Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Legion on July 03, 2019, 04:25:41 PM
-
Vote and post your thoughts.
-
Down with this sort of thing.
-
I saw a tweet that sums up VAR for me.
Football isn’t supposed to be perfect. VAR is unnecessary.
-
For.
Mostly to be in contradiction with Danny Baker who bangs on like a petulant twat about it.
-
I’m all for it. It should cut out the decisions that the officials miss. My main concern is that it doesn’t unduly disrupt the flow of the game and the fans are kept informed of what is going on
Having seen the England pen several times last night I didn’t think it was an offence initially. Shown from a slightly different angle, it clearly was. Ditto the goal we scored which was given off side.
Ultimately we want the right decision on important points in the match. Some go for your team, some against. Along as justice is done in the end, I’m all for it
-
Absolutely for. The amount of maddening and unfair decisions that cost teams points (across all the leagues) needs addressing, and because there's a Mike Dean for every honest mistake I'll take what I can get in terms of eliminating game-changing errors.
-
As it stands, the way it is being used at the moment is wrong in many ways. We all want the correct decisions but the way it is being applied takes too long and makes the game too clinical. If you are going to introduce new technology then you also have to update the rules accordingly rather than apply to rules suitable for human error.
As an example, the way marginal offside decisions are being applied now is completely wrong IMO but the rules and application could easily be improved as follows:
I can see the point of VAR, but they need to change offside so that any part of the attacking player being onside means that they're onside. People will stop turning up if the game is littered with such anticlimaxes.
-
For - it’s a pain at times but getting decisions right is paramount. What I would like to see is challenges versus everything that is mildly controversial being reviewed. That way a manager has 1 or 2 challenges a game. Ideally 2 but only if he gets the first one right. If he gets it wrong he loses the second. The NFL has a similar system. The rest is up to the ref.
-
The right result is right foe me. Especially if it nullifies the all-in wrestling style of defending at corners. The offside by a toe decisions are frustrating and maybe die for a review.
-
I saw a tweet that sums up VAR for me.
Football isn’t supposed to be perfect. VAR is unnecessary.
My feelings summed up in a sentence. The troubles is that too many footie fans are now from the era of TV and computer games, where everything HAS to be exact.
-
Rotten.
Loads of reasons (delays, still often a matter of opinion, sport is not perfect, etc.) but for me a big issue is that fans in the ground will be further robbed of the experience of watching the game live.
Can you trust that you just scored or conceded a goal? Too often it will just prompts 5 minutes of delay where the crowd in the ground is further marginalised and ignored.
All in the name of offering talking points for dull pundits in a TV studio to be parroted by complete bores sat on their sofas or in the pub (note - this is not a dig at fans that watch their football at home or in pubs, just those bores that obsess about one or two decisions or incidents in a game).
Plus it means that the 'elite' game gets further away from the experience of grassroots football.
I would prefer they invest a fraction of the cost of VAR in improving the quality of officials - not just in professional game but at all levels of football as the best refs are at the top of the pyramid and the broader the base the better the standard.
-
Football is a game, played by people, people make mistakes. It's not a computer programme. Sometimes decisions go for you, sometimes they don't. It's a game. After every goal that goes in from now you won't know whether to celebrate or sit on your hands and wait for some computer to tell you that someone's left knacker was slightly offside. Just leave the bloody game alone, it's not perfect but then it's not supposed to be.
-
We as football fans are on a hiding to nothing if we think that incorrect decisions and goals that aren't goals should be part and parcel of the game. Technology isn't all good, but it's not all bad either, and if we're saying we don't need it to improve the game then that's just conservatism to me. If it temporarily interrupts the game, so what? The referee will do that anyway to consult his linesman on occasion, and I don't see anyone complaining when that results in a fairer decision.
-
Is there a sitting on the fence option? Half of it is ideal, the other half is a load of bollocks.
-
For, but it needs to be quicker. And if there is a major doubt it stays with the on-pitch decision.
-
Not impressed with what I’ve seen so far, against.
-
It's a necessary evil. There is so much (money) riding on games these days that when a referee makes a mistake the cost can be astronomical. I agree that it needs to be quicker though as it breaks the flow of the game and disconnects the fans thereby diminishing the atmosphere.
-
Decisions to the letter of the law are correct, but being used for far to much of what goes on and is so slow - so overall it’s a no from me
-
I saw a tweet that sums up VAR for me.
Football isn’t supposed to be perfect. VAR is unnecessary.
Then that applies to every single sport with a similar technology to assist refs make calls. Wimbledon will be constantly adjudicated by that magic eye thing for balls that are in or out. It’s hard to imagine the game now without it. Football is a different sport off course and VAR needs to be used way more sparingly to get the most critical decisions right.
-
Managers make mistakes, players make mistakes yet we have expect perfection from the officials. If the technology was slicker and didn’t take an age then I might have more time for it but as it stands I am firmly against.
-
Hate it with a passion. Half the crowd will celebrate a goal the other half (glass half empty folks) like me will just stare at the ref for a minute or two awaiting the disallowed goal. No spontaneous limbs anymore
-
I've voted against purely on what I have seen so far.
For me I don't want to see goals disallowed because the strikers foot is offside or a player was 6 inches offside in the build up to a goal. I still want the officials to be able to officiate the game.
What I would like to see is 'referees/linesmans call' similar to that of umpires call in cricket. For instance the recent goals scored by England in the nations league and the goal scored by the lioness' last night. In both instances the linesman didn't flag and not a single player complained. In essence it was simply to close to call and should revert to referees call and the goals stand. The reversal of the decision killed to game for both players and supporters. VAR will stop the immediate euphoria of scoring.
I also don't want to see penalties given for the slightest touch. Football is a physical game and contact is part and parcel of the game. The problem with VAR is that in slow motion all/any contact has to result in a penalty and that can't be right.
VAR has its place in that it need to be there to overturn the really bad decisions it should be used for what are marginal or minimal contact decision.
-
I think it completely ruins football. There’s literally no point celebrating goals anymore.
-
For, but it needs work.
-
For it in theory but the application and efficiency of it are key. Using last year's World Cup as an example, it was being used all the time in the group stage and then far less in the knock-out stages. It should be used for glaring mistakes and nobody wants to be waiting several minutes for a decision.
-
I'm going to say for with the caveat that it has to be carried out a lot better than it is now. It's all a bit lost headed at the moment, but I have confidence it will get a lot better. The England game last night showed that we deserved a penalty and we were offside, which I think on balance is better than not getting those and other similar decisions right.
If it could stop grown men rolling on the floor like they've been shot then I'd have it imposed on all leagues.
-
I'm going to say for with the caveat that it has to be carried out a lot better than it is now. It's all a bit lost headed at the moment, but I have confidence it will get a lot better. The England game last night showed that we deserved a penalty and we were offside, which I think on balance is better than not getting those and other similar decisions right.
If it could stop grown men rolling on the floor like they've been shot then I'd have it imposed on all leagues.
That in my opinion wasn’t a penalty. Two players crossed and she bought her leg back to shoot and guess what contact was made. We are going to get loads of penalties with VAR, rules are still open to interpretation. Don’t start me on the handball bollocks rule change either oh my days
-
'Against' until they correct the current damaging problems with it.
I agree that the most blatant refereeing mistakes cause a problem for the game now but the solution isn't what we have been shown to date with this technology. It CAUSES too many time delays in the flow of the game and produces too many occasions which are marginal.
If they kept it out of the game on the pitch UNLESS the VAR officials spotted a completely blatant and decisive major event then I might change my mind but it only causes problems for the game at the moment so get rid.
-
I think it completely ruins football. There’s literally no point celebrating goals anymore.
Don't be silly.
-
I think it completely ruins football. There’s literally no point celebrating goals anymore.
Don't be silly.
There is you just have to wait a couple of minutes
-
VAR is a good thing if used correctly i.e. where there is a glaring error that drastically affects a game and which most observers can see clearly even if the officials are dumb, blind, incompetent or "pretending not to see". e.g. the Lampard goal against Germany, the hand of God goal, Thierry Henry's double handball against Ireland, even El Ghazi's sending off at Leeds and Gayle's penalty swan dive against Forest. etc. It should never be used for marginal bloody offside decisions where someone's cock-end is slightly ahead of the last defender and to review every bloody goal that is scored in case there was a nudge on someone in the build up. That is totally killing the spontaneity of the game and is ridiculous.
In the hands of FIFA/UEFA it's a disaster because they aren't using it in a sensible way. Either apply only to the glaringly obvious, or else allow each team two appeals per game and nothing else.
-
I expect that each game will last about 3 hours for the first couple of months, until the officials work out how it is to be used properly.
I guess the companies who provide the VAR equipment and officials will be making a few quid?
-
Think I'd be more in favour if it really was restricted to being used to correct "Clear and obvious" errors.
Unfortunately it seems to be used for marginal offsides, debatable tackles etc that can be given either way.
Now instead of let's talk about the penalty Alan, we get replays of referees looking at different camera angles. Or Peter Walton chiming in. It seems to me that if it really was used to correct clear and obvious errors there'd be no need to talk about it afterwards.
Carragher putting on his VR headset last season to see what the linesman saw, was probably my jumping off point.
Shrug It's here to stay, but lets hope it improves.
-
Hate it.
Most football matches will now be 100 minutes.
-
Either apply only to the glaringly obvious, or else allow each team two appeals per game and nothing else.
I completely agree. All we're going to get is 15 minutes a match of players making a square symbol with their fingers, like they've invented a new category on Give Us A Clue.
-
Sack it and let referees do what they get paid to do. The referee should ask the questions rather than have idiots in a studio, influence him. Only absolutely blatant issues that the referee misses should be mentioned to him, or her.
-
No, I don't like it at all. It seems to be used for everything. I stand correct but I don't think us as Villa fans have been involved in a game using it yet so who knows, it might grow on us all as the new season wears on. I doubt it though.
-
I get both arguments but I’m swayed in favour of it for the
Main reason that referees tend to favour the bigger teams. We’ve had many decisions go against us For games against the top 4 or 6 throughout my lifetime which have been totally unjustified. At least now we’ll have certainty regardless of how much the kop screams. They do need to speed up the process though.
-
VAR is the inevitable consequence of decades of players, managers, journalists, commentators, ex-players turned pundits and, yes, us the fans scrutinizing, analyzing and criticizing every decision made by a referee that was even marginally wrong. If you weren't part of that either in the ground or in front of the TV, then you can have your moan about the less than perfect system than is VAR. However, the reality is that virtually everyone of us bears some responsibility for where we now are - and the fact that the technology is here to stay.
-
maybe each team is allowed just one review or something like cricket. If you waste it , tough shit.
-
VAR is a good thing if used correctly i.e. where there is a glaring error that drastically affects a game and which most observers can see clearly even if the officials are dumb, blind, incompetent or "pretending not to see". e.g. the Lampard goal against Germany, the hand of God goal, Thierry Henry's double handball against Ireland, even El Ghazi's sending off at Leeds and Gayle's penalty swan dive against Forest. etc. It should never be used for marginal bloody offside decisions where someone's cock-end is slightly ahead of the last defender and to review every bloody goal that is scored in case there was a nudge on someone in the build up. That is totally killing the spontaneity of the game and is ridiculous.
In the hands of FIFA/UEFA it's a disaster because they aren't using it in a sensible way. Either apply only to the glaringly obvious, or else allow each team two appeals per game and nothing else.
Totally agree with this. It should only be used in Red Card or Penalty-type decisions. Not for every nit-picky offside or minor foul in the build-up of a goal. If someone makes a blatant dive (which happens all too often), and they're demanding a red-card, the head official should be able to call the replay booth and get a definitive answer within 30 seconds. Too often, these moments wind up with both teams screaming at a back-peddling ref who's try to get some order of the situation, and it usually takes 2 or 3 minutes just to get things sorted. Instead, have him call the booth, give a card to the offender/diver and play on. VAR would actually speed up the process in this instance, penalize the proper party, and probably help to eventually eliminate diving.
-
VAR is a good thing if used correctly i.e. where there is a glaring error that drastically affects a game and which most observers can see clearly even if the officials are dumb, blind, incompetent or "pretending not to see". e.g. the Lampard goal against Germany, the hand of God goal, Thierry Henry's double handball against Ireland, even El Ghazi's sending off at Leeds and Gayle's penalty swan dive against Forest. etc. It should never be used for marginal bloody offside decisions where someone's cock-end is slightly ahead of the last defender and to review every bloody goal that is scored in case there was a nudge on someone in the build up. That is totally killing the spontaneity of the game and is ridiculous.
Sums it up perfectly for me.
-
I am in favour of it, but the technology needs to work.
I would support its use by captains with 1 referral a game. If you correctly overcome turn the decision, then you keep your referral. There has to be a time limit as well.
The 15 seconds from the incident currently in the CWC to review seems right.
-
Against. Purely for the fuckaboutery that happens. It’s far too long a process taking the steam out of a team. I love the pace of football, especially in the UK, this seems completely at odds
-
I'm very against it. It just feels like it was made by, and for, people that don't go to matches. I guess it all seems very dramatic on the telly, but last night I was just imagining being in the stadium, squinting to see a figure slightly off the pitch watching telly for a few minutes... What were the fans saying to each other? It seemed the fans only actually realised what had been given after the match restarted, which is ridiculous. I guess we'll find out first hand next season how excruciating it is to watch live. (Will they take as much time over decisions no matter how important the match, or the stage in the match? Genuine question as I don't really know how it works)
While the ref should never be the centre of attention, I also don't want them to be irrelevant; they are part of the theatre. The pompous gent in the top hat, that you boo when they get things wrong, and laugh at when they fall over. But they will stop making decisions soon, knowing that anything big they miss will get corrected anyway, so why put their neck on the line. What does a linesman do these days?
As for getting decisions right, I just don't care that much. I think there is something beautiful about the fact that we, as a nation, still talk about Maradona in '86. And I cling to the bitterness I feel towards Vidic not getting sent off in the League Cup final like Linus does to his blanket. Do I wish it had gone differently? Of course I do. But isn't that all part of why we go every week? To feel that sort of passion that still builds up 10, or 30, years after the event. To witness the brilliant, the mundane and the downright wrong? It's all part of the package. It's what we signed up for, and its being chipped away.
I think it fixes a problem that was never there, and does absolutely nothing to make watching football more fun. Which is what it is all about, right?
-
VAR would be OK for glaring mistakes. But not for marginal offsides. Lingard in the ENgland semi-final was about 5mm offside. That is not a glaring mistake because the human eye wouldn't spot it, same with the England Women's goal last night. Penalty decision was a good call by VAR and exactly why it is needed.
Red cards, penalities, mistaken identity are fine plus goal line decisions.
Beyond that - it's a no from me!
-
It doesn't need to ruin the game if applied properly though. For me there have been so many blatantly wrong incidents that have gone against England, Ireland or Villa that I've longed wanted video replays. Just not the risibly incompetent way the authorities are currently applying it.
It might have stopped that wanker Poll from "managing the occasion" and obliged him to apply the rules and send Vidic off.
-
Yeah, but by not sending Vidic off we can claim we lost to the ref instead of an aging Michael Owen. When the bad decisions go for you you celebrate and when they go against you can ignore your own deficiencies. Win-win.
-
I think it could help in terms of offsides. There are plenty of reverse examples of goals disallowed for offside that should have stood, so if linos were more inclined to hold off on raising the flag and get it reviewed than they might otherwise be, then I think it would be worth it.
-
Very in favour but clearly it’s a work in progress and will improve over time
-
Because it is an open invitation to examine the minutiae of the game I am against it. An official's decision is imperfect but it is instantaneous. Technology will make it possible to confirm a call down to a millimetre. Witness Stokes dismissal against India when Hawkeye enlarged a shot of the bowler's foot and the dismissal was upheld by the width of a matchstick. What we are going to get is the football equivalent of Hamlet's soliloquy needing to be repeated in mid play because somebody in the audience thought the Prince of Denmark said "slings and marrows of outrageous fortune".
-
VAR is a good thing if used correctly i.e. where there is a glaring error that drastically affects a game and which most observers can see clearly even if the officials are dumb, blind, incompetent or "pretending not to see". e.g. the Lampard goal against Germany, the hand of God goal, Thierry Henry's double handball against Ireland, even El Ghazi's sending off at Leeds and Gayle's penalty swan dive against Forest. etc. It should never be used for marginal bloody offside decisions where someone's cock-end is slightly ahead of the last defender and to review every bloody goal that is scored in case there was a nudge on someone in the build up. That is totally killing the spontaneity of the game and is ridiculous.
In the hands of FIFA/UEFA it's a disaster because they aren't using it in a sensible way. Either apply only to the glaringly obvious, or else allow each team two appeals per game and nothing else.
Totally agree with this. It should only be used in Red Card or Penalty-type decisions. Not for every nit-picky offside or minor foul in the build-up of a goal. If someone makes a blatant dive (which happens all too often), and they're demanding a red-card, the head official should be able to call the replay booth and get a definitive answer within 30 seconds. Too often, these moments wind up with both teams screaming at a back-peddling ref who's try to get some order of the situation, and it usually takes 2 or 3 minutes just to get things sorted. Instead, have him call the booth, give a card to the offender/diver and play on. VAR would actually speed up the process in this instance, penalize the proper party, and probably help to eventually eliminate diving.
Pretty much spot on, and I would also add that the VAR goal line technology has been excellent and is a perfect example (like tennis or cricket) of how technology should continue to be used.
-
VAR is a good thing if used correctly i.e. where there is a glaring error that drastically affects a game and which most observers can see clearly even if the officials are dumb, blind, incompetent or "pretending not to see". e.g. the Lampard goal against Germany, the hand of God goal, Thierry Henry's double handball against Ireland, even El Ghazi's sending off at Leeds and Gayle's penalty swan dive against Forest. etc. It should never be used for marginal bloody offside decisions where someone's cock-end is slightly ahead of the last defender and to review every bloody goal that is scored in case there was a nudge on someone in the build up. That is totally killing the spontaneity of the game and is ridiculous.
Sums it up perfectly for me.
Yep, me too.
-
Goal line technology works well because there's no human involved. The technology automatically and immediately knows the ball was, or wasn't, over the line. VAR is different in that it involves a few humans and once we're involved it tends to be a bit shit.
-
For me I don't want to see goals disallowed because the strikers foot is offside or a player was 6 inches offside in the build up to a goal. I still want the officials to be able to officiate the game.
Agree. The offside rules need to be adapted and updated in line with technology improvements if they are going to keep using it for offside. As it stands, the use of VAR for offside with the current rules is too clinical and basically wrong (a trailing foot or arm shouldn't result in a goal being disallowed particularly when the VAR video at when the time the ball is played is open to interpretation frame by frame).
I also don't want to see penalties given for the slightest touch. Football is a physical game and contact is part and parcel of the game. The problem with VAR is that in slow motion all/any contact has to result in a penalty and that can't be right.
Also agree with this. With VAR you can't argue that England shouldn't have had a penalty last night, however the end result of this will be that players will be going down under the slightest of touches knowing that they will most likely get a penalty under VAR review...we will soon have "professional divers" being justified by VAR. You think diving has been bad for years now...just wait until players start diving to take advantage of VAR.
-
It’s the right technology poorly implemented.
The day will come when decisions are reversed after the game, goals ruled out and points awarded or deducted, it will happen it’s just a case of when.
-
I doubt many will be offside for a trailing arm or foot. :P
It would be nice if VAR was used for dives and the FA really clamped down on it by dishing out decent bans. I'm not overly hopeful.
-
I get both arguments but I’m swayed in favour of it for the
Main reason that referees tend to favour the bigger teams.
VAR will not change that. They just won’t see it on the screen.
-
I doubt many will be offside for a trailing arm or foot. :P
Are you stalking me PWS? :P I'm pretty sure the Cameroon goal against England was for a trailing foot at the time the ball was played.
-
Arsene Wenger to be appointed as head of VAR?
-
I doubt many will be offside for a trailing arm or foot. :P
Are you stalking me PWS? :P I'm pretty sure the Cameroon goal against England was for a trailing foot at the time the ball was played.
Yes and you love it.
-
How long before the TV companies see the stoppages for VAR as an opportunity to show some adverts?
-
Yeah, but by not sending Vidic off we can claim we lost to the ref instead of an aging Michael Owen. When the bad decisions go for you you celebrate and when they go against you can ignore your own deficiencies. Win-win.
Except the bad decisions seem to go in favour of the big teams, so things don't tend to even themselves out.
-
Rich, not necessarily big.
-
Last night - the disallowed England goal should have stood, it wasn't offside in real time, only when you freezeframed it. It was a goal.
The penalty - wasn't a penalty. The touch was minuscule. Justice was done.
-
Justice was not done then, as it would have been 2-2 at the time.
Edited for punctuation fail. Hangs head in shame.
-
What if VAR had been around for the last 60 years or so ?
The Russian linesman overruled in 66, no Maradona Hand of God, Lampards goal given against Germany 2010, and most important of all Pat McMahons goal given at Leicester April 1970 which ultimately may have meant we never got relegated to the 3rd division.
-
I was largely for it until the Women's World Cup. The refs have been piss poor, but there's no way on earth it should take nearly ten minutes to work out if someone is offside or not.
I'm already resigned to the fact there's no way I'll still be able to hit the 5.30 train from New Street back to London every other Saturday.
-
Justice was not done then, as it would have been 2-2 at the time.
Edited for punctuation fail. Hangs head in shame.
I suppose I meant it both ways - justice was done giving us a pen, but then looking at that in isolation justice was done that we didn't score, as I didn't think it was a pen anyway.
See . the VAR double jeopardy controversy !!
-
I'm still undecided about VAR because I can see the advantages and disadvantages but I think an independent timekeeper (as is used in Rugby Union) would be just as useful.
-
If the poll is all square, I demand we go to VAR for the final decision.
-
Last night - the disallowed England goal should have stood, it wasn't offside in real time, only when you freezeframed it. It was a goal.
The penalty - wasn't a penalty. The touch was minuscule. Justice was done.
"It wasn't offside in real time, only when you freezeframed it." Sorry but what a load of bullshit. It was offside or it wasn't, otherwise the principle of the rule couldn't exist in the first place. It's perhaps a separate debate, but don't blame technology for uncovering flaws in the rules of the game. Either way that's some of the most nonsensical shite I've read in a while. "Their horse won by a nose, but only when you freezeframed it. In real-time it was our horse."
-
Might as well get rid of all pitch officials, then.
-
Might as well get rid of all pitch officials, then.
Because football, simply catching up with other modern sports, has decided it's wise to use video evidence to assist the pitch officials? Pull the other one Leej.
-
It's the way it is currently used that is the issue.
-
It's a made up game, with made up rules. Beyond either physically supporting a club, or playing the game which is the primary point because it's blummin fun, I don't see why anyone else is entitled to give a shit and/or be entitled to decide what counts and what doesn't.
-
I'd rather take football as a warts and all sport than the slick, user-friendly game show it's becoming.
-
I don’t mind it for the factual decisions ie goal line & offside - what I don’t like is the 20 slow motion replays making nothing incidents look like something - with the ear piece in opens itself to collision / corruption also etc.
Would prefer the authorities looked at the officials more - need younger, fitter referees who can get about the pitch better, the two guys with the flags need to be involved more, VAR means they will hardly give offsides now & in most cases the refs are giving the throw ins. Give the refs assistance not make it harder.
IMHO the game would be improved immeasurably by getting rid of half the tv cameras/angles/slow motion replays - controversy and talking points feed the media and so much of it centres on decisions - much easier soundbite to bitch about a ref than slaughter an old team mate for missing a sitter or missing a tackle
-
It's a made up game, with made up rules. Beyond either physically supporting a club, or playing the game which is the primary point because it's blummin fun, I don't see why anyone else is entitled to give a shit and/or be entitled to decide what counts and what doesn't.
So no referee at all then. Got it.
While we're at it, let's get rid of the FA and the Football League. Go grassroots. God, thinking about it now, don't you really miss the old lead balls that used to give defenders and strikers brain damage. Those were the good old days. Back to jumpers for goalposts and four up front. Who needs industry and innovation destroying the game.
-
When I said before I was in favour of VAR, what I meant was, as long as it benefits us to the detriment of anybody we play.
-
Imagine if it was around 10 years ago. Liverpool would have spent a few seasons finishing in the bottom half of the table and Gerrard’s cheating antics would have been fruitless. Well, maybe not the first bit.
In addition to the fairness it will bring we might also see Jack win a few more spot kicks.
-
It's a made up game, with made up rules. Beyond either physically supporting a club, or playing the game which is the primary point because it's blummin fun, I don't see why anyone else is entitled to give a shit and/or be entitled to decide what counts and what doesn't.
So no referee at all then. Got it.
While we're at it, let's get rid of the FA and the Football League. Go grassroots. God, thinking about it now, don't you really miss the old lead balls that used to give defenders and strikers brain damage. Those were the good old days. Back to jumpers for goalposts and four up front. Who needs industry and innovation destroying the game.
Yeah, because that's exactly what I said.
-
As it stands, the way it is being used at the moment is wrong in many ways. We all want the correct decisions but the way it is being applied takes too long and makes the game too clinical. If you are going to introduce new technology then you also have to update the rules accordingly rather than apply to rules suitable for human error.
As an example, the way marginal offside decisions are being applied now is completely wrong IMO but the rules and application could easily be improved as follows:
I can see the point of VAR, but they need to change offside so that any part of the attacking player being onside means that they're onside. People will stop turning up if the game is littered with such anticlimaxes.
I agree with KRS.
-
VAR for me will take all the joy of celebrating a goal out of the game, we will have to wait 5 mins to see if the goal has been given! - no more scrambles in the penalty area trying to put the ball over the line etc...
I think that games will be lower scoring, because there will be more reasons to disallow a goal rather than give the goal.
-
I'm for it if used properly.
You are either offside or you are not. Simple as. If that can be eradicated then good.
This comes about partly because Lineker, Shearer, Neville et al can use the technology and can say it was not within the rules of the game. Why shouldn't we as fans expect that in real time rather than our view confirmed by some pompous overpaid ex pro 3 hours after the game?
The problem I see is the delay. That will improve. It should also be shown on the big screen of the ground and not treat us all like dummies
-
It works brilliantly in rugby and I don’t see why it can’t in football with a few sensible adjustments.
-
It works brilliantly in rugby and I don’t see why it can’t in football with a few sensible adjustments.
Rugby, like cricket, has more natural stoppages than football so it is less intrusive. Plus all those fat blokes that play it are glad of the rest. ;-)
Perhaps the answer is to trial it in a less high profile environment to work out how to make it slicker.
-
Personally I would only use VAR for offsides. It is an impossible rule for Referee Assistants to be able to check the line of defence and when the ball is kicked. At best this can only be done with peripheral vision so will always have an element of human error.
Like a few of us here I have refereed and run the line at junior matches and it is a thankless job, I would like to think that all referees in the British game oversee the games fairly and although every team will have decisions against them it tends to even out over the season.
-
It's a no from me. Sanitises the game and pretty much takes away all the talking points/post match pub debates.
-
I would like the VAR people to be responsible for the decision rather than kicking it back to the ref. If you are going to use it to evidence a foul, a penalty, offside or whatever then they should tell the ref the decision rather than "have a look on the telly by the pitch" for a week.
-
The strangulated celebration will become a hallmark of the game in the years to come, no more "limbs" and "scenes" as the realisation that the goal might be ruled out after a certain time. Once it is given that magic moment has gone, it's just beyond awful. The whole game revolves around that moment of unbridled joy, overwhelming emotion, an eruption of relief and celebration and it has been reduced to a calm, dispassionate reading of events leading to a precise outcome that may be correct but is utterly joyless. Stripping the game of that emotion is stripping the game of it's very soul, it's why we watch and take part, the unpredictable rollercoaster will have it's dips flattened out and it's peaks reduced. The sense of injustice that fires both fans and players and indeed managers to go that extra yard, to sing that bit more loudly, to bear a grudge for 20 years, to foster an irrational hatred of a previously benign opponent will be removed and replaced by a perfectly reasoned and scientifically proven decision so we can all sleep easy at night. Not the sleep of the disturbed and angry, vengeful supporter who will claim forevermore that that ref denied their team untold glory due to a dubious offside in a 3rd round cup tie.
Offer me VAR, Vidic being sent off and a League Cup win and I would turn you down.
VAR will not go away but I predict that the "appeals" system will be introduced to avoid disruption to the game, the likes of which we've seen in this Summers World Cup and we can then return to that primeval roar of delight when the ball hits the back of the net and more often than not wave goodbye to "hang on lads, we need to wait for VAR"
-
Does contact constitute a foul? Of course it doesn’t.
Looking back at the penalty incident from the other night, it took multiple camera views played over and over again at various speeds to determine that there was the slightest brush against the England attacker from the defender. The England player was already going down and I don’t believe the touch was enough to deny her a goal scoring chance.
But, that’s my opinion. VAR didn’t PROVE that there was a foul, it was interpreted as such.
Applying that principle, If VAR had been used at Wembley, you could guarantee that McGinn’s goal would have been looked at, and if one of the 10 camera angles showed that he brushed the goalie in any way, that goal would not have stood.
-
I said penalty in real time.
-
The strangulated celebration will become a hallmark of the game in the years to come, no more "limbs" and "scenes" as the realisation that the goal might be ruled out after a certain time. Once it is given that magic moment has gone, it's just beyond awful. The whole game revolves around that moment of unbridled joy, overwhelming emotion, an eruption of relief and celebration and it has been reduced to a calm, dispassionate reading of events leading to a precise outcome that may be correct but is utterly joyless. Stripping the game of that emotion is stripping the game of it's very soul, it's why we watch and take part, the unpredictable rollercoaster will have it's dips flattened out and it's peaks reduced. The sense of injustice that fires both fans and players and indeed managers to go that extra yard, to sing that bit more loudly, to bear a grudge for 20 years, to foster an irrational hatred of a previously benign opponent will be removed and replaced by a perfectly reasoned and scientifically proven decision so we can all sleep easy at night. Not the sleep of the disturbed and angry, vengeful supporter who will claim forevermore that that ref denied their team untold glory due to a dubious offside in a 3rd round cup tie.
Offer me VAR, Vidic being sent off and a League Cup win and I would turn you down.
VAR will not go away but I predict that the "appeals" system will be introduced to avoid disruption to the game, the likes of which we've seen in this Summers World Cup and we can then return to that primeval roar of delight when the ball hits the back of the net and more often than not wave goodbye to "hang on lads, we need to wait for VAR"
You'd rather scrap a first-pass at a piece of technology for which the game has been crying out for years than see Villa win a trophy? Baffling.
-
We assume VAR would see Vidic sent off. It didn't get the American sent off in the World Cup semi did it?
-
Apart from being used badly I think it highlights some problems with the laws of the game and their interpretation by humans. The offside law, as others have said, should be onside if any part of the body is onside, not the reverse. It favour the attacking team and would result in more goals, and is probably easier to spot. Apparently, so I've read, Linesmen have been told not to flag for offside and let it go to VAR if there's any doubt. If true then that's utterly ridiculous, I mean, what the fuck are they there for if not offside decisions?
The other issue is diving - you'd hope it would be eradicated by VAR but I can actually see the opposite happening. Some officials these days seem to see any contact as a foul so the merest touch is going to result in penalties. Slow motion replays often make contact look a lot worse than it was. VAR is not going to eradicate bad human decisions unfortunately.
The only way is to limit it to appeals by each team, one or two per game max, if marginal let the referee's decision stand like in cricket. Then it would work I reckon.
-
The strangulated celebration will become a hallmark of the game in the years to come, no more "limbs" and "scenes" as the realisation that the goal might be ruled out after a certain time. Once it is given that magic moment has gone, it's just beyond awful. The whole game revolves around that moment of unbridled joy, overwhelming emotion, an eruption of relief and celebration and it has been reduced to a calm, dispassionate reading of events leading to a precise outcome that may be correct but is utterly joyless. Stripping the game of that emotion is stripping the game of it's very soul, it's why we watch and take part, the unpredictable rollercoaster will have it's dips flattened out and it's peaks reduced. The sense of injustice that fires both fans and players and indeed managers to go that extra yard, to sing that bit more loudly, to bear a grudge for 20 years, to foster an irrational hatred of a previously benign opponent will be removed and replaced by a perfectly reasoned and scientifically proven decision so we can all sleep easy at night. Not the sleep of the disturbed and angry, vengeful supporter who will claim forevermore that that ref denied their team untold glory due to a dubious offside in a 3rd round cup tie.
Offer me VAR, Vidic being sent off and a League Cup win and I would turn you down.
VAR will not go away but I predict that the "appeals" system will be introduced to avoid disruption to the game, the likes of which we've seen in this Summers World Cup and we can then return to that primeval roar of delight when the ball hits the back of the net and more often than not wave goodbye to "hang on lads, we need to wait for VAR"
You'd rather scrap a first-pass at a piece of technology for which the game has been crying out for years than see Villa win a trophy? Baffling.
The game hasn't been crying out for it. There are a lot of things football needs before this.
-
Spot on there Nev, agree 100%. I don't think the game has been crying out for technology for years as some say. Football's been going for a few year now and has managed to attract one or two people to pop along. I don't think anyone's ever stopped going to the game because of a dodgy goal being given against them. Some might though if all we're going to see for 90 minutes is players drawing imaginary squares in the air, which is what will happen.
-
Is there a sitting on the fence option? Half of it is ideal, the other half is a load of bollocks.
Dave you need VAR to help you?
-
The strangulated celebration will become a hallmark of the game in the years to come, no more "limbs" and "scenes" as the realisation that the goal might be ruled out after a certain time. Once it is given that magic moment has gone, it's just beyond awful. The whole game revolves around that moment of unbridled joy, overwhelming emotion, an eruption of relief and celebration and it has been reduced to a calm, dispassionate reading of events leading to a precise outcome that may be correct but is utterly joyless. Stripping the game of that emotion is stripping the game of it's very soul, it's why we watch and take part, the unpredictable rollercoaster will have it's dips flattened out and it's peaks reduced. The sense of injustice that fires both fans and players and indeed managers to go that extra yard, to sing that bit more loudly, to bear a grudge for 20 years, to foster an irrational hatred of a previously benign opponent will be removed and replaced by a perfectly reasoned and scientifically proven decision so we can all sleep easy at night. Not the sleep of the disturbed and angry, vengeful supporter who will claim forevermore that that ref denied their team untold glory due to a dubious offside in a 3rd round cup tie.
Offer me VAR, Vidic being sent off and a League Cup win and I would turn you down.
VAR will not go away but I predict that the "appeals" system will be introduced to avoid disruption to the game, the likes of which we've seen in this Summers World Cup and we can then return to that primeval roar of delight when the ball hits the back of the net and more often than not wave goodbye to "hang on lads, we need to wait for VAR"
You'd rather scrap a first-pass at a piece of technology for which the game has been crying out for years than see Villa win a trophy? Baffling.
The game hasn't been crying out for it. There are a lot of things football needs before this.
Such as? Please elaborate. Bearing in mind this is your opinion, and some people - professionals and spectators alike - have actually been crying out for video technology for a long time now.
-
Don't like bin it. It's not fair either and football is a game of errors so leave it alone. Take offside decisions for example. If a goal is scored it's immediately checked for offside regardless of on pitch officials intervention. If it's offside it's disallowed. Fine, however if the Line Assistant wrongly flags a player offside the game is either stopped or effectively stopped even if the player goes on to convert. There is no VAR solution for that so by default it's unfair way to judge offside.
-
Such as? Please elaborate. Bearing in mind this is your opinion, and some people - professionals and spectators alike - have actually been crying out for video technology for a long time now.
Better redistribution of wealth, help for grassroots football, the farcical loans system, FFP, re-arranged fixtures and their inconvenience to supporters. Little details like that.
-
Such as? Please elaborate. Bearing in mind this is your opinion, and some people - professionals and spectators alike - have actually been crying out for video technology for a long time now.
Better redistribution of wealth, help for grassroots football, the farcical loans system, FFP, re-arranged fixtures and their inconvenience to supporters. Little details like that.
Just because those issues exist doesn't mean another problem, like the chronic mismanagement of games by pitch officials, shouldn't also be addressed by the use of video assistant. It's not a case of focusing on one thing to the detriment of others, holistic improvements can be made across the board in tandem with each other.
The Chelsea goals against Cardiff last season are a good example of why VAR is needed. I don't have any affinity to either club, but Cardiff should not by rights have lost that game, and when enough of those decisions go against you it means relegation. Hopefully VAR will mean that poor decisions are less of a contributing factor to Villa's fortunes in the PL.
-
The strangulated celebration will become a hallmark of the game in the years to come, no more "limbs" and "scenes" as the realisation that the goal might be ruled out after a certain time. Once it is given that magic moment has gone, it's just beyond awful. The whole game revolves around that moment of unbridled joy, overwhelming emotion, an eruption of relief and celebration and it has been reduced to a calm, dispassionate reading of events leading to a precise outcome that may be correct but is utterly joyless. Stripping the game of that emotion is stripping the game of it's very soul, it's why we watch and take part, the unpredictable rollercoaster will have it's dips flattened out and it's peaks reduced. The sense of injustice that fires both fans and players and indeed managers to go that extra yard, to sing that bit more loudly, to bear a grudge for 20 years, to foster an irrational hatred of a previously benign opponent will be removed and replaced by a perfectly reasoned and scientifically proven decision so we can all sleep easy at night. Not the sleep of the disturbed and angry, vengeful supporter who will claim forevermore that that ref denied their team untold glory due to a dubious offside in a 3rd round cup tie.
Offer me VAR, Vidic being sent off and a League Cup win and I would turn you down.
VAR will not go away but I predict that the "appeals" system will be introduced to avoid disruption to the game, the likes of which we've seen in this Summers World Cup and we can then return to that primeval roar of delight when the ball hits the back of the net and more often than not wave goodbye to "hang on lads, we need to wait for VAR"
You'd rather scrap a first-pass at a piece of technology for which the game has been crying out for years than see Villa win a trophy? Baffling.
If the game carries on in this fashion I won't want to watch it, or Villa. My point is that the emotion and soul of the game are being eroded. In order for the team I follow to prosper the game must be healthy, no game, no Villa.
And "the game" hasn't been crying out for it for years, certain followers have, lead by the media and juvenile managers who cast the blame everywhere else to cover up their own deficiencies. There was/is nothing wrong with the game, good teams win, bad ones lose, officials, like players and managers make mistakes.
-
I agree 100% with Nev.
-
Personally I would only use VAR for offsides. It is an impossible rule for Referee Assistants to be able to check the line of defence and when the ball is kicked. At best this can only be done with peripheral vision so will always have an element of human error.
Like a few of us here I have refereed and run the line at junior matches and it is a thankless job, I would like to think that all referees in the British game oversee the games fairly and although every team will have decisions against them it tends to even out over the season.
This is one of football's great cliches. What if it's a 'six pointer' game and the wrong decision is given meaning the '6 points' go one way relegating the wronged team? I prefer the other cliche...the bigger clubs get the favourable decisions. And they do. VAR might address or should address that.
I too have reffed and run the line in my time, it adds little to the debate though because we are talking about a far higher level where much money is involved on the outcome, jobs could be involved on the outcome too.
-
Such as? Please elaborate. Bearing in mind this is your opinion, and some people - professionals and spectators alike - have actually been crying out for video technology for a long time now.
Better redistribution of wealth, help for grassroots football, the farcical loans system, FFP, re-arranged fixtures and their inconvenience to supporters. Little details like that.
Just because those issues exist doesn't mean another problem, like the chronic mismanagement of games by pitch officials, shouldn't also be addressed by the use of video assistant. It's not a case of focusing on one thing to the detriment of others, holistic improvements can be made across the board in tandem with each other.
The Chelsea goals against Cardiff last season are a good example of why VAR is needed. I don't have any affinity to either club, but Cardiff should not by rights have lost that game, and when enough of those decisions go against you it means relegation. Hopefully VAR will mean that poor decisions are less of a contributing factor to Villa's fortunes in the PL.
65% of those who have voted on this poll obviously don't see it as a problem. As you said earlier, you have your opinion.
-
Personally I would only use VAR for offsides. It is an impossible rule for Referee Assistants to be able to check the line of defence and when the ball is kicked. At best this can only be done with peripheral vision so will always have an element of human error.
Like a few of us here I have refereed and run the line at junior matches and it is a thankless job, I would like to think that all referees in the British game oversee the games fairly and although every team will have decisions against them it tends to even out over the season.
This is one of football's great cliches. What if it's a 'six pointer' game and the wrong decision is given meaning the '6 points' go one way relegating the wronged team? I prefer the other cliche...the bigger clubs get the favourable decisions. And they do. VAR might address or should address that.
I too have reffed and run the line in my time, it adds little to the debate though because we are talking about a far higher level where much money is involved on the outcome, jobs could be involved on the outcome too.
Well said that man.
-
I like the idea of goal line technology but thats about it.
-
Such as? Please elaborate. Bearing in mind this is your opinion, and some people - professionals and spectators alike - have actually been crying out for video technology for a long time now.
Better redistribution of wealth, help for grassroots football, the farcical loans system, FFP, re-arranged fixtures and their inconvenience to supporters. Little details like that.
Just because those issues exist doesn't mean another problem, like the chronic mismanagement of games by pitch officials, shouldn't also be addressed by the use of video assistant. It's not a case of focusing on one thing to the detriment of others, holistic improvements can be made across the board in tandem with each other.
The Chelsea goals against Cardiff last season are a good example of why VAR is needed. I don't have any affinity to either club, but Cardiff should not by rights have lost that game, and when enough of those decisions go against you it means relegation. Hopefully VAR will mean that poor decisions are less of a contributing factor to Villa's fortunes in the PL.
Cardiff got relegated because they were fuckin' shit, like every team does, like we did. They had 37 other games in which to put it right but didn't. Warnock is prime example of the kind of arsehole that championed VAR when a decision went against him but kept his bigoted gob shut when it went for him, like Wenger, Allardyce and all the others. Hypocrites of the highest order. And it's all if's but's and maybe's. We didn't lay a glove on Newton Heath in 2010 so there is no evidence to suggest that we would have run out winners against 10 men. People cite Lampards "goal" against Germany as an injustice, we were taken apart by a young dynamic German side so at best it would've made it 4-2.
-
The Offside rule is killing the game..
Players Diving is killing the game...
"You can't tackle anymore"...is killing the game
All these have been trotted out glibly over the distant years and recent years. You know what? The game has got even bigger. But now VAR will kill the game. Let's see, it isn't anywhere near perfect as yet as it takes far too long. I'm sure they will iron that out in time.
-
I'd also like to add that it's been far too nicy nice on here of late, we need a good debate where there are completely opposing opinions to stir it up.
-
I also agree with Nev and Mr Woodhall.
-
I like the idea of goal line technology but thats about it.
Yes. It's immediate and it's effective anything else is total bullocks.
-
Maybe the next step will be all games will be simulated via FIFA 20xx and there will be no need to actually play the physical game.
-
Anyone else thinking that it the decisions take any longer then how long before Sky drop in a quick commercial break?
That I feel is a bigger concern
-
I was all for it at first because of the ‘ correct decision ‘ thing
and in fairness you do get that most of the time
Im not too bothered about the time aspect either a minute or two is nothing to get it right most times ,
no more Rodriguez cheating hand ball goals would be good I thought
the thing I didn’t realise was it’s sucking the sheer joy out of the game
The goal celebration is probably one of the greatest experiences you ever have in your life,
it’s instant unifying chaos jumping around with people you don’t know and in that minute they are your closest friends in the world
and that won’t be the same, VAR threatens the joy, the energy, the uniqueness of the moment
so I’m not so sure about it anymore as it will change the way we watch the game for the worse
-
Those games would have been different though, going in at 2-2 after being 2 down could have meant the second half was very different. We may have lost 6-2 we have won 4-2, but the whole mindset with the English and German players would have been different at 2-2 with the Germans blowing a 2-0 lead.
Vidic goes then either Owen or Berbatov are subbed or at least moved position, considering they were both involved in the equaliser then again the whole game would have been different.
It's as big a nonsense to say those decisions made no difference as it is to say that Villa/England would definitely have won those games if the correct decisions had been made as we'll never know, what does seem obvious though is that both games would have been different from those moments on. All imo of course.
The game has been evolving since it began, if it didn't offside would still be 3 defenders between the forward and goal, there'd be no linesman, football nets, added time or subs and so on. This is latest and it will be a bit shit if they can't improve on it, but if they do it could be alright.
-
the thing I didn’t realise was it’s sucking the sheer joy out of the game
The goal celebration is probably one of the greatest experiences you ever have in your life,
it’s instant unifying chaos jumping around with people you don’t know and in that minute they are your closest friends in the world
and that won’t be the same, VAR threatens the joy, the energy, the uniqueness of the moment
so I’m not so sure about it anymore as it will change the way we watch the game for the worse
I'd imagine/hope that most goals will be the same as they were as there'll be nothing to even consider reviewing, be interesting to know what percentage of goals at the WWC have stood with no delay to give us an idea if it is going to be shit like that on a regular basis.
-
I'd be fine with it if the guidelines were changed so that the VAR people could only use real time replays, this way only the clear and obvious errors would be flagged up. The use of slow motion is the most damaging as it distorts judgement of the game (particularly for handballs)
So the powers that be have rectified this by.....changing the handball laws to make the whole thing into a guaranteed farce
-
Such as? Please elaborate. Bearing in mind this is your opinion, and some people - professionals and spectators alike - have actually been crying out for video technology for a long time now.
Better redistribution of wealth, help for grassroots football, the farcical loans system, FFP, re-arranged fixtures and their inconvenience to supporters. Little details like that.
Just because those issues exist doesn't mean another problem, like the chronic mismanagement of games by pitch officials, shouldn't also be addressed by the use of video assistant. It's not a case of focusing on one thing to the detriment of others, holistic improvements can be made across the board in tandem with each other.
The Chelsea goals against Cardiff last season are a good example of why VAR is needed. I don't have any affinity to either club, but Cardiff should not by rights have lost that game, and when enough of those decisions go against you it means relegation. Hopefully VAR will mean that poor decisions are less of a contributing factor to Villa's fortunes in the PL.
65% of those who have voted on this poll obviously don't see it as a problem. As you said earlier, you have your opinion.
Well it may not be that they don't see it as a problem, just that they don't like the solution, or perhaps the way the solution is being implemented. A lot of the tweaks suggested on here and by many others are not only common sense, but would allow VAR to correct glaring errors without disrupting the flow of the game or detracting from the spontaneous excitement of goals too much. It's the incompetence of the implementation that is making a mockery of it. But then I'd expect nothing less of FIFA, UEFA et al.
-
I'd be fine with it if the guidelines were changed so that the VAR people could only use real time replays, this way only the clear and obvious errors would be flagged up. The use of slow motion is the most damaging as it distorts judgement of the game (particularly for handballs)
So the powers that be have rectified this by.....changing the handball laws to make the whole thing into a guaranteed farce
Yes, another good suggestion.
-
I'm all for it. Improvements to its implementation will come soon enough.
-
I am so for it - but I think the way it has been implemented in the WC/CL and in England is almost done in a way to make it binned - everything goes to VAR - that wasn't supposed to be the case.
For crossing lines, offside it is "factual" - but for fouls and goals, it has to be clear and obvious error - which it isn't how it is being used.
When I used to see it in the Bundesliga - never was an issue. E.g. a handball in the box, and the ref might wave away VAR option, as he has maybe seen it and assessed it as no foul - then it doesn't go to VAR. The same with fouls in build up to goal (I think you can argue for a foul for every goal scored from a corner).
-
I don't like the idea of the game being officiated by someone not there. But I'd be kind of okay with the referee getting a second look if they or their assistants think there might have been something specific happen in a specific incident they're not 100% certain of, something they've already nailed down with the goal line thing. Was it controlled with an arm? Was there a tug back? Was it offside? Was the player taken first or after? We all know the sort of thing. Isn't that how it happens in rugby, the ref asks the question, rather than being told?
-
Where possible, how can Villa turn VAR to their advantage? You can guarantee teams like Liverpool and Manchester United etc will be scrutinising VAR through a microscope and training their players/management to make the most of it. Afterall, VAR will be very important for deciding the outcome of many games next season.
Should Villa set up its own fully equipped 'video assistance' room with a hotline to the bench.
Should we establish 'a line of communication' to our players to get in the referees ear (when appropriate) and as soon as possible. Speed will be of essence.
Should we train our players to fall in the box when defending any set piece. Preferably, a player who has no chance of getting the ball. We can then query any goal that is conceded.
I am sure there are lots of other things that teams will do to try and turn VAR to their advantage. The most 'streetwise' teams often end up nearer the top of the league!!
-
Where possible, how can Villa turn VAR to their advantage? You can guarantee teams like Liverpool and Manchester United etc will be scrutinising VAR through a microscope and training their players/management to make the most of it. Afterall, VAR will be very important for deciding the outcome of many games next season.
Should Villa set up its own fully equipped 'video assistance' room with a hotline to the bench.
Should we establish 'a line of communication' to our players to get in the referees ear (when appropriate) and as soon as possible. Speed will be of essence.
Should we train our players to fall in the box when defending any set piece. Preferably, a player who has no chance of getting the ball. We can then query any goal that is conceded.
I am sure there are lots of other things that teams will do to try and turn VAR to their advantage. The most 'streetwise' teams often end up nearer the top of the league!!
Eh?
I thought all goals were subject to VAR scrutiny already?
-
How are they going to stop teams, crowding the ref, stoping the game on purpose by feigning injury to get a VAR replay?
How are they going to stop the refs abdicating responsibility to VAR?
The new interpretation of handball is ridiculous.
-
I don't like the idea of the game being officiated by someone not there. But I'd be kind of okay with the referee getting a second look if they or their assistants think there might have been something specific happen in a specific incident they're not 100% certain of, something they've already nailed down with the goal line thing. Was it controlled with an arm? Was there a tug back? Was it offside? Was the player taken first or after? We all know the sort of thing. Isn't that how it happens in rugby, the ref asks the question, rather than being told?
In rugby the ref can ask specific questions - such as "is there any reason why I can't award this try" or "Try or no try" The wording makes a difference - with the former the assumption is that it's a try and there needs to be positive evidence to disallow it. With the latter it's all down to the video ref.
BUT, the video ref can also draw the refs attention to other incidents during play, foul play, forward pass etc. You may think this sound like interfering, but it's only an extension of what the touch judges do anyway. I appreciate this would be harder in football because it's a faster game.
To be honest it works absolutely brilliantly. There is still controversy and some decisions still get called into question, but coupled with the extremely high level of refereeing and the natural respect of players towards officials in rugby, it just works and has improved the game enormously in my view.
I get the impression FIFA just wanted to row their own boat with their own system from day one. I do wonder if they ever conferred with world rugby about the merits and difficulties they face when developing their systems. They may have done, but I suspect not.
I still think it can be made to work. Rome wasn't built in a day.
-
I don't like the idea of the game being officiated by someone not there. But I'd be kind of okay with the referee getting a second look if they or their assistants think there might have been something specific happen in a specific incident they're not 100% certain of, something they've already nailed down with the goal line thing. Was it controlled with an arm? Was there a tug back? Was it offside? Was the player taken first or after? We all know the sort of thing. Isn't that how it happens in rugby, the ref asks the question, rather than being told?
In rugby the ref can ask specific questions - such as "is there any reason why I can't award this try" or "Try or no try" The wording makes a difference - with the former the assumption is that it's a try and there needs to be positive evidence to disallow it. With the latter it's all down to the video ref.
BUT, the video ref can also draw the refs attention to other incidents during play, foul play, forward pass etc. You may think this sound like interfering, but it's only an extension of what the touch judges do anyway. I appreciate this would be harder in football because it's a faster game.
To be honest it works absolutely brilliantly. There is still controversy and some decisions still get called into question, but coupled with the extremely high level of refereeing and the natural respect of players towards officials in rugby, it just works and has improved the game enormously in my view.
I get the impression FIFA just wanted to row their own boat with their own system from day one. I do wonder if they ever conferred with world rugby about the merits and difficulties they face when developing their systems. They may have done, but I suspect not.
I still think it can be made to work. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Agree with every word of this. TMO is used brilliantly in my opinion and while VAR might not be up to scratch yet, the need for it is (and always has been) clear as far as I'm concerned, and with tweaking and natural evolution it will end up being less intrusive.
-
I still think it can be made to work. Rome wasn't built in a day.
And what happens to all the games, people and clubs damaged by the shit-show currently in place until they get there?
Not a direct repost to you just a convenient point at which to make it :)
I think they should take the results they've got so far and treat them as an experiment, remove VAR worldwide, go into a dark room and work out what needs to happen when it's implemented next time so it only delivers benefits not problems of any sort. That's not too much to ask because at the moment the damage far outweighs the benefit. Get it right THEN implement it.
-
I still think it can be made to work. Rome wasn't built in a day.
And what happens to all the games, people and clubs damaged by the shit-show currently in place until they get there?
Not a direct repost to you just a convenient point at which to make it :)
I think they should take the results they've got so far and treat them as an experiment, remove VAR worldwide, go into a dark room and work out what needs to happen when it's implemented next time so it only delivers benefits not problems of any sort. That's not too much to ask because at the moment the damage far outweighs the benefit. Get it right THEN implement it.
Agree, hence my questions above.
They can take the WW Cup as evidence.
-
Where possible, how can Villa turn VAR to their advantage? You can guarantee teams like Liverpool and Manchester United etc will be scrutinising VAR through a microscope and training their players/management to make the most of it. Afterall, VAR will be very important for deciding the outcome of many games next season.
Should Villa set up its own fully equipped 'video assistance' room with a hotline to the bench.
Should we establish 'a line of communication' to our players to get in the referees ear (when appropriate) and as soon as possible. Speed will be of essence.
Should we train our players to fall in the box when defending any set piece. Preferably, a player who has no chance of getting the ball. We can then query any goal that is conceded.
I am sure there are lots of other things that teams will do to try and turn VAR to their advantage. The most 'streetwise' teams often end up nearer the top of the league!!
I’ve mentioned this previously in the thread but I fully expect teams like Man Utd, Citeh and Liverpool to exploit and take advantage of minimal contact in the box. A new breed of VAR simulated diving is literally on the horizon, and VAR will justify decisions in their favour.
-
Are people now saying that something which was called for to help eradicate diving will, in fact, encourage and legitimise it?
-
I’m not sure if it’s people or just me predicting the future. If you use the England penalty the other night as an example and replace White with Sterling, Aguero or Salah, then I foresee players going down under the slightest of touches, calling for VAR and penalties being awarded. VAR to this extent has only been used in the WWC so just imagine how bad it could get when professional males get the chance to exploit it. I hope I’m proved wrong, but under the current rules and VAR implementation, this is what we can look forward to.
-
Are people now saying that something which was called for to help eradicate diving will, in fact, encourage and legitimise it?
Yep, any contact will be a penalty.
-
Are people now saying that something which was called for to help eradicate diving will, in fact, encourage and legitimise it?
Yep, any contact will be a penalty.
Not really. A foul will still be a foul. A dive will still be a dive. If anything, VAR will allow officials to tell the difference between well-trained/practiced simulation and genuine contact leading to a foul.
Implying that the denial of a goalscoring opportunity in the box could ever NOT be a penalty is just contrary to the rules of the game, full stop. That's not new.
-
Are people now saying that something which was called for to help eradicate diving will, in fact, encourage and legitimise it?
Yep, any contact will be a penalty.
People will be crying every 5 minutes for VAR and as we saw at the Women’s World Cup with England’s penalty which should never have been given.
-
Although I have been a proponent of refs being supported better with technology, I have concerns with the current VAR Approach:
(i) it has turned offside into a science of the minutiae. Refs have long been advised to give strikers the benefit of the doubt on offsides - this has effectively now been reversed and will create massive frustration in football grounds.
(ii) 'minor offences' in the box punished by refs may lead to them seeking to 'balance things up' during the course of a game; not a great basis for refereeing, in my opinion.
(iii) will VAR discourage diving or simulation (a scourge on the game)? - probably not unless it's in the penalty area.
(iv) the use of a pitchside screen for refs extends the time-out required for decisions to be made: I think on-pitch refs should be guided by the VAR without the need to be assured, themselves, by having seen it.
(v) the role of linesman / asst ref has almost become redundant: they now no longer appear to have any other role than ins and outs and the occasional offside. I believe that if you have linesmen they should be more active in guiding refereeing decisions.
I hope that the use of VAR is further developed to become a little more subtle, and that it does not make the role of ref any more 'melodramatic' (some refs do not need much encouragement to become centre of attention - e.g. Phil Fucking Dowd).
-
A lot of valid points well made there Mr E but, I have to take issue with point (ii). Referee's 'balancing things up' is a total myth. Having been there, done that so to speak never once did it occur to me to do that, why would I? I've given a decision be it right or wrong and then never dwelt in it.
I was in the game a long time, and over that time spoke to many referee's and this topic came up from time to time and to a man/woman not one agreed that it was a regular occurrence in the game. It is understandable that it could look like that but as I say, in my opinion and that of many others, it's a myth.
A referee that does that would soon be found out and deemed incompetent and God knows we've enough to be deemed incompetent for without being afraid of what players and club officials may think of us.
Many years ago when I first attended the Referee's Coaching Course, it was emphasised very strongly that having made a decision you don't change it unless informed otherwise by an officially appointed linesman (who would be a qualified referee) and even then you would have the power to ignore that information should you choose to do so.
I still can't decide whether I like VAR or not. One thing for sure, no matter what I, or any of us think, it's here to stay.
-
A lot of valid points well made there Mr E but, I have to take issue with point (ii). Referee's 'balancing things up' is a total myth. Having been there, done that so to speak never once did it occur to me to do that, why would I? I've given a decision be it right or wrong and then never dwelt in it.
I was in the game a long time, and over that time spoke to many referee's and this topic came up from time to time and to a man/woman not one agreed that it was a regular occurrence in the game. It is understandable that it could look like that but as I say, in my opinion and that of many others, it's a myth.
A referee that does that would soon be found out and deemed incompetent and God knows we've enough to be deemed incompetent for without being afraid of what players and club officials may think of us.
Many years ago when I first attended the Referee's Coaching Course, it was emphasised very strongly that having made a decision you don't change it unless informed otherwise by an officially appointed linesman (who would be a qualified referee) and even then you would have the power to ignore that information should you choose to do so.
I still can't decide whether I like VAR or not. One thing for sure, no matter what I, or any of us think, it's here to stay.
Agree great post Mr E. Dave thanks for the insight and totally agree with your last paragraph. Hopefully VAR usage improves sooner rather than later
-
A lot of valid points well made there Mr E but, I have to take issue with point (ii). Referee's 'balancing things up' is a total myth. Having been there, done that so to speak never once did it occur to me to do that, why would I? I've given a decision be it right or wrong and then never dwelt in it.
I was in the game a long time, and over that time spoke to many referee's and this topic came up from time to time and to a man/woman not one agreed that it was a regular occurrence in the game. It is understandable that it could look like that but as I say, in my opinion and that of many others, it's a myth.
A referee that does that would soon be found out and deemed incompetent and God knows we've enough to be deemed incompetent for without being afraid of what players and club officials may think of us.
Many years ago when I first attended the Referee's Coaching Course, it was emphasised very strongly that having made a decision you don't change it unless informed otherwise by an officially appointed linesman (who would be a qualified referee) and even then you would have the power to ignore that information should you choose to do so.
I still can't decide whether I like VAR or not. One thing for sure, no matter what I, or any of us think, it's here to stay.
As a fellow ref (but probably not to such a level as you got to, I suspect, from your many postings) I'd agree that refs do not try to 'balance things up' as a rule. Maybe I overstated that point, although I think that refs do come under considerable psychological pressure to be seen to be fair to each team and this may sometimes translate into balancing up.
Although I have some misgivings about VAR's use in the women's World Cup, we certainly live in interesting times and I'm looking forward to the debate.
-
We'll have to get together sometime Mr E and put the footballing world to rights.
-
Refs don’t know they when they even things up. It’s unconscious bias
-
Are people now saying that something which was called for to help eradicate diving will, in fact, encourage and legitimise it?
Yep, any contact will be a penalty.
Not really. A foul will still be a foul. A dive will still be a dive.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by
-
Refs don’t know they when they even things up. It’s subconscious bias
Bollocks.
-
Another good game getting ruined by VAR. Yay.
-
It’s getting to the point where I don’t even enjoy a goal the same way because there seems to be a 50/50 chance of it getting annulled after a tedious VAR delay.
That handball was bullshit. In super slow mo everything looks deliberate but if you’re jostling with a defender with your arms at your side and the ball richochets off the top half of your arm it’s debatable at best.
-
Another England goal disallowed by an alleged handball by White as she controlled the ball and was being challenged by a Swedish defender. The camera angles available were unable to show if it was clearly or definitely handball, however the ref decided to disallow it even though the footage does not prove beyond doubt that it was handball.
The poor camera angles and zoom available is another flaw in the VAR system, and I don't believe they can be entirely accurate particularly "from when the ball was played" for offsides for this very reason (a single frame backwards or forwards for the ball leaving the foot can make the difference between onside or offside). For offsides too, there also seems to be inconsistency over which part of the body makes a player offside...the other day it was Whites elbow that was offside against the USA players foot.
-
That handball was bullshit. In super slow mo everything looks deliberate but if you’re jostling with a defender with your arms at your side and the ball richochets off the top half of your arm it’s debatable at best.
The new handball rules are to blame for that not VAR, however you can blame VAR for the footage being inconclusive whether it touched her hand or not and the benefit of the doubt went against the attacking team as per offside decisions.
-
Its a good point. VAR itself isn’t the issue (although the interminable delays aren’t great), so much as the fact that by trying to impose 100% accuracy it’s highlighting flaws and ambiguities in the rules themselves.
-
I've said it several times before and I will say it again...you can't implement a technology based system whilst using old rules. The rules of the game need to be updated and adapted in line with the implementation of new technology.
-
I don't think the replay footage should be slowed down. They can either see something or they can't. They've the benefit of different angles, and rewatching any number of times. Slow-mo and boomeranging makes anybody doing anything look guilty.
-
I don't think the replay footage should be slowed down. They can either see something or they can't. They've the benefit of different angles, and rewatching any number of times. Slow-mo and boomeranging makes anybody doing anything look guilty.
Which is a problem that video-reffing in Rugby suffers from, in my opinion.
-
Refs don’t know they when they even things up. It’s subconscious bias
Bollocks.
Debating badge awarded 😉
-
It's all down to the refs. All VAR does is provide information. Sometimes the info is clear, sometimes it's unclear. What happens next is the ref's decision. And as we all know the quality of reffing is variable to say the least. Seems to me at the moment that too many of them are relying too much on unclear information.
-
Yes, apologies. I meant to write utter bollocks!
-
I don't think the replay footage should be slowed down. They can either see something or they can't. They've the benefit of different angles, and rewatching any number of times. Slow-mo and boomeranging makes anybody doing anything look guilty.
Absolutely agree with this. The players actions are committed at full speed so any decisions should be based on replays at full speed too with as many camera angles as available. Sure there will be purists saying that we have the technology so we should use it, but leave the slow motion replays for the tv pundits to discuss and debate after the game.
-
I don't think the replay footage should be slowed down. They can either see something or they can't. They've the benefit of different angles, and rewatching any number of times. Slow-mo and boomeranging makes anybody doing anything look guilty.
Absolutely agree with this. The players actions are committed at full speed so any decisions should be based on replays at full speed too with as many camera angles as available. Sure there will be purists saying that we have the technology so we should use it, but leave the slow motion replays for the tv pundits to discuss and debate after the game.
How will that increase the number of correct decisions?
-
I couldn't give a shit about achieving the correct decision being the be all and end all, if I'm honest.
-
I’m not convinced that slow motion replays result in the correct decision. As many ppl have said previously, slow motion replays can make incidents appear to be intentional or much worse than they are. This also has a crossover into the minimal contact debate that will no doubt see many players going down and penalties awarded for incidents which would not have done so previously without VAR in slow motion.
-
I’m not convinced that slow motion replays result in the correct decision. As many ppl have said previously, slow motion replays can make incidents appear to be intentional or much worse than they are. This also has a crossover into the minimal contact debate that will no doubt see many players going down and penalties awarded for incidents which would not have done so previously without VAR in slow motion.
Yeah but you could equally say that in real time a lot gets missed. And players already go down like flies for non-existent things.
-
I don't like VAR, one point is I think it makes the linemen either lazy, or takes responsibility away from that they should have. Will they be removed to be replaced by a computer soon?
The game will become sterile, as every decision is over anaysised.
And as for the new handball rule.....
Either way the genie is out of the bottle.
Anyway we overheard a boy and a girl play football, and one said 'we need to look at VAR...' ::)
-
I don't think the replay footage should be slowed down. They can either see something or they can't. They've the benefit of different angles, and rewatching any number of times. Slow-mo and boomeranging makes anybody doing anything look guilty.
Which is a problem that video-reffing in Rugby suffers from, in my opinion.
This is true. On the other hand the standard of officiating in rugby is a gazillion times better, the rules are clearer and technology has been embraced far earlier, and integrated better, which is probably the decisive factor.
-
Another England goal disallowed by an alleged handball by White as she controlled the ball and was being challenged by a Swedish defender. The camera angles available were unable to show if it was clearly or definitely handball, however the ref decided to disallow it even though the footage does not prove beyond doubt that it was handball.
The poor camera angles and zoom available is another flaw in the VAR system, and I don't believe they can be entirely accurate particularly "from when the ball was played" for offsides for this very reason (a single frame backwards or forwards for the ball leaving the foot can make the difference between onside or offside). For offsides too, there also seems to be inconsistency over which part of the body makes a player offside...the other day it was Whites elbow that was offside against the USA players foot.
Second paragraph is very good point. Argentina-Chile yesterday, Chile were (correctly) awarded penalty but one of main angles ref had to decide from whether foul was in or out of the area was long range camera shot from top of main stand.
If people remember the Liverpool-WBA game a couple of years back I remember the ref going to the replay booth and assumed he'd have some super slow closed ups, instead he was having to decide on a penalty from a camera angle that was seemingly perched on top of Liverpool's main stand which is miles up.
Don't understand with 20-30 cameras in stadium showing the game there isn't better available especially as you get these spider cameras above the play now.
It will certainly be odd for the first one at VP next season. Us scoring, thinking "he looks half a yard offside there", celebrating and then as the players run back the ref puts his hand to his ear...
-
There you have it, the penalty for the US, all VAR had to establish was contact and the penalty was awarded.
-
Was a clear foul, should've been spotted straight away.
-
This is the point, if you say any contact in the penalty area is a clear foul then you have changed the game.
-
It was a penalty. Defenders are going to have to adapt.
-
This is where I have a problem.
When players go for the ball and neither has control is this a penalty? ( previous applications of the law were different)
Can we be sure that Morgan did nothing to initiate contact?
Did Morgan make the most of the contact? Again, before if she does not throw herself to the floor nothing would have been given.
I don’t see this and similar incidents once you bring in slow motion analysis as clear.
They have now changed the response to both handball and contact in the penalty area.
These are massive changes and we have not even began to deal with player and match official behavior.
I am actually in favour in using technology to improve accuracy but I do not think they are not even close to understanding how to do this without fucking up the game.
-
I just saw it as high foot and dangerous play and she dosen't make any contact with the ball.
In the old days I'm pretty sure indirect free kicks used to get awarded for high foots or obstructions in penalty area but that changed a while ago.
-
This is the point, if you say any contact in the penalty area is a clear foul then you have changed the game.
It’s a foul anywhere else on the pitch so it’s also a foul in the box. There is no argument. A reckless attempt at winning the ball, she should have known better.
-
Yeah don’t have a problem with that one, daft challenge.
-
I just saw it as high foot and dangerous play and she dosen't make any contact with the ball.
In the old days I'm pretty sure indirect free kicks used to get awarded for high foots or obstructions in penalty area but that changed a while ago.
Correct.
-
This is the point, if you say any contact in the penalty area is a clear foul then you have changed the game.
It’s a foul anywhere else on the pitch so it’s also a foul in the box. There is no argument. A reckless attempt at winning the ball, she should have known better.
Agreed. A foul is a foul and a pen is a pen. People really are overthinking this stuff.
-
Good to see Mike Riley saying that VAR won't be used in the same way as in the Women's World Cup and that some of the decisions made would've been different in the Prem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48903289
I'm not sure how that'll land with FIFA/UEFA given he's essentially saying we'll apply the laws differently in the UK but I think his interpretation of how VAR should be used is more sensible than how it seems to have been used in the WWC.
-
Thanks for posting that link. That article gives me hope and reassurance that common sense will rule when it comes to VAR and it won’t ruin the game.
