Otis Redding
Try A Little Tenderness
Whilst PGMOL claim that no conversation took place. The plot thickens.
-
All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.
Snatchday 1: Nottingham Forest Vs the PGMOL
- Thread starter Alf-engelos Mindminackers
- Start date
VAR choosing not to review something is possibly not the same as "there is no audio for this incident".
Est.1865
Screw The PL
This is going to get ugly. We’re balls deep in this now. Something will have to give eventually. Heads to roll somewhere.
Red Echo
Youth Team
Christ, if this audio thing is true then I officially declare tin foil hat season open, because that would be utter b*llocks.
Lefkasman
Ian Bowyer
Baronvon
Jack Burkitt
So a known Luton fan heading up VAR decides not to review the incident after the on field referee misses the most obvious penalty of all time?
Say what you like about corruption or incompetence, but the initial tweet sent out by Forest seems to be more and more justified as the days go by.
Say what you like about corruption or incompetence, but the initial tweet sent out by Forest seems to be more and more justified as the days go by.
apondaway
Viv Anderson
Are there rules for when a VAR official reviews an in-game instance? Are these published somewhere? All these "rumors" about what did or did not occur are certainly giving the perception of impropriety and I'm struggling to understand what, if any, recompense is truly available to Forest should something be proven against the laws of the game.
Marco Pascolo
Youth Team
Video Assistant Referee (VAR) protocol | IFAB
www.theifab.com
Robertson
Viv Anderson
Didn't this also happen to Chris Wood on Sunday - after the other three more obvious ones of course so no-ones talking about it.
chaospunx
Geoff Thomas
Wow if that is fact (not doubting you Louth just first time ive seen it)
Then that is massive and I'd back the club to fight it all the way
Last edited:
chaospunx
Geoff Thomas
I'll be the first with the tin foil hat then and what's not to say forest have been tipped off on exactly what was said hence the very quick and absolutely unheard of before response
Notcher
Stuart Pearce
Also notable that Talksport moved the conversation on quickly from there. Just as Jordan tried to obsfucate yesterday and make disninhenous statements to the Forest called yesterday.
Joe Baker's Dog
Grenville Morris
Jesus this is bigger than I imagined. So VAR didn't review the 3rd penalty - the one 99% of pundits/ex-footballers /journalists said was a nailed on penalty. SKY said it had been reviewed. Why did they say it had? By any measure this was a clear & obvious error & I'd like to know why fuckwit Attwell didn't think he should review it. This stinks. This isn't just incompetence........
Even if - just for a minute suspend your belief - Taylor does not call Atwell, surely, absolutely certainly, the VAR should see this as a topic that he should be looking at?
The VAR is there to raise the attention of the Referee to „clear and obvious“ errors is he not?
WTF happened here, had Atwell nipped for a piss, or something?
This does not make sense.
The VAR is there to raise the attention of the Referee to „clear and obvious“ errors is he not?
WTF happened here, had Atwell nipped for a piss, or something?
This does not make sense.
Joe Baker's Dog
Grenville Morris
Our text message was incendiary but I can't believe it wasn't reviewed by either a lawyer and/or Clattenberg beforehand. If Forest have some information that they are keeping close to their chest then this is going to be an absolute shit storm. Perhaps to compensate us for the dozens of incorrect decisions we'll be given a place in the Champions League...................
Bobby The Brain
Weasel
No audio for the third eh. Ok.
So send us the silence, let’s hear them not saying anything. If you can’t provide that you’re f**ked.
So send us the silence, let’s hear them not saying anything. If you can’t provide that you’re f**ked.
MaxiRobriguez
Bob McKinlay
I think we need to be a bit careful before we jump the gun.
PGMOL have indicated they'll let Forest listen to the audio of all three incidents.
There's also some confusion over the "VAR chose not to review it".
Review = Stopping the game, either for further VAR analysis or to call ref to monitor.
Check = Watching it whilst the game proceeds.
