Video Assistant Referee

  • 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...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

shempz

Supporter
On the Fleck/Lo Celso incident, the only person that really knows if it should have been a send off is Fleck himself. His foot has to go somewhere, Lo Celso was already rolling around on the ground.
Could he have done more to avoid it, probably yes, but intent has to be proven and it can't be in that instance in my view. Judgement call by the referee and VAR that it was incidental rather than violent conduct, I can live with that.


The intent is clear and very obvious - Fleck even had to change the direction of his leg and foot in order to bring it down onto Lo Celso's shoulder and face (you can see him bring his leg around)
 
Do have to laugh at people saying offside by a toenail.
The lines were a full yard apart.
His whole body was nearer the goal than any part of the defender. It really was not even close.

On the Fleck/Lo Celso incident, the only person that really knows if it should have been a send off is Fleck himself. His foot has to go somewhere, Lo Celso was already rolling around on the ground.
Could he have done more to avoid it, probably yes, but intent has to be proven and it can't be in that instance in my view. Judgement call by the referee and VAR that it was incidental rather than violent conduct, I can live with that.

There are many reasons to dislike VAR, I especially dislike the slowing down of incidents which always make them seem worse, for example the West Ham send off last week which was subseuently overturned on appeal, and the very marginal offside decisions. The slowing down is poor implementation by PGMOL, the offsides are how the Premier League want it so many decision makers to blame for the issue.
However the decisions in our game this weekend are not reasons to dislike VAR, the first one was a clear offside to the naked eye, the second was not an obvious error that needed overturning.
No one gets a red card for "intent". It's not even mentioned in the laws of the game.

It was 100% a Red Card under the laws of the game, as highlighted below under serious foul play and/or violent conduct......

SENDING-OFF OFFENCES

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
  • denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
  • denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)
  • serious foul play
  • biting or spitting at someone
  • violent conduct
  • using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
  • receiving a second caution in the same match
  • entering the video operation room (VOR)
A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY

Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee's permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence

The following must be considered:
  • distance between the offence and the goal
  • general direction of the play
  • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
  • location and number of defenders
SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.
 
Surely the 'human' element thus remains, we still have the same people people making the same mistakes using a different method but taking much longer to arrive at a wrong decision. Goal line technology is fine, so that stays. The rest can be kicked into touch even though realistically we're stuck with it in some shape or form for the future.

Until they can improve the technology to be accurate enough to determine whether or not a player is actually in an offside position when the ball is made contact with then the use of VAR for offside should either be suspended or a rule change made to be more VAR friendly.

Got no problem with using video evidence for retrospective action when violent or foul action has been committed and I would also like to see ex professionals added to these VAR panels in the hope some element of common sense and perspective is introduced to the process.
 
No one gets a red card for "intent". It's not even mentioned in the laws of the game.

It was 100% a Red Card under the laws of the game, as highlighted below under serious foul play and/or violent conduct......

SENDING-OFF OFFENCES

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
  • denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
  • denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)
  • serious foul play
  • biting or spitting at someone
  • violent conduct
  • using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
  • receiving a second caution in the same match
  • entering the video operation room (VOR)
A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY

Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee's permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence

The following must be considered:
  • distance between the offence and the goal
  • general direction of the play
  • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
  • location and number of defenders
SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

Of course INTENT is what matters, otherwise every game up and down the country would be abandoned due to lack of players as every touch on an opponent when challenging for a ball could be deemed as a red card offence. Every striker/central defender aerial challenge has an element of physical contact to it.

Basically what you are saying about no intent is if 2 players are running for the ball at speed and collide into one another, or if one collides into a stationery player it is an automatic dismissal. Sorry that is poppycock, because intent matters.

The offence Fleck COULD have committed was violent conduct by using or attempting to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent. But for that to be the case, it has to be judged he intended to use excessive force or brutality, not just the outcome made it seem that way.

Or do you think you somehow know the laws better than those trained ?
One thing it is not is a 100% Red Card, it is purely a judgement call on intention, and the referee and VAR decided, rightly or wrongly that the intent to use excessive force or brutality was not there.
I am also certain if the referee had sent him off, VAR would not have overturned it though, as it was a judgement rather than factual call.
 
Last edited:
Of course INTENT is what matters, otherwise every game up and down the country would be abandoned due to lack of players as every touch on an opponent when challenging for a ball could be deemed as a red card offence. Every striker/central defender aerial challenge has an element of physical contact to it.

Basically what you are saying about no intent is if 2 players are running for the ball at speed and collide into one another, or if one collides into a stationery player it is an automatic dismissal. Sorry that is poppycock.

The offence Fleck COULD have committed is using or attempting to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent. But for that to be the case, it has to be judged he intended to use excessive force or brutality, not just the outcome made it seem that way.

