MARK CLATTENBURG: VAR disappointed Mike Dean about the decision to book Fred after falling into the penalty area … I wish he had been advised to look at the monitor
- Fred was booked to dive after a meeting with Nicolas Otamendi
- Repetitions show, however, that the Brazilian was polluted by the defender of the city of Man
- ] VAR was wrong and Mike Dean had to check the pitch-side monitor
Manchester United Midfielder Fred was booked for diving after a challenge by Nicolas Otamendi in the area.
Referee Mike Dean thought the way he went down was not consistent with any contact.
However, after watching the replays it was clear Otamendi kicked Fred & # 39; s tibia. As a result, a fine should have been granted.
I wish Dean was advised to look at the monitor in Old Trafford, because if I am sure he would have reversed his decision and given the spot kick.
Instead, VAR made the final decision – and it was the wrong one.
MARK CLATTENBURG: The stamp of Giovani Lo Celso on Cesar Azpilicueta endangered his safety … I am shaky that VAR official David Coote did not recommend a red card
- VAR would The stamp of Giovani Lo Celso was a red card
- Michael Oliver could have missed the incident because of his positioning
- The FA is powerless to ban Lo Celso retroactively because of the referral
Like everyone else, I was a shaky VAR official David Coote did not recommend a red card after Spurs midfielder Giovani Lo Celso had stamped on Chelsea & Cesar Azpilicueta.
Coote had all the corners available and should have been able to establish that this was a clear stamp that endangered the safety of an opponent.
I understand how Michael Oliver could have missed the incident because of his positioning. It happens, but that's why VAR is there. I don't know why Coote did not advise Oliver to check himself on the monitor. I'm sure Oliver would have sent Lo Celso.
The FA is now powerless to ban Lo Celso retroactively because the incident has been referred to VAR and has been checked by officials.
Coote's day went from bad to worse during the evening game, when he did not punish Kevin De Bruyne of Manchester City after raising his arms and deflecting James Maddison's free kick.
] An argument could be made that De Bruyne protected his face, but at the moment he was handling the ball, his arms were away from his face and therefore he made himself bigger.
It should have been a punishment.
O Based on Coote's performance, I know for sure that Official Game Match Officials Ltd no longer allows VAR officials to play two games in one day.
VAR did its job well by awarding Burnley a penalty while Bournemouth celebrated scoring on the other side. This was always going to happen, but VAR was right. Adam Smith misjudged a cross and used the ball in the penalty area of Bournemouth.
His team then broke and scored, but VAR Chris Kavanagh did an excellent job of notifying referee Mike Dean of the handball and a penalty was correctly awarded to Burnley.
MARK CLATTENBURG: Harry Maguire should not have been on the field to score Manchester United's second goal after pounding into the groin of Michy Batshuayi – Anthony Taylor must take the blame for a bad decision
Harry Maguire should not have been on the field Om score Second goal by Manchester United after his earlier kick-out on Michy Batshuayi.
At the first viewing I wanted to support Maguire, because he thought he might have caught the Chelsea striker in his run after a challenge for the ball.
But repetitions showed that the United defender made a clear second move towards Batshuayi that he could have avoided. He made a pounding movement in the groin of Batshuayi (above) and should have seen red.
Mark Clattenburg says that Harry Maguire was lucky not to be sent in the victory of Man Utd at Chelsea
Maguire remained on the field and then scored United's second goal in a 2-0 win on Monday
VAR looked at this but did not make a clear error from referee Anthony Taylor, and this is where the inconsistencies lie. Let's not forget that Taylor was the man in the middle when Tottenham & # 39; s Son Heung-min made a similar mistake in December on Antonio Rudiger of Chelsea.
Taylor missed Maguire's challenge, but if he had gone to his pitch-side monitor, I am sure he would have sent it. Regarding the booking for Willian, that was a blatant dive.
MARK CLATTENBURG: It was a risk for Jon Moss to joke with Bournemouth, as I discovered when I mocked Adam Lallana, but what is being said on the field must remain on the field
He gave me a stick and I probably had reason to send him away, but I chose to try spreading the situation by saying to him: & # 39; You have been different since you played for England & # 39 ;.
He was a nice guy, but it was true, he had changed!
But Adam and Southampton then filed a complaint.
I was disappointed that I had tried to control the situation by conducting a dialogue and adding light, and the PGMOL said there was no reason to reply.
Jon Moss may have tried the same with the Bournemouth players and I understand why he did that. For me it is better than issuing tickets for dissidence.
However, it is risky if he jokes about the performance of a team that is fighting relegation, and that is why Dan Gosling accuses him of making disrespectful comments.
I say that I believe in what is being said on the field should stay on the field.
I would have preferred Gosling and Moss to discuss it privately.