-
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/49057675
Why is it different for Man Utd and Liverpool??? Are they trying to gain an advantage already. Crafty feckers.
-
Can somebody explain the use of VAR in the Bournemouth game in respect to:
Offside, there were a couple of attacks when the ref stopped the game due to off side when we were through their defense. I thought they were supposed to play on just in case a goal is scored before double checking VAR.
Also their penalty call, which looked pretty much definitely a pen to me. Why wasn’t VAR used? It was for our penalty shout.
I just don’t get the inconsistency of it all. Which makes me wonder what the point of this technology is, if they pick and choose when to use it.
-
I'm sure any goal scoring opportunity or penalty shout can be reviewed if either the ref or the VAR officials feel that it should be. Their penalty was obvious, so unless the VAR team had spotted something in the build up that required a second look, then there was no need to review it. With offsides, it wouldn't be practical to just let play go on regardless of how obvious an offside was, there will have to be an element of discretion on that.
-
I'm sure any goal scoring opportunity or penalty shout can be reviewed if either the ref or the VAR officials feel that it should be. Their penalty was obvious, so unless the VAR team had spotted something in the build up that required a second look, then there was no need to review it. With offsides, it wouldn't be practical to just let play go on regardless of how obvious an offside was, there will have to be an element of discretion on that.
I meant their penalty shout in the second half, which looked a penalty all day to me in real time.
-
Ah, apologies. Yeah that looked like one to me too, so no idea on that score i'm afraid.
-
Ah, apologies. Yeah that looked like one to me too, so no idea on that score i'm afraid.
Glad they missed it mind, but the question has to be how could they have possibly missed it? Wonder if we will get our VAR celebrations on Friday. .... or VAR frustrations.
-
I think VAR was used for their penalty. Referee had his finger to his ear, and took a few seconds to give the penalty. I think it was just reviewed very quickly because it was an obvious call. I've been relatively impressed with how unobtrusive VAR has been in Villa's games so far.
-
I think VAR was used for their penalty. Referee had his finger to his ear, and took a few seconds to give the penalty. I think it was just reviewed very quickly because it was an obvious call. I've been relatively impressed with how unobtrusive VAR has been in Villa's games so far.
He seemed to give it straight away for me.
-
I think VAR was used for their penalty. Referee had his finger to his ear, and took a few seconds to give the penalty. I think it was just reviewed very quickly because it was an obvious call. I've been relatively impressed with how unobtrusive VAR has been in Villa's games so far.
He seemed to give it straight away for me.
On that one he took 2-5 seconds, it’s the second one which didn’t even get a VAR review that puzzled me.
-
I think VAR was used for their penalty. Referee had his finger to his ear, and took a few seconds to give the penalty. I think it was just reviewed very quickly because it was an obvious call. I've been relatively impressed with how unobtrusive VAR has been in Villa's games so far.
He seemed to give it straight away for me.
He might have done but was clearly listening to someone so could have reversed the decision had he been instructed to do so.
I think the thing that differs from the Women's World Cup is that if you're not seeing "VAR Review" appear on the video screen, it doesn't necessarily mean that a VAR review isn't taking place.
-
I hate the handball law changes.
-
I hate the handball law changes.
I think that it’s fair enough. An accidental handball gives you an advantage then it shouldn’t be a goal. Takes away any doubt and argument. Bloody frustrating if you’ve done your bounciest celebrations though.
-
If any reviews need to be made, they need to be made on the referees say so. Both the decisions in yesterday's man city/spurs game would've been different if it was down to the ref without VAR influence
-
If any reviews need to be made, they need to be made on the referees say so. Both the decisions in yesterday's man city/spurs game would've been different if it was down to the ref without VAR influence
But isn’t it in place to check the refs and linesman’s decisions. Rather than relying on their discretion?
-
What if the referee doesn't see something? Surely spotting incidents that referees miss is one of the main points of VAR?
-
If any reviews need to be made, they need to be made on the referees say so. Both the decisions in yesterday's man city/spurs game would've been different if it was down to the ref without VAR influence
But isn’t it in place to check the refs and linesman’s decisions. Rather than relying on their discretion?
Clear & obvious mistakes yes .
What we are seeing at the mo is VAR calling the decision & not the ref calling it, & him being corrected if he had got it wrong
-
If any reviews need to be made, they need to be made on the referees say so. Both the decisions in yesterday's man city/spurs game would've been different if it was down to the ref without VAR influence
But isn’t it in place to check the refs and linesman’s decisions. Rather than relying on their discretion?
Clear & obvious mistakes yes .
What we are seeing at the mo is VAR calling the decision & not the ref calling it, & him being corrected if he had got it wrong
But the ref made a clear and obvious mistake with Bournemouth’s second penalty shout IMO. Also he didn’t spot the accidental hand ball in the man City game. VAR is inconsistent which is not what it should be. It can’t be used at the behest of the ref it must be independent IMO.
-
If any reviews need to be made, they need to be made on the referees say so. Both the decisions in yesterday's man city/spurs game would've been different if it was down to the ref without VAR influence
But isn’t it in place to check the refs and linesman’s decisions. Rather than relying on their discretion?
Clear & obvious mistakes yes .
What we are seeing at the mo is VAR calling the decision & not the ref calling it, & him being corrected if he had got it wrong
But the ref made a clear and obvious mistake with Bournemouth’s second penalty shout IMO. Also he didn’t spot the accidental hand ball in the man City game. VAR is inconsistent which is not what it should be. It can’t be used at the behest of the ref it must be independent IMO.
I agree Man City could also have had a penalty yesterday it wasn't even looked at. From what I have seen so far it is inconsistent.
-
No way in a million years was that a clear & obvious hand ball in the city/spurs game & missed by the ref.
Yes it was handball when it was reviewed by VAR but in the spirit of the game there was absolutely need to review it
-
No way in a million years was that a clear & obvious hand ball in the city/spurs game & missed by the ref.
Yes it was handball when it was reviewed by VAR but in the spirit of the game there was absolutely need to review it
Every goal is reviewed to see if there is any reason not to give it.
I think spirit of the game has no place in modern football sadly.
-
The "spirit of the game" sounds like the kind of shit Tim Lovejoy would come out with.
-
Spirit doesn’t apply, it was an accidental handball that led to a goal. It’s the rules of the game, not VARs fault. It should be used behind the scenes for every penalty area incident IMO. It’s the inconsistency that’s a concern as it wasn’t used (no on score board notification or pause)for Bournemouth’s justifiable shout.
-
I can't recall a Bournemouth penalty claim, except for the one that was given?
-
I can't recall a Bournemouth penalty claim, except for the one that was given?
I think it was Trezeguet that clumsily bought down their striker, when he was facing away from goal. Typical forwards tackle and he went through the opponent to get to the ball. I believe it’s on the MOTD lowlights.
-
It was a penalty imo as Trez kicks his foot not the ball, no idea why it wasn't given unless they didn't review it or didn't see the one angle that showed it clearly, which kind of defeats of the whole point of it.
-
Trez literally tapped his foot and he fell over like he’d been shot. I was relieved it wasn’t given and would have been very harsh if it had.
-
VAR is just another abomination of the modern game - to go alongside Friday/Monday/Sunday fixtures, third kit releases, celebrity officials, immoral weekly wages, SKY TV, simulation/ diving, time wasting,semi finals at Wembley, biased punditry,
Etc
Yes I'm an old fart ............but at least I can recall the time when most games kicked off at 3pm on a Saturday, there was no "big six", ex players run boozers in their retirement, a replica kit could be bought from Harry Parkes at a reasonable cost, :)
I'll resist the jumpers for goalposts line ....
As some managers have already stated VAR is taking the spontaneity out of the game - I really don't like it
-
Rich, not necessarily big.
-
There was a big 5 in the 80s.
-
There was a big 5 in the 80s.
Was there? When I started watching football you knew the title was going to end up in Liverpool, just not which side of it.
-
There was a big 5 in the 80s.
Was there? When I started watching football you knew the title was going to end up in Liverpool, just not which side of it.
Liverpool, Everton, Man U, Arsenal, Spurs.
-
There was a big 5 in the 80s.
Was there? When I started watching football you knew the title was going to end up in Liverpool, just not which side of it.
Yes. Regularly mentioned from about the mid 80s onwards.
-
There was a big 5 in the 80s.
Was there? When I started watching football you knew the title was going to end up in Liverpool, just not which side of it.
Liverpool, Everton, Man U, Arsenal, Spurs.
With all due respect, one of those you've listed only got included when the debate got stretched to a big 6.
-
They really didn't, the big five of the 80s was talked about on a regular basis and it was those 5 clubs.
-
They really didn't, the big five of the 80s was talked about on a regular basis and it was those 5 clubs.
It was a TV thing to hype them up in the early days of talks about a breakaway league.
-
Was it bollocks! Liverpool, Everton, man u, Arsenal, Villa. There is absolutely no cocking way anybody on the planet in the eighties thought spurs were "bigger" than us. Even fucking spurs fans.
No. Cocking. Way.
-
There was a big 5 in the 80s.
Was there? When I started watching football you knew the title was going to end up in Liverpool, just not which side of it.
Liverpool, Everton, Man U, Arsenal, Spurs.
With all due respect, one of those you've listed only got included when the debate got stretched to a big 6.
Spurs!? .
Sure it was Villa aswell as the other 4 mentioned at the time
-
Apart from they were. It was all to do with a super league, and those 5 were the ones in meetings that led to the Premier League. As Dave says it was a media thing but to say it didn't exist is wrong.
-
There was a big 5 in the 80s.
Was there? When I started watching football you knew the title was going to end up in Liverpool, just not which side of it.
Liverpool, Everton, Man U, Arsenal, Spurs.
With all due respect, one of those you've listed only got included when the debate got stretched to a big 6.
With all due respect, that isn’t correct.
-
It was those 5, started around the time we were shit, we may even have been in division 2 at the time, can't remember exactly what year it started, was around the mid 80s though.
-
I would guess it was 1986/87, the season we went down and Clive Allen scored something like 49 goals and Spurs still won nothing after losing the FA Cup final. It would have been hilarious had we not gone down and the fact they lost that final to Coventry.
-
Do we need to go back to late 80s and review some footage in order to confirm the big 5?
-
Do we need to go back to late 80s and review some footage in order to confirm the big 5?
Who cares
-
Do we need to go back to late 80s and review some footage in order to confirm the big 5?
Some guys in a studio somewhere have already done it and the result will come up in the scoreboard any second now.
-
It was about 1985/86ish, and Spurs were in it based on finishing third once that decade.
-
Only use it when the studio refs spot something absolutely obvious and the on pitch referee doesn't see it, or if the on pitch referee asks for a review himself (or herself). Slows the game down and doesn't allow fans to know what's being said, like they do now in cricket on the big screen. It's of no use whatsoever when is comes to Billing kicking fuck out of Villa players and getting scot free away with it either.
-
The "Big Five" was a load of London-centric bollocks trying to pretend that no marks Tottenham were a big club and Villa weren't.
It did exist as a concept, though.
-
Not a fan.
I get that they want to get decisions right - especially with the money tied up in the game - but it makes games too stop start, and you almost cant celebrate a goal just in case someone's left testicle was offside.
Also the lack of consistency. We had a very strong penalty shouy last week not reviewed, but they looked at a "potential red card" for McGinn which was a total non-incident. It almost feels like they pick and choose which incidents to review just to suit them.
-
I don't think it has been very stop start so far. Much better than in the Women's World Cup where every ninety minute match seemed to last at least one hundred.
-
Not a fan.
I get that they want to get decisions right - especially with the money tied up in the game - but it makes games too stop start, and you almost cant celebrate a goal just in case someone's left testicle was offside.
Also the lack of consistency. We had a very strong penalty shouy last week not reviewed, but they looked at a "potential red card" for McGinn which was a total non-incident. It almost feels like they pick and choose which incidents to review just to suit them.
First bold bit this is the teething problems, once they're more used to it decision like the Gabriel Jesus one last week will go away, changing marginal decisions was never the point.
Second bold bit, it was reviewed, they decided no penalty, the commentators mentioned it at the time, the 'problem' was not going back far enough to see the blatant shirt pull just before it which would've been a free kick in a dangerous area.
-
If you start reviewing potential dangerous free kicks it will be much more stop start than it is now.
-
If you start reviewing potential dangerous free kicks it will be much more stop start than it is now.
I agree, that's why I said problem rather than mistake, I don't think they were wrong not to check it.
-
I've just seen the Man City 'goal' that was ruled out by VAR, and I'm not sure why there was so much fuss over the decision?
A Man City player went to head the cross, missed with his head, it then hit his arm which then changed the direction of the ball, allowing it to fall to another Man City player who then scored.
No goal = correct decision. Well done VAR.
-
I've just seen the Man City 'goal' that was ruled out by VAR, and I'm not sure why there was so much fuss over the decision?
A Man City player went to head the cross, missed with his head, it then hit his arm which then changed the direction of the ball, allowing it to fall to another Man City player who then scored.
No goal = correct decision. Well done VAR.
I think the argument around VAR is not that there's any opposition to getting the right result - it's hard to argue with that.
It's about the implementation - that example in the Man City match, for example, the delay between goal celebrations and VAR verdict was insanely long.
That evening, I'd looked at the score of that match, seen it was 2-2, and watching the highlights, the delay between goal and no-goal was so long, I actually started thinking maybe I'd misread the final score on Fotmob.
With the reason for the goal being ruled out, that's a whole other discussion, and due to a rule change this season. In this example, I think we've seen the two combine to create the perfect storm.
-
Its killing the game already. Football is aerobic which means its non stop or supposed to be, whilst Rugby or cricket where VAR is used successfully is anaerobic (stop and start) that's the difference and why it will never fit well in the game.
-
The new handball rules are wrong in many ways and it’s not the fault of VAR that it’s technology is used to enforce it. It’s been used twice against Wolves and Man City so these shitty new rules are here to stay for this season at least.
The offside rule also needs a tweak with the implementation of new technology. There is no way that the default rule should disallow a goal because an inch of a shoulder, elbow, toe or any other body part was deemed to be offside. A person isn’t an inanimate object so it can’t be black and white like a ball over a line, so may be they should use a specific point of the body such as the head or groin.
-
The new handball rules are the fault of the EU, Ian Holloway said. He gets paid to air opinions like this you know.
-
The new handball rules are the fault of the EU, Ian Holloway said. He gets paid to air opinions like this you know.
Does that mean we can use VAR on the Irish border?
-
The new handball rules are wrong in many ways and it’s not the fault of VAR that it’s technology is used to enforce it. It’s been used twice against Wolves and Man City so these shitty new rules are here to stay for this season at least.
The offside rule also needs a tweak with the implementation of new technology. There is no way that the default rule should disallow a goal because an inch of a shoulder, elbow, toe or any other body part was deemed to be offside. A person isn’t an inanimate object so it can’t be black and white like a ball over a line, so may be they should use a specific point of the body such as the head or groin.
I may be completely wrong here - wouldn't be the first time!! - but I thought that for a player to be offside the part of the body deemed thus had to be a part that could be scored with. So if your arm was in an offside position it wouldn't count as offside.
-
I still think a review system will be implemented in due course. It would certainly eliminate a lot of the complaints about the current set up, it would certainly help with the flow of the game and in most cases give back the joy of scoring a goal, if the ref is happy and reviews have been used up, a goal is a fucking goal!
Our game last weekend would've been different for a start. Billings potential second yellow was not referred, even though it was a major decision and potential game changer. To refer these sorts of incidents to VAR regularly would be barmy, increasing the amount of disruption but if we had used a review, he may have been sent off. Reviews will be precious and who knows, Smith may not have used one for the Billings incident(s) but as things stand we have a hue and cry for everything and it's solving nothing.
And Ian Holloway can go and fuck himself, the galloping ignoramus.
-
In the same way that the ball is in the field of play if part of it is touching the by line offside has to be given only if the entire player is in an offside position. Either that or adopt rugby interpretation that touching the line is over the line. You can't be a bit pregnant.. You can't be a bit offside.
-
And Ian Holloway can go and fuck himself. Illiterate blockhead.
-
With the offsides, if they're going to give things off by millimetres, does this mean that the powers that be are 100% sure that the chosen frame to judge when the ball was played is also accurate to a zero percent error margin? Like, on a quantum level, that that was the exact moment the attacker played the ball? A movement at a leisurely 20mph and filmed at 1,000fps will travel best part of a centimetre between frames.
-
I still think a review system will be implemented in due course. It would certainly eliminate a lot of the complaints about the current set up, it would certainly help with the flow of the game and in most cases give back the joy of scoring a goal, if the ref is happy and reviews have been used up, a goal is a fucking goal!
Our game last weekend would've been different for a start. Billings potential second yellow was not referred, even though it was a major decision and potential game changer. To refer these sorts of incidents to VAR regularly would be barmy, increasing the amount of disruption but if we had used a review, he may have been sent off. Reviews will be precious and who knows, Smith may not have used one for the Billings incident(s) but as things stand we have a hue and cry for everything and it's solving nothing.
And Ian Holloway can go and fuck himself, the galloping ignoramus.
How many "challenges" would you get a game though? If it's more than one per team it would stop games more than VAR does now as it's average usage (which causes a stoppage) per game up to now must be less than three times.
-
All of Billings' subsequent challenges were right in front of the ref, and we were awarded a free kick in each instance. That he didn't get sent off was down to the referee on the day not deeming them worthy of a second yellow.
-
Are potential second yellow cards supposed to be reviewed or only straight reds?
-
All of Billings' subsequent challenges were right in front of the ref, and we were awarded a free kick in each instance. That he didn't get sent off was down to the referee on the day not deeming them worthy of a second yellow.
Yes, but the VAR ref, with the benefit of slow motion replays, may have come to a different conclusion had we been able to appeal. This is the issue with VAR, in the case of foul challenges it will boil down to opinion but you still see a VAR check for "possible red card", that's not a matter of fact at all.
VAR is meant to correct clear and obvious errors, that's what I saw on Saturday (twice).
Having said all of the above, I would accept what happened on Saturday in return for VAR being consigned to the fuckin' dustbin for evermore.
-
Just straight reds.
-
On the margin of errors issue why not represent the error on the screen as a band and if the player is ahead of the error band they are offside. If they are in the band then apply the rule like they do in cricket with Umpire's call, i.e. if they were flagged they are offside, if there was no flag they're onside.
-
Just straight reds.
Ta. So we can't blame VAR for the referee on Saturday being a massive bottling bottle merchant bottler.
-
Just straight reds.
Ta. So we can't blame VAR for the referee on Saturday being a massive bottling bottle merchant bottler.
No, he was just shit. Hopefully he gets a telling off from the ref bosses.
-
Doubt it. It was only Villa he cheated.
-
The new handball rules are the fault of the EU, Ian Holloway said. He gets paid to air opinions like this you know.
Does that mean we can use VAR on the Irish border?
That'll make it V.A.Orr
-
Has the totting up procedure for persistent fouling gone out of the game this season? you know, where the ref points to a number of areas on the pitch then reaches for the back pocket.
-
I've never understood why that rule is so vague. How many is "persistent"? Three, five, ten, twenty?
Pick an actual number and have somebody in the stand count how many each player has done, tell the referee by earpiece when a player needs booking.
-
'Persistent' usually means a number of tackles, that by themselves weren't worthy of a booking, but when considered together do. That cheating Bournemouth scrote simply commited at least 3 or 4 tackles that were worthy of a booking all day long, and the shithouse of a ref just bottled it.
-
I've never understood why that rule is so vague. How many is "persistent"? Three, five, ten, twenty?
Pick an actual number and have somebody in the stand count how many each player has done, tell the referee by earpiece when a player needs booking.
Two. E.G. a defender climbs all over an opponent, referee gives the appropriate free-kick and warns the defender if he does it again he will receive a caution for persistent infringement. The defender does it again, the ref books him. It doesn't happen that way normally but it can.
-
I've never understood why that rule is so vague. How many is "persistent"? Three, five, ten, twenty?
Pick an actual number and have somebody in the stand count how many each player has done, tell the referee by earpiece when a player needs booking.
When I reffed - at a very local level - if a team persistently fouled, I'd warn the team captain that he would receive a yellow card if it continued.
Amazingly, the captain always looked amazed when I pulled a card on him, even after making it very clear that he needed to control his team.
-
'Deliberate'
'done consciously and intentionally.
"a deliberate attempt to provoke conflict" intentional, calculated, conscious, done on purpose, intended, planned, meant, considered, studied, knowing, wilful, wanton, purposeful, purposive, premeditated, pre-planned, thought out in advance, prearranged, preconceived, predetermined;
When it came to a goalkeeper picking up the ball, it only took the footballing community a few weeks to acknowledge what was a deliberate back pass and what was accidental. The transition of that was very smooth and should now be applied to the handball rule.
Alas, we have made a 'mountain out of a molehill' when it comes to the handball rule. Either it is deliberate or not. The footballing community is wise enough to know what is a deliberate handball and what is accidental.
Lets cut out all this crap about hands behind the back, arms in unnatural position etc and just apply common sense.
In my view, over 90% of penalties given for handball were never deliberate (see meaning above) but merely because a player was fortunate enough to be born with two arms.
As for the offside law, unlike VAR, a player does not have the advantage of lines been drawn all over the pitch. Goals are the bloodline of the game and should not be ruled out because someone has got a big nose, big feet etc. IMHO, a player should only be offside if there is a 'clear gap' between the last defender and the attacker. For the sake of the game, let's give the attacking team some breathing space and change the law accordingly.
-
I've never understood why that rule is so vague. How many is "persistent"? Three, five, ten, twenty?
Pick an actual number and have somebody in the stand count how many each player has done, tell the referee by earpiece when a player needs booking.
When I reffed - at a very local level - if a team persistently fouled, I'd warn the team captain that he would receive a yellow card if it continued.
Amazingly, the captain always looked amazed when I pulled a card on him, even after making it very clear that he needed to control his team.
Don't think you'd get away with that these days.
-
I've never understood why that rule is so vague. How many is "persistent"? Three, five, ten, twenty?
Pick an actual number and have somebody in the stand count how many each player has done, tell the referee by earpiece when a player needs booking.
When I reffed - at a very local level - if a team persistently fouled, I'd warn the team captain that he would receive a yellow card if it continued.
Amazingly, the captain always looked amazed when I pulled a card on him, even after making it very clear that he needed to control his team.
Don't think you'd get away with that these days.
?
I never did it in all the years I was involved, I see it as delegating responsibility. Everything was/is there to deal with infringements of the laws. Always keep a sharp pencil and a couple of biro's for back-up. The only thing I can think of, off the top of my head, is when officiating on your own a mass brawl breaks out. Best action? don't get involved, stand back and let them sort it themselves then abandon the game and report it to the relevant authorities. No point in you getting whacked.
-
I was in favour of VAR but it's been a disaster the way it's being implemented. It's exacerbated by ridiculous handball and offside laws, but really it's the micro-analysis of every bloody incident of note that is a farce, when it was supposed to be for clear and obvious situations were an injustice was clearly done. It's as if they are determined to use their new toy at every possible opportunity. A two reviews per team system is probably the only way to stop that.
-
I think it will settle in. I'm delighted that the correct decision will be reached on offsides and hand balls, however marginal they may be. I don't really buy into this losing the moment of euphoria stuff - the for majority of goals it will be pretty clear there are no potential issues. Getting the correct decision and the correct result is far more important to me.
-
I would be totally against limited appeals.
Imagine you've used your (two?) appeals, possibly by millimetres, and someone scores a crucial illegal goal against you, missed by the ref - think Maradona, Henry et al. It almost makes it a waste of time having the system.
Once teams know the opposition has no more challenges left, often near the end of games, they may as well start pushing the acceptable boundaries to gain an advantage.
If we're going to have it we should use it to cut out all illegal goals, however 'boarderline'. That's the only way we get a level playing field.
Use it, or dont. But, please, none of this wishy washy nonsense leading to games still being won by cheating or officiating mistakes.
-
I was in favour of VAR but it's been a disaster the way it's being implemented. It's exacerbated by ridiculous handball and offside laws, but really it's the micro-analysis of every bloody incident of note that is a farce, when it was supposed to be for clear and obvious situations were an injustice was clearly done.
This. A million times this.
It's supposed to be there for clear injustices and the refereeing community and their willing supporters are using it to manufacture work for themselves by micro-analysing issues we didn't even think were issues. It's damaging the game.
When you get to the position we are in now where people watching in the ground and worldwide hold their breath and stifle their celebrations for minutes after a goal is scored in case there was a brush of the arm or someone's toe was offside in the buildup (something no-one on the pitch, acting as referee, in the stands or watching on the TV saw in real-time) then the game has subjugated the entertainment value and history and joy of the game in the service of bureaucrats.
Stop it now and only use it for gross injustices.
-
If the delays get as lengthy as they did in the Womens WC then I would imagine it wont be long before sky / BT slip in a quick advert just like US sports are always breaking to commericals
And lets face it every other feature of US sport TV has crept into our game
-
The delays don't seem nearly as bad on the basis of what I've seen, and I've no problem with broadcasters copying ideas from other sports. The score and time at the top/bottom of the screen has been an excellent innovation, for instance.
They won't be squeezing adverts in but it wouldn't amaze me if you start getting "VAR decision sponsored by...", though if they go down that route they'd be copying cricket, not the Americans.
-
Bumping the persistent infringement debate. Last night saw classic examples of it. How many times was Gomez penalised for fouling? I have no idea, but he should have been cautioned long before he was. I can't remember but I'm sure someone will, but was he eventually booked for failing to retreat the required distance to allow a free-kick to be taken? If it was him, he wouldn't have been cautioned for persistent infringement and that would be disgraceful.
-
Are we going to have Alan Shearer explaining VAR to us before every game?
-
I don’t understand how the ref decided to book both Trez and their player after he kicked the ball and went straight through on Trez. That could have been a nasty injury and Everton stood over our freekicks all game.
Also with the new handball rules, didn’t Mina (?) block the ball with his arm/hand in an “unnatural position” when sliding to block the shot from Wes? I’m sure we’ll see plenty of them given this season.
-
For Trezeguet got booked for not retreating the required distance at the free-kick despite Everton doing it all game. There's a case for sending off Coleman but, I'm guessing it wouldn't stand up on appeal. The referee took the easy option and booked him.
-
I don’t understand how the ref decided to book both Trez and their player after he kicked the ball and went straight through on Trez. That could have been a nasty injury and Everton stood over our freekicks all game.
Also with the new handball rules, didn’t Mina (?) block the ball with his arm/hand in an “unnatural position” when sliding to block the shot from Wes? I’m sure we’ll see plenty of them given this season.
They are trying to use common sense, regarding natural position. The ref and co decided, with the way Mina was sliding in to defend the ball, his arm was in a natural position for that movement.
-
The Derby Baggies game was a good argument in favour of VAR. I think most would agree that we want actual cheating stamped out.
-
I'm in favour. I cant grasp the 'i'd rather keep the wrong decisions' argument. As for celebrating goals only to see them disallowed, that happens without var. We've all done it.
-
Interesting that compared to last week we have so far barely noticed VAR. It seems to have been used a lot quicker or at least more efficiently.
-
Interesting that compared to last week we have so far barely noticed VAR. It seems to have been used a lot quicker or at least more efficiently.
Tell that to Manyoo who had 2 additional penalties declined even after VAR review ...
-
Interesting that compared to last week we have so far barely noticed VAR. It seems to have been used a lot quicker or at least more efficiently.
Tell that to Manyoo who had 2 additional penalties declined even after VAR review ...
If it’s an end to the Old aTrafford penalty then great.
-
Interesting that compared to last week we have so far barely noticed VAR. It seems to have been used a lot quicker or at least more efficiently.
Tell that to Manyoo who had 2 additional penalties declined even after VAR review ...
If it’s an end to the Old aTrafford penalty then great.
Yeah 'cos two wrongs DO make a right ...
-
Interesting that compared to last week we have so far barely noticed VAR. It seems to have been used a lot quicker or at least more efficiently.
Tell that to Manyoo who had 2 additional penalties declined even after VAR review ...
Were they correctly declined?
-
I think the decisions were correct at Old Trafford, however the decisions could have gone either way. This is partly due to the Man Utd players being schooled in the dark arts of going down easily which makes it even harder for the officials to make the correct decision even with VAR.
-
I would have been delighted either way.
-
Interesting that compared to last week we have so far barely noticed VAR. It seems to have been used a lot quicker or at least more efficiently.
Tell that to Manyoo who had 2 additional penalties declined even after VAR review ...
If it’s an end to the Old aTrafford penalty then great.
Yeah 'cos two wrongs DO make a right ...
Sense of humor by pass.
-
some one tole me once, I am sure in jest that any player joining them has to undergo an induction course in, how to waste time and how to play for penalties.
-
VAR is a joke. Clear and obvious penalty for Spurs not given by the ref, then also not given by VAR. What's the point of it then?
-
VAR is a joke. Clear and obvious penalty for Spurs not given by the ref, then also not given by VAR. What's the point of it then?
But in the end isn’t it still humans making the decision?
-
VAR is a joke. Clear and obvious penalty for Spurs not given by the ref, then also not given by VAR. What's the point of it then?
But in the end isn’t it still humans making the decision?
Bang on pen. What’s the difference between diving and taking the player down or sticking out a leg and doing the same. In both cases it’s a pen
-
VAR is a joke. Clear and obvious penalty for Spurs not given by the ref, then also not given by VAR. What's the point of it then?
But in the end isn’t it still humans making the decision?
Bang on pen. What’s the difference between diving and taking the player down or sticking out a leg and doing the same. In both cases it’s a pen
I get that. But VAR is just technology to help a human make a “better” decision. That’s all I’m pointing out.
-
That tackle on Kane was as clear a penalty as you will ever see. Mike Dean is Billy Big Bollocks in refereeing circles so the VAR assessors keep their noses up his arse and decline e to overrule him.
-
That tackle on Kane was as clear a penalty as you will ever see. Mike Dean is Billy Big Bollocks in refereeing circles so the VAR assessors keep their noses up his arse and decline e to overrule him.
That's what the commentators alluded to, which makes me think we're giving up all the spotaneity and fun of football for not very much. If the VAR team aren't going to overrule their mates when it's that obvious, then they can poke it quite frankly.
-
Yet more proof that VAR is a joke. The referee and a room full of clowns with every conceivable camera angle, couldn't call a stonewall penalty.
Not fit for purpose.
-
Yet more proof that VAR is a joke. The referee and a room full of clowns with every conceivable camera angle, couldn't call a stonewall penalty.
Not fit for purpose.
+1
-
That Kane call today tells me that VAR will be used for very minor incidents like a toe offside but not for basic fouls. The bloody horrors of VAR will be inflicted on the game to enable nits to be picked. Major incidents like dragging down a centre forward as he is about to score will be botched with a shrug. Or in Dean's case today when challenged by the Spurs players AFTER the VAR decision had been made, he pointed to his ear piece as much as to say "not me, it was them in the stands. I only blow the whistle."
-
VAR is a joke. Clear and obvious penalty for Spurs not given by the ref, then also not given by VAR. What's the point of it then?
Indeed. Earlier, a Bournemouth player missed the ball and trod on Agüero’s foot bringing him down, as every subsequent angle showed. VAR evaluated and shrugged. Mystified.
-
I don't like VAR, but could put up with it if it leads to a right decision. If it doesn't, we're getting all the bad stuff and still having to put up with shit decisions.
-
I agree, so it doesn't give pens for Kane or Silva despite them both being penalties, so what's the point of it. Either give the correct decision every time or bin it.
-
Agreed, an absolutely pointless piece of technology if its going to be used so arbitrarily. You just create a greater clusterfuck doing it that way.
They've used VAR (they call it the Bunker) in Rugby League in Asutralia for the last couple of seasons. It's done nothing but create more controversy. They've also moved to having 2 on field refs that work as a team - one behind the play one in front. They still get things wrong.
-
The myth that using VAR will get decisions correct till exists. Fouls are always going to be subjective, all VAR does is ask for a second opinion.
For years people cited Tennis, Rugby and Cricket as examples but in almost all cases in those sports it's a decision based on fact, not opinion. The handball/offside VAR decisions may be factual but they have not made the rules clear enough for the video ref to come to a definitive decision so we have a shitty mess full of conjecture and argument. If people are hell bent on demanding the correct outcome every time just feed the data of each team into a computer and see what the result is, all human error, player or official is removed.
If you look at the cricket, much has been made of Joel Wilson's error in not calling the LBW yesterday, but Nathan Lyon made an equally crucial mistake. Why does a player get a pass but the umpire doesn't? Those errors just added to the drama. As did Paine's decision to refer just a few moments earlier.
I still see a second yellow card as a potential game changing decision yet there is no referral so what's the fuckin point.? Give it back to the ref and let's get on with it for fucks sake.
-
And there you have it in a few words. As I have stated on here many times to the point of boredom that the laws of football are so wide open to interpretation that you as a player/team are going to be at the whim of a human being. Ok, VAR will go some way to removing some of the ambiguity from the game but as Nev has alluded to, it all comes back to a human decision and, as we saw yesterday if, as alleged some humans hold a certain sway over others then the whole concept of VAR is, imo redundant. Who police's the policeman?
-
Anywhere else on the pitch and the Kane challenge would be given as a foul. Probably the Silva one as well if seen. It show VAR official are just as prone to bottling penalty decisions as on the field refs.
Accidental slip or not the Newcastle player took Kane out as he was about to shoot. Compare the penalty awarded int he CL final against Spurs where the defender had zero chance of getting out of the way, and anyway it arguably hit his shoulder. Ludicrous decisions despite re-runs.
-
It looks like they will not over rule a refs decision on a penalty but they will over rule a goal decision.
It does not make any sense.
-
The myth that using VAR will get decisions correct till exists. Fouls are always going to be subjective, all VAR does is ask for a second opinion.
For years people cited Tennis, Rugby and Cricket as examples but in almost all cases in those sports it's a decision based on fact, not opinion. The handball/offside VAR decisions may be factual but they have not made the rules clear enough for the video ref to come to a definitive decision so we have a shitty mess full of conjecture and argument. If people are hell bent on demanding the correct outcome every time just feed the data of each team into a computer and see what the result is, all human error, player or official is removed.
If you look at the cricket, much has been made of Joel Wilson's error in not calling the LBW yesterday, but Nathan Lyon made an equally crucial mistake. Why does a player get a pass but the umpire doesn't? Those errors just added to the drama. As did Paine's decision to refer just a few moments earlier.
I still see a second yellow card as a potential game changing decision yet there is no referral so what's the fuckin point.? Give it back to the ref and let's get on with it for fucks sake.
Or just let it bed in and get it right.
As for rugby, a lot of the decisions are far from factual - it deals with foul play anywhere on the field and any potential offences leading up to a try.
We've been moaning for years about duff decisions, diving, off side goals, people not being sent off in cup finals, Patrick Bamford being a ****** etc etc. I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.
-
The myth that using VAR will get decisions correct till exists. Fouls are always going to be subjective, all VAR does is ask for a second opinion.
For years people cited Tennis, Rugby and Cricket as examples but in almost all cases in those sports it's a decision based on fact, not opinion. The handball/offside VAR decisions may be factual but they have not made the rules clear enough for the video ref to come to a definitive decision so we have a shitty mess full of conjecture and argument. If people are hell bent on demanding the correct outcome every time just feed the data of each team into a computer and see what the result is, all human error, player or official is removed.
If you look at the cricket, much has been made of Joel Wilson's error in not calling the LBW yesterday, but Nathan Lyon made an equally crucial mistake. Why does a player get a pass but the umpire doesn't? Those errors just added to the drama. As did Paine's decision to refer just a few moments earlier.
I still see a second yellow card as a potential game changing decision yet there is no referral so what's the fuckin point.? Give it back to the ref and let's get on with it for fucks sake.
Or just let it bed in and get it right.
As for rugby, a lot of the decisions are far from factual - it deals with foul play anywhere on the field and any potential offences leading up to a try.
We've been moaning for years about duff decisions, diving, off side goals, people not being sent off in cup finals, Patrick Bamford being a c*** etc etc. I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.
Maybe we like the misery.
-
I don't. I want to see cheats like Bamford punished, and I want to make it more difficult for referees to give ludicrous penalties to the home side at Old Trafford. VAR should help. It needs to improve, but judging by how it is working now compared to just a few months ago at the Women's World Cup, it already is improving rapidly.
-
I don't. I want to see cheats like Bamford punished, and I want to make it more difficult for referees to give ludicrous penalties to the home side at Old Trafford. VAR should help. It needs to improve, but judging by how it is working now compared to just a few months ago at the Women's World Cup, it already is improving rapidly.
agreed
-
I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.
Because if the "teething problems" are penalties not given when they should be, goals not given when they could be and referees getting just as many things wrong as before then it doesn't look like it's improving the fairness.
I don't understand why people who want to improve the fairness of the game aren't prepared to work through the teething problems in workgroups between the referees and the authorities until they have a system which delivers fairness compared to now and THEN bring it into the game, not before. The PL is too important to be a test-site; prove it works through rigorous testing and we'll back it.
This isn't how important things like airplane wings are tested so why do it to football?
-
The myth that using VAR will get decisions correct till exists. Fouls are always going to be subjective, all VAR does is ask for a second opinion.
For years people cited Tennis, Rugby and Cricket as examples but in almost all cases in those sports it's a decision based on fact, not opinion. The handball/offside VAR decisions may be factual but they have not made the rules clear enough for the video ref to come to a definitive decision so we have a shitty mess full of conjecture and argument. If people are hell bent on demanding the correct outcome every time just feed the data of each team into a computer and see what the result is, all human error, player or official is removed.
If you look at the cricket, much has been made of Joel Wilson's error in not calling the LBW yesterday, but Nathan Lyon made an equally crucial mistake. Why does a player get a pass but the umpire doesn't? Those errors just added to the drama. As did Paine's decision to refer just a few moments earlier.
I still see a second yellow card as a potential game changing decision yet there is no referral so what's the fuckin point.? Give it back to the ref and let's get on with it for fucks sake.
Or just let it bed in and get it right.
As for rugby, a lot of the decisions are far from factual - it deals with foul play anywhere on the field and any potential offences leading up to a try.
We've been moaning for years about duff decisions, diving, off side goals, people not being sent off in cup finals, Patrick Bamford being a c*** etc etc. I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.
Because the sense of injustice fuels our support, being on the right end of an incorrect decision makes us feel like naughty school kids as we giggle at our opponents, the unpredictability appals us and thrills us in equal measure, we build certain officials into bogeymen and villains, we love the drama, we love the arguments and conjecture, what might have been, what should've been and those garrulous tales of huge decisions that denied our team the world dominance they so richly deserved if it wasn't for a fat bloke from Staffordshire or a school master from Harrow.
Sport is a glorious thing, Sunday afternoon was a perfect example, yes technology was used but it was human bravery and skill, fallibility and misjudgement that gave it the drama.
I have enjoyed football for almost 50 years and the addition of VAR has not enhanced that at all. I want justice and order in life, I want chaos and disorder in Sport, it's what makes it for me.
-
Couldn't agree more Nev. My feelings exactly.
-
I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.
Because if the "teething problems" are penalties not given when they should be, goals not given when they could be and referees getting just as many things wrong as before then it doesn't look like it's improving the fairness.
I don't understand why people who want to improve the fairness of the game aren't prepared to work through the teething problems in workgroups between the referees and the authorities until they have a system which delivers fairness compared to now and THEN bring it into the game, not before. The PL is too important to be a test-site; prove it works through rigorous testing and we'll back it.
This isn't how important things like airplane wings are tested so why do it to football?
Really? The thing is that VAR hasn't been used because a clear and obvious error - which means that it has solely been the referee's decision at that moment - now guess what, that is just like before without VAR.
-
I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.
Because if the "teething problems" are penalties not given when they should be, goals not given when they could be and referees getting just as many things wrong as before then it doesn't look like it's improving the fairness.
I don't understand why people who want to improve the fairness of the game aren't prepared to work through the teething problems in workgroups between the referees and the authorities until they have a system which delivers fairness compared to now and THEN bring it into the game, not before. The PL is too important to be a test-site; prove it works through rigorous testing and we'll back it.
This isn't how important things like airplane wings are tested so why do it to football?
It was always going to take time to settle down. It will and when it does it will improve the game.
-
I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.
Because if the "teething problems" are penalties not given when they should be, goals not given when they could be and referees getting just as many things wrong as before then it doesn't look like it's improving the fairness.
I don't understand why people who want to improve the fairness of the game aren't prepared to work through the teething problems in workgroups between the referees and the authorities until they have a system which delivers fairness compared to now and THEN bring it into the game, not before. The PL is too important to be a test-site; prove it works through rigorous testing and we'll back it.
This isn't how important things like airplane wings are tested so why do it to football?
It was always going to take time to settle down. It will and when it does it will improve the game.
Everyone just accepting that humans make mistakes and life ain't always fair would improve it more.
-
The myth that using VAR will get decisions correct till exists. Fouls are always going to be subjective, all VAR does is ask for a second opinion.
For years people cited Tennis, Rugby and Cricket as examples but in almost all cases in those sports it's a decision based on fact, not opinion. The handball/offside VAR decisions may be factual but they have not made the rules clear enough for the video ref to come to a definitive decision so we have a shitty mess full of conjecture and argument. If people are hell bent on demanding the correct outcome every time just feed the data of each team into a computer and see what the result is, all human error, player or official is removed.
If you look at the cricket, much has been made of Joel Wilson's error in not calling the LBW yesterday, but Nathan Lyon made an equally crucial mistake. Why does a player get a pass but the umpire doesn't? Those errors just added to the drama. As did Paine's decision to refer just a few moments earlier.
I still see a second yellow card as a potential game changing decision yet there is no referral so what's the fuckin point.? Give it back to the ref and let's get on with it for fucks sake.
Or just let it bed in and get it right.
As for rugby, a lot of the decisions are far from factual - it deals with foul play anywhere on the field and any potential offences leading up to a try.
We've been moaning for years about duff decisions, diving, off side goals, people not being sent off in cup finals, Patrick Bamford being a c*** etc etc. I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.
Because the sense of injustice fuels our support, being on the right end of an incorrect decision makes us feel like naughty school kids as we giggle at our opponents, the unpredictability appals us and thrills us in equal measure, we build certain officials into bogeymen and villains, we love the drama, we love the arguments and conjecture, what might have been, what should've been and those garrulous tales of huge decisions that denied our team the world dominance they so richly deserved if it wasn't for a fat bloke from Staffordshire or a school master from Harrow.
Sport is a glorious thing, Sunday afternoon was a perfect example, yes technology was used but it was human bravery and skill, fallibility and misjudgement that gave it the drama.
I have enjoyed football for almost 50 years and the addition of VAR has not enhanced that at all. I want justice and order in life, I want chaos and disorder in Sport, it's what makes it for me.
Fair enough. Personally I'd have preferred Maradonna's goal to have been disallowed, Vidic to have been sent off for his assault at Wembley, Rodriguez handball goal to be disallowed and El Ghazi not sent off for the ghost punch on Bamford. The romance of human fallibility and misjudgement does nothing for me when it results in travesties like those.
-
Personally, although I do get enraged by poor refereeing, I do accept there is a difference between a genuine mistake and a terrible match official.
For me, the referee's job is not to make a game of football completely fair, because he never can. The key role of a referee for me is to make the decision when one needs to be made in order to enable the game to continue. Else we end up as we were as kids with arguments raging and fights breaking out every two minutes about every little thing.
-
We're all willing to accept "human mistakes" when they are going for us though.
As England cricket fans, after the World Cup 'win' and the latest Ashes 'win', we have absolutely no right to ever moan about a decision against us ever again. We will though.
VAR is here to stay, along with goal line technology, thank god. If they chalk out every offside goal and allows every correct goal (even by millimetres), and stops every goal assisted by a handball, then I will be happy.
There will still be plenty for people to moan and argue about, for those that like that side of the game, like the Kane 'penalty' at the weekend. Which, by the way, many ex-players have disagreed on the validity of.
Why people would want to risk going back to blatant injustices, for the 'fun of it' or because it's 'not 100% right' (according to them), is beyond me.
-
The myth that using VAR will get decisions correct till exists. Fouls are always going to be subjective, all VAR does is ask for a second opinion.
For years people cited Tennis, Rugby and Cricket as examples but in almost all cases in those sports it's a decision based on fact, not opinion. The handball/offside VAR decisions may be factual but they have not made the rules clear enough for the video ref to come to a definitive decision so we have a shitty mess full of conjecture and argument. If people are hell bent on demanding the correct outcome every time just feed the data of each team into a computer and see what the result is, all human error, player or official is removed.
If you look at the cricket, much has been made of Joel Wilson's error in not calling the LBW yesterday, but Nathan Lyon made an equally crucial mistake. Why does a player get a pass but the umpire doesn't? Those errors just added to the drama. As did Paine's decision to refer just a few moments earlier.
I still see a second yellow card as a potential game changing decision yet there is no referral so what's the fuckin point.? Give it back to the ref and let's get on with it for fucks sake.
Or just let it bed in and get it right.
As for rugby, a lot of the decisions are far from factual - it deals with foul play anywhere on the field and any potential offences leading up to a try.
We've been moaning for years about duff decisions, diving, off side goals, people not being sent off in cup finals, Patrick Bamford being a c*** etc etc. I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.
Because the sense of injustice fuels our support, being on the right end of an incorrect decision makes us feel like naughty school kids as we giggle at our opponents, the unpredictability appals us and thrills us in equal measure, we build certain officials into bogeymen and villains, we love the drama, we love the arguments and conjecture, what might have been, what should've been and those garrulous tales of huge decisions that denied our team the world dominance they so richly deserved if it wasn't for a fat bloke from Staffordshire or a school master from Harrow.
Sport is a glorious thing, Sunday afternoon was a perfect example, yes technology was used but it was human bravery and skill, fallibility and misjudgement that gave it the drama.
I have enjoyed football for almost 50 years and the addition of VAR has not enhanced that at all. I want justice and order in life, I want chaos and disorder in Sport, it's what makes it for me.
Fair enough. Personally I'd have preferred Maradonna's goal to have been disallowed, Vidic to have been sent off for his assault at Wembley, Rodriguez handball goal to be disallowed and El Ghazi not sent off for the ghost punch on Bamford. The romance of human fallibility and misjudgement does nothing for me when it results in travesties like those.
Then you would be happy with the result of the 1966 WCF to be different? And as for the last two, overcoming Sandwell in the paly offs made it all the sweeter as did Leeds getting gubbed by Derby. I can see we're not going to agree and everyone has a different opinion but the more emotional sport is, the more I enjoy it.
-
You're the first sports fan I've encountered that would enjoy being cheated out of a win.
Personally, our '66 WC win and the latest cricket WC win will always be tainted somewhat (as well as Sunday's Ashes win). I don't enjoy losing unfairly, and I'm honest enough to admit I don't get the full satisfaction from winning unfairly.
-
You're the first sports fan I've encountered that would enjoy being cheated out of a win.
Personally, our '66 WC win and the latest cricket WC win will always be tainted somewhat (as well as Sunday's Ashes win). I don't enjoy losing unfairly, and I'm honest enough to admit I don't get the full satisfaction from winning unfairly.
You're reverting to hyperbole now.
There is no evidence that in any of the games you mentioned that there was any impropriety whatsoever, there was however, human error from the officials, something that is accepted of players but not the officials even though both are human. To infer that there is widespread "cheating" from officials is laughable, particularly when all the evidence points to the ref being the only person taking to the field without the express intention of gaining an unfair advantage.
If I considered there to be widespread corruption I wouldn't watch or pay to attend. My view isn't based on the long term prospects of Aston Villa but the long term prospects of the game without which there will be no Villa and I see much bigger problems for it than the competence of our officials. In a week where we see two proud old clubs go to the wall, many others teetering on the brink, where the gap between the haves and have-nots grows ever bigger where obvious cheating by players goes unpunished and the amount of cash and support afforded to grass roots shrinks by the year I believe there are bigger threats to Football as we know it.
I can see that we have our own opinions and are not going to agree on this matter, perhaps we should bring in a neutral observer to oversee our argument and make a rational decision? We must first agree on this though before we go any further and accept the decision as final......
-
No thanks.
I'd rather technology gave us an important win than a 'well-meaning', but error-ridden, official take it from us.
And it it falls the other way, then so be it. I can handle fairness, even if it goes against me.
As I said earlier, despite technology correcting errors on offsides/onsides, goals/no goals, Henry/Maradona handballs, etc., there will still be plenty left for people to moan about/claim injustice on. "Was that really their free-kick /throw in 5 minutes before we scored that own goal!?" and the like.
To want to get rid of technology just because some people can't agree on a foul is ludicrous. Linking the argument to clubs going out of business even more so.
-
No thanks.
I'd rather technology gave us an important win than a 'well-meaning', but error-ridden, official take it from us.
And it it falls the other way, then so be it. I can handle fairness, even if it goes against me.
As I said earlier, despite technology correcting errors on offsides/onsides, goals/no goals, Henry/Maradona handballs, etc., there will still be plenty left for people to moan about/claim injustice on. "Was that really their free-kick /throw in 5 minutes before we scored that own goal!?" and the like.
To want to get rid of technology just because some people can't agree on a foul is ludicrous. Linking the argument to clubs going out of business even more so.
I don't want to get rid of technology, the goaline technology is brilliant, dealing with matter of fact. I don't like VAR because it doesn't add anything to the game in my opinion. Spurs were happy at Man City, not so much so last week and that is likely to happen with an on field ref so what have we gained?
VAR has nothing to do with clubs going out of business, I never inferred that, my point was that football has more serious problems but chooses to ignore them.
-
VAR is proving that it's not completely accurate but it's still more accurate than the time before VAR. Like most technology it will improve over time.
-
I hope so, because it's a dog's breakfast at the moment.
-
It's utter bollocks.
I didn't actually mind the World Cup version that much. The ref -if he was unsure of a big call- could go to the third umpire or whatever. A bit of a wait occasionally, but felt like progress.
This is nausing fans out at the majority of grounds and just feels like a mess.
Video analysis has helped rugby, tennis and cricket without drastically altering the flow and feeling of those sports. In cricket, it actually adds an element of excitement and additional strategy with the use (or misuse) of the review system.
I don't mind change. But it has to be change for the better.
-
It's fundementally flawed in my opinion. Those saying that offside is offside even if it's only by a millimetre are missing this. They are calling "offside" by putting two parralel lines red & blue but when your talking in millimetres can it really be that accurate? I don't think so. To be so precise you also have to ascertain the milli-second the ball leaves the passing players foot. The system simply isn't accurate enough to make such precise calls. No the only way to make it work is to have an observer who can invoke VAR when and only when he see's a clear and obvious mistake by the officials. When VAR was first mooted it was said that it wouldn't be intrusive in games and would only be used to rectify a "clear and obvious mistake by the match officials" We should get back to that or drop it apart from goal line technology which is absolutely conclusive.
-
Until 100% perfection is fully proven, for offside, a 'margin of error' of 10 centimeters should be allowed to the advantage of the attacking team. :)
-
The myth that using VAR will get decisions correct till exists. Fouls are always going to be subjective, all VAR does is ask for a second opinion.
For years people cited Tennis, Rugby and Cricket as examples but in almost all cases in those sports it's a decision based on fact, not opinion. The handball/offside VAR decisions may be factual but they have not made the rules clear enough for the video ref to come to a definitive decision so we have a shitty mess full of conjecture and argument. If people are hell bent on demanding the correct outcome every time just feed the data of each team into a computer and see what the result is, all human error, player or official is removed.
If you look at the cricket, much has been made of Joel Wilson's error in not calling the LBW yesterday, but Nathan Lyon made an equally crucial mistake. Why does a player get a pass but the umpire doesn't? Those errors just added to the drama. As did Paine's decision to refer just a few moments earlier.
I still see a second yellow card as a potential game changing decision yet there is no referral so what's the fuckin point.? Give it back to the ref and let's get on with it for fucks sake.
Or just let it bed in and get it right.
As for rugby, a lot of the decisions are far from factual - it deals with foul play anywhere on the field and any potential offences leading up to a try.
We've been moaning for years about duff decisions, diving, off side goals, people not being sent off in cup finals, Patrick Bamford being a c*** etc etc. I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.
Because the sense of injustice fuels our support, being on the right end of an incorrect decision makes us feel like naughty school kids as we giggle at our opponents, the unpredictability appals us and thrills us in equal measure, we build certain officials into bogeymen and villains, we love the drama, we love the arguments and conjecture, what might have been, what should've been and those garrulous tales of huge decisions that denied our team the world dominance they so richly deserved if it wasn't for a fat bloke from Staffordshire or a school master from Harrow.
Sport is a glorious thing, Sunday afternoon was a perfect example, yes technology was used but it was human bravery and skill, fallibility and misjudgement that gave it the drama.
I have enjoyed football for almost 50 years and the addition of VAR has not enhanced that at all. I want justice and order in life, I want chaos and disorder in Sport, it's what makes it for me.
It’s like reading poetry.
-
Until 100% perfection is fully proven, for offside, a 'margin of error' of 10 centimeters should be allowed to the advantage of the attacking team. :)
How are you going to decide whether it is ten centimetres, use VAR? I'd say it would be much more difficult to judge whether a player is 9.9 or 10.1 cm offside than it would be just to judge if a player is offside.
I don't really get why people are so worried about offsides and VAR, it's one area that the technology should get right 99% of the time. The only issue would be where an official or a player who wasn't interfering with player obstructed the camera so as to make it unclear, in which case the decision would be made by the assistant referee.
-
The myth that using VAR will get decisions correct till exists. Fouls are always going to be subjective, all VAR does is ask for a second opinion.
For years people cited Tennis, Rugby and Cricket as examples but in almost all cases in those sports it's a decision based on fact, not opinion. The handball/offside VAR decisions may be factual but they have not made the rules clear enough for the video ref to come to a definitive decision so we have a shitty mess full of conjecture and argument. If people are hell bent on demanding the correct outcome every time just feed the data of each team into a computer and see what the result is, all human error, player or official is removed.
If you look at the cricket, much has been made of Joel Wilson's error in not calling the LBW yesterday, but Nathan Lyon made an equally crucial mistake. Why does a player get a pass but the umpire doesn't? Those errors just added to the drama. As did Paine's decision to refer just a few moments earlier.
I still see a second yellow card as a potential game changing decision yet there is no referral so what's the fuckin point.? Give it back to the ref and let's get on with it for fucks sake.
Or just let it bed in and get it right.
As for rugby, a lot of the decisions are far from factual - it deals with foul play anywhere on the field and any potential offences leading up to a try.
We've been moaning for years about duff decisions, diving, off side goals, people not being sent off in cup finals, Patrick Bamford being a c*** etc etc. I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.
Because the sense of injustice fuels our support, being on the right end of an incorrect decision makes us feel like naughty school kids as we giggle at our opponents, the unpredictability appals us and thrills us in equal measure, we build certain officials into bogeymen and villains, we love the drama, we love the arguments and conjecture, what might have been, what should've been and those garrulous tales of huge decisions that denied our team the world dominance they so richly deserved if it wasn't for a fat bloke from Staffordshire or a school master from Harrow.
Sport is a glorious thing, Sunday afternoon was a perfect example, yes technology was used but it was human bravery and skill, fallibility and misjudgement that gave it the drama.
I have enjoyed football for almost 50 years and the addition of VAR has not enhanced that at all. I want justice and order in life, I want chaos and disorder in Sport, it's what makes it for me.
What about those thousands even millions when you take in the gambling sector out there who in their lives want "justice and order in life" but their lives and work are involved in sport? Your personal requirement for chaos and disorder will affect them while there's money involved. Justice and order in life and justice and order in sport or as near as we possibly can is what I want.
-
The myth that using VAR will get decisions correct till exists. Fouls are always going to be subjective, all VAR does is ask for a second opinion.
For years people cited Tennis, Rugby and Cricket as examples but in almost all cases in those sports it's a decision based on fact, not opinion. The handball/offside VAR decisions may be factual but they have not made the rules clear enough for the video ref to come to a definitive decision so we have a shitty mess full of conjecture and argument. If people are hell bent on demanding the correct outcome every time just feed the data of each team into a computer and see what the result is, all human error, player or official is removed.
If you look at the cricket, much has been made of Joel Wilson's error in not calling the LBW yesterday, but Nathan Lyon made an equally crucial mistake. Why does a player get a pass but the umpire doesn't? Those errors just added to the drama. As did Paine's decision to refer just a few moments earlier.
I still see a second yellow card as a potential game changing decision yet there is no referral so what's the fuckin point.? Give it back to the ref and let's get on with it for fucks sake.
Or just let it bed in and get it right.
As for rugby, a lot of the decisions are far from factual - it deals with foul play anywhere on the field and any potential offences leading up to a try.
We've been moaning for years about duff decisions, diving, off side goals, people not being sent off in cup finals, Patrick Bamford being a c*** etc etc. I just don't get why people aren't prepared to work through the various teething problems to get a system that works and hopefuly improves the fairness of the game in the long run.
Because the sense of injustice fuels our support, being on the right end of an incorrect decision makes us feel like naughty school kids as we giggle at our opponents, the unpredictability appals us and thrills us in equal measure, we build certain officials into bogeymen and villains, we love the drama, we love the arguments and conjecture, what might have been, what should've been and those garrulous tales of huge decisions that denied our team the world dominance they so richly deserved if it wasn't for a fat bloke from Staffordshire or a school master from Harrow.
Sport is a glorious thing, Sunday afternoon was a perfect example, yes technology was used but it was human bravery and skill, fallibility and misjudgement that gave it the drama.
I have enjoyed football for almost 50 years and the addition of VAR has not enhanced that at all. I want justice and order in life, I want chaos and disorder in Sport, it's what makes it for me.
What about those thousands even millions when you take in the gambling sector out there who in their lives want "justice and order in life" but their lives and work are involved in sport? Your personal requirement for chaos and disorder will affect them while there's money involved. Justice and order in life and justice and order in sport or as near as we possibly can is what I want.
That's fine, surely to get that would require the elimination of human error completely, not just from officials. as I stated earlier, feed the data into a computer and let it decide the result.
-
Until 100% perfection is fully proven, for offside, a 'margin of error' of 10 centimeters should be allowed to the advantage of the attacking team. :)
How are you going to decide whether it is ten centimetres, use VAR? I'd say it would be much more difficult to judge whether a player is 9.9 or 10.1 cm offside than it would be just to judge if a player is offside.
I don't really get why people are so worried about offsides and VAR, it's one area that the technology should get right 99% of the time. The only issue would be where an official or a player who wasn't interfering with player obstructed the camera so as to make it unclear, in which case the decision would be made by the assistant referee.
Based on an assumption that the snapshot used to determine when the ball is played is correct. We all seem happy with a couple of coloured sharply depicted lines on the telly which "clearly" show from some angle a gnat's bollock betwixt attacker and defender, whilst there's simultaneously a blurred foot delivering the pass.
-
Absolutely. Just as it does at the 100mtrs, tennis, cricket etc. The cricket being the main one of recent impact. Had Australia not wasted their last review they'd have won the game and the Ashes. You could argue that technology added to the drama but the rules as they are in that instance were to England's benefit.
Human error has to be eradicated if it can, there's too much at stake for it to be based on the opinion of an individual who might for whatever reason favour a team in red over one in Claret and Blue.
-
A tool is only as good as the person using it. VAR is a very useful tool, being applied by a bunch of, well, tools. They spout the "clear and obvious" mantra, but ignore it completely and nit-pick over trifles. They interfere when no interference is required or beneficial, and ignore when it is.
Marginal offsides are not "clear and obvious" errors. Handballs where it is ball to hand are still very subjective and should be left to the ref. Handballs like Thierry Henry's against Ireland and Rodriquez against Villa are not subjective ball to hand instances, they are clearly and obviously deliberate movements of hand to ball. The ones that everyone in the ground can see except for the officials.
Balls over the line like Lampard's against Germany have been resolved by other tech.
Refs make mistakes and so will VAR officials. But there have been proven cases of corrupt officials, and given the sums involved and betting syndicates etc. it would be naive to think that there isn't still some undue influence.
There is also bias, whether conscious or unconscious. I can't recall any game Elleray reffed for us where there wasn't some kind of controversial decision against us. He was a total twat, every time. Some of that could have been stopped by VAR. The older readers will recall how often Liverpool would edge a 1-0 win at Anfield with a late controversial penalty, or how often a visiting side would get one there, or at Old Trafford.
VAR will make it harder for any corruption and/or bias to feed through to decisions made. I've said many times, take it out of the hands of the officials to decide when it's used, because they are fucking clueless, QED, over and over. Use a review request system, two per team per game. It will then tend to be used for more blatant issues rather than marginal calls, at least until the last few minutes when unused reviews would be used up.
Stopping VAR would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
-
A tool is only as good as the person using it. VAR is a very useful tool, being applied by a bunch of, well, tools. They spout the "clear and obvious" mantra, but ignore it completely and nit-pick over trifles. They interfere when no interference is required or beneficial, and ignore when it is.
Marginal offsides are not "clear and obvious" errors. Handballs where it is ball to hand are still very subjective and should be left to the ref. Handballs like Thierry Henry's against Ireland and Rodriquez against Villa are not subjective ball to hand instances, they are clearly and obviously deliberate movements of hand to ball. The ones that everyone in the ground can see except for the officials.
Balls over the line like Lampard's against Germany have been resolved by other tech.
Refs make mistakes and so will VAR officials. But there have been proven cases of corrupt officials, and given the sums involved and betting syndicates etc. it would be naive to think that there isn't still some undue influence.
There is also bias, whether conscious or unconscious. I can't recall any game Elleray reffed for us where there wasn't some kind of controversial decision against us. He was a total twat, every time. Some of that could have been stopped by VAR. The older readers will recall how often Liverpool would edge a 1-0 win at Anfield with a late controversial penalty, or how often a visiting side would get one there, or at Old Trafford.
VAR will make it harder for any corruption and/or bias to feed through to decisions made. I've said many times, take it out of the hands of the officials to decide when it's used, because they are fucking clueless, QED, over and over. Use a review request system, two per team per game. It will then tend to be used for more blatant issues rather than marginal calls, at least until the last few minutes when unused reviews would be used up.
Stopping VAR would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Despite my opposition I'm pragmatic enough to accept that VAR will not be removed and I agree with an appeals/review system to simplify the system and make it more palatable for luddites such as myself.
-
Until 100% perfection is fully proven, for offside, a 'margin of error' of 10 centimeters should be allowed to the advantage of the attacking team. :)
How are you going to decide whether it is ten centimetres, use VAR? I'd say it would be much more difficult to judge whether a player is 9.9 or 10.1 cm offside than it would be just to judge if a player is offside.
I don't really get why people are so worried about offsides and VAR, it's one area that the technology should get right 99% of the time. The only issue would be where an official or a player who wasn't interfering with player obstructed the camera so as to make it unclear, in which case the decision would be made by the assistant referee.
If we add a 10cm 'margin of error' line on to the current VAR line that denotes the last defender that should do the trick. As mentioned in a previous post, to simplify matters, I would prefer there has to be a 'clear gap' between the forward and the last defender before being flagged offside.
Football is an entertainment, goals are its bloodline. We can't be disallowing goals because someone has got big feet or a big hooter. A forward does not have the advantage of lines drawn across the pitch and by instinct, will try to gain an inch on the defender. We don't want our forwards to have to go backwards to often. The current law is to the advantage of defenders and for the sake of entertainment, the advantage should be to the attacking side.
That is my worry, Mr Bully.
-
Refs make mistakes and so will VAR officials. But there have been proven cases of corrupt officials, and given the sums involved and betting syndicates etc. it would be naive to think that there isn't still some undue influence.
There is also bias, whether conscious or unconscious. I can't recall any game Elleray reffed for us where there wasn't some kind of controversial decision against us. He was a total twat, every time. Some of that could have been stopped by VAR. The older readers will recall how often Liverpool would edge a 1-0 win at Anfield with a late controversial penalty, or how often a visiting side would get one there, or at Old Trafford.
The first point, it won't eradicate that completely but it will improve it massively. The 2nd, it will be interesting to see the amount of pens that are given to them and against compared with previous seasons. Stevie Gee's scoring record would look a lot sadder had VAR been around when he was playing.
-
Until 100% perfection is fully proven, for offside, a 'margin of error' of 10 centimeters should be allowed to the advantage of the attacking team. :)
How are you going to decide whether it is ten centimetres, use VAR? I'd say it would be much more difficult to judge whether a player is 9.9 or 10.1 cm offside than it would be just to judge if a player is offside.
I don't really get why people are so worried about offsides and VAR, it's one area that the technology should get right 99% of the time. The only issue would be where an official or a player who wasn't interfering with player obstructed the camera so as to make it unclear, in which case the decision would be made by the assistant referee.
If we add a 10cm 'margin of error' line on to the current VAR line that denotes the last defender that should do the trick. As mentioned in a previous post, to simplify matters, I would prefer there has to be a 'clear gap' between the forward and the last defender before being flagged offside.
Football is an entertainment, goals are its bloodline. We can't be disallowing goals because someone has got big feet or a big hooter. A forward does not have the advantage of lines drawn across the pitch and by instinct, will try to gain an inch on the defender. We don't want our forwards to have to go backwards to often. The current law is to the advantage of defenders and for the sake of entertainment, the advantage should be to the attacking side.
That is my worry, Mr Bully.
The ten centimetre lines could work, I suppose.
One change I would make to the offside rule now is to make it so that attacking players' arms don't count. As they can no longer possibly gain an advantage by handling the ball, even accidentally, then they can't gain an advantage if their arm is offside. Therefore it shouldn't be a foul.
-
But what about a millimetre in or outside of the 10cm? Where do you stop having an argument?
-
Until 100% perfection is fully proven, for offside, a 'margin of error' of 10 centimeters should be allowed to the advantage of the attacking team. :)
How are you going to decide whether it is ten centimetres, use VAR? I'd say it would be much more difficult to judge whether a player is 9.9 or 10.1 cm offside than it would be just to judge if a player is offside.
I don't really get why people are so worried about offsides and VAR, it's one area that the technology should get right 99% of the time. The only issue would be where an official or a player who wasn't interfering with player obstructed the camera so as to make it unclear, in which case the decision would be made by the assistant referee.
If we add a 10cm 'margin of error' line on to the current VAR line that denotes the last defender that should do the trick. As mentioned in a previous post, to simplify matters, I would prefer there has to be a 'clear gap' between the forward and the last defender before being flagged offside.
Football is an entertainment, goals are its bloodline. We can't be disallowing goals because someone has got big feet or a big hooter. A forward does not have the advantage of lines drawn across the pitch and by instinct, will try to gain an inch on the defender. We don't want our forwards to have to go backwards to often. The current law is to the advantage of defenders and for the sake of entertainment, the advantage should be to the attacking side.
That is my worry, Mr Bully.
The ten centimetre lines could work, I suppose.
One change I would make to the offside rule now is to make it so that attacking players' arms don't count. As they can no longer possibly gain an advantage by handling the ball, even accidentally, then they can't gain an advantage if their arm is offside. Therefore it shouldn't be a foul.
Arms don't count anyway. Only parts of your body that can legally score can be offside.
-
Is that right? Well, ermm... that's okay then!
-
But what about a millimetre in or outside of the 10cm? Where do you stop having an argument?
I was going to post something similar. 😂
-
But what about a millimetre in or outside of the 10cm? Where do you stop having an argument?
I was going to post something similar. 😂
And a shoulder being an inch past a defender's foot several yards outside the penalty area... not much of an advantage in my opinion.
-
I would prefer there has to be a 'clear gap' between the forward and the last defender before being flagged offside.
Totally agree, the problem here is not with VAR it's with the offside rule - something that cannot be detected by the human eye at normal speed should not be checked/overruled by a slowed down video - you cannot detect millimeter infringements at normal speed, you need the gap.
-
I would prefer there has to be a 'clear gap' between the forward and the last defender before being flagged offside.
Aye, 100 per cent.
Should be looking to reward attacking play, not hinder it.
If a forward is half soaked enough to wander offside as JPA always seemed to do, penalise that. But it's a nonsense flagging an offside because the forward's arm/ eyebrow/ left testicle is fractionally just past the last man.
Benefit of the doubt should be given to the attacker.
-
I would prefer there has to be a 'clear gap' between the forward and the last defender before being flagged offside.
Aye, 100 per cent.
Should be looking to reward attacking play, not hinder it.
If a forward is half soaked enough to wander offside as JPA always seemed to do, penalise that. But it's a nonsense flagging an offside because the forward's arm/ eyebrow/ left testicle is fractionally just past the last man.
Benefit of the doubt should be given to the attacker.
I'm not sure Tyrone Mings, Bjorn Engles, et al, would agree with you.
