Premier League panel back VAR decisions

[Arthur]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67592553

'Video assistant referee Stuart Attwell has been backed over his interventions during Fulham's controversial 3-2 win over Wolves by the Premier League panel that reviews key incidents in matches.

Wolves boss Gary O'Neil was fuming over a string of decisions that went against his team at Craven Cottage on Monday.

The visitors conceded two penalties and also believed Fulham forward Carlos Vinicius should have been red carded.

But the independent key match incidents panel felt the VAR calls were correct.

As first reported by ESPN, while a majority of the panel felt on-field referee Michael Salisbury was wrong to award Fulham's first penalty for Nelson Semedo's 'foul' on Tom Cairney, and that Vinicius should have been shown a red rather than yellow card for head-butting Max Kilman, in neither instance did they believe the decisions fell into the 'clear and obvious' category that would have warranted them being overturned.

The panel also felt Salisbury was incorrect to wave away Fulham's penalty claims when Harry Wilson went down over Joao Gomes' leg in stoppage-time, but that VAR was correct to intervene and recommend he look at the pitchside monitor and overturn the decision.'

Gary O'Neill talks as if he is the oracle on incorrect VAR decisions. Maybe he needs to accept that he can be wrong sometimes too.

[jarv]

Yes, the foul on Cairney was 100% correct. No need for var to see that.

Vinicious head but, however feeble it was probably should have been red.

[Free Elvis Hammond]

I don't really see why the Cairney pen and Vini headbutt didn't meet the threshold for 'clear and obvious', but the Wilson pen did. But really that's just why VAR is such a stupid concept, it's layers upon layers of subjective decisions based on marginal factors - it will never stop people disagreeing with decisions, it just takes three times longer now

[Lighthouse]

I said on another thread that the rules are different. To my old fashioned view, brought up on the way the game used to be played. Penalties and fouls have completely been re thought. But if they have had a review and still back it then fair enough.

[Sting of the North]

I don't really see why the Cairney pen and Vini headbutt didn't meet the threshold for 'clear and obvious', but the Wilson pen did. But really that's just why VAR is such a stupid concept, it's layers upon layers of subjective decisions based on marginal factors - it will never stop people disagreeing with decisions, it just takes three times longer now

I think it makes perfect sense. The Wilson penalty was indisputable in my opinion, thus clear and obvious mistake not to award it.

The TC penalty may be deemed soft (I don't think it looks soft from replays though), but the defender kicked TC which presumably is what the ref thought as well. Could go either way I guess and thus not clear and obvious that it was incorrectly given.

Same with the red. We often see those unpunished (the one Villa got against us when Mitro made a meal of it that was very similar last season even got overturned). Not clear and obvious mistake.

We may have been a tad fortunate, because especially the red could have gone different but this was in no way a scandal or anything like that. O'Neil is just bitter and wanted to deflect from the fact that Fulham dominated the second half and Wolves deserved nothing from the game.

The non-penalty for Wolves against Man United at the start of the season was a scandal. The allowed City goal against Fulham was a scandal. The non-penalty for Fulham against United in the FA cup last season was a scandal. The incidents in the match against Wolves a couple of days ago were just decisions that didn't go in Wolves' favour. Nothing more.

In my opinion.

[toshes mate]

It isn't a matter of right and wrong as the OP has it though is it? 

It is a matter of which opinion has the approval of those in the pecking order of life. It could be settled with a coin toss since that is at least random and without known bias (provided the coin hasn't been tampered with) but acccepting the word of an experienced three dimensional observer on the field of play (the referee) seems a more plausible option than any amount of "committee views" claiming they know better from a two dimensional much reduced (1920x1080 pixel broadcast standard resolution) image which thus far is all VAR is. Even the offside line has to be hand drawn by operators who clearly don't know what parallel means.

VAR was never the answer to footballs ills but in the hands of the idiots controlling football it is certainly doing much more damage than necessary to the spirit of the game, probably as much as any hooligan could achieve running onto the pitch to do nothing but claim they managed to get through the security 'fence'.   

[The Cravenette]

I hope that idiot Jason Cundy mentions this at some point. He was absolutely livid after the game about the decisions and made it out that Wolves had been robbed. It was a bloody hard listen on the way home and I only continued listening as i was waiting for a Marco interview.
Instead I had his ranting and Wolves fans ringing in (who were not at the match) banging on about how hard done by they were. O'Hara did try to get an opinion in now and again but was shouted down. How people can listen to him on a regular basis I don't know.

[Whitesideup]

I don't really see why the Cairney pen and Vini headbutt didn't meet the threshold for 'clear and obvious', but the Wilson pen did. But really that's just why VAR is such a stupid concept, it's layers upon layers of subjective decisions based on marginal factors - it will never stop people disagreeing with decisions, it just takes three times longer now

I think it makes perfect sense. The Wilson penalty was indisputable in my opinion, thus clear and obvious mistake not to award it.

The TC penalty may be deemed soft (I don't think it looks soft from replays though), but the defender kicked TC which presumably is what the ref thought as well. Could go either way I guess and thus not clear and obvious that it was incorrectly given.

