Aston Villa v Middlesbrough

[martin_p]

I didn't say that they don't make mistakes, however, he did not make a mistake in this particular case.
VAR will be a blight on the game because the people who will not know what is happening will be those attending the games and paying their money to do so.
They will not show things on a screen because they will be afraid of the reaction from some fans. You have to remember that we are talking football here, not rugby, cricket or tennis where fans accept the decisions of referees and umpires. Many football fans do not.

They’re more likely to accept decisions they know have been reviewed, like they are in rugby, tennis and cricket.

[martin_p]

Very true --your opinion says that the referee was wrong, however, in his opinion, he was correct. Is he not allowed to have an opinion --just because he is a neutral referee?

I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make! Of course he’s allowed to have an opinion, in fact it’s pretty much mandatory that he does so in his job. But that doesn’t mean I have to accept his opinion is correct just because he’s the referee like you seem to be implying. In fact the scourge of tv football is that the armchair supporter usually gets a much better view than the referee so actually has a better informed opinion.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

They’re more likely to accept decisions they know have been reviewed, like they are in rugby, tennis and cricket.

So why will they not review EVERY decision? Are you willing to accept that referees do get some decisions correct?If so, why not accept that he has made a decision from what he has seen rather than ask for someone else's opinion from what they have seen on a television screen because all you are getting is another person's opinion and who is not fully aware of everything that is going on in the field of play as any good referee is.

[KRBFC]

Krbfc.. Now you're in Europe, do you believe there'd never be a better time to attract a quality footballing manager? Is this the time for dyche to be replaced?

No, that would be stupidity and would see us collapse internally. I actually think we've played better this year, I'm hopeful we'll chuck a few quid at it this summer and slowly but surely become more enjoyable to watch. I think the promotion year and the following year we played the worst style of football I have ever seen at any level including Sunday league but we've certainly improved since then. Like we don't timewaste before half time anymore (shudder).

[martin_p]

So why will they not review EVERY decision? Are you willing to accept that referees do get some decisions correct?If so, why not accept that he has made a decision from what he has seen rather than ask for someone else's opinion from what they have seen on a television screen because all you are getting is another person's opinion and who is not fully aware of everything that is going on in the field of play as any good referee is.

Because the people who have the tv screens have a better view. I’m really not sure where you going on this. You seem to be saying that referees can never be wrong or that even if they are wrong we just accept it and don’t express any opinion that he may have been wrong.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make! Of course he’s allowed to have an opinion, in fact it’s pretty much mandatory that he does so in his job. But that doesn’t mean I have to accept his opinion is correct just because he’s the referee like you seem to be implying. In fact the scourge of tv football is that the armchair supporter usually gets a much better view than the referee so actually has a better informed opinion.

The armchair supporter is not refereeing the game.
The answer is that we should have no onfield officials and should rely on television officials to referee the game from an armchair, therefore, they will give the same decisions as the armchair supporter and everyone will be happy, in fact, there will be no need for anyone to attend a game in future --just pay the TV companies instead.
On the other hand, we could just accept that the onfield officials do the job to the best of their ability and we will abide by their decisions --it seems to have worked for 130 years and the game has survived. What is the difference now? MONEY!!!

[martin_p]

The armchair supporter is not refereeing the game.
The answer is that we should have no onfield officials and should rely on television officials to referee the game from an armchair, therefore, they will give the same decisions as the armchair supporter and everyone will be happy, in fact, there will be no need for anyone to attend a game in future --just pay the TV companies instead.
On the other hand, we could just accept that the onfield officials do the job to the best of their ability and we will abide by their decisions --it seems to have worked for 130 years and the game has survived. What is the difference now? MONEY!!!

So you are suggesting that no one is allowed to express an opinion on a refereeing decision other than the referee himself. Well that’s 50% of tv punditry and messageboard chat gone then!

[Ashingtonclaret46]

So you are suggesting that no one is allowed to express an opinion on a refereeing decision other than the referee himself. Well that’s 50% of tv punditry and messageboard chat gone then!

You can express as many opinions as you like, however, at the end of the day it will be your opinion and, as you have seen from tonight's game, it matters not because the referee's decision was the one that mattered whether you thought that he was right or wrong.
Have a look in tomorrow's papers and it will show Villa 0 Middlesbrough 0 and that Johnstone, Hutton, Grealish and Snodgrass were cautioned for Villa and that French and Besic were cautioned for Middlesbrough.
In your opinion one of those cautions was wrong and should have been a dismissal, however, the man that mattered thought differently, although Tony Pulis thought the same as you --quelle surprise!
I respect your opinion, however, I also respect the opinion of the referee who gave a decision on what he saw from his correct positioning when the incident occurred. Tony Pulis was about 50 yards away at the time --did he have a better view?

[martin_p]

You can express as many opinions as you like

Isn’t that all I was doing?!

[Zom Zom]

Just come across some old tweets, dug out by Fortress Turf Moor. Some Boro fan mocking us for signing Pope and Gudmundsson from Charlton after we won the league, as they signed Barca legend Valdes and Gaston Ramirez.

How that worked out for them, eh?