Defending can be an art form/skill, just as much as attacking.
They're all playing to the same rules, so it fair. Once you start asking defenders to get a tape out to measure if they've got a gap of 9.9cms, and not 10cms, the games completely fucked.
No reward/advantage should be given to strikers/attackers. If they're good enough, they'll score within the rules, and without needing help.
-
Until 100% perfection is fully proven, for offside, a 'margin of error' of 10 centimeters should be allowed to the advantage of the attacking team. :)
How are you going to decide whether it is ten centimetres, use VAR? I'd say it would be much more difficult to judge whether a player is 9.9 or 10.1 cm offside than it would be just to judge if a player is offside.
I don't really get why people are so worried about offsides and VAR, it's one area that the technology should get right 99% of the time. The only issue would be where an official or a player who wasn't interfering with player obstructed the camera so as to make it unclear, in which case the decision would be made by the assistant referee.
If we add a 10cm 'margin of error' line on to the current VAR line that denotes the last defender that should do the trick. As mentioned in a previous post, to simplify matters, I would prefer there has to be a 'clear gap' between the forward and the last defender before being flagged offside.
Football is an entertainment, goals are its bloodline. We can't be disallowing goals because someone has got big feet or a big hooter. A forward does not have the advantage of lines drawn across the pitch and by instinct, will try to gain an inch on the defender. We don't want our forwards to have to go backwards to often. The current law is to the advantage of defenders and for the sake of entertainment, the advantage should be to the attacking side.
That is my worry, Mr Bully.
The ten centimetre lines could work, I suppose.
One change I would make to the offside rule now is to make it so that attacking players' arms don't count. As they can no longer possibly gain an advantage by handling the ball, even accidentally, then they can't gain an advantage if their arm is offside. Therefore it shouldn't be a foul.
Arms don't count anyway. Only parts of your body that can legally score can be offside.
What about dicks? Can a player be offside just for getting a bit too excited?
-
Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe the rules of the game prohibit a goal being scored with a penis, so yeah technically you could be offside via an erection I guess.
-
One change I would make to the offside rule now is to make it so that attacking players' arms don't count. As they can no longer possibly gain an advantage by handling the ball, even accidentally, then they can't gain an advantage if their arm is offside. Therefore it shouldn't be a foul.
Arms don't count anyway. Only parts of your body that can legally score can be offside.
Pretty sure a few goals have been disallowed for elbows being offside...an England goal certainly was in the WWC.
-
Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe the rules of the game prohibit a goal being scored with a penis, so yeah technically you could be offside via an erection I guess.
Scored a hattrick with mine once.
-
Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe the rules of the game prohibit a goal being scored with a penis, so yeah technically you could be offside via an erection I guess.
Scored a hattrick with mine once.
Big head
-
Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe the rules of the game prohibit a goal being scored with a penis, so yeah technically you could be offside via an erection I guess.
Scored a hattrick with mine once.
I remember Subbuteo, too! ;)
-
Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe the rules of the game prohibit a goal being scored with a penis, so yeah technically you could be offside via an erection I guess.
Tammy scored a goal with his todger last season.
One minute in on the video
-
One minute's a bit of a quick finish ain't it?
-
Excuse my faulty memory of matters penile but I would have thought, from memory an erection would tend to bring the most forward part of the male anatomy back onside while a semi would have the organ in a more horizontal position. A floppy might be onside or offside depending on the angle of dangle.
-
One minute's a bit of a quick finish ain't it?
Hark at Mr Showoff there!
-
One minute's a bit of a quick finish ain't it?
Hark at Mr Showoff there!
Just admiring efficiency! :D
-
POINTLESS
-
Where was it today?
-
If it can't correct a decision like that and put manners on a complete homer such as Kevin Bellend then what is all the fuss about.
-
Is it from next season that they're using VAR? Because they don't seem to want to use it this season.
-
https://twitter.com/it_is_elliott/status/1167828693827424257
How the fuck does VAR not give that as a goal? If that had been a goal disallowed in our favour i'd have thought we were jammy as fuck to get away with it, and i'd still be asking what exactly is the point of VAR.
Kevin Friend and VAR can suck my fucking balls, useless wankers.
-
A neutral viewpoint of this incident from somewhere else....
"Another completely laughable decision in Villa's game today where VAR should clearly intervene.
Grealish is tackled as he passes leading to a goal, but the ref wrongly sees it Grealish as the offender and gives a freekick cancelling the equalizer. Anyone with 2 eyes can clearly see this is a wrong decision, but yet VAR doesn't intervene costing Villa a point. Great protests from the Villa players "
-
I said exactly this about VAR.
it all well and good using it to rules goals out, but it cant overrule shit decisions by a ref that immediately led to a goal.
Waste of fucking time.
-
It can, and should, overrule shit decisions like that by the referee.
I've said all along it should be up to managers to have two challenges. Don't let cheats like Friend have the final say.
-
Implementation of VAR isn't right, last weekend you saw obvious penalties not being given. We got away with one when Trezeguet kicked a Bournemouth player in the box.
If the ref is wrong, he's wrong. You shouldn't make a song and dance about bringing this in if you're just going to side with refs when they make wrong decisions.
-
There is no point at all in having VAR it wild seem.
-
Bag of fucking wank.
-
There is every point in VAR. Today was a great example of why it should be used. It shouldn't be left up to cheats like Friend, though.
-
VAR is going with the on-field decision 9 times out of 10. It's the referee's union sticking up for eachother.
-
There is every point in VAR. Today was a great example of why it should be used. It shouldn't be left up to cheats like Friend, though.
The point is, it wasn't and that's why it's currently not fit for purpose. It's ruining the game.
-
I hate VAR and would gladly abandon it now but this was an instance where it should have been used to correct the mistake, if it wasn’t there, same outcome surely?
-
How did it ruin the game, it wasn't used!
-
Fuck it in the fucking bin. I defended it in the summer but after seeing how it's been used or rather not used so far this season, there's entirely no point to it. Hasn't changed shite refereeing one bit. All it's done when it's been used is get people's backs up about millimetres. No improvement on where we were before.
-
Dreadful decision in the Leicester game as well. One of the worst tackles you’ll see reviewed and then not given as red.
-
How did it ruin the game, it wasn't used!
By game, I mean the sport.
Yes, it wasn't used, that's the point. It should have been used to correct the refs mistake.
-
Get rid. Utterly pointless.
-
It's not pointless, it needs to be used properly. And Friend needs to be banned, stop using VAR as a reason to excuse the cheating bastard
-
It's not pointless, it needs to be used properly. And Friend needs to be banned, stop using VAR as a reason to excuse the cheating bastard
VAR supported his decision. Which we all agree - as do all neutrals I've seen comment on the decision - was incorrect. So what's the point of VAR then?
-
Make it simple:
Each manager gets 2/3 challenges per game. They can choose when to use them.. simple?
-
It's pointless because it serves no purposeful use.
-
The premier league directive is the issue.
It's odd as in FA cup you've had refs going to monitors constantly to look at decisions. I know the time delay annoys people as much but at least the ref is getting visual evidence of whether his decision is right or not rather than just a word in the ear.
Don't think I've seen a ref yet this season go and watch a monitor pitch side. Put one by the corner flag if people are worried about the time it will take.
-
Friend didn't cheat and it's pretty saft saying he did, and I don't think VAR checked the decision at the time. Or even if it did it couldn't overrule on the goal if Friend had already blown for the 'dive'.
What should happen, imo, is that in that situation now we have VAR even if the ref thinks there's a dive play continues, if a goal is scored and ref immediately indicates a VAR check. He says "I felt X player dived, please check if he did" and VAR looks and says yes he did or no he didn't.
-
VAR could not have given us the goal back, as the ref, mistakenly in my view, blew his whistle before we scored.
As far as I'm aware, VAR is not yet going to be used for every free kick or foul given, unless it results in a penalty or denies a penalty.
-
The premier league directive is the issue.
It's odd as in FA cup you've had refs going to monitors constantly to look at decisions. I know the time delay annoys people as much but at least the ref is getting visual evidence of whether his decision is right or not rather than just a word in the ear.
Don't think I've seen a ref yet this season go and watch a monitor pitch side. Put one by the corner flag if people are worried about the time it will take.
How many Premier League screens have big screens in their grounds to show replays anyway? They don't need to come over to the touchline to view a small screen when it's being shown to the crowd seconds later anyway.
-
It's pointless. I didn't like it, and I like it even less tonight.
No doubt we'll get Alan Shearer telling us all about it again on the big screen at Villa Park before the West Ham me.
-
Gary Lineker
The disallowed goal for @AVFCOfficial in the last minute has to be seen to be believed. Why VAR didn’t correct what appeared to be an awful refereeing error is beyond me.
-
Utterly pointless if it isn’t going to correct stuff like that.
-
Friend didn't cheat and it's pretty saft saying he did, and I don't think VAR checked the decision at the time. Or even if it did it couldn't overrule on the goal if Friend had already blown for the 'dive'.
What should happen, imo, is that in that situation now we have VAR even if the ref thinks there's a dive play continues, if a goal is scored and ref immediately indicates a VAR check. He says "I felt X player dived, please check if he did" and VAR looks and says yes he did or no he didn't.
As ever PWS trouble with that is far too much common sense would be applied and we see frequently in Football it's rarely used on and off the pitch.
To think a player has dived and actually book them you must be 100% and well from the replays it simply wasn't due to contact from at least one Palace player.
Really poor and exactly the sort of decision that should be looked at and reversed.
Only thing I would say is last week Jack had similar run in at the other end with Richarlison. I thought there was enough there for a penalty tbh and was amazed it wasn't referred.
So we lose out on point today but could've easily struggled to get one last week if that was given and Everton had scored to go one up.
-
It's not pointless, it needs to be used properly. And Friend needs to be banned, stop using VAR as a reason to excuse the cheating bastard
VAR supported his decision. Which we all agree - as do all neutrals I've seen comment on the decision - was incorrect. So what's the point of VAR then?
Where has this info come from please?
If accurate that’s pretty scary that Friend wasn’t the only imbecile on the ref team.
-
The premier league directive is the issue.
It's odd as in FA cup you've had refs going to monitors constantly to look at decisions. I know the time delay annoys people as much but at least the ref is getting visual evidence of whether his decision is right or not rather than just a word in the ear.
Don't think I've seen a ref yet this season go and watch a monitor pitch side. Put one by the corner flag if people are worried about the time it will take.
How many Premier League screens have big screens in their grounds to show replays anyway? They don't need to come over to the touchline to view a small screen when it's being shown to the crowd seconds later anyway.
Just going by what they do at World cups and in the foreign leagues, always a monitor on the halfway line by the dugouts.
-
The frustration of VAR is that this utopia of getting everything right just doesn't exist so both ourselves today and Spurs last week feel doubly hard done by which is surely not the intention. It sounds like Freind had a stinker, you can view it as cheating or incompetence, but if we go down by a point it will be our own fault, not down to him. We still have plenty of time to redress the balance.
VAR is as flawed as the team of officials it claims to help.
-
Indeed, so maybe get an independent group working on VAR and not guys that will be in the VAR office one week and refereeing on the pitch the next week.
-
It's not pointless, it needs to be used properly. And Friend needs to be banned, stop using VAR as a reason to excuse the cheating bastard
VAR supported his decision. Which we all agree - as do all neutrals I've seen comment on the decision - was incorrect. So what's the point of VAR then?
Where has this info come from please?
If accurate that’s pretty scary that Friend wasn’t the only imbecile on the ref team.
Reported as follows in the Telegraph amongst other sources: "A Premier League official at Selhurst Park confirmed the decision would have been reviewed by VAR as a matter of course."
As I said before it doesn't work so fuck it out the window.
-
If var had been used it would at least have cast doubt on Friend's decision. I expect Friend didn't use var because he was worried about what the response would be. A bit like, if you don't like the answer don't ask the question.
-
VAR won’t solve corrupt officiating.
-
You have just described corrupt activity.
-
VAR won’t solve corrupt officiating.
Outside the realms of possibility for it to happen in the English game, according to some. Just have to ignore the evidence before your own eyes.
-
OK we know there are mistakes by referees, but fuck me, how is that clown today allowed to ref a game, and how the fuck will he be allowed to ref any other Premier League game?
And please tell me, why the fuck wasn't the cheating bastards decision looked at and overturned???
My understanding of VAR, was that those who were on the VAR monitors, contacted the ref if a decision was a Fuck up.
If that's the case, then those refs on the monitors were either totally fucking incompetent, or they were all fucking cheats.
Sorry if my swearing upsets anyone, and leads me to being banned, but tough shit.
I've said it as I've seen it !!!
-
Having just seen on MOTD you are right Eddie, it’s cheating
-
And how was it not a pen for Haller in the West Ham game?
-
And how was it not a pen for Haller in the West Ham game?
Yeah another shocking refereeing decision and an even worse one by whichever numpty was controlling VAR.
-
Not sure if this has been shared yet but the following is from the Premier League's statement on the incident:
"Under the IFAB Protocol the VAR is allowed to review the potential penalty situation. Having reviewed the incident the VAR judged that no ‘Clear and Obvious’ error had occurred and the on-field decision of simulation remained.
The VAR was unable to check the ‘goal’ because the whistle went before the ball went into the net."
So there we are. VAR says it was a dive too.
Fuck it out the window.
-
If it's not going to give the correct decision I fail to see the point of VAR.
-
And how was it not a pen for Haller in the West Ham game?
VAR has missed loads of clear penalties so far, players getting kicked in airs and yet no penalties given as it dosen't seem "clear and obvious" enough apparently.
You all see awful challenges like Tielemans not getting punished either.
I'm not anti-Var but the implementation so far has been poor and made it pretty worthless in its use.
-
The Newcastle goal should have been disallowed as well.
-
Imagine today’s scenario with Liverpool at home needing a goal in the 96th minute. Ref still makes the same decision? They’re fucking corrupt at times
-
Not sure if this has been shared yet but the following is from the Premier League's statement on the incident:
"Under the IFAB Protocol the VAR is allowed to review the potential penalty situation. Having reviewed the incident the VAR judged that no ‘Clear and Obvious’ error had occurred and the on-field decision of simulation remained.
The VAR was unable to check the ‘goal’ because the whistle went before the ball went into the net."
So there we are. VAR says it was a dive too.
Fuck it out the window.
Well, I’m not sure, it’s concluding it’s a dive, it’s in their opinion saying it wasn’t clear and obviously missed penalty, ie it could have been a fair challenge/fall etc, but not a glaring penalty.
What it’s not doing presumably is reviewing if it was or wasn’t a dive, do that decision remained.
It’s hard to imagine how you can undo the appalling decision to blow the whistle, which of course any oppo player could say they stopped playing after.
It’s deeply disappointing that we have this system but it’s not set up to be able to avoid cock ups like that. My gut feeling is we’ll eventually get better usage but that’s no comfort to the victims of a failed experiment, us.
All of that doesn’t challenge your conclusion about the defenestration of VAR.
-
Has to be clear and obvious. Yet it's only use has been to chalk off goals where 1.5mm of a right knee has strayed offside.
Fucking shite.
-
And to disallow a Man City goal for an accidental handball, but not disallow the Newcastle goal today for the same thing.
-
In the 40 odd games so far, has VAR overturned an on field decision by a ref? I don’t mean disallowing a goal, or pointing to something completely missed by a ref, I mean the ref has blown his whistle, and VAR has said, “No, you’ve got that wrong”?
Has a penalty been given by a ref and then rescinded by VAR?
I just wonder how much remit there is - if any - for VAR to contradict a ref for an onfield decision he’s made, and if that’s by design, or is just working that way in practise.
-
Ok it's the day after the event. I've now watched THAT incident over and over. My take is this. The first foul on Grealish was outside the box so VAR coul not have given us a pen. The referee is the culprit here. He's totally on board with the "Grealish is a fucking diver" bullshit. He couldn't wait to wipe the smile off Jacks face so to me it was personal and totally unproffessional bordering on a charge of bringing the game into disrepute. Jack was fouled but in stumbling forward still had the presence of mind to poke the ball to the unmarked Lansbury. He made no appeal for any foul or penalty. He did what we've been calling for him to do. He made a great forward run which completely unhinged Palace.He made a killer through ball and we snatched a last gasp and probably undeserved equaliser. Then Mr Friend let his preconception of Jack take over which totally clouded his mind and he quite literally couldn't wait to "punish" Jack and punish us. It was unproffessional. It was personal. I don't see how he can keep his reffereeing credentials after that. As for VAR i haven't seen them get involved with any decision for fouls outside the box with the exception of offsides. Even there i think it's fatally flawed. You can not give offside when your talking about a few millimetres. At the speed of todays game you have to be 100% certain of the precise moment the ball leaves the foot of the passing player and the system simply isn't accurate enough to do that. My two penneth.
-
Some odd VAR decisions in the leicester game too.
-
As with the handball laws I think the use or misuse of VAR has thrown up issues/inconsistencies with the rules around simulation. If there's a situation where there is contact but it is not a foul (which it is arguable is the situation in the penalty area yesterday) is it fair to book the player who's gone down? Being hyper-critical you could say Jack went down flamboyantly and certainly Conor was appealing strongly for a pen even if Jack wasn't. Personally I think it is harsh in the extreme to book someone for diving when there has been contact, see also the Man U player last week. Also I should add I think you could easily have given a pen there and Palace wouldn't have had much complaint. To go completely the other way and penalise us is just baffling. We have been extremely unlucky to be the victim of a ridiculous decision which by all accounts was the icing on the cake of a one eyed display. This has then been compounded by a chain of events that have meant that VAR is in no position to right this wrong.
-
As with the handball laws I think the use or misuse of VAR has thrown up issues/inconsistencies with the rules around simulation. If there's a situation where there is contact but it is not a foul (which it is arguable is the situation in the penalty area yesterday) is it fair to book the player who's gone down? Being hyper-critical you could say Jack went down flamboyantly and certainly Conor was appealing strongly for a pen even if Jack wasn't. Personally I think it is harsh in the extreme to book someone for diving when there has been contact, see also the Man U player last week. Also I should add I think you could easily have given a pen there and Palace wouldn't have had much complaint. To go completely the other way and penalise us is just baffling. We have been extremely unlucky to be the victim of a ridiculous decision which by all accounts was the icing on the cake of a one eyed display. This has then been compounded by a chain of events that have meant that VAR is in no position to right this wrong.
The one thing you can't blame Friend for is the sending off of Trezeguet. His assault on Zaha while already on a deserved yellow was just plain stupid. I've been pretty underwhelmed by him up to now. Having said all that i think Chris Kamaras reaction on Sky live commentary was very telling "Kevin Friend seemed very happy to send a Villa player off. He couldn't wait to show the red card and he looked like he relished it" An independant view that tells a story of the refs performance yesterday.
-
Some odd VAR decisions in the leicester game too.
Yes, the decision to book Wilson for diving was very iffy, a player can fall and it not be either a penalty or a dive. I thought he got the Tienemans one right, it looked bad but I think he was trying to pul!out of the challenge.
-
I suspect someone somewhere has had a very large bet on Palace to win one nil, and Villa to finnish with ten players.
-
All things considered i've come to the conclusion that VAR could become the worst thing to happen to the game in it's 140 odd year existence. It's fundementally changed the whole spirit of the game. But unfortunately i think it's here to stay.
-
I suspect someone somewhere has had a very large bet on Palace to win one nil, and Villa to finnish with ten players.
I think I know who. He's no Friend of ours.
-
Did the referee actually blow? The immediate actions of our players suggest that he didn’t.
It looks like a very easy cop out for the FA to claim this.
Although it is only a point and most likely won’t have any impact come the end of the season, it’s heaped immense pressure on us for the next game and possibly the one afterwards as well.
A point under the circumstances yesterday would have been massive and a tremendous confidence booster.
That bloke should never be let near a PL match again. It’s probably the worst refereeing decision I’ve ever seen.
-
If you are disappointed by yesterday’s decision that is exactly why we need VAR. We shouldn’t be ‘fucking it off’ we should be tweaking and improving it so ****** like Friend can’t keep ruining games in the future.
There will always be a bedding in period and as and when it has been sorted out the pain of this season will hopefully have been worth it.
-
If you are disappointed by yesterday’s decision that is exactly why we need VAR. We shouldn’t be ‘fucking it off’ we should be tweaking and improving it so c***s like Friend can’t keep ruining games in the future.
There will always be a bedding in period and as and when it has been sorted out the pain of this season will hopefully have been worth it.
The argument is that if the whistle was blown, you cannot fall back on VAR.
The ref was at fault 2 fold. Firstly for deeming it a dive and secondly blowing his whistle thus denying us the opportunity to use VAR which would have allowed the goal to stand.
This incident aside, VAR is becoming controversial and inconsistent every batch of fixtures that are played.
-
Did the referee actually blow?
Dunno but he definitely sucked.
-
You never see his hand go towards his mouth so he must have had the whistle already in his mouth ready to blow before play even developed.
-
If you are disappointed by yesterday’s decision that is exactly why we need VAR. We shouldn’t be ‘fucking it off’ we should be tweaking and improving it so c***s like Friend can’t keep ruining games in the future.
There will always be a bedding in period and as and when it has been sorted out the pain of this season will hopefully have been worth it.
The argument is that if the whistle was blown, you cannot fall back on VAR.
The ref was at fault 2 fold. Firstly for deeming it a dive and secondly blowing his whistle thus denying us the opportunity to use VAR which would have allowed the goal to stand.
This incident aside, VAR is becoming controversial and inconsistent every batch of fixtures that are played.
I agree. But refs will learn to start working with VAR and hopefully let situations like yesterday play out. Friend fucked up so badly yesterday VAR couldn’t step in. Hopefully in future it will be able to.
-
You never see his hand go towards his mouth so he must have had the whistle already in his mouth ready to blow before play even developed.
Loads of people are saying this since Linekar's throw away comment. You don't see him blow his whistle because from all angles that were broadcast, he's taken out of the shot for a second as the ball moves out to Lansbury, but he blows the whistle just as Lansbury is lining up the shot, which was pretty piss poor.
-
If you are disappointed by yesterday’s decision that is exactly why we need VAR. We shouldn’t be ‘fucking it off’ we should be tweaking and improving it so c***s like Friend can’t keep ruining games in the future.
There will always be a bedding in period and as and when it has been sorted out the pain of this season will hopefully have been worth it.
The argument is that if the whistle was blown, you cannot fall back on VAR.
The ref was at fault 2 fold. Firstly for deeming it a dive and secondly blowing his whistle thus denying us the opportunity to use VAR which would have allowed the goal to stand.
This incident aside, VAR is becoming controversial and inconsistent every batch of fixtures that are played.
I agree. But refs will learn to start working with VAR and hopefully let situations like yesterday play out. Friend fucked up so badly yesterday VAR couldn’t step in. Hopefully in future it will be able to.
Deliberately, IMHO.
-
You never see his hand go towards his mouth so he must have had the whistle already in his mouth ready to blow before play even developed.
Loads of people are saying this since Linekar's throw away comment. You don't see him blow his whistle because from all angles that were broadcast, he's taken out of the shot for a second as the ball moves out to Lansbury, but he blows the whistle just as Lansbury is lining up the shot, which was pretty piss poor.
Just a thought. If the whistle was blown for a dive, why couldn’t VAR look at it to determine if it was a penalty or a dive?
-
It did, and decided that the referee’s decision was correct.
-
It decided it wasn’t a clear and obvious error..
-
Yes, we can use VAR more effectively in an attempt to police Friend.
Or perhaps don't have shithouses like that on the elite level referee list in the first place. Put the money into better training. As others have pointed out, his band of admirers continues to grow and grow.
Yesterday's game wasn't a fiery encounter between two rivals, it didn't need that level of intervention. The best refs are still the ones you don't notice.
-
The best refs are still the ones who give us everything.
-
Yes, we can use VAR more effectively in an attempt to police Friend.
Or perhaps don't have shithouses like that on the elite level referee list in the first place. Put the money into better training. As others have pointed out, his band of admirers continues to grow and grow.
Yesterday's game wasn't a fiery encounter between two rivals, it didn't need that level of intervention. The best refs are still the ones you don't notice.
So true.
-
It decided it wasn’t a clear and obvious error..
Was it a penalty or not? It shouldn’t matter if it’s clear and/or obvious. VAR should be in place to assist unclear/non obvious decisions.
-
I actually think they're trying to have VAR delay games as little as possible as that was one of the big complaints during the women's word cup, but in doing so they're getting quite a few decisions wrong. I either want no VAR, or VAR getting decisions right even if it means numerous delays, this inbetween stuff at present is just pointless to me.
-
Just as VAR can penalise cheating, fouling ****** who play football, I would like VAR to penalise incompetent, wanker referees*who fuck up our days. ******!
*I know. It won't.
-
The ref in the Glasgow Derby today was superb.
-
I think you need two refs in the VAR centre for subjective decisions, that along with the referee on the pitch mans that these important and doubted decisions can be decided by the majority decision.
It could slow it down, but if we must have the system we have to do what is needed to make it worthwhile.
-
The ref in the Glasgow Derby today was superb.
I thought he was awful. Kept letting dangerous tackles go unpunished. McGregor and Jack both should have been sent off. You shouldn't apply different rules just because it's a derby. In any other match they'd have gone. Very lucky that no players were seriously injured.
-
AS others have already said ....Currently it's pointless. They've tied themselves up in knots about when it should and shouldn't intervene and it means it doesn't do what it was supposed to do in the first place , which is to stop travesties and miscarriages of justice like that.
It's not fit for purpose and currently it's making referees worse not better.
-
Kevin Friend
13h
I’m glad @CPFC praised my performance yesterday, & thanks for the free gifts from your club shop. #Palace #villa
-
Kevin Friend
13h
I’m glad @CPFC praised my performance yesterday, & thanks for the free gifts from your club shop. #Palace #villa
As believable as that is, its a parody account.
-
Dammit I wanted to see how many fell for it!
-
Killing the game and only 4 weeks in
-
VAR or no VAR, Friend would still have disallowed the goal...because he's incompetent.
-
It decided it wasn’t a clear and obvious error..
Was it a penalty or not? It shouldn’t matter if it’s clear and/or obvious. VAR should be in place to assist unclear/non obvious decisions.
So in effect var is sitting on the fence. Dean Smith should request clarification on the sequence of events.
Apparently var look at all goals now so if Friend had not judged it a dive and given a goal would var have intervened and disallowed the goal? Highly unlikely I'd say.
-
I think you need two refs in the VAR centre for subjective decisions, that along with the referee on the pitch mans that these important and doubted decisions can be decided by the majority decision.
It could slow it down, but if we must have the system we have to do what is needed to make it worthwhile.
Every VAR ref has an assistant
-
There's a whole bunch of problems here.
VAR can't review because the whistle went as Lansbury was shooting.
Diving or penalty is, in this case, being treated as a binary decision but it clearly isn't, there's plenty of cases where a player can go down in a tackle but not have dived or expect a foul, looking at the reaction of Jack that seems to be the case here. VAR shouldn't be having to decide if it was a dive or if it should be a penalty, was it a dive yes or no, is it a penalty yes or no, 2 separate decisions (and both no in my opinion). This wouldn't have given us a goal but it would remove the yellow card.
To play devils advocate it could be that Friend believed VAR wouldn't be allowed to disallow the goal because of a dive so felt he had to stop play. If that's the case then VAR as it stands isn't working because the whole point is that you let the play flow and then review once the ball goes dead.
For VAR to be accepted there has to be more transparency so the conversation between the ref and VAR needs to be on the tannoy. That's a big part of why the decisions in rugby and cricket are accepted without much argument by either side. In this case we may well have heard that the only option VAR had was to give a penalty and it decided there wasn't enough contact for that meaning everything else stays with the decisions of Friend. Doesn't make the decision any better and doesn't stop the goal being disallowed but it makes the VAR portion make sense and pins the blame firmly on the ref.
-
Excellent post, Paul and my thoughts exactly. The only way they are going to gain supporters' trust (by that i mean those in the ground), is to make the conversation audible and visible to everyone present. Until they do, people are naturally going to harbour conspiracy beliefs, as we did on Saturday. Additionally, the whole set up of who calls the shots needs reviewing too - Mike Riley isn't fit for purpose.
-
The absence of consistency is what's always been frustrating.
Would we have lost to Bournemouth if Billings had walked inside 40 minutes like he should have done? Trez deserved to be sent off, but Billings got away with 4 bookable offences.
So here we sit, with 3 points instead of 4, maybe 5 points because of gross incompetence directly impacting results. And where's VAR?
An atrocious system.
-
It wasn’t taken to VAR because apparently that twat of a referee blew his whistle before the ball hit the back of the net. VAR cannot be blamed in its current use due to the actions of an incompetent match official making up and enforcing his own version of the rules.
-
Dammit I wanted to see how many fell for it!
For what purpose?
-
Dammit I wanted to see how many fell for it!
For what purpose?
Shit gallows humour.
-
VAR=Very Annoying Referee and we seem to get plenty of those.
At present I see no point in it especially if a dickhead referee pre-empts its use by blowing his whistle as KF did Saturday.
I would respect it more if it was used to review a poor decision by a referee.
Friend's performance needs highlighting and punishing and the best way of doing that in a one off exercise, as a warning to all referees to do their job properly, would be for the authorities to award Villa 1 point whilst allowing palace to keep all 3 of theirs. After all players receive retrospective bans. I know this won't happen but something should!
Friend should certainly be made to apologise to the club and its fans publicly as his actions were public Saturday. If he did so his vanity would ensure he would never make that mistake again.
-
It wasn’t taken to VAR because apparently that twat of a referee blew his whistle before the ball hit the back of the net. VAR cannot be blamed in its current use due to the actions of an incompetent match official making up and enforcing his own version of the rules.
The whistle noise they showed on MOTD didn't sound like any referee's whistle I've ever heard, and as Gary Lineker pointed out, the ref didn't appear to move his hands from his sides at all in the footage. Maybe he already had his whistle in his mouth ready, who knows!
-
On the "was it a penalty" question I like a number on here didn't really feel Cahill catching Jack was a penalty but apparently Keith Hackett the former ref does. No consistency and I guess the only thing that is clear and obvious is that referees don't know what they are doing?
-
I have been out all morning and am wondering if anyone watched SSN? I ask because they usually have Dermot Gallagher on to discuss any contentious refereeing decisions that have occurred over the weekend. He's usually quite balanced and I'm wondering what was his take on it, providing he was on.
-
I have been out all morning and am wondering if anyone watched SSN? I ask because they usually have Dermot Gallagher on to discuss any contentious refereeing decisions that have occurred over the weekend. He's usually quite balanced and I'm wondering what was his take on it, providing he was on.
Im not sure even he had a clue , just watched it .
-
I've no idea if it was a penalty or not, to be honest I probably wouldn't have given it because even in replays I haven't seen anything to make me convinced it definitely was. I also think if there was a serious call for it then Jack would have reacted to it as he went down.
One thing is absolutely clear to me though, that you cannot blow for and book a player for diving when they haven't even made any indication that they even felt they were fouled.
-
I have been out all morning and am wondering if anyone watched SSN? I ask because they usually have Dermot Gallagher on to discuss any contentious refereeing decisions that have occurred over the weekend. He's usually quite balanced and I'm wondering what was his take on it, providing he was on.
Im not sure even he had a clue , just watched it .
Ta.
-
The absence of consistency is what's always been frustrating.
Would we have lost to Bournemouth if Billings had walked inside 40 minutes like he should have done? Trez deserved to be sent off, but Billings got away with 4 bookable offences.
So here we sit, with 3 points instead of 4, maybe 5 points because of gross incompetence directly impacting results. And where's VAR?
An atrocious system.
and their player pulled a Villa shirt back first half and didnt get booked and got a yellow second half so fairly he should have gone , the way he was booking Villa players .
-
This pic seems to show he has the whistle to his mouth
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDcr6E6WsAE9aZZ?format=jpg&name=900x900)
-
That's quite clearly him eating from a tube of Smarties in his other hand.
-
I have been out all morning and am wondering if anyone watched SSN? I ask because they usually have Dermot Gallagher on to discuss any contentious refereeing decisions that have occurred over the weekend. He's usually quite balanced and I'm wondering what was his take on it, providing he was on.
Gallagher started off by defending VAR because it was not consulted due to the referee playing his whistle. He then went on to say that he didn’t think it was a dive, and it was a mistake by the referee. All 3 of them agreed that the goal should not have been disallowed.
-
This pic seems to show he has the whistle to his mouth
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDcr6E6WsAE9aZZ?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Grealish already up, hadn't complained at all, and Lansbury just getting ready to pull the trigger. It's almost like Friend knew exactly what he was doing.
-
Meanwhile Cahill is still down holding his leg from a no contact dive.
-
The ref in the Glasgow Derby today was superb.
I thought he was awful. Kept letting dangerous tackles go unpunished.
And there you have it the dilemma of being a ref when two very reasonable fans call it like this.
-
This pic seems to show he has the whistle to his mouth
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDcr6E6WsAE9aZZ?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Grealish already up, hadn't complained at all, and Lansbury just getting ready to pull the trigger. It's almost like Friend knew exactly what he was doing.
I think blowing up for a dive when the player has made a pass and the recipient is 'in his swing' is a new level of shithousery (and rules out any idea that palace players had stopped). I honestly can't think of a worse decision I've ever seen, not just because he got it wrong but because he seemed so determined to undermine the ability of VAR to dispute the decision.
-
If the governing bodies truly want VAR to work then let it make correct decisions irrespective of the referees whistle. Because if it’s not being used to actually give correct decisions then how is it an enhancement to the human only system we had before? If it sees an infraction or if it notices the referee and assistant missed something or our case blew the whistle too early that panel should be able to tell the referee that a mistake has been. If not it literally has no use at all.
-
This pic seems to show he has the whistle to his mouth
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDcr6E6WsAE9aZZ?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Grealish already up, hadn't complained at all, and Lansbury just getting ready to pull the trigger. It's almost like Friend knew exactly what he was doing.
I quite agree, that photo clearly shows he was watching Lansbury - not Grealish; Zaha has his hand in the air saying not my fault he fell and Cahill is writhing on the ground from contact with the player who had the ball - begs the question(s) how was there a simulated dive if 2 x Palace players are admitting contact & why was the whistle blown just before the ball was struck by another player? Answer - if he had allowed the ball to be struck, then it would have had to go to VAR for a review on whether the goal should stand or be disallowed; he knew exactly what he was doing.
-
If the governing bodies truly want VAR to work then let it make correct decisions irrespective of the referees whistle. Because if it’s not being used to actually give correct decisions then how is it an enhancement to the human only system we had before? If it sees an infraction or if it notices the referee and assistant missed something or our case blew the whistle too early that panel should be able to tell the referee that a mistake has been. If not it literally has no use at all.
You quite simply can’t do that...the game would turn into an even greater farce than what it is now. Players are quite rightly brought up to play to the whistle, so any action further to a whistle is quite simply “not in play”. The Palace players could easily have argued that they stopped if the goal was awarded (even though it happened so quickly that would be impossible to confirm), so the crux of it is that referees must get their decisions correct or allow play to continue so it can be reviewed by VAR to get the right decision. It’s only when we have the likes of Friend running around the pitch like a little attention seeking Hitler making up their own rules that it all goes Pete Tong.
-
I have been out all morning and am wondering if anyone watched SSN? I ask because they usually have Dermot Gallagher on to discuss any contentious refereeing decisions that have occurred over the weekend. He's usually quite balanced and I'm wondering what was his take on it, providing he was on.
Hi Dave this is what was said.
Transcript of Source sky sports
INCIDENT: Henri Lansbury's goal is ruled out as the referee's whistle has already gone, so that Jack Grealish can be booked for simulation after going down under Gary Cahill's challenge. VAR does not give a penalty.
VERDICT: Wrong call, Grealish did not dive.
DERMOT SAYS:
"VAR was used partly on this. You have to go backwards on it. Did the referee blow the whistle before Lansbury hit the ball? He did, there's no doubt. So there's no way the goal could be given.
"You work backwards, was it a penalty, did Gary Cahill make a foul? The VAR looks at that and says no. I think they're right, it wasn't a foul, so you default back to the referee's decision which is that Jack Grealish simulated.
Whether you like it or not, VAR could not do anything about it. It all defaulted back to Kevin Friend.
"If the whistle hadn't gone, VAR would've checked whether the goal was legal, and the referee may well have said he felt there was a simulation, so I'm going to give that.
"They can check whether it's a penalty, but they cannot check simulation. The referee made his choice there, it's not the choice I would've made but he made it.
"There's three signs if we wait. Because the referee chose to make his decision when he hit the ground, that's the only thing you can look at.
"The referee's mindset is that he's gone over too easily, that he's trying to win a penalty. I thought it wasn't a dive. I thought Cahill has made contact."
Thank you for that, I appreciate it. Thank you to the other posters that replied also.
-
-
VAR in the Premier League
227 - Incidents checked by VAR
6 - On-field decisions changed
10 - Decisions that should have been overturned
Quelle surprise; the Establishment are trying to spin the outcomes of the experiment so far. These figures go nowhere near to describing the mess we've seen in just four weeks. Nice attempt at wallpapering over the cracks but we are not fooled.
VAR: Premier League referee chief Mike Riley admits four mistakes this season
Can anyone on this list spot an obvious error missing from this carefully selected list? Hmm? Anyone??
When pressed on why those mistakes were made, Riley added: "A combination of factors. That is the fascinating thing as this project evolves, we are constantly learning."
Then FFS do your learning away from the lives, careers and futures of the professional game, please. This is too important to act as a test-tube for you to 'learn' from. Such an irresponsible attitude is unforgiveable.
It's a mess at the moment; no-one has confidence in it because we can all see errors not being corrected. That was the whole point of introducing it. All we are treated to is more self-serving bullshit from the referees body propped-up by the PL telling us 'trust us to get it right in the long term'.
Is anyone else thinking that they are the last people we should trust? Kevin and his friends?
-
Could not agree more mate.
A bunch of self serving sanctimonious twats.
-
Mike Riley came out and backed Friend saying he got it right!
In my mind, that makes Riley an equally incompetent/cheat as Friend and also should never go near another pitch. Not even championship.
-
I assume by 'obvious error missing' you're referring to the Grealish dive/Lansbury goal.
On that basis lets repeat, VAR couldn't have done anything differently. The only choice they had to make was penalty yes or no, given no one even appealed they couldn't say it was an obvious error to not give the penalty so the on-field decision stays. The events after the 'incident' are irrelevant so "not a dive or a penalty so the goal stands" couldn't be an option because play had, technically, stopped before Lansbury took the shot.
Friend would know that the dive wouldn't have conveyed an advantage in the goal and therefore the goal couldn't be overruled because it was a dive so if he wanted to book Grealish he had blow the whistle before we scored.
The fault for this one lies entirely with the fucking abysmal decision of the on-field referee and no version of VAR would've seen us awarded that goal, VAR did nothing wrong.
The other incident we've had was where McGinn had a penalty shout denied against Tottenham. That one had a similar situation where there was a first challenge and then McGinn carried on and there was a challenge in the box. Again it was never a penalty so VAR got its review spot on (within it's remit). In both cases the issue is that there was a strong case for a free kick from the first challenges but the the games becoming stop-start (like in the Womens World Cup) meant the Premier League introduced a much more restricted version of VAR which doesn't allow the 'advantage', if the ref allows play to go on and then a 2nd incident occurs only the referee can take play back.
The short version, don't let Friend get away with being fucking useless by blaming VAR.
-
The short version, don't let Friend get away with being fucking useless by blaming VAR.
Accepted.
Words to live by.
-
Mike Riley was a god awful referee himself ,so its no surprise he thinks Friend made the correct decision
-
Where has Riley said Friend got it right? All i've seen is him saying there's been 4 VAR errors, which is very different to mentioning ref rights and wrongs.
-
I could've sworn there was something in an article saying he was happy with Friend's performance on the Monday after the game but I can't find it now.
-
Yes, said it right after the game.
-
I am certain i read Riley saying he thought Friend made the correct decision .I have tried to find where i read it but to no avail ,it was getting on for nearly a fortnight ago after all Anyway as far as i am concerned Riley was a a poor referee and Friend as most people have said got it wrong and made a terrible mistake and who knows it could have a big bearing come the end of the season
-
Riley said what Paul_e said.
It was terrible refereeing. Under the current system it was not a VAR failure. It should be a different system perhaps that could have overturned it, but once the whistle is blown oppo will just say they stopped playing. We’ve gone over this so many times.
-
How does VAR not give Liverpool a pen?
-
Literally just watched that this morning on MOTD. Incredible decision to give a penalty what are VAR doing
-
Literally just watched that this morning on MOTD. Incredible decision to give a penalty what are VAR doing
You literally watched it.
-
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
-
As much as I appreciated the cultural reference and chuckled (frankly most referees have looked like aliens to me for years) a serious point remains; how do we stop awful refereeing ruining games?
- It DOES matter when they make mistakes
- They DON’T even-out over a season
- It’s not good enough
We all deserve better. I’m pretty sure the clubs are as peed-off about the standard of refereeing as we are on the terraces. The players are as well, they have known for years what the numpties who administer the game on the pitch are like. The only people who force everyone else to suffer these awful performances week-in-week-out are the league administrators who support the referees organisation. They’re the ones we should put pressure on for change. They’re the ones who can make the difference.
Because the referees themselves sure as hell won’t, look at the mess they’re making of VAR so far.
-
Another VAR mess last night. Whilst it warms the heart to see Liverpool lose the penalty they conceded was a joke. The diving little bastard was going down long before he hit the defender's leg but because the ref gave it and it wasn't a "clear and obvious error" the penalty stands.
IFAB's obsession with avoiding "re-referreeing" matches is going to be the death of VAR. Where VAR works well, cricket and tennis, they have no qualms with overriding the onfield refs because the most important thing is getting the decision right. Cricket allows a bit of leeway for the inherent inaccuracies in the technology (ie umpire's call) but it's clearly explained - football isn't doing that, it's just implying the onfield ref is always right unless he's catastrophically wrong.
VAR is failing in it's sole objective - to cut down on debate over referreeing decisions - and if it can't do that, why would the watching world accept it's continued use?
-
I think the problem is more complex than that and comes down to trust. In other sports there is a greater degree of trust between officials, players and fans so when a marginal call goes with the ref it feels reasonable (outside of the moment, at the time it's very easy to get angry over it). In football that trust is missing, the most obvious evidence of it is that VAR happens in secret, any discussion or review is done in silence and the fans and players only see the aftermath of it. From the side of the officials I don't think they trust the technology to not undermine them and slow the game down too much and create problems by it becoming very stop-start so they're trying to take decisions out of the hands of VAR (Friend booking Jack being the best example of this).
In both cases putting the system onto speakers and having a live discussion that the fans can hear would go a long way to building that trust because the accountability would help fans and players understand the decisions but it would also help the officials realise that the anger directed to them is due to secrecy and inconsistency.
-
From the side of the officials I don't think they trust the technology to not undermine them
I'm always eager to listen to the reasoned, calm and objective points you make. But in the case above isn't that just another way of saying 'agree with the decision on the pitch whether it's right or wrong'?
If referees really do adopt that point of view then THEY are the problem, aren't they? Never accepting that you made a mistake is a fundamentally flawed stance because it is always wrong; humans make mistakes. It becomes terminal for them when we can see the pictures and watch the mistakes for ourselves.
-
From the side of the officials I don't think they trust the technology to not undermine them
I'm always eager to listen to the reasoned, calm and objective points you make. But in the case above isn't that just another way of saying 'agree with the decision on the pitch whether it's right or wrong'?
If referees really do adopt that point of view then THEY are the problem, aren't they? Never accepting that you made a mistake is a fundamentally flawed stance because it is always wrong; humans make mistakes. It becomes terminal for them when we can see the pictures and watch the mistakes for ourselves.
There's definitely an extent of that which is why the mindset of the officials has to be changed from seeing VAR as competition to seeing it as another tool to get the decision right. Imagine the game where assistant referees weren't a thing until suddenly being introduced to a game with wall-to-wall coverage as we have now. I suspect you'd have had similar issues with the ref trying to show 'who was boss' and ignoring flags or doing their best to make decisions before the assistant could step in.
Back to VAR I think that, by making the process more transparent and showing that it ensures correct decisions you'll see referees adapt, especially if it leads to fans being less hostile towards them. I just think the whole concept would work better if everyone understood it better. The arguments on here and more importantly on Social Media, show pretty clearly that the version of VAR that's in place just isn't understood very well.
-
From the side of the officials I don't think they trust the technology to not undermine them
I'm always eager to listen to the reasoned, calm and objective points you make. But in the case above isn't that just another way of saying 'agree with the decision on the pitch whether it's right or wrong'?
If referees really do adopt that point of view then THEY are the problem, aren't they? Never accepting that you made a mistake is a fundamentally flawed stance because it is always wrong; humans make mistakes. It becomes terminal for them when we can see the pictures and watch the mistakes for ourselves.
There's definitely an extent of that which is why the mindset of the officials has to be changed from seeing VAR as competition to seeing it as another tool to get the decision right. Imagine the game where assistant referees weren't a thing until suddenly being introduced to a game with wall-to-wall coverage as we have now. I suspect you'd have had similar issues with the ref trying to show 'who was boss' and ignoring flags or doing their best to make decisions before the assistant could step in.
Back to VAR I think that, by making the process more transparent and showing that it ensures correct decisions you'll see referees adapt, especially if it leads to fans being less hostile towards them. I just think the whole concept would work better if everyone understood it better. The arguments on here and more importantly on Social Media, show pretty clearly that the version of VAR that's in place just isn't understood very well.
Which bit of it don't you understand?
-
I just think the whole concept would work better if everyone understood it better.
Well I hate to disagree but I don't think the problem with referees and VAR at the moment is that WE are ignorant; it's that it fails to deliver fewer poor decisions.
-
Which bit of it don't you understand?
Nothing, but given the amount of people who wanted VAR to reward the Lansbury goal or who've complained about it other decisions I suspect there's a lot of people who don't understand it, which was my point.
I just think the whole concept would work better if everyone understood it better.
Well I hate to disagree but I don't think the problem with referees and VAR at the moment is that WE are ignorant; it's that it fails to deliver fewer poor decisions.
That's not what I'm saying. Whilst people are getting used to VAR I think being able to hear the conversations would make the process feel better and by being 'public' it would be harder for the officials to 'circle the wagons' and protect a bad a decision, which would force the ref in the middle to actually use the tool to ensure they get the decision right. That way VAR actually becomes protection for the ref because they have to present their thoughts on a incident live and have them confirmed, which should have exactly the effect you want of reducing the number of bad decisions.
-
And what is the point of VAR if at the end of the game we weren’t given a penalty for handball?
-
And what is the point of VAR if at the end of the game we weren’t given a penalty for handball?
My paid for, genuine video stopped at that moment. Please tell me it wasn’t another shite decision.
-
It could probably have been given but I wouldnt call this one a glaring mistake.
-
And what is the point of VAR if at the end of the game we weren’t given a penalty for handball?
Because the only people who thought it was a penalty were some Villa fans, and that's not how VAR works?
Just a guess mind you.
-
And what is the point of VAR if at the end of the game we weren’t given a penalty for handball?
I didn't think it was a penalty full stop. Nor the one when Jack kicked it against his own arm.
-
It could probably have been given but I wouldnt call this one a glaring mistake.
It's the sort that would've been given in the european cup. See some of the handballs that were given last season.
I think those awards were way too harsh and think for once with premier league and VAR they have got the template right.
-
And what is the point of VAR if at the end of the game we weren’t given a penalty for handball?
I didn't think it was a penalty full stop. Nor the one when Jack kicked it against his own arm.
Nor did I.
re: Jack's one, the rules now say explicitly that kicking the ball against your own hand isn't a penalty.
-
With the changes of rules regarding handball it was a penalty by the letter of the law. VAR only seems to be getting used for offside goals though so if the referee isn't going to give it, it's not going to get overturned. Referees too busy watching eachother's backs.
-
"I've seen them given".
That's what we used to say before VAR so what's the point?
Decision making in the game is as questionable as it ever was so I don't see what we have gained.
-
That's the frustration. If it's not going to be used then there's no point in having it.
-
It's gone now so it won't make a difference but that handball should have been given.
His arm moved towards the ball.
-
Just a query, as my understanding of the process and implementation of VAR is probably not very good, but is there particular reason that very little seems to be have been referred for a second look on the pitch side monitor?
Saw one in Granada vs. Barcelona on Saturday, which had some similarity to the one yesterday - cross came in and a player that went to block ended up unintentionally stopping the ball coming across the area with his arm (which was further away from his body that the Arsenal one to be fair). Only one player really appealed, but the referee was advised to check the monitor and subsequently have a penalty.
Admittedly, might have just been chance that I witnessed it in that one game, but just struck me as something that hasn’t happened much so far in the Premier League.
Is it different guidelines? Wanting to back referees initial decision more? Fan/Media pressure regarding decisions taking too long etc.?
-
I don't think we have the pitch side monitor in the Premier League. We do for FA Cup though, I think.
As I see it, it's like DRS where the presumption is umpires call and the bails are the size of a house, so its nigh on impossible for any decision to be overturned.
-
You have to question why bother having it when such an obvious penalty isn’t given and the VAR referees don’t have the bollocks to question the on field referee? Or is it only when their on the telly is it going to take place! Robbed again for the second time and those two points might be crucial. Fuck me! Even Danny Murphy thought it was a penalty.
-
The only time they seem happy to use var is when it wouldn't be considered a mistake by the officials. They're using it as a self serving tool to protect each others backs . They will give an offside where it's so tight no one could call out the officials. Even then it's completely fallable. If your giving offside for millimetres you have to be absolutely certain of the exact moment the ball leaves the passing players boot. And it can't. Thats impossible. Give the pen yesterday and you highlight the refs blatant mistake. And they aint gonna do that are they?
-
I don't think we have the pitch side monitor in the Premier League. We do for FA Cup though, I think.
As I see it, it's like DRS where the presumption is umpires call and the bails are the size of a house, so its nigh on impossible for any decision to be overturned.
This from BBC suggests that we do have them, but does go along with your interpretation of unlikelihood to overturn decisions:
“It is only if the replays show a different version of events to that described by the on-field referee that the VAR team will step in. The on-field referee will then decide whether to accept and act on the VAR official's view of the incident. This may involve the use of the pitch-side monitor, although the Premier League says this will be used sparingly, for incidents either not seen by the on-field ref or for those outside of their expected range.”
Seems a bit of a halfway house standpoint to take to me.
-
With the changes of rules regarding handball it was a penalty by the letter of the law.
Exactly.
It would have been a penalty under the laws used last season, too.
-
Danny Murphy rarely gives us much credit and even he said it was as blatant a penalty as you could ever see. So did Shearer. Compare it to the one awarded against Spurs in the CL final, where there was no movement towards the ball, it was kicked at him from about a yard or two away and anyway it was more on the shoulder than on the arm. That decision yesterday smacked of "not undermining one of our own".
I was in favour of VAR but I'm afraid it's worse than useless when operated by idiot refs backed by idiot authorities who are tampering with the rules to fit in with it, and who all seem to have a different set of criteria for when VAR should be applied. The penalty decision was a clear and obvious error in my view, and that of the MOTD pundits. That was meant to be the primary purpose of VAR. Instead we get goals disallowed for the tiniest margins of offside which are in no way "clear and obvious". It's fucking farcical.
I say get rid until they can decide on a proper way to use it, preferably by giving each team two chances to review and having an independent trained body of experts distinct from match day referees who make the VAR decisions.
-
I can’t wait til the ‘these things tend to even themselves out over the season’ horse shit actually kicks in. We’ll be flying.
-
I was on the fence, but the goal Tottenham had disallowed against Leicester was when I finally decided that I'm a Luddite. It was ridiculous.
Not using it in case it undermines our shrinking violet referees is utterly pathetic and needs to jumped on as loudly by the TV companies and managers who campaigned for VAR in the first place.
-
I thought VAR worked well in the World Cup. Probably because those people who were the VAR officials didn't give a shit about the referee on the pitch.
Here though, we have colleagues of the officials on the pitch having to call them out as being wrong, which just won't happen.
VAR needs a separate (independent) set of officials/experts/ex players(?) to oversee it. Maybe an ex referee (they don't need to be fit after all) and an ex player together so that they get the nuance of the game.
-
I do think it could be remedied, if the referee gets a VAR notification he HAS to go to the pitch side monitor. He then takes another look at whatever it was, then he stands by his original decision or he overturns it.
The final judgement call remains his to make, and everyone in the stadium can see what is happening. The only thing was, that it did take a bit too long in the world cup.
-
The way VAR is implemented in this country is bordering on masonic. It's a closed shop managed to protect arses and it won't change until the people responsible are dug out.
-
Watching Ref-watch on SSN for the first time - mostly absolute horse-shit and cringeworthy from Dermot Gallagher who’s just making it up as he goes along and frequently contradicts himself trying to blow smoke up the referees arses.
-
Pointless crock of shit, spoils the game and leads to just as many debatable decisions only with one eye on the dickheads in black whilst ''celebrating'' a goal waiting for someone in a room to make another arbitrary decision over if his elbow was offside.
-
VAR is nothing more than a glorified "arse-covering" operation. Anything to avoid exposing their mates on the field for horrendous decisions.
-
I hate the fact that a goal chalked off gives massive momentum to the other team.
-
When so many media, and so many ex pros have criticized two major VAR decisions that have gone against us in recent weeks you realize that something is very wrong with what ironically is meant to make the game officiated more accurately. These are multi million pound highly consequential decisions that can ultimately relegate a team. That’s not to say that we haven’t been the architect of our own problems but that is 2 more points we could have now. 2 very valuable points.
-
At what point can someone representing the club at senior level lodge a complaint of some kind? Or even ask other PL chairmen to meet with the people running this circus?
-
At what point can someone representing the club at senior level lodge a complaint of some kind? Or even ask other PL chairmen to meet with the people running this circus?
That's a very good question. I expect those sorts of discussions happen all the time BUT the current refereeing infrastructure and VAR regime is the one the clubs voted for! They effectively control the situation now by allowing this disastrous experiment to be run by companies owned by ex-referees and administered by the masonic glee club of current referees. Each individual club gets a vote at PL level to accept the regime they want in place. They have brought it on themselves.
That's what needs to change. The clubs are on the side of 'a fair and level playing field'. Same as us; we want and demand nothing more. The key point to grasp is that the clubs, organised through the PL itself, have been duped into beleiving that a system provided and administered solely by the referees themselves can work. It can't, it isn't. Self-policing does not and cannot work. Referees need to be guided and checked by someone else with a massive interest in the game but that cannot be the clubs because they don't trust one another.
It must be the fans. We want a fair game because that's the only way these horrendous mistakes which cost us all get eliminated. It must be us that provides the stable influence on them which flushes the system and helps it evolve as almost all other aspects of the game have evolved. Ther fans can rescue the situation by acting together in the best interests of the game. And what could be more necessary and valuable than a chance to produce a fair and level playing-field?
-
At what point can someone representing the club at senior level lodge a complaint of some kind? Or even ask other PL chairmen to meet with the people running this circus?
Not sure it quite constitutes exactly what you are asking, but I believe they had a meeting recently where it was at least partly discussed.
I think that was where Mike Reilly was claiming that VAR had only made four mistakes this season.
-
The standard of refereeing has been woeful in our 1st 6 games, even to the point of blatant bias (mr. friend). Even Sunday's ref had a shocker. He certainly did us no favours in the last 10 mins. Wasn't VAR supposed to address poor or contentious issues/decisions during games? Personally I've seen very little of this. We've been described as the unluckiest team in the league where decisions are concerned, but surely if VAR is being used correctly luck should have nothing to do with it. On Sunday's game we should have taken responsibility and seen out the game better ourselves, but as bad as we were at doing this, we could still have won the game if the pen shout was awarded (and we'd scored) and the free kick goal was chalked off for an infringement. Were these 2 decisions purely down to the ref or was VAR used? I genuinely don't know, but if VAR wasn't used what is the
f-cking point of it? It's okay getting support from people outside the club in regards to decisions that should have gone our way, but that doesn't redress the balance points wise. VAR should be doing this during games and clearly its not, so in my view is not fit for purpose. In the meanwhile refs will continue to be poor and get away with it.
-
VAR has been oversold, just like the "fit and proper persons" test. It won't fix everything but it will make some things more accurate. The offsides being looked at to the nth degree was agreed by the clubs and this is factual, you are offside or you aren't. It's less used on more subjective decisions eg penalties and handballs, unless it gives a view the ref has missed.
They have been bad at communicating how it is used.
Also I don't understand the handball rule anymore.
-
It's almost as if the more we scrutinise referees' performances and the more decisions we rewind and rewatch the more errors we reveal. I doubt refereeing standards are any worse than they've ever been, but I can see how it might look that way when every single decision is highlighted and debated. The only thing VAR seems to have achieved is ramping up the angst and fury.
VAR is like one of those UV lights that shows you all the bacteria on your pillow. None of it will kill you, you knew it was there and you've lived with it for years, but now you're able to examine it you can't stop and it's making you anxious. You can either lie awake stressing or accept that it'll never be perfect and get some sleep. Even the cleanest people have filthy pillows.
-
VAR is like one of those UV lights that shows you all the bacteria on your pillow. None of it will kill you, you knew it was there and you've lived with it for years, but now you're able to examine it you can't stop and it's making you anxious. You can either lie awake stressing or accept that it'll never be perfect and get some sleep. Even the cleanest people have filthy pillows.
I love the analogy so let's complete it;
'You can either lie awake stressing, go back to sleep and just accept the dirt or decide to clean your pillow at some point.' There. Those are the options. I'm choosing to do some cleaning.
-
VAR is like one of those UV lights that shows you all the bacteria on your pillow. None of it will kill you, you knew it was there and you've lived with it for years, but now you're able to examine it you can't stop and it's making you anxious. You can either lie awake stressing or accept that it'll never be perfect and get some sleep. Even the cleanest people have filthy pillows.
I love the analogy so let's complete it;
'You can either lie awake stressing, go back to sleep and just accept the dirt or decide to clean your pillow at some point.' There. Those are the options. I'm choosing to do some cleaning.
Clean till you're blue in the face Allan, you'll never get all the blemishes out while humans are involved.
-
Clean till you're blue in the face Allan, you'll never get all the blemishes out while humans are involved.
Agreed. But you will end up with a cleaner pillow to rest your head on each night :)
UTV
-
Quelle suprise!
Fans of beaten (often poor) teams, along with ex-players being paid handsomely to fill air time, criticising decisions with, or without, VAR? Surely not!? 😂
-
Clean till you're blue in the face Allan, you'll never get all the blemishes out while humans are involved.
Agreed. But you will end up with a cleaner pillow to rest your head on each night :)
UTV
Well you might, in time. How long depends on how clean it needs to be before the angst stops keeping you awake. In the meantime your boiler's on the blink and you've got some loose tiles on the roof...
-
Yep, we knew that.
-
I thought it was there also to stop cheating
There was the incident when one of their grounded players held on to Wesley's leg and whilst jiggling about slapped himself in the face and threw himself to the ground - blatantly cheating - nothing done
Then that piece of shit Sideshow Bob (cant be bothered to try to spell his name) waving the imaginary card at every opportunity as well as throwing himself down in the box when Heaton argued with him
And as for the handball - not sure what else can be said - I thought that if teams appealed instantly then the ref had a duty to ask for review. All our players claimed a pen but nothing even looked at
-
Is the referee allowed to ask VAR to take another look at something like in rugby? Or do they only contact him when they've overruled a decision?
-
As far as I can make out they can ask for a review but I'd be amazed if any of the c**ts in the premier league do any time soon.
-
Their penalty should have been retaken for encroachment.
-
VAR has been oversold, just like the "fit and proper persons" test. It won't fix everything but it will make some things more accurate. The offsides being looked at to the nth degree was agreed by the clubs and this is factual, you are offside or you aren't. It's less used on more subjective decisions eg penalties and handballs, unless it gives a view the ref has missed.
They have been bad at communicating how it is used.
Also I don't understand the handball rule anymore.
But the offsides are also causing a lot of controversy and are definitely not "factual" Theyr'e giving offside for millimetres but the system is not that accurate is it? To be certain of an offside you have to be certain of when the ball is played. If your giving offside for a tiny margin you have to be certain of the precise moment the ball left the passing players boot. It can not be that accurate. No way. All it's being used for is for officials to cover each others arses. It needs scrapping until it can be used properly and by impartially.
-
Seems like it just gives the officials a second opportunity to get a decision wrong.
-
A competition like the Carabao Cup should either have VAR all the way through or not have it at all. It will not be used until the semi finals.
-
Seems like it just gives the officials a second opportunity to get a decision wrong.
That's one of the best descriptions I have seen of this total farce.
The system operating in last year's World Cup wasn't perfect but felt like progress. This current incarnation hinders the game.
-
I agree, minor changes to speed the process along were all that was really needed, the neutered version they've implemented is a waste of time and just doesn't give the VAR system enough responsibility to have any effect.
-
A competition like the Carabao Cup should either have VAR all the way through or not have it at all. It will not be used until the semi finals.
This isn't correct, though your point still stands. VAR is used in all matches at Premier League grounds (or Wembley), regardless of the round.
-
Seems like it just gives the officials a second opportunity to get a decision wrong.
That's one of the best descriptions I have seen of this total farce.
The system operating in last year's World Cup wasn't perfect but felt like progress. This current incarnation hinders the game.
I seem to remember the refs going to a screen, looking at it for ages then still getting it wrong according to the panelists,commentators and everyman and his dog. It's a farce. Goal line technology is the only piece of tech that can not be argued with. It's precise its 100% accurate. Var should be used only as a retrospective training tool for helping refs or for clearing up any erroneous red cards either given by mistake or not given by mistake. Even then it will be open to interpretation.It simply isn't benefiting the match day experience for anyone and that makes it unfit for purpose. BIN VAR NOW.
-
I can't agree with that. Football is not special in terms of other sports. If it works there it can be made to work here but the administration - Premier League and Referees need to want it to. I don't sense they do at the moment
-
I enjoyed McGinns’s ‘fuck off VAR - it’s a goal’ celebration today.
Would have been nice to enjoy it for longer than 90 seconds mind.
-
I celebrated our actual goal at the kick off rather than when it went in.
-
I can't agree with that. Football is not special in terms of other sports. If it works there it can be made to work here but the administration - Premier League and Referees need to want it to. I don't sense they do at the moment
They've made a mockery of the principle of it, and the way it's being applied has 100% taken away from the enjoyment of the game. It's being used as a weapon rather than a tool so far, and that's shameful.
-
I had always been in favour of technology being introduced to help refs and get better decisions.
But the way they have decided to deploy this has been a disaster.
They should stop it and go away and experiment until they get it right.
Being able to celebrate a goal is one of the major reasons to attend a game for many but that enjoyment has been taken away.
-
I can't agree with that. Football is not special in terms of other sports. If it works there it can be made to work here but the administration - Premier League and Referees need to want it to. I don't sense they do at the moment
As a sport football is a lot more dynamic and fast paced than other sports that use tech. Cricket is simple. For example ball tracking can't fail. Tennis ditto. Rugby is closer in terms of the dynamics of the game and they're pretty good at getting it right. Football is different. Even when they do use var it's often still down to interpretation. Just look at the Grealish incident at Palace. The ref got that wrong and var was unable to correct it. Then theres offsides. They are giving offside for fractions when the rule specifies "when the ball is played" How can var tell the exact moment when it left the players foot. When it's so close there has to be an instruction like "unclear" It's just not working.
-
An offside should take no more than 15 seconds with VAR technology. It's the only thing that it gets consistently right but takes too long to make a decision. As we've found out, it's currently not much good for anything else.
-
An offside should take no more than 15 seconds with VAR technology. It's the only thing that it gets consistently right but takes too long to make a decision. As we've found out, it's currently not much good for anything else.
If they did add something like a "must be daylight between attacker and last defender" it would be even easier to see on a replay and even quicker.
Some of the ones it has given e.g. Sterling are just nonsense
-
On SSN yesterday they were showing goals from Serie A. In one game the Ref used the pitch side monitor before making his final decision.
Has anyone seen a Ref make use of this facility in the PL? If they have then I’ve missed it.
-
I mentioned the same having seen it used in La Liga.
I read something saying that referees have been discouraged from using it due to the longer delays it would cause.
You would think that they would be more open to this as it’s undermines the referee less due to leaving them with the final decision. Guessing they were anticipating a backlash from fans/media over the delays if they used it regularly.
-
I had always been in favour of technology being introduced to help refs and get better decisions.
But the way they have decided to deploy this has been a disaster.
They should stop it and go away and experiment until they get it right.
Being able to celebrate a goal is one of the major reasons to attend a game for many but that enjoyment has been taken away.
Very much with you on this, CL. I was staunchly in favour of video technology coming in and even up to the start of this season. But seeing what the Premier League has done with it... no. Nothing at all would be better than this piecemeal 'solution' being offered now, it's being used in all the wrong ways and isn't at all being implemented the way it should i.e. to support and correct the referee's decisions.
-
I had always been in favour of technology being introduced to help refs and get better decisions.
But the way they have decided to deploy this has been a disaster.
They should stop it and go away and experiment until they get it right.
Being able to celebrate a goal is one of the major reasons to attend a game for many but that enjoyment has been taken away.
I'd agree with this, the problem with VAR isn't about it getting decisions right or wrong, it's about the decisions that they're using it for and the choices available to the VAR official. It feels like the officials want it to fail right now.
-
Also how far back do you make the decision? One pass, two passes, five?
-
Which decisions you implement it for was always going to be one of the problems involved with bringing technology like VAR into football, given it doesn’t have the natural breaks like say cricket or tennis.
Smith mentioned about the two decisions before the first Burnley goal (throw in and free kick) being incorrect. Now, I personally would want every decision like that subject to technological review (and Smith wasn’t advocating it) but it is frustrating that, as I understand it, at the moment an offside twenty seconds before a goal would be looked at (to the finest margin) yet a incorrect throw in/corner/free kick decision ten or less before wouldn’t be subject to review.
-
Which decisions you implement it for was always going to be one of the problems involved with bringing technology like VAR into football, given it doesn’t have the natural breaks like say cricket or tennis.
Smith mentioned about the two decisions before the first Burnley goal (throw in and free kick) being incorrect. Now, I personally would want every decision like that subject to technological review (and Smith wasn’t advocating it) but it is frustrating that, as I understand it, at the moment an offside twenty seconds before a goal would be looked at (to the finest margin) yet a incorrect throw in/corner/free kick decision ten or less before wouldn’t be subject to review.
It just doesn't make any sense does it.
For me - and I'm not saying it's the best thing for the game - either you check everything or you check nothing.
I don't really fully grasp why it's not possible for a team of 3 (it's 3, right?) video analysts sitting in an off-site room with access to all possible camera angles and watching from different perspectives can't advise the referee in real-time that he's missed something. Whether the something is a foul throw or an offiside, someone being too close to a free-kick (or a wall), a dangerous foul, an off-the-ball-incident, etc. etc. shouldn't really make any bloody difference should it?
If there's been an infringement that the ref has missed but the video analysts have seen, it's a bit mental to then be telling them what they can and can't advise on, is it not?
It's all or nothing for me, you either let the ref get on with his job in full knowledge that some of these guys are just shite and should never be allowed near a football pitch - but you make your peace with that - or else we should be advocating that everything gets looked at in real-time and called back as soon as there is a stop in play if there's been an infringement.
This half-arsed approach is just resulting in a bigger mess than before as it's highlighting in stark relief every incorrect decision that gets made which can't be overruled by VAR for one or another ridiculous reason, which effectively makes the technology a very expensive waste of everybody's time.
-
I agree with that. We have the technology there to use and 3 people watching. A bit odd then that all it appears to be doing is offside more accurately than a linesman when its purpose is to highlight stuff the ref has missed and to right his wrongs. Or is it that it's applied very effectively in almost every other game rather than the ones that feature us?
-
I think looking at everything and them waiting for a break in play will cause even more issues. What if there is no stoppage for 5 minutes? What if another infringement requiring VAR happens during the interim? What happens if there is a red card offence in the interim but then you go back and VAR shows an earlier offence? And so on.
At the moment if it feels like the PL amongst others is in Beta testing mode for the rest of football and it will be something like version 6.3 before they get it right.
-
I think looking at everything and them waiting for a break in play will cause even more issues. What if there is no stoppage for 5 minutes? What if another infringement requiring VAR happens during the interim? What happens if there is a red card offence in the interim but then you go back and VAR shows an earlier offence? And so on.
At the moment if it feels like the PL amongst others is in Beta testing mode for the rest of football and it will be something like version 6.3 before they get it right.