MARK CLATTENBURG: Tottenham and Manchester City were both victims of the latest VAR farce … there is just no consistency and it is harmful to the Premier League
The arbitrary application of VAR turns the Premier League into a farce.
We saw Danny Ings deny a clear punishment against Liverpool and then it was decided – correctly – that Sergio Aguero was attacked by Serge Aurier. There is no consistency.
Sunday VAR was Kevin Friend, who was the referee for Liverpool's 4-0 win over Southampton on Saturday. I was surprised that friend Mike didn't tell Dean to go to his pitchside monitor to view Sterling's error on Alli, since it was worth a red card.
We have seen referees recently insisted on using their monitors and Paul Tierney became the first Premier League official to do this when he fired Ben Godfrey of Norwich against Bournemouth. Dean was not advised to check his monitor.
If you take Aubameyang red into account for a similar challenge to Sterling, the City-man should also have been dismissed.
Sterling caught Alli with his studs above the ankle and clearly endangered the safety of his opponent.
] For the penalty, VAR was right when he said that Aguero was polluted by Aurier, but City should have had another point kick.
Hugo Lloris made contact with Sterling & # 39; s leg and the City attacker was the first to reach the ball, but VAR allowed the game to continue. This inconsistency is harmful to competition.
VAR made headlines again this weekend for the wrong reasons.
An online petition to remove video technology from the Premier League There have even emerged and you can be sure that a good number of managers, players and penalties would be willing to take their names to add.
Here, Mark Clattenburg, our Sportsmai l columnist and the man who referred the final of the FA Cup Champions League and European championships , gives us his opinion on the problems, successes and future of VAR in the Premier League.
First … so it's really ti jd to delete VAR?
Absolutely not. It is a project in development and requires only minor adjustments. Let us not forget that VAR is getting much more right than wrong this season.
What we have found, however, is that the Premier League is unique in the speed of the game and the strikers playing on the edge.
For example, I refer to China and we use VAR, but we do not have these marginal offside controversies because the players are not fast and attackers generally run from deeper positions.
Here, the like Sergio Aguero has always been a nightmare for assistant referrals because he plays exactly on the shoulder of the last defender, and we don't want to change that.
So it's about using the technology that works best in the Premier League, and that's a work in progress. Let us not let it go now, find ways to improve it and make the necessary changes.
Because I will repeat – VAR receives many major decisions that in previous seasons would have caused huge controversial if given the other way.
Okay, what are the changes you would make to improve VAR?
There are five suggestions to make VAR a better experience for everyone. Now they can be immediately implemented or tested as future changes …
1. Remove offside decisions from the VAR process.
But after a few minutes of VAR consultations, it was out of the question – with a part of his arm slightly for the last defender.
Return to the assistant referee who marks offside. Yes, mistakes will be made, but I think the five goals that were rejected for marginal offsides this weekend – toes and armpits – had all persisted.
And this at least takes away the Farcian nature of players who don't know if they are offside before scoring a goal.
When you see a flag, you have left. VAR has never been introduced to exclude the types of marginal disadvantages that we have recently seen.
2. What is & # 39; Clear and Clear & # 39 ;? We have to define that much better.
The consistency of decisions and when to use VAR must be improved. This is difficult, I admit, and we may all adjust over time to what VAR intervention requires, but at the moment I see inconsistencies.
For example, Andy Carroll of Newcastle was pushed back in the penalty area on Saturday against Everton.
It's a free kick somewhere else on the field, but VAR did not intervene because they thought it was not a stonewall penalty and therefore held on to the decision on the field.
Another day I think this is given as a punishment by VAR – this is why a more clear instruction about & # 39; clear and clear & # 39; is needed. However, at the moment it feels like there is too much interference.
3. Give the captains two challenges per match.
For example, Liverpool would not be satisfied with Wolves' marginal offside goal on Sunday. Jordan Henderson, Liverpool's skipper, actually threw the ball back in half. He thought it was a goal and it would have been under the challenge system.
This would reduce ownership and responsibility in teams. Make sure they can challenge any decision they consider necessary, but limit it to two or three per game.
4. You must use pitchside monitors to rely on subjective decisions yourself. What are they different for?
Norwich 2-2 Tottenham, Saturday
Norwich striker Teemu Pukki sent the ball into his chest and fired home to face his struggle giving side what he thought was an impressive 2-0 lead in the first half.
But, after he had celebrated the goal, it was ruled out because his arm was millimeters in front of Spurs in the middle behind Jan Vertonghen.
Make sure VAR is not the referee and the final decision lies with the man on the field.
On a similar theme, when I worked for ITV at the World Cup last year, 20 people had analyzed all corners to give us the best images to give our opinion on decisions.
In Stockley Park there is the VAR and his assistant – how can they see all the angles when they are under pressure to make a quick decision?
I would have more eyes for that.