In this instance "no review" simply means Stuart Atwell decided not to ask Taylor to the monitor or stop the game for further analysis so he (Atwell) could make a decision. There is no current suggestion that Atwell didn't check the replays, or that there is no audio of the 3rd check. The likelihood is the audio exists and it's as simple as "Check complete, no need for further review."
That obviously doesn't alleviate any concerns of bias, just trying to make it clear where we as a club stand before everyone starts barking up wrong tree.
PGMOL have indicated they'll let Forest listen to the audio of all three incidents.
There's also some confusion over the "VAR chose not to review it".
Review = Stopping the game, either for further VAR analysis or to call ref to monitor.
Check = Watching it whilst the game proceeds.
In this instance "no review" simply means Stuart Atwell decided not to ask Taylor to the monitor or stop the game for further analysis so he (Atwell) could make a decision. There is no current suggestion that Atwell didn't check the replays, or that there is no audio of the 3rd check. The likelihood is the audio exists and it's as simple as "Check complete, no need for further review."
That obviously doesn't alleviate any concerns of bias, just trying to make it clear where we as a club stand before everyone starts barking up wrong tree.
Marco Pascolo
Youth Team
Yeah its in there Protocol/Rule book its the first rule
1. A video assistant referee (VAR) is a match official, with independent access to match footage, who may assist the referee only in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ in relation to:
a. Goal/no goal
b. Penalty/no penalty
c. Direct red card (not second yellow card/caution)
d. Mistaken identity (when the referee cautions or sends off the wrong player of the offending team)
YatesehUltras
A. Trialist
If VAR didn't even look at incident three, then my firm belief that the Club was right in making that tweet is further justified.
At this point I'm close to joining the tinfoil hat brigade. Maybe or maybe not there is a conspiracy against us as a team, but in this particular case, I'm almost certian that Attwell as a Luton fan ensured we wouldn't find a way back into the game on Sunday.
At this point I'm close to joining the tinfoil hat brigade. Maybe or maybe not there is a conspiracy against us as a team, but in this particular case, I'm almost certian that Attwell as a Luton fan ensured we wouldn't find a way back into the game on Sunday.
Robertson
Viv Anderson
It is pretty much checkmate given every nodding donkey in the media was lining up to say they thought the first two were 50/50 but the third was nailed on. They can get away with gaslighting everyone about the first two with the usual gibberish, even though we all know certain other teams get them every time. But the third one? Not even looked at by VAR. Nah. LMAO.
Baronvon
Jack Burkitt
They're supposed to alert the referee to clear and obvious errors.
Otherwise there's literally no point of them even being there.
chaospunx
Geoff Thomas
Yeah we know marinakis is fiery but he has never come across as stupid and that tweet did seem a stupid thing to do but maybe he knew exactly what he was doing time will tell but its definitely interesting
I'm Red Till Dead
Stuart Pearce
They do try and limit the effects to natural breaks in play to be fair for the sorting out of issues. I wouldn't mind VAR so much if it cut all the problamatic onfield referee calls. It does some, but evidently doesn't others and the fact that the onfield referee can ignore or overide the VAR calls I think is wrong as they have the best views to base a decision on.
The thing that kills VAR for me is that you can't celebreate a goal properly when you know that a minute or two later it might be ruled out. At some point it play will continue while a possible penalty at one end is reviewed, the ball will go up the other end and the ball will be in the net at the other before play is pulled back for the original penalty. Could you imagine the optice of Forest on Sunday scoring only to have the goal disallowed in favour of a penalty to City at the other end of the pitch?
I'd be in favour of VAR continuing, but with a restricted number of the reviews per side similar to the way hawkeye is in tennis. When a team challenges a decision the incident is shown on the grounds large screens for the referees reviiew and he has to then explain why he feels his call is correct or not.
Never been a Goldbridge fan but he makes some interesting points about the mainstream media and how they have meetings with the PGMOL every 2 weeks. For me this feeds into why Sky and Talksport are so against what Forest have done.
The situations must be bad when Goldbridge is the voice of sense.
Apologies if this has already been posted on here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk