The first from our new columnist where a qualified referee runs the rule over the weekend's refereeing decisions, something that is very much in the eye at the moment after a number of controversial VAR decisions and the change in the way Premier League referee's are running the games this season.

The laws of the game are fairly simple, it is the application that is the problem and that has been made even more complex due to the fact that we now have VAR, the truth is most football fans have a grasp of the laws of the game, but with all the changes have lost a little clarity on what the actual letter of the law is and when a handball or foul is a handball or foul or not.

So we are lucky to have a new columnist, SFC Referee will give us his weekly update not just on the Saints games and their talking points in regard to the refereeing decisions, but the whole Premier League.

Anyway lets start with Saints at Crystal Palace.

Crystal Palace VS Southampton (Michael Salisbury)
VAR/the linesman did well to rightfully rule out an early goal for Palace, but no real controversy there. But I know many fans wanted the penalty, but having not seen a replay on the incident and there being very little written up about it (with all of them saying that it wasn’t intentional) suggests that there were no true handball incidents.

Brighton VS Chelsea (Andy Madley)
Nothing much in this game, thought the ref could’ve given a yellow or two more for certain incidents in the buildup to a goal or two, but overall nothing really controversial at all. So nothing to discuss for this game

Newcastle VS Aston Villa (Paul Tierney)
Bit of a clash for the keeper early in the game, but due to it being just a simple shoulder barge, and the Villa player going into the keeper with the Newcastle player having no intent to injure the keeper there is no need to give any disciplinary action.
Handball very much blatant, and as I said under the Bournemouth game, could come under intentional or unnatural positioning of the hand, so a penalty was rightfully awarded.

Fulham VS Everton (John Brooks)
Scoreline might have been boring, but this games incident of Mitrovich’s red was probably the one debatable decision of Saturday!
As for it to be classified as red it must be used with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent (with contact). But seeing how it’s got no real excessive force, it can’t be for that, and as much as it’s a late and reckless challenge, it’s not enough for a red as he’s going for the ball, is just a bit late and his foot is low, so in my view not enough for a red card there.

Liverpool VS Leeds (Michael Oliver)
Couldn’t see any major decisions from Michael Oliver (who btw is probably the best ref in the prem by far, with only Anthony Taylor being anywhere near as good!) that seemed incorrect or controversial whatsoever, so a decent display off of the officiating team for that game.“

Arsenal VS Nottingham Forrest (Simon Hooper)
This game may have been one entertaining one for the neutrals, but less soo around controversy and VAR!
As all of Arsenals goals had no controversy around them, with nothing for VAR to intervene with (although a great advantage played by the ref for their 3rd) and no real complaints from ether side.

Manchester United VS West Ham (Chris Kavanagh)
Other than some slight optimistic shouts for a penalty late in the game from West Ham fans, very little happened in this game.
As with regards to the penalty shout, there’s slight contact, but with soo little force and the contact being minimal, a penalty was never going to given with or without VAR, as it just was no where near enough for a pen, hence why theres very few talking about that incident.
But other than that, a pretty basic and easy game for VAR, with very little to do again.

Weekly conclusion
Many pundits, fans, coaches etc sure do like to criticise official and VAR whenever they get the chance to, yet you see very few eve give it credit when it’s done well.
As this weekend for all these games, the most controversial decision we had was a Mitrovic tackle, which was in the orange area, but probably not enough for a red and VAR certainly shouldn’t have intervened, which it didn’t. Which does show that it’s been a very good week for the Premier League officials, yet you won’t hear many credit them for that yet many will critique officials when it’s the vice versa…

Still a good week for everyone with all the articles being around the games and players, not the officials and their decisions.“

Photo: Action Images

IanRC added 10:37 - Oct 31 Does the obstruction rule where a player makes no effort to play the ball but stops an opponent playing it still exist ? If so it is about time it was properly enforced, it would make games much more entertaining by forcing defenders to play balls that are currently being sheparded out.
0

halftimeorange added 10:40 - Oct 31 Not a lot of point starting with a review of this weekend's incident-free games however, I guess the SFC ref has to start somewhere. It would be interesting to know whether (he?) feels that VAR adds anything or takes away from the thrill of the game. Frankly, I think it causes more controversy than previously existed.
0

Big_T added 12:45 - Oct 31 @IanRC Indirect freekick, IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player. All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent. A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent. *** So all the time we see blocking at the corner flag with arms back shielding/guarding is and should be an indirect freekick.