5. Get the references with live microphones and make the audio available to everyone in the stadium and watch at home.
It would increase transparency and understanding and deter dissidents.
Going through that list gives the feeling that VAR is not working, why do you claim it is?
Liverpool 1-0 Wolves, Sunday
Moments after Sadio Mane fired Liverpool towards the end of the first half, thanks to a handball call is destroyed by VAR, Pedro Neto led with a smart finish in the box.
But VAR struck again and ruled out the goal, because Jonny Otto was slightly ahead in the run-up.
Think about the VAR debate, it's more about its use and implementation than about getting decisions wrong. That's because it definitely gets the vast majority of decisions on the spot.
For example, without VAR, the story after the Manchester derby earlier this month could be United being denied a stonewall penalty at 0-0 and then potentially losing the match.
As it was, VAR went back and correctly ignored the decision on the field and United went on to win after scoring their penalty.
Another good example is the award of Sadio Mane & # 39; s goal against Wolves on Sunday, when referee Anthony Taylor wrongly refused to allow for handball.
But what is also very important to remember is that VAR acts in terms of deterrence. How many off-the-ball elbows, stamps or punches have we seen this season? No.
Players know they can't get away with it. Just like dangerous, leg-breaking challenges, they have decreased considerably in number.
Marginal disadvantages have been the main point of discussion lately.
What about Jamie Redknapp's suggestion that the line be drawn to the players' feet instead of leaning toward the shoulders? Or did Graeme Souness say if there is a scoring part of the body on our side?
Manchester City 2-0 Sheffield United, Sunday
Lys Mousset had his strike – which he thought was the 1-0 of the visitors – excluded after replays showed that his foot was ahead of the last defender when the ball was played
It was Sheffield United's fifth goal to be excluded by VAR this season and boss Chris Wilder said: & # 39 Certainly this is not a situation that helps the game. & # 39;
You cannot do that. You would complicate the offside legislation and make it a rule for the Premier League and another for the rest of football.
Would you coach Premier League players to leave a line behind in line with the last defender?
However, I agree that something needs to be done. Football is business entertainment and that means goals – that's why the advantage always went with the attacker when it came offside. Not now.
The advantage lies with the defenders and the entertainment and fun of the game is in danger of being seriously damaged.
One last thought?
What is overlooked throughout this debate is that you simply do not refer to the good as it used to be.
Southampton 1-1 Crystal Palace, Saturday
Max Meyer thought he had equalized for Palace, but VAR ruled that Wilfried Zaha – who assisted – was offside position when receiving the ball.
His arm seemed to be slightly ahead of Jack Stephens' defense. Gary Lineker called it "ridiculous".
We have Anthony Taylor about to go to Euro 2020, but you can see that he is referring to a weight on his shoulders and making mistakes.
He rejected Mane's goal versus Wolves just made it null and void, and last week did not see the karate kick of Spurs goalkeeper Paulo Gazzaniga on Marcos Alonso of Chelsea.
It looks like me when it gambles on decisions. Keep doing this and players will see you very quickly.
So while VAR needs change, it is also doing its very best to reverse some decisions that would have led to major controversies – and that is why it was introduced in the first place.
MARK CLATTENBURG: VAR received the three big decisions during Wolves' victory over Manchester City … the red card, the penalty and the resit were all the right phone calls
- Wolves two-point cam down to defeat Manchester City 3-2 on Friday night
- Ederson was sent out of town after he came out and polluted Diogo Jota
- Raheem Sterling got the penalty again because of the enclosed
] Leander Dendoncker stood at the foot of Riyad Mahrez to give away a penalty
City Goalkeeper Ederson left his penalty area and made Diogo Jota, who was central and would have had a clear scoring opportunity. It was a red card
Regarding the penalty from City, Leander Dendoncker was clearly on the foot of Riyad Mahrez and VAR was right to dominate the decision on the field.
Although I prefer Martin Atkinson to look at his pitchside monitor for a subjective decision like this.
In the retake after Raheem Sterling & # 39; s first miss, this would not have been given before VAR, but these decisions are no longer subjective and the defender infringed before he knew the rebound.
City finally blew a 2-0 lead to lose a chaotic 3-2 game and give Liverpool a huge boost in the title race.
MARK CLATTENBURG: Mike Riley, guilty PGMOL boss for this weekly mess … controversial VAR decisions once again dominate the headlines
- Controversial VAR decisions once again dominated the headlines of the Premier League
- It took three minutes for referrals to decide if he was handling the ball
- Mark Clattenburg outlines what changes he would make to the VAR system
VAR cam again under pressure this weekend , as controversial decisions once again distanced themselves from the current football.
It took more than three minutes for referrals to decide whether Dele Alli had handled the ball in the area, and many more VAR drama had been polluted.