Or do you think you somehow know the laws better than those trained ?
One thing it is not is a 100% Red Card, it is purely a judgement call on intention, and the referee and VAR decided, rightly or wrongly that the intent to use excessive force or brutality was not there.
No, it doesn't matter!! It's NOT in the laws. It's NOT even mentioned in the laws!!! Players do not get red cards for "intent", if they did the laws would reflect this and have them written thus.

You get sent off for the reasons I coped and pasted which are the laws of the game.

In relation to the Fleck case, he should have been sent off for Serious Foul Play, treading on a players face is endangering the safety of an opponent. Whether he intended to do it or not doesn't even come into it.
 
Last edited:
No, it doesn't matter!! It's NOT in the laws. It's NOT even mentioned in the laws!!! Players do not get red cards for "intent", if they did the laws would reflect this and have them written thus.

You get sent off for the reasons I coped and pasted which are the laws of the game.

In relation to the Fleck case, he should have been sent off for Serious Foul Play, treading on a players face is endangering the safety of an opponent. Whether he intended to do it or not doesn't even come into it.

Sorry, you really are stretching here Guido, unless you really think every game should be abandoned because intent is irrelevant.

He could not be sent off for serious foul play as it was after the challenge, serious foul play only comes into force during the challenge for the ball itself.
It is violent conduct (excessive force or brutality) or nothing, and remember Fleck does not have wings, his feet needed to land somewhere, or in the penalty area whenever an attacker leaps up for a header should a defender roll on the ground so the attacker lands on him and get him sent off, because that is what you are basically actually advocating here if intent is irrelevant.
Intent to use brutality or excessive force is required, otherwise it is just an unfortunate match incident in a contact sport. That is why the referee and VAR both ruled the way they did, because they understand the laws, it is a judgement call about intention, not the outcome, whereas you always adjust the law and read in them in a way, without any context to suit the outcome you want. I bet if I look back you would be advocating that Son should not have been sent off against Chelsea.
 
Sorry, you really are stretching here Guido, unless you really think every game should be abandoned because intent is irrelevant.

He could not be sent off for serious foul play as it was after the challenge, serious foul play only comes into force during the challenge for the ball itself.
It is violent conduct (excessive force or brutality) or nothing, and remember Fleck does not have wings, his feet needed to land somewhere, or in the penalty area whenever an attacker leaps up for a header should a defender roll on the ground so the attacker lands on him and get him sent off, because that is what you are basically actually advocating here if intent is irrelevant.
Intent to use brutality or excessive force is required, otherwise it is just an unfortunate match incident in a contact sport. That is why the referee and VAR both ruled the way they did, because they understand the laws, it is a judgement call about intention, not the outcome, whereas you always adjust the law and read in them in a way, without any context to suit the outcome you want. I bet if I look back you would be advocating that Son should not have been sent off against Chelsea.
mate the only stretching being done is by you, the only person I've come across that doesn't think it should be a red card!! Who's talking about abandoning a game???

Show me where in the laws of the game, as they are written does it specify intent.

Take your pick, he can be given a red card for either Serious Foul Play (there is a challenge) or Violent Conduct, which makes the decision even more baffling.
 
mate the only stretching being done is by you, the only person I've come across that doesn't think it should be a red card!! Who's talking about abandoning a game???

Show me where in the laws of the game, as they are written does it specify intent.

Take your pick, he can be given a red card for either Serious Foul Play (there is a challenge) or Violent Conduct, which makes the decision even more baffling.

I am not saying it shouldn't be a red card.
I am saying it is certainly not clear cut, as it is 100% a judgement call on intent, and the only person that really knows the intent was Fleck himself. Some say Fleck could have done more to avoid him, some say he couldn't. The referee and VAR both erred on the side that he couldn't.

Come on then answer these 3 questions please, just to show you how silly you are being.

What should happen if a player jumps for a header, and then an opponent either put his leg or his body on the ground at the place that player would land, so the player that jumped lands on him ?

What about a player makes a diving header and his momentum takes him into an opponent, so in effect he "headbutts an opponent" ?

Why do you think VAR did not suggest a send off or even the referee looks again at the incident , after reviewing it ?


And who is talking about abandoning matches ? Well you actually if you say all physical contact should result in a sending off irrelevant of intent, because there would be 50 incidents that fit that description every match.
 
Last edited:
I am not saying it shouldn't be a red card.
I am saying it is certainly not clear cut, as it is 100% a judgement call on intent, and the only person that really knows the intent was Fleck himself. Some say Fleck could have done more to avoid him, some say he couldn't

Come on then answer these 2 questions please, just to show you how silly you are being.

What should happen if a player jumps for a header, and then an opponent either put his leg or his body on the ground at the place that player would land, so the player that jumped lands on him ?

Why do you think VAR did not suggest a send off or even the referee looks again at the incident , after reviewing it ?
Mate, for the umpteenth time, the intent has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

Stamping on your opponents face is endangering the player.

