Standard of Refereeing

[lovejoy]

Howard Webb on that Sky programme last night explained to Michael Owen that VAR were right to intervene and over turn the refs call (only allowed if it’s a clear and obvious error) because Pope got a touch on the ball in the game vs Arsenal. Last season vs Brighton Arsenal saliba got sent off for a foul spdespite heading the ball because Howard Webb said the touch on the ball doesn’t in itself negate the foul.
So given the “experts” are inconsistent, how can anyone else know what’s going on.

[Somniloquism]

Becasuse each tackle is different? I wouldn't have expected Martinez to be not be sent off last season if he nicked the ball and still then brought down Hjoljund in the way he did, and I think if pope had gone for the tackle rather then the spread and really upended the player it would have still been a penalty even with a touch.

But ultimately it is the refs wordings to VAR which determines alot of the clear error or not intervention. VAR got involved in that one (AND ours a few seasons ago) as the ref probably stated there was no touch on the ball. VAR in both saw there was and mentions to the ref. In both the ref goes to the monitor. In both the ref has to decide if there is enough of a touch. For the ours he decided there wasn't and in the Newcastle one he believed there was.

[kippaxvilla2]

This is why VAR is unworkable on subjective decisions.

[Somniloquism]

You might as well state all of Football can't work because of subjective decisions. If the ref had stated to VAR he had seen the ball nick off Popes foot but didn't think it was enough, the pen would have been given by VAR as well with little more then onfield decision. VAR decided to show that it had been touched as the ref obviously hadn't seen it when making his decision. It was still the on-field ref to decide if it was enough not to give it and he decided it was.

[lovejoy]

What is the point where “enough of a touch” becomes sufficient to avoid a foul?

[Pat Mustard]

What is the point where “enough of a touch” becomes sufficient to avoid a foul?

I think it very much depends on the colour of the shirt of the player committing the 'foul', and the one on the receiving end. 

[Somniloquism]

What is the point where “enough of a touch” becomes sufficient to avoid a foul?

Usually if they have diverted the ball enough away from the attacker BEFORE the foul is committed. The one we had where the ref decided to stick with his decision (was that Palace?) and a similar one against the unwashed years earlier show that, where both defenders slid in, essentially tickled the ball but didn't do enough to divert the path or play it to their keeper and then bought our player down. Of course that is assuming the player hasn't gone in recklessly (Studs showing and really high) in which case a "touch" isn't always going to save the player. But ultimately, it is always going to be subjective to the ref on the day, his angle of view, whether VAR can become involved in the decision (goal, pen, sending off) and, as pointed out by Pat, the teams involved. (Although surely Arse trumps Newcastle in the order of decisiosns).