Same with the red. We often see those unpunished (the one Villa got against us when Mitro made a meal of it that was very similar last season even got overturned). Not clear and obvious mistake.

We may have been a tad fortunate, because especially the red could have gone different but this was in no way a scandal or anything like that. O'Neil is just bitter and wanted to deflect from the fact that Fulham dominated the second half and Wolves deserved nothing from the game.

The non-penalty for Wolves against Man United at the start of the season was a scandal. The allowed City goal against Fulham was a scandal. The non-penalty for Fulham against United in the FA cup last season was a scandal. The incidents in the match against Wolves a couple of days ago were just decisions that didn't go in Wolves' favour. Nothing more.

In my opinion.

Really good analysis and comment Mr Sting. O'Neil went on about 4 big decisions

1) I too thought the player caught TC on the foot and it was a correct decision. Now even if our perception of the event is wrong, let's say our Fulham-tinted glasses made us imagine that we saw his foot land on TC, the fact that we can be so confident that there was contact a) explains the ref's decision and b) in itself is indicative of the fact there was no "clear and obvious" error. And as for O'Neil saying the ref admitted an error I think I read that he said maybe VAR should have asked him to have a look at it. Of course you are going to try and find comments to appease an irate manager, to give him something .. but maybe he would have stuck to the decision.

2) The no-yellow for Ream .. that's just bitterness. There is nothing in the rules that a challenge in the penalty area has to be a yellow card. It was just a clumsy challenge, nothing more and a penalty was adequate.

3) I am convinced, as were many, that the Wolves player came across Wilson. Even if accidental (hence the hands-up) it's still a penalty. Although there is some disagreement, others (eg Freddie Lungberg in the studio) were adamant that it was. And O'Neil himself said the ref sticks by the VAR decision and his review of the incident.

4) Red for Vini - The ref was only a few yards away, and he made the decision that it wasn't bad enough to constitute violent conduct - as the ref had seen it close-up, VAR did not make him review it. But I thought it merited a red so I have some sympathy.

BUT O'Neill of course makes no mention of Lemina not getting a yellow for bringing a player down in the first-half. He made it look like an accident but he knew what he was doing, as the commentator on Sky said. Maybe he wouldn't have made the challenge that earned him yellow in the 2nd, but had he done so, and it was poorly timed not malicicious, then we may have been home and dry against 10 men.

Yes, VAR and refs have made horrendous errors. But this was not the occasion for his outrage.

[Watford_fc]

Probably didn't help that the decisions went against Wolves again so people felt sorry and frustrated for them as they have had a few tough calls .

Trouble is generally VAR has been used too much for subjective decisions with no consistency as each ref has their own view and even it seems different competitions have their own rules !

Should have just been used for factual situations like offsides but they've made a mess of that too.

[Shredhead]

I can't understand why Ream wasn't sent off

[YankeeJim]

I thought all three penalties were soft. Carney was tripped but not viciously. Ream and the attacker were going for a loose ball and they bumped shoulders. Would the penalty been called if Ream had gone down instead? Wilson was simply tripped. I thought the none call was more severe than the actual penalty. Go figure.
To be sure neither penalty would have been called were it Fulham asking for it while at Citi or some other such place.
VAR id destroying the game.

[Lester Burnham]

When refs are called to view 'the monitor', they uphold the decision, what 95% of the time? They need to worry less about undermining their VAR peers and rely on common sense and an understanding of the game. The reviews under 'slow-motion'i is detrimental.

[Nero]

Groany O'Neill still wont be happy

[Sting of the North]

I thought all three penalties were soft. Carney was tripped but not viciously. Ream and the attacker were going for a loose ball and they bumped shoulders. Would the penalty been called if Ream had gone down instead? Wilson was simply tripped. I thought the none call was more severe than the actual penalty. Go figure.
To be sure neither penalty would have been called were it Fulham asking for it while at Citi or some other such place.
VAR id destroying the game.

So if Wilson, as you state, was tripped, why wouldn't it be a penalty? I thought you weren't allowed to trip other players...

[Sting of the North]

I can't understand why Ream wasn't sent off

To direct the question back to you, why would he have been sent off? On what grounds?

[Blawarmy]

For all the soft decisions given against, us I think we're due several more favourable decisions.

[bahay18]

They didn't show the wolves player a second yellow for giving away the penalty on Wilson either . Not automatically a yellow for conceding a penalty . Penalty is enough . As for the red for vini . Villa had a red against us for the same thing over turned . So clearly there is a big threshold for that now .

[Jamie88]

I don't want penalties to be given for the supposed fouls on Cairney and Wilson. It just further enhances diving and cynicism in football

[Sting of the North]

Personally don't think Wilson would have been able to stay on his feet if his life depended on it. No idea why that would be mentioned in the context of diving. Anyone who has been tripped when running at high pace should know how hard it is to keep the balance.

[Baszab]

Never mind- we will get the reverse benefit of decisions this afternoon - guarantee Liverpool will get a penalty