0

SFC_Referee added 15:15 - Nov 3 For your question IanRC, the obstruction rule is a bit similar to the 6 second goalie/dissent rules. As yeah the LOTG say something, but no refs keep to the exact wording of the law. As under the current ones, a player needs to have no intention/ability of playing the ball, yet must be obstructing an opponents path/ability to play the ball whilst doing so. But most refs will only award an indirect/direct free kick (depending on whether or not any contact was made), if the player is lying on top of the ball and fully covering it or is like miles away from the ball and literally grabbing the lad, which could come under pushing/pulling an opponent rather than obstruction. As like I previously said, it’s like the 6 second/dissent laws as many refs just keep to the basics and never the word for word law like they do for other areas.

0

SFC_Referee added 15:18 - Nov 3 Bit T, your both correct and incorrect with that example as they do vary. As if it’s in the corner flag area, but the defender is within distance of playing it, then it’s allowed as he’s seen to be protecting/covering the ball, and not obstructing an opponent. Whilst if he’s not within playing distance of the ball (so like the times when a defender is preventing an attacker from keeping it in play as it’s miles ahead both of them), then yeah it should be a free kick, but like I previously stated it’s just one of those laws that aren’t kept to directly word for word like others are.

0

SFC_Referee added 15:34 - Nov 3 Halftimeorange… Yeah this weekend didn’t have any real controversies at all, but like you said we’ve gotta start somewhere so why not start with a fairly calm and easy one! And even then, you could argue that it’s only due to some good officiating that last weekends VAR decisions had no real controversy. But with regards to your question about VAR (and yes I am a he), as someone who’s had a season ticket at St Mary’s since it first opened but have also officiated for just as long as various levels, I understand both sides to the argument. As I personally think it’s been made for the TV views/crowd, rather than the live audience at the stadium. So for your World Cup, MOTD and some away games during the season, it’s not such a big deal as you get to see it all, but for the home games and the away ones you do go to, it can be a very different experience. As it’s made for the screens and not the stadium, but at the same time is here to stay and improve, as more time passes the better it will become for experiences of fans, as I personally think that they should show what the refs seeing on the screens at the games so that fans do get to see what’s going on. But with regards to controversy, I think it’s had a slight improvement from previously, but by very little and no where near the levels that fans expected or wanted when it was first talked about. As it doesn’t help with the handball and other rules changing year upon year (as I myself have had to explain the handball rule many times this season to teams when there’s been any controversies in games I’ve officiated), as it’s lead to many fans/coaches/players becoming confused and uneducated over the LOTG, leading to more questions around the decisions. But at the same time, there still have been many decisions that just haven’t made sense and inconsistency over certain laws from VAR. But that can only be sorted through keeping the laws the same so that everyone understands them, as well as making more officials consistent, but for non back and white areas of the LOTG, there will always be that grey area that opinions will be split on no matter the decisions given. As I’ve recently heard many suggest things like refs doing interviews after the games and I’m quite split on it, as yeah it may help to explain some decisions to fans, but at the same time for the opinionated decisions (which are mainly the ones that VAR has controversy around), it won’t solve anything. And even if a ref were to mess up, them admitting it after the game won’t change the past. But I personally believe that we should keep it, but it should ONLY be used for black and white decisions that only idiots can argue about (aka offsides, mistaken identity, ball in or out of play, whether it’s inside or outside the box etc…) as those are things that aren’t opinionated and all qualified refs should come to the same conclusion for. As it’s those black and white things that VAR have very rarely messed up on, and VAR has helped to solve.

0

Blogs 31 bloggers

Stoke City Polls