You may be right, but in that case say it to the ref at the time - 'Hold up ref, you've missed a handball there'. Ref blows up and then makes a call as to whether he wants to check the screen himself to be sure, but in most cases he should be instructed to take the advice and make the call without a need to review.
-
I think looking at everything and them waiting for a break in play will cause even more issues. What if there is no stoppage for 5 minutes? What if another infringement requiring VAR happens during the interim? What happens if there is a red card offence in the interim but then you go back and VAR shows an earlier offence? And so on.
At the moment if it feels like the PL amongst others is in Beta testing mode for the rest of football and it will be something like version 6.3 before they get it right.
You may be right, but in that case say it to the ref at the time - 'Hold up ref, you've missed a handball there'. Ref blows up and then makes a call as to whether he wants to check the screen himself to be sure, but in most cases he should be instructed to take the advice and make the call without a need to review.
That's exactly how I'd go
-
So we've had the Grealish "dive", the Arsenal players in the wall, the handball that wasn't.
VAR is no different to the referees favouring the establishment. Its almost like a bullying tool. Bin it.
-
Officials having a blinder!
-
If the 'goal' isn't disallowed by the time the other team kicks off again, then the 'goal' should be awarded. Bloody stupid waiting for three whole minutes before the VAR squad get their act together.
-
If the 'goal' isn't disallowed by the time the other team kicks off again, then the 'goal' should be awarded. Bloody stupid waiting for three whole minutes before the VAR squad get their act together.
The whole thing is a nonsense. We're still getting controversial decisions. It got one right tonight in the MU v ARS game. Shocker from the linesman that var put right but they still missed a nailed on handball for a Yanited penalty. I think it's changed the game for the worst. Imagine a late late call like in our game v Burnley in a big local derby? Or if a team gets a last gasp goal (like us at Palace) and it means survival or at the other end a title decider? It will happen. Cue fucking pandemomeum. They're playing with fire imo. Get rid asap.
-
How wasn't that a Penalty for MU last night? It's far too inconsistent
-
I just think they should use the cricket or tennis model. Each team gets one “appeal” per game - if they get it right they keep it. Appeals only overturn the ref’s decision if it’s clearly wrong.
-
I just think they should use the cricket or tennis model. Each team gets one “appeal” per game - if they get it right they keep it. Appeals only overturn the ref’s decision if it’s clearly wrong.
Problem here is decisions in football are still open to interpretation a lot of the time. Cricket & tennis are much easier to clear up using technology. Last nights game was a good example. Same as us at Arsenal. Both were nailed on handballs therefore a penalty. Both occasions var failed to clear up a decision that the ref clearly got wrong. The system is deeply flawed in my view and unfit for purpose. If one of these clearly wrong decisions cost a club it's place in the Premier league would a rich owner be willing or able to challenge it in court? Just a thought
-
Can I ask one favour of those in charge at Villa Park?
Can we now dispense with having to listen to Alan Shearer telling us all about VAR on the big screen before the game?
It's not an FA requirement because Norwich didn't do it yesterday.
We all know what VAR is now.
-
Shocking mis-use of it in many games today. Not fit for purpose.
-
Shocking mis-use of it in many games today. Not fit for purpose.
From what I have seen and heard I would say it has been VAR's darkest day so far. I look forward to the MOTD verdicts on our game, the Wolves game and the Spurs game.
-
VAR needs to be suspended until next season. A complete (sensible) review needs to be carried out. A complete and utter shambles run by idiots.
-
Was ours today the first time it has gone against the referee?
-
I've watched it back three times now, and I still can't see what it was overruled for. If it's supposed to be used for 'clear and obvious errors' then that certainly wasn't one.
VAR is an absolute disgrace. I haven't seen a single instance of it doing anything right this season.
-
It’s a giant fun sponge, sucking all the joy out of celebrating goals. Scrap it.
-
I get that every set of fans think that the refs/VAR have it in for them etc but fuck me we really have been on the end of some pathetic decisions already this season.
-
I think it's now safe to assume that VAR will not disallow our winning goal.
-
I jumped up at my desk at work and fled forward like a bit of a twat when Targett got the winner, I quickly realised that I needed to get back to my screen asap and watch the replay carefully to be sure my outburst wasn't in vain. It shouldn't be like this.
-
At least do away with this ‘checking every goal’ cobblers, it’s a recipe for disallowing goals on really tenuous grounds, and it takes far too long. Refer goals to VAR if there’s some genuine doubt over them, or give each side two reviews a half, and a time limit for calling them.
-
it needs to be VAR like at the world cup - where the referee still has the final decision
-
I think it's now safe to assume that VAR will not disallow our winning goal.
Easy tiger, it's only 7.45.
-
I’ve still no idea why the goal was chalked off
-
It's the God-awful 'experts' analysing the VAR that's the problem not the system itself. They should mirror the rugby set-up and also allow us to hear the conversations between the ref and the visually- and hemispherically -challenged twats in Stockley Park.
-
I don’t think VAR is the problem, it’s the way it’s being applied. It really does need to be stopped for the rest of the season while thought is given as to how make best use of it. For me, the ref needs to be able to access a monitor at the side of the pitch when concern is raised.
-
Where I was sat, literally no one celebrated the second goal when the goal was in the net.
It’s ruining all the drama and immediacy.
-
Sorry lads, both of our goals have been ruled out, so we've lost 1-0.
-
Sorry lads, both of our goals have been ruled out, so we've lost 1-0.
Definitely NOT funny !
-
It's not VAR, it's the dickheads interpretation of it that's at fault. Given the general level of incompetence with refereeing we shouldn't be surprised.
I think Wesley's elbow touches the keepers jaw, but it's pathetic to say it caused the keeper to flap at the ball.
Who was in charge of the VAR today, Kevin Friend?
-
Martin Atkinson, I think.
-
I’ve never been so keen to see a kick-off.
-
VAR should only be used for binary decisions such as was the player offside or was the ball over the line. Subjective decisions should be left to the match official. It has totally damaged the dynamic of the game and let's the match referee abdicate responsibility. Hate it.
-
I don’t think VAR is the problem, it’s the way it’s being applied. It really does need to be stopped for the rest of the season while thought is given as to how make best use of it. For me, the ref needs to be able to access a monitor at the side of the pitch when concern is raised.
Well the monitors are there ready to be used but directive is disencouraging refs from doing it for whatever reason.
-
VAR should only be used for binary decisions such as was the player offside or was the ball over the line. Subjective decisions should be left to the match official. It has totally damaged the dynamic of the game and let's the match referee abdicate responsibility. Hate it.
It should be used for penalty incidents but they can't even get that right either, Man. City were denied a blatant one tonight yet Liverpool get that joke one in the last round. All because the ref either gave it or didn't so he must be supported at all costs.
-
VAR should only be used for binary decisions such as was the player offside or was the ball over the line. Subjective decisions should be left to the match official. It has totally damaged the dynamic of the game and let's the match referee abdicate responsibility. Hate it.
[I agree with this in principle. I thought the objective of VAR would be similar to introducing goal line technology which I think most of us agree has been a good thing. It is absolutely changing the dynamic of the players and the crowd and not in a good way.]
-
You only have to look at the players reactions.
Vrs Crystal Palace not one defender appealed for a Jack dive or against the goal. Cahill was holding his shin which proved there was contact on Jack.
Vrs Brighton, again, not one person appealed for a foul. The fact the keeper didn’t is enough for me.
How on earth var operator came to those two conclusions is beyond me.
I thought it might help, but, for me it’s becoming a massive hindrance, too much too soon.
I’m with bronte, use for offside and ball over line decisions, when they’ve got the hang of that put a bit more in.
-
It’s a giant fun sponge, sucking all the joy out of celebrating goals. Scrap it.
This.
It's ruining the game. Not being able to celebrate a goal anymore is about as bad as it gets.
I agree with everyone on here that is not technology that's the problem, it's the abysmal way it's being used. They're genuinely going to start putting people off watching football. If you can't celebrate a goal, what's the fucking point?
-
VAR should only be used for binary decisions such as was the player offside or was the ball over the line. Subjective decisions should be left to the match official. It has totally damaged the dynamic of the game and let's the match referee abdicate responsibility. Hate it.
Absolutely spot on.
It’s bad enough having one shit ref, today we had two.
-
I've had enough of it now. I want to shoot somebody, preferably Kevin Friend but anyone making a decision against us would do.
As mentioned above, there are just as many contentious decisions as there were previously. It has solved nothing.
Sometimes, they argue that they can see why the ref made a decision and they go along with it (regardless of whether it is the correct decision) and then other times (like today) they overrule the ref.
Another nail in the coffin for the paying customer as far as I'm concerned. I won't put up with this shit for long and many around me were saying the same thing.
-
VAR is sh€t and is ruining the game for the paying supporter in real time and we always seem to get sh€t refs.
-
I went for a piss just after i thought we'd we'd scored and heard loads of 'fuck var' mutterings so I had a feeling something was up. Not seen it back since but I didn't see a great deal wrong with it at the time. I hate it.
-
It's the God-awful 'experts' analysing the VAR that's the problem not the system itself. They should mirror the rugby set-up and also allow us to hear the conversations between the ref and the visually- and hemispherically -challenged twats in Stockley Park.
This is it for me, get the ref and TV official on comms and broadcast it in the ground and on TV, once we can hear what they're unhappy about it at least gives us something to watch for.
-
I could accept it ruling out our goal if it was getting pretty much every decision right but for example the amount of, what to me at least, have been blatant penalties that haven't been given this season makes it a farce.
-
Watching the rugby today, with the ref mic’d up etc....can the fans in the ground hear what’s happening? Guess not....but seems better than footballs approach.
I felt pretty deflated about going to the matches after the last couple of VAR incidents. I find myself doing very half arsed celebrations and waiting for the ref to put his hand to his hear. Shit isn’t it
-
I could accept it ruling out our goal if it was getting pretty much every decision right but for example the amount of, what to me at least, have been blatant penalties that haven't been given this season makes it a farce.
The one Watford didn’t get today is absolutely scandalous let alone the one McGinn won.
-
You only have to look at the players reactions.
Vrs Crystal Palace not one defender appealed for a Jack dive or against the goal. Cahill was holding his shin which proved there was contact on Jack.
Vrs Brighton, again, not one person appealed for a foul. The fact the keeper didn’t is enough for me.
How on earth var operator came to those two conclusions is beyond me.
I thought it might help, but, for me it’s becoming a massive hindrance, too much too soon.
I’m with bronte, use for offside and ball over line decisions, when they’ve got the hang of that put a bit more in.
The keeper was moaning half-heatedly before hand and then was more vocal after the fact. The push on the defender by Kane during the build up for their goal was even worse and was not even checked, only if Alli had handballed it. And being as they are very anal on calls that seem to involve Villa and not Spurs, they get away with it. For example Vertonghen's follow up trip on Delefou, No attempt at the ball and hooks the standing leg. Refs call decided even though he couldn't see the angle that the Camera was showing VAR. But then he can also literally pull the shorts down of the opposing player and not get penalised so I shouldn't be surprised.
-
It's the God-awful 'experts' analysing the VAR that's the problem not the system itself. They should mirror the rugby set-up and also allow us to hear the conversations between the ref and the visually- and hemispherically -challenged twats in Stockley Park.
This is it for me, get the ref and TV official on comms and broadcast it in the ground and on TV, once we can hear what they're unhappy about it at least gives us something to watch for.
It's only ever applied in a negative way, never a positive way. By which I mean it's used to take but never to give. It's done better in Europe and probably even the FA Cup last season (which wasn't perfect). There's too much at stake in the Premier League to be dicking about with something that hasn't been tried and tested.
-
I was in favour of it. I couldn't properly celebrate either goal today until the referee blew his whistle for the restart.
Sucked the fun out. Fuck VAR with a traffic cone.
-
We can start by removing that un-obligatory Alan Shearer bollocks on the screens before the kick off, it actually wound people up today and this was before ‘that’ incident.
-
It's the God-awful 'experts' analysing the VAR that's the problem not the system itself. They should mirror the rugby set-up and also allow us to hear the conversations between the ref and the visually- and hemispherically -challenged twats in Stockley Park.
This is it for me, get the ref and TV official on comms and broadcast it in the ground and on TV, once we can hear what they're unhappy about it at least gives us something to watch for.
Agree about the process not being clear Paul. Did the ref today ask the TV official to check the incident with the keeper or did the TV official intervene? For me, the latter scenario isn't right as the TV official should only really intervene if there is a clear infringement that the ref has missed.
If the TV official has given an opinion on something the the ref had clearly seen and not given as a foul then that's not a great precedent really.
-
I was in favour of it. I couldn't properly celebrate either goal today until the referee blew his whistle for the restart.
Sucked the fun out. Fuck VAR with a traffic cone.
I agree. Like our first real goal against Burnley today I was too tentative in my celebrations for Jack.s goal. There is something wrong when there is a bigger cheer for the opposition kicking off to restart than the original goal.
My take on it is that the ref should consult a screen at the side of the pitch as they did in the World Cup in Russia. The teats in Stockley are probably bored and looking for work thus jumping up with excitement when a goal is scored. Like traffic wardens with parking tickets I figure they have a bonus scheme for disallowed goals.
-
Just seen the Burnley one. Wow, he deliberately fouled Evans there didn't he?
-
I was in favour of it. I couldn't properly celebrate either goal today until the referee blew his whistle for the restart.
Sucked the fun out. Fuck VAR with a traffic cone.
Yes, it’s bollocks. It’s adding nothing other than a talking point for people who don’t go to games.
Fuck VAR.
-
I'd agree with that. I like the idea of VAR and I think a version of it which is implemented properly would benefit the game but this version seems designed to fail so they can tell people they tried before going back to the refs word being the end of it.
-
Farce in the Spurs game, VAR says no goal, ref gives it anyway. And another blatant pen not given.
-
Farce in the Spurs game, VAR says no goal, ref gives it anyway. And another blatant pen not given.
Like I mentioned earlier, why wasn't Kanes push looked at? Cleverly is motioning at that to the Ref and he never even asked for it. It was worse then what Wes did to the keeper, about that much time between the foul and the goal and yet not even reviewed at all.
-
Farce in the Spurs game, VAR says no goal, ref gives it anyway. And another blatant pen not given.
Listening to Phil Neville speaking on MOTD about how well VAR was used in the womens world cup made me realise that the refs in the premier league appear to be too arrogant to use it as much as they should.
-
The only decision VAR got totally correct today was against the Dingles it seems. So I think one in five?
-
The only decision VAR got totally correct today was against the Dingles it seems. So I think one in five?
Next week it might be one in ten. A statistic, a reminder of a world that doesn't care.
-
We can start by removing that un-obligatory Alan Shearer bollocks on the screens before the kick off, it actually wound people up today and this was before ‘that’ incident.
This. It needs stopping now. I actually didn't celebrate Jacks goal today as much as normal. I was almost waiting for it to be disallowed. The bigger cheer came at the resulting kick off. Fuck VAR. Massively.
-
There’s nothing wrong with VAR. However, there’s everything wrong with Mike Riley and his closed shop. It’s more bent than a six pound note, and these fuckers need digging out.
-
Just looked at the disallowed goal for the first time. Fuck me who are these dipsticks. Have they ever even watched football before.
-
There’s a comment from a dingle on the Express and Star website - “some players know how to use VAR to their advantage- Jack Grealish certainly does.” Come again? We have literally not benefited from a single VAR decision all season.
-
There’s nothing wrong with VAR. However, there’s everything wrong with Mike Riley and his closed shop. It’s more bent than a six pound note, and these fuckers need digging out.
I said exactly this at half time while everyone was venting.
It's a con. We're being conned.
-
Teams should have a challenge/review per half, like cricket.
-
Teams should have a challenge/review per half, like cricket.
That would create even more chaos. I say scrap VAR completely because it’s shit. We spent hours last night talking about a goal that was disallowed incorrectly and I thought VAR was supposed to put an end to all that.
-
That’s right, there’s no reason why VAR shouldn’t work in football but when you factor in the utterly incompetent officials coupled with a desire to look after their mates onfield it’s become a complete farce.
Job done you numpties.
-
I would like to know if the person who disallowed our goal yesterday was also in charge v Palace and Arsenal. We need some transparency on these mysterious nobs sitting in a room playing god.
-
Teams should have a challenge/review per half, like cricket.
That would create even more chaos. I say scrap VAR completely because it’s shit. We spent hours last night talking about a goal that was disallowed incorrectly and I thought VAR was supposed to put an end to all that.
I think there is a place for it, but the whole idea of of video technology in sport is to eradicate the 'howler' decisions. It needs to be far more lenient in allowing an advantage for the goal scorers.
I would like to see the off side rule change to the whole body being offside not just a part of it and it having to be a definite mistake by the ref to overturn a decision made on the field (not like yesterday).
-
It's just utterly, utterly shit. As others have said, it's supposed to reduce talking points, not create its own, as well as completely ruining the flow of the game.
-
Teams should have a challenge/review per half, like cricket.
That would create even more chaos. I say scrap VAR completely because it’s shit. We spent hours last night talking about a goal that was disallowed incorrectly and I thought VAR was supposed to put an end to all that.
I think there is a place for it, but the whole idea of of video technology in sport is to eradicate the 'howler' decisions. It needs to be far more lenient in allowing an advantage for the goal scorers.
I would like to see the off side rule change to the whole body being offside not just a part of it and it having to be a definite mistake by the ref to overturn a decision made on the field (not like yesterday).
But if a team could appeal, who would they appeal to? We're on the wrong end of the second decision, not the first.
-
Watching the rugby today, with the ref mic’d up etc....can the fans in the ground hear what’s happening? Guess not....but seems better than footballs approach.
I felt pretty deflated about going to the matches after the last couple of VAR incidents. I find myself doing very half arsed celebrations and waiting for the ref to put his hand to his hear. Shit isn’t it
Yes if the fans buy a radio thingy for a tenner. They can choose to listen to the referee or commentary.
-
I've seen the disallowed goal twice now and I still can't work out why it was chalked off. Wesley did jump in front of the keeper but the ball then went out wide and was played back in to Conor so the keeper was able to get back into place and make a save. Utterly farcical.
-
I've seen the disallowed goal twice now and I still can't work out why it was chalked off. Wesley did jump in front of the keeper but the ball then went out wide and was played back in to Conor so the keeper was able to get back into place and make a save. Utterly farcical.
It wasn’t exactly a clear and obvious error from the ref for the VAR guys to get involved.
-
I've seen the disallowed goal twice now and I still can't work out why it was chalked off. Wesley did jump in front of the keeper but the ball then went out wide and was played back in to Conor so the keeper was able to get back into place and make a save. Utterly farcical.
It wasn’t exactly a clear and obvious error from the ref for the VAR guys to get involved.
Yes. It's almost as if they are making up rules as they go along and taking the piss.
-
Exactly. It’s the kind of thing that could or could not be given and if the red blew up before the goal nobody would be taking about it. But if it’s a clear error by the ref I’m a monkey’s uncle.
-
I've seen the disallowed goal twice now and I still can't work out why it was chalked off. Wesley did jump in front of the keeper but the ball then went out wide and was played back in to Conor so the keeper was able to get back into place and make a save. Utterly farcical.
It wasn’t exactly a clear and obvious error from the ref for the VAR guys to get involved.
After yesterday, VAR should get involved with everything. Get involved with the foul and card given against Conor, which were blatantly incorrect. That was clear and obvious. Chalk off Brightons goal, as it wasn't a free kick in the first place.
I thought VP was extremely loud in its condemnation of VAR yesterday. Shame the powers that be won't be listening.
-
On top of making stupid decisions it is spoiling the experience for match going fans for the benefit of the TV companies who love the additional talking points for their pundits to analyse to the nth degree.
Scrap it.
-
Why wasn't their free kick that they scored from reviewed? Hourihane quite obviously wins the ball and there is no foul at all.
-
Why wasn't their free kick that they scored from reviewed? Hourihane quite obviously wins the ball and there is no foul at all.
No fan of VAR at all, but its for game changing decisions. The FK was in a fairly innocous area and we defended it abysmally.
Going down that route Brighton could easily ask for the blatant Targett foul on the edge of the box to be reviewed.
-
I've been a Villa fan for 45 years and Grealish's equaliser was the first time that I can remember not celebrating a Villa goal as it happened. I feel now that I can't trust anything I'm seeing. Celebrating after the kick off is really, really not the same but that's what VAR is reducing things to.
Maybe I have faulty recall but I cannot remember feeling robbed as I've left a game because of a bad refereeing decision but VAR is fundamentally affecting my enjoyment of watching a game.
It's wretched.
-
Had a quick look on a Brighton forum, North Stand Chat, and even they were saying the decision to rule out the goal was ridiculous. Seem a mostly decent bunch on there.
-
Its shit. You shouldn't have to wait until the game has restarted to celebrate a goal, but that is what it is coming to.
-
Why wasn't their free kick that they scored from reviewed? Hourihane quite obviously wins the ball and there is no foul at all.
No fan of VAR at all, but its for game changing decisions. The FK was in a fairly innocous area and we defended it abysmally.
Going down that route Brighton could easily ask for the blatant Targett foul on the edge of the box to be reviewed.
Which is fine because it would have been a fair and correct decision. Instead, we had a ridiculous booking against one of our players and Brighton were disadvantaged.
The problem is that VAR is creating more contentious talking points than it is solving disputes.
Yesterday alone, we saw around 3 astonishing decisions across 4 different games - Ours, Leicester, Spurs and even the Wolves offside was crazy even if technically correct. There are more wrong VAR calls than there are correct ones. Therefore, currently, VAR has made the game worse.
For it to work properly, there needs to be clear and concise guidelines/agreements drawn up on how it is to be implemented. Currently, there is no consistency and in our case yesterday, one man's opinion (on Wesley's challenge) overruled the referee's opinion on it. VAR should assist refs, not take decisions away from them unless it is something blatant that has been missed. This was the case with the Arsenal handball against us a few weeks ago and we begrudgingly accepted it. Yesterday, the exact opposite happened and we were the victims of somebody stepping in direct contrast to what happened at Arsenal.
I wonder how many managers are supportive of VAR at this point? Listening to Sean Dyche last night, he still seems to be, despite one of the most appalling VAR shouts thus far - Another one where one man's opinion on an incident overruled the ref's opinion.
The delays are also frustrating and people are now becoming less inclined to react to real live action and are more likely to wait for a VAR ruling. Wolves suffered from this yesterday because the margin was so close, as did we against Burnley a few weeks back.
There needs to be a meeting of all those involved in VAR. What could and should be a revolutionary improvement of the game is actually ruining it.
-
Let’s face it we hate VAR because every single decision has gone against us and cost us points
I wonder how we would feel if every decision had gone for us and we were sitting in the top 6
-
Had a quick look on a Brighton forum, North Stand Chat, and even they were saying the decision to rule out the goal was ridiculous. Seem a mostly decent bunch on there.
Yes - I've just been reading it. A good thread about Jack on there which makes a change from the bitter "Grealish is a diver" witch hunt nonsense that usually follows him tearing some team or other a new one.
The only thing I'd question is their opinion of Villa (which is that we will be down there at the end of the season) or that we are a one man team. Yesterday may have seemed like that but in most games this season, SJM has overshadowed Jack and others have also contributed more.
Brighton were very good and we were not at our best - Whether our performance was down to Brighton is debatable. I'm more inclined to think it was because too many players had an off day.
-
I just don't like it regardless. I can understand why it's been brought in but it's not really been for the better so far.
-
Yes we have been on the receiving end a fair bit, but it is just shit.
The game is worse to watch because of it.
-
Let’s face it we hate VAR because every single decision has gone against us and cost us points
I wonder how we would feel if every decision had gone for us and we were sitting in the top 6
Therein lies the problem.
If they can't get it right, or at least find consistency then what is the point in it? It is there to ensure the correct "decision" is made. Currently, it is selective as to when it is used, inconsistent and in some cases, one person's opinion against that of another as per the Wesley challenge. You could get 100 people to view that and I'd wager more than 50% would have seen nothing wrong with the challenge.
I suppose Leicester may be pro VAR after yesterday and I also recall them benefiting from a decision against Wolves in their opening game. By the end of the season though, I'm sure they will be victims of the lunacy that we've experienced.
VAR SHOULD be getting things right and we SHOULD be sitting top 6.
The point is that we aren't. Therefore VAR is not working. Of course we would be happy (as would every other club) if VAR actually worked in order to ensure fair play.
-
Let’s face it we hate VAR because every single decision has gone against us and cost us points
I wonder how we would feel if every decision had gone for us and we were sitting in the top 6
I still wouldn’t like it.
It’s causing delays and confusion and adding nothing to the game. If we have to have it then it should be for objective decisions only, offside or goal line decisions but if it was down to me we wouldn’t have it at all.
-
Let’s face it we hate VAR because every single decision has gone against us and cost us points
I wonder how we would feel if every decision had gone for us and we were sitting in the top 6
I still wouldn’t like it.
It’s causing delays and confusion and adding nothing to the game. If we have to have it then it should be for objective decisions only, offside or goal line decisions but if it was down to me we wouldn’t have it at all.
I tend to agree with you here
-
Hourihane scored just as i left my seat at half time. I met my mates for a beer only to be told it had been ruled out. Gutted. When Grealish scored i didn't even cheer as i thought it would be ruled out again. Totally spoilt it for me. I hate VAR. I don't think it adds anything to the game. It's killing the enjoyment of celebrating a goal. It has got to go.
-
Seems to me as it did in the World Cup VAR is trying to apply bureaucratic nth degree accuracy to a dynamic and fast moving game where the rules contain a lot of fuzzy logic.
Game changing decision? Impossible to quantify. Clear error? Same.
Before VAR I felt like fans had a good grasp of what a fair offside decision looked like. A goal where a player was roughly in line would not cause any consternation and refs mostly got it right but now you’ve got nerks poring over replays to see if there was a finger tip offside.
-
I'm surprised that after reviewing time and time again decisions so many are given wrong
The keeper yesterday was not in control of the ball so Wesley was fully entitled to jump up for it.
-
Offside used to be "daylight" between the defender and the forward didn't it. Not half a toe, as measured by some badly drawn lines.
As has been pointed out in the thread - it's coming down to one refs opinion vs another in too many instances.
-
It sucks. Football is supposed to be about entertainment and escapism.
It’s been replaced by VAR induced anxiety.
-
I was in favour of VAR but I'm currently against it as I think it's being used incorrectly. Has nothing to do with decisions going against us it's the fact that they are so often, imo, incorrect decisions. If Wesley had for example handled the ball and VAR chalked it off, fair enough. At least you can be confident that if the opposition score that way it will be chalked off. All VAR seems to be doing is chalking stuff off, often for things that aren't "clear and obvious", meanwhile it's not giving numerous nailed on penalties. So if it isn't getting blatant decisions right so often, what's the point of it, sides are still feeling aggrieved at obvious and poor decisions.
The delays were a pain in the WWC but at least it was pretty much always getting the decisions right even if it was for a toe nail being offside, in part because the refs would go to the monitors and weren't worried about over ruling their initial decision. I don't think there's been one case yet in the PL of a ref going to the monitor to have a second look.
-
Offside used to be "daylight" between the defender and the forward didn't it. Not half a toe, as measured by some badly drawn lines.
As has been pointed out in the thread - it's coming down to one refs opinion vs another in too many instances.
It hasn't been that for donkeys. However the benefit used to go to the attacker and having a part of a head or foot slightly forward seems to be going the other way.
-
I was in favour of VAR but I'm currently against it as I think it's being used incorrectly. Has nothing to do with decisions going against us it's the fact that they are so often, imo, incorrect decisions. If Wesley had for example handled the ball and VAR chalked it off, fair enough. At least you can be confident that if the opposition score that way it will be chalked off. All VAR seems to be doing is chalking stuff off, often for things that aren't "clear and obvious", meanwhile it's not giving numerous nailed on penalties. So if it isn't getting blatant decisions right so often, what's the point of it, sides are still feeling aggrieved at obvious and poor decisions.
The delays were a pain in the WWC but at least it was pretty much always getting the decisions right even if it was for a toe nail being offside, in part because the refs would go to the monitors and weren't worried about over ruling their initial decision. I don't think there's been one case yet in the PL of a ref going to the monitor to have a second look.
You're right, not one referee has used the pitchside monitors to review a decision this season. When you see some of the ridiculous decisions that are given, it makes me think it's a problem with referees not wanting to be proved wrong. The Wesley decision yesterday was incorrect and the decision not to give Watford a penalty yesterday was even more ridiculous. The referee should be ordered to use the pitchside monitors when it's so obviously wrong.
I don't object to VAR in principle but the "clear and obvious" criteria is being used very selectively and that has to stop.
-
Nail. On. Head.
Safe to say, VAR is here to stay but it’s current guise is dreadful. Either use it for clear and obvious (at which point it should be the ref making the decision by going to monitors and such like) or define it so it can only be for clear errors (offside, handball).
Our only complaint with VAR should be that it takes a bit of time (ala World Cup) or that on some few occasions goals get chalked off (ala augero goal v spurs in champs league). We shouldn’t be having conversations about the validity of the actual decision
-
Yesterday there in no way the infield Ref should have accepted reversal of his decision from remote Ref. It was subjective and as others have said he should have gone to the PSM and had a look himself. A clear and obviously VAR fail.
-
I've just watched MOD and saw the Wolves game, I know there have been law changes but after the goal for Wolves that was disallowed for offside, am I correct that that the referee allowed the game to re-start. I know for fact that once a game had been re-started after a goal has been scored, then that goal stood and nothing could be done about it. Can anyone tell me has this been changed?
-
Yesterday the Ref waited to kick off till VAR reached made a decision on “Wesley foul”. And for Jack’s equaliser most of us celebrated after BHA kicked off. So if you ask the audience the answer is once the ref has blown for KO it’s done.
-
I was for it but after yesterday and the selective VAR decisions and Deli Alli as well it's complete pants. The process is terrible.
-
I'm still in favour in principal, but fuck me they couldn't have made more of a pigs ear of the implementation if they tried.
-
As James Bond would say, "shocking, positively shocking".
-
Var favouring Man U there. Clear foul in the build up to the goal.
-
It was a foul IMO, a theatrical response undoubtedly but a foul nontheless.
-
I’d rather the odd bad decision than this crock of shite. It means you can’t celebrate a goal with any certainty. It’s going to kill the game.
-
Does the Prem have to have VAR? Or can they bin it off if they want?
-
Having the Rugby World Cup on shows how poor VAR is compared to TMO usage. No accountability or understanding of decision making in football.
-
There's absolutely no planet on which Wesley's "foul" was more of an offence than that one that just awarded a goal to Man U.
It seems that the rule is just to fuck over whichever team I want to win on any given occasion.
-
Does the Prem have to have VAR? Or can they bin it off if they want?
The likelihood of the PL admitting its a pile of shit is quite low.
-
VAR needs to be suspended until next summer. A shocking mess so far this season. It needs a complete review. Offsides shouldn't be decided by a toe nail!
-
Yesterday there in no way the infield Ref should have accepted reversal of his decision from remote Ref. It was subjective and as others have said he should have gone to the PSM and had a look himself. A clear and obviously VAR fail.
Sky commentators have just been discussing how they’ve been told that the on field ref will not be looking at the screen
-
Has a screen been used yet?
-
Having the Rugby World Cup on shows how poor VAR is compared to TMO usage. No accountability or understanding of decision making in football.
The rugby TMO isn’t perfect but there is clear teamwork between all three on field officials and the TMO.
The VAR people and refs need to seek advice from the likes of Graham Hughes, Wayne Barnes and Nigel Owens
-
Absolute shambles
I’d rather have just the one cock up from the ref and get on with it
The officials are obviously incapable of making it work as it was envisaged
Scrap it
-
Having the Rugby World Cup on shows how poor VAR is compared to TMO usage. No accountability or understanding of decision making in football.
The rugby TMO isn’t perfect but there is clear teamwork between all three on field officials and the TMO.
The VAR people and refs need to seek advice from the likes of Graham Hughes, Wayne Barnes and Nigel Owens
The referee and TMO being miked up and explaining the decision certainly helps. Not sure why football is so reticent to do the same.
-
Having the Rugby World Cup on shows how poor VAR is compared to TMO usage. No accountability or understanding of decision making in football.
The rugby TMO isn’t perfect but there is clear teamwork between all three on field officials and the TMO.
The VAR people and refs need to seek advice from the likes of Graham Hughes, Wayne Barnes and Nigel Owens
The referee and TMO being miked up and explaining the decision certainly helps. Not sure why football is so reticent to do the same.
I'd imagine anything picked up by a football refs mike is utterly unbroadcastable.
-
Having the Rugby World Cup on shows how poor VAR is compared to TMO usage. No accountability or understanding of decision making in football.
The rugby TMO isn’t perfect but there is clear teamwork between all three on field officials and the TMO.
The VAR people and refs need to seek advice from the likes of Graham Hughes, Wayne Barnes and Nigel Owens
The referee and TMO being miked up and explaining the decision certainly helps. Not sure why football is so reticent to do the same.
My take on that would be that the laws of the game being as wide open to interpretation as they are, the referee's would be leaving themselves wide open to ridicule more than they already are.
-
I’m hoping for a really controversial point in this game, so bad that it forces something to change with VAR. The only way change will happen is it one of the big boys get a shocker against them in a live game.
-
Has a screen been used yet?
I think they said on MOTD last night that the pitch side monitor hasn't been used in any game so far this season
-
Having the Rugby World Cup on shows how poor VAR is compared to TMO usage. No accountability or understanding of decision making in football.
The rugby TMO isn’t perfect but there is clear teamwork between all three on field officials and the TMO.
The VAR people and refs need to seek advice from the likes of Graham Hughes, Wayne Barnes and Nigel Owens
The referee and TMO being miked up and explaining the decision certainly helps. Not sure why football is so reticent to do the same.
My take on that would be that the laws of the game being as wide open to interpretation as they are, the referee's would be leaving themselves wide open to ridicule more than they already are.
That's largely true for rugby and cricket as well though and it gets used there. The benefit is that it gives the official to set out what they've seen and how they're judging it. You can still disagree but at least you know exactly what grounds you disagree on. VAR currently seems to be bizarre reviews of tight calls and no review where it's obviously needed.
-
Here's my take:
1. In a League competition good and bad decisions should even themselves out over the season. So in terms of overall fairness, over 38 games (46 for those lower league clubs) competition good and bad decisions - both for and against will even themselves out.
2.Top clubs are at the top because they are the best teams. You might say they get more penalties awarded than teams at the bottom, and that this is unfair.
3. The counter argument to this is that top clubs get into their opponent's boxes more often so their players are more likely to get tackled = more fouls = more penalties.
4. They are therefore being "rewarded" for being better at attacking.
5. Conversely, clubs at the bottom are more likely to concede penalties because they're defending in their boxes more often = more tackles made, corners and free kicks defended = more fouls/handball = more penalties given away.
Get rid of VAR - it serves absolutely no purpose at all to the fairness of league competition.
It's a monumental failure.
Now Cup competitions are a different matter entirely.......
-
I’m hoping for a really controversial point in this game, so bad that it forces something to change with VAR. The only way change will happen is it one of the big boys get a shocker against them in a live game.
I think you're right, imagine that Man City score our goal against Liverpool in a title decider and have it ruled out in similar circumstances.
-
Has a screen been used yet?
No.
It has been used a few times in the FA cup over last two seasons. Think a red card was overturned in one of the games last season and also penalties given or not.
-
In Rugby isn’t the responsibility with the Ref ?, he determines what question is asked and when to call it.
The complete abdication of responsibility by the ref is part of the problem.
-
I see Klippity is now moaning about VAR in his own unique way. ie, the ref would have blown for a foul, but VAR meant he didn't as he knew that would correct him, then it didn't because reasons. Didnt see him complaining when his player dived and VAR didn't overule it the other week.
-
I see Klippity is now moaning about VAR in his own unique way. ie, the ref would have blown for a foul, but VAR meant he didn't as he knew that would correct him, then it didn't because reasons. Didnt see him complaining when his player dived and VAR didn't overule it the other week.
This just adds to the lunacy of it all. He claims the protocol is to "let the game run" (which if true, did not happen for our goal v Palace). Surely if the ref sees a foul, he should blow? Otherwise, there is no point him being there.
-
I think, Like the moaning one beforehand, he is just looking for excuses on one they didn't win the match. I personally don't think the protocol is let it run at all, even after Friend decided to do that on the next match to eff us up even more. There also needs to be a set amount of time or passes or area from goal where the review shouldn't be needed in my eyes as well. To review a potential foul 20 yards inside the other half for chalking off a goal the other end is starting to push it as well. The really stupid thing though is that there was probably as much contact there as there was for the Liverpool pen the other week, yet as one was called foul and the other wasn't, then the ref's decision stands.
-
It’s fucking shit. It’s even worse than any bollocks ref.
-
If we must have it, don't allow secret refs locked in a room to decide, use the pitchside TV screen you cowards. Terrible addition to the game though.
-
Agreed. Pipe the replay onto the screen for the 4th official to decide pitch side to at least have some up front responsibility. At the moment VAR is just used to confirm shit decisions by their mates, give nonsensical handball decisions (Greek fella at Arseanal is blatant handball and not given, ball brushes hand of Man City player against Spurs and goal is disallowed - clearly intent and not given in the first, no intent and given in the second incident - utter trollope) and piss everyone off. They need to bin it, or make it actually overturn the shit decisions.
-
In Rugby isn’t the responsibility with the Ref ?, he determines what question is asked and when to call it.
The complete abdication of responsibility by the ref is part of the problem.
Isn't there an element of the TMO having a word in the refs ear when he's missed something serious?
-
In Rugby isn’t the responsibility with the Ref ?, he determines what question is asked and when to call it.
The complete abdication of responsibility by the ref is part of the problem.
Isn't there an element of the TMO having a word in the refs ear when he's missed something serious?
Yep. They don't do it much, just when they are pretty sure that the ref has missed something.
-
Get rid. As already mentioned, how they are using VAR is a complete farce. Until the Premier League and match officials agree to use it correctly and consistently in the right way then we’re much better off without it. VAR is a joke in its current format, and the decision makers in our game should all be suitably embarrassed.
-
For those of us who attend Premier League matches in the stadium VAR is ruining the major enjoyment – that of celebrating a goal by your team. Twice at Villa Park and once at Selhurst Park I have been jumping around only to be brought up short and, after a delay, a free kick taken by the defending team. On Saturday Hourihane’s screamer hit the back of the net, none of the Brighton players appealed (inc. their keeper), the ref thought it was OK and the teams headed for the centre circle only for someone miles away to rule it out. The loudest cheer now comes when the game is restarted with a kick off by the defending team.
As an aside I heard Andre Marriner speak and he said that refs don’t want their microphone broadcast because of their language.
-
So true Scratchins, you almost daren’t over celebrate until you are sure it won’t be chalked off. I still cannot understand saturday‘s latest VAR nonsense. I’ve watched the incident many times and cannot see where the clear and obvious error is. Perhaps the system will evolve but at the moment it’s hopelessly inaccurate.
-
In fairness. The handball rule has been changed so it’s any contact for an attacker (ala Mane) is handball but not the case for defenders. I don’t mind the Mane one and the lack of complaint shows the players didn’t either. As for the Sokratis one though.... if you don’t give that because it’s not clear and obvious (each to their own but I’d grudgingly accept) then you definitely can’t give the Wesley foul.
-
It seems so wrong, elongated and poor set up compared to rugby union TMO
-
In fairness. The handball rule has been changed so it’s any contact for an attacker (ala Mane) is handball but not the case for defenders. I don’t mind the Mane one and the lack of complaint shows the players didn’t either. As for the Sokratis one though.... if you don’t give that because it’s not clear and obvious (each to their own but I’d grudgingly accept) then you definitely can’t give the Wesley foul.
The appalling inconsistency is one of the problems. We've been told time and time again that it's a "high bar" for the off field VAR team to overrule the on field ref. So why was ours overruled, when it quite obviously wasn't a foul? And yet yesterday, a goal after a much more obvious foul wasn't chalked off. It's made to look even poorer by having the same two referees involved that bodged our game.
-
In fairness. The handball rule has been changed so it’s any contact for an attacker (ala Mane) is handball but not the case for defenders. I don’t mind the Mane one and the lack of complaint shows the players didn’t either. As for the Sokratis one though.... if you don’t give that because it’s not clear and obvious (each to their own but I’d grudgingly accept) then you definitely can’t give the Wesley foul.
The appalling inconsistency is one of the problems. We've been told time and time again that it's a "high bar" for the off field VAR team to overrule the on field ref. So why was ours overruled, when it quite obviously wasn't a foul? And yet yesterday, a goal after a much more obvious foul wasn't chalked off. It's made to look even poorer by having the same two referees involved that bodged our game.
It's incredibly poor at the moment. I'm still one of the few who believes in the principal of VAR, but it seems to be being implemented by morons.
-
I find it interesting that there isn't more noise coming from within clubs. It's clear that a majority of fans, even those who were in favour or on the fence in the summer, are now against the poor and at times indefensible use of the technology. Dean Smith among other managers has expressed frustration with it. I can only imagine that Purslow and other CEOs are just as annoyed by its inconsistency as the fans are.
I'd have thought it must be getting to the point that the clubs need to call a meeting to discuss the issue. They should, at the very least, ask the PL suspend the use of VAR until the many issues have demonstrably been ironed out.
-
In fairness. The handball rule has been changed so it’s any contact for an attacker (ala Mane) is handball but not the case for defenders. I don’t mind the Mane one and the lack of complaint shows the players didn’t either. As for the Sokratis one though.... if you don’t give that because it’s not clear and obvious (each to their own but I’d grudgingly accept) then you definitely can’t give the Wesley foul.
The appalling inconsistency is one of the problems. We've been told time and time again that it's a "high bar" for the off field VAR team to overrule the on field ref. So why was ours overruled, when it quite obviously wasn't a foul? And yet yesterday, a goal after a much more obvious foul wasn't chalked off. It's made to look even poorer by having the same two referees involved that bodged our game.
It's incredibly poor at the moment. I'm still one of the few who believes in the principal of VAR, but it seems to be being implemented by morons.
That's about where I am, I think a well implemented TV review system can be hugely beneficial but this is nothing like that.
-
I didn't realise until yesterday that there were monitors on the side of the pitch for ref's to look at. It's all a bit shambolic really isn't it?
-
Goal line technology is great, and has always seemingly worked as intended. I can even live with the reviews of offside decisions, as although they seem overly pernickety, at least it's a black and white decision. I'm in favour of anything that makes the game fairer, but the implementation of the rest of VAR is all wrong, and they're making as many crucial mistakes as an old fashioned human ref, with the added huge downside that the system comes with at a cost of ruining the flow and enjoyment of the game.
It should be halted as an experiment until they've sat down and thought things through a lot more thoroughly.
As a suggestion, the off field team could continue to look at offsides and handballs in the build up to a goal. Then each team gets one review per half over a contentious decision that leads to a goal. If they ask for a review, the ref then looks at the pitch side monitor with his team. if they're not sure after that, it then goes to the off field team. In our game on Saturday, I don't think Brighton would have even reviewed Conor's goal to be honest, and it would then rightly have stood.
-
I didn't realise until yesterday that there were monitors on the side of the pitch for ref's to look at. It's all a bit shambolic really isn't it?
Completely. Apparently they've never been used. They're the Goblin Teasmade of football technology.
-
I didn't realise until yesterday that there were monitors on the side of the pitch for ref's to look at. It's all a bit shambolic really isn't it?
Completely. Apparently they've never been used. They're the Goblin Teasmade of football technology.
Store alongside electronic voting.
-
Goal line technology is great, and has always seemingly worked as intended. I can even live with the reviews of offside decisions, as although they seem overly pernickety, at least it's a black and white decision. I'm in favour of anything that makes the game fairer, but the implementation of the rest of VAR is all wrong, and they're making as many crucial mistakes as an old fashioned human ref, with the added huge downside that the system comes with at a cost of ruining the flow and enjoyment of the game.
It should be halted as an experiment until they've sat down and thought things through a lot more thoroughly.
As a suggestion, the off field team could continue to look at offsides and handballs in the build up to a goal. Then each team gets one review per half over a contentious decision that leads to a goal. If they ask for a review, the ref then looks at the pitch side monitor with his team. if they're not sure after that, it then goes to the off field team. In our game on Saturday, I don't think Brighton would have even reviewed Conor's goal to be honest, and it would then rightly have stood.
I mostly agree but I’m not convinced by a review system, I still think that should be down to the ref but until they buy into the system wholeheartedly then I would stick with how you outline in your first paragraph.
-
You have to wonder, if that idiot Friend had let play continue at Palace, would VAR have helped us arrive at the correct decision? The way it's been going, the chances are that Friend would have been backed on the grounds that it wasn't "a clear and obvious mistake". What other area in life are mistakes not mistakes unless they are clear and obvious? A mistake is a mistake is a mistake, regardless of how clear and obvious it is.
We have to accept that it's here to stay so the best we can hope for is a complete review and dare I say it, a bit of common sense.
-
It's the fact that those monitors are there and going completely ignored that makes me worry that the Premier League is fully aware of how shit the experiment is and is happy to go along with it until they can say they tried but it was crap and abandon it. I'll admit that's verging into conspiracy theory territory but everyone can see the problems and yet nothing is being said to address them.
-
It's the fact that those monitors are there and going completely ignored that makes me worry that the Premier League is fully aware of how shit the experiment is and is happy to go along with it until they can say they tried but it was crap and abandon it. I'll admit that's verging into conspiracy theory territory but everyone can see the problems and yet nothing is being said to address them.
Who'd have thought that there'd be a situation where the people in charge plough on with something that's clearly not beneficial ;)
-
Who makes the decision then as to when a monitor has to be used?
Why have the thing there if you're not going to use it?
-
Who makes the decision then as to when a monitor has to be used?
Why have the thing there if you're not going to use it?
I assumed it was the ref who, as a body, seem determined for it to fail.
-
Who makes the decision then as to when a monitor has to be used?
Why have the thing there if you're not going to use it?
The TV commentator on Sky said that he'd been told by whomever's in charge of the refs, that monitors are not going to be used in the Premier League.
This contradicts what Dyche said he'd been told by the match referee for the Burnley game.
-
Who makes the decision then as to when a monitor has to be used?
Why have the thing there if you're not going to use it?
They're discussing that very point now on Sky sports News.
The refs have been instructed to use it sparingly because of the amount of time it would take. Which interprets to dont use is my guess.
-
Who makes the decision then as to when a monitor has to be used?
Why have the thing there if you're not going to use it?
They're discussing that very point now on Sky sports News.
The refs have been instructed to use it sparingly because of the amount of time it would take. Which interprets to dont use is my guess.
Only because they don't want to.
But just like 'clear and obvious', some of the wordings and guidelines are playing right into the referees' hands, leaving it nice and ambiguous so they ultimately do whatever they like with it. And I'm including the likes of Martin Atkinson sitting in the VAR room, covering his mates' arses.
-
Watching the Grealish highlights on the other thread makes it clear how ludicrous ruling out our first goal was.
If there was a foul by Wes in the build-up (which I'd argue there wasn't), once the referee hasn't given it then the play continues. The actual goal comes a good 6 or 7 seconds after the challenge on the goalkeeper, by which time he is fully set to try and make the save. At what point do you say the foul is no longer relevant?
-
Watching the Grealish highlights on the other thread makes it clear how ludicrous ruling out our first goal was.
If there was a foul by Wes in the build-up (which I'd argue there wasn't), once the referee hasn't given it then the play continues. The actual goal comes a good 6 or 7 seconds after the challenge on the goalkeeper, by which time he is fully set to try and make the save. At what point do you say the foul is no longer relevant?
Made even worse by the fact that they score from a free kick that was actually a perfectly executed tackle.
-
Watching the Grealish highlights on the other thread makes it clear how ludicrous ruling out our first goal was.
If there was a foul by Wes in the build-up (which I'd argue there wasn't), once the referee hasn't given it then the play continues. The actual goal comes a good 6 or 7 seconds after the challenge on the goalkeeper, by which time he is fully set to try and make the save. At what point do you say the foul is no longer relevant?
Made even worse by the fact that they score from a free kick that was actually a perfectly executed tackle.
That was even more galling for me. What a beautiful tackle. Conor really got shafted by both referee and VAR on Saturday.
-
I really don't like this VAR I think it's basically shite.
-
I really don't like this VAR I think it's basically shite.
After very careful consideration, I'll second that
-
The technology is fine, the useless punter using it is the problem.
Even worse than our decisions on saturday - Watford. Clear trip on Deulofeu in the area, reviewed but no penalty (VAR has yet to give a penalty when not given by the ref in the premier league). At the end Ali's goal comes off his arm, its reviewed and no goal per VAR but the ref overrules and gives it anyway.
2 issues:
1. the people using VAR are too afraid to overrule the on pitch ref (re the penalty).
2. even for no subjective decisions the VAR reviewer isn't applying the rules. Man City had a goal ruled out earlier this season as the ball inadvertently brushed someones arma nd were told that if a goal is scored and the ball hits the hand it must be disallowed. This was contradicted on saturday.
-
Re: Use of pitch-side screens. I have never seen a ref called over to one and not agree with the TMO's decision, so it's just a rubber stamp and therefore not a cure for the dreadful shit that VAR has become. I was in favour previously.
-
Dermot Gallager on ref watch (Sky) has said it was the correct decision - foul by Wesley. I watched it several times. Yeah, strictly there's a small amout of contact, but bloody hell if that's a foul we might as well all give up.
-
Dermot Gallager on ref watch (Sky) has said it was the correct decision - foul by Wesley. I watched it several times. Yeah, strictly there's a small amout of contact, but bloody hell if that's a foul we might as well all give up.
Even in retirement they protect their own.
-
Dermot Gallager on ref watch (Sky) has said it was the correct decision - foul by Wesley. I watched it several times. Yeah, strictly there's a small amout of contact, but bloody hell if that's a foul we might as well all give up.
Dermot once again is just sticking up for his pals and is talking bollocks. There was no foul on the keeper when Hourihane scored. It was nonsense.
-
I did't actually see it on sky, just read the written article. But it's hilarious when all the pundits and presenter look at him in amazment when he defends some of these decisions. Doesn't he realise what a tool he looks??
-
Did Gallagher also say why if it was a foul (which is wrong) why the ref didn't blow for it at the time? Incompetent ref and incompetent var!
-
If the ball had fell to Conor when Wesley jumped then I could have just about understood it, but it went out wide then came back in.
-
Dermot Gallager on ref watch (Sky) has said it was the correct decision - foul by Wesley. I watched it several times. Yeah, strictly there's a small amout of contact, but bloody hell if that's a foul we might as well all give up.
No foul at all, none of their players claimed for it either. VAR cancelling that goal is a vote of no confidence in the referee on this pitch in my view. Crap decision as very, very little contact, certainly not enough to put the keep off. Perfectly good goal. Old boys network strikes again.
-
It's the VAR assistants - they are batsh*t crazy and shouldn't be allowed to officiate at all. Watford should rightly be fuming. Apparently Manure got away with a VAR review worse than our 'foul'. What they've really done is add another level of inconsistency in because it's still humans making a judgement call.
-
Dermot gallagher says the Manu goal was ok because the ref decided no foul and it's not VARs job to look for fouls, then goes on to say ours was a foul on the keeper and correct?
-
The technology is fine, the useless punter using it is the problem.
Even worse than our decisions on saturday - Watford. Clear trip on Deulofeu in the area, reviewed but no penalty (VAR has yet to give a penalty when not given by the ref in the premier league). At the end Ali's goal comes off his arm, its reviewed and no goal per VAR but the ref overrules and gives it anyway.
2 issues:
1. the people using VAR are too afraid to overrule the on pitch ref (re the penalty).
2. even for no subjective decisions the VAR reviewer isn't applying the rules. Man City had a goal ruled out earlier this season as the ball inadvertently brushed someones arma nd were told that if a goal is scored and the ball hits the hand it must be disallowed. This was contradicted on saturday.
VAR Said goal, person in charge of the board pressed the wrong button and was not "overruled" by the ref. Still another nail though and the stupidness of the Watford penalty was that from the angle the review was carried out, it was obvious it was one. The ref didn't have the advantage of the angle and the slow motion of the replay so if it was given rightly as a penalty, it wouldn't have been a blot on his instant decision at all.
-
Dermot gallagher says the Manu goal was ok because the ref decided no foul and it's not VARs job to look for fouls, then goes on to say ours was a foul on the keeper and correct?
I only saw him talking about the Man Utd goal and he said if the ref on the pitch didn’t see it as a foul then the VAR ref wouldn’t need to overrule him. In which case our goal should stand. They’re making it up as they go along, it’s shit!
-
VAR isn't inconsistent, it's the opinions of the referees that are inconsistent. If anything, VAR has helped to highlight how shite they are at their jobs. PGMOL needs to be cleared out, I think some of the leaders in the organisation may feel they have too much power over the game and it needs to stop.
-
Dermot Gallagher is a wanker. That is all.
-
VAR isn't inconsistent, it's the opinions of the referees that are inconsistent. If anything, VAR has helped to highlight how shite they are at their jobs. PGMOL needs to be cleared out, I think some of the leaders in the organisation may feel they have too much power over the game and it needs to stop.
I agree Stu, there just doesn't seem to be any accountability whatsoever. It used to be that when a ref had a stinker, they'd pop up at a division or so lower for their next match. The next match but one after Kevin Friend cheated us, he was reffing Man U v Arsenal.
-
Dermot gallagher says the Manu goal was ok because the ref decided no foul and it's not VARs job to look for fouls, then goes on to say ours was a foul on the keeper and correct?
I believe it was the same referee who called the 'foul' on the Brighton keeper that let the Man United goal stand. Remarkably inconsitent.
-
Dermot gallagher says the Manu goal was ok because the ref decided no foul and it's not VARs job to look for fouls, then goes on to say ours was a foul on the keeper and correct?
I only saw him talking about the Man Utd goal and he said if the ref on the pitch didn’t see it as a foul then the VAR ref wouldn’t need to overrule him. In which case our goal should stand. They’re making it up as they go along, it’s shit!
I believe what he was saying is that the ref saw the foul/challenge in the Man u game and waved play on. So VAR couldn’t assess it. Whereas in the Villa game the ref made no such gesture and therefore missed the incident. That was my interpretation
-
Dermot gallagher says the Manu goal was ok because the ref decided no foul and it's not VARs job to look for fouls, then goes on to say ours was a foul on the keeper and correct?
I only saw him talking about the Man Utd goal and he said if the ref on the pitch didn’t see it as a foul then the VAR ref wouldn’t need to overrule him. In which case our goal should stand. They’re making it up as they go along, it’s shit!
I believe what he was saying is that the ref saw the foul/challenge in the Man u game and waved play on. So VAR couldn’t assess it. Whereas in the Villa game the ref made no such gesture and therefore missed the incident. That was my interpretation
Which kinda begs the question, wtf was he looking at, then?
-
It seems so wrong, elongated and poor set up compared to rugby union TMO
I think football as a sport is really incompatible with the technology. Cricket and rugby both have natural breaks but the whole idea of football is it flows more or less continuously.
-
One of the perfect uses for VAR should have been giving the Watford pen, I can fully understand the ref not being able to see the fouls in that challenge as unless he was damn lucky the players would be blocking his view of the of it s that's where VAR comes in. Except of course VAR gives no pen. What's the fucking point if it doesn't give something as blatant as that.
-
It seems so wrong, elongated and poor set up compared to rugby union TMO
I think football as a sport is really incompatible with the technology. Cricket and rugby both have natural breaks but the whole idea of football is it flows more or less continuously.
It's not even the natural breaks as the fact that so much in football is a matter of opinion rather than fact.
-
Dermot gallagher says the Manu goal was ok because the ref decided no foul and it's not VARs job to look for fouls, then goes on to say ours was a foul on the keeper and correct?
I only saw him talking about the Man Utd goal and he said if the ref on the pitch didn’t see it as a foul then the VAR ref wouldn’t need to overrule him. In which case our goal should stand. They’re making it up as they go along, it’s shit!
I believe what he was saying is that the ref saw the foul/challenge in the Man u game and waved play on. So VAR couldn’t assess it. Whereas in the Villa game the ref made no such gesture and therefore missed the incident. That was my interpretation
I’m not sure if he waved play on, I think he said Atkinson was in a good position to see the challenge and decided it wasn’t a foul, which is exactly what happened in our game.
-
Dermot gallagher says the Manu goal was ok because the ref decided no foul and it's not VARs job to look for fouls, then goes on to say ours was a foul on the keeper and correct?
I only saw him talking about the Man Utd goal and he said if the ref on the pitch didn’t see it as a foul then the VAR ref wouldn’t need to overrule him. In which case our goal should stand. They’re making it up as they go along, it’s shit!
I believe what he was saying is that the ref saw the foul/challenge in the Man u game and waved play on. So VAR couldn’t assess it. Whereas in the Villa game the ref made no such gesture and therefore missed the incident. That was my interpretation
I’m not sure if he waved play on, I think he said Atkinson was in a good position to see the challenge and decided it wasn’t a foul, which is exactly what happened in our game.
Quote “Martin waves it away and once he does this it’s out of VARs hands”
-
Fair enough I only saw the clip on the news. I’d still argue the ref in our game saw the Wesley incident and didn’t give a foul and had a good view so I don’t see why another ref’s opinion should hold any more weight
-
It’s like rules for pool in certain pubs. They are making it up as they go along. So... if something is waved play on, no matter if is a clear and obvious error, it can’t go to VAR??
-
They’ve basically made up several caveats to the VAR rules to justify incorrect decisions and make excuses. This whole “VAR can’t be involved after a referee has made a decision“ is nonsense especially when VAR is supposed to correct “clear and obvious mistakes” by match officials which is the whole point of having VAR in the first place! The only thing they are consistent in is their inconsistency and pathetic incompetence.
-
Can I suggest that all VAR's at Stockley Park immediately undergo a thorough eye examination at Specsavers?
-
Sort of defeats the point if the ref has “seen” it!
-
Somehow the Cabal called the PGMOL has got control over officiating and is a self serving organization with obvious Conflicts of Interest.
VAR has just exacerbated the jobs worth stupidity of this for maximum profit and protectionist behavior.
It’s a classic Who Guards the Guards or Quis custodiet ipsos custodies.?
-
I’m another who contrasted the Rugby Saturday morning on TV to the footy Saturday afternoon.
Ruby: ref says he’s a bit uncertain about a couple of passes (crowd hear exactly his concerns, I presume on the PA, I know there is the option to pay to hear the ref for the whole match somehow/sometimes).
So the crowd know the uncertainty. VAR man selects and plays the two passes in question on the Big Screen so ref and *everyone* gets the same opportunity to review, with VAR man adding, for him both passes were fine. Ref on the pitch however -retaining authority- says, no, for him the 2nd looks a fwd pass and takes the big decision to disallow the try, everyone knows what the concern is, what the evidence is, what the decision is and why.
Contrast that to silent confusion and mystery, with the decision taken away from the man in charge, and lack of awareness as to when a decision is made. We don’t even know when the decision is made to be able to celebrate or not.
One key point that seems to be lost in the Ref on the pitch losing control of the decision, is that he has had an additional angle that cameras didn’t. His judgment should be supplemented by evidence (best angle/s available provided quickly to him). He simply has more data as he has his initial impression.
Not working at all at the moment, maybe it will in time, but as well as it’s execution it’s choice of application needs sorting too.
Embarrassing atm.
-
I don't like VAR.I don't like the whole principle and i don't believe it's as accurate as they'd have us believe when it comes to offsides given for tiny margins. It takes much more away from the game than it provides. I actually didn't celebrate Jack's goal as i thought it would be ruled out and i'd only just put myself through that particular mangle so it ruined the joy of celebration for myself and many others.The elephant in the room is the referees cartel. They are just using it to cover each others backs and now a few arrogant self serving twunts are holding all the power over the beautiful game. Their behaviour is a bit like they have been given the powers of life or death in the Colusseum akin to "The Emperor" and they're revelling in it. I would just bin it but if we must have it then i suggest the clubs insist on it being suspended. New referrees can be invited to join the ranks (after having their eyesight tested) and these could be trained up to use the system properly by an overseeing body of Premier league club officials, ex referees, ex players and League officials. Stringent codes put in place and each new referee to pass a test put in place to prove their competence. If this takes a year for instance then so be it. What's the rush? Once you have enough referees trained up to use the system properly boot out all the current clique and start again with a system designed and implemented by the right people.
-
It seems so wrong, elongated and poor set up compared to rugby union TMO
I think football as a sport is really incompatible with the technology. Cricket and rugby both have natural breaks but the whole idea of football is it flows more or less continuously.
I don't buy that.
Cricket, yes, but rugby doesn't have any more breaks than football. There are plenty of occasions the ball is in play for several minutes in rugby, whereas you'd be hard pushed to find the ball in play for more than 60 seconds in most football matches.
VAR could work but the absolute shambles we're currently witnessing is down to the amateur way it's being implemented.
-
Agree with The Edge. Spot on.
-
VAR should be used to determine if a ball crosses the line. Everything else needs to be a challenge from the manager. They get max 2 per game and would be limited to things like challenging offsides that led to goals or penalty claims either way. After that it’s things like violent play that should be left to a 4th official if the ref/assts have missed it. These incredibly narrow offsides and marginal infractions are killing the game.
-
Maybe this isn't as haphazard as it looks.
Fans and pundits have been calling for video technology to help officials for years - probably much to the officials chagrin. Now they're taking the opportunity to make it as unworkable as possible.
Ask most fans now if they want VAR or a return to the previous way of operating with the ref calling the shots and I'm sure most will go for the latter.
-
To those suggesting a finite number of coach's appeals, there's no way a manager/coach can have a decent view of any decision, contentious or otherwise, that happens more than 30 yards from our dugout. You can't see anything from down there. People four rows back in the bottom of the Trinity can see more.
I honestly don't get why our managers don't watch at least the first half from the Directors' box.
-
It seems so wrong, elongated and poor set up compared to rugby union TMO
I think football as a sport is really incompatible with the technology. Cricket and rugby both have natural breaks but the whole idea of football is it flows more or less continuously.
I don't buy that.
Cricket, yes, but rugby doesn't have any more breaks than football. There are plenty of occasions the ball is in play for several minutes in rugby, whereas you'd be hard pushed to find the ball in play for more than 60 seconds in most football matches.
VAR could work but the absolute shambles we're currently witnessing is down to the amateur way it's being implemented.
I see what you mean but in rugby the ref is integral to the game, constantly involved when the ball is in play, and has to pull play up frequently, whereas in football they only get involved in infringements, so it seems less jarring to have wait around for a TMO decision.
I dunno, there may be an element just being used to it in that setting and it having been integrated better - but it seems to me like the only way for VAR to be properly integrated in football is for the game to change in lots of subtle but important ways.
-
The difference is that in rugby and cricket the officials wanted it as a tool to help them. In football they see it as a tool to replace them. Until that changes it stands no chance of being the system the game needs.
I do thijk rugby and football are more similar than many think though, in terms of the tempo of the game. You'll get teams who slow things down and play for lineouts and scrums, but that's not dissimilar to how Pulis plays, for example.
-
It's also a slight myth to say that TMO doesn't interrupt the flow of a rugby game. It's just that this is now accepted as part and parcel of the game, because it does correct the ref and it does result in fairer decisions.
But that requires both the refs on the field and the TMO to have integrity. Too often this season we've seen bonkers subjective refereeing decisions go against us, and even if you think that was incompetence rather than bias or malice, you must then accept that there is a lack of integrity in Stockley Park where VAR has invariably failed to overturn the poor decisions of the referees. The behaviour of referees has a bang of 'all for one and one for all' off it, which you just wouldn't get in rugby officiating.
-
I think you're spot on that the us and them mentality is a big part of the problem, hence the infuriating closing of ranks by the refs when they get it wrong. But then in fairness that’s also born of cultural differences between football vs rugby around respect for / behaviour towards the ref.
You can blame football refs for their mistakes but not their siege mentality.
-
You can blame football refs for their mistakes but not their siege mentality.
Yep. Another one here agreeing with the stance that paul_e and others have got to with VAR. The refs are the problem.
While I agree with almost all that themossman says I'd disagree with that last point; what their mentality indicates is that they do NOT have the best interests of the game at heart, only their own. With such a major element of the game at risk now (fairness, an even playing field) and with such a risky experiment being conducted and abused by them I CAN blame them for not taking this opportunity to do the right thing.
Yep. I blame them for being insular, blinkered, venal, egocentric cockwombles who deserve to be consigned to the nether reaches of hell for what they are doing to our game. With any luck the clubs, through their ownership of the PL, will take this chance to cut them down to useful size. For all our sakes.
-
It's also a slight myth to say that TMO doesn't interrupt the flow of a rugby game. It's just that this is now accepted as part and parcel of the game, because it does correct the ref and it does result in fairer decisions.
But that requires both the refs on the field and the TMO to have integrity. Too often this season we've seen bonkers subjective refereeing decisions go against us, and even if you think that was incompetence rather than bias or malice, you must then accept that there is a lack of integrity in Stockley Park where VAR has invariably failed to overturn the poor decisions of the referees. The behaviour of referees has a bang of 'all for one and one for all' off it, which you just wouldn't get in rugby officiating.
Yep, the whole thing of not being able to celebrate a goal applies to tries in rugby, the difference is that it's clear why it's being checked and the fans are able to see and hear the process. A short delay that results in the correct decision and where the delay is easily understood is fine, this smoke and mirrors version of VAR offers nothing like that. Decisions are still wrong and the whole process happens in secret, on TV you have commentators guessing at what might be happening and in the ground you have nothing but a wait for an answer on the screen.
I think a big part of the problem is a lack of understanding of the need for VAR (from authorities) getting more decisions right, on the surface, looks to be the aim but what is actually needed is transparency on the reasons for a decision. I guarantee every single person who has watched football in the ground has an example of a decision that pissed them off at the time but when they saw the highlights later they realise it was actually the right decision, it happens all the time.
In the era of modern professional sport fans have access to huge amounts of footage and can see every incident for themselves from multiple angles. That has given rise to fans being able to easily spot mistakes from officials. By using tech rugby and cricket (also Tennis and many other sports) have shown they care about these mistakes. On the other hand football, currently, is burying it's head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge the mistakes exist.
Final point, there is a difference in respect for referees but that's not helped by the lack of trust fans have towards referees. Rugby isn't immune to fans losing trust in refs (look at the opinions towards Romain Poite and Ben Skeen in this world cup) but it's on an individual basis, in football almost all fans think that almost all refs are fucking shit and it will take a lot of work to turn that around.
-
The other difference with rugby is that a try depends on the ball being grounded, which is quite often hard for the referee to see properly if there's 4 or 5 players on top of the person trying to score the try. With football, that isn't the case and goal-line technology has easily eradicated the question of whether the ball has crossed the line or not. On Saturday, Conor had clearly lashed the ball into the net. The referee rightly gave the goal, and nobody was complaining about it. For VAR to then overrule it, was both wrong, and also against the spirit of the so-called "high bar".
-
in football almost all fans think that almost all refs are fucking shit and it will take a lot of work to turn that around.
Yes but that's why it's worth doing. The game as a whole will benefit enormously.
-
The other difference with rugby is that a try depends on the ball being grounded, which is quite often hard for the referee to see properly if there's 4 or 5 players on top of the person trying to score the try. With football, that isn't the case and goal-line technology has easily eradicated the question of whether the ball has crossed the line or not. On Saturday, Conor had clearly lashed the ball into the net. The referee rightly gave the goal, and nobody was complaining about it. For VAR to then overrule it, was both wrong, and also against the spirit of the so-called "high bar".
I'd guess the equivalent though is something like the Grealish booking at Palace, all 3 decisions (penalty, dive or nothing) were possible there and it's hard, on a single viewing, to know what was correct. If the system was setup properly play could've carried on until after Lansbury scored and then a quick review could've decided if there 'was any reason not to award the goal' and they'd make a call on it. You can use similar logic for handball leading to a goal. Rugby and cricket both handle the grey area well with rugby centred of the nature of the question ("try: yes or no?" vs "any reason not to award the try?") and Cricket using umpire's call.
You could easily apply both in football, give a margin of error for offside (so the flag is the on-field decision and that decision has to be clearly demonstrated as wrong outside a margin of error for the tech) and for other offences the ref can say "I'm thinking goal/no goal because of {reason}, can you prove me wrong?". So in the example you gave, "I'm giving the goal because I don't think there's a foul on the keeper, can you show conclusive evidence of foul play by the striker?" and then the VAR has to show that the decision of the ref was wrong. With all of that happening on open comms, even if we disagree with the end result, the reasons for changing the decision are clear.
