pushing for the elite, and drama around the bottom based on legalities. Would be happy to bet next month's salary that every major decision, be it title/europe/ relegation goes down to extra time on the last day.

[mighty__mag]

Thought the ref was good, bar the Jarred Gillett var influence, the useless bias Aussie Liverpool fan. 

 

[Sima]

4 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

It would be worth looking at how many times var is called into use on different teams. Yes arguably it cost us a goal today, and ultimately correct against Everton due to Dummets brain fart, but something makes me think that if  Liverpool/Arsenal/Man U/City/Tottenham were involved it would never have even gone to VAR.

 

Football is starting to look like orchestrated entertainment ala WWE. An illusion of a title challenge, with an upstart team pushing for the elite, and drama around the bottom based on legalities. Would be happy to bet next month's salary that every major decision, be it title/europe/ relegation goes down to extra time on the last day.

I’ve seen an angle of a challenge Gvardiol made today and it looked a stonewall penalty.  Didn’t even go to VAR.

 

 

Edited April 6 by Sima

[Rod]

2 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

It would be worth looking at how many times var is called into use on different teams. Yes arguably it cost us a goal today, and ultimately correct against Everton due to Dummets brain fart, but something makes me think that if  Liverpool/Arsenal/Man U/City/Tottenham were involved it would never have even gone to VAR.

 

Football is starting to look like orchestrated entertainment ala WWE. An illusion of a title challenge, with an upstart team pushing for the elite, and drama around the bottom based on legalities. Would be happy to bet next month's salary that every major decision, be it title/europe/ relegation goes down to extra time on the last day.

Yes you correctly say Dummett was punished correctly but why didn't they intervene when Dan Burn was BLATANTLY being fouled at every corner and set piece?  I'm staggered that more fans haven't brought this up.

[Groundhog63]

Dummett did foul that snidey little cunt, Young, but neither of the useless twats were ever going to reach the ball. 

Burn and Iwobi also 

[The Prophet]

Big fan of O'Neil's comments today. Wolves have been shafted so many times this season:

 

"It was a terrible decision," O'Neil said. "It is possibly the worst decision I have ever seen.

 

"If your knowledge and understanding of the game is really poor, you could reach the conclusion that is offside.

 

"If you are a Premier League official working at the highest level, I would be really disappointed if you thought that was offside. The only way that can be offside is if he stops Fabianski's ability to move or impedes his vision. Only the referee and VAR think that could possibly be offside."

[Cf]

The fundamental issue with VAR and ruling goals out is that it approaches the issue with the mindset of "I need to find a reason to disallow this goal". See us and Wolves today. 

 

Instead they should be looking for reasons why the goal should be allowed to stand and give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team and should only interject when there has been an obvious error. For a good example of this approach see our goal Vs Arsenal earlier in the season. 

[Newcastle Fan]

 

1 minute ago, Cf said:

The fundamental issue with VAR and ruling goals out is that it approaches the issue with the mindset of "I need to find a reason to disallow this goal". See us and Wolves today. 

 

Instead they should be looking for reasons why the goal should be allowed to stand and give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team and should only interject when there has been an obvious error. For a good example of this approach see our goal Vs Arsenal earlier in the season. 

 

This is bang on, and it seems like these things are looked at by people who have little understanding of the actual game, two players clearly jumping for the ball and one jumped highest, how the fuck was that seen as a foul on Burn is beyond me.

[Jonas]

Its that VAR still just comes down to the subjective desire of the officials on the day to disallow a goal.  Can find a reason to disallow most if you really want to.

[geordiesteve710]

11 hours ago, Rod said:

Yes you correctly say Dummett was punished correctly but why didn't they intervene when Dan Burn was BLATANTLY being fouled at every corner and set piece?  I'm staggered that more fans haven't brought this up.

I honestly think the ref didn't want to give the Dummett foul because he knew they had been doing similar (just not as bad) all half. When var brought his attention to it he had to really. Midds post above makes a great point about consistency with how the ref on duty handles similar incidents throughout the match.

 

Also has to be said that Young was clever and insistent on bringing the incident to the attention of the ref and var. Without Gordon on the pitch Tuesday we had nobody similar-minded to make such a fuss and pressure the officials, for example the 2nd pen vs west ham.

[Cronky]

11 hours ago, The Prophet said:

Big fan of O'Neil's comments today. Wolves have been shafted so many times this season:

 

"It was a terrible decision," O'Neil said. "It is possibly the worst decision I have ever seen.

 

"If your knowledge and understanding of the game is really poor, you could reach the conclusion that is offside.

 

"If you are a Premier League official working at the highest level, I would be really disappointed if you thought that was offside. The only way that can be offside is if he stops Fabianski's ability to move or impedes his vision. Only the referee and VAR think that could possibly be offside."

 

I'd see this as more of a grey area. If you want VAR to get involved in issues other than matters of fact like offside, then you have to accept that some decisions will be debatable. OTT reactions like O'Neil's - 'worst decision I've ever seen' - don't help.

 

There is a case for disallowing the goal because the player was in an offside position and he took up that position in order to obstruct the keeper's vision and movement. It's something that we see every game. Yes, as it happened the keeper could probably have seen the ball and wouldn't have saved it, but should we be expecting a ref to make a judgement like that?