Mark Clattenburg outlines what changes he would make to VAR to make it a better system for everyone …
How would if referee, how do you feel using this version of VAR?
I would not be comfortable with it. The PGMOL use another method that is not consistent with the rest of the world. I would not mind if my VAR informed me that I should change my decision if it is a fact. I'd be good at that. But I would not be comfortable if my subjective decisions changed. If I was on the Premier League pitch this weekend, I'd like to get permission to go to my pitch-side monitor and make the final decision.
Is anyone to blame for this?
Mike Riley, the boss of the PGMOL. He manages the referrers on behalf of the Premier League. Riley has been following this system for years and has had all stakeholders from the start. Yet we seem to have more problems week after week, especially when it comes to what is a clear and obvious error.
So why are the Premier League trying to be different?
They want to protect their product, it's all about the speed of the game. They worry about being pampered that they don't want delays by going to the pitch-side monitor. This leads to inconsistent calls.
What is the solution?
Follow the IFAB protocol. If, in the opinion of the VAR, the referee made a mistake with a subjective call, go to a pitch-side monitor. Let the field reference make the final decision. If the PGMOL is this, they can at least make a comparison by not using it in the first half of the season. That would show them if this change increases the tension around the system and creates more consistency.
Should the red card of the FA Overnight Son Heung-min?
No. Son must use the suspension period to think about this incident, because he was clearly struck by the terrible injury of Andre Gomes. Son must remember that his challenge ultimately compromised the safety of his opponent. It would surprise me if the FA knocked over the red card.
Three changes that our man would make …
1. Use the pitch-side monitors. Then the references in the field can make the final decision.
2. More communication for fans. At the moment the competition experience is not good enough. Too often crowds are left confused.
3. Use 4D images for offside. This is a technology invented by Hawk-Eye that gives you a greater chance of judging whether a player is on or off. Multiple cameras give video assistants real-time access to an & # 39; automated offside line & # 39; instead of relying on operators to draw their own lines.
MARK CLATTENBURG: I understand why Martin Atkinson chose to show Son Heung-min a red card after Andre Gomes & Horror injury, but should Serge Aurier have also been dismissed?
- Tottenham ahead of Son Heung-min was shown red for a tackle on Andre Gomes
- The horror injury saw Son sliding into his back and leading him to pulling the grass
- But Serge Aurier slipped into Gomes' foot, causing the seasonal blow
- Martin Atkinson had the pitchside monitor must use to get a better look
I understand why Martin Atkinson is sitting next to Son Heung- min. However, I am still not sure that the actions of Son were only the cause of the leg fracture of Andre Gomes.
The Premier League says that Son's tackle jeopardized the safety of an opponent, and they are right. Atkinson and VAR official Anthony Taylor would have looked at the result of Son & # 39; s error.
If they determine that the injury would not have happened without him, the player must be sent away for serious foul play.
& # 39; Intent & # 39; has been removed from the laws. Now the emphasis is on the result.
But the injury was caused by a freak combination of Son & # 39; s error and Gomes who planted a foot in the grass, then the impact of Serge Aurier.
Is that why Aurier should have seen red too? Atkinson could have looked at the pitchside monitor to get a better idea of how the injury was caused.
MARK CLATTENBURG: Wilfried Zaha clearly dived to win a penalty against Arsenal – so why did VAR interfere?
- The PGMOL got some explanation from Palace & # 39; s draw with Arsenal
- Martin Atkinson was right to book Wilfried Zaha for simulation in the first half
- It was not a clear or obvious mistake, but VAR nevertheless got involved
- Jarred Gillett was the official in Stockley Park and fans deserve an explanation
England watching in the Rugby World Cup Semi-final, I did not agree with BMT's decisions, but at least I understood them. Everyone at home heard referee Nigel Owens explaining certain calls.
For comparison, VAR left me surprised at the Emirates Stadium on Sunday. I am still lost as to why they became involved in the award Crystal Palace a fine against Arsenal when, in my opinion, Wilfried Zaha clearly popped up.
Referee Martin Atkinson was right to book the Palace man for simulation. He was also in a perfect position to call. The leg of Calum Chambers was planted and Zaha fell to the ground. Atkinson saw his trick and produced a yellow card.
[1 9459024] Then VAR was involved. They told their husbands on the ground to overturn his original decision and award a spot kick instead. It was a gift for Palace.
Sokratis then scored in the last 10 minutes to make it 3-2, only for VAR to sign it off. In the meantime, people at home and in the stadium remained behind why.
The Australian Jarred Gillett was the official video in Stockley Park and I would like to have heard his reasoning.
VAR awarded three penalties on Sunday, while Manchester United received two. On Saturday, Brighton was the first club to have one this season that was not originally awarded by the referee.
This suggests that the system will be used differently from now on. Maybe Mike Riley, the head of the PGMOL, feels under pressure.