Where in the laws of the game does it mention intent? You've yet to show this, I know the reason for this, so please acknowledge that intent therefore irrelevant.

To answer your question. The player thats' chosen to lie down on the floor so that the oppo player who's heading a ball lands on him is a dick and deserves to be given a lifetime ban. Seriously, the player that's chosen to lie down on the floor would be booked for "unsporting behaviour" seeing as the reason for doing so was to get his opponent cautioned.

I've no idea why VAR (Peter Banks) was so inept, it's kind of the point of the incident and how shit it and he is.
 
OK

Pointless continuing anymore. For the umpteenth time you have just behaved like an ostrich and buried your head in the sand.

And for the umpteenth time I am not advocating that it shouldn't have been a red, I am just saying your logic and understanding of the laws is totally flawed and inconsistent.

You have just answered your own question and totally contradicted your whole argument.
Intent is everything, as you would not send a player off in the example above despite committing the same offence, that you are advocating the total opposite action to, and nor would anybody, because INTENT FUCKING MATTERS when it is violent conduct.

But you won't see it like that at all, even though when it has gone against Spurs previously you argue the other way.

And no Peter Bankes was not inept, nor his assistant VAR. They know the laws, that is their job. They took intent into account, as all referees do with every physical contact during every match, including every potential violent conduct incident.
Whether their decision is right or not is certainly up for debate, but the fact they decided the reason not to, was because of a lack of intent, is not up for debate.

Why do you think the red card at Fulham got overturned on appeal for the elbow to the head a few weeks back ? Because it was ACCIDENTAL is the answer by the way.

Damn, just watching Luton v Rotherham now, 2 players jumped for ball one landed on the foot of the other, no card. Not one complaint. but according to your logic, must be a send off because it is, it had force, and intent is irrelevant. Oh and now another, a player goes in for diving header header misses ball, and crashed into opponent at force knocking him over. Again no card, not even yellow.
 
Last edited:
OK

Pointless continuing anymore. For the umpteenth time you have just behaved like an ostrich and buried your head in the sand.

And for the umpteenth time I am not advocating that it shouldn't have been a red, I am just saying your logic and understanding of the laws is totally flawed and inconsistent.

You have just answered your own question and totally contradicted your whole argument.
Intent is everything, as you would not send a player off in the example above despite committing the same offence, that you are advocating the total opposite action to, and nor would anybody, because INTENT FUCKING MATTERS when it is violent conduct.

But you won't see it like that at all, even though when it has gone against Spurs previously you argue the other way.

And no Peter Bankes was not inept, nor his assistant VAR. They know the laws, that is their job. They took intent into account, as all referees do with every physical contact during every match, including every potential violent conduct incident.
Whether their decision is right or not is certainly up for debate, but the fact they decided the reason not to, was because of a lack of intent, is not up for debate.

Damn, just watching Luton v Rotherham now, 2 players jumped for ball one landed on the foot of the other, no card. Not one complaint. but according to your logic, must be a send off because it is, it had force, and intent is irrelevant. Oh and now another, a player goes in for diving header header misses ball, and crashed into opponent at force knocking him over. Again no card, not even yellow.
:mourfacepalm:

You can't prove intent, it's why it's not in the laws of the game.
 
:mourfacepalm:

You can't prove intent, it's why it's not in the laws of the game.
Come on then.

Send off at Fulham few weeks ago for elbow to the face. Tomas Soucek
Overturned on appeal because it was deemed ACCIDENTAL, and rightly so.
There is no debate that the offence met every other criteria needed for violent conduct.

How did that happen if intent is irrelevant ?

Seriously you have dug a hole, and don't know how to get out of it
 
Last edited:
Come on then.

Send off at Fulham few weeks ago for elbow to the face. Tomas Soucek
Overturned on appeal because it was deemed ACCIDENTAL.
There is no debate that the offence met every other criteria.

How did that happen if intent is irrelevant ?

Seriously you have dug a hole, and don't know how to get out of it
They didn't give a reason why his red card was rescinded, they didn't use the words "accidental". This is the statement:



When Son's red card was rescinded against Everton and his challenge with Gomes, they did give a reason, I'm quoting this as I think it's important in explaining the notion that "intent" isn't even considered.

โ€œHaving viewed the available footage of the incident on numerous occasions and in great detail, the regulatory commission agreed by majority decision that the referee had erred in his interpretation of the incident.

โ€œThe majority decision was that in this instance, there was the absence of excessive force, brutality and the challenge itself did not endanger the safety of the opponent as stipulated in law.โ€

NOTHING about intent but EVERYTHING about the law as written e.g. focussing on "excessive force", "brutality" and "endangering the safety of the opponent".

These are the reasons, as already stated NUMEROUS times now, why red cards are given and therefore why they will be rescinded too.
 