-
Yes but that's why it's worth doing. The game as a whole will benefit enormously.
Completely agree, that's what I was getting at. This should be an opportunity for refs to improve their reputation with the fans, but the shocking implementation we have has actually gone the other way and I can't think of a time in my experience where refs were less trustworthy (as a collective).
-
‘Soccer is not about justice. It’s a drama – and criminally wrong decisions against you are part and parcel of that.’
Pete Davies
-
‘Soccer is not about justice. It’s a drama – and criminally wrong decisions against you are part and parcel of that.’
Pete Davies
The issue is that those decisions can now have such a massive impact (hundreds of millions of them) that it's harder than before to chalk it off as 'part of the charm of the game'.
-
in football almost all fans think that almost all refs are fucking shit and it will take a lot of work to turn that around.
Yes but that's why it's worth doing. The game as a whole will benefit enormously.
I know you misattributed that quote to me instead of paul_e by accident but just wanted to point it out!
Find it hard to disagree with what paul_e or Risso have said above, for what it's worth.
-
I don't get that VAR doesn't work in football because there aren't as many breaks. Surely when a goal is scored - and if there is any area of concern from the on field ref or VAR the ref can take time to look at the play back and make the right decision. What baffles me is by giving the goal on Saturday the ref is clearly comfortable with Wesley's challenge and can only therefore be corrected if it is clear and obvious. I've only seen the same angle where his arm is in the air and in the area of the keeper but with no obvious meaningful contact. To be that is not not clear and obvious and certainly not as clear and obvious as the contact on Origi
-
I don't get that VAR doesn't work in football because there aren't as many breaks. Surely when a goal is scored - and if there is any area of concern from the on field ref or VAR the ref can take time to look at the play back and make the right decision. What baffles me is by giving the goal on Saturday the ref is clearly comfortable with Wesley's challenge and can only therefore be corrected if it is clear and obvious. I've only seen the same angle where his arm is in the air and in the area of the keeper but with no obvious meaningful contact. To be that is not not clear and obvious and certainly not as clear and obvious as the contact on Origi
Yes, given how VAR has operated to date, it was a truly remarkable decision and I'm surprised there hasn't been more press on it.
-
I don't get that VAR doesn't work in football because there aren't as many breaks. Surely when a goal is scored - and if there is any area of concern from the on field ref or VAR the ref can take time to look at the play back and make the right decision. What baffles me is by giving the goal on Saturday the ref is clearly comfortable with Wesley's challenge and can only therefore be corrected if it is clear and obvious. I've only seen the same angle where his arm is in the air and in the area of the keeper but with no obvious meaningful contact. To be that is not not clear and obvious and certainly not as clear and obvious as the contact on Origi
Yes, given how VAR has operated to date, it was a truly remarkable decision and I'm surprised there hasn't been more press on it.
Even more ridiculous is that it was the same man that gave both decisions.
-
On Saturday, Conor had clearly lashed the ball into the net. The referee rightly gave the goal, and nobody was complaining about it. For VAR to then overrule it, was both wrong, and also against the spirit of the so-called "high bar".
Utterly shit decision.
I hope someone cranks up the voltage in the headsets at Stockley Park next week if the numpty who chalked that one off feels like getting involved again.
As an aside, it was interesting (shit) to see Kevin Fiend officiating a Premier League match after his performance at Selhurst in the next round of fixtures.
I can get why they wouldn't hang him out to try and comment on his performance in public straight after. But he should have been getting League One fixtures for a few weeks after that after a totally dreadful 90 minutes. Instead it was business as usual. No accountability, nada.
-
On Saturday, Conor had clearly lashed the ball into the net. The referee rightly gave the goal, and nobody was complaining about it. For VAR to then overrule it, was both wrong, and also against the spirit of the so-called "high bar".
Utterly shit decision.
I hope someone cranks up the voltage in the headsets at Stockley Park next week if the numpty who chalked that one off feels like getting involved again.
As an aside, it was interesting (shit) to see Kevin Fiend officiating a Premier League match after his performance at Selhurst in the next round of fixtures.
I can get why they wouldn't hang him out to try and comment on his performance in public straight after. But he should have been getting League One fixtures for a few weeks after that after a totally dreadful 90 minutes. Instead it was business as usual. No accountability, nada.
I agree and said the same thing recently. The week after that, he was rewarded with a "big" game, Manu v Arsenal.
-
On Saturday, Conor had clearly lashed the ball into the net. The referee rightly gave the goal, and nobody was complaining about it. For VAR to then overrule it, was both wrong, and also against the spirit of the so-called "high bar".
Utterly shit decision.
I hope someone cranks up the voltage in the headsets at Stockley Park next week if the numpty who chalked that one off feels like getting involved again.
As an aside, it was interesting (shit) to see Kevin Fiend officiating a Premier League match after his performance at Selhurst in the next round of fixtures.
I can get why they wouldn't hang him out to try and comment on his performance in public straight after. But he should have been getting League One fixtures for a few weeks after that after a totally dreadful 90 minutes. Instead it was business as usual. No accountability, nada.
I agree and said the same thing recently. The week after that, he was rewarded with a "big" game, Manu v Arsenal.
And wasn't he praised in that game for allowing play to go on so VAR could then be called into account to check in the build up to a goal?
-
You can blame football refs for their mistakes but not their siege mentality.
Yep. Another one here agreeing with the stance that paul_e and others have got to with VAR. The refs are the problem.
While I agree with almost all that themossman says I'd disagree with that last point; what their mentality indicates is that they do NOT have the best interests of the game at heart, only their own. With such a major element of the game at risk now (fairness, an even playing field) and with such a risky experiment being conducted and abused by them I CAN blame them for not taking this opportunity to do the right thing.
Yep. I blame them for being insular, blinkered, venal, egocentric cockwombles who deserve to be consigned to the nether reaches of hell for what they are doing to our game. With any luck the clubs, through their ownership of the PL, will take this chance to cut them down to useful size. For all our sakes.
What a load of condescending sanctimonious horseshit.
-
You can blame football refs for their mistakes but not their siege mentality.
Yep. Another one here agreeing with the stance that paul_e and others have got to with VAR. The refs are the problem.
While I agree with almost all that themossman says I'd disagree with that last point; what their mentality indicates is that they do NOT have the best interests of the game at heart, only their own. With such a major element of the game at risk now (fairness, an even playing field) and with such a risky experiment being conducted and abused by them I CAN blame them for not taking this opportunity to do the right thing.
Yep. I blame them for being insular, blinkered, venal, egocentric cockwombles who deserve to be consigned to the nether reaches of hell for what they are doing to our game. With any luck the clubs, through their ownership of the PL, will take this chance to cut them down to useful size. For all our sakes.
What a load of condescending sanctimonious horseshit.
Hear hear. Missed this earlier. Utter bollocks and completely unhelpful.
-
Whilst the tone is a bit excessive I'm not sure AllanW is wrong. I wanted VAR a a means to eradicate what looked like clear and obvious bias, whether conscious or unconscious, towards certain teams, or utter incompetence (see Thierry Henry double handball against Ireland). But I've come to the conclusion it's a decent tool applied by self-serving morons.
There still seems to be a lot of subjective decisions going in favour of teams like Spuds and Arsenal, and against teams like us. The bias has just changed location or been rubber stamped by a crony. So there is absolutely no point to it from that perspective, it just gets in the way.
I'd hoped it would give consistency of decisions - but it's applied massively inconsistently, just as on-field refs apply the laws inconsistently. So again no point to it, it just gets in the way.
And I'm struggling to see why Gallagher says the fact the Man Yoo ref waved play on takes it out of VAR's hands, whereas our ref signalling a goal doesn't. Similarly Friend giving a foul for Jack's dive takes VAR out of the equation, whereas if he lets play run and gives the goal, VAR could still have disallowed it. So some decisions can be corrected, but not others? It makes no sense and it's utter bullshit. Gallagher just makes himself a laughing stock by trying to explain and defend it.
The application is so bad that, like others, I can only conclude that the PGMOL people are doing it deliberately to undermine it and get shot of it.
-
My response to his post has got nothing to do with VAR, it's the aspersions he's casting on people he knows nothing about and about a profession I would respectfully suggest he knows even less. Make your observations and give your opinions by all means but using that tone as Chinchilla rightly says, does nothing to help.
-
And I'm struggling to see why Gallagher says the fact the Man Yoo ref waved play on takes it out of VAR's hands, whereas our ref signalling a goal doesn't.
Dean Smith mentioned in his interview today that our goal on Saturday was overruled by what would be considered the senior referee in charge of VAR whereas the exact same pairing (Atkinson and Coote) with the roles reversed for the Liverpool/Man United game left the decision with the on field referee.
He also made an interesting point about how VAR is being used quite negatively in his opinion i.e almost exclusively to rule goals out rather than give penalties etc.
-
‘Soccer is not about justice. It’s a drama – and criminally wrong decisions against you are part and parcel of that.’
Pete Davies
The issue is that those decisions can now have such a massive impact (hundreds of millions of them) that it's harder than before to chalk it off as 'part of the charm of the game'.
That's not the game's fault. Pump all the billions you want into it, it'll always only be 11 people kicking a bag of wind around a field. Much like paying someone millions a year rather than a few tens of thousands won't make them a better player, so football will never be more than the most important of life's unimportant things.
Does anybody on here actually think that decisions regarding the Villa are more important now than they were thirty years ago primarily because there's more money involved?
-
We don't win that game on Saturday (to go with the missed points due to duff decisions already this season), and we end up get relegated by the narrowest of margins then, aye.
We've already had a taste of the fun and games associated with a big club going down vis a vis financial unfair play. I'm in no rush to repeat that anytime soon.
-
Has any team ever been relegated as a result of season-long refereeing decisions?
-
I'm not Rainman so I can't recite every single crap decision across every single game that resulted in a team going down.
But Bolton a few years back had a goal not given towards the end of the season (the ball had crossed the line) which did for them.
I have never really been an advocate of 'these things even themselves over the course of a season.' That relies on a perfect balance of ineptitude. There is even less scope for that sort of thinking now with the stakes so high.
-
Has any team ever been relegated as a result of season-long refereeing decisions?
Bolton for definite, Cardiff would have a strong claim as well.
-
Has any team ever been relegated as a result of season-long refereeing decisions?
Bolton for definite, Cardiff would have a strong claim as well.
that'll be the Bolton that were days away from being wound-up just a few years later. That's why it matters that the game does what it can to get this right.
Does anybody on here actually think that decisions regarding the Villa are more important now than they were thirty years ago primarily because there's more money involved?
Possibly not but there are 2 big differences. The first is that clubs were rarely in so much trouble if they were relegated at the time:
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/20/22/3167EF3100000578-0-image-a-32_1456008078518.jpg)
It'a a few years out of date but that sums the problem up nicely.
The 2nd difference is that we can do something about it now, 30 years ago we couldn't so the question itself is moot.
-
Has any team ever been relegated as a result of season-long refereeing decisions?
Bolton for definite, Cardiff would have a strong claim as well.
They didn't suffer season-long refereeing errors though, just a relatively tiny number of them - relative, that is, to the massive amount of footballing clangers their players made on the field across the whole season. That's the only thing that definitely did for them and all relegated sides, not a couple of dodgy refereeing calls.
-
Also, it's not relegation but a shocking decision to not give Vidic a red card almost certainly cost us a trophy a few years back, I'd say that game alone works as a pretty big incentive for fans to push for officials to be better.
-
And I'm not sure you can blame one bad ref for Bolton nearly going bust either.
-
I'm happy with any football "injustice" ever never being righted. It will make not a jot of a difference to my life. I do hear you people that do, but blimey, football club supporting can be stressful as it is without piling that worry on the top. If you want to try to level the playing field, getting behind salary caps and drafts will do more than fretting over VAR ever will.
-
I'm happy with any football "injustice" ever never being righted. It will make not a jot of a difference to my life. I do hear you people that do, but blimey, football club supporting can be stressful as it is without piling that worry on the top. If you want to try to level the playing field, getting behind salary caps and drafts will do more than fretting over VAR ever will.
Or we could do all 3?
And I'm not sure you can blame one bad ref for Bolton nearly going bust either.
So the loss of revenue from relegation had no impact and you can say, 100%, that bad decisions had no impact on their relegation?
-
I'm happy with any football "injustice" ever never being righted. It will make not a jot of a difference to my life. I do hear you people that do, but blimey, football club supporting can be stressful as it is without piling that worry on the top. If you want to try to level the playing field, getting behind salary caps and drafts will do more than fretting over VAR ever will.
Well VAR is here now and not working so people are going to debate it. If a salary cap was introduced people would be talking about that as well, especially if it wasn't working.
-
Has any team ever been relegated as a result of season-long refereeing decisions?
Bolton for definite, Cardiff would have a strong claim as well.
They didn't suffer season-long refereeing errors though, just a relatively tiny number of them - relative, that is, to the massive amount of footballing clangers their players made on the field across the whole season. That's the only thing that definitely did for them and all relegated sides, not a couple of dodgy refereeing calls.
Those bad decisions obviously cost teams, it's daft to think otherwise. There'll be a bunch of sides this season in the bottom 6-8 that are all much of a muchness, if one of them has a bunch more bad decisions go against them then that can be the difference between staying up or going down and had nothing to do with playing ability.
-
I'm happy with any football "injustice" ever never being righted. It will make not a jot of a difference to my life. I do hear you people that do, but blimey, football club supporting can be stressful as it is without piling that worry on the top. If you want to try to level the playing field, getting behind salary caps and drafts will do more than fretting over VAR ever will.
Well VAR is here now and not working so people are going to debate it. If a salary cap was introduced people would be talking about that as well, especially if it wasn't working.
I'm going to call it now; VAR will never work in football in a way that improves the experience. Never.
-
I wont say it will never work, but in its present form it's an unmitigated disaster
-
The World Cup version seemed to work well 95 per cent of the time.
I also don't get why the ref on the field on Saturday - having a clear view of Hourihane's goal- has to be overruled by a penarse in Stockley Park. Keeper didn't appeal for the foul, none of their lot did. But the lad miles away starts applying his own set of rules.
-
Another point about the Atkinson/Coote combination, from what I understand they seem to be matching officials with one more experienced and one less experienced ref pairing up. Isn't Atkinson the "senior partner" and on both occasions it was his version of events that he held sway, overruling Coote for our goal but not being overruled by Coote when he was ref. Doesn't seem right to me.
-
Another point about the Atkinson/Coote combination, from what I understand they seem to be matching officials with one more experienced and one less experienced ref pairing up. Isn't Atkinson the "senior partner" and on both occasions it was his version of events that he held sway, overruling Coote for our goal but not being overruled by Coote when he was ref. Doesn't seem right to me.
Of course it was Atkinson who bottled sending off Billings against Bournemouth as well so he’s ahead of Friend in fucking us over this season so far.
-
The World Cup version seemed to work well 95 per cent of the time.
I also don't get why the ref on the field on Saturday - having a clear view of Hourihane's goal- has to be overruled by a penarse in Stockley Park. Keeper didn't appeal for the foul, none of their lot did. But the lad miles away starts applying his own set of rules.
I said previously on here that i firmly believe that the referees are the main problem with var. They are using it as a way of covering up for each other. I can't think of a decision where the ref has made a whopper and Stockley Park have overturned it and hung one of their own out to dry. They only change a decision when it would be hard to criticise the match officials eg: offside by half an eyelash. I don't like var one bit but i do understand that time moves on and technology is going to be used whether we like it or not. My proposal is a radical one. Suspend var. Run a programme of extensive training which would be organised and ran by representatives from the clubs, former refs and relevant bodies. Invite new referees who would have no baggage or loyalties to get in the way of implementing the system properly. Once fully trained replace all the existing refs. Fresh start and fully trained to use the new technology correctly in the way it was supposed to be used in the first place. Start afresh in 2020/2021 season.
-
VAR should be used to determine if a ball crosses the line. Everything else needs to be a challenge from the manager. They get max 2 per game and would be limited to things like challenging offsides that led to goals or penalty claims either way. After that it’s things like violent play that should be left to a 4th official if the ref/assts have missed it. These incredibly narrow offsides and marginal infractions are killing the game.
We already have the technology for the ball crossing the line - thankifully without the disaster that is VAR.
For everything else, it should be down to the refs at the stadium. Bin VAR immedately.
I don't accept this "well it's here now, so let's just make the best of it" line - if enough people shout about it, then it won't be ignored. Remember the uproar about the 39th game etc?
-
Always think of Craig David’s rewind song when I hear VAR.
V-A-R
When the crowd shouts goal
Reject it
-
Sooner or later the you would hope that the penny will drop with the Premier League itself. The success of their "brand" and all the billions it rakes in is surely based on the excitement of the English game, and its attacking nature compared to the more tactical Italian and Spanish leagues. You would think that all the chalked off goals and poor decisions are going down just as badly with worldwide viewers in places like Asia etc?
-
Sooner or later the you would hope that the penny will drop with the Premier League itself. The success of their "brand" and all the billions it rakes in is surely based on the excitement of the English game, and its attacking nature compared to the more tactical Italian and Spanish leagues. You would think that all the chalked off goals and poor decisions are going down just as badly with worldwide viewers in places like Asia etc?
Absolutely. When a player scores a worldie which gets beamed across the whole planet these days it gets billions of fans talking about it. A piece of dazzling skill unites the footballing world in appreciating such genius. In who's best interests would it be to dissallow such a goal because someones toenail strayed offside during the build up? It's utterly ludicrous and will slowly kill the game if we stand by and let it. In my humble opinion.
-
I don’t often post on here these days, but my god VAR is enough to wake me from my silent slumber and post. There is something so spontaneous and joyous as a football fan of celebrating a goal, think of the times that Villa Park erupted in joy in a derby or a famous European night and then imagine these great moments being wiped off the scoresheet by the faceless individual sitting in the gods with a TV monitor in front of him/her. I really don’t want to descend into hyperbole but unless something is done about this and quickly, then being a fan will not be the same.
I bumped into an Ajax fan in the gym this morning and inevitably got talking about the VAR, he had been in the Cruijff Arena last night to witness an Ajax goal wiped off the slate due to a matter of millimetres. Having heard the eruption when they scored I asked him what it was like to then find out almost 40 seconds later that it was scrapped from the record book? His reaction I fear could end up being the new norm “Next time I’ll look at the referee first and check for a VAR review before I celebrate a goal.”
-
"The strangulated celebration will become a hallmark of the game in the years to come, no more "limbs" and "scenes" as the realisation that the goal might be ruled out after a certain time. Once it is given that magic moment has gone, it's just beyond awful. The whole game revolves around that moment of unbridled joy, overwhelming emotion, an eruption of relief and celebration and it has been reduced to a calm, dispassionate reading of events leading to a precise outcome that may be correct but is utterly joyless. Stripping the game of that emotion is stripping the game of it's very soul, it's why we watch and take part, the unpredictable rollercoaster will have it's dips flattened out and it's peaks reduced."
I posted the above back in July and it sadly appears to be emerging as one of the biggest drawbacks of VAR.
I was working last Saturday and as I saw the injury time goal come through on Twitter my first thought was "please don't let it be ruled out by VAR". That's just a really shit way to react to such a moment.
-
Away at Palace?
-
Away at Palace?
Didn't go to VAR .
I believe only 2 VAR decisions have occurred that could have been overturned
It may not have gone to VAR, but it's all part of the global VAR fuck up in my view.
-
Away at Palace?
Didn't go to VAR .
I believe only 2 VAR decisions have occurred that could have been overturned
It may not have gone to VAR, but it's all part of the global VAR fuck up in my view.
100% mate.
-
Yep, that twat Friend blew the whistle, knowing full well it couldn't then go to VAR.
-
VAR two points, shit refs (Palace, Arsenal handball) arguably two points. We'd be fifth.
-
Definitely think VAR should have been involved at Palace and Arsenal (at least 2 decisions) and should have given decisions our way.
-
Clearly a penalty at Arsenal, no question.
-
Definitely think VAR should have been involved at Palace and Arsenal (at least 2 decisions) and should have given decisions our way.
Wasn’t it widely reported that although it couldn’t go to VAR because of Kevin Fraud, the VAR rep said the decision of dive would have stood as there wasn’t a clear and obvious error.
-
My feelings about VAR regarding Villa:
1. Palace - The ref blew up so VAR could not be implemented.
2. Arsenal - Applying the letter of the law and following protocol, no clear and obvious errors (I accept that VAR could have intervened several times but also accept the "clear and obvioius" protocol.
3. Burnley - Offside, no question.
4. Brighton - Appalling decision.
My biggest gripe is the incompetence of Friend at Palace rather than VAR. The Brighton goal did not affect our league placing so I'm more relaxed about that one (albeit appalling decision).
We don't get relegated this season and next time we're in control of a game like we were at Arsenal, we won't have to rely on VAR - We will go for the jugular and see the game out more comfortably.
-
If he genuinely thought is was a dive he had to blow as VAR wouldn't have disallowed the goal for a dive in any review. It doesn't look at dives apart from in something like a penalty incident, so could say "no pen as there was no foul" but not say "no pen and book the player for diving". It's one of its many flaws imo.
And the clear and obvious thing really bugs me, a toenail offside isn't 'clear and obvious' imo, but they disallow goals for that, but then doesn't intervene for things like the encroachment with the Arsenal penalty which was clearer on a replay than some of the offsides are.
-
I was in favour of VAR but the version the PL has gone with is crap.
-
So was VAR right or wrong today...Sterling off or On? And was he interfering with Heatons view?
-
Fuck you VAR, and the horse you rode in on.
-
So was VAR right or wrong today...Sterling off or On? And was he interfering with Heatons view?
Yes he was. Seems to be the opinion across various other media also.
-
I was in favour of VAR but the version the PL has gone with is crap.
VAR isn't the issue, it's the inconsistent and largely incompetent refs that are reviewing. It's highlighted how crap they are if anything. Refs need to start explaining their decisions and owning up to inconsistent application of rules. They're too opaque and hold too much power over the game.
-
I was in favour of VAR but the version the PL has gone with is crap.
VAR isn't the issue, it's the inconsistent and largely incompetent refs that are reviewing. It's highlighted how crap they are if anything. Refs need to start explaining their decisions and owning up to inconsistent application of rules. They're too opaque and hold too much power over the game.
They need to start doing interviews after the match like the 18-23 year olds who actually play the game. You’ll throw kids into the media gauntlet but these potato head referees face no consequences for clear errors.
-
So was VAR right or wrong today...Sterling off or On? And was he interfering with Heatons view?
He was off because Silva touched the ball.
So yet again VAR was wrong, and to rub salt in to the wound the Premier League are reviewing the decision the award the goal to De Bruyne, which would prove VAR was wrong.
It really is an enormous clusterfuck.
-
What about our penalty decision, was that correct?
Looked a foul but I was only watching on my tablet.
-
So was VAR right or wrong today...Sterling off or On? And was he interfering with Heatons view?
He was off because Silva touched the ball.
So yet again VAR was wrong, and to rub salt in to the wound the Premier League are reviewing the decision the award the goal to De Bruyne, which would prove VAR was wrong.
It really is an enormous clusterfuck.
How much input does the on pitch referee have On the VAR check?
Reason being that the channel I was watching showed a conversation between Silva and the referee, I think when the teams were walking back getting ready to kick off (certainly before the VAR check had finished), where they talking about him touching (or possibly not I guess) the ball.
-
It’s just really poorly managed and applied. It’s like they’ve rolled it out without any thought to the parameters around it. Dreadful.
-
Get rid.
-
Variable Atrocious Ridiculous
-
The reason for. It was to improve the accuracy of decision making, but as every one can see it is not fulfilling the stated objective.
So until it can be proven to meet that objective it should be scrapped.
On top of that it is taking much more away from the enjoyment than it adds.
In simple terms it is not fit for purpose.
-
The reason for. It was to improve the accuracy of decision making, but as every one can see it is not fulfilling the stated objective.
So until it can be proven to meet that objective it should be scrapped.
On top of that it is taking much more away from the enjoyment than it adds.
In simple terms it is not fit for purpose.
The referees that review are not fit for purpose. Never held accountable for clear bad decisions. It's PGMOL that needs to be sorted. They're awful.
-
The reason for. It was to improve the accuracy of decision making, but as every one can see it is not fulfilling the stated objective.
So until it can be proven to meet that objective it should be scrapped.
On top of that it is taking much more away from the enjoyment than it adds.
In simple terms it is not fit for purpose.
VAR in principle is a good idea, but not in the hands of corrupt imbeciles
-
All VAR has done so far is highlight how incompetent the officials truly are, and how they desperately try to cover themselves after continually making errors.
-
You'll all be happy to know that this goal has been given to Silva which confirms that we've been fucked again by VAR as Sterling is offside and interfering with the GK's vision if just being offside wasn't wrong enough
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EH0BcnCXYAAHy2S?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
-
There will be an excuse, it’s because it’s a 12:30 kick off in a month with the letter R in the name and it’s raining.
-
I'd rather be shouting the referee needs spectacles than what we have now.
Fuck VAR. The only reason I'm not bothered today is that City were so much better than us.
I
-
You can tell how incompetent those overseeing VAR are by how long it takes to get even a clear cut decision right.
-
All VAR has done so far is highlight how incompetent the officials truly are, and how they desperately try to cover themselves after continually making errors.
Yep. But I disagree that they try to cover themselves. There is no accountability for them. Refs were successful years ago in having the media behind them bleating about how hard their job is and how unfair it is to hold them to account for bad decisions. VAR lands and nothing has changed, apart from we can more clearly see now than ever that they just cannot do the job properly.
-
I think we all accept officials can't get every decision right, they don't in any sport. And that's where having a VAR should come in, it's there to assist the referee, and yet somehow even with replays some McGrath awful mistakes are being made on a regular basis.
-
There will be an excuse, it’s because it’s a 12:30 kick off in a month with the letter R in the name and it’s raining.
Are you getting mixed up with the UK mussel season?
-
I think we all accept officials can't get every decision right, they don't in any sport. And that's where having a VAR should come in, it's there to assist the referee, and yet somehow even with replays some McGrath awful mistakes are being made on a regular basis.
Rugby yet again showed how to use technology today when in the England semi the on field refreree gave a try but then had an honest conversation with the TMO in order to make the right decision without any concern about being found to have got the decision wrong.
The whole set up with VAR seems to be to find an excuse to "prove" the on field ref was right, even when it's bloody obvious he's not!
-
Totally messing the game I love up. Ditch it now.
-
Rugby yet again showed how to use technology today when in the England semi the on field refreree gave a try but then had an honest conversation with the TMO in order to make the right decision without any concern about being found to have got the decision wrong.
That disallowed try bollocks with the scrum and the ball moving - how the fuck can they say whose hand/arm it was though? Nothing decisive there. I felt like they were looking for ways to keep NZ in the match the whole time and not let England run away and embarrass them.
It is totally fucked in football though. Because as has been said on here many times, if you give a great tool to someone who is incompetent, they'll still make the wrong decision.
-
Var was supposed to improve the game, unfortunately the way it is being used is only showing up how incompetent our onfield/off-field referees are. The game is being ruined by it!
One referee was bad enough in any game but to now have two is like p-ssing against the wind.
F-ck var and the incompetent refs trying to implement it!
-
I hate it.
-
The penalty that Brighton were awarded yesterday was unbelievable and it they are giving penalties for minimal accidental contact then they will be giving loads more it would seem. They did get one right though, which was the Hudson-Odoi dive, but Dyche then bangs on about how diving should be eradicated from the game and selects Rodriguez to start up front.
-
The Brighton penalty again highlights the inconsistency. It was less clear and obvious than other appeals (even Jack at Palace was more of a foul). Potentially, VAR can be good but when a subjective decision is made by a bloke in the studio, overriding the bloke on the field, it is not being used correctly. Things aren't helped by Dermot Gallagher going on TV each week claiming that the right decision was made.
-
The Brighton penalty again highlights the inconsistency. It was less clear and obvious than other appeals (even Jack at Palace was more of a foul). Potentially, VAR can be good but when a subjective decision is made by a bloke in the studio, overriding the bloke on the field, it is not being used correctly. Things aren't helped by Dermot Gallagher going on TV each week claiming that the right decision was made.
How did that pompous little twunt get that gig? He's being paid handsomely by Sky to represent the referees cartel and they treat him like some kind of overlord.
-
Dermot Gallagher will never, ever contradict a referee’s decision. He’s basically Mike Riley’s media gimp.
-
Will we ever get a VAR decision to go in our favour? Seems to be a weekly occurrence that we're on the end of a wrong decision. David Silva claimed he touched the ball in for their second yesterday which meant Sterling was offside and clearly impeded Heaton's vision. A shambles the whole thing. Suspend it immediately. It needs a complete review.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/4tTD2PR/717-EB082-95-E4-4508-99-A5-CDA6657731-D9.png) (https://ibb.co/4tTD2PR)
Villa fans waiting for a VAR decision to go their way
-
Quite ridiculous really that VAR has come in to rectify mistakes and it's ended up making mistakes itself.
-
The decision to overrule the penalty for Hudson Odoi is particularly interesting.
As the match was shown, I watched again and again and saw no contact from the player who seemed to trip him. He withdrew his leg and Odoi still went down. No penalty - dive - booking.
It was right on the very last replay they showed that I noticed a possible shove in the back by Matty Lowton. Now I can’t unsee it. You can never really tell the impact of a push - how hard they were pushed, how it affected their balance at that precise moment of contact, from a slow motion replay, but to me, now I have seen it - that IS a push - at a level I have definitely ‘seen em given’ many times.
I think that they looked at it again and again but were looking at the wrong thing!
Human error is human error no matter how many times they look at it.
-
edit double post
-
It's been brought in to help referees and it does. It gives them something to hide behind.
Now instead of criticising the on field official we have to hope for the patronage of some mysterious TV viewer.
It's utter crap.
Bring back the way they did it in Russia please.
-
It's been brought in to help referees and it does. It gives them something to hide behind.
Now instead of criticising the on field official we have to hope for the patronage of some mysterious TV viewer.
It's utter crap.
Bring back the way they did it in Russia please.
You mean exiling it to Siberia?
-
It's been brought in to help referees and it does. It gives them something to hide behind.
Now instead of criticising the on field official we have to hope for the patronage of some mysterious TV viewer.
It's utter crap.
Bring back the way they did it in Russia please.
You mean exiling it to Siberia?
Scrapping it entirely would be nice, but it won't happen. So at least default to the least worst version we've seen.
-
Even when they were checking a couple of our decisions yesterday (which you just knew would not come to anything anyway), it was just a pain in the arse waiting for their decision. It really is cack.
-
Even when they were checking a couple of our decisions yesterday (which you just knew would not come to anything anyway), it was just a pain in the arse waiting for their decision. It really is cack.
It was one thing that both us and the Man City fans agreed on.
-
Richard Keyes calls 'VAR' , 'VR' because he says in Premier league there is no assistant but just a video ref. So the term is VR.
What I wonder is what goes on in stockley park?!
Like instead of watching monitors are they playing Rubix cubes , messing around on phone ,or doing Sudoku baiscaly engaged in hard word or numerical puzzles to pass 90 mins and then like some lax CCTV security guard just press a button to acknowledge they received a call. And make decisions for 'fun'
-
*and when I say Lax cctv security i don't necessarily mean Los Angeles international airport .
They do an okay job
-
Will we ever get a VAR decision to go in our favour? Seems to be a weekly occurrence that we're on the end of a wrong decision. David Silva claimed he touched the ball in for their second yesterday which meant Sterling was offside and clearly impeded Heaton's vision. A shambles the whole thing. Suspend it immediately. It needs a complete review.
Yestetday it was very difficult to tell if Silva had touched the ball so i can forgive the var officials for not disallowing that City goal. However it's totally unforgivable what the referree subsequently did. Sliva unaware that what he was saying should have seen it ruled out, clearly says to the official "it's my goal because i got a touch on it" So why on earth did the ref not relay that information and rule the goal out as Silva's admission meant that Sterling was offside? Shockingly bad all round. The club should be asking questions at the highest level.
-
As a one off yesterday's decision was by far not the worst for us or other teams. Hate the delays, the fact that the VRs are constantly backing the referees even when blatantly wrong and when they give a penalty it is completely the wrong decision. Its embarrassing, ruining the game not much more to say.
-
My understanding is that the Premier League has implemented their “version” of VAR which includes the refs not checking the monitors provided at the side of the pitch. Surely if VAR is to work then it needs to be implemented consistently around the world. We need all refs to be on the same page and the same rules to be applied regardless of what country they are in, so for the PL to have different rules is a farce in itself.
-
Odd how it’s gone from absolutely no penalties given that the on pitch referee has missed before this weekend into overruling them left, right and centre yesterday and today. I think there have been four penalties given by VAR this weekend (Crystal Palace, Man United x2 and Brighton). That includes completely overruling the ref who had booked Zaha for diving instead (VAR also reversed the Chelsea penalty decision against the on field referee).
Wonder if that’s been a conscious decision to get more involved?
-
Odd how it’s gone from absolutely no penalties given that the on pitch referee has missed before this weekend into overruling them left, right and centre yesterday and today. I think there have been four penalties given by VAR this weekend (Crystal Palace, Man United x2 and Brighton). That includes completely overruling the ref who had booked Zaha for diving instead (VAR also reversed the Chelsea penalty decision against the on field referee).
Wonder if that’s been a conscious decision to get more involved?
Oh joy. Even greater scope for them to fuck with our games however they please.
-
How is the first Liverpool goal today any different to our disallowed goal against Palace?! Firmino did actually dive (Grealish didn’t) and the ball falls to Henderson to score. Not a sniff of the ref blowing for a dive and no intervention by VAR. One rule for some, and another for others. Consistent at being inconsistent.
-
Another VAR clusterfuck at The Emirates denied Arsenal 3 points.
The thing is absolutely pathetic. As games get to the 'business end' next spring, I can see it really kicking off with fans, as confusion and tempers boil over.
-
Man Utd gifted a penalty by VAR after overruling Atwell who didn’t award the penalty. Rashford missed the penalty that shouldn’t have been given in the first place.
Man Utd gifted a second penalty by VAR after overruling Atwell who didn’t award the penalty for what looks like a non-handball on the edge of the area. Martial missed the penalty that shouldn’t have been given in the first place.
Was the VAR official a Man Utd fan by any chance?
edit: ...and OGS claims both should be retaken as the keeper moved off the line, and not checked by VAR.
-
For me this is easily the worst ‘innovation’ in the game ever. I would maintain that it should never have been used for anything but factual goal line decisions. Subjective is nonsense & the use of slo mo replays makes everything look worse than it was.
All it has achieved is that instead of arguing about the incompetence of one referee we now argue about incompetence of two who are in cahoots to protect each other rather than get the right decisions.
It is a hapless system until they can or will show & explain the outcomes to those in the stadium - we also need to hear the conversations betw ref & VAR because whilst they are secret you have to ask is that because they are corrupt or is it because they don’t have confidence that they would sound more stupid than they look? There was an occurrence at the Women’s World Cup where France were struggling as tournament hosts they then get the worst penalty decision I have ever seen via VAR & no one will ever persuade me that the ref wasn’t being told what to do to ensure hosts progressed.
They’ve gone all in on this garbage system but do you ever hear of them trying to recruit younger referees who are fit and able to keep up with the game? How many players fail to make the grade every year? making it financially an option to stay in the game & fast tracking them would mean games aren’t all refereed by 40 odd yr old fat men breathing out their arses like Moss or Friend.
Switch the crap tech off until the users are able to use it
-
That first Manure penalty especially was a joke, how they give that having turned down some of the blatant ones earlier in the season is crazy.
And also proof they are making it up as they go along, the big thing about the Grealish 'dive' was that VAR will not do anything about dives apart from pen/no pen so the ref had to blow if he thought there was a dive. And then VAR overturns a pen given by the onfield ref and the player is booked for diving, something a few weeks ago that VAR couldn't do.
-
For me this is easily the worst ‘innovation’ in the game ever. I would maintain that it should never have been used for anything but factual goal line decisions. Subjective is nonsense & the use of slo mo replays makes everything look worse than it was.
All it has achieved is that instead of arguing about the incompetence of one referee we now argue about incompetence of two who are in cahoots to protect each other rather than get the right decisions.
It is a hapless system until they can or will show & explain the outcomes to those in the stadium - we also need to hear the conversations betw ref & VAR because whilst they are secret you have to ask is that because they are corrupt or is it because they don’t have confidence that they would sound more stupid than they look? There was an occurrence at the Women’s World Cup where France were struggling as tournament hosts they then get the worst penalty decision I have ever seen via VAR & no one will ever persuade me that the ref wasn’t being told what to do to ensure hosts progressed.
They’ve gone all in on this garbage system but do you ever hear of them trying to recruit younger referees who are fit and able to keep up with the game? How many players fail to make the grade every year? making it financially an option to stay in the game & fast tracking them would mean games aren’t all refereed by 40 odd yr old fat men breathing out their arses like Moss or Friend.
Switch the crap tech off until the users are able to use it
Totally agree. I've been making the exact same points ever since i witnessed var in action. (or inaction as was the case for us at Palace)
-
Referees didn’t want it in the first place and I get the feeling they are conspiring to make it that hated that it gets dropped.
-
Can VAR be dropped in this country? Or can UEFA enforce it stays?
-
It’s just being used so badly. The mandate is clear and obvious and it’s just not being used in that way at all.
-
It’s just being used so badly. The mandate is clear and obvious and it’s just not being used in that way at all.
Which begs the question. Do the refs want a system that puts them under greater scrutiny and highlights their faults, or are they deliberately screwing it up? They were a joke on Saturday at our game. Admittedly it was difficult to confirm if Silva touched the ball or not but when the player clears up the controversy by TELLING the ref "i touched the ball" then the ref has got to rule it out as Sterling was offside. Why didn't he do that? Was it deliberate? Was it him covering for Stockley Park? Or does the ref not know the rules?
-
That Man U penalty against Norwich was utterly ridiculous.
-
How is the first Liverpool goal today any different to our disallowed goal against Palace?! Firmino did actually dive (Grealish didn’t) and the ball falls to Henderson to score. Not a sniff of the ref blowing for a dive and no intervention by VAR. One rule for some, and another for others. Consistent at being inconsistent.
Everyone knows the decision against us was a fuck up. Would you rather the fucked up again for Liverpool just for consistency?
-
This weekend's VAR catastrophe reminds me of when Lambert was getting stick for shit results using crap long ball football, so he went on a training course/jolly to Germany, and came back and got shit results playing a crap version of tiki-taka. The VAR team have obviously being getting pelters for not overturning penalty appeals, so now they've gone the other way and are giving penalties out for next to nothing. It is without any shadow of a doubt, an absolute omnishambles.
-
I was convinced it would be a crock of shit before it was introduced at the World Cup, and it has proven to be exactly that (although it was less ridiculous then).
I maintain, if it can't be replicated at the lowest level of the game, it shouldn't be in at the top. I'd be happy to chuck the goaline tech out as well as a point of principle, although I'd concede it works. But it was the thin end of the wedge.
A marked out pitch, a goal at either end, a referee and two linesmaen, 22 players and a ball. That's all it needs, and why it became the sport it is. Everything else can fuck off.
-
I maintain, if it can't be replicated at the lowest level of the game, it shouldn't be in at the top. I'd be happy to chuck the goaline tech out as well as a point of principle, although I'd concede it works. But it was the thin end of the wedge.
I would more or less agree with that - although would understand it only applying at a professional level.
With goal line technology at least the answers is definitive. I could maybe get on board with offside calls being reviewed if the technology with better (quicker) and they cleared the rules up to that end.
But some many of the other calls are far too subjective - Hourihanes goal against Brighton being a prime example wouldn’t be overruled every time I don’t believe. And the inconsistency with when/where it can be used - what happens if City scores for the free kick for Jacks foul on Sterling for example?
Also the lack of thought give to the impact on match going fans in particular is a disgrace. The minimal/non existent communication, emotional reaction to goals etc is one of the strongest reason against it for me. I am sure that it sadly not the game with the decision makers sadly.
-
It worked OK in the world Cup as the ref normally tended to get the final say. He wondered over to this little screen, had a look and said yay or nay. He was still in control of the game.
The Man Utd game, the ref didn't give a pen because it wasn't one, he was overruled by some chap sitting miles away so he then gave a pen and booked a player for a foul he did not even see. VAR needs putting back in its box and returning to where it came from, or to put it more bluntly, fuck it off.
-
I was convinced it would be a crock of shit before it was introduced at the World Cup, and it has proven to be exactly that (although it was less ridiculous then).
I maintain, if it can't be replicated at the lowest level of the game, it shouldn't be in at the top. I'd be happy to chuck the goaline tech out as well as a point of principle, although I'd concede it works. But it was the thin end of the wedge.
A marked out pitch, a goal at either end, a referee and two linesmaen, 22 players and a ball. That's all it needs, and why it became the sport it is. Everything else can fuck off.
I agree with all of this.
-
Maybe wrongly but I still believe it should be possible to get VAR to work but for me the only person concluding a "clear and obvious" error has been made should be the person who made that decision. They are the best people to look at the scenario which they made a decision on and decide do they see something they could see before to make them change their mind. Letting someone else do it who has very little feel for the pace and mood of the game makes it completely subjective.
-
For fucks sake, just look t how it work sin rugby and follow that. Anyone would think football is corrupt...
-
For fucks sake, just look t how it work sin rugby and follow that. Anyone would think football is corrupt...
I know the games are different, but why the hell can't the ref have a sensible conversation with the VAR official is just beyond me (with the assistance of a video screen in each corner of the ground). On Saturday it would have been "he's told me he touched the ball, so on the basis we think he's touched it, what is your decision re offside?"
It's so fucking simple yet they refuse to do it, probably as they don't want to be open for critisism when their deliberations are public and possibly because of all the scaremogering about slowing the game down. Anybody would think morons are in charge.
-
This weekend's VAR catastrophe reminds me of when Lambert was getting stick for shit results using crap long ball football, so he went on a training course/jolly to Germany, and came back and got shit results playing a crap version of tiki-taka. The VAR team have obviously being getting pelters for not overturning penalty appeals, so now they've gone the other way and are giving penalties out for next to nothing. It is without any shadow of a doubt, an absolute omnishambles.
what are you on about? He brought back with him the backwards goal kick. Truly innovative
-
For fucks sake, just look t how it work sin rugby and follow that. Anyone would think football is corrupt...
I know the games are different, but why the hell can't the ref have a sensible conversation with the VAR official is just beyond me (with the assistance of a video screen in each corner of the ground). On Saturday it would have been "he's told me he touched the ball, so on the basis we think he's touched it, what is your decision re offside?"
It's so fucking simple yet they refuse to do it, probably as they don't want to be open for critisism when their deliberations are public and possibly because of all the scaremogering about slowing the game down. Anybody would think morons are in charge.
Because the FA and Pl have handed over the responsibility for controlling VAR to a commercial enterprise who’s prime motivation is protecting that enterprise and its members.
-
The most astounding things about VAR are a) how many decisions they still get completely wrong despite looking at it from every angel and at every speed, and b) how inconsistent the decisions still are. It really shows how shit the standard of refereeing is, and VAR will never work if the officials are useless.
I can just picture the briefing to refs before the weekend - "we're getting stick for not giving blatant penalties the ref has missed, so just to prove them wrong give loads of pens this weekend lads. That'll shut them up." The fucking numpties.
At least justice was eventually done with those two farcical awards for ManYew.
-
Officials for the Liverpool game
Ref: Jonathan Moss
Assistants: Daniel Cook and Eddie Smart
VAR: Martin Atkinson
-
VAR will turn this into a completely non contact sanitised load of shite.
If that is a penalty in the Brighton / Everton game, then we may as well all go home. Brighton got it because their player rolled around like he'd broken a bone. If he'd have just carried on without a fuss, nothing would have happened.
It's encouraging the cheats. It's pissing me off no end.
Get rid if it until then can find a system that works.
-
Var, in theory , is a good idea.
In practice, you have refs watching a screen just looking after their mates. As these mates include Mason, Attwell, Atkinson and Kevin F*cking Friend -who will take their turn in front of the screens as the season goes on- you've got no f*cking chance of the desired outcome.
If you had more than half-a-dozen decent refs in the Prem, that would be a good start. With the twats we're stuck with, what has happened has been oh, so predictable!!
-
So nice to be free of VAR in tonight's match. I'd much rather watch matches without it. Ruining the enjoyment for me.
-
Fuck var. Just have the ref adjudicate on his own decision and I think all will be good.
-
So nice to be free of VAR in tonight's match. I'd much rather watch matches without it. Ruining the enjoyment for me.
Absolutely brilliant tonight. When we scored, after a quick glance at the linesman, we could jump around celebrating a certain goal, happy days
-
So much better tonight with that rubbish tuned off. Even though it was almost certainly a foul on Luiz in the lead up to their goal, so what? I'd rather have a goal given against us than the shambles that it is VAR ruin the entire game.
-
I said it was a foul leading up to their goal as well. Other than that, VAR wasn't missed at all.
-
VAR or no VAR, how was that Wolves goal allowed to stand?
-
VAR or no VAR, how was that Wolves goal allowed to stand?
Foul on Doug and the scorer looked offside. I didn't realise that he's got a touch, I thought that Steer just fumbled the shot.
-
I was always under the impression that VAR was to identify
Dangerous foul play potentially missed by referee in real time
Off the ball incidents of foul play etc
Cheating / play acting
Cases of mistaken identity
And in borderline cases - Offside
Not to
View every single goal
To actually advise the ref of basic fouls during real time
To slow the game down and suck all the fun out of it
-
VAR or no VAR, how was that Wolves goal allowed to stand?
No idea, but if that had been a league game, all that would have happened is that the Wolves fans would have celebrated, there'd then have been a three minute delay while they checked it, and it being Aston Villa the goal would have stood. Obviously if we'd scored it, it would have then been ruled out for both the foul and the offside and it being a bit nippy out.
-
VAR or no VAR, how was that Wolves goal allowed to stand?
No idea, but if that had been a league game, all that would have happened is that the Wolves fans would have celebrated, there'd then have been a three minute delay while they checked it, and it being Aston Villa the goal would have stood. Obviously if we'd scored it, it would have then been ruled out for both the foul and the offside and it being a bit nippy out.
From where I was, middle trinity above the tunnel it looked like a clean tackle, just sloppy play.
And he looked onside too.
-
In cricket the umpire refers a decision with "a soft signal" i.e. the decision the umpire would have given without support from technology. The tech then has to be able to fundamentally prove that decision is incorrect for it to be changed.
-
I've tried to be positive about today's game on the pre-match thread, however regarding the refs today and the manipulated piece of technology they pretend to use, I have no confidence at all that today's game will be officiated correctly, especially as we are playing one of the "media darlings". 11 vs 13 plus the selective use of technology is going to make it very difficult for us. That said UTV as always!!
-
I've tried to be positive about today's game on the pre-match thread, however regarding the refs today and the manipulated piece of technology they pretend to use, I have no confidence at all that today's game will be officiated correctly, especially as we are playing one of the "media darlings". 11 vs 13 plus the selective use of technology is going to make it very difficult for us. That said UTV as always!!
VAR will absolutely go in Liverpool's favour today, not a single doubt. We all know it.
-
I've tried to be positive about today's game on the pre-match thread, however regarding the refs today and the manipulated piece of technology they pretend to use, I have no confidence at all that today's game will be officiated correctly, especially as we are playing one of the "media darlings". 11 vs 13 plus the selective use of technology is going to make it very difficult for us. That said UTV as always!!
VAR will absolutely go in Liverpool's favour today, not a single doubt. We all know it.
Especially with that dick face Moss in charge.
But imagine how wonderful it will be if it goes in our favour; Klopp moaning after suffering their first defeat in god knows how many games. We're due something positive from VAR.
Could today be the day.
-
I admire your optimism.
You're off your rocker, but most admired.
😊
-
I admire your optimism.
You're off your rocker, but most admired.
😊
Haha.
It's the sake I've had this afternoon, mate.
-
I'll be having plenty of that later too, but probably of the 'fuck' variety.
-
I'll be having plenty of that later too, but probably of the 'fuck' variety.
I'll be drowning in both no doubt, pal.
-
Shambles
-
I was actually quite understated with our goal as I thought VAR would be called upon ☹️ that’s what it’s come to, and for their late goals, nothing at all!!
-
In bed he first half the linesman put his flag up for a blatant offside even that was checked. What’s the point of linesman when we have secret refs
-
How long was the VAR check for our goal from the time the ball went in? 2 minutes? 3? How can a simple cross followed by a finish require 3 minutes of checking for offside?
Total farce. When fans who have a decision go their way are chanting 'Fuck VAR' then you know you have an issue.
-
Really needs to go, very muted goal celebrations today.
It’s sucking the life out of the atmosphere and that will have an impact on the TV experience, which is all these fuckers care about
Fuck VAR
-
Just to add some balance, Firmino's 'offside' goal was ridiculous aswell, why is the linesman flagging in that situation? I was under the impression that they were to leave the flag down in those situations and send it to VAR.
Also, I dont know if it was because of my dodgy stream but it looked like VAR checked to see if Manes dive was the correct decision, yet we were told after the Palace debacle that VAR couldnt intefere in these circumstances. Its being interpreted as they go along.
-
Seen a couple of stills of VAR calls this afternoon. Our goal, for me it's the right decision because benefit of doubt should go to attacker but not consistent with other offside calls I've seen, e.g. England in nations league, Conor v Burnley.
In terms of their disallowed goal, it's an absolute shocker. Clearly onside. I mean, fuck 'em and all that but what's the point if it doesn't overturn stuff like that?
-
I just don't understand how they can watch technology working so well in both cricket and rugby, where the VAR/TMO talks through his rationale and everyone in the stadium watches it on the screen (in rugby at least) and think it's a better idea to keep everyone in the stadium in football in the dark.
It's a fucking shambles, is killing the game, and when the biggest concern is the competence and integrity of the referees, having their mates back them up in a secretive room with zero oversight or explanation is hardly going to endear the process to anyone.
-
It's simply ruining the game. Today was beyond pathetic.
The disgraceful dive by Mane gets properly dealt with by the ref, then the screen shows VAR is checking for a penalty.
We now don't announce the goalscorer until after the kick off.
I chanted FUCK VAR along with everyone else, even after Firminios goal was confirmed as offside. I hate it with a passion.
-
Are they obliged to show that Alan Shearer clip before the game? it puts me in a bad mood before the games even started!
-
I just don't understand how they can watch technology working so well in both cricket and rugby, where the VAR/TMO talks through his rationale and everyone in the stadium watches it on the screen (in rugby at least) and think it's a better idea to keep everyone in the stadium in football in the dark.
The cynic in me says it will happen in football when they have a signed a sponsorship deal or deals. Goal check sponsored by spec savers. Red card check sponsored by Virgin Money. Etc. We all know it’s coming
-
The disgraceful dive by Mane gets properly dealt with by the ref, then the screen shows VAR is checking for a penalty.
This was hilarious. Moss had booked him and VAR intervened. They do need to get a grip.
-
Are they obliged to show that Alan Shearer clip before the game? it puts me in a bad mood before the games even started!
Me too. Norwich didn't show it the other week. Maybe today it was for the tourists in half and half scarves.
-
I’d love someone to explain to me why Var stepped in to check the Mane booking was correct and it wasn’t a penalty , after ref blew to stop play . Was that not the exact same situation as at Palace when Jack was booked , and apparently there was no mandate for var to check for a penalty then as , um , the referee blew to stop play ? No consistency at all as far as I can see
-
It seems to me that they change the criteria every week. It’s a joke.
-
It totally ruined the first half. Not being able to celebrate a goal until 2 minutes after it's scored is just nonsense.
-
I just don't understand how they can watch technology working so well in both cricket and rugby, where the VAR/TMO talks through his rationale and everyone in the stadium watches it on the screen (in rugby at least) and think it's a better idea to keep everyone in the stadium in football in the dark.
The cynic in me says it will happen in football when they have a signed a sponsorship deal or deals. Goal check sponsored by spec savers. Red card check sponsored by Virgin Money. Etc. We all know it’s coming
Yep 100% that is what VAR has been brought in for.
Itll improve the game my arse , itll just be another cash stream once its established.
-
Could see there was a real attempt on MOTD to avoid the mention of VAR - pity there grovelling to the Premiership was ruined by Frank Lampard's comments.
No doubt they will start editing out mangers comments in future regarding our favourite subject.
-
I just don't understand how they can watch technology working so well in both cricket and rugby, where the VAR/TMO talks through his rationale and everyone in the stadium watches it on the screen (in rugby at least) and think it's a better idea to keep everyone in the stadium in football in the dark.
Imagine showing a replay of why our goal against Brighton was disallowed, in a relegation/title decider? Or more accurately, imagine trying to stop the ensuing riot?
-
Surely it helped us yesterday as they was barely anything in the Firmino "goal." I'd have given that personally as I generally dislike seeing those sorts of ones called for offside, was same when Spurs had one chalked off at Leicester. We will get one offside like that at some stage in the season.
-
I just don't understand how they can watch technology working so well in both cricket and rugby, where the VAR/TMO talks through his rationale and everyone in the stadium watches it on the screen (in rugby at least) and think it's a better idea to keep everyone in the stadium in football in the dark.
Imagine showing a replay of why our goal against Brighton was disallowed, in a relegation/title decider? Or more accurately, imagine trying to stop the ensuing riot?
Dave, you're normally the first to get pissed off when the authorities treat the fans as animals. And some fans already think the refs are cheating us and don't riot so what's the difference?
Treat us like adults and you never know, people might behave like adults. If fans can't control themselves because they think we've been cheated by a video ref then they should rightfully get banned from attending.
-
The ref was a bloody joke yesterday. Does he consult with VAR before he ties his shoelaces?
-
I'm still convinced that making a mockery of it is just a way to numb supporters to VAR so that it can be used to make sure the right team doesn't lose in certain matches.
-
3 minutes worth of replays at Goodison Park to try to determine wether there was a handball or not 😴😴😴
-
3 minutes worth of replays at Goodison Park to try to determine wether there was a handball or not 😴😴😴
Was there?
-
3 minutes worth of replays at Goodison Park to try to determine wether there was a handball or not 😴😴😴
Was there?
It certainly took a while and in my opinion they still got the decision wrong.
-
Surely it helped us yesterday as they was barely anything in the Firmino "goal." I'd have given that personally as I generally dislike seeing those sorts of ones called for offside, was same when Spurs had one chalked off at Leicester. We will get one offside like that at some stage in the season.
I think it was Mings and Engels that were either side of Trezeguet. If either of them had got onto the end of the cross and scored, it would have been ruled out.
For me Firmino's was a goal too. It's daft that they go down to the millimetre. There should be some margin of error - there is in cricket when they're working out whether the ball is going on to hit the stumps. I preferred it when they had the rule about daylight.
-
3 minutes worth of replays at Goodison Park to try to determine wether there was a handball or not 😴😴😴
Was there?
It certainly took a while and in my opinion they still got the decision wrong.
Agreed if you’re going to analyse every handball Why would you have your hands that high up
-
"Daylight" would make no difference to VAR, though. It would just move the point at which you work out whether or not someone's offside by millimetres from in front of them to behind.
They've dug themselves into a hole imo by not sticking to the "clear and obvious error" mantra.
-
Absolutely. They're treating offsides as a binary decision, assuming the technology is millimetre accurate, which it clearly isn't as there's a ref in a room drawing lines!
As mentioned, cricket get this and factor it in. It works so why the fuck have the football authorities decided to ignore what works elsewhere!
-
I just don't understand how they can watch technology working so well in both cricket and rugby, where the VAR/TMO talks through his rationale and everyone in the stadium watches it on the screen (in rugby at least) and think it's a better idea to keep everyone in the stadium in football in the dark.
Imagine showing a replay of why our goal against Brighton was disallowed, in a relegation/title decider? Or more accurately, imagine trying to stop the ensuing riot?
Dave, you're normally the first to get pissed off when the authorities treat the fans as animals. And some fans already think the refs are cheating us and don't riot so what's the difference?
Treat us like adults and you never know, people might behave like adults. If fans can't control themselves because they think we've been cheated by a video ref then they should rightfully get banned from attending.
Look at the Taking Kids thread.
-
I just don't understand how they can watch technology working so well in both cricket and rugby, where the VAR/TMO talks through his rationale and everyone in the stadium watches it on the screen (in rugby at least) and think it's a better idea to keep everyone in the stadium in football in the dark.
Imagine showing a replay of why our goal against Brighton was disallowed, in a relegation/title decider? Or more accurately, imagine trying to stop the ensuing riot?
Dave, you're normally the first to get pissed off when the authorities treat the fans as animals. And some fans already think the refs are cheating us and don't riot so what's the difference?
Treat us like adults and you never know, people might behave like adults. If fans can't control themselves because they think we've been cheated by a video ref then they should rightfully get banned from attending.
Look at the Taking Kids thread.
I have, and unless I've missed it there's no mention of anyone rioting because a decision went the wrong way.
-
Look how we reacted at Palace.
-
'We'?! A handful of twats you mean? If we want to base policy on the lowest common denominator let's bring fences back.
Like I said before, treat fans like adults and you may be surprised to find they behave like adults.
-
I thought VAR would be good in preventing the obvious mistakes that refs make because they are human and because they aren't always well placed (plus some of them seem to be crap) but it has been an unmitigated disaster. It ruins the game without even getting decisions right. Look at that Watford player that got hacked down twice by a Spurs defender and no penalty given. You could see his boot curled around the players shin. As the author of the Taking Kids thread, I agree with Dave, if a video like that was shown at a full stadium on the last day of the season it would be a riot. Imagine Tyrone had hacked down a Blues player in the 95th minute at The Sty (I know... they're never coming up, its just an example) and no penalty resulted in them being relegated. If I was a steward, I'd take off my High Vis and go home (after kicking Jack, obviously.)
-
But as has been pointed out, a bunch of knobs kicked off at Palace without the video. Why would it be any worse with a video?
But on the plus side, the 99.9% of rational fans would at least understand why the VAR check is taking so long and understand the basis for the ultimate decision.
-
Why wouldn’t the refs want the crowd to hear their discussion about a decision if they have nothing to hide? All this secrecy only adds to the many conspiracy theories currently in circulation, and it’s not a surprise.
-
Surely it helped us yesterday as they was barely anything in the Firmino "goal."
But it didn't. On pitch officials made the decision VAR check would have only helped Liverpool.
-
Well I’m convinced that VAR missed 3 penalties in that Everton Spurs match.
-
It’s ruining the game get shot
-
Well I’m convinced that VAR missed 3 penalties in that Everton Spurs match.
VAR has missed more penalties than JPA, and that’s saying something.
-
The injury for Gomez is a horrible one but I find the red for Son very harsh, it was a foul and a yellow imo. PGMOL have said the severity of the injury played a part in the decision to give a red which is bonkers imo.
-
I agree red was harsh.
I had actually assumed Son had been booked for his laughable dive 10 minutes before (was nearly as bad as Mane's) so thought it was a second yellow.
-
VAR won't improve radically until they have competent refs on the pitch AND behind the screens -something I can't see happening anytime soon.
-
Every weekend you think it can't possibly be as bad as the one before, yet every week they actually make worse decisions. They must genuinely be trying to nobble it, it can be the only explanation for the unremitting shitness of the experiment.
-
Every weekend you think it can't possibly be as bad as the one before, yet every week they actually make worse decisions. They must genuinely be trying to nobble it, it can be the only explanation for the unremitting shitness of the experiment.
Exactly. I’ve gone from firmly in favour to sack the lot.
-
Think Risso is right, did the referees even want it brought in ? The Precious tw*ts were scared it would undermine them or diminish their authority weren't they?
-
Every weekend you think it can't possibly be as bad as the one before, yet every week they actually make worse decisions. They must genuinely be trying to nobble it, it can be the only explanation for the unremitting shitness of the experiment.
I’ve thought the same for a few weeks. They think it undermines them so are doing their utmost to make it fail. Twenty first century luddites.
-
Officials for Wolves game.
Referee: Anthony Taylor.
Assistants: Gary Beswick, Adam Nunn.
Fourth official: David Coote.
VAR: Chris Kavanagh.
Assistant VAR: Sian Massey-Ellis.
-
One thing to be said for VAR - it's fantastic for referee job creation! Does it really take two of them to make decisions as mind boggling as they do?!
Before long there'll be more refs than players!
-
Pantomime cast in order of appearance.
Referee: Anthony Taylor.
Assistants: Gary Beswick, Adam Nunn.
Fourth official: David Coote.
VAR: Chris Kavanagh.
Assistant VAR: Sian Massey-Ellis.
-
One thing to be said for VAR - it's fantastic for referee job creation! Does it really take two of them to make decisions as mind boggling as they do?!
Before long there'll be more refs than players!
For the last game of the season there will be 4 officials at 10 games and 10 sets of VAR officials. There are 19 Premier League refs. They already call them up from the Championship then on down the food chain.
-
It’s about to get worse, with managers pressing for 3 VAR appeals per game.
Can you just imagine it?
-
That's what should happen, take it out of the hands of officials to decide what gets reviewed. That cheating c*** wouldn't have been able to prevent our goal at Palace, then.
I'd maybe go for one per half and an extra one for extra time then an extra one for penalties, rather than three each, but it would seem a step in the right direction.
-
I think that might be a better system to use you know like they do in Tennis where you get 2 challenges per set.
Instead of VAR checking every single decision, the manager gets maybe 1 challenge per half to use VAR. Every other decision is what the referee in the middle says like the good old days. If the manager uses VAR wrongly to have an offside decision checked, then 5 minutes later the ref misses a stonewall penalty but nothing can be done because the 1 VAR has already been used on an offside then tough.
-
That's what should happen, take it out of the hands of officials to decide what gets reviewed. That cheating c*** wouldn't have been able to prevent our goal at Palace, then.
I'd maybe go for one per half and an extra one for extra time then an extra one for penalties, rather than three each, but it would seem a step in the right direction.
My concern is managers would use them to disrupt the game, it would become a tactical weapon. Maybe one and if it was a correct appeal they still have it.
There is usually only one big incident.per match.
-
Fully implement VAR correctly or fully fuck it off. There is no way this half arsed version should have been introduced to the game. The match referees and VAR officials need to be fully trained, all aspects of the technology used (ie the pitch side screens), and clear rules that state when it should be used. The rules of the game also need to be updated to remove so many of the grey areas that remain to be subjective (if it’s subjective then the final call has to be with the ref using the pitch side screen).
-
That's what should happen, take it out of the hands of officials to decide what gets reviewed. That cheating c*** wouldn't have been able to prevent our goal at Palace, then.
I'd maybe go for one per half and an extra one for extra time then an extra one for penalties, rather than three each, but it would seem a step in the right direction.
My concern is managers would use them to disrupt the game, it would become a tactical weapon. Maybe one and if it was a correct appeal they still have it.
There is usually only one big incident.per match.
I think if you limit the number of appeals/reviews/challenges (call it what you like) it would cause less description than at present where you struggle to celebrate any goals. And they would be so valuable that I can't see bosses using them tactically. You'd be a bit daft to ask for a review of a throw in to slow down the opposition's momentum then find yourself powerless to query a massively dodgy game-changing decision later in the game.
-
I think that might be a better system to use you know like they do in Tennis where you get 2 challenges per set.
Instead of VAR checking every single decision, the manager gets maybe 1 challenge per half to use VAR. Every other decision is what the referee in the middle says like the good old days. If the manager uses VAR wrongly to have an offside decision checked, then 5 minutes later the ref misses a stonewall penalty but nothing can be done because the 1 VAR has already been used on an offside then tough.
I think the 2/3 challenges idea would be even worse than the fuckfest we have now. Lets say a manager thinks his team should of been awarded a pen so he appeals and it goes to var. Can you really see them overturning the original decision thus taking the managers side over their chum? It's already being run as an excersise in arse covering.It will cause carnage and you'll be seeing a regular 10/15 minutes extra time being held up on the board. All these suggestions are just a case of re-organising the deck chairs on the Titanic. The officials don't want it and are deliberately sabotaging it in my opinion. The fans don't want it. It's ruining the unbridled joy we get when celebrating a goal which is the single biggest reason for bringing us back in our droves every week. It takes away so much more than it gives. Stop this madness now. Kick it out.
-
Fully implement VAR correctly or fully fuck it off. There is no way this half arsed version should have been introduced to the game. The match referees and VAR officials need to be fully trained, all aspects of the technology used (ie the pitch side screens), and clear rules that state when it should be used. The rules of the game also need to be updated to remove so many of the grey areas that remain to be subjective (if it’s subjective then the final call has to be with the ref using the pitch side screen).
Exactly.
-
There's no way any manager or player should ever have the right to send anything to VAR. Many of them barely know the rules of the game and all of them are utterly, unapologetically biased. Why would I want the game delayed to tickle their egos or give vent to their peeves.
-
Managers dont know the rules?
-
Just have the VAR person, inform the referee when he's possibly missed something.
Referee HAS to go and double check. Referee watches replay, makes final decision.
It is nowhere near as hard as they're making it look.
-
Managers dont know the rules?
In terms of being able to ref the game, correct. Ask a ref. Actually, ask a manager and they'll tell you the same.
-
Just have the VAR person, inform the referee when he's possibly missed something.
Referee HAS to go and double check. Referee watches replay, makes final decision.
It is nowhere near as hard as they're making it look.
Which is what happened in the World Cup.
-
Just have the VAR person, inform the referee when he's possibly missed something.
Referee HAS to go and double check. Referee watches replay, makes final decision.
It is nowhere near as hard as they're making it look.
Which is what happened in the World Cup.
Yep, if it's here to stay then for now we may as well use the least worst version of it.
-
Just have the VAR person, inform the referee when he's possibly missed something.
Referee HAS to go and double check. Referee watches replay, makes final decision.
It is nowhere near as hard as they're making it look.
Which is what happened in the World Cup.
And then if the ref still isn't sure, he can ask the VAR team to have another look, at which point the "clear and obvious error" rule could apply.
-
Just have the VAR person, inform the referee when he's possibly missed something.
Referee HAS to go and double check. Referee watches replay, makes final decision.
It is nowhere near as hard as they're making it look.
Which is what happened in the World Cup.
During which there were about six penalties a game. I know I'm a miserable luddite but can't they just scrap the entire thing so we can get back to celebrating goals again?
-
Just have the VAR person, inform the referee when he's possibly missed something.
Referee HAS to go and double check. Referee watches replay, makes final decision.
It is nowhere near as hard as they're making it look.
Which is what happened in the World Cup.
During which there were about six penalties a game. I know I'm a miserable luddite but can't they just scrap the entire thing so we can get back to celebrating goals again?
I don't think you're being a luddite. Just because it's new technology and they've decided to use it doesn't make it right. Someone invented the Stylophone once.That got binned once everyone realised it wasn't "the future" it was actually a load of crap.
-
Maybe it's just because England benefitted, but I kind of liked blatant grappling in the box actually being penalised in the World Cup. There were more penalties than usual but that did seem to diminish as the tournament progressed.
-
Using "luddite" would imply one railing against new technology. It's not, it's barely one step removed from someone operating a vcr with a frame advance button.
-
How many mistakes per game were happening to make this shite worth it? It's made the game worse, not better.
-
I prefer using the word Luddite in its historical rather than derogatory context. We should be smashing up the video screens at Stockley Park simply because they represent a challenge to our way of life as we know it.
(And I say that as someone who was initially in favour of VAR.)
-
So Atkinson was going to give a yellow, VAR said give a red, and now it's overturned.
Tottenham forward Son Heung-min's red card for his tackle on Andre Gomes has been overturned by the Football Association.
-
Just have the VAR person, inform the referee when he's possibly missed something.
Referee HAS to go and double check. Referee watches replay, makes final decision.
It is nowhere near as hard as they're making it look.
Which is what happened in the World Cup.
During which there were about six penalties a game. I know I'm a miserable luddite but can't they just scrap the entire thing so we can get back to celebrating goals again?
I don't think you're being a luddite. Just because it's new technology and they've decided to use it doesn't make it right. Someone invented the Stylophone once.That got binned once everyone realised it wasn't "the future" it was actually a load of crap.
Was that the one Rolf Harris invented or did he just advertise it?
-
Just have the VAR person, inform the referee when he's possibly missed something.
Referee HAS to go and double check. Referee watches replay, makes final decision.
It is nowhere near as hard as they're making it look.
Which is what happened in the World Cup.
During which there were about six penalties a game. I know I'm a miserable luddite but can't they just scrap the entire thing so we can get back to celebrating goals again?
I don't think you're being a luddite. Just because it's new technology and they've decided to use it doesn't make it right. Someone invented the Stylophone once.That got binned once everyone realised it wasn't "the future" it was actually a load of crap.
Was that the one Rolf Harris invented or did he just advertise it?