 

 

[gbandit]

In terms of VAR judgements yesterday or lack of -

 

Arsenal’s pen - this was a pen for me without a doubt. You can’t get a feather touch on the ball that doesn’t affect its direction and then clear someone out

 

Wolves’ ruled out goal - Can’t think of a worse decision to disallow a goal all season. The decision to award PSG a pen was a worse decision but this was a sackable offence decision.

 

Newcastle’s disallowed goal - Should have stood. They’re both challenging for the ball, Burn gets up higher and uses his body in a way pretty much every single player does when contesting a header, doesn’t affect the ball’s actual flight.

 

We come back to it every week but the refs aren’t anywhere near good enough. Their judgement shows how poor they are when they’re making such appalling decisions with video replays 

[Elma]

12 hours ago, midds said:

I also think that more refs need to dig their heels in and disagree with the VAR more. If they think they've made a huge mistake then fine, change it. But if they look at it 13 times and are even thinking "nah, I think I got that right tbh" then they need to have the bottle to say so. they just look like subservient little wankers when they just robotically do as VAR suggest 100% of the time

 

Agree on that. My take on VAR would fix that. Give each team one review per game that they can use for anything they think is a major mistake (retained if upheld). Automate the offsides so that only really leaves fouls for goals, mistaken identity, and card upgrades/downgrades.

 

The team notifies the 4th official, and the ref goes straight to the screen to review with only tech officials in Stockley Park to show every angle requested.

 

Saves on running a second VAR team of officials every game and the onfield ref will feel under no peer pressure at the monitor to make the call they think is correct. Would also save review time as you wouldn't have that window where the VAR team do an initial assessment.

 

 

Edited April 7 by Elma

[geordiesteve710]

2 hours ago, gbandit said:

In terms of VAR judgements yesterday or lack of -

 

Arsenal’s pen - this was a pen for me without a doubt. You can’t get a feather touch on the ball that doesn’t affect its direction and then clear someone out

 

Wolves’ ruled out goal - Can’t think of a worse decision to disallow a goal all season. The decision to award PSG a pen was a worse decision but this was a sackable offence decision.

 

Newcastle’s disallowed goal - Should have stood. They’re both challenging for the ball, Burn gets up higher and uses his body in a way pretty much every single player does when contesting a header, doesn’t affect the ball’s actual flight.

 

We come back to it every week but the refs aren’t anywhere near good enough. Their judgement shows how poor they are when they’re making such appalling decisions with video replays 

 

See, this goes to highlight how subjective a lot of these decisions are. I've always been of the view that if you make any contact whatsoever on the ball before (NOT after) contact with an opponent then it isn't a foul (as long as not going over the top of the ball, endangering opponent etc.) If we're saying that a slight touch on the ball isn't enough to make it a legal tackle then how much of a touch is needed, how is it measured and how do we get a consistent approach as to where the line is?

 

My point isn't to start an argument with you about what is or isn't a foul tackle, I'm trying to highlight that a lot of decisions in football are extremely subjective indeed. It's the nature of the game. Which is why I think that VAR should only really be used for anything matter of fact and the absolute howlers, not to open another can of worms at every slightly debatable decision.

[gbandit]

2 minutes ago, geordiesteve710 said:

 

See, this goes to highlight how subjective a lot of these decisions are. I've always been of the view that if you make any contact whatsoever on the ball before (NOT after) contact with an opponent then it isn't a foul (as long as not going over the top of the ball, endangering opponent etc.) If we're saying that a slight touch on the ball isn't enough to make it a legal tackle then how much of a touch is needed, how is it measured and how do we get a consistent approach as to where the line is?

 

My point isn't to start an argument with you about what is or isn't a foul tackle, I'm trying to highlight that a lot of decisions in football are extremely subjective indeed. It's the nature of the game. Which is why I think that VAR should only really be used for anything matter of fact and the absolute howlers, not to open another can of worms at every slightly debatable decision.

My take would be about what the outcome is -

 

If you get a first touch on the ball and it clears it and then milliseconds later you clatter into someone then that’s fine and not a foul for me unless it was  dangerous play, high foot, off the ground etc into someone’s standing leg.

 

If you make contact with the ball, it’s a feather touch that doesn’t take the ball away from the opponent and then you clatter the opponent and take them out then that’s completely different for me. That’s the argument I’d make 

[El Prontonise]

14 minutes ago, geordiesteve710 said:

 

See, this goes to highlight how subjective a lot of these decisions are. I've always been of the view that if you make any contact whatsoever on the ball before (NOT after) contact with an opponent then it isn't a foul (as long as not going over the top of the ball, endangering opponent etc.) If we're saying that a slight touch on the ball isn't enough to make it a legal tackle then how much of a touch is needed, how is it measured and how do we get a consistent approach as to where the line is?

 

My point isn't to start an argument with you about what is or isn't a foul tackle, I'm trying to highlight that a lot of decisions in football are extremely subjective indeed. It's the nature of the game. Which is why I think that VAR should only really be used for anything matter of fact and the absolute howlers, not to open another can of worms at every slightly debatable decision.

 

This is spot on, I've always said it's also opened up a bit on how flawed the rules on with just assumptions on what is a foul or not.