They didn't give a reason why his red card was rescinded, they didn't use the words "accidental". This is the statement:



When Son's red card was rescinded against Everton and his challenge with Gomes, they did give a reason, I'm quoting this as I think it's important in explaining the notion that "intent" isn't even considered.

โ€œHaving viewed the available footage of the incident on numerous occasions and in great detail, the regulatory commission agreed by majority decision that the referee had erred in his interpretation of the incident.

โ€œThe majority decision was that in this instance, there was the absence of excessive force, brutality and the challenge itself did not endanger the safety of the

as stipulated in law.โ€

NOTHING about intent but EVERYTHING about the law as written e.g. focussing on "excessive force", "brutality" and "endangering the safety of the opponent".

These are the reasons, as already stated NUMEROUS times now, why red cards are given and therefore why they will be rescinded too.

Son's was for SERIOUS FOUL PLAY, where it was determined by panel as a reckless (yellow card) challenge rather than endangering the safety of an opponent (red card). That is fine, There are different levels for fouls between no card, yellow card and red card offences. Referee on the day judged he endangered the safety of an opponent, we argued and panel agreed he didn't go that far. That is no comparison to :-

Soucek's send off was for VIOLENT CONDUCT as per the charge. There is no other level, it is violent conduct or not. Now hazard a guess why it was deemed not to be. Surely even you can now admit it was overturned because there was no INTENT.
What other reason is there ? No contact, or mistaken identity are the only other conclusions, both of which you will probably now try and argue.

Another one Michael Smith Rotherham v. Sheffield Wednesday in March, Violent conduct on pitch, met criteria you say is a send off, overturned on appeal as judged no intent, basically just a tangle.

Game, set and match Guido, Soucek incdient has done you like a kipper.
 
Last edited:
Son's was for SERIOUS FOUL PLAY, where it was determined by panel as a reckless (yellow card) challenge rather than endangering the safety of an opponent (red card). That is fine, There are different levels for fouls between no card, yellow card and red card offences. Referee on the day judged he endangered the safety of an opponent, we argued and panel agreed he didn't go that far. That is no comparison to :-

Soucek's send off was for VIOLENT CONDUCT as per the charge. There is no other level, it is violent conduct or not. Now hazard a guess why it was deemed not to be. Surely even you can now admit it was overturned because there was no INTENT.
What other reason is there ? No contact, or mistaken identity are the only other conclusions, both of which you will probably now try and argue.

Game, set and match Guido, Soucek incdient has done you like a kipper.
The was no reason issued why it was rescinded, fact! Stop pretending that a reason was given.

The assumption to be made is that upon review they thought that it was given in error. The error would have been that his action wasn't in fact deemed to be violent.

AGAIN, it wouldn't have been about intent because intent isn't written in the laws of the game when considering red cards. Unless you can show me that it is, something you haven't done so yet.
 
The was no reason issued why it was rescinded, fact! Stop pretending that a reason was given.

The assumption to be made is that upon review they thought that it was given in error. The error would have been that his action wasn't in fact deemed to be violent.

AGAIN, it wouldn't have been about intent because intent isn't written in the laws of the game when considering red cards. Unless you can show me that it is, something you haven't done so yet.

And the reason it wasn't deemed as violent was because it was not intentional, bangs head against wall,, as it met every criteria.


Congratulations.

You really have won top prize in coming up with bollocks, doubling, trebling and even quadrupling down on it, and then burying the head in the sand.

I don't know whether to applaud your persistence in defending a position you erroneously took or just bang my head against a wall.

Either way enough of the subject now, I have better things to do like watching paint dry than continue arguing with and laughing at you.

Thing is I actually have lot of respect for you as a poster, just on this subject you are just way off the mark and the evidence is incontrovertible against you, and any reasonable person would see that, in fact you probably realise that yourself now , but are too proud to admit it.
 
Last edited:
Congratulations.

You really have won top prize in coming up with bollocks, doubling, trebling and even quadrupling down on it, and then burying the head in the sand.

I don't know whether to applaud your persistence in defending a position you erroneously took or just bang my head against a wall.

Either way enough of the subject now, I have better things to do like watching paint dry than continue arguing with and laughing at you.

Thing is I actually have lot of respect for you as a poster, just on this subject you are just way off the mark and the evidence is incontrovertible against you, and any reasonable person would see that, in fact you probably realise that yourself now , but are too proud to admit it.
You can shut me down here and now if you can post anywhere in the laws of the game that mentions red cards are given out or indeed rescinded for the "intent or misplaced representation of intent"
 
Last night highlighted how shite var is. Ref awards a penalty when the ball bounces off the top of a city players shoulder. Instead of telling the ref "that isn't even close to being a penalty you fucking blind bellend", they ask him to go and check it on the monitor. What an unnecessary waste of time
 
Top Bottom