I believe he invented it. I didn't want to give him credit for obvious reasons 😉
-
I remember getting one for Xmas, it wasn’t great.
-
He did great service to the hardboard manufacturing industry by inventing the wobble (woggle?) board. If you could not master playing it you could re roof a rabbit hutch with it.
-
I remember getting one for Xmas, it wasn’t great.
Yeah me too. Mid 70's i reckon? I was the envy of my brothers for about 10 minutes then the novelty wore off. Think i swapped it for an etch-a-sketch or a compendium of games.
-
Rolf Harris didn't invent the Stylophone. He played it on some of his irritating novelty tunes, but he didn't invent it.
-
Rolf Harris didn't invent the Stylophone. He played it on some of his irritating novelty tunes, but he didn't invent it.
I could play a mean Danny Boy on my Stylophone
-
I never had a Stylophone but I remember an uncle of mine having one. If I remember right didn't they make a big one and a mini one?
-
From today's newspaper
The Premier League has acknowledged that the video assistant referee's decision to award a penalty against Everton in their game at Brighton was incorrect. … The Premier League has privately admitted an error was made on the advice of video referee Lee Mason.
Hands up, everyone who is surprised that VAR is unreliable. Okay, so that's none of us then.
-
That's one of the problems of VAR in a nut shell...in most cases, the decision still remains to be the opinion of one man who isn't even at the game, so they may as well leave these kind of decisions to the match referee and insist that he goes to the touchline to watch the replays.
-
From today's newspaper
The Premier League has acknowledged that the video assistant referee's decision to award a penalty against Everton in their game at Brighton was incorrect. … The Premier League has privately admitted an error was made on the advice of video referee Lee Mason.
Hands up, everyone who is surprised that VAR is unreliable. Okay, so that's none of us then.
Which paper?
-
From today's newspaper
The Premier League has acknowledged that the video assistant referee's decision to award a penalty against Everton in their game at Brighton was incorrect. … The Premier League has privately admitted an error was made on the advice of video referee Lee Mason.
Hands up, everyone who is surprised that VAR is unreliable. Okay, so that's none of us then.
Which paper?
Daily Telegraph
-
Anybody just seen the farce at the Spuds game? Sheffield Utd equalise from a move down the right and it's been disallowed by VAR for offside by what looked like a toe nail in a phase of play that took place about 20 seconds before the goal. Decision was made about 3 minutes after the ball went in the net. It's getting farcical now, you daren't celebrate a goal any more.
-
It's all about getting the decisions right isn't it?
Football wanted it, football got it. Suck it up.
-
I searched "sheff utd spurs var" looking for a replay. Not much love for it there! Is that right, FOUR minutes to reach a decision?
Edit. Just seen devilla's post.
-
"Football wanted it".
Well I didn't, and it's an absolute farce.
-
Unbelievable!
How is this offside? (https://twitter.com/SheffieldUnited/status/1193203615583875073/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1193203615583875073&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231193203615583875073)
-
Unbelievable!
How is this offside? (https://twitter.com/SheffieldUnited/status/1193203615583875073/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1193203615583875073&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231193203615583875073)
The bloke playing the pass must be really naturally talented to overcome all the drawbacks of the size and shape of those feet.
-
Le Tissier was defending VAR offside decisions earlier on SSN on the basis that it’s the only consistent part of VAR as the same rules apply to all teams rather than match officials bottling big decisions. The problem is that the offside rules under VAR are a complete farce and need to be reviewed and updated.
-
"Football wanted it".
Well I didn't, and it's an absolute farce.
I do have a "serves you right" feeling about this. The endless berating of officials, refusal to accept decisions, impatience, hypocrisy and selective vision from managers and pundits lead to this. It was not needed and has had a negative effect on the game. VAR is like Brexit. Impossible to deliver what it promises.
-
As far as I’m aware it seems to be working with minimum fuss in 28 other countries.
-
Of all the foul play Laws, it's the only one that's binary, it's just always had problems with its human implementation and enforcement, which telly now magnifies, and treats like a dog with a bone. If you want something for offsides, it has to be along the lines of Hawkeye. Which could come in the next few years, I reckon. Impartial definitive automated decision delivered near-instantaneously to the referee, similarly to goal line decisions now. Just need some geniuses to get to work on those "interfering with play" algorithms.
Or massively loosen a rewritten Law.
-
As far as I’m aware it seems to be working with minimum fuss in 28 other countries.
Valencia-Granada game there was four minute delay between goal being scored and kicking off again. Goal was given in the end.
I simply can't believe refs aren't going to the monitors to have a look. If you're having a three minute delay on fractional offside you really should.
-
As far as I’m aware it seems to be working with minimum fuss in 28 other countries.
A quick bit of googling suggests it's as popular amongst match-going fans around the world as it is here. Including this goal scored during half time in Germany
-
I take it back then...VAR is a fuck up of international proportions.
-
I have watched various games and incidents today. I have no idea how they could have determined that the Sheff Utd goal was offside.
There were blatant and obvious penalties not given and still the pitch side screen has been deemed by the refs to be for aesthetic purposes only.
There are various clubs now singing fuck VAR and I can only hope that the protests grow to the extent that they do something about it.
-
VAR by its very definition was brought in to be an ASSISTANT to the referee much in the same way as the two assistants running the lines. It was introduced to provide another perspective to decisions the referee might not have seen, or missed by his on field assistants. But ultimately in the end the match referee needs to be the one making the final call. What has happened since the World Cup where with the aid of pitch side monitors it worked really well, is that VAR has taken over the duties of the match referee which was never its original intent. It has lost immense credibility. Put the power back in the hands of the match referee to help make calls that he missed. If the call on the pitch was a penalty, VAR should be used as a way of determining if something clear and obvious should overturn the decision. And use the monitors with a set time limit. And for me better still only employ it on a manager challenge. They get 2 a game, and like in the NFL, if they get the first one wrong they lose the second.
I don't disagree with the principal of VAR but it's a disaster right now.
-
This really cannot continue. It seems that every weekend there are laughable/lamentable mistakes being made with this current process being implemented. I sincerely hope that someone demands a full explanation from Mike Riley before too long.
-
VAR by its very definition was brought in to be an ASSISTANT to the referee much in the same way as the two assistants running the lines. It was introduced to provide another perspective to decisions the referee might not have seen, or missed by his on field assistants. But ultimately in the end the match referee needs to be the one making the final call. What has happened since the World Cup where with the aid of pitch side monitors it worked really well, is that VAR has taken over the duties of the match referee which was never its original intent. It has lost immense credibility. Put the power back in the hands of the match referee to help make calls that he missed. If the call on the pitch was a penalty, VAR should be used as a way of determining if something clear and obvious should overturn the decision. And use the monitors with a set time limit. And for me better still only employ it on a manager challenge. They get 2 a game, and like in the NFL, if they get the first one wrong they lose the second.
I don't disagree with the principal of VAR but it's a disaster right now.
This
-
Unbelievable!
How is this offside? (https://twitter.com/SheffieldUnited/status/1193203615583875073/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1193203615583875073&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231193203615583875073)
Incredible, surely the Spurs player's shoulder is more forward than the Sheffield player's toe.
-
As far as I’m aware it seems to be working with minimum fuss in 28 other countries.
A quick bit of googling suggests it's as popular amongst match-going fans around the world as it is here. Including this goal scored during half time in Germany
At least the ref looked at the monitor, they seem incapable of doing that over here.
-
Unbelievable!
How is this offside? (https://twitter.com/SheffieldUnited/status/1193203615583875073/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1193203615583875073&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231193203615583875073)
Is the answer ‘because its against media darlings Spurs’ ?
-
Unbelievable!
How is this offside? (https://twitter.com/SheffieldUnited/status/1193203615583875073/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1193203615583875073&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231193203615583875073)
Incredible, surely the Spurs player's shoulder is more forward than the Sheffield player's toe.
Surely we want to see more goals in the game. I would personally change the rule from next season to there having to be clear daylight between the attacker and defender to be ruled out as offside. The whole knee, shoulder etc being offside is too complicated and it's taking too long for decisions to be made.
If part of the attacker's body is on-side then they should be given the benefit of the doubt.
-
The line goes through the defender's head, they aren't filling me with confidence about how accurate they are.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EI8f12EWkAAkDcN?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
-
Unbelievable!
How is this offside? (https://twitter.com/SheffieldUnited/status/1193203615583875073/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1193203615583875073&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231193203615583875073)
Incredible, surely the Spurs player's shoulder is more forward than the Sheffield player's toe.
They seem to have drawn the line to the Spurs player's knee, ignoring the fact that his shoulder is further forward and also ahead of the attacking player's foot. Ludicrous.
-
Will VAR rear its ugly head later against Wolverlona? I fucking hope not. Football is stressful enough as it is.
-
Will VAR rear its ugly head later against Wolverlona? I fucking hope not. Football is stressful enough as it is.
I'm sure it will if we score mate.
-
Regarding the offside rule. I believe it should be changed in line with the ball going out if play rule. Any part of the ball on the white line, and it's still in play. Apply this to offside. Mark the centre of the defenders body. Draw the line from that point. Any part of the strikers body that is touching or behind that line is onside. Any marginal decisions should always go to the attacking team. Could this work.
-
It's all about getting the decisions right isn't it?
Football wanted it, football got it. Suck it up.
Or continue to rightly call it out when it's ruining the game and disallowing goals for ridiculous off sides?
-
As far as I’m aware it seems to be working with minimum fuss in 28 other countries.
A quick bit of googling suggests it's as popular amongst match-going fans around the world as it is here. Including this goal scored during half time in Germany
At least the ref looked at the monitor, they seem incapable of doing that over here.
I've seen a few people moan about this but not sure what we would get out of it. Surely that just means it would take even longer to get a decision?
-
I was watching MOTD earlier and even some players seem reluctant to celebrate now. The Newcastle player who scored the diving header was looking round just after he scored expecting it to go to VAR and the chap who scored Sheff Utd's equaliser didn't celebrate either.
-
The line goes through the defender's head, they aren't filling me with confidence about how accurate they are.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EI8f12EWkAAkDcN?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
Somebody onTwitter pointed out that a body part which was deemed fit for Dele Alli to score with 3 weeks ago, the shoulder, for reasons unknown isn't playing the attacker onside here.
-
The line goes through the defender's head, they aren't filling me with confidence about how accurate they are.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EI8f12EWkAAkDcN?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
I was watching this live and they kept doing the thing with the lines and it is remarkable that they ruled it offside.
-
The line goes through the defender's head, they aren't filling me with confidence about how accurate they are.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EI8f12EWkAAkDcN?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
I was watching this live and they kept doing the thing with the lines and it is remarkable that they ruled it offside.
Sorry to bring physics into it, but isn’t there a parallax problem here? The line goes along the floor, so anything on the floor is judged properly. But the defender’s head and shoulder is a distance (1.4 to 1.8m?) above the floor. Because the line isn’t square to the camera, it will make the defender’s head and shoulder look further forward than they are in reality. In other words the camera angle makes it look like the defender is playing the attacker on side, when in reality he isn’t.
It’s the sort of problem that image processing can deal with, but can’t show in a convincing photo.
By the way, this isn’t a defence of VAR, I hate the way it stifles the spontaneity of the game with a passion.
-
By the way, this isn’t a defence of VAR
Sounds like one to me, pinko.
-
By the way, this isn’t a defence of VAR
Sounds like one to me, pinko.
Hahaha! Caught red handed
-
Did the handball in the liverpool box lead directly to the goal at the other end??
-
Did the handball in the liverpool box lead directly to the goal at the other end??
Yep. And there you have it. Var still comes down to opinions. It's useless and needs to be scrapped asap. It's ruining the game, i really don't understand how people still find it a valuable asset to the game.
-
Ref watch on SSN is cringey as fuck. Rolling Dermot Gallagher out every week tieing himself into knots, car crash TV.
-
Ref watch on SSN is cringey as fuck. Rolling Dermot Gallagher out every week tieing himself into knots, car crash TV.
Absolutely bollocks he just backs up his mates and blah blah blah
-
25 minutes analysis, he argued with himself about 4 times.
-
At least we didn't get bummed by this farcical, ref ego massaging bollocks this week and just got a good old shooing like the old days.
-
The line goes through the defender's head, they aren't filling me with confidence about how accurate they are.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EI8f12EWkAAkDcN?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
I was watching this live and they kept doing the thing with the lines and it is remarkable that they ruled it offside.
Sorry to bring physics into it, but isn’t there a parallax problem here? The line goes along the floor, so anything on the floor is judged properly. But the defender’s head and shoulder is a distance (1.4 to 1.8m?) above the floor. Because the line isn’t square to the camera, it will make the defender’s head and shoulder look further forward than they are in reality. In other words the camera angle makes it look like the defender is playing the attacker on side, when in reality he isn’t.
It’s the sort of problem that image processing can deal with, but can’t show in a convincing photo.
By the way, this isn’t a defence of VAR, I hate the way it stifles the spontaneity of the game with a passion.
Do they take into account that pitches aren't flat due to drainage and that there's the curvature of the Earth to take deal with ?
Maybe VAR is one place that Flat-Earthers have gained control :)
-
The refs need to go over and watch the monitor footage. That is what the female refs were doing at the Women's World Cup and VAR seemed to work far more smoothly in that tournament than it has in the men's game. Apparently Mike Riley who is in charge of the refs was against that but has backed down due to all the media criticism. I think having the refs review the monitor footage will be a step in the right direction.
-
The refs need to go over and watch the monitor footage. That is what the female refs were doing at the Women's World Cup and VAR seemed to work far more smoothly in that tournament than it has in the men's game. Apparently Mike Riley who is in charge of the refs was against that but has backed down due to all the media criticism. I think having the refs review the monitor footage will be a step in the right direction.
Booting var into touch would be the right direction.
-
Anyone seen Dermot Gallagher's latest pathetic attempt to support that decision at the weekend? Painful viewing, you can tell that even he's not convincing himself.
-
The refs need to go over and watch the monitor footage. That is what the female refs were doing at the Women's World Cup and VAR seemed to work far more smoothly in that tournament than it has in the men's game. Apparently Mike Riley who is in charge of the refs was against that but has backed down due to all the media criticism. I think having the refs review the monitor footage will be a step in the right direction.
Apparently the suits have told refs to try not to use the monitors as it 'disrupts the flow of the game' as if VAR isn't doing that anyway.
-
Between Dermot Gallacher and now Neil Swarbrick (On 5Live this afternoon), I think we're being taken for mugs.
Just wait until this farce costs trophies, relegation etc.
-
Between Dermot Gallacher and now Neil Swarbrick (On 5Live this afternoon), I think we're being taken for mugs.
Just wait until this farce costs trophies, relegation etc.
You'd expect Swarbrick to try to defend himself, but his self delusion is monumental:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50380641
7/10 so far? It's absolutely dreadful, every single weekend, and is getting worse. The worst thing is the appalling lack of consistency.
-
One thing I’ve not seen mentioned about yesterday’s VAR decision (on the handball), was that it led to a goal. Surely that should have been chalked off, like the Man City (v Spyrs) goal was earlier in the season?
-
No, because I wanted Man City to win.
Basically VAR is out to get me personally. Pissing me off is the only thing it has been consistent in.
-
Apparently the refs have now decided to make more use of the pitch side monitor because only the on field ref understands the "atmosphere" of the game.
Which I think is code for "you'll never get a penalty at Anfield"!
-
One thing I’ve not seen mentioned about yesterday’s VAR decision (on the handball), was that it led to a goal. Surely that should have been chalked off, like the Man City (v Spyrs) goal was earlier in the season?
They mentioned it on MOTD2. Whilst they agreed it should have been a penalty to Man City for the handball, I think it was Shearer who suggested that it would have been toxic (or something like that) to disallow the goal and award a penalty instead.
Edit: “bedlam” is how Shearer described it.
-
Between Dermot Gallacher and now Neil Swarbrick (On 5Live this afternoon), I think we're being taken for mugs.
Just wait until this farce costs trophies, relegation etc.
You'd expect Swarbrick to try to defend himself, but his self delusion is monumental:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50380641
7/10 so far? It's absolutely dreadful, every single weekend, and is getting worse. The worst thing is the appalling lack of consistency.
Listen to him, pompous little prat. He said on TS earlier that "var is here to stay & people will have to give them time to perfect it" Says who? It's not down to the referees it's down to the football governing bodies whether it's here to stay or not. The arrogance of them these days is laughable. They seem to think the crowds and the TV companies are there to watch them! Apparently ours is the last league to implement it. One year behind all other associations so they could get it right! And they spent the whole year travelling the globe on a massive all expenses jolly to observe. Fuck me.
-
It seems to me, standing back and half closing your eyes, the referees are clinging to their power to arbitrate. The laughable reference to only they understanding the "atmosphere" of a game is a weasel way of saying that they demand the right to be partisan. A free kick in the outfield is a free kick is a free kick. A free kick in a penalty area is a penalty but it might directly affect the outcome of the game so referees assume the right to arbitrate. That is de facto bias.
What we have with VAR is machines partly running games. It used to work perfectly ( because errors we accepted as part of the game) when humans ran the games. VAR can only work when it runs every bit of the game robotically. The mixture of technolgy and human judgement is an attempt to grow oranges on an apple tree. The hybrid system we have currently is a Norwegian Blue parrot.
-
... What we have with VAR is machines partly running games. It used to work perfectly ( because errors we accepted as part of the game) when humans ran the games. VAR can only work when it runs every bit of the game robotically. The mixture of technolgy and human judgement is an attempt to grow oranges on an apple tree. The hybrid system we have currently is a Norwegian Blue parrot.
Disagree, Brian.
The technology is providing humans with more 'data' to make decisions. The problem now is that the human foibles are being exposed and the previously-undisclosed dilemma of the ref making judgement-calls is being laid bare (Think Dowd at Wembley in 2010 for an example of a ref who admitted to bringing his judgement into what was a binary and b&w decision).
Additionally, the frailty of the laws is also being exposed - when is a handball a freekick / penalty vs contact with a body part that makes no difference to the play? Can a player be offisde if a toe-nail crosses a computer-generated line?
I have no problem with the technology: I have a problem with its application and with the concept that referees should judge whether to apply the rules or not, and these are the issues that needs to be addressed by the game's administrators.
-
I believe you can't have some technology. All in or not at all. If Cambridge scientists can programme a piece of wood slime to draw a full colour map of the Tokyo underground, as they can, robotic scanning of every move of every player in a game of football has to be a serious consideration.
-
I believe you can't have some technology. All in or not at all.
Agree Brian.
Type 'Kevin Friend, Leicester' into the command prompt of the attack helicopter.
Make the technology work for us.
-
I believe you can't have some technology. All in or not at all. If Cambridge scientists can programme a piece of wood slime to draw a full colour map of the Tokyo underground, as they can, robotic scanning of every move of every player in a game of football has to be a serious consideration.
You can I suppose because it worked in the World Cup. We had some technology (the pitch side monitor) but the ref had the final say. Why that hasn't happened so far this season is a bit of a mystery.
-
Surely Swarthick forgot to add the minus sign before the 7. Who on earth does he think he's kidding, this spin would embarrass a politician. Just as idiotic as Gallagher trying to justify the unjustifiable with a straight face. It's an unmitigated fuck up so far and every man, woman and their dogs know it.
The ""atmosphere" line is pure Dowdism - I reserve the right to not give a foul in case I upset the ManYew/'The Mighty Reds YNWA' plastic fans or Sky.
We have to make the man on the pitch make the ultimate decision and that means using the pitch side monitor. The VAR should only be advising there might be something to look at. That way they remain answerable for their decisions but can't hide behind a mate/subordinate/superior backing them up or bailing them out. We'd also hopefully remove excuses for "atmosphere" (bottler) decisions made in the heat of the moment.
-
Surely Swarthick forgot to add the minus sign before the 7. Who on earth does he think he's kidding, this spin would embarrass a politician. Just as idiotic as Gallagher trying to justify the unjustifiable with a straight face. It's an unmitigated fuck up so far and every man, woman and their dogs know it.
The ""atmosphere" line is pure Dowdism - I reserve the right to not give a foul in case I upset the ManYew/'The Mighty Reds YNWA' plastic fans or Sky.
We have to make the man on the pitch make the ultimate decision and that means using the pitch side monitor. The VAR should only be advising there might be something to look at. That way they remain answerable for their decisions but can't hide behind a mate/subordinate/superior backing them up or bailing them out. We'd also hopefully remove excuses for "atmosphere" (bottler) decisions made in the heat of the moment.
Yes, it's unbeliavable. In what other billion pound industry would you get away with such a half-arsed way of introducing a radical new system?
-
I believe you can't have some technology. All in or not at all.
Agree Brian.
Type 'Kevin Friend, Leicester' into the command prompt of the attack helicopter.
Make the technology work for us.
👏👏👏
-
Apparently there is a meeting planned this week of the PL with the referees to discuss how var is being implemented. Top of the agenda is the issue of them not using pitch side monitors. Every other league in Europe has been using them. What i find astounding is that we are a quarter of the way into the season and this is only being discussed now. Therefore the Premier League with all it's might and financial clout appear to have just sat back and given the refs carte blanche.
-
Surely Swarthick forgot to add the minus sign before the 7. Who on earth does he think he's kidding, this spin would embarrass a politician. Just as idiotic as Gallagher trying to justify the unjustifiable with a straight face. It's an unmitigated fuck up so far and every man, woman and their dogs know it.
The ""atmosphere" line is pure Dowdism - I reserve the right to not give a foul in case I upset the ManYew/'The Mighty Reds YNWA' plastic fans or Sky.
We have to make the man on the pitch make the ultimate decision and that means using the pitch side monitor. The VAR should only be advising there might be something to look at. That way they remain answerable for their decisions but can't hide behind a mate/subordinate/superior backing them up or bailing them out. We'd also hopefully remove excuses for "atmosphere" (bottler) decisions made in the heat of the moment.
Yes, it's unbeliavable. In what other billion pound industry would you get away with such a half-arsed way of introducing a radical new system?
Have you had any dealings with HMRC 😜
-
It won’t happen but football people in this high profile forum need to say it’s not working and lets scrap it before anymore damage is caused to our game
-
High profile forum ie H&V?? 😀
-
Yes indeed. In the recent past we have been quoted in the top end broadsheet newspapers.
-
Imagine driven from pressure from the premiership teams they decide to shelve it for a season and iron out the issues (A serious consideration IMHO) I guarantee the very next game a Manager / Coach etc will scream blue murder if they feel a decision has gone against them with out it.
We have opened Pandoras box with this im afraid
-
Anyone hear Purslow on the radio earlier? The PL big wigs have had a meeting with Riley’s lot and made it clear how pissed off they are and want changes in speed of decision making, communication to the fans and videos of the incidents being looked at. Christian comes across so well it must be said. Glad he’s our CEO.
-
The big point was about the spontaneity of celebration, which is the heart of the game, being killed.
-
Anyone hear Purslow on the radio earlier? The PL big wigs have had a meeting with Riley’s lot and made it clear how pissed off they are and want changes in speed of decision making, communication to the fans and videos of the incidents being looked at. Christian comes across so well it must be said. Glad he’s our CEO.
Hopefully referees being told to use pitchside monitors as well.
-
The big point was about the spontaneity of celebration, which is the heart of the game, being killed.
It's the number one reason why i believe var will ultimitely fail. I am also of the opinion that it's been deliberately sabotaged by the referees. The game belongs to the clubs and the fans not the bloody refs. They should be held responsible for this current fuckfest. What's to stop the PL setting up a kind of refereeing training centre? Train up some new guys to a high standard and get rid of the current crop? After all not one was adjudged good enough for the last world cup.
-
Anyone hear Purslow on the radio earlier? The PL big wigs have had a meeting with Riley’s lot and made it clear how pissed off they are and want changes in speed of decision making, communication to the fans and videos of the incidents being looked at. Christian comes across so well it must be said. Glad he’s our CEO.
Hopefully referees being told to use pitchside monitors as well.
They have issued a statement saying that they will continue to use the monitors "sparingly"
-
Never ceases to amaze how often blinkered idiots get handed the controls to something. But Football has a long history of it.
-
It's supposed to be clear and obvious. What was so fucking clear and obvious about Sheffield United's disallowed goal last week.
-
It was clear and obvious that it was scored against Spurs.
-
It was clear and obvious that it was scored against Spurs.
Very good.
-
If they are to continue with VAR, I like the idea of limiting the decision making time to say something like 30 seconds.
So the Sheffield United goal would have stood, because they wouldn't have time to bring up all the lines and micro check the details.
Id prefer not to have it at all, but if are going to be subjected to it perhaps that would speed up the process plus it would fit in with the clear and obvious agenda.
-
The big point was about the spontaneity of celebration, which is the heart of the game, being killed.
It's the number one reason why i believe var will ultimitely fail. I am also of the opinion that it's been deliberately sabotaged by the referees. The game belongs to the clubs and the fans not the bloody refs. They should be held responsible for this current fuckfest. What's to stop the PL setting up a kind of refereeing training centre? Train up some new guys to a high standard and get rid of the current crop? After all not one was adjudged good enough for the last world cup.
Oh, VAR Will not 'fail' - the genie is out of the bottle, and VAR will prevail - the issue is in what format the technology will ultimately be used. As I said on the previous page, the problem is with its application and - perhaps more importantly - with the concept that referees should judge whether to apply the rules or not: I think our Friend deliberately blew his whistle at CP in order not to have to go through a VAR Appeal, and that judgement call makes me very cynical. My cynicism was deepened against Liverpool, when VAR checked for a penalty after having already booked Mane for diving (how weird was that?!).
-
The big point was about the spontaneity of celebration, which is the heart of the game, being killed.
It's the number one reason why i believe var will ultimitely fail. I am also of the opinion that it's been deliberately sabotaged by the referees. The game belongs to the clubs and the fans not the bloody refs. They should be held responsible for this current fuckfest. What's to stop the PL setting up a kind of refereeing training centre? Train up some new guys to a high standard and get rid of the current crop? After all not one was adjudged good enough for the last world cup.
Oh, VAR Will not 'fail' - the genie is out of the bottle, and VAR will prevail - the issue is in what format the technology will ultimately be used. As I said on the previous page, the problem is with its application and - perhaps more importantly - with the concept that referees should judge whether to apply the rules or not: I think our Friend deliberately blew his whistle at CP in order not to have to go through a VAR Appeal, and that judgement call makes me very cynical. My cynicism was deepened against Liverpool, when VAR checked for a penalty after having already booked Mane for diving (how weird was that?!).
Maybe it can survive but it will have to be very different to the crap we're seeing at the moment. As London Villan said above ^^ it's ruining the spontaneity of celebrating a goal which is the very essence of going to a match. That has got to stop. Come the business end of the season and var costs a club a title or a cup or is responsible for relegating someone, there could be ructions. The shit could hit the fan big time then who knows what would happen?
-
Is there anyone on here, or anyone who has spoken to another football fan, who would currently give VAR 7/10? I think this clearly demonstrates how out of touch these tw*ts really are.
Thanks to the poster for pointing out that Jack is booked for diving, so can't be checked on VAR, while Mane is booked for diving, and the decision is duly checked by VAR.
Two completely different approaches to identical situations. it would be nice to put it down to both refs being horrendously shite/corrupt, but the system is as bad as they are -some achievement!!
After Sunday, I would clone Michael Oliver and Andrew Taylor repeatedly until shite refs are driven out of the game. Pawson isn't too bad, either. Who was the ref who covered the home game against Millwall last season? He was very good.
Anyone else think of any refs who would make the quality cut?
-
I was reluctant to post this as I expect to be shot down in flames but it has been nagging at me. At the Liverpool game I was on the front row of Trinity Middle right behind the ref assistant when he flagged Firmino offside. He looked well off and around me fans were wondering what VAR was checking. I suspect that the freeze frame was before the ball was played and before he moved offside.
-
I was reluctant to post this as I expect to be shot down in flames but it has been nagging at me. At the Liverpool game I was on the front row of Trinity Middle right behind the ref assistant when he flagged Firmino offside. He looked well off and around me fans were wondering what VAR was checking. I suspect that the freeze frame was before the ball was played and before he moved offside.
That hits the nail on the head for me. The offside rule is as follows "if a attacking player is deemed to be in front of the last defender WHEN THE BALL IS PLAYED he will be judged to be offside" How can they give a player offside for the width of his boot leather when they can't tell the precise moment the ball leaves the pasding players boot? It simply can't be that accurate. It's total nonsense and i'm waiting for a club to challenge this when a goal is disallowed for such a fine margin which costs that club dearly.
-
I was reluctant to post this as I expect to be shot down in flames but it has been nagging at me. At the Liverpool game I was on the front row of Trinity Middle right behind the ref assistant when he flagged Firmino offside. He looked well off and around me fans were wondering what VAR was checking. I suspect that the freeze frame was before the ball was played and before he moved offside.
That hits the nail on the head for me. The offside rule is as follows "if an attacking player is deemed to be in front of the last defender WHEN THE BALL IS PLAYED he will be judged to be offside" How can they give a player offside for the width of his boot leather when they can't tell the precise moment the ball leaves the pasding players boot? It simply can't be that accurate. It's total nonsense and i'm waiting for a club to challenge this when a goal is disallowed for such a fine margin which costs that club dearly.
-
Is there anyone on here, or anyone who has spoken to another football fan, who would currently give VAR 7/10? I think this clearly demonstrates how out of touch these tw*ts really are.
Thanks to the poster for pointing out that Jack is booked for diving, so can't be checked on VAR, while Mane is booked for diving, and the decision is duly checked by VAR.
Two completely different approaches to identical situations. it would be nice to put it down to both refs being horrendously shite/corrupt, but the system is as bad as they are -some achievement!!
After Sunday, I would clone Michael Oliver and Andrew Taylor repeatedly until shite refs are driven out of the game. Pawson isn't too bad, either. Who was the ref who covered the home game against Millwall last season? He was very good.
Anyone else think of any refs who would make the quality cut?
I would advocate a referees college where they could recruit younger and fitter therefore more suitable people for the job. They could be trained to a high standard before replacing the ones we currently use.
-
I was reluctant to post this as I expect to be shot down in flames but it has been nagging at me. At the Liverpool game I was on the front row of Trinity Middle right behind the ref assistant when he flagged Firmino offside. He looked well off and around me fans were wondering what VAR was checking. I suspect that the freeze frame was before the ball was played and before he moved offside.
That hits the nail on the head for me. The offside rule is as follows "if a attacking player is deemed to be in front of the last defender WHEN THE BALL IS PLAYED he will be judged to be offside" How can they give a player offside for the width of his boot leather when they can't tell the precise moment the ball leaves the pasding players boot? It simply can't be that accurate. It's total nonsense and i'm waiting for a club to challenge this when a goal is disallowed for such a fine margin which costs that club dearly.
I agree if they are downto millimeters they are in to split seconds and there is no way they can be absolutely certain.
Because they have said offside has to be based on fact and not obvious error they ave fucked themselves completely. Idiots
-
I was reluctant to post this as I expect to be shot down in flames but it has been nagging at me. At the Liverpool game I was on the front row of Trinity Middle right behind the ref assistant when he flagged Firmino offside. He looked well off and around me fans were wondering what VAR was checking. I suspect that the freeze frame was before the ball was played and before he moved offside.
That hits the nail on the head for me. The offside rule is as follows "if a attacking player is deemed to be in front of the last defender WHEN THE BALL IS PLAYED he will be judged to be offside" How can they give a player offside for the width of his boot leather when they can't tell the precise moment the ball leaves the pasding players boot? It simply can't be that accurate. It's total nonsense and i'm waiting for a club to challenge this when a goal is disallowed for such a fine margin which costs that club dearly.
I agree if they are downto millimeters they are in to split seconds and there is no way they can be absolutely certain.
Because they have said offside has to be based on fact and not obvious error they ave fucked themselves completely. Idiots
I've had this debate with a few var lovers but for some reason they can't or won't accept the point. They churn out offside is offside even if it is a millimetre. When i say to them if you're giving offside for millimetres you have to be certain of the precise moment the ball leaves the passing players boot they switch off or say i'm being pedantic. But i'm not. I'm really not.
-
You can learn a lot from studying Villa's goal at Wolves. Shot over the line or not? Check on the watch and correct decision made within about five seconds -surely the model for delivering VAR decisions? Not the rubbish we get now!
-
You can learn a lot from studying Villa's goal at Wolves. Shot over the line or not? Check on the watch and correct decision made within about five seconds -surely the model for delivering VAR decisions? Not the rubbish we get now!
I agree. But to achieve that you would need Laser/sensor technology to map every millimetre of the entire length of the pitch. Doable but at what cost?
-
You can learn a lot from studying Villa's goal at Wolves. Shot over the line or not? Check on the watch and correct decision made within about five seconds -surely the model for delivering VAR decisions? Not the rubbish we get now!
I agree. But to achieve that you would need Laser/sensor technology to map every millimetre of the entire length of the pitch. Doable but at what cost?
That system is perfect for matter of fact decisions, but the issue with VAR is the subjective ones. One mans foul is another mans good tackle, this is the fundamental problem with VAR, you can't turn a matter of opinion into a matter of fact no matter how hard you try. VAR was fatally flawed from the start, but the clamour to introduce it, under the cloak of "getting decisions correct" ignored this. And here we are.
-
You can learn a lot from studying Villa's goal at Wolves. Shot over the line or not? Check on the watch and correct decision made within about five seconds -surely the model for delivering VAR decisions? Not the rubbish we get now!
I agree. But to achieve that you would need Laser/sensor technology to map every millimetre of the entire length of the pitch. Doable but at what cost?
That system is perfect for matter of fact decisions, but the issue with VAR is the subjective ones. One mans foul is another mans good tackle, this is the fundamental problem with VAR, you can't turn a matter of opinion into a matter of fact no matter how hard you try. VAR was fatally flawed from the start, but the clamour to introduce it, under the cloak of "getting decisions correct" ignored this. And here we are.
The clamour to introduce it based on "the technology is there, why don't we use it?" We've gone from 3 blokes, two with a flag, one with a whistle and goal line technology. The assumption that the technology is there is akin to the Wright Brother's first flight and a week later wanting to know why they haven't landed on the moon. It's going to take time.
-
Does anyone refer to their telly at home as 'technology'? There is no technology involved for anything other than goal line, it's still just a bloke watching the telly.
-
You can learn a lot from studying Villa's goal at Wolves. Shot over the line or not? Check on the watch and correct decision made within about five seconds -surely the model for delivering VAR decisions? Not the rubbish we get now!
I agree. But to achieve that you would need Laser/sensor technology to map every millimetre of the entire length of the pitch. Doable but at what cost?
That system is perfect for matter of fact decisions, but the issue with VAR is the subjective ones. One mans foul is another mans good tackle, this is the fundamental problem with VAR, you can't turn a matter of opinion into a matter of fact no matter how hard you try. VAR was fatally flawed from the start, but the clamour to introduce it, under the cloak of "getting decisions correct" ignored this. And here we are.
The clamour to introduce it based on "the technology is there, why don't we use it?" We've gone from 3 blokes, two with a flag, one with a whistle and goal line technology. The assumption that the technology is there is akin to the Wright Brother's first flight and a week later wanting to know why they haven't landed on the moon. It's going to take time.
In terms of offside the tech isn't there but it will be soon. In the rugby world cup they were, for some games, using camera tech (called Volumetric Video Capture) which allows them to build a full 3d model of the match and replay at multiple speeds for any angle - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNEAkIWMD64 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNEAkIWMD64) - this is an example of the footage it gives.
However World Rugby are (from what I've been told by a very good source) already asking for future applications around this, specifically to help manage the offside line. The goal would be that every breakdown would have a 'capture' of the exact time stamp when the ball is lifted and then timematch that to an overhead shot giving the exact position of every player.
That is how you can use technology to manage offsides in football as well, maybe even keep the linesman involved by having them press a button to ask for a review (as they raise the flag). From there if you can get the images being generated within 10-15 seconds and judged via AI then you have a genuinely workable technological solution that's on par with goal line tech.
VAR as it stands shouldn't be used for offsides other than extreme circumstances (if a guy is a couple of yards off and it somehow gets missed). VAR, in it's current format, should mainly be about fouls and dives right now, where the angle for the ref can make something hard to spot but other angles can quickly show {lack of} contact. In most cases the game stops for the players to all have a moan at the ref anyway so you're not slowing game down at that point. I'm ok with it enforcing the handball laws as well but only if they're understood consistently by the people making the decisions. Earlier in the season I don't think that was the case so we saw some fairly controversial handball decisions.
-
You can learn a lot from studying Villa's goal at Wolves. Shot over the line or not? Check on the watch and correct decision made within about five seconds -surely the model for delivering VAR decisions? Not the rubbish we get now!
I agree. But to achieve that you would need Laser/sensor technology to map every millimetre of the entire length of the pitch. Doable but at what cost?
That system is perfect for matter of fact decisions, but the issue with VAR is the subjective ones. One mans foul is another mans good tackle, this is the fundamental problem with VAR, you can't turn a matter of opinion into a matter of fact no matter how hard you try. VAR was fatally flawed from the start, but the clamour to introduce it, under the cloak of "getting decisions correct" ignored this. And here we are.
The clamour to introduce it based on "the technology is there, why don't we use it?" We've gone from 3 blokes, two with a flag, one with a whistle and goal line technology. The assumption that the technology is there is akin to the Wright Brother's first flight and a week later wanting to know why they haven't landed on the moon. It's going to take time.
Nothing wrong with the technology, in your analogy it's a spaceship well capable of a moon landing, the problem is they are still using monkeys and dogs as astronauts
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50517096
So they've started to admit that var has got things wrong, but why stop at 4?
In its current state the system is a sham.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50517096
So they've started to admit that var has got things wrong, but why stop at 4?
In its current state the system is a sham.
Four my arse, they're getting more than that wrong every single weekend. What about our goal v Brighton for a start?
-
Absolutely laughable.
-
That's only one type of error as well. There are numerous others where they've failed to overturn clear errors as well. Like the penalty we didn't get at Arsenal and that joke of a decision at Palace.
-
Four errors?!
If Conor Hourihanes goal against Brighton had been for Man City against Liverpool, we'd never have heard the end of it.
It was an absolutely horrendous decision and could have cost us points, luckily, it didn't.
When they scrapped that goal, and that voice said "VAR complete", I started to question the point in going to games anymore.
-
"Four Errors" The previous day!
Not over the weekend or the season!
-
VAR Friend and Liverpool cheat again.
-
VAR Friend and Liverpool cheat again.
It was correctly disallowed.
-
VAR Friend and Liverpool cheat again.
It was correctly disallowed.
Lovers throws himself to the ground and no where near the cross.
-
VAR Friend and Liverpool cheat again.
It was correctly disallowed.
Lovers throws himself to the ground and no where near the cross.
It was a clear push in the back.
-
Lovren was miles away from the ball, though. Surely that's a goal?
-
Lovren was miles away from the ball, though. Surely that's a goal?
Lovren I s a cynical cheating twat, always has been, Ayew I think without doubt touches him and he throws himself to the floor. He gets away with it.
-
VAR has been rushed in early to help Liverpool win the Premier League.
-
VAR has been rushed in early to help Liverpool win the Premier League.
Exactly
-
Lovren was miles away from the ball, though. Surely that's a goal?
That’s an argument. But then why does Ayew push him that blatantly? That’s going to be called every time. I hate Liverpool and Friend as we all know is a massive cock. And the decision took too long yet again but that’s a foul in the box. I don’t think it’s that controversial relative to many of the VAR calls we’ve seen this season.
-
Lovren was miles away from the ball, though. Surely that's a goal?
That’s an argument. But then why does Ayew push him that blatantly? That’s going to be called every time. I hate Liverpool and Friend as we all know is a massive cock. And the decision took too long yet again but that’s a foul in the box. I don’t think it’s that controversial relative to many of the VAR calls we’ve seen this season.
There was contact, but are they going to check every corner when a goal has been scored ?
Because if they did every goal would be disallowed because there is allways contact at Corners, it’s only because of Lovrens theatrics does this get chalked off.
-
It wasn’t just contact. You’re making it out to be something incidental which it wasn’t. It was clear push in the back. Those are going to be called. We’d be rightly furious if it happened to us.
-
Whatever
-
Whatever
How very mature of you.
-
It wasn’t just contact. You’re making it out to be something incidental which it wasn’t. It was clear push in the back. Those are going to be called. We’d be rightly furious if it happened to us.
Well let's take it to the "n"th degree - which is what they seem to be using VAR for - would he have made a clearance header if he wasn't fouled?
Much the same principal as a player is not offside if he doesn't interfere with play, it has no bearing on the end result being a goal or a missed chance and we can debate all day if it had have been a Liverpool goal, would it have gone to VAR.
VAR should be there to make difficult decisions whereby the ref is undecided, not to check on things they have missed, (the corner analogy is spot on) - the Ref is in charge of the game, not VAR
-
It wasn’t just contact. You’re making it out to be something incidental which it wasn’t. It was clear push in the back. Those are going to be called. We’d be rightly furious if it happened to us.
Well let's take it to the "n"th degree - which is what they seem to be using VAR for - would he have made a clearance header if he wasn't fouled?
Much the same principal as a player is not offside if he doesn't interfere with play, it has no bearing on the end result being a goal or a missed chance and we can debate all day if it had have been a Liverpool goal, would it have gone to VAR.
VAR should be there to make difficult decisions whereby the ref is undecided, not to check on things they have missed, (the corner analogy is spot on) - the Ref is in charge of the game, not VAR
Thank you.
-
It was a foul in the box. Had it not led to a goal it still would have been a foul in the box. The fact that it led to a goal shouldn’t change the fact that it was a foul and we’ve all seen them given at corners.
-
Another outrageous decision to chalk off Sterlings late goal for Man City.
Luckily for them it didn't matter as they still won.
Absolute farce that people are sat there making these abysmal decisions.
-
Becoming the norm now, a soulless, android decision which isn't clear and obvious.
-
Truly pathetic. Surely VAR wasn’t introduced to rule out non-offside offside goals like that.
-
It was a foul in the box. Had it not led to a goal it still would have been a foul in the box. The fact that it led to a goal shouldn’t change the fact that it was a foul and we’ve all seen them given at corners.
But did VAR show how he was pushed? Did Ayew stumble, was he himself pushed, or tripped into the other player? Or was he all alone and did it deliberately? Or did the player that was pushed stop running or back into Ayew?
None of which was examined on VAR and more importantly was not noticed by the Ref during his view of the incident, where do you start/stop VAR examining every alleged incident that the referee did not deem necessary?
VAR is not the referee, yet it is being used for that purpose - not what it is supposed to be instigated for. Why bother having a referee at all if you can just video the whole game and make all decisions based on video evidence alone, with the man in black announcing each and every video decision?
The use of this technology is deeply flawed and appears to still be in trial/UAT version, nowhere near the finished article and it surprises me that they chose to trial this technology in such a high stakes league at this early stage of its' development.
-
Referees have embraced VAR believing that it would enhance their status but in fact it has seriously diminished it. Time was when games were supervised by human judgement alone that the best referees were highly regarded in the game for their personal sporting talent. They too were elite sportsmen/women. VAR has reduced them to whistle blowers.
Simplistically I picture football pre technology as an analogue watch. A product of immense skill but occasionally at fault. VAR is a digital watch accurate to a thousandth of a second but totally lacking intrinsic aesthetic value.
-
They really need to sort out the offside stuff. I don't think anyone in their right mind believes a millimetre offside is against the rules. I think someone said it on here first and I've repeated it a load of times since and no-one disagrees; flip it on its head and make any part of the attacker's body level with the defender onside. There will be controversies where someone's toenail keeps them on but to my mind it's far better than perfectly good goals being chalked off.
-
I'm here again repeating myself ad-nauseum. But here goes. Var has done nothing to improve the game. It's ruining the match day experience. Fans of all clubs turn up week after week for one reason. To celebrate a goal. It has reduced us to looking at a giant screen now to see if var is checking it. It has got to be binned. Just wait till the end of the season when a club scores a vital goal to avoid relegation/ win the league/ win the cup etc etc. There will be riots.
-
Going back to that Brighton game, we won the game but we didn't score until the last kick of the game. That disallowed goal might have put us in the bottom three now.
-
VAR has been rushed in early to help Liverpool win the Premier League.
was thinking this yesterday . . They are the jammiest team this season.
-
I'm here again repeating myself ad-nauseum. But here goes. Var has done nothing to improve the game. It's ruining the match day experience. Fans of all clubs turn up week after week for one reason. To celebrate a goal. It's has reduced us to looking at a giant screen now to see if var is checking it. It has got to be binned. Just wait till the end of the season when a club scores a vital goal to avoid relegation/ win the league/ win the cup etc etc. There will be riots.
Completely agree but sadly the TV deal revenue means those of who go to matches have become secondary when VAR gives Sky etc something additional to analyse and discuss to help fill their air time. So I reckon we’re stuck with it.
-
Much as I hate VAR, it astounds me that it couldn't have ruled out Southampton's first goal yesterday. Quick free kick was taken with the ball still moving. One replay was all it would have taken to get the right decision. Rules say that VAR can't get involved.
They'll spend ten minutes working out if your armpit hair was ahead of the defender's bum fluff, but not something simple like that.
-
I'm here again repeating myself ad-nauseum. But here goes. Var has done nothing to improve the game. It's ruining the match day experience. Fans of all clubs turn up week after week for one reason. To celebrate a goal. It's has reduced us to looking at a giant screen now to see if var is checking it. It has got to be binned. Just wait till the end of the season when a club scores a vital goal to avoid relegation/ win the league/ win the cup etc etc. There will be riots.
Agree with this and mentioned it a few weeks ago. Something really ugly will kick off towards the end of the season and at several grounds. Fans are already seething at games and it will get worse.
-
Much as I hate VAR, it astounds me that it couldn't have ruled out Southampton's first goal yesterday. Quick free kick was taken with the ball still moving. One replay was all it would have taken to get the right decision. Rules say that VAR can't get involved.
They'll spend ten minutes working out if your armpit hair was ahead of the defender's bum fluff, but not something simple like that.
That would have been extremely harsh too as the ball was touched down and barely moving. That kind of decision would be similar to and justify these millimetre offsides.
I’ve repeatedly said it before, but some old rules of the game (including offside) have to be updated and clearly defined if new technology is introduced as they simply aren’t compatible. As an example, I would agree with the comments about reversing the offside to being any part of the body being level is onside and they have to find an agreed line to work from as a toe, knee or armpit simply isn’t good or consistent enough.
-
I'm here again repeating myself ad-nauseum. But here goes. Var has done nothing to improve the game. It's ruining the match day experience. Fans of all clubs turn up week after week for one reason. To celebrate a goal. It has reduced us to looking at a giant screen now to see if var is checking it. It has got to be binned. Just wait till the end of the season when a club scores a vital goal to avoid relegation/ win the league/ win the cup etc etc. There will be riots.
Completely agree but sadly the TV deal revenue means those of who go to matches have become secondary when VAR gives Sky etc something additional to analyse and discuss to help fill their air time. So I reckon we’re stuck with it.
-
One thing struck me after our game against Liverpool which highlighted the inconsistencies with VAR. We were given a free kick and Sane got booked for diving. VAR then checked whether he dived or should have had a penalty. At our game against Palace we were told VAR couldn't be used to check whether Jack had in fact dived or should have had a penalty because Friend had blown his whistle. What's the difference?
-
One thing struck me after our game against Liverpool which highlighted the inconsistencies with VAR. We were given a free kick and Sane got booked for diving. VAR then checked whether he dived or should have had a penalty. At our game against Palace we were told VAR couldn't be used to check whether Jack had in fact dived or should have had a penalty because Friend had blown his whistle. What's the difference?
One was Liverpool. The other was Aston Villa.
-
One thing struck me after our game against Liverpool which highlighted the inconsistencies with VAR. We were given a free kick and Sane got booked for diving. VAR then checked whether he dived or should have had a penalty. At our game against Palace we were told VAR couldn't be used to check whether Jack had in fact dived or should have had a penalty because Friend had blown his whistle. What's the difference?
Exactly. Arsenal scored at Old Trafford after the linesman had flagged and the referee blown. The striker tamely put the ball in the net out of habit I guess, he assumed he was off. Then they check, he's onside and they give a goal. But the ref had blown. We were told after Palace that VAR couldn't get involved.
As mentioned above, when this costs someone a cup, or relegates someone, there's going to be major trouble.
-
One thing struck me after our game against Liverpool which highlighted the inconsistencies with VAR. We were given a free kick and Sane got booked for diving. VAR then checked whether he dived or should have had a penalty. At our game against Palace we were told VAR couldn't be used to check whether Jack had in fact dived or should have had a penalty because Friend had blown his whistle. What's the difference?
No, that's not what happened at Palace. VAR were checking if it was a penalty, that's it. They decided there wasn't enough evidence to give a penalty so the on-field decision to give a dive was upheld. What they couldn't have done was let play go, let us score and then go back to check if it was a dive. If he wanted to give a booking for the dive he had to stop play, which is why he blew as Lansbury was shooting.
-
what was the game yesterday where the referee requested VAR intervention when players suddenly surrounded him after an incident at the other end. This simply will not end well.
-
what was the game yesterday where the referee requested VAR intervention when players suddenly surrounded him after an incident at the other end. This simply will not end well.
Watford v Burnley, penalty to Burnley, correct call
-
Would have been a similar situation to the Liverpool vs Man City game if Watford had scored on the counter. If a goal had been scored would they have pulled back play and award a penalty instead? They must be consistent regardless of the size of the club, league position and scoreline at the time of the incidents.
-
Not needed tonight thankfully but its killing the instinctive celebrations by the players and fans. El-Ghazi, Mings and the fans seemed to be waiting for VAR to check the 2nd, the celebrations were tame. Its slightly depressing that is how things are going.
-
Not needed tonight thankfully but its killing the instinctive celebrations by the players and fans. El-Ghazi, Mings and the fans seemed to be waiting for VAR to check the 2nd, the celebrations were tame. Its slightly depressing that is how things are going.
I think they'd have been a bit nervous for that one even without VAR, it did seem like there was too much space between him and defenders but it was just bad defending rather than offside.
-
Not needed tonight thankfully but its killing the instinctive celebrations by the players and fans. El-Ghazi, Mings and the fans seemed to be waiting for VAR to check the 2nd, the celebrations were tame. Its slightly depressing that is how things are going.
Definitely, I celebrated more when Newcastle restarted the game after the 2nd goal, the referee even appeared to stop for a moment on the walk back to the centre circle as if VAR had got involved.
-
Not needed tonight thankfully but its killing the instinctive celebrations by the players and fans. El-Ghazi, Mings and the fans seemed to be waiting for VAR to check the 2nd, the celebrations were tame. Its slightly depressing that is how things are going.
Definitely, I celebrated more when Newcastle restarted the game after the 2nd goal, the referee even appeared to stop for a moment on the walk back to the centre circle as if VAR had got involved.
Doesn't VAR have to check every goal? I thought that was one of the bugbears - where a goal is scored and everyone is happy with it think they still have to wait for it to be reviewed.
-
Not needed tonight thankfully but its killing the instinctive celebrations by the players and fans. El-Ghazi, Mings and the fans seemed to be waiting for VAR to check the 2nd, the celebrations were tame. Its slightly depressing that is how things are going.
Definitely, I celebrated more when Newcastle restarted the game after the 2nd goal, the referee even appeared to stop for a moment on the walk back to the centre circle as if VAR had got involved.
Doesn't VAR have to check every goal? I thought that was one of the bugbears - where a goal is scored and everyone is happy with it think they still have to wait for it to be reviewed.
I watched the replay of the goal on the big screen just before the restart before enjoying the warm glow of scoring. It’s just not the same anymore and celebrations will tempered somewhat. That’s progress
-
Not needed tonight thankfully but its killing the instinctive celebrations by the players and fans. El-Ghazi, Mings and the fans seemed to be waiting for VAR to check the 2nd, the celebrations were tame. Its slightly depressing that is how things are going.
Definitely, I celebrated more when Newcastle restarted the game after the 2nd goal, the referee even appeared to stop for a moment on the walk back to the centre circle as if VAR had got involved.
Doesn't VAR have to check every goal? I thought that was one of the bugbears - where a goal is scored and everyone is happy with it think they still have to wait for it to be reviewed.
Yes every goal is VAR checked,so the instantaneous celebration of a goal has been taken away.
Which is a total disgrace.
-
Officials for Manure game
Referee: Craig Pawson
Assistants: Ian Hussin, Darren Cann
Fourth official: Anthony Taylor
VAR: Kevin hello darkness my old Friend
Assistant VAR: Matthew Wilkes
Chelsea
Referee: Chris Kavanagh
Assistants: Daniel Cook, Sian Massey-Ellis
Fourth official: Darren England
VAR: David Coote
Assistant VAR: Nick Hopton
-
Don’t know if anyone is watching the Madrid - PSG game ? Paris go through, round the keeper, foul. Ref reds the keeper and goes to VAR to see if it was in or out of the area, then decides he missed a foul on the half way line three feet in front of him. Cancels red card.
Quite funny
-
There was an incident in a Bundesliga game the other day. Not too sure which one. Something like the ball was crossed, hit the ref in the back then rebounded to a player who struck it and scored a quality goal. Ref went to VAR to see what happened. Not sure of the outcome. Will try and find out.
-
There was an incident in a Bundesliga game the other day. Not too sure which one. Something like the ball was crossed, hit the ref in the back then rebounded to a player who struck it and scored a quality goal. Ref went to VAR to see what happened. Not sure of the outcome. Will try and find out.
They changed the rules over the Summer to say that where a goal is scored as a result of hitting the ref it gets disallowed.
Did anyone see the "goal" Levandovski had ruled out the other night? Absolute beauty of a finish ruled out because there was an apparent handball in the build up which was impossible to actually see on replays and was completely unintentional even if it actually happened.
Fuck VAR!
What I've learnt from this entire sham is that I don't actually want games to be "fair" if "fair" means rigidly enforcing rules to the point it makes the game less enjoyable.
-
Play should have been stopped once the ball struck the referee I think.
-
Still needs to be scrapped. Can’t celebrate goals - what’s the point....
-
Mings
"I thought I was onside for my goal, but I didn’t want to celebrate just in case. I got back into position.
Told that he had missed a chance to celebrate a goal at Old Trafford, he added: "Yeah and my first Premier League goal. I would have dedicated the goal to Benik Afobe's daughter had I been able to celebrate."
-
He might not be playing at the top of his game but he’s such a good bloke is Mings. Terrible And very sad thing to have happened to Afobe’s child.
-
He might not be playing at the top of his game but he’s such a good bloke is Mings. Terrible And very sad thing to have happened to Afobe’s child.
Terrible thing for Afobe and his wife. Life just 'aint fair sometimes. Damo's daughter's friends child too. Horrible. Wrong thread I know.
-
Think the ‘I don’t know’ non celebration shrug we have seen from El Ghazi and Mings in the previously two games can be added to the list of reasons that VAR is negatively impacting the game.
-
Danny Murphy talks sense about Villa for once https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=474638919832220
-
Danny Murphy talks sense about Villa for once https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=474638919832220
Spot on from Murphy (can't believe I'm saying that)
Look at the Villa Vlogs from the game and you'll see how right he is.
-
He still looks like a gremlin though.
-
No one has mentioned our disallowed goal due to Jacks trailing walking leg being a few inches offside. Jack and the last defender are basically level with his trailing leg a fraction of a second behind as they walk towards our goal. The linesman incorrectly flagged for a different reason (according to the live commentary), and this is another example of how offside decisions in the VAR age are being poorly implemented.
-
No one has mentioned our disallowed goal due to Jacks trailing walking leg being a few inches offside. Jack and the last defender are basically level with his trailing leg a fraction of a second behind as they walk towards our goal. The linesman incorrectly flagged for a different reason (according to the live commentary), and this is another example of how offside decisions in the VAR age are being poorly implemented.
He was offside and the Lino said Grealish (lip reading)
-
Indeed. I can't believe that as Grealish was looking across the line to make sure he was onside, he didn't remember where his trailing foot was. How much a week, and he can't even do that?
-
No one has mentioned our disallowed goal due to Jacks trailing walking leg being a few inches offside. Jack and the last defender are basically level with his trailing leg a fraction of a second behind as they walk towards our goal. The linesman incorrectly flagged for a different reason (according to the live commentary), and this is another example of how offside decisions in the VAR age are being poorly implemented.
But didn't VAR effectively work in our favour in this instance. If there had been no VAR the ref would, on the linesman flagging, probably have blown for offside. But because of VAR he let play continue and then reviewed. OK it was offside in the end, but VAR, and a good decision by ref., put us within 2" of going 2 - 0 up.
-
It's getting ridiculous this VAR get rid of the bloody thing I mean look at Tyrone Mings goal brilliant Volley and Tyrone wanted to dedicate his goal to Benik Afobe for the terrible loss of his daughter and he couldn't which makes me so mad about this VAR.
-
No one has mentioned our disallowed goal due to Jacks trailing walking leg being a few inches offside. Jack and the last defender are basically level with his trailing leg a fraction of a second behind as they walk towards our goal. The linesman incorrectly flagged for a different reason (according to the live commentary), and this is another example of how offside decisions in the VAR age are being poorly implemented.
But didn't VAR effectively work in our favour in this instance. If there had been no VAR the ref would, on the linesman flagging, probably have blown for offside. But because of VAR he let play continue and then reviewed. OK it was offside in the end, but VAR, and a good decision by ref., put us within 2" of going 2 - 0 up.
I have no idea tbh. There are several rules that are being applied so inconsistently with contradictory outcomes that it seems they change their minds to justify the decisions made by on field match officials or to protect the VAR official. It’s almost as if they are making it up as they go along.
-
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/premier-league-clubs-anger-over-mike-rileys-handling-of-var-dxzf0v0bs?ni-statuscode=acsaz-307
Concerned club officials are to talk to Richard Masters, newly confirmed as the Premier League chief executive, about Mike Riley’s handling of VAR which has descended into a global embarrassment for the image-conscious league. Some want Riley dismissed, and a less pedagogical official appointed general manager of the Professional Game Match Officials Limited which oversees VAR at Stockley Park.
“He is actually a bit thick,” said one leading club official of Riley. “Like a bad schoolteacher. He is the root of the Premier League problem.’’
Clubs voted to bring in VAR but their discontent with Riley’s application of technology mounts through every round of games where goals are chalked off through fractional offsides, from heels to armpits. There are doubts in certain quarters over whether the technology, and line-drawing by a technician, can be totally accurate anyway. More profess frustration at delays in an English game that always prided itself on uninterrupted flow, and that attackers should be favoured anyway.
They point out that the Premier League’s attraction around the world, and allure to wealthy broadcasters, is based substantially on breath-taking attacking and spectacular goals, which many consider is being undermined by Riley’s hunt for fractional offsides. As one official confided, Riley is developing a reputation as “The Goal-Killer”, anathema for the Premier League’s desire to be the “Big Show”, the No 1 entertainment.
Wolves, Sheffield United and Norwich City have been particularly hard done with goals ruled out. Norwich fans now sell T-shirts decrying VAR. Molineux and Bramall Lane regularly ring out to “F*** VAR” and “it’s not football any more”. All clubs have a tale of woe or two. The Footballer of the Year, Raheem Sterling of Manchester City, tweets “happy to improve my VAR overruled goals record” when another of his efforts is ruled out. Even Liverpool, widely considered by opposing fans as beneficiaries of VAR, saw a Sadio Mané header against Watford ruled out for a stray armpit.
Aston Villa’s captain, Jack Grealish, had a magnificent header ruled out against Burnley for the trailing heel of Wesley, who was not involved in the move. The decision by PGMOL, especially when they revealed pictures of their drawn lines, triggered much derision. Players don’t know whether to celebrate or not. The atmosphere in grounds turns toxic, with groaning and goading following overturned decisions.
Riley, 55, who was appointed a Fifa official and worked at Euro 2004 during his years as a Premier League referee, has lost touch with what the game is about, about what players, managers, fans and owners want, and is causing excessive problems for his beleaguered men in the middle.
It’s gone from being a joke to doing damage to the credibility of the league. So certain clubs are turning to Masters to call Riley to account, to control the offside-hunters at Stockley Park and, if he won’t, then dismiss him. Along with addressing the rise of racism within grounds, making Riley see sense, or sacking him, will be the first big test of Masters’ reign.
Masters is respected by the clubs following his calm stewarding of the organisation during the troubled search for Richard Scudamore’s successor. Two candidates were appointed but never started, leaving Masters, the managing director, as interim chief executive, a role eventually made permanent last month.
It will be pointed out to Masters, not that he probably needs reminding, that the original intention of technology was helping overturn “clear and obvious” errors and that is being overlooked with almost a mission to seek out the fractional, mainly with offside. Everyone accepts the offside law needs overhauling. Ifab plans a confab. The Liverpool manager, Jürgen Klopp, talks of being encouraged to hear Uefa discussing widening the margin of error on offside, favouring the attacking side, as it should be. Riley has taken the pursuit too far, with more than 20 goals ruled out already. Alternative “without VAR” league tables abound.
The Premier League pointed out that, “A player is in an offside position if: any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.’’ Its argument is that there is no room for subjectivity on offside and it can’t be subject to “clear and obvious” because it is a factual decision and that is what has been applied in the Premier League this season, and any change to that would have to come from Ifab. There is an acceptance within the organisation that the technology cannot be 100 per cent accurate because of camera frame rates. At the Premier League’s last shareholders’ meeting, Riley “accepted improvement is required”.
Riley has also come under fierce criticism for referees not consulting pitch-side monitors. England’s few elite referees are encouraged to use the monitors when overseeing Uefa matches. “I hope Fifa insist he [Riley] is binned for flagrantly ignoring directive on field-ref use of monitor,” added one club official.
The concerned club officials want to wrest control of games back from Stockley Park, restoring the authority of the actual match official who is at risk of simply becoming a messenger boy for PGMOL. These club officials are fed up at seeing their league, so successful in many years, certainly the most popular worldwide, being laughed at by so many.
The frustration is that all the focus and fury around VAR is taking away from the sight of one of the great sides of the modern era, the European and world champions Liverpool, playing such unbelievable football. The Premier League is now associated with being killjoys, a forensic mission to rule out goals led by Mike Riley. Masters has a big call to make.
-
When you have Burnley fans joining in with "it's not football any more" after a decision has gone their way then you know something is seriously wrong. I posted the Villa on Tour video from yesterday and there was virtually no celebration when Wes scored, you're seeing more and more goals scored where players and fans don't celebrate. There is no point to the game if the most important part of a game is being killed. I was in favour of VAR but the version we have is is fucking shit.
-
It’s not a big call at all, it’s piss easy. Do it and save the game from this utter chaos
-
Being as Richard Masters is a Villa fan, I hope he shares our frustrations. Not sure he's going to sack Riley so early into his role though.
-
In the ground you normally don’t have any idea what’s going on, you need to find out afterwards what the decision was and why. All it’s doing is making people angry.
-
There's a big difference in looking for reasons to disallow a goal and seeing an obvious foul handball etc that needs to be overturned.
With the offsides, as soon as your zooming in and drawing lines everywhere like it's a photo finish of the 100 metre final you're beyond parody.
I think the Russians at the World Cup had the least crap version (which wasn't great) our lot have somehow made it even worse.
-
How easy it should be
https://twitter.com/GMS__Football/status/1211676152739385350
-
Ruining the game we love - not because its either right or wrong, but because it has become such a distraction that fans cant celebrate goals for 1-2 mins in many cases and, I would argue its often being over-used for the most ridiculous "fractional" decisions.
And it's so easy to fix - look at Rugby Union which, is also a fast moving contact sport. The PL management is an abominable disgrace to the game
-
How easy it should be
https://twitter.com/GMS__Football/status/1211676152739385350
Absolutely. I don't think there has been one example in those whole sorry mess of a referee going to look at a pitchside monitor to review a decision.Fair play to the ref in that video - if only ours had done that for the foul on Wesley.
-
When you have Burnley fans joining in with "it's not football any more" after a decision has gone their way then you know something is seriously wrong. I posted the Villa on Tour video from yesterday and there was virtually no celebration when Wes scored, you're seeing more and more goals scored where players and fans don't celebrate. There is no point to the game if the most important part of a game is being killed. I was in favour of VAR but the version we have is is fucking shit.
It was the same at OT after Tyrone's goal. Very half hearted, everyone just assumed VAR would chalk it off for offside, even though the linesman had got it right. The goal celebrations started at the kick off.
People said this wouldn't happen, well, it is.
-
How easy it should be
https://twitter.com/GMS__Football/status/1211676152739385350
I still haven't seen the rationale for the instruction that our refs should not use the screen. What is it?
-
Think they said it was due to time...which is clearly bolx. At Burnley it took so long that it genuinely felt like they were trying to find reasons to disallow the goal and making it up as they go along.
-
I personally think they were instructed not to use it so that some of them weren't made to look bigger c***s than they already are. ie, Kevin Friend!
-
I've still not seen a photo showing Wesley's heel offside.
-
I think his heel probably was offside, but it wasn't "clear and obvious" so they shouldn't have overturned the on pitch decision. Plus, the goal was scored a different phase of playing, so there was no need to even look at whether Wesley was offside in the first place.
-
How easy it should be
https://twitter.com/GMS__Football/status/1211676152739385350
They've been prepared to look at how it works in Rugby union and adapt it for football. Why we can't do that I'll never know.
-
I've still not seen a photo showing Wesley's heel offside.
Rather pointless as the picture as seen on TV with those yellow and red lines which are not accurate as the picture is not exactly in line with Wes's heel in conjunction with the exact moment it was played forward.
-
I think his heel probably was offside, but it wasn't "clear and obvious" so they shouldn't have overturned the on pitch decision. Plus, the goal was scored a different phase of playing, so there was no need to even look at whether Wesley was offside in the first place.
As things stand if any part is off side its offside. Personally I think it should be changed to the part of the body that makes contact with the ball. Rather than any body part which can legally touch the ball.
-
I've still not seen a photo showing Wesley's heel offside.
(https://talksport.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2020/01/Aston-Villa-Offside-2.jpg?strip=all&w=900&quality=100)
See, it's so blindingly obvious!
-
I personally think they were instructed not to use it so that some of them weren't made to look bigger c***s than they already are. ie, Kevin Friend!
I think this is rght, Dave.
-
So, VAR was used at FA Cup games today where the home side was a Premier League team, but not anywhere else. How can they possibly justify that?
-
LiVARpool
-
I think it has been done previously. Still wrong, though.
-
A lot of whining from Leicester about Marvellous' "handball". Has anybody seen a decent angle on it? Ref must have had a good reason - ball going over bar - or something to disallow but I guess we would have been disappointed not to get the decision.
Hate the idiots however that go that would have been 2-1 to us without accepting that the whole game would have been different. We may have gone back on the front foot earlier and smashed them 5-1 - no one knows
-
Attackers are 100% called on handballs due to the new rule change so there is no such thing as accidental then. However defenders still get the benefit of accidental and VAR would have called it on field decision in that case. During the world cup, it was dabbled on un-natural hand/arm position but that seems to have been dropped. If you look at it in real time after slow Mo, the ball was coming so fast that the arms were protecting face. The pace meant it was more ball to hand then vice versa.
It was one which could have gone either way but was not 100% a penalty.
-
I've just seen the goal Wolves had disallowed last night by VAR.
Aside of the utter idiocy of another goal being called offside by a fraction on a player moving away from goal, I don't think I even understand the offside rule anymore. From the corner, three of the four passes are backwards - I thought you could only be offside from a forward pass? But the only forward pass involved in the goal wasn't the reason it was disallowed.
Any ideas?
-
The fact that the ref didn't seem to have a clue why it was disallowed either says it all and he's supposedly in charge of the game.
-
I've just seen the goal Wolves had disallowed last night by VAR.
Aside of the utter idiocy of another goal being called offside by a fraction on a player moving away from goal, I don't think I even understand the offside rule anymore. From the corner, three of the four passes are backwards - I thought you could only be offside from a forward pass? But the only forward pass involved in the goal wasn't the reason it was disallowed.
Any ideas?
Nope, everyone assumes it is forward passes only because there is very little times that a backwards one will be offside.I might be wrong but the attacking receiving player needs to be level or behind the attacking passer still at point of pass otherwise some of these two on ones would be called back.
I've said before, I don't mind the offsides called by VAR as that is now one of the absolutes in the game rules as is. There are still too many others which is interpretation of the viewer. Blame the rules for stating offside is now decided by mm and not the technology though. However, my issue is how far back are they taking these. There has been some goals allowed as fouls in the buildup have been ignored as too soon before the play. However our one a few weeks ago, and Wolves last night was several passes before the goal, and the decision against Shrewsbury in the FA cup replay was so long before the attack scored that even the highlights team didn't go back far enough at the time.