[Vegas Claret]

The same number of years I’ve been a professional footballer, film maker, artist, author and rock star. It doesn’t stop me having an opinion on any of them.

Steve Bruce and Tony Pulis both thought it should have been a Red card - combined professional football experience approaching 100 years at a guess, so if they don't know the rules then we are all ******

[arise_sir_charge]

Ashington is seemingly saying that nobody can have an opinion other than the referee. Odd.

Whilst ordinarily it’s only the refs opinion that matters, refs do, frequently, get it wrong. Refs occasionally get reprimanded for getting it wrong.

VAR isn’t the answer though. The answer is to just accept refs get it wrong from time to time. Vent your spleen, be unhappy about but it is what it is. They have got it wrong for years, it’s part of the game. It adds to it.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Don’t like VAR and the time it takes to use it.
However people like Mike Dean are pushing us towards it with getting more and more big decisions wrong.

[NL Claret]

When you have had a bet on a red card to be shown you have every right to be aggrieved.

I suppose it is subjective - was it an obvious goal scoring opportunity - looking at the pace (or lack of) of John Terry it was obvious.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Ashington is seemingly saying that nobody can have an opinion other than the referee. Odd.

Whilst ordinarily it’s only the refs opinion that matters, refs do, frequently, get it wrong. Refs occasionally get reprimanded for getting it wrong.

VAR isn’t the answer though. The answer is to just accept refs get it wrong from time to time. Vent your spleen, be unhappy about but it is what it is. They have got it wrong for years, it’s part of the game. It adds to it.

Your first statement is incorrect, however, your last paragraph is exactly what I was saying.
Unfortunately, the digital age will take over to the detriment of the game and those paying to actually attend the matches who will be kept in the dark as to what is actually happening. Having said that, it will provide discussion as to whether the opinion of the VAR is correct or not.
As I have already said --why bother having onfield officials when someone who is not part of the game will have the final say?

[Silkyskills1]

Steve Bruce and Tony Pulis both thought it should have been a Red card - combined professional football experience approaching 100 years at a guess, so if they don't know the rules then we are all ******

Good of Steve Bruce to say that after he's won the game.

[Hipper]

Whilst ordinarily it’s only the refs opinion that matters, refs do, frequently, get it wrong. Refs occasionally get reprimanded for getting it wrong.

Refs do get things wrong occasionally, not frequently. Given the pace of the modern game and the deviousness of players it is quite remarkable how much they get right.

Law 5:

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... he-referee" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'Decisions will be made to the best of the referee`s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the spirit of the game and will be based on the opinion of the referee who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game.

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The decisions of the referee, and all other match officials, must always be respected.'

This is what I believe Ashington is saying. We can all have our opinions but the refs is the one that counts.

When referees are taught, they are told to ask for each incident 'what do the Laws say about this'. Referees need to know the Laws of the Game inside out. Most of us, including players, managers, pundits and fans, do not.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Thanks Hipper, you have certainly understood what I was saying.
It is with the introduction of VAR where we, who mentor young, upcoming officials, have a problem because we are telling them to go with their decision and progress the game. Don't get into arguments with players, or at the early stages, with coaches or spectators, let them accept that you have made your decision to the best of your ability and that decision is final. Unfortunately, this will not be the case when VAR is used because we are introducing another opinion into the equation, however, only in certain instances.

This then means that the onfield officials can be considered to have the ability to decide on foul play etc., etc. in all areas of the field but not when it comes to the penalty area or making an offsisde decision in certain areas of the field.
Goal line technology works very well, however, they don't use that to see if a ball has passed over the goal line in the build up of an attack, it is only used to see if a goal has been scored.

[Foulthrow]

shambolic from Dean, basic decision, balls going in

Crikey - glad I didn't spot that. A little too graphic for me. Hope he lubed up first.

[piston broke]

Thanks Hipper, you have certainly understood what I was saying.
It is with the introduction of VAR where we, who mentor young, upcoming officials, have a problem because we are telling them to go with their decision and progress the game. Don't get into arguments with players, or at the early stages, with coaches or spectators, let them accept that you have made your decision to the best of your ability and that decision is final. Unfortunately, this will not be the case when VAR is used because we are introducing another opinion into the equation, however, only in certain instances.

This then means that the onfield officials can be considered to have the ability to decide on foul play etc., etc. in all areas of the field but not when it comes to the penalty area or making an offsisde decision in certain areas of the field.
Goal line technology works very well, however, they don't use that to see if a ball has passed over the goal line in the build up of an attack, it is only used to see if a goal has been scored.

I don’t disagree with you often Ash but he was wrong and it was a possible game changing decision. The shot was, probably, a goal. Terry would never have caught it. Johnstone would have been suspended for the final.
Re:VAR. it is clear you are against it, I am for it. You are not introducing another opinion as the ref reviews the VAR himself. It is too slow but it will improve. It has benefitted every sport that has used it why can folk not accept it will improve football?

[Bordeauxclaret]

People can get upset about people questioning refs or VAR all they want.
I’m struggling to see how lobbing the ball over the keepers head towards goal from 20 odd yards out is not an obvious goal scoring opportunity.