-
A lot of the anti-VAR sentiment would be fixed if the officials just explained what was going on - Engels today being a good example. Ref tells the stadium what has happened and then you shrug - like with offsides. It's still sh*t though.
-
A lot of the anti-VAR sentiment would be fixed if the officials just explained what was going on - Engels today being a good example. Ref tells the stadium what has happened and then you shrug - like with offsides. It's still sh*t though.
It just isn't being used right. Take the Engels penalty decision as an example today. Referee on the field doesn't give it, but says to VAR official, could you just check it for me. VAR official watches replay and either says I agree with you or you might need another look at it. In the latter case, Ref then goes and views it on a monitor and either sticks to his original decision or changes it.
-
It really is a Pandora’s box. Once you start reviewing stuff it then becomes an arbitrary exercise in terms of what is and isn’t reviewed and how far back do you go before you find an infringement.
The way it has been introduced is so fucking amateurish.
They have undermined their own rule of clear and obvious error, no one understand how hand ball is being applied and the offside decisions are a joke and the science is flawed.
-
Its quite incredible how a system that should be reasonably fool proof has become an absolute fucking circus. The referees association should be absolutely ashamed that this has been the outcome of implementing VAR this season.
Are other countries using VAR having these issues too?
-
Watching on the TV, it was obvious they were going to give a pen yesterday when you could see VAR going back to look at the through ball to see if he was offside - they're not doing that if they didn't think the tackle merited a pen. Although they took a while to award it, I think they made the penalty decision (i.e. the foul bit) pretty quickly. That said, I don't agree that it meets with the "clear and obvious" criteria that Dean mentioned.
If VAR is there to overrule in cases of "clear and obvious" mistakes, then it is - by definition - required to let go mistakes that are NOT "clear and obvious".
I have no qualms about the tackle meriting a penalty. He took the man before the ball in the penalty area. What I don't like is that VAR on decisions like this is NOT supposed to be a binary yes/no like in offside.
I would be annoyed if it was us NOT getting a penalty in such cases, but that's the way the system is supposed to work. By all means, get rid of the "clear and obvious" part of the rules and make it more like offside - at least then it's a level playing field.
Look back at the incident where Anwar got clouted after his header on the six-yard line, seconds before the defending is grabbing at his arm - is that not a penalty if we're going down the black/white route - or is it just something that got missed and we move on? What about Engels getting punched in the face a couple of weeks ago?
-
The other thing with the shit VAR decision, was the amount of time that play went on for before the referee stopped the game. What if we'd scored then, and then VAR announce they're checking the Spurs decision. Is that our goal ruled out? It's an absolute farce, they really couldn't make more of a pig's ear of it if they tried.
-
I thought what would happen is the ref would controll the use of VAR and refer if he decided.
The argument is then, why did he not refer but it works pretty well in Rugby Union
I also have No problem with VAR saying to the ref I saw this happened, knowing the ref did not see it.
Like yesterday when a Grealish was fouled and the ref did give the free kick, Again clear and obvious error.
-
I've just seen the goal Wolves had disallowed last night by VAR.
Aside of the utter idiocy of another goal being called offside by a fraction on a player moving away from goal, I don't think I even understand the offside rule anymore. From the corner, three of the four passes are backwards - I thought you could only be offside from a forward pass? But the only forward pass involved in the goal wasn't the reason it was disallowed.
Any ideas?
Nope, everyone assumes it is forward passes only because there is very little times that a backwards one will be offside.I might be wrong but the attacking receiving player needs to be level or behind the attacking passer still at point of pass otherwise some of these two on ones would be called back.
I've said before, I don't mind the offsides called by VAR as that is now one of the absolutes in the game rules as is. There are still too many others which is interpretation of the viewer. Blame the rules for stating offside is now decided by mm and not the technology though. However, my issue is how far back are they taking these. There has been some goals allowed as fouls in the buildup have been ignored as too soon before the play. However our one a few weeks ago, and Wolves last night was several passes before the goal, and the decision against Shrewsbury in the FA cup replay was so long before the attack scored that even the highlights team didn't go back far enough at the time.
From the FA website
"A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent"
It's pretty difficult too be nearer the goal line than the ball from a corner !
Edit - just reviewed the actual incident , I didnt get that it was the original corner taker that was given offside. Still a barmy decision though !
-
Look back at the incident where Anwar got clouted after his header on the six-yard line, seconds before the defending is grabbing at his arm - is that not a penalty if we're going down the black/white route - or is it just something that got missed and we move on? What about Engels getting punched in the face a couple of weeks ago?
I agree, if Engels foul was a penalty then both above incidents are also penalties.
-
Look back at the incident where Anwar got clouted after his header on the six-yard line, seconds before the defending is grabbing at his arm - is that not a penalty ...
What about Engels getting punched in the face a couple of weeks ago?
This is the point, isn't it? - once the VAR ref starts looking at some stuff he has to look at ALL of the stuff.
Whicih woiuld be impractical; the game would go on for 3 hours!
-
Would have been interesting yesterday if Tottenham had scored from the corner that Spurs were awarded that should have been a goal kick. Would VAR have looked at that or would that have been deemed a different phase of play - even though that phase of play and onerous decision directly provided the goal scoring opportunity. I think we all know what the answer would have been!
-
The thing about VAR and off side for me is they measure the players position to the millimetre but give no indication or evidence as to when the ball is kicked. I don't even know how the calculate the micro second it is kicked. Is it when there is a visible gap between the foot or ball or when the ball is deformed in shape when touching the boot etc. Can they even see when it is kicked accurately enough to measure player movement as they are.
-
It really is a Pandora’s box. Once you start reviewing stuff it then becomes an arbitrary exercise in terms of what is and isn’t reviewed and how far back do you go before you find an infringement.
The way it has been introduced is so fucking amateurish.
They have undermined their own rule of clear and obvious error, no one understand how hand ball is being applied and the offside decisions are a joke and the science is flawed.
Absolutely. It's not the technology it's the dickhead way they use it. The "clear and obvious" mantra has been totally ignored and I'm not sure whether it even still applies, or is meant to. They are micro-managing games to the extent where decisions that no-one on the pitch is challenging are being overturned. My gripe with the penalty yesterday is not that it wasn't a penalty, because it was (It was obvious on seeing the replay for the first time and not sure why Moss took two or three minutes to decide).
It's that when it wasn't given, no-one really challenged it or appealed, so it shouldn't have been considered a clear and obvious error, and it shouldn't have been reviewed.
They either make the referee sole arbiter again, so he decides when VAR is to be used and goes to the monitor, or else they allow each team 2 appeals, and that's it. Checking every incident is fucking ludicrous, especially when they are still making mistakes and have no consistency in what they decide.
-
The thing about VAR and off side for me is they measure the players position to the millimetre but give no indication or evidence as to when the ball is kicked.
Been saying this from the start ..
-
The thing about VAR and off side for me is they measure the players position to the millimetre but give no indication or evidence as to when the ball is kicked.
Been saying this from the start ..
Yep, a very relevant point that seems to be ignored
-
Why was our shout for handball not looked at when Spurs had two reviews in the space of minutes?
-
Yesterday that first VAR check for handball seemed to be about two minutes after the incident and play had carried on. What if players are booked or sent off in that 2 minutes then VAR decides it’s a pen. Would cautions etc be cancelled? I’m confused.
The response from the Holte end to that first VAR was spot on, it’s ruining football as it is currently being done.
-
@Nastylee; It probably was, and I'm guessing it was instantly dismissed without a need to inform the referee.
-
I voted 'For', it's inevitable, the game must learn and improve in terms of how we administer the technology, to many grey area's at the moment.
-
@Nastylee; It probably was, and I'm guessing it was instantly dismissed without a need to inform the referee.
I personally wouldn't have given it (it would've been given in Italy and other european leagues as they have much stricter rules on handball) but amazed it wasn't stopped and properly looked at. More of a handball than the Spurs one which was stopped and hit Engels chest.
-
That's my point. Nothing on the screen and just cast aside with no communication. Really teatimg my mettle as to whether it's worth investing in anymore. Pile of shit.
-
Plain and simple, football is for the armchair supporter now. Fine if you're at home with a running commentary and replays but nowt for fans in the ground.
Been coming but var is the final nail.
-
The thing about VAR and off side for me is they measure the players position to the millimetre but give no indication or evidence as to when the ball is kicked.
Been saying this from the start ..
Yep, a very relevant point that seems to be ignored
Perhaps they could introduce a time limit of say 20-30 secs to make a decision for offsides which would stop micro analysing the really tight calls. If its not clear enough to determine within that time limit the goal stands.
-
The way to sort the offside nonsense is any part of the player is level = onside. Yes there will be millimetre calls the other way but I think this is closer to the spirit of the game. Saying someone is gaining an advantage when their heel is offside while they're facing the other way is frankly ludicrous.
-
The way to sort the offside nonsense is any part of the player is level = onside. Yes there will be millimetre calls the other way but I think this is closer to the spirit of the game. Saying someone is gaining an advantage when their heel is offside while they're facing the other way is frankly ludicrous.
Was saying the same to a friend recently. When they changed the offside rule a good while back to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking player it improved the game. It would improve the game if they employed the same rule as goal scored. The ball has to be clearly over the line for it to be a goal. All of the player has to clearly over whatever line they might draw in line with the last defender for it be offside.
-
VAR is fucking shit. From McGinn getting clattered at Tottenham on day fucking 1, this dire shit show of a system is fucking terrible. We shouldn't just scrap it, we should dust off and nuke Stockley Park from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
-
The biggest issue I have is that it has gone from an Video "Assistant" Referee (VAR) to Video Referee (VR). It was created to help the ref make better decisions not take over from him. But that is how the PL have implemented it and it's been nothing short of a disaster.
-
VAR is fucking shit. From McGinn getting clattered at Tottenham on day fucking 1, this dire shit show of a system is fucking terrible. We shouldn't just scrap it, we should dust off and nuke Stockley Park from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
This. Absolutely this, with massive brass bells on.
-
The biggest issue I have is that it has gone from an Video "Assistant" Referee (VAR) to Video Referee (VR). It was created to help the ref make better decisions not take over from him. But that is how the PL have implemented it and it's been nothing short of a disaster.
Yes, this. As mentioned, I'm not sure how other countries use of it is different then ours, but the fact the PL, FA and Refs Association has pretty much ditched the referee from checking his own decisions and now to them fully over ruling refs on tight decisions does mean it has gone to that.
Although by full definition our the Spurs penalty was one, it was a genuine challenge for the ball and both players were sliding in. I personally didn't think it was a clear and obvious error compared to, I believe the Liverpool player early on in the season, who dived in on a similar area, actually turned his foot to hook the player and got no where near the ball. Onfield ref in a similar position to ours decides no penalty as he can't see the foot hook. VAR ref decides not a clear and obvious error even though they can see the footage the ref can't.
My main desire was that Big teams wouldn't get the decisions like they used to. Instead you now have a video twat to give them the decisions if the ref on field forgets to.
-
VAR is fucking shit. From McGinn getting clattered at Tottenham on day fucking 1, this dire shit show of a system is fucking terrible. We shouldn't just scrap it, we should dust off and nuke Stockley Park from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
This. Absolutely this, with massive brass bells on.
Seconded. It's so massively flawed it's untrue, to the point that it screams match fixing in full effect. I fully expect Mike Riley to get his P45 this summer, he just has to.
-
I wonder when/if the fans in the ground can create some sort of visual protest, like our inflatable pitch invasion when we got relegated. Every ground on a certain minute, stopping every game.
-
Well that Lerner out poster drop v Southampton a few years ago was the best I can recall. The paper plane contest was a damn site more enjoyable than the match, and it raised awareness. I'd vote for that.
-
Is it just me but do the TV companies seemingly get the answer of the award before the fans in the stadium do - it certainly feels like it
Quite often you will hear a match pundit say the result before the ref actually does it
-
Is it just me but do the TV companies seemingly get the answer of the award before the fans in the stadium do - it certainly feels like it
Quite often you will hear a match pundit say the result before the ref actually does it
I think they have a monitor that gives the answer straight away. Sometimes there is check that isn't referenced within the ground but the commentator will mention it, more often than not when it is a cursory check that is easily dismissed. Like the one's involving an infraction against Aston Villa.
-
Is it just me but do the TV companies seemingly get the answer of the award before the fans in the stadium do - it certainly feels like it
Quite often you will hear a match pundit say the result before the ref actually does it
I think they have a monitor that gives the answer straight away. Sometimes there is check that isn't referenced within the ground but the commentator will mention it, more often than not when it is a cursory check that is easily dismissed. Like the one's involving an infraction against Aston Villa.
I noticed at the Tottenham match the ref held his hand to his ear and started to move towards the penalty spot from half way a minute of so before he signaled penalty (they were obviously chatting to him and saying they are likely to overturn his decision)
-
Apparently the "smaller" PL clubs are against the match referee going to a pitchside monitor as they believe he will be influenced by the crowd and will give s decision that favours the "bigger" clubs.
-
I still believe it can work, but by god they are doing their level fucking best to make sure it doesn't.
If you gathered 20 morons in a room and asked them how best to manage video refereeing they wouldn't be able to come up with a worse system than this.
For the life of me I don't understand why they can't just swallow their fucking pride and directly copy the rugby union methodology, if necessary replacing the big screen replays with pitchside monitors if they really don't think a crowd of grown ups can handle seeing sensible justified decisions played out on a screen.
-
Listening to this new "Wengers law" re:offsides, i'm not convinced it will rid us of the current mess the game is in due to the arrogant fuckwits that are running it. It will still be down to opinions. I'm told that technology is being developed that will "chip" both players and the ball. This should mean that they will have a definitive moment that the ball is passed forward thus they can freeze frame the still picture accurately. That isn't possible right now so giving offsides for miniscule "offences" has to involve some guesswork. They will be able to accurately tell if any part of the body has strayed offside however small. But is that the spirit of the game? Is that what it's come down to? Not for me it isn't. I think it should be simply down to the refs using the pitchside monitor which they were supposed to do in the first place. It would cut out the blatant errors. If the ref can't tell if it's offside without the need for protractors and lines all over the place then it's not offside. Simples. Just leave it at that.
-
All Wenger is proposing is what Souness said months ago, and has been suggested on here more than once, which is moving the line of (in)decision from in front of to behind the attacker. He'll get more credibility for suggesting it though because he looks like a French Professor Yaffle rather than an angry Scottish midfielder or an internet crackpot.
Same shit, different line to moan about millimetres over.
-
Forget 1st phase / 2nd phase or that he may have had a pube in the offside position after a few minutes of trigonometry
Wenger speaks sense when it is the clear light between defender and attacker that should be the measure - have to give the attacker the benefit not the defender
-
Forget 1st phase / 2nd phase or that he may have had a pube in the offside position after a few minutes of trigonometry
Wenger speaks sense when it is the clear light between defender and attacker that should be the measure - have to give the attacker the benefit not the defender
I'd be ok with that so long as it's the refs decision and he used the pitch side monitor. If he's not 100% from that then he doesn't give offside. It was brought in to stop the blatant ones eg: Chelseas goal at Cardiff last season when both the ref & lino missed the Chelsea player being about 2 fkn yards offside. It's the refs themselves who have caused all the crap by insisting on giving offside for a few millimetres.
-
I still believe it can work, but by god they are doing their level fucking best to make sure it doesn't.
If you gathered 20 morons in a room and asked them how best to manage video refereeing they wouldn't be able to come up with a worse system than this.
For the life of me I don't understand why they can't just swallow their fucking pride and directly copy the rugby union methodology, if necessary replacing the big screen replays with pitchside monitors if they really don't think a crowd of grown ups can handle seeing sensible justified decisions played out on a screen.
Oh yes I could!
-
The fundamental flaw with using VAR for offsides is that the technology can't tell when the ball was played and therefore will never know to the millimetre whether someone is offside. Moving the line from the strikers cock to his arse won't change that.
The simplest solution I've seen (probably on here) is to go with the linesmen unless VAR can definitively prove otherwise within 20 seconds. If disproving a decision takes longer than 20 seconds it can't possibly be a clear and obvious error and we should all just move on.
The same time limit should be applied to all VAR decisions so if we're going to have our celebrations cut short at least it'll be quick rather than the current shitshow of not knowing whether we're allowed to cheer until the opposition kicks off 3 minutes after the ball's hit the net.
-
The fundamental flaw with using VAR for offsides is that the technology can't tell when the ball was played and therefore will never know to the millimetre whether someone is offside. Moving the line from the strikers cock to his arse won't change that.
The simplest solution I've seen (probably on here) is to go with the linesmen unless VAR can definitively prove otherwise within 20 seconds. If disproving a decision takes longer than 20 seconds it can't possibly be a clear and obvious error and we should all just move on.
The same time limit should be applied to all VAR decisions so if we're going to have our celebrations cut short at least it'll be quick rather than the current shitshow of not knowing whether we're allowed to cheer until the opposition kicks off 3 minutes after the ball's hit the net.
See my post earlier on this page. I hate it when prats like Gary Neville spout off "offside is offside no matter if it's a millimetre" No it fucking isn't!! The rules state offside is judged when the ball is played.If your dealing in millimetres to give offside then you have to include milliseconds for when the ball is released. They can only move the picture one frame at a time which makes it a guess which frame is correct. The problem is interpretation. VAR was introduced to prevent clear and obvious errors. They have ruined the whole thing with their ridiculous interpretation of the tech. Who gave our officials permission to ignore the pitchside monitors? They were introduced as part of the whole concept so why are our refs ignoring them when all other countries are using them? Arrogance is my bet. They think they're the gold standard of referees but they aren't. Look how many of our refs make it to the World cup finals.
-
I fucking hate myself for this, but if they're going to insist on using it for offsides, they need to eliminate this extant doubt over when the ball is played. So, I propose that it is looked at twice, once in the instant which is clearly the last available frame before the ball is played, and again in the instant which is clearly the first frame once the ball is played. If you're offside in both, only then are you off.
I'm off for a shower.
-
I still think that Souness has the best solution.
If ANY part of the body is onside, then you are onside.
-
I still think that Souness has the best solution.
If ANY part of the body is onside, then you are onside.
Or in other words, there has to be daylight inbetween for it to be offside.. They did have this rule for a time then got rid of it.
-
I've no qualms with the Law itself, whether remaining as it is or redefined in favour of 'daylight' or not. Whatever, as long as it remains in one form or other. The problems with implementation, officiating and adjudication will remain exactly the same while the current level of tech is being used.
As an aside, I know it's only getting used in goal and penalty incidents, but in these is it looking for any build-up infringements outside the area other than offside?
-
The trouble with changing the law to any part of the player, or daylight, or anything similar is that you're still looking at drawing a line somewhere when the measurement tool isn't precise enough to measure it accurately.
We need to go back to basics - offside is there to stop goalhanging, not to stop good goals where someone's heel was possibly millimetres further forward than the last defender whilst facing away from goal. The rule was written the way it is because it was easy to do so and the fact it was being applied by humans meant that an inherent element of judgement was built in to its application.
Now it's being applied by computers to all intents and purposes that judgement has been taken away and you're getting silly answers as a result.
They either need to scrap the computer or change the rule to introduce some judgement again. Or we're going to keep having perfectly good goals ruled out.
-
I don't really understand why everyone is wetting their knickers about the VAR official getting decisions "wrong". It's subjective, so your wrong maybe my right.
That is the fundemental flaw with VAR, it will never be resolved and has only damaged the game.
Stiil, crack on.
-
Looking forward to seeing the Burnley-Bournemouth highlights on MOTD, sounds like VAR excelled itself there.
-
I don't really understand why everyone is wetting their knickers about the VAR official getting decisions "wrong". It's subjective, so your wrong maybe my right.
That is the fundemental flaw with VAR, it will never be resolved and has only damaged the game.
Stiil, crack on.
It has taken one set of problems and replaced them with a set of slightly different other problems.
Killing the atmosphere in games as it goes.
-
Looking forward to seeing the Burnley-Bournemouth highlights on MOTD, sounds like VAR excelled itself there.
Well at least we now know the answer on what will happen if VAR takes too long on a decision and a goal is scored at the other end instead.
And TBH, both the decisions were correct against Bournemouth.
-
How embarrassing that a team can score a perfectly good goal and have it taken away for something that happened 20 seconds earlier.
It's clear and obvious to me that VAR is killing the game. Game by game.
It will relegate someone, probably us.
-
How embarrassing that a team can score a perfectly good goal and have it taken away for something that happened 20 seconds earlier.
It's clear and obvious to me that VAR is killing the game. Game by game.
It will relegate someone, probably us.
I think we can manage to do that ourselves with out any help from VAR.
-
Why aren’t the refs using the monitors? Whats the excuse?
-
They can then obsolve themselves of any responsibility.
-
How embarrassing that a team can score a perfectly good goal and have it taken away for something that happened 20 seconds earlier.
It's clear and obvious to me that VAR is killing the game. Game by game.
It will relegate someone, probably us.
It was a clear and obvious Penalty in real time so to criticise VAR for fixing the mistake made on the pitch seems bizarre. I agree that they need to be clearer on time frame of events before the goal though as there has been fouls in build up of goals previously which they have ignored as too far after the goal to review. However, in the use of VAR, we seem to point to how other sports use it as an example, and a French try was disallowed yesterday for a forward pass really early in the phase of play. Yes it is the French so.... but then it is also the Welsh so......
-
I don't really understand why everyone is wetting their knickers about the VAR official getting decisions "wrong". It's subjective, so your wrong maybe my right.
That is the fundemental flaw with VAR, it will never be resolved and has only damaged the game.
Stiil, crack on.
Amen, it's a pointless crock of shit that's only benefit has been to increase 'media content', which I suspect is th real reason for it's existence.
-
I don't really understand why everyone is wetting their knickers about the VAR official getting decisions "wrong". It's subjective, so your wrong maybe my right.
That is the fundemental flaw with VAR, it will never be resolved and has only damaged the game.
Stiil, crack on.
Amen, it's a pointless crock of shit that's only benefit has been to increase 'media content', which I suspect is th real reason for it's existence.
And the PGMOL benefits because they now require an extra 2 of their members for every game. Twats
-
Kevin Friend VR official Arsenal V West Ham gave the goal to lacazette .
What I didn't totally get is that the officiating team of on pitch ref Martin Atkinson disallowed the goal Arsenal scored acknowledging Sian Massey Ref assistant flagging for offside.
It went to VAR and Kevin Friend using the lines and video tech of Stockley Park brought up to show goal was onside.
So Atkinson awarded the goal.
The thing is I've seen in other matches where the assistants put flags up for offside and play just stopping when actually it was onside and the player could have put it in the net.
I think there needs to be a complete over haul of the assistants and when they flag on tight calls.
Really they, ref assistants, should leave things alone in situations and let VAR tech decide as the camera never lies.
Totally agree with this. The goal Aguero scored against Man United today was flagged offside and De Gea didn’t bother trying to save it as the flag was up. When they replayed it, it looked bloody tight to me. There would have been uproar from Man United if the goal would have stood. They might as well keep the flag down unless it’s absolutely clearly offside.
-
I thought it was onside when watching it back, then those dodgy lines were drawn on the camera to show it was offside. It wouldve been given if the linesman hadn't flagged (which I thought they werent supposed to in those situations).
-
I would draw two extra lines on the pitch and have offside only counting in the final third of the pitch. The offside trap is a shit defensive policy that ruins the game, in my arrogant opinion.
-
So have pacey players who can beat the offside trap, then! I reckon you would find Allardyce/Pulis-type teams would benefit most if you did that. You negate the influence of midfield in favour of long ball sides.
My dad reckons the Scottish League tried your system years ago (or it may just have been one of the cups). It may also have been quarter lines rather than third lines.
-
Found some info on Wiki...
"Unadopted experiments
During the 1973–74 and 1974–75 seasons, an experimental version of the offside rule was operated in the Scottish League Cup and Drybrough Cup competitions. The concept was that offside should only apply in the last 18 yards (16 m) of play (inside or beside the penalty area). To signify this, the horizontal line of the penalty area was extended to the touchlines. FIFA President Sir Stanley Rous attended the 1973 Scottish League Cup Final, which was played using these rules. The manager of one of the teams involved, Celtic manager Jock Stein, complained that it was unfair to expect teams to play under one set of rules in one game and then a different set a few days before or later. The experiment was quietly dropped after the 1974–75 season, as no proposal for a further experiment or rule change was submitted for the Scottish Football Association board to consider."
And also this, on a similar theme.
"In the 1987–88 season, the Football Association was authorised by the International Football Association Board to test an experimental rule change, whereby no attacker could be offside directly from a free-kick. The competition chosen for this experiment was the Football Conference. The change was not deemed a success, as the attacking team could pack the penalty area for any free-kick (or even have several players stand in front of the opposition goalkeeper) and the rule change was not introduced at a higher level."
-
Found some info on Wiki...
"Unadopted experiments
During the 1973–74 and 1974–75 seasons, an experimental version of the offside rule was operated in the Scottish League Cup and Drybrough Cup competitions. The concept was that offside should only apply in the last 18 yards (16 m) of play (inside or beside the penalty area). To signify this, the horizontal line of the penalty area was extended to the touchlines. FIFA President Sir Stanley Rous attended the 1973 Scottish League Cup Final, which was played using these rules. The manager of one of the teams involved, Celtic manager Jock Stein, complained that it was unfair to expect teams to play under one set of rules in one game and then a different set a few days before or later. The experiment was quietly dropped after the 1974–75 season, as no proposal for a further experiment or rule change was submitted for the Scottish Football Association board to consider."
And also this, on a similar theme.
"In the 1987–88 season, the Football Association was authorised by the International Football Association Board to test an experimental rule change, whereby no attacker could be offside directly from a free-kick. The competition chosen for this experiment was the Football Conference. The change was not deemed a success, as the attacking team could pack the penalty area for any free-kick (or even have several players stand in front of the opposition goalkeeper) and the rule change was not introduced at a higher level."
You can prove anything with facts.
-
I would draw two extra lines on the pitch and have offside only counting in the final third of the pitch. The offside trap is a shit defensive policy that ruins the game, in my arrogant opinion.
A bit like the "Shooting Area" in subbuteo ?
-
How will this work with the return of prmwoe league football?
The talk is of mobile units containing small number of people rather than using stockley park control room with more people
Either way the social distancing going to be difficult.
Would the premier league be daring to scrap it due to circumstances
I thought VAR was here to stay.
-
The club has issued a statement https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2020/08/06/pl-statement-var-subs on what's been agreed today regarding substitute and VAR arrangements for the upcoming season. I'm not entirely clear on this bit
- Keeping the flag down for tight marginal offside offences: When an immediate goalscoring opportunity is likely to occur, the assistant referee will keep their flag down until the passage of play is completed. Once the goalscoring opportunity is complete, either a goal is scored or the chance is gone, the assistant will then raise the flag to indicate the initial offence. If a goal is scored the VAR will then review the offside judgement
Does this mean that their will only be a review for offside if there's a flag?
-
Crikey, so at a penalty any encroachment by the keeper or players and it's retaken...
-
Crikey, so at a penalty any encroachment by the keeper or players and it's retaken...
On first reading of the statement, it looks like next season will be every bit the clusterfuck the last one was.
-
The penalties issue seems ridiculously harsh, but the offside makes sense.
-
There are five key areas that highlight the differences in implementation of VAR in 2020/21:
- Offsides: The protocol does not allow for tolerance levels
I don't understand this - I'm not quite sure how that is a difference. Surely that means we're still going to get 4 minute waits while they judge someone is 0.00002mm offside?
-
It's going to be even worse - we'll have games with penalties being retaken 2 or 3 times.
If it's being used for offside then they have got to go back to playing the advantage to the attacking player so that if any part of their body is onside then they are onside. I really don't understand why this part of the laws is different to everything else - if any part of the ball is in play then play carries on, it should be the same for offside.
-
Crikey, so at a penalty any encroachment by the keeper or players and it's retaken...
Only if the encroachee has an effect on the penalty I think.
-
There are five key areas that highlight the differences in implementation of VAR in 2020/21:
- Offsides: The protocol does not allow for tolerance levels
I don't understand this - I'm not quite sure how that is a difference. Surely that means we're still going to get 4 minute waits while they judge someone is 0.00002mm offside?
It's obvious the VAR shitshow is just going to get worse and worse.
"Goalkeeper encroachment on penalty kicks: The protocol does not allow for tolerance levels, so if the goalkeeper saves a penalty and his foot is over the line then VAR will advise it is retaken. If the goalkeeper is off his line and the ball hits the post or goes over, it won’t be retaken unless the 'keeper has a material impact on the kick being missed."
So we'll have big waits while they analyse if a toenail is over the line, but then they are still leaving a big old subjective decision to be made in terms of "material impact" of the keeper's actions. Load of bollocks.
-
There are five key areas that highlight the differences in implementation of VAR in 2020/21:
- Offsides: The protocol does not allow for tolerance levels
I don't understand this - I'm not quite sure how that is a difference. Surely that means we're still going to get 4 minute waits while they judge someone is 0.00002mm offside?
It's obvious the VAR shitshow is just going to get worse and worse.
"Goalkeeper encroachment on penalty kicks: The protocol does not allow for tolerance levels, so if the goalkeeper saves a penalty and his foot is over the line then VAR will advise it is retaken. If the goalkeeper is off his line and the ball hits the post or goes over, it won’t be retaken unless the 'keeper has a material impact on the kick being missed."
So we'll have big waits while they analyse if a toenail is over the line, but then they are still leaving a big old subjective decision to be made in terms of "material impact" of the keeper's actions. Load of bollocks.
Your last sentence summarises the whole VAR nonsense perfectly.
-
Crikey, so at a penalty any encroachment by the keeper or players and it's retaken...
I don't think so, it does say, "The player must still have a material impact on the outcome of the kick". I'm taking that to mean a keeper that saves, defender that clears, or attacker that nets a rebound.
If I am reading them correctly, then it'll eliminate stuff like the Grealish heel, and also mean that if you postage stamp a penalty, one of your teammates getting chalk on a toenail will be as inconsequential as it used to be.
-
Maybe on the penalties, a keeper that encroached and went the right way, arguably forcing the taker to go higher or wider, could be said to have had a material impact on the outcome of the kick. Goes the wrong way, kick clears the bar the other way, then nothing to check or even refer. But I suppose we'll find out soon enough.
-
Crikey, so at a penalty any encroachment by the keeper or players and it's retaken...
I don't think so, it does say, "The player must still have a material impact on the outcome of the kick". I'm taking that to mean a keeper that saves, defender that clears, or attacker that nets a rebound.
If I am reading them correctly, then it'll eliminate stuff like the Grealish heel, and also mean that if you postage stamp a penalty, one of your teammates getting chalk on a toenail will be as inconsequential as it used to be.
If the keeper saves it, and his foot was 1 cm over, it'll be retaken. If the he doesn't save it but the player taking it kicks the ball against the post, or balloons it over, THEN the keeper's actions will be reviewed to see if they were "material". Can't see that being absolutely dreadful, nosiree bob.
-
Bonkers.
If a pen is ballooned over and the keeper encroaches the goal line - heat on earth is there’s to review.
-
Literally every saved penalty will end up being retaken if they apply this properly because the keeper virtually always moves.
-
Literally every saved penalty will end up being retaken if they apply this properly because the keeper virtually always moves.
I disagree, I think that that's what this wording is trying to eradicate. As ever, proof will be in the pudding, but if I was in charge of implementing these guidelines, I think I could make it pretty clear to my minions what constitutes a material impact.
-
And they can move anyway, just not forwards.
-
They're addressing a problem that doesn't exist.
How many games were decided last year by a keeper being 1cm over his line and saving a pen or giving it the full Grobbelaar spaghetti legs.
So rather than sort out the clearly farcical offside rubbish they inflicted on us last year they've been digging around to create new issues.
Outstanding work.
-
How can you allow for subjectivity with technology that deals in absolutes? They're smacking a square peg into a round hole. As we saw with the Man U penalty against us, refs are fallible even with VAR. Logical conclusion: no point in VAR.
-
And also, when does subjectivity give way to it's own subjectivity? Who makes the decision on what is objectively/subjectively correct? Wesley's heel was offside by half an inch against Burnley and goal a he wasn't involved with was disallowed. RRA went with the tech there. Fernandes penalty against us? RRA made their own decision after watching replays and they got it wrong. So they're asking us to put up with decisions made objectively by using the tech, but also to allow for fallibility due to referee subjectivity using the same tech.
It's fucking nonsense.
-
They're addressing a problem that doesn't exist.
How many games were decided last year by a keeper being 1cm over his line and saving a pen or giving it the full Grobbelaar spaghetti legs.
So rather than sort out the clearly farcical offside rubbish they inflicted on us last year they've been digging around to create new issues.
Outstanding work.
I think they might be trying to sort the offside stuff. I'm choosing to infer that the issued wording hints at them only adjudicating on an offside when there's a flag.
-
I don’t get why it’s so hard. Make it primarily refs decision on the pitch as it used to be. If he wants to check VAR he goes to the monitor and there he can consult also with the broader team. Ultimately he still makes the final decision. I would allow the manager’s two challenges for anything; offside, penalties, fouls etc. But they only get two. In the NFL Head Coaches have two challenges. If they use the first and win they get the second. If they lose the first challenge they don’t get a second. To me this would be much better than the current system.
-
Get rid, full stop!
-
You try diving to make a save without moving the foot forward that you are pushing off a little bit, it just isn't effective. Keepers will have to start behind the line slightly if this is enforced which is ridiculous. They're not crabs. It is pretty easy to tell when a keeper is taking the piss which makes it subjective but so what?
-
I don’t get why it’s so hard. Make it primarily refs decision on the pitch as it used to be. If he wants to check VAR he goes to the monitor and there he can consult also with the broader team. Ultimately he still makes the final decision.
It's incredible isn't it. Rugby have been applying it successfully for years and football continue to utterly screw it up.
-
You try diving to make a save without moving the foot forward that you are pushing off a little bit, it just isn't effective. Keepers will have to start behind the line slightly if this is enforced which is ridiculous. They're not crabs. It is pretty easy to tell when a keeper is taking the piss which makes it subjective but so what?
Absolutely right - how difficult can it be to just say the keeper has to be on or behind the line when the ball is struck and after that anything is fair game? Otherwise, if the most important thing is to give the advantage to the team that has won the penalty then you might as well just automatically award the fouled team a goal.
-
It's a penalty, it's not supposed to be fair. That's why the taker gets a run-up, and the keeper can't move.
-
It's a penalty, it's not supposed to be fair. That's why the taker gets a run-up, and the keeper can't move.
I don't disagree with that, but this latest clarification is basically saying to the keeper we are going to tie your legs together as well!
-
Not really - GK can still move along the line and step behind if he wants to leap forward- nothing really changes so not a lot to see here
-
But the clarification will make a massive difference if fully enforced. Have a look back at the shoot-out in the play-off semi-final and see the positioning of both keepers. If this approach had applied then every single saved penalty would have had to be retaken.
EDIT - I mean every pen that wasn't scored, not necessarily saved. To me it's just that this is again just going to introduce even more decisions for VAR to cock-up, as if it wasn't ruining enough of the game already.
-
But those were the rules anyway, they've not changed. The issued statement is really just to point out that VAR now falls under the auspices of FIFA, and what level of intrusion we can expect away from the pitch.
I don't know how much of the Women's World Cup people saw last year, but the penalty interference from VAR was overly picky. It was, I think, used earlier in the season in the PL, but they stopped scrutiny from early in the new year. I think it's pretty clear; you cheat, you save it or clear it, it gets retaken. Player misses, you did nothing to effect or affect the miss, carry on.
But as ever with all things regulatory, we'll have to wait to see what happens when it's eventually implemented.
-
But the clarification will make a massive difference if fully enforced. Have a look back at the shoot-out in the play-off semi-final and see the positioning of both keepers. If this approach had applied then every single saved penalty would have had to be retaken.
EDIT - I mean every pen that wasn't scored, not necessarily saved. To me it's just that this is again just going to introduce even more decisions for VAR to cock-up, as if it wasn't ruining enough of the game already.
It would only apply to the saved penalties, not Bert's bar blazer. It'd be hard for anyone to say Johnstone had a material impact on one missing by that much!
And as for your very last point, I couldn't agree more. It's a genie that should never have been let out of its bottle, but the ever more vigilant eye of the telly camera made its arrival inevitable. And once we got to a situation where broadcasters were touting their tech to football to 'help' it enforce its own rules, it was all f***** beyond redemption.
-
It seems, to me at least, that the way VAR has been constructed and applied in this country was specifically to allow the same old biased subjectivity we had previously.
Was it 20 penalties for Man Utd this season? Fuck off.
-
It seems, to me at least, that the way VAR has been constructed and applied in this country was specifically to allow the same old biased subjectivity we had previously.
Was it 20 penalties for Man Utd this season? Fuck off.
That one against us is still pissing me off, even though we stayed up and I've got far more important things to think about but still, fucking hell!
-
How many of them were made on a VAR decision?
-
The encroachment rule for penalty kicks has always been there it's just that refs have got lazy about enforcing it. It's like the rule that goalkeepers can only have the ball in their hands for 6 seconds. That rule must be broken many times in every game but refs don't penalise it.
-
I thought that rule had been dropped?
-
It has been a fair few years since we have been awarded more penalties than we conceded in the Premier league so screw it... have the keepers on the 6 yard line.
-
I thought that rule had been dropped?
I assumed that too, unless Ben Foster was using the new 36 second rule.
-
I thought that rule had been dropped?
I assumed that too, unless Ben Foster was using the new 36 second rule.
Nope, still very much a rule:
"2. Indirect free kick
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made • is guilty of dissent, using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or
gestures or other verbal offences
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks
or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of
releasing it
• commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is
stopped to caution or send off a player
An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences:
• controls the ball with the hand/arm for more than six seconds before releasing it
• touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched another player"
(From the FA rules section).
-
It irritates me that the six second rule isn't enforced. It would make for a more entertaining spectacle much like the back pass rule does.
-
https://www.espn.com/soccer/english-premier-league/story/4176070/var-is-back-in-the-premier-league!-how-its-changed-for-2020-21
This is really useful and a great read for the upcoming season 20/21.
-
Walker peters just got sent off. It wasn’t a red in my opinion. The ref gets called over by VAR to review on the monitor. He reviewed it and overturned his own decision. I like that a lot. Assist the refs and give them a chance to make the right call.
-
Just have the VAR person, inform the referee when he's possibly missed something.
Referee HAS to go and double check. Referee watches replay, makes final decision.
It is nowhere near as hard as they're making it look.
Only took the brain trust 9 months!
-
Just have the VAR person, inform the referee when he's possibly missed something.
Referee HAS to go and double check. Referee watches replay, makes final decision.
It is nowhere near as hard as they're making it look.
Only took the brain trust 9 months!
In other words, just like rugby's been doing it for years!
-
Just have the VAR person, inform the referee when he's possibly missed something.
Referee HAS to go and double check. Referee watches replay, makes final decision.
It is nowhere near as hard as they're making it look.
Only took the brain trust 9 months!
Is this the new process? If so, that's infinitely better.
-
Just have the VAR person, inform the referee when he's possibly missed something.
Referee HAS to go and double check. Referee watches replay, makes final decision.
It is nowhere near as hard as they're making it look.
Only took the brain trust 9 months!
In other words, just like rugby's been doing it for years!
Or as Clampy pointed out, pretty much exactly what they did in Russia in the first place!
-
Just have the VAR person, inform the referee when he's possibly missed something.
Referee HAS to go and double check. Referee watches replay, makes final decision.
It is nowhere near as hard as they're making it look.
Only took the brain trust 9 months!
Is this the new process? If so, that's infinitely better.
I'm not certain the referee has to go a check the replay. But I think it is being strongly recommended.
" referees will now consult the monitors on a more frequent basis for subjective decisions, such as goals, red cards and penalty kicks. "
-
Just have the VAR person, inform the referee when he's possibly missed something.
Referee HAS to go and double check. Referee watches replay, makes final decision.
It is nowhere near as hard as they're making it look.
Only took the brain trust 9 months!
Is this the new process? If so, that's infinitely better.
I'm not certain the referee has to go a check the replay. But I think it is being strongly recommended.
" referees will now consult the monitors on a more frequent basis for subjective decisions, such as goals, red cards and penalty kicks. "
Phew - is this a outbreak of common sense?!
-
I wouldn't count any chickens - the football authorities have a knack of finding a way to screw it up...
-
Hallelujah.... finally some common sense with VAR
-
Just the 11 pens from 16 games so far, meaning its odds on for there to be a pen every game.
Handball rule looking like the main bugbear for this season, with rules now not distinguish between deliberate and accidental.
Hopefully we've been working hard in training to hit the flailing arm
-
Hallelujah.... finally some common sense with VAR
You know we’re going to get absolutely robbed tomorrow now don’t you.
-
Having seen the Crystal Palace penalty, they’re really going to clamp down on that this year !!
-
I wouldn't count any chickens - the football authorities have a knack of finding a way to screw it up...
They have with the new handball rule.
-
Why on earth has it taken them so long to do what was pantently obvious to the rest of us - look at the bloody monitors? So much better.
-
Why on earth has it taken them so long to do what was pantently obvious to the rest of us - look at the bloody monitors? So much better.
Because our referees have it in their heads that they are superior to all other refs in the world. They think they know best.That may have been the case many moons ago but not anymore which is why our refs are rarely chosen for big international matches.
-
Why on earth has it taken them so long to do what was pantently obvious to the rest of us - look at the bloody monitors? So much better.
Yeah, it's a lot better.
Caveat: it works well at the moment as the stadia are empty. Be interesting to see how it works when that is no longer the case.
-
Yeah, it's a lot better.
Caveat: it works well at the moment as the stadia are empty. Be interesting to see how it works when that is no longer the case.
Good point. The well established statistic that away results are far higher in empty stadia (observed and documented in all countries returning to live games so far) is a strong one. But it only returns fairness to the game, no more. The equally well established refereeing bias for home teams with crowds has not been reversed just compensated. Just one meta-analysis of home-team bias is here;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273835772_Referee_Bias
From the Conclusions;
"For football, a number of studies have shown that referees favor the home team. Favoritism of football referees can be shown using different measures, such as stoppage time in close games, awarding goals, penalty kicks, and awarding cards to players. Though there are differences in magnitude, the
results are consistent across different time periods as well as across countries."
"Determinants of referee bias can be summarized in two groups: social payoffs and material payoffs. Referees’ social payoffs are affected by size and composition of the supporting crowd, distance of the crowd from the referee, as well as the returns from a win."
"Research has also shown, however, that principals can at least partly offset social forces by setting incentives, such as increasing wages for referees, or monitoring of referee’s decisions."
I'm happy that we may be seeing some improvement in refereeing performance towards a more fair game but won't get carried away yet; they have an awful long way to go before they even approach a neutral and competent state. Uniformally awful is still the default but I hope they carry on getting a bit better.
-
I tend to turn off a game i'm watching if one team has been VAR'd. You know who is going to win. Doesn't matter if the decision is right - the sheer act of overturning a decision by some omnipotent god figure that the players can't see or talk to, seems to have a much harsher psychological effect on the players than if the ref penalises them himself. The Chelsea Liverpool and Man U vs Palace games were both perfect examples. Both games you could see the effect on the players, and both games were over as a contest soon after.
-
I enjoyed VAR giving that Pen against ManUre and then the re-take. Glorious.
I think VAR seems better this season so far....let's see what happens tonight, I'm hoping there's nothing and that we just soundly beat them.
-
I enjoyed VAR giving that Pen against ManUre and then the re-take. Glorious.
I think VAR seems better this season so far....let's see what happens tonight, I'm hoping there's nothing and that we just soundly beat them.
The whole world, well at least that part of it inhabited by bitter twats, is waiting for us to be on the wrong end of a bad decision tonight.
-
well yeah, every neutral likes to see Man U getting the shitty end of the VAR stick, but if you're just watching a game for enjoyment's sake, you know its over once VAR sticks its oar in. I knew Man U were gonna lose after that happened. Likewise I switched off the Chelsea vs Liverpool game at half time because you could tell by the body language of the Chelsea players if was all over. They can't even get motivated by a sense of perceived injustice because there's no-one to get mad at. The other thing now is its breeding coward officials - i'm pretty sure the chelsea ref knew that was a red card but didn't fancy taking responsibility himself so he gave a yellow and let VAR sort it. Which begs the question why do we need them?
-
well yeah, every neutral likes to see Man U getting the shitty end of the VAR stick, but if you're just watching a game for enjoyment's sake, you know its over once VAR sticks its oar in. I knew Man U were gonna lose after that happened. Likewise I switched off the Chelsea vs Liverpool game at half time because you could tell by the body language of the Chelsea players if was all over. They can't even get motivated by a sense of perceived injustice because there's no-one to get mad at. The other thing now is its breeding coward officials - i'm pretty sure the chelsea ref knew that was a red card but didn't fancy taking responsibility himself so he gave a yellow and let VAR sort it. Which begs the question why do we need them?
Ok, you've repeated the point a coupe of times, so I'll bite. No, you don't know the game is up after a VAR decision.
-
hah, well maybe i'm just a good guesser then. I wonder how many teams have come back and won from an overturned VAR decision that penalised them as opposed to a decision give by a referee that penalised them?
-
Is it not the case that Man U lost because the decision meant they were 2 down with less than 20 minutes to go and Chelsea lost because they were a man down against a team they were struggling to contain with 11 players rather than any psychological impact of the decision being made off the pitch?
-
My view is there is an added psychological effect on the players having a decision overturned by VAR. So getting a player sent off by the ref will have less effect on a team than a player than getting a yellow and then VAR changing it to red. Likewise, a goal being allowed/dis-allowed and then VAR changing the decision. Think I will closely follow our interactions with VAR this season, and see if the theory has any legs..
-
My view is there is an added psychological effect on the players having a decision overturned by VAR. So getting a player sent off by the ref will have less effect on a team than a player than getting a yellow and then VAR changing it to red. Likewise, a goal being allowed/dis-allowed and then VAR changing the decision. Think I will closely follow our interactions with VAR this season, and see if the theory has any legs..
Hmmm, could be tricky if you're not going to watch when VAR get involved.
-
My view is there is an added psychological effect on the players having a decision overturned by VAR. So getting a player sent off by the ref will have less effect on a team than a player than getting a yellow and then VAR changing it to red. Likewise, a goal being allowed/dis-allowed and then VAR changing the decision. Think I will closely follow our interactions with VAR this season, and see if the theory has any legs..
Hmmm, could be tricky if you're not going to watch when VAR get involved.
only do that with neutral games. Villa games i make myself suffer.
-
My view is there is an added psychological effect on the players having a decision overturned by VAR. So getting a player sent off by the ref will have less effect on a team than a player than getting a yellow and then VAR changing it to red. Likewise, a goal being allowed/dis-allowed and then VAR changing the decision. Think I will closely follow our interactions with VAR this season, and see if the theory has any legs..
I think you're wrong. Also, lots of VAR decisions will be made by the ref at the monitor now, so any previously perceived impact will be lesst.
-
My view is there is an added psychological effect on the players having a decision overturned by VAR. So getting a player sent off by the ref will have less effect on a team than a player than getting a yellow and then VAR changing it to red. Likewise, a goal being allowed/dis-allowed and then VAR changing the decision. Think I will closely follow our interactions with VAR this season, and see if the theory has any legs..
I think you're wrong. Also, lots of VAR decisions will be made by the ref at the monitor now, so any previously perceived impact will be lesst.
Depends if the ref makes a decision and then its overruled like the Chelsea game. That's what i'm gonna keep an eye on - decisions we benefit/suffer from that weren't originally given by the ref. I think its human nature that it effects you more if you have something taken away that you thought you'd kept ,rather than just taken away by the original decision. It works well in cricket because the umpires hasn't made a decision first
-
hah, well maybe i'm just a good guesser then. I wonder how many teams have come back and won from an overturned VAR decision that penalised them as opposed to a decision give by a referee that penalised them?
Us against Brighton last year
-
hah, well maybe i'm just a good guesser then. I wonder how many teams have come back and won from an overturned VAR decision that penalised them as opposed to a decision give by a referee that penalised them?
Us against Brighton last year
Liverpool against us as well
-
hah, well maybe i'm just a good guesser then. I wonder how many teams have come back and won from an overturned VAR decision that penalised them as opposed to a decision give by a referee that penalised them?
Us against Brighton last year
Liverpool against us as well
Yes, but apart from those games....
-
My view is there is an added psychological effect on the players having a decision overturned by VAR. So getting a player sent off by the ref will have less effect on a team than a player than getting a yellow and then VAR changing it to red. Likewise, a goal being allowed/dis-allowed and then VAR changing the decision. Think I will closely follow our interactions with VAR this season, and see if the theory has any legs..
I think you're wrong. Also, lots of VAR decisions will be made by the ref at the monitor now, so any previously perceived impact will be lesst.
Depends if the ref makes a decision and then its overruled like the Chelsea game. That's what i'm gonna keep an eye on - decisions we benefit/suffer from that weren't originally given by the ref. I think its human nature that it effects you more if you have something taken away that you thought you'd kept ,rather than just taken away by the original decision. It works well in cricket because the umpires hasn't made a decision first
The umpire does make a decision first and the teams have an opportunity to review it.
-
Not saying it doesn't happen, just its much less likely.. Like i said, i will watch our games and see the percentage we win/lose after benefiting/suffering from a refereeing decision, and compare it to benefiting/suffering from an overturned VAR decision.
-
My view is there is an added psychological effect on the players having a decision overturned by VAR. So getting a player sent off by the ref will have less effect on a team than a player than getting a yellow and then VAR changing it to red. Likewise, a goal being allowed/dis-allowed and then VAR changing the decision. Think I will closely follow our interactions with VAR this season, and see if the theory has any legs..
I think you're wrong. Also, lots of VAR decisions will be made by the ref at the monitor now, so any previously perceived impact will be lesst.
Depends if the ref makes a decision and then its overruled like the Chelsea game. That's what i'm gonna keep an eye on - decisions we benefit/suffer from that weren't originally given by the ref. I think its human nature that it effects you more if you have something taken away that you thought you'd kept ,rather than just taken away by the original decision. It works well in cricket because the umpires hasn't made a decision first
The umpire does make a decision first and the teams have an opportunity to review it.
Sorry that's what I meant. same with tennis. Psychologically you have the means to appeal
-
I think I watched a few games last season where the team in the ascendancy had a goal chalked off by VAR and went on to capitulate afterwards.
-
I think I watched a few games last season where the team in the ascendancy had a goal chalked off by VAR and went on to capitulate afterwards.
yeah that's what I think, but it could be me seeing what I want to see. I think if you have say 10 games where a penalty has been awarded, goal disallowed, player sent off that benefited Villa and 5 of them were VAR overturned decisions, then you would expect the number of points the disadvantaged team managed from both types of decision would be very similar, if finding yourself worse off than you first thought had no psychological effect. Likewise if we were on the end of the same 10 decisions, our points total should be similar from both VAR and referee decisions
-
I think the second VAR decision against Man U was absolutely correct. The laws have always stated that the keeper should not be in front of the goal line when the ball is kicked but the linesman whose job it was to watch for this only on very rare occasions flagged. Thus we had the situation where keepers were moving, on some occasions, feet in front of the line. At least now they know they will have to keep one foot on the line. But as a Man U supporter said to me "he was only an inch in front of the line" - as I said "so what, an inch in cricket is a no ball or a run out and nobody questions those decisions".
-
Man U can get to f*ck complaining about VAR after the penalty that cheating arsehole Fernandes won at VP last season by stamping on Konsa's leg!!
-
Talking of cheating, has Fernandes not been pulled up for that outrageous dive where he kicked himself and went down the other day?
-
VAR WATCH
Crucial decision given against us by the referee 1
Points accrued 3
Crucial decision given against the opposition 1
Points accrued 0
Crucial decision overturned by VAR 0
-
In both instances, the ref gave the decision and VAR just didn't over-turn the ref's decision.
-
No complaints about VAR tonight. Either decision (sending off and penalty) could have gone the other way, but no obvious error so nothing to overturn.
-
yep, that's the idea. Does the overturning of a decision by VAR effect the team penalised more than if its just a straight decision by the ref.
-
On the basis Sheffield United played exactly how you'd expect a team with 10 men to play and the result was exactly what you'd expect when a team has a man sent off after 12 minutes, in my expert opinion the VAR decision had sod all effect on tonight's game.
-
On the basis Sheffield United played exactly how you'd expect a team with 10 men to play and the result was exactly what you'd expect when a team has a man sent off after 12 minutes, in my expert opinion the VAR decision had sod all effect on tonight's game.
ah but there was no VAR decision tonight.
-
Thought red was harsh given distance and angle.
Thought pen was correct even though contact wasn’t 100%.
He could have also gone for this.
Result 100% happy
-
Thought red was harsh given distance and angle.
Thought pen was correct even though contact wasn’t 100%.
He could have also gone for this.
Result 100% happy
You're not really a Villa fan are you? Watkins was clearly pulled back and would have won the race to the ball. Targett was naive and poorly positioned but a bit unlucky that the sniper on the North Stand roof took the United players legs from under him. Barely touched him.
-
On the basis Sheffield United played exactly how you'd expect a team with 10 men to play and the result was exactly what you'd expect when a team has a man sent off after 12 minutes, in my expert opinion the VAR decision had sod all effect on tonight's game.
ah but there was no VAR decision tonight.
Sure, if you ignore the two VAR decisions then there were no VAR decisions. 🙄
-
On the basis Sheffield United played exactly how you'd expect a team with 10 men to play and the result was exactly what you'd expect when a team has a man sent off after 12 minutes, in my expert opinion the VAR decision had sod all effect on tonight's game.
ah but there was no VAR decision tonight.
Sure, if you ignore the two VAR decisions then there were no VAR decisions. 🙄
well I mean when they overrule the refs original decision or rather passively aggressively suggest he look again. On a related point has a ref ever looked at a decision pointed out to him and still gone "nah, i was right first time"?
-
http://
Thought red was harsh given distance and angle.
Thought pen was correct even though contact wasn’t 100%.
He could have also gone for this.
Result 100% happy
You're not really a Villa fan are you? Watkins was clearly pulled back and would have won the race to the ball. Targett was naive and poorly positioned but a bit unlucky that the sniper on the North Stand roof took the United players legs from under him. Barely touched him.
.
See 100% happy part for clarification.
I don’t happen to agree with you.
It’s all quite academic really though as we won and I’m over the moon.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/4jxZBBw/114552196-gettyimages-1273923353.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4jxZBBw)
-
On the basis Sheffield United played exactly how you'd expect a team with 10 men to play and the result was exactly what you'd expect when a team has a man sent off after 12 minutes, in my expert opinion the VAR decision had sod all effect on tonight's game.
ah but there was no VAR decision tonight.
Sure, if you ignore the two VAR decisions then there were no VAR decisions. 🙄
well I mean when they overrule the refs original decision or rather passively aggressively suggest he look again. On a related point has a ref ever looked at a decision pointed out to him and still gone "nah, i was right first time"?
Does it matter whether the VAR overruled the onfield ref?
I can say I was just as, if not more, pissed off when VAR failed to send off Fernandes for stamping on Konsa, giving Man U a penalty, as I was when VAR ruled out our goal at Burnley (I think) because Wesley's heel was offside.
An injustice is annoying regardless of whether it's the onfield ref or the VAR who delivers it.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/4jxZBBw/114552196-gettyimages-1273923353.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4jxZBBw)
le
What does this actually prove - 40 yards from goal, keeper en route, arms all over the gaff, if this was against Mings I would be livid.
As it’s happens I’m over the moon with the decision but I don’t have to agree.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/4jxZBBw/114552196-gettyimages-1273923353.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4jxZBBw)
le
What does this actually prove - 40 yards from goal, keeper en route, arms all over the gaff, if this was against Mings I would be livid.
As it’s happens I’m over the moon with the decision but I don’t have to agree.
Watkins was being held as the image proves which is punishable by the awarding of a direct free-kick. There was no covering defender between them and the goalkeeper that could have prevented the goal scoring opportunity had Watkins had a free run so, the referee was correct in his decision to award the free-kick and dismiss the defender. Whether this incident took place forty yards or forty inches from the goal is completely irrelevant.
-
On the basis Sheffield United played exactly how you'd expect a team with 10 men to play and the result was exactly what you'd expect when a team has a man sent off after 12 minutes, in my expert opinion the VAR decision had sod all effect on tonight's game.
ah but there was no VAR decision tonight.
Sure, if you ignore the two VAR decisions then there were no VAR decisions. 🙄
well I mean when they overrule the refs original decision or rather passively aggressively suggest he look again. On a related point has a ref ever looked at a decision pointed out to him and still gone "nah, i was right first time"?
Does it matter whether the VAR overruled the onfield ref?
I can say I was just as, if not more, pissed off when VAR failed to send off Fernandes for stamping on Konsa, giving Man U a penalty as I was when VAR ruled out our going at Burnley (I think) because Wesley's heel was offside.
An injustice is annoying regardless of whether it's the onfield ref or the VAR who delivers it.
ah but that's the whole point of the exercise. I believe decisions being overruled by VAR effect the team concerned far worse than a decision made just be the ref. Others say not. At the end of the season, if I can be arsed to do it, we'll have a full season of games played with decisions made by the referee; decisions overruled by VAR; and how those decisions affected both us and our opponents in points earned.
and yes, I realise no-one really cares apart from me 8)
-
(https://i.ibb.co/4jxZBBw/114552196-gettyimages-1273923353.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4jxZBBw)
le
What does this actually prove - 40 yards from goal, keeper en route, arms all over the gaff, if this was against Mings I would be livid.
As it’s happens I’m over the moon with the decision but I don’t have to agree.
Watkins was being held as the image proves which is punishable by the awarding of a direct free-kick. There was no covering defender between them and the goalkeeper that could have prevented the goal scoring opportunity had Watkins had a free run so, the referee was correct in his decision to award the free-kick and dismiss the defender. Whether this incident took place forty yards or forty inches from the goal is completely irrelevant.
This.
-
Ok Mary, the rules stink and I’m sure we have come undone before.
Like I said I’m over the moon with the result but it doesn’t mean I agree with the system.
-
Normally the ref bottles it sending someone of early in the game (such as Vidic on Gabby), but guess with VAR they are more accountable for making consistent decisions
-
Mary?
-
Mary?
I think it's a Frankenstein reference, Mary Shelley. I ain't biting.
-
Mary?
I think it's a Frankenstein reference, Mary Shelley. I ain't biting.
Probably a good job too Dave, or we'd all be vampires!! (Joke).
-
Well, second year in and VAR is proving to be a bigger bag of shit than last season. The impact of VAR is getting worse, not better.
The powers that be have tried to fix something that wasn’t broken and have succeeded in fucking it up completely.
Penalties given after the final whistle, penalties for handball where the players back is turned, it’s become Even more of a joke.
Before VAR, there was the odd game that was affected by bad decisions. Now it’s multiple games, week in, week out that are being ruined by this bloody nightmare.
-
The handball decisions this weekend have been ridiculous.
-
You can add the microscopic movement of a keeper during penalties. Bloody ridiculous, if your good at penalties the keeper has no chance, even if he moves a fraction of a second first.
-
You can add the microscopic movement of a keeper during penalties. Bloody ridiculous, if your good at penalties the keeper has no chance, even if he moves a fraction of a second first.
They can move around these days, but they can't encroach, as has always been the case. Isn't it why linesmen were always positioned where they were, to watch for it? Our 'keeper managed it.
-
But again it’s something over analysed, what was wrong with the naked eye of the linesman? Now we have to watch over the same penalty again to see if the camera picked early movement, which can be a micro second depending on the ref at the time. Another ref might have ruled Martinez moved a zilch too soon.
-
we've seen lots wrong with the naked eye of the linesman over the years tbf
-
Ridiculous penalty for Newcastle. How you can penalise a player with his back to the ball, god only knows.
-
Even Bruce said it was a bad decision
-
It is the rule though. VAR is just enforcing it.
-
It is the rule though. VAR is just enforcing it.
It is, but as was said last season, the rules were written expecting refs to employ their own judgement. Sadly now with VAR the rules are being applied literally.
VAR isn't the cause of the problem but it's resulted in a problem that didn't exist before.
The cynic in me still thinks that refs are being literal in interpreting the rules so we can all see how fantastic they were in the days before VAR!
-
I think the problems are a couple of things, it’s no longer ball to hand if your a defender. Your arms have to be by your side, which can be tricky for anyone who moves. Also the other issue I think is everything is so scrutinised.
-
I think the problems are a couple of things, it’s no longer ball to hand if your a defender. Your arms have to be by your side, which can be tricky for anyone who moves. Also the other issue I think is everything is so scrutinised.
Even having your arms by your sides doesn't save you - look at the penalty Everton got yesterday.
-
Over-analysis is what birthed this bastard creation in the first place, only it was by broadcasters in the ratings arms race. The studio dissection of every 'important' decision and nondecision solely for the entertainment of the sofa-bound hordes, enabled through an ever increasing battery of cameras, inevitably led to cries from sinned-against managers of, "it'd take the ref two seconds to come over and have a look at a monitor", or the even more portentous, "they could have someone watching in the stands to tell them they've made a mistake".
This wasn't foisted onto football, football asked for it. And now it's going to have to lie in its own sanitised bed for the foreseeable. The only way back, as far as I can see, would be to bin it in its entirety, and that would take some climbdowns from people who I reckon have absolutely no intention whatsoever of ever doing that.
-
I think you have raised a very good point there Lastfootstamper.
-
The penalty for Newcastle today was a shocking decision but I've not had much of a problem with the others. Dodgy handball decisions have happened for years but generally only to the benefit of a handful of clubs. The change means that same harsh interpretation is being used for everyone which is an improvement for me. What I'd like to see now is for the rules to be improved to add mitigating factors (like not looking in the direction of the ball) but to try to keep the consistent application of the laws.
I'm fine with the penalty change where they're watching for the keeper moving off his line early, that law is very simple and very clear, all that's happening is that they can now officiate it correctly.
The next change I'd like to see is to move away from the idea that getting a toe on the ball stops a challenge from being reckless/dangerous. The one that put Wesley out for a year, for example, is the sort of tackle that needs to be stopped.
-
It’s a good idea in principle, but I think the main reason why those of us who don’t like it in practice is that we don’t really understand the rules and there seems to be a lot of inconsistency in its application. Until those two things are sorted, there are always going to be people moaning about it. I’d rather it was ditched personally. But it doesn’t look like happening any time soon, so failing that, at least make it work to the point where people aren’t left scratching their heads at a lot of the outcomes from it.
-
You make it sound like Brexit.
-
It was never a good idea, in principle or reality.
Lastfootstamper is absolutely right.
Football is not a video game. It doesn’t need to be turned into one.
-
So Jenas says that the "product" of the premier league is wonderful and should be treated differently from other leagues. Really?? Surely the real issue here is the handball rule not which league a match is being played in.
I really don't see how that penalty should have been given against Spurs. He's jumping to reach the ball - how can you do that with your hands at your side? And this can't be about VAR, it's about the rules. Clearly, the people who make these changes have never played the game.
What is happening to our beautiful game?
-
It is and was a ridiculous decision. I remember Mark Delaney having a pen against him for exactly the same in a match against Middlesbrough or maybe Sunderland. No VAR back then just a ref who didn’t like us much from my recollection.
-
VAR reminds me of my mother with a tin of paint. She had paint and a brush so things were going to get painted whether they needed it or not, whether painting would improve them or not. The FA has got VAR so it is going to use it regardless of whether it improves the game for the players or the spectators.
-
It is and was a ridiculous decision. I remember Mark Delaney having a pen against him for exactly the same in a match against Middlesbrough or maybe Sunderland. No VAR back then just a ref who didn’t like us much from my recollection.
Sunderland. Elleray.
-
It’s a good idea in principle, but I think the main reason why those of us who don’t like it in practice is that we don’t really understand the rules and there seems to be a lot of inconsistency in its application. Until those two things are sorted, there are always going to be people moaning about it. I’d rather it was ditched personally. But it doesn’t look like happening any time soon, so failing that, at least make it work to the point where people aren’t left scratching their heads at a lot of the outcomes from it.
They have changed the rules/Laws to accommodate VAR which is just nuts, when the whole point of using technology was supposed to be about getting more accurate application of the Laws.
-
Why is it that football seems to be the only sport where those in charge feel the need to change the rules, or the interpretation of them every bloody year? A sport that has been played for over 150 years still hasn't got the rules right apparently.
-
I’m ok with VAR but the handball rule is a joke. Saying that, deliberate hand ball can be very hard to prove unless someone is doing a Kanchelskis
-
I’m ok with VAR but the handball rule is a joke. Saying that, deliberate hand ball can be very hard to prove unless someone is doing a Kanchelskis
A player having his back to the ball would be a pretty good indication that he might not have meant it though!
-
I actually think it's ok. It takes away the endless debate of ball to hand, hand to ball, deliberate or not.
I absolutely reserve the right to change my mind when it happens to us, to suddenly bemoan the change and frankly to be completely hypocritical.
-
Why is it that football seems to be the only sport where those in charge feel the need to change the rules, or the interpretation of them every bloody year? A sport that has been played for over 150 years still hasn't got the rules right apparently.
As I've posted before: the answer to your question is so that those that make these changes can justify their phoney-baloney jobs.
-
I actually think it's ok. It takes away the endless debate of ball to hand, hand to ball, deliberate or not.
I absolutely reserve the right to change my mind when it happens to us, to suddenly bemoan the change and frankly to be completely hypocritical.
Though it has to be said, we'll start to see players aiming to kick the ball at an opponent's hand in order to gain a penalty. Which is just shit.
-
I actually think it's ok. It takes away the endless debate of ball to hand, hand to ball, deliberate or not.
I absolutely reserve the right to change my mind when it happens to us, to suddenly bemoan the change and frankly to be completely hypocritical.
Though it has to be said, we'll start to see players aiming to kick the ball at an opponent's hand in order to gain a penalty. Which is just shit.
A few people have said similar, and I think it's correct. Nothing on in the box, just blast it at roughly waist height towards one or more defenders and you've upped your chances of a penalty substantially.
-
Exactly. Andy Carroll is a Messi-level player in this new handball-world we now live in.
-
I actually think it's ok. It takes away the endless debate of ball to hand, hand to ball, deliberate or not.
I absolutely reserve the right to change my mind when it happens to us, to suddenly bemoan the change and frankly to be completely hypocritical.
Though it has to be said, we'll start to see players aiming to kick the ball at an opponent's hand in order to gain a penalty. Which is just shit.
It doesn't seem all that long ago that apparently it'd be impossible for centre-forwards to jump without swinging an elbow, or for centre-halves to tackle without going through the back of someone. Rules is rules, players and fans adapt, the game carries on.
It's not like the laws came down from the mountain with moses, anyway. Somebody made all of them up at some point.
-
So did Moses.
-
I actually think it's ok. It takes away the endless debate of ball to hand, hand to ball, deliberate or not.
I absolutely reserve the right to change my mind when it happens to us, to suddenly bemoan the change and frankly to be completely hypocritical.
Though it has to be said, we'll start to see players aiming to kick the ball at an opponent's hand in order to gain a penalty. Which is just shit.
A few people have said similar, and I think it's correct. Nothing on in the box, just blast it at roughly waist height towards one or more defenders and you've upped your chances of a penalty substantially.
I think it'll be even more nuanced than that. There are a few ways to get round a defender by bribbling, either side, through the legs - but now you can add flick it up over their legs. That's always been there, but it's harder and has less success than the others - but now it might win you a penalty.
I think refs will get wise to players flicking it up against arms, and will use their discretion under the "how far the ball travelled" rule to not give them. BUT, if the player is making a genuine attempt to dribble round the defender and flicks it up?
It's going to be chaos for a while, certainly. Short of defenders playing in straight jackets, I don't know how you ensure you don't give at least a few away over the season?
-
I actually think it's ok. It takes away the endless debate of ball to hand, hand to ball, deliberate or not.
I absolutely reserve the right to change my mind when it happens to us, to suddenly bemoan the change and frankly to be completely hypocritical.
Though it has to be said, we'll start to see players aiming to kick the ball at an opponent's hand in order to gain a penalty. Which is just shit.
A few people have said similar, and I think it's correct. Nothing on in the box, just blast it at roughly waist height towards one or more defenders and you've upped your chances of a penalty substantially.
I think it'll be even more nuanced than that. There are a few ways to get round a defender by bribbling, either side, through the legs - but now you can add flick it up over their legs. That's always been there, but it's harder and has less success than the others - but now it might win you a penalty.
I think refs will get wise to players flicking it up against arms, and will use their discretion under the "how far the ball travelled" rule to not give them. BUT, if the player is making a genuine attempt to dribble round the defender and flicks it up?
It's going to be chaos for a while, certainly. Short of defenders playing in straight jackets, I don't know how you ensure you don't give at least a few away over the season?
bribbling? That's a new one 😁
-
It is and was a ridiculous decision. I remember Mark Delaney having a pen against him for exactly the same in a match against Middlesbrough or maybe Sunderland. No VAR back then just a ref who didn’t like us much from my recollection.
and this is why VAR and a strict interpretation of the rules isn't without merit. Too many times we've seen shocking decisions from someone with no real accountability cost us in games. An attempt to stop that isn't a waste of time.
-
It is and was a ridiculous decision. I remember Mark Delaney having a pen against him for exactly the same in a match against Middlesbrough or maybe Sunderland. No VAR back then just a ref who didn’t like us much from my recollection.
and this is why VAR and a strict interpretation of the rules isn't without merit. Too many times we've seen shocking decisions from someone with no real accountability cost us in games. An attempt to stop that isn't a waste of time.
How does VAR stop that? We've seen just as many shocking decisions, only from a different set of unaccountable people.
-
It is and was a ridiculous decision. I remember Mark Delaney having a pen against him for exactly the same in a match against Middlesbrough or maybe Sunderland. No VAR back then just a ref who didn’t like us much from my recollection.
Sunderland. Elleray.
Yep, that and being able to see a ball brushing the keepers studs from 60- yards away shows what good eye sight he had. Especially as he wasn't looking back at the time.
-
I'm pretty sure the "unnatural motion" and defenders being penalised for making themselves big was one from a few years ago. As with most of these rules, it rained pens for several matches and then was quietly reduced back. The difference now is VAR reviewing it all the time.
-
It is and was a ridiculous decision. I remember Mark Delaney having a pen against him for exactly the same in a match against Middlesbrough or maybe Sunderland. No VAR back then just a ref who didn’t like us much from my recollection.
and this is why VAR and a strict interpretation of the rules isn't without merit. Too many times we've seen shocking decisions from someone with no real accountability cost us in games. An attempt to stop that isn't a waste of time.
How does VAR stop that? We've seen just as many shocking decisions, only from a different set of unaccountable people.
because so far we've seen more consistent shocking decisions, the good or bad of the decisions isn't the point, that can be addressed later, but by taking away the crowd pressure and the pressure from players in the face of the ref we're seeing, in my opinion, the same overly-strict rules being applied to everyone. I'd be pissed off if I were a palace fan having conceded the penalty they did this weekend but I'd know that a similar decision had gone in our favour the week before, that's not been the case before, those decisions have been made but you've been able to pick examples from games around the same time where the interpretation was different, right now that doesn't appear to be the case with this specific rule (and wasn't the case with the iffy offside decisions last season).
-
VAR positives
1. Overall has cut down on complete rickets refs make each season.
VAR negatives
1. Amplified the number of bad decisions made through interpretation of the rules and personal opinion and personal bias. I.e. what I call playing Subutteo against yourself decisions.
2. Turning refs into cowards - they are more than happy to let VAR take the contentious decision for them, ie, give a yellow when they think its a red, and wait for VAR to overrule them. The refs don't get the blame for the decision, and the faceless VAR are hundreds of miles away so do not face the wrath of the players/crowd (in normal circumstances)
Overall, on balance, fuck if off
-
One of the reasons I've never really been able to watch hockey as a sport, is because it's essentially grown adults trying to smash a ball into people's feet from about six inches away to win penalties.
That's what the new rules in football will reduce it to: get to the edge of the area, smack it against a defender's hand. More chance of scoring from the subsequent penalty, than by crossing or shooting.
-
It is and was a ridiculous decision. I remember Mark Delaney having a pen against him for exactly the same in a match against Middlesbrough or maybe Sunderland. No VAR back then just a ref who didn’t like us much from my recollection.
Sunderland. Elleray.
Well I never, journalist Martin Lipton speaking on Talksport is expaining the origin of the new handball rule and guess who's name came up? One David Elleray.
That's what you get when you involve a public school master.
-
The handball thing needs looking at but overall I think VAR is massively improved now refs are taking more control and looking at the monitors. Now they just need to take the next step and allow refs to be honest and just say I'm not 100% sure on that, let me take another look without having to be asked to do so by the VAR official. In a nushell the rugby union model - the best example of VAR out there and quite why football felt they had to reinvent the wheel I don't know.
-
The handball thing needs looking at but overall I think VAR is massively improved now refs are taking more control and looking at the monitors. Now they just need to take the next step and allow refs to be honest and just say I'm not 100% sure on that, let me take another look without having to be asked to do so by the VAR official. In a nushell the rugby union model - the best example of VAR out there and quite why football felt they had to reinvent the wheel I don't know.
Agreed, I think the balance in rugby is better.
On the positives I think not raising the flag for offside is a massive improvement.
-
Rugby as a game is much more suited to VAR though, as play stops after most phases anyway.
-
Rugby as a game is much more suited to VAR though, as play stops after most phases anyway.
True but I just think the it's been implemented in rugby shows better understanding of the game. I'd say the inclusion of a screen in the ground that the fans can see is a big positive as well, as is the officials having mics. The transparency of the decisions plays a big part, even if it was just the VAR official. Imagine if the Dier one, for example, had the VAR explaining what he was seeing and why he thought it was worth a penalty, it might not make a difference to the decision but everyone would understand how they reached it and you could have a proper discussion about whether that interpretation is reasonable.
-
Rugby as a game is much more suited to VAR though, as play stops after most phases anyway.
But don't forget it's only for the big decisions.
Ref sees a potential foul in the box, either blows or waits for the ball to go out of play and says he want's to take a closer look. With the VAR's assistance he looks at the angles he wants to see and makes a final call. Same for serious foul play etc. It's not that different to the current position, but the ref stays more in control as he does in rugby.
I would clarify that with rugby the TV audience hears the exchange but not the audience in the stadium and I think with football is should probably stay that way. There was an example of this on a video clip last season I think from a football game in Aus, and it worked really well in my view.
-
And nobody knows the rules in rugby anyway.
-
VAR WATCH -MATCH 2
Crucial decision given against us by the referee 1
Points accrued 3
Crucial decision given against the opposition 0
Points accrued 0
Crucial decision overturned by VAR against us 0
Points accrued 3
Crucial decision overturned by VAR against opposition 1
Points accrued 0
Overall
Crucial decisions given against us by the referee 2
Points accrued 6
Crucial decisions given against opponent by the referee 1
Points accrued 0
Crucial decision overturned by VAR against us 0
Points accrued 6
Crucial decisions overturned by VAR against opponent 1
Points accrued 0
-
And nobody knows the rules in rugby anyway.
Laws ;)
-
And nobody knows the rules in rugby anyway.
Or cares.
-
For whatever reason England is behind a lot of Europe on VAR due to the FA taking their own views on things. Similar now with the view on handball. FIFA have clear set rules it's just in UK chosen to adopt a different interpretation.
The ignorance of the ex professional pundits don't help..Carragher , Neville Jenas ,Richards .. to name a few..
They'll eventually adapt.
I don't much care what pundits say and, either way, that is not really the debate we are having on H&V. It is the rule itself people object too, not the fact that referees apply the rule as it now stands.
Guardian Sport argues it well enough:
Handball pedantry sapping enjoyment from the game
Another week, another slew of spot-kicks given for the most negligible offences imaginable. It is clear that the new guidelines on handball have left the sport in an embarrassing mess, and it is hard to spot anyone who benefits: players are being penalised unfairly, fans are faced with an even more stop-start spectacle and referees are made to look like joyless jobsworths. In a low-scoring sport, a penalty – ie a very probable goal – should only result from three things: an exceptional piece of skill, an exceptional mistake, or an exceptional stroke of luck. The International Football Association Board has managed to create a situation where crippling punishments are being doled out for nonexistent crimes, and unearned goals are being scored left, right and centre. Results are being warped, too: Spurs and Crystal Palace were both robbed of much-deserved points. Quite why Ifab felt the need to meddle in the first place is anyone’s guess, but the drive of football’s bureaucrats to sap the sport of sense, spontaneity and simple enjoyment continues apace.
-
Its not a new rule its just a struggle and resistance to fall in line with the rule.
-
Fine. Do you approve of the changes IFAB introduced last year and how the Premier League has chosen to interpret that rule this year? Has the game of football improved as a result?
-
For me the handball rule can follow one of two principles - either you say that any advantage gained through the use of the arm is a foul, or you say that any deliberate use of the arm is a foul. Decide which one it's going to be and stick with it.
It doesn't need to be more difficult than that. The issue is caused by the powers that be arsing around with a rule that's so fundamental it shouldn't even be in question.
-
For me it all boils down to intent. Was the use of the hand or arm intentional used to prevent an attacking play? If that can be clearly determined through the ref or assistant with or without technology then that’s a handball. This whole body position thing is nonsense. The speed by which forwards move now is going to leave the defensive player in awkward physical positions. The refs are being put in impossible positions because of the rules of the game, and the technology only further complicates matters. Listened to Simon Jordan the other day and he was brilliant in stating that for ages we wanted to tech to make the game better but it’s not being used to run the game not assist in running the game.
-
For me the handball rule can follow one of two principles - either you say that any advantage gained through the use of the arm is a foul, or you say that any deliberate use of the arm is a foul. Decide which one it's going to be and stick with it.
It doesn't need to be more difficult than that. The issue is caused by the powers that be arsing around with a rule that's so fundamental it shouldn't even be in question.
I think that's exactly what they've decided to do and they've gone with the advantage part of it. The ball hits your arm as a defender and nothing comes from the attack then penalty because without that intervention they might have scored. It's harsh but simple and easy to be consistent with.
For me it all boils down to intent. Was the use of the hand or arm intentional used to prevent an attacking play? If that can be clearly determined through the ref or assistant with or without technology then that’s a handball. This whole body position thing is nonsense. The speed by which forwards move now is going to leave the defensive player in awkward physical positions. The refs are being put in impossible positions because of the rules of the game, and the technology only further complicates matters. Listened to Simon Jordan the other day and he was brilliant in stating that for ages we wanted to tech to make the game better but it’s not being used to run the game not assist in running the game.
Outcomes are much more important than intent and much easier to referee. The judgement has to be whether the arm position is reasonable or not. Right now they're being overly strict with it but once the refs and VAR officials bring it down a little and have a little more understanding towards the defenders I think it will work well.
Specifically on VAR, there are problems but I think they're made worse because so many people just don't want to give it a chance, it was always going to take a few seasons for them to learn what works and what doesn't (because they can only make major changes at the start of a new season) so next summer or even the one after is the time to judge it fully. Last year the biggest problem was refs not using the monitors, they've fixed that and it's much better now so for me it's on the right track and they've shown a willingness to adapt until they get there.
-
Not strictly on topic, but it was interesting to hear this morning the views of Malcolm Allison on interpretation of interfering within the offside law and players perhaps occasionally spending a little too long on the floor. In 1974.
-
That decision (or interpretation of the law as applied by VAR) in the Merseyside game was shit.
-
I'm more bothered that VAR didn't send off Pickford than I am about the disalllowed goal. I've always considered the silly handball and offside decisions a price worth paying to take things like that challenge out of the game. If it's not doing that then it's pointless.
-
Scissor tackles like that should attract an automatic ten match ban. They nearly always lead to a significant amount of time injured for the person on the receiving end.
-
On the offsides, does anyone else think our second and fourth last week would have been very tight if they'd been checked? I must admit I thought they must have stopped checking the millimetres on these things when they didn't even go to VAR
-
On the offsides, does anyone else think our second and fourth last week would have been very tight if they'd been checked? I must admit I thought they must have stopped checking the millimetres on these things when they didn't even go to VAR
Don't they check all goals scored irrespective?
-
On the offsides, does anyone else think our second and fourth last week would have been very tight if they'd been checked? I must admit I thought they must have stopped checking the millimetres on these things when they didn't even go to VAR
What makes you think they weren't checked? A quick cursory glance showed they weren't.
-
Our fourth was checked. Can't think of any offsideyness about the second.
-
On the offsides, does anyone else think our second and fourth last week would have been very tight if they'd been checked? I must admit I thought they must have stopped checking the millimetres on these things when they didn't even go to VAR
Don't they check all goals scored irrespective?
They don't check all of them to the level of drawing lines on the pitch and so on do they? Didn't see the Liverpool one live but presumably it took them a while to review it which suggests there is someone who decides to have a closer look or not.
-
Our fourth was checked. Can't think of any offsideyness about the second.
At the time I thought it might be tight when he got played in down the left. Was worried it would get pulled back for his armpit being off or something.
-
Scissor tackles like that should attract an automatic ten match ban. They nearly always lead to a significant amount of time injured for the person on the receiving end.
They should do it for a couple of seasons, retrospectively - and Ben Mee gets his come-uppance.
-
Scissor tackles like that should attract an automatic ten match ban. They nearly always lead to a significant amount of time injured for the person on the receiving end.
It's absolutely disgusting.
The rules of the game are simply wrong if a tackle like that is allowed to go unpunished, regardless of whether the game had stopped for offside.
-
Scissor tackles like that should attract an automatic ten match ban. They nearly always lead to a significant amount of time injured for the person on the receiving end.
They should do it for a couple of seasons, retrospectively - and Ben Mee gets his come-uppance.
I still don’t understand why he was done for the tackle on Wesley. It looked like it was intended to make a point. Not his first time either
-
The incompetence of the referee doing the VAR role in the Merseyside derby just highlighted that the VAR has to be a full time VAR official not just another ref having a day off from running but spending 90 minutes trying to justify the refs decisions.
It is never going to be effective until VAR is independent of the match day refs & actually does what they were sold as ‘to correct clear & obvious errors’
-
VAR is doomed and always has been because too many decisions are subjective.
It was said before it's introduction but was drowned out by the wailing of alll and sundry demanding a perfection that cannot be attained. The game is so much worse off for it's introduction but I fear the genie is out of the bottle and will never go back.
-
It was the same referee (Michael Oliver) for our game against Burnley where Wesley got injured. Two dreadful challenges and no card shown for either. They should take action against the referee and whoever is doing the VAR it's not good enough there is no point having VAR if they can't take action against a foul like that. Pickford should be given a retrospective ban as well.
-
That VAR didn't even check the Pickford challenge, only the offside, is bonkers.
-
VAR is doomed and always has been because too many decisions are subjective.
It was said before it's introduction but was drowned out by the wailing of alll and sundry demanding a perfection that cannot be attained. The game is so much worse off for it's introduction but I fear the genie is out of the bottle and will never go back.
No one is after perfection, arguing that is why VAR is needed is missing the point. "Clear and obvious error" are the 4 words that should matter but being ignored. The ref not instantlt sending Pickford off today before checking the offside was a clear and obvious error and should've been overturned. Mee last season was a clear error and should've been overturned. You get a handful of those every weekend where the ref gets it wrong (more if you include dives for penalties or clear fouls in the box that are missed). No one gives a fuck about a players left bollock being offside or a ball being kicked into a defenders hand but for some reason those are the decisions they've decided to focus on. That's why it looks shit because it's dealing with the sort of decisions that people didn't mind having some grey area.
As I said earlier, for me those 2 things are a price worth paying to get the horrific decisions out of the game (and hopefully see c**ts like Mee and Pickford get rugby style 3-4month bans for tackles that need to be completely stamped out of the game (to add a personal touch to this that type of tackle is exactly why I'm up to 4 operations on my left knee right now because I was 17 and quick so a fat old twat decided to 'slow me down', c**t even gloated about doing a good job before he realised I was going to need a ambulance).
-
The shocking failure to send Pickford off aside, the Liverpool goal being disallowed just demonstrates that when it comes to VAR football is using technology for technology's sake, not to improve the game.
To a man, anyone looking at the reply would've said Mane was level. It would've barely been a discussion. No one at home has access to the silly lines they draw and everyone would've been much happier if the goal has stood (just like many others over the past few years).
Instead, they get flawed technology out to show that they're using it and in the process leave everyone feeling flat about the decision because they're removing the whole point of the game, goals.
It's just so unnecessary and idiotic.
-
In an effort to make the game more entertaining didn’t they change the offside rule a good while back to give the attacking player the benefit of the doubt? What I heard today was preposterous. That Mane’s shirt may have been literally millimetres in an offside position. His fucking shirt that the wind might have blown into an offside position. Seriously fuck off with this.
-
Yep, they did. But in the eyes of the FA there's no doubt anymore because of VAR. Despite the obvious limits of the technology.
It's utter nonsense.
-
Goal line technology...... excellent. It's exact (when the machine is working :D).
VAR..... subjective and wrong as often as the officials were
Go back to real time, on field decisions involving 'intent' and whether 'advantage gained'.
Some decisions will go for and some against but trying to rule out the rub of the green is ruining football.
-
The rule of offside always has and will always be contentious until the technology is 99.99% accurate. If we are going to stick with the Level rule then technology and the most accurate technology is required. I think we have to get away from the “he looked level to me” argument. I know that the technology as it isn’t completely accurate but it is more accurate than “he looked level to me”.
-
It really isn't. It's been proven that its no more accurate than "he looked level to me".
-
How is it possible to prove that? Technology as it is with its lines is measurable, a distance figure of possible infringement is attained. “He looks level to me” Linesman, spectator or tv analyst is just an opinion based on varying eyesight with no figure of measurement. Therefore impossible to prove.
-
How is it possible to prove that? Technology as it is with its lines is measurable, a distance figure of possible infringement is attained. “He looks level to me” Linesman, spectator or tv analyst is just an opinion based on varying eyesight with no figure of measurement. Therefore impossible to prove.
https://www.givemesport.com/1498162-there-are-flaws-in-var-that-mean-not-every-offside-decision-will-be-correct
-
Seems to me that var ignores one vital part of the offside rule. The "when the ball is played" part. If your going to give offsides for fractions then you have to know the precise moment when the ball leaves contact with the passing players foot. And that's impossible to tell using current technology. So again it's back to guesswork.
#Ad@m posted (above) just as I was writing my comment but it goes along with what I'm saying so I'm leaving it in!
-
Seems to me that var ignores one vital part of the offside rule. The "when the ball is played" part. If your going to give offsides for fractions then you have to know the precise moment when the ball leaves contact with the passing players foot. And that's impossible to tell using current technology. So again it's back to guesswork.
#Ad@m posted (above) just as I was writing my comment but it goes along with what I'm saying so I'm leaving it in!
Agree with this.
Also the words common sense are completely missing from those utilising VAR or making new rules around it (e.g. the handball rule).
Would any supporter of any club really be distraught if a VAR replay showed in retrospect that a goal given against their team, had an attacking opponent with their left elbow ahead of the defence. I think most people would say, don’t be stupid it’s a goal. I think Burnley fans last season were saying similar things about a Grealish disallowed goal, when Wesley walking away from active play had his heel deemed offside.
Those creating the rules around VAR are trying to create black and white decisions where there are sometimes shades of grey and in doing so forgetting about the spirit of the game and are in danger of disenfranchising supporters.
It was a terrible decision to disallow the goal yesterday and no one really gloats cuz it’s Liverpool, as we all know it’ll come our way at some point this season.
-
How is it possible to prove that? Technology as it is with its lines is measurable, a distance figure of possible infringement is attained. “He looks level to me” Linesman, spectator or tv analyst is just an opinion based on varying eyesight with no figure of measurement. Therefore impossible to prove.
https://www.givemesport.com/1498162-there-are-flaws-in-var-that-mean-not-every-offside-decision-will-be-correct
An analysis is not proof. The issue is not with the technology as it is but the var officials interpretation for some highlighted incidents. Var decisions for offsides are not totally accurate yet but they are far more accurate overall than what went before. Glaring incorrect linesman decisions have all been but eliminated.
As the tech improves we will be able to be exact with the moment the ball is touched and the distance a player is offside by millimetres which will put an end to human error. We might not agree with the human aspect being removed from the game but if we’re to use technology then have it the best it can possibly be to take human error out of it.
-
'An analysis is not proof'?!
Unless you're disputing the laws of physics, it really is.
-
The adjudicators of var have forgotten the fundamental point of var technology. It was introduced to stop clear and obvious errors. Chelsea scored a goal at Cardiff a few seasons ago where there player was standing in the six yard box a good 2 yards offside when the ball was played to him. He scored and the linesman had a mare. Goal stood. That's a clear and obvious error. Once you start drawing lines on the screen and you still can't be sure then that's not a clear and obvious error. How the officials have managed to tie everything in knots and continue to do so is a mystery. But one thing is certain there is no way that var has improved the game. There's more wrong decisions than there has ever been. I get the feeling that the officials don't want it and are deliberately setting out to sabotage it.
-
How is it possible to prove that? Technology as it is with its lines is measurable, a distance figure of possible infringement is attained. “He looks level to me” Linesman, spectator or tv analyst is just an opinion based on varying eyesight with no figure of measurement. Therefore impossible to prove.
https://www.givemesport.com/1498162-there-are-flaws-in-var-that-mean-not-every-offside-decision-will-be-correct
An analysis is not proof. The issue is not with the technology as it is but the var officials interpretation for some highlighted incidents. Var decisions for offsides are not totally accurate yet but they are far more accurate overall than what went before. Glaring incorrect linesman decisions have all been but eliminated.
As the tech improves we will be able to be exact with the moment the ball is touched and the distance a player is offside by millimetres which will put an end to human error. We might not agree with the human aspect being removed from the game but if we’re to use technology then have it the best it can possibly be to take human error out of it.
That’s missing one of the main points though isn’t it. Even if the tech was flawless and it was proved beyond doubt that the moment the ball was touched, Mane was 2 millimetres offside, is that within the spirit of the game, is that the route we really want to be going, sanitising the game to that extent. I dislike Liverpool probably more than any other club (bar the noses) and if we had been playing them yesterday, and Henderson’s goal was given and it was proved afterwards that Mane was 2 millimetres, I would have absolutely no problem with it.
I for one don’t want my football computer generated to that extent. I think Paul e said earlier in the thread about clear and obvious errors, and that is spot on. They are getting it so wrong, Pickford virtually decapitates Van Dyke, nothing, Mane a couple of millimetres offside! There has to be some common sense. With the offside, I don’t know whether the answer has to be both interfering with play and at least half a metre offside, or something along those lines.
The use of the technology and interpretation of rules by faceless wonders is spoiling the game.
-
As far as I’m concerned, the technology is perfectly adequate as it is, to enable an official to make an appropriate judgement. The issue is they’re trying to hide behind the technology, to avoid having to make a possibly disputable decision.
The fact is, they don’t seem to be allowing room for common sense, any perception they might make decisions that could undermine the on field officials, finding in favour of the attacking team when there are ridiculously marginal decisions, and taking retrospective action when the likes of Pickford and Mee get away with what could have been career ending ABH.
Match officials now have all the technology they need to make this happen, but continue to fluff these decisions.
-
How is it possible to prove that? Technology as it is with its lines is measurable, a distance figure of possible infringement is attained. “He looks level to me” Linesman, spectator or tv analyst is just an opinion based on varying eyesight with no figure of measurement. Therefore impossible to prove.
https://www.givemesport.com/1498162-there-are-flaws-in-var-that-mean-not-every-offside-decision-will-be-correct
An analysis is not proof. The issue is not with the technology as it is but the var officials interpretation for some highlighted incidents. Var decisions for offsides are not totally accurate yet but they are far more accurate overall than what went before. Glaring incorrect linesman decisions have all been but eliminated.
As the tech improves we will be able to be exact with the moment the ball is touched and the distance a player is offside by millimetres which will put an end to human error. We might not agree with the human aspect being removed from the game but if we’re to use technology then have it the best it can possibly be to take human error out of it.
That’s missing one of the main points though isn’t it. Even if the tech was flawless and it was proved beyond doubt that the moment the ball was touched, Mane was 2 millimetres offside, is that within the spirit of the game, is that the route we really want to be going, sanitising the game to that extent. I dislike Liverpool probably more than any other club (bar the noses) and if we had been playing them yesterday, and Henderson’s goal was given and it was proved afterwards that Mane was 2 millimetres, I would have absolutely no problem with it.
I for one don’t want my football computer generated to that extent. I think Paul e said earlier in the thread about clear and obvious errors, and that is spot on. They are getting it so wrong, Pickford virtually decapitates Van Dyke, nothing, Mane a couple of millimetres offside! There has to be some common sense. With the offside, I don’t know whether the answer has to be both interfering with play and at least half a metre offside, or something along those lines.
The use of the technology and interpretation of rules by faceless wonders is spoiling the game.
As soon as we embraced technology the sanitisation of the game started. As has often been stated the Genie is out of the bottle. Now, we just need to make that Genie a good Genie. That will be further sanitisation of the game to some but that is the way it will go. We’ll get used to it in the same way that supporters got used to the introduction of the offside rule many years ago.
-
When they show that graphic with the lines and the gaps between players, it’s suppose to correspond with the moment the ball is kicked.
Well, they can’t measure the gap between the ball and the boot (like they think the can between players) so if they are just a fraction of a second off with when they think the ball is struck then that could be the 1mm difference when the player was onside.
And when you are having to discuss millimetres in a game of football, it just goes to show what a load of rubbish VAR is.
-
How is it possible to prove that? Technology as it is with its lines is measurable, a distance figure of possible infringement is attained. “He looks level to me” Linesman, spectator or tv analyst is just an opinion based on varying eyesight with no figure of measurement. Therefore impossible to prove.
https://www.givemesport.com/1498162-there-are-flaws-in-var-that-mean-not-every-offside-decision-will-be-correct
An analysis is not proof. The issue is not with the technology as it is but the var officials interpretation for some highlighted incidents. Var decisions for offsides are not totally accurate yet but they are far more accurate overall than what went before. Glaring incorrect linesman decisions have all been but eliminated.
As the tech improves we will be able to be exact with the moment the ball is touched and the distance a player is offside by millimetres which will put an end to human error. We might not agree with the human aspect being removed from the game but if we’re to use technology then have it the best it can possibly be to take human error out of it.
That’s missing one of the main points though isn’t it. Even if the tech was flawless and it was proved beyond doubt that the moment the ball was touched, Mane was 2 millimetres offside, is that within the spirit of the game, is that the route we really want to be going, sanitising the game to that extent. I dislike Liverpool probably more than any other club (bar the noses) and if we had been playing them yesterday, and Henderson’s goal was given and it was proved afterwards that Mane was 2 millimetres, I would have absolutely no problem with it.
I for one don’t want my football computer generated to that extent. I think Paul e said earlier in the thread about clear and obvious errors, and that is spot on. They are getting it so wrong, Pickford virtually decapitates Van Dyke, nothing, Mane a couple of millimetres offside! There has to be some common sense. With the offside, I don’t know whether the answer has to be both interfering with play and at least half a metre offside, or something along those lines.
The use of the technology and interpretation of rules by faceless wonders is spoiling the game.
Fuck Liverpool. VAR fucked us enough last season. Things are just evening out
-
How is it possible to prove that? Technology as it is with its lines is measurable, a distance figure of possible infringement is attained. “He looks level to me” Linesman, spectator or tv analyst is just an opinion based on varying eyesight with no figure of measurement. Therefore impossible to prove.
https://www.givemesport.com/1498162-there-are-flaws-in-var-that-mean-not-every-offside-decision-will-be-correct
An analysis is not proof. The issue is not with the technology as it is but the var officials interpretation for some highlighted incidents. Var decisions for offsides are not totally accurate yet but they are far more accurate overall than what went before. Glaring incorrect linesman decisions have all been but eliminated.
As the tech improves we will be able to be exact with the moment the ball is touched and the distance a player is offside by millimetres which will put an end to human error. We might not agree with the human aspect being removed from the game but if we’re to use technology then have it the best it can possibly be to take human error out of it.
That’s missing one of the main points though isn’t it. Even if the tech was flawless and it was proved beyond doubt that the moment the ball was touched, Mane was 2 millimetres offside, is that within the spirit of the game, is that the route we really want to be going, sanitising the game to that extent. I dislike Liverpool probably more than any other club (bar the noses) and if we had been playing them yesterday, and Henderson’s goal was given and it was proved afterwards that Mane was 2 millimetres, I would have absolutely no problem with it.
I for one don’t want my football computer generated to that extent. I think Paul e said earlier in the thread about clear and obvious errors, and that is spot on. They are getting it so wrong, Pickford virtually decapitates Van Dyke, nothing, Mane a couple of millimetres offside! There has to be some common sense. With the offside, I don’t know whether the answer has to be both interfering with play and at least half a metre offside, or something along those lines.
The use of the technology and interpretation of rules by faceless wonders is spoiling the game.
As soon as we embraced technology the sanitisation of the game started. As has often been stated the Genie is out of the bottle. Now, we just need to make that Genie a good Genie. That will be further sanitisation of the game to some but that is the way it will go. We’ll get used to it in the same way that supporters got used to the introduction of the offside rule many years ago.
True, the genies out of the bag, but that doesn’t mean it’s a straightforward trajectory. If enough people in the game continue to be disenfranchised something will have to give and if not a u turn, var will have to be used in a different way. Ultimately money talks and if those running the game Start thinking their finances are being impacted by var things will move in a different direction.
Maybe it’s just my memory, but I can’t remember Liverpool being denied a win last season because of var. If it starts to impact on league titles, champions league places, especially for those clubs with a sense of entitlement, it will be reviewed.
-
I‘’ll nip the quotathon now. The “bigger” teams being denied victories in the last minute because of var is exactly what’s good about it. The amount of penalties given and not given against them over the years is scandalous. It would be a bit rich of them to use technology as an excuse for them not being in the top four. One very good outcome of Var is that it has levelled things up. Even the bigger teams are suffering it’s impact.
-
How is it possible to prove that? Technology as it is with its lines is measurable, a distance figure of possible infringement is attained. “He looks level to me” Linesman, spectator or tv analyst is just an opinion based on varying eyesight with no figure of measurement. Therefore impossible to prove.
https://www.givemesport.com/1498162-there-are-flaws-in-var-that-mean-not-every-offside-decision-will-be-correct
An analysis is not proof. The issue is not with the technology as it is but the var officials interpretation for some highlighted incidents. Var decisions for offsides are not totally accurate yet but they are far more accurate overall than what went before. Glaring incorrect linesman decisions have all been but eliminated.
As the tech improves we will be able to be exact with the moment the ball is touched and the distance a player is offside by millimetres which will put an end to human error. We might not agree with the human aspect being removed from the game but if we’re to use technology then have it the best it can possibly be to take human error out of it.
That’s missing one of the main points though isn’t it. Even if the tech was flawless and it was proved beyond doubt that the moment the ball was touched, Mane was 2 millimetres offside, is that within the spirit of the game, is that the route we really want to be going, sanitising the game to that extent. I dislike Liverpool probably more than any other club (bar the noses) and if we had been playing them yesterday, and Henderson’s goal was given and it was proved afterwards that Mane was 2 millimetres, I would have absolutely no problem with it.
I for one don’t want my football computer generated to that extent. I think Paul e said earlier in the thread about clear and obvious errors, and that is spot on. They are getting it so wrong, Pickford virtually decapitates Van Dyke, nothing, Mane a couple of millimetres offside! There has to be some common sense. With the offside, I don’t know whether the answer has to be both interfering with play and at least half a metre offside, or something along those lines.
The use of the technology and interpretation of rules by faceless wonders is spoiling the game.
As soon as we embraced technology the sanitisation of the game started. As has often been stated the Genie is out of the bottle. Now, we just need to make that Genie a good Genie. That will be further sanitisation of the game to some but that is the way it will go. We’ll get used to it in the same way that supporters got used to the introduction of the offside rule many years ago.
True, the genies out of the bag, but that doesn’t mean it’s a straightforward trajectory. If enough people in the game continue to be disenfranchised something will have to give and if not a u turn, var will have to be used in a different way. Ultimately money talks and if those running the game Start thinking their finances are being impacted by var things will move in a different direction.
Maybe it’s just my memory, but I can’t remember Liverpool being denied a win last season because of var. If it starts to impact on league titles, champions league places, especially for those clubs with a sense of entitlement, it will be reviewed.
Liverpool have formally asked the PL to explain the thought process of the var official who gave the decision.
-
Whatever happens, it's not sanitisation of the game, it's sanitisation of the games in one division. Every week, hundreds of thousands of people blessed with varying degrees of talent take to football pitches the length and breadth of this country for tens of thousands of games all played under the same rules, and a mere ten are affected by this. Here's a big shout out to Sunday morning referees who must be bursting to get back out there so they can let 'Toothless Tony' and his hungover posse know what is and isn't offside or handball these days.
-
Liverpool have formally asked the PL to explain the thought process of the var official who gave the decision.
Ha ha. I'll answer it for them. Your man was offside, now f**k off!
-
“Clear and obvious error” are the key words. We should take a leaf out of cricket’s book. If the umpire gives a not out decision for an lbw appeal, if the technology shows that the ball may have just clipped the outside of off stump then the umpire’s decision is allowed to stand; even though it may have been incorrect. It was not a clear and obvious error
-
“Clear and obvious error” are the key words. We should take a leaf out of cricket’s book. If the umpire gives a not out decision for an lbw appeal, if the technology shows that the ball may have just clipped the outside of off stump then the umpire’s decision is allowed to stand; even though it may have been incorrect. It was not a clear and obvious error
That's different as the decision to stand with the umpire is already in place. For offsides, you are either off or you are not off. The decision is taken away from the officials on the pitch.
-
In Liverpool's case yesterday, wasn't it the arm of a player which was offside in both incidents? Just like it was one of their player's armpits that was ruled offside when they scored against us at VP last year? I'm all for laughing at the Redshite but if those decisions were against us I'd be well-miffed.
-
He's miles offside....
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkiMX5dXgAAx5GP?format=jpg&name=small)
-
In Liverpool's case yesterday, wasn't it the arm of a player which was offside in both incidents? Just like it was one of their player's armpits that was ruled offside when they scored against us at VP last year? I'm all for laughing at the Redshite but if those decisions were against us I'd be well-miffed.
Why can’t it be based on the position of feet on the ground? That would make more sense
-
VAR is contributing to the ruin of the game. But it's no more than the game deserves - for years referees bore the brunt of overwhelming criticism for every mistake they made, and it became such an issue that VAR eventually became inevitable. And as we are now seeing, its no better and, because of the delays and uncertainty, as prone to critique at anything that went before it.
One only need look at the NFL here in US - more accepted because its been used for longer but standard of refereeing has dropped in last decade and the criticism is as loud as ever.
Yesterdays decision in the Liverpool game was ridiculous, and sums up everything thats bad about the current situation. VAR was supposed to be used for "clear and obvious" - if thats the definition of "clear and obvious", I'm Nora Batty!
Either it needs to be scrapped, let referees referee, and accept they (like players) make mistakes. Or make it clear that it can only be used for an obvious error which means all borderline decisions stand.
-
Oh and another point - why can't the game introduce "citing" like Rugby Union. Pickford should have been cited and retrospectively red carded. Outrageous tackle that has put VVD out for 8 months, and had that been against a Villa player, there would be a riot on here.
-
Oh and another point - why can't the game introduce "citing" like Rugby Union. Pickford should have been cited and retrospectively red carded. Outrageous tackle that has put VVD out for 8 months, and had that been against a Villa player, there would be a riot on here.
A rule that would do more good for the game than VAR can possibly do.
-
Oh and another point - why can't the game introduce "citing" like Rugby Union. Pickford should have been cited and retrospectively red carded. Outrageous tackle that has put VVD out for 8 months, and had that been against a Villa player, there would be a riot on here.
A rule that would do more good for the game than VAR can possibly do.
completely agree.
-
In Liverpool's case yesterday, wasn't it the arm of a player which was offside in both incidents? Just like it was one of their player's armpits that was ruled offside when they scored against us at VP last year? I'm all for laughing at the Redshite but if those decisions were against us I'd be well-miffed.
We have had those. Wesley's heel when he was heading away from goal, in the same game that Mee did him.
-
A lot winds me up about VAR:
1. the delays
2. focusing on the seemingly trivial - 2mm offside when dangerous tackles are missed
3. flaws and subjectivity - accuracy around when the ball is played and a human judging where an armpit is
4. going way beyond the correction of the 'clear and obvious' etc.
But I think it follows inevitably from decades of new interpretations of the laws seemingly every year.
The beauty, the joy, in football comes from it being easy - easy to play and easy to understand.
This is not a sentimental wish to see a return to the 'jumpers for goalposts' era as it's great to have better pitches, facilities/equipment, and for players to be fitter and technically better.
The reason, for me, why I welcome these is that they 'add' something because they eliminate the chance of something preventing a simple and even contest - the most obvious being a decent pitch with even bounce etc.
Endlessly fiddling with the interpretation of the laws introduces complexity that to me diminishes what is at the heart of the appeal of football - it is a simple game.
Another reason why the game is moving in the wrong direction, for me, is that the administrators are preoccupied with trying to draw up rules and interpretations for every situation, rather than trusting the judgement of match officials.
Then they compound the problem by insisting officials following the 'guidance' even when a particular circumstance might not 'fit' and then they believe they support officials by being reluctant to change poor decisions - when that just serves to undermine confidence in them and the game. Even when officials know something is 'wrong' they know if they don't rigidly apply the guidance, they will be marked down.
I would like to see a commission of players, coaches and maybe even fans representatives considering how the game can be simplified by removing rules, interpretations and guidance rather than endlessly adding to it. As a coach, pretty much every season, The FA issues a raft of new things to consider and I can't remember the last time I thought something was a benefit rather than unnecessary meddling.
Finally, football administrators (FIFA, UEFA and The FA) are too blinkered to use and adapt what works well in other sports, e.g. time off/time on in rugby to prevent time wasting and longer periods of advantage when it is clear that 'advantage is being played', citing players etc.
I still love football, though the administrators make that harder than it should be.
-
I‘’ll nip the quotathon now. The “bigger” teams being denied victories in the last minute because of var is exactly what’s good about it. The amount of penalties given and not given against them over the years is scandalous. It would be a bit rich of them to use technology as an excuse for them not being in the top four. One very good outcome of Var is that it has levelled things up. Even the bigger teams are suffering it’s impact.
So be because the use of VAR and rules around it seemingly even out terrible decisions, it’s good. Just nonsense. PWS post with the picture of Mane being ‘offside’ says everything that is wrong around the current rules. That a ref and possibly other refs in a hut somewhere, looked at that image, drew some lines and said that was offside, is just f**ing Stupid, nothing else
-
As a counter point the decision to go back for a penalty in the sheff u vs fulham game was exactly what it should be for, it was a clear foul that was missed.
-
I‘’ll nip the quotathon now. The “bigger” teams being denied victories in the last minute because of var is exactly what’s good about it. The amount of penalties given and not given against them over the years is scandalous. It would be a bit rich of them to use technology as an excuse for them not being in the top four. One very good outcome of Var is that it has levelled things up. Even the bigger teams are suffering it’s impact.
So be because the use of VAR and rules around it seemingly even out terrible decisions, it’s good. Just nonsense. PWS post with the picture of Mane being ‘offside’ says everything that is wrong around the current rules. That a ref and possibly other refs in a hut somewhere, looked at that image, drew some lines and said that was offside, is just f**ing Stupid, nothing else
You’re going to have to get used to it just like Liverpool ManU etc are going to have to get used to it. I’d say that’s a very good thing for the sport having witnessed this two to name but a few for 40 odd years getting more than their fair share of decisions.
-
When they have to replay the incident from different angles and then over and again from one or two of those angles, you know that it has gone too far. Selecting what should be the best angle (unless the view is obstructed) and run it once a normal speed and once slowed down should be enough to decide on clear and obvious errors.
-
As a counter point the decision to go back for a penalty in the sheff u vs fulham game was exactly what it should be for, it was a clear foul that was missed.
Yes, Nothing wrong with VAR: it's the guidance governing its use that is at issue.
And, I think, the governance has been vague because refs (as a collective) are afraid of being shown up as fallible.
Re offside, it's clear that what constitutes offside needs to be redefined: someone above suggests that a foot needs to be over the line - yes, something like that.
-
As a counter point the decision to go back for a penalty in the sheff u vs fulham game was exactly what it should be for, it was a clear foul that was missed.
Yes, Nothing wrong with VAR: it's the guidance governing its use that is at issue.
And, I think, the governance has been vague because refs (as a collective) are afraid of being shown up as fallible.
Re offside, it's clear that what constitutes offside needs to be redefined: someone above suggests that a foot needs to be over the line - yes, something like that.
Using the position of the foot sounds like a decent idea. However I'd ban the use of drawing bloody lines on a screen. Var should be there to advise the referee that he may have missed something. He should then go to the monitor and have a look. If it's not obvious from that his original decision stands. Simple.
-
I'd agree with that, create a grey area where the tech is considered unreliable so we stick with the refs decision.
-
Can it not be also used in a limited way for teams to appeal like the one in tennis? And that foul by Pickford was horrorshow. He needs a punishment for that.
-
When that West Ham goal went it I was fucking praying VAR didn’t rule it out because a West Ham hair wasn’t in an offside position. I hate what it’s come to.
-
Oh and another point - why can't the game introduce "citing" like Rugby Union. Pickford should have been cited and retrospectively red carded. Outrageous tackle that has put VVD out for 8 months, and had that been against a Villa player, there would be a riot on here.
Generally it's be nice if football referees would manage the game & the players as they do in rugby union. Nigel Owens took no shit at the end of the Exeter - Paris final last night.
-
Oh and another point - why can't the game introduce "citing" like Rugby Union. Pickford should have been cited and retrospectively red carded. Outrageous tackle that has put VVD out for 8 months, and had that been against a Villa player, there would be a riot on here.
Generally it's be nice if football referees would manage the game & the players as they do in rugby union. Nigel Owens took no shit at the end of the Exeter - Paris final last night.
Rugby players have respect for the refs, football players don't, which makes a big difference.
-
Generally it's be nice if football referees would manage the game & the players as they do in rugby union. Nigel Owens took no shit at the end of the Exeter - Paris final last night.
Rugby players have respect for the refs, football players don't, which makes a big difference.
Agreed. No respect for the refs in football and that's why any requests for them to be treated like the refs in rugby is a non-starter. The basis for WHY the refs in rugby are respected begins with their top-class judgment and decisions in the game. They rarely get it wrong. I may sometimes take a referral to the video refs in the stands or a bit of a conflab with the linesmen/linespeople but them everyone gets on with the game because THE RIGHT DECISION HAS BEEN MADE.
That is almost never true of premier league referees per game. They make on average 3 decisions per playing minute getting no more than 70% of them correct. The stats are in, they've been measured; referees in this country get 1 in 4 decisions wrong, making at least 5 result-deciding errors per game.
We can't hope to get anywhere close to more fair results until this fundamental problem is fixed.
-
Liverpool denied goals and Sheff Utd penalty upgraded from free kick by Villa supporter Andre ‘Dre’ Marriner!
-
A shockingly bad penalty decision!
Who was the VAR official?
-
Dre!
-
That’s why I posted it on the VAR thread
-
Should just clarify- he doesn’t call himself Dre - he seems like a decent bloke- they were ripping him on the Peter Crouch podcast earlier this year (or late last year can’t remember when)
-
Generally it's be nice if football referees would manage the game & the players as they do in rugby union. Nigel Owens took no shit at the end of the Exeter - Paris final last night.
Rugby players have respect for the refs, football players don't, which makes a big difference.
Agreed. No respect for the refs in football and that's why any requests for them to be treated like the refs in rugby is a non-starter. The basis for WHY the refs in rugby are respected begins with their top-class judgment and decisions in the game. They rarely get it wrong. I may sometimes take a referral to the video refs in the stands or a bit of a conflab with the linesmen/linespeople but them everyone gets on with the game because THE RIGHT DECISION HAS BEEN MADE.
That is almost never true of premier league referees per game. They make on average 3 decisions per playing minute getting no more than 70% of them correct. The stats are in, they've been measured; referees in this country get 1 in 4 decisions wrong, making at least 5 result-deciding errors per game.
We can't hope to get anywhere close to more fair results until this fundamental problem is fixed.
I'm sorry I completely disagree. Respect for the ref in rubgy starts at U8's age group and is instilled in all players throught their playing career. You can have absolutely shocking reffing at grass roots level yet the players still treat the ref with respect.
I do agree top level rugby refs are usually excellent and of course that helps, but respect for refs in rugby is part of it's culture.
People say it could never be the same in football. You probably wouldn't want it to be to be honest, but you could stop swearing at refs and confrontational crowding within a few weeks if they really wanted to just by having a period of zero tolerance.
-
I know it's gone in our favour there but that's yet another ridiculous VAR offside decision. He's not in the goalie's eyeline and he's not touched the ball. How can that be offside?
It's ridiculous - it's football by computer.
-
I know it's gone in our favour there but that's yet another ridiculous VAR offside decision. He's not in the goalie's eyeline and he's not touched the ball. How can that be offside?
It's ridiculous - it's football by computer.
If he's not there, Konsa doesn't play the ball.
-
I know it's gone in our favour there but that's yet another ridiculous VAR offside decision. He's not in the goalie's eyeline and he's not touched the ball. How can that be offside?
It's ridiculous - it's football by computer.
If he's not there, Konsa doesn't play the ball.
Cause Konsa knew sure certain there wasn't a player behind him?!
If we'd had that goal disallowed there'd be uproar on here and rightly so.
-
Konsa headed the ball into him which means he was interfering with play from an offside position, i thought he was off watching it live and was annoyed wen the flag didn't go up.
-
If people are upset about us getting a VAR decision 'in our favour' (alert! Adams was offside), they can perhaps console themselves that Saints' first goal came after a foul throw and the extremely dubious award of a free-kick.
Still, VAR doesn't check 'some things', as we found out in last season's cup final.
-
If people are upset about us getting a VAR decision 'in our favour' (alert! Adams was offside), they can perhaps console themselves that Saints' first goal came after a foul throw and the extremely dubious award of a free-kick.
Still, VAR doesn't check 'some things', as we found out in last season's cup final.
I've not got much quibble with the throw-in, I've seen plenty worse, but agree about the free kick. Did they get around to finding a replay that showed any actual contact?
-
I haven't seen one yet.
-
For me the two biggest problems with VAR at the moment are that the VAR is not a specific role & that the VAR is not independent of the referee.
To get the most competent VAR it needs to be someone whose job is as a VAR official not another referee having a day off running around....there are plenty of ex-refs or ex-players who can be employed / trained to be the VAR, maybe then that independence might lead to VAR trying to correct mistakes rather than trying to get their mates out of the game without any attention.
-
For me the two biggest problems with VAR at the moment are that the VAR is not a specific role & that the VAR is not independent of the referee.
To get the most competent VAR it needs to be someone whose job is as a VAR official not another referee having a day off running around....there are plenty of ex-refs or ex-players who can be employed / trained to be the VAR, maybe then that independence might lead to VAR trying to correct mistakes rather than trying to get their mates out of the game without any attention.
I disagree. It should be active referees fully up to speed with the game and how the laws are currently being enforced. They just need to develop the system so it becomes more collaborative between the ref and the VAR, with the ref asking for assistance when needed and looking at incidents again if they feel they should. Ultimately it should be the ref making any final decision (except offside), with assistance as required.
That's my view anyway.
-
I saw an interesting comment yesterday regarding VAR, prior to our game in which someone accused VAR (or those that operate it) actively looking for a reason to rule out goals and it certainly looked like that a minute into our game.
No one appealed, the ref was happy and we were all ready to kick off again. Pre VAR Barclay's potential offside position may have been bought up in desperation by Arsenal fans and the manager (certainly by Wenger) but would in all probability been dismissed.
Now the ref did rule against the goal after a second look, following some others looking at it and calling it into question, but it remains a subjective decision and the long drawn out process was painful. And as if to pour more nonsense on the whole sage, only 3 minutes were added on when the VAR check took over 4???
The idea of the system was to get decisions correct and it's failing as much as the officials it was meant to help, while pissing all over the reasons we love the game. Great.
-
I'm in favour of Var in general and am happy that Refs are now using the monitor because refs have plenty of experience and understanding of the game. Well, that's clearly bollocks because once Atkinson did his serious run towards the monitor we all knew he'd chalk it off because he was scared of making a mistake. His experience in the game should have said to him no keeper was stopping that even if he had a full view of it on a clear summer's day.
-
The refs do now, at least , look at the pitch side monitor themselves which is an improvement on last season. But the timescale is ridiculous. 4 minutes is just silly,and then only 3 mins added time.
Maybe it needs some games to have 15 minutes added time regularly for common sense to prevail and put a time limit on checks.
After all, wasn’t it introduced to stop “ obvious errors”. If it’s taking 4 minutes , then it can’t be that obvious.
Another solution maybe would be to allow teams a certain number of appeals per game ? So it’s then down to a team conceding a goal/missing a penalty etc to appeal it? And if the appeal is successful, then that one isnt taken away?
Not one Arsenal player appealed that yesterday.
-
Sorry, I'm not in favour of appeals at all. The whole purpose of it is to assist referees. Rather than Atkinson waiting in the middle of the pitch he should be over by the monitor as soon as it's flagged up that there's a possible infringement. He then makes his decision on whether Barkley is effecting the goal given the ferocity of the shot, half a minute at most.
-
I saw an interesting comment yesterday regarding VAR, prior to our game in which someone accused VAR (or those that operate it) actively looking for a reason to rule out goals and it certainly looked like that a minute into our game.
No one appealed, the ref was happy and we were all ready to kick off again. Pre VAR Barclay's potential offside position may have been bought up in desperation by Arsenal fans and the manager (certainly by Wenger) but would in all probability been dismissed.
Now the ref did rule against the goal after a second look, following some others looking at it and calling it into question, but it remains a subjective decision and the long drawn out process was painful. And as if to pour more nonsense on the whole sage, only 3 minutes were added on when the VAR check took over 4???
The idea of the system was to get decisions correct and it's failing as much as the officials it was meant to help, while pissing all over the reasons we love the game. Great.
I disagree. The flag would have gone up, and it would have been disallowed. He's in front of the 'keeper, and felt he had to jump out of the way.
-
I think they had issues with the monitor for the McGinn 'goal' - pretty sure he was looking at a blank screen, and was going solely off the advice of the VAR officials
-
I think the ref should double check on the screen straight away and only use the var officials if he can’t decide.
-
Sorry, I'm not in favour of appeals at all. The whole purpose of it is to assist referees. Rather than Atkinson waiting in the middle of the pitch he should be over by the monitor as soon as it's flagged up that there's a possible infringement. He then makes his decision on whether Barkley is effecting the goal given the ferocity of the shot, half a minute at most.
Even better, show it on the big screen like they do in rugby.
The flawed argument before was that showing the incident on screens might incite some knobs in the crowd to get shirty, but the grounds are empty at the moment so stop wasting everyone's time by sending the ref to the pitchside.
-
I'm in favour of Var in general and am happy that Refs are now using the monitor because refs have plenty of experience and understanding of the game. Well, that's clearly bollocks because once Atkinson did his serious run towards the monitor we all knew he'd chalk it off because he was scared of making a mistake. His experience in the game should have said to him no keeper was stopping that even if he had a full view of it on a clear summer's day.
Quite, I think the commentator said something along the lines of 'even if Barklay hadn't have been in that position the benefit to the goalkeeper would have been that he would just have had a clearer view of it as it sped past him'. I don't care who the goalkeeper would have been, no one was stopping that.
-
I think they had issues with the monitor for the McGinn 'goal' - pretty sure he was looking at a blank screen, and was going solely off the advice of the VAR officials
Yes they did , they confirmed it wasnt working at the time on MOTD lastnight.
-
VAR should be used to overturn the egregious oversights. Missed an obvious handball on a goal? Overturn. A guy dove to get awarded a penalty? Overturn, and yellow card. Someone was 5 meters offsides on the initial pass? Overturn.
What they shouldn't be doing is taking out the ruler and estimating offsides based on the location of an elbow and taking 5 minutes to verify it with a micrometer. If they can't overturn something within one or two replays of something, then leave the play stand as is. It should be used to correct the really blown calls, not used as a cop handing out tickets for people going 51 in a 50 zone.
-
I'd imagine the fact the keeper wouldn't have saved it is pretty irrelevant in whether he was offside or not.
-
I'd imagine the fact the keeper wouldn't have saved it is pretty irrelevant in whether he was offside or not.
So why does the ref need to look at the monitor then? Mission control does its measuring and that should be it. Atkinson’s part in all this is just theatre. Look like you are doing something important when actually you’re doing nothing.
-
I can’t think of an occasion when a goal like that has been disallowed...
-
VAR should be used to overturn the egregious oversights. Missed an obvious handball on a goal? Overturn. A guy dove to get awarded a penalty? Overturn, and yellow card. Someone was 5 meters offsides on the initial pass? Overturn.
What they shouldn't be doing is taking out the ruler and estimating offsides based on the location of an elbow and taking 5 minutes to verify it with a micrometer. If they can't overturn something within one or two replays of something, then leave the play stand as is. It should be used to correct the really blown calls, not used as a cop handing out tickets for people going 51 in a 50 zone.
But you'd then still need a human being to decide whether or not something is 'clear and obvious', egregious, however you want to describe it, which is in itself a subjective decision, and so needs reviewing by referencing yet another set of rules to decide if the decision falls within the 'allowable error' parameters. And if it's close to the limit of those parameters, out come the lines and rulers and slo-mo replays, and we all climb back on that shitting fucking merry-go-round.
-
I'd imagine the fact the keeper wouldn't have saved it is pretty irrelevant in whether he was offside or not.
So why does the ref need to look at the monitor then? Mission control does its measuring and that should be it. Atkinson’s part in all this is just theatre. Look like you are doing something important when actually you’re doing nothing.
Because that's what they do. He went to see if he was offside and blocking the keeper's view. That the keeper wouldn't have saved it because the shot was hit so well is a total irrelevance in the decision.
-
I'd imagine the fact the keeper wouldn't have saved it is pretty irrelevant in whether he was offside or not.
So why does the ref need to look at the monitor then? Mission control does its measuring and that should be it. Atkinson’s part in all this is just theatre. Look like you are doing something important when actually you’re doing nothing.
Because that's what they do. He went to see if he was offside and blocking the keeper's view. That the keeper wouldn't have saved it because the shot was hit so well is a total irrelevance in the decision.
That's right, it's kind of what would have happened in the olden days*. McGinn would've blasted his shot in, the linesman would've flagged, the ref would've gone over to him for a chat, and between them they'd have decided if the goal stands. And most, almost all, would have disallowed it.
*not the olden olden days, when you risked being ruled offside if you'd taken a corner.
-
https://twitter.com/talksport/status/1325466382964809734?s=21
Nail on head, for me at least.
-
VAR should be used to overturn the egregious oversights. Missed an obvious handball on a goal? Overturn. A guy dove to get awarded a penalty? Overturn, and yellow card. Someone was 5 meters offsides on the initial pass? Overturn.
What they shouldn't be doing is taking out the ruler and estimating offsides based on the location of an elbow and taking 5 minutes to verify it with a micrometer. If they can't overturn something within one or two replays of something, then leave the play stand as is. It should be used to correct the really blown calls, not used as a cop handing out tickets for people going 51 in a 50 zone.
But you'd then still need a human being to decide whether or not something is 'clear and obvious', egregious, however you want to describe it, which is in itself a subjective decision, and so needs reviewing by referencing yet another set of rules to decide if the decision falls within the 'allowable error' parameters. And if it's close to the limit of those parameters, out come the lines and rulers and slo-mo replays, and we all climb back on that shitting fucking merry-go-round.
Agreed, which is why I say it needs to be a 30 second limit, or a two viewing limit. If they can't make a decision that quickly, then it's decided for them. The video Des showed above is saying exactly what I'm saying.
-
For me we need to employ the NFL rule. That the on field decision is the decision and that video replay needs to conclusively contradict that. So any number of offsides would stand because like Bamford or last night if VAR didn’t exist the assistant and ref have both ruled those as good goals. And I would also introduce a challenge system from coaches. They would get 2 a game. In the NFL if you challenge a play and win you get the second one. If you lose the first challenge you don’t get a second.
VAR as it currently stands has ruined the game. It has to stop.
-
I'd imagine the fact the keeper wouldn't have saved it is pretty irrelevant in whether he was offside or not.
So why does the ref need to look at the monitor then? Mission control does its measuring and that should be it. Atkinson’s part in all this is just theatre. Look like you are doing something important when actually you’re doing nothing.
Because that's what they do. He went to see if he was offside and blocking the keeper's view. That the keeper wouldn't have saved it because the shot was hit so well is a total irrelevance in the decision.
It isn't irrelevant at all: the law says that Barkley would only be committing an offence if he was preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision. There was no way he preventing Leno from being able to play the ball because he'd never have got near it.
-
And another thing. Miking the officials up so that everyone hears their conversations would significantly increase the buy in to the verdict if we (the paying customer) were informed of the reasons for their often absurd decisions.
-
100% agree about the refs being mic’d up. It would diffuse a lot of the issues.
-
VAR CAN F**K RIGHT OFF !
-
VAR CAN F**K RIGHT OFF !
That's not down to VAR, uit's down to Oliver being a c**t and the rules being fucking stupid. A little flick on the ball before you go through someone shin high isn't a grey area where the ref needs to use his discretion, it's an obvious foul and everyone knows it. Pathetic decision to overrule it.
-
A foul, he takes him out.
-
A ridiculous decision. Even if he gets a touch of the ball, he then takes him out. If he hadn't, our man would have still had control of the ball after such a light touch by the defender.
-
Ex-ref Peter Walton on BT just saying that shouldn't even have been referred back to the referee, penalty all day long.
-
To me it was a classic VAR decision. You could have driven over the guy with a tractor, and as long as he got the ball they don't care. It's fucking shit but then we all knew that.
-
VAR is shit
-
And nobody knows the rules in rugby anyway.
Or cares.
I only go* for the VIP bar and restaurant.
*Pre-Covid.
-
VAR continues to be a sick joke.
-
He doesn’t disposes Trez, he doesn’t win the ball, it takes a slight flick off his shin.
The next touch of the ball would have been Trez, if he hadn’t been kicked.
Who would have thought our elite officials would get VAR so badly wrong.
-
I wish they would interview the refs after the game when there is some controversy. They can make decisions without any comeback. Pen all day long
-
Had Oliver not given the pen VAR would have told him to look at that foul and with a look at the monitor he’d have given it. That’s how fucked up all this is.
-
Oliver made his decision v quickly after one view. On my stream they were saying he wasn’t viewing it from the best angle and I think they were right. Surely he has to look at it from different angles and multiple times to be sure?
-
Just watched it for first time. Didn't look a pen to me.
-
When you compare the decision today with the decision with Konsa and Fernandes last year, it is bonkers.
-
Just watched it for first time. Didn't look a pen to me.
Same here. If that had been against us and a penalty had been given this place would be up in arms.
-
Its like playing pool in a pub you don’t with the locals playing to the pub rules you don’t know. You cant win...
-
Had Oliver not given the pen VAR would have told him to look at that foul and with a look at the monitor he’d have given it. That’s how fucked up all this is.
I said exactly this aswell.
-
Had Oliver not given the pen VAR would have told him to look at that foul and with a look at the monitor he’d have given it. That’s how fucked up all this is.
I said exactly this aswell.
It’s bloody true as well. What a fucking mess this has turned into. Bloody joke.
-
Just watched it for first time. Didn't look a pen to me.
Same here. If that had been against us and a penalty had been given this place would be up in arms.
I can’t see how in any universe whether for or against us, that isn’t a pen. He kicks the player’s shin, which is a foul. A foul in the box is a penalty.
-
Just watched it for first time. Didn't look a pen to me.
Same here. If that had been against us and a penalty had been given this place would be up in arms.
I can’t see how in any universe whether for or against us, that isn’t a pen. He kicks the player’s shin, which is a foul. A foul in the box is a penalty.
Especially now, when the slightest contact, only visible on slowed down HD, is enough.
-
I think it was a pen. The fact is he touch the ball first. Yes he also got Trez, and Trez giving the full Klinsmann didn’t help. But if it was against us and our defender had clearly touched it first I’d have been upset.
-
But its irrelevant if the defender touched it first if he then goes through the attackers shin.
-
Absolutely it was a pen. March was beaten however his foot slightly deflected the ball on its way to kicking Trezeguet in the shin. If that kick had not made contact Trezeguet would have been able to to control the ball and score. It's not as if March got any substantial directional contact on the ball and even if he did he still fouled.
It's clear that VAR made and obvious error and Oliver's balls shrunk behind recognition.
-
It was a penalty, the same as this
(https://i.ibb.co/xm4XLxv/unnamed.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xm4XLxv)
was a penalty
-
March’s reaction was a giveaway, he knew he gave away a penalty. You could see that and the fact Trez was taken out from every angle. I don’t get the reasoning from the commentators about the angle changing the refs mind.
The worst thing with VAR is now nearly every match there is far more controversial decisions than we ever had before.
-
Just watched it for first time. Didn't look a pen to me.
Same here. If that had been against us and a penalty had been given this place would be up in arms.
I can’t see how in any universe whether for or against us, that isn’t a pen. He kicks the player’s shin, which is a foul. A foul in the box is a penalty.
For all the part time refs on here saying that whether he got the ball or not is irrelevant, a professional referee, in full view of the world, clearly said the reason for overturning the penalty award was that the defender got the ball.
Sure, refs make the odd mistake, but he's got a better grasp of the rules than any of us, and the fact the defender got the ball was the deciding factor.
If that had been one of our defenders there's no way anyone on here would've said it was a penalty.
-
I hate this fucking thing.
-
Last year in similar circumstances VAR award Spurs a pen at Villa Park. Engels got his foot to the ball but in doing so brought down Spurs player.
-
Last year in similar circumstances VAR award Spurs a pen at Villa Park. Engels got his foot to the ball but in doing so brought down Moura.
How many people responded "well done VAR - getting the big decisions right"?!
-
Just watched it for first time. Didn't look a pen to me.
Same here. If that had been against us and a penalty had been given this place would be up in arms.
I can’t see how in any universe whether for or against us, that isn’t a pen. He kicks the player’s shin, which is a foul. A foul in the box is a penalty.
For all the part time refs on here saying that whether he got the ball or not is irrelevant, a professional referee, in full view of the world, clearly said the reason for overturning the penalty award was that the defender got the ball.
Sure, refs make the odd mistake, but he's got a better grasp of the rules than any of us, and the fact the defender got the ball was the deciding factor.
If that had been one of our defenders there's no way anyone on here would've said it was a penalty.
We had people on here saying Grealish fouled Bellerin.
-
I am only concerned about the interpretation of the rules and consistency of decisions from officials and deployed technology.
Recognition from media or joe public will always be subjective.
-
It's a waste of breath. The thing is shit and isn't applied correct half the time or has a useless , muppet of a ref delaying the game to make a toss up decision anyway. They've ran with it and it will continue to blight the weekends for years to come because fundamentally it's shit and just adds another layer of aggrevation to the game. It is now proven to not get the decisions correct, so what is the point of it?
-
Just watched it for first time. Didn't look a pen to me.
Same here. If that had been against us and a penalty had been given this place would be up in arms.
I can’t see how in any universe whether for or against us, that isn’t a pen. He kicks the player’s shin, which is a foul. A foul in the box is a penalty.
For all the part time refs on here sayingJust watched it for first time. Didn't look a pen to me.
Same here. If that had been against us and a penalty had been given this place would be up in arms.
I can’t see how in any universe whether for or against us, that isn’t a pen. He kicks the player’s shin, which is a foul. A foul in the box is a penalty.
For all the part time refs on here saying that whether he got the ball or not is irrelevant, a professional referee, in full view of the world, clearly said the reason for overturning the penalty award was that the defender got the ball.
Sure, refs make the odd mistake, but he's got a better grasp of the rules than any of us, and the fact the defender got the ball was the deciding factor.
If that had been one of our defenders there's no way anyone on here would've said it was a penalty.
So you have never disagreed with a referee because you are not one they know more than you?
-
Yeah thats some odd logic there.
-
My problem is the transparency of these decisions. Only once they’re miked up, and we can hear the reasons will we begin to buy it, otherwise the conspiracy theories will continue to circulate.
-
Im sitting here pissed off that they denied Albion a penalty, this is reason enough to fuck VAR off!
-
I'm not going to quote that word salad Ian, but this isn't about a difference of opinion. This is a professional referee who clearly changed his mind on a penalty because the defender got the ball.
That's not a matter of opinion, it's fact, and I'm pretty sure the ref hasn't got the rule wrong or he won't be reffing again this season.
-
Watching at home is frustrating enough, but it’s sheer misery when actually attending the game (oh those days).
-
Last year in similar circumstances VAR award Spurs a pen at Villa Park. Engels got his foot to the ball but in doing so brought down Moura.
How many people responded "well done VAR - getting the big decisions right"?!
Not in those exact words, but...
Never a pen
CHEatingheating
It was a clear penalty. He never got the ball.
That's how I saw it to be honest.
The question is whether he brought down the attacker, not whether he got the ball. Which I think he probably did.
Plenty of other questionable decisions though.
Aurier told after two cautionable fouls to cut it out, another one straight after which didn't even get a talking to let alone a card.
A clear corner off the defenders heel - not even a difficult one as the ball changed direction, given as a goalkick.
An utterly shit referring display.
Yes we've had a few go against us. Aurier should be on a yellow and we were denied the clearest corner you'll ever see but I think the pen was fair enough. Truth be told we should have been 2-0 up and cruising.
FUCK VAR
Clear and obvious error my arse.
Soft pen, minor contact.
Farce
the word that says it all there is 'contact'
Was a penalty in all fairness. Could see it coming.... we were on top and much better team for most of that half, but need to be more ruthless.
-
I'm not going to quote that word salad Ian, but this isn't about a difference of opinion. This is a professional referee who clearly changed his mind on a penalty because the defender got the ball.
That's not a matter of opinion, it's fact, and I'm pretty sure the ref hasn't got the rule wrong or he won't be reffing again this season.
and another professional referee on BT sports said it was pen. Last season a professional ref on the pitch gave fernandes a penalty and another upheld it. Refs get things wrong and a number of laws are subjective enough to allow for that. That said there is nothing in the laws that says kickng someone in the shin is ok if the ball brushes your heel on the way through.
-
I'm not going to quote that word salad Ian, but this isn't about a difference of opinion. This is a professional referee who clearly changed his mind on a penalty because the defender got the ball.
That's not a matter of opinion, it's fact, and I'm pretty sure the ref hasn't got the rule wrong or he won't be reffing again this season.
So hold on you are saying the ref is right and I’m wrong because he’s a ref and I’m not?
-
He didn’t get the ball... it touched him, hardly Bobby Moore in the 1970 World Cup.
-
It was obvious that trying to turn subjective decisions into objective decisions by adding a layer of judgement wouldn't work.
And it doesn't.
-
It was obvious that trying to turn subjective decisions into objective decisions by adding a layer of judgement wouldn't work.
And it doesn't.
You need both, the wording for fouls from tackles can very easily give both objective and subjective guidance.
If the ball is deliberately played by the defender and on their follow-through they make contact that isn't deemed reckless or excessive then it's a legal challenge. If there is no deliberate contact with the ball then any contact deemed careless or worse with the attacking player in the follow through is a free kick.
That fixes 2 problems, the wording of the first bit means nasty shit like Mee on Wesley or Pickford on Van Dyck should be called up as red cards whicgh surely everyone would agree with. The 2nd bit removes the silly grey area where an attackers clips the ball past his man before getting clattered but the ball brushes the defender on the way past (obviously like today, but also something that happens fairly regularly (and is often given as a free kick already), again I don't see any controversy with adding that little bit of clarity, "he got the ball ref" is a sentiment that really needs to go out of the game.
-
I'm not going to quote that word salad Ian, but this isn't about a difference of opinion. This is a professional referee who clearly changed his mind on a penalty because the defender got the ball.
That's not a matter of opinion, it's fact, and I'm pretty sure the ref hasn't got the rule wrong or he won't be reffing again this season.
and another professional referee on BT sports said it was pen. Last season a professional ref on the pitch gave fernandes a penalty and another upheld it. Refs get things wrong and a number of laws are subjective enough to allow for that. That said there is nothing in the laws that says kickng someone in the shin is ok if the ball brushes your heel on the way through.
Yep. To say "he's a professional ref so he's right and you're wrong' is facile beyond belief. You're exactly right to bring up the Fernandes example last season. The ref gave it, VAR didn't overrule it, but after the game when it had been reviewed, PGMOL gave a statement that evening saying the ref had made a mistake. I said it wasn't a penalty, my Villa supporting mate I was watching with said it wasn't a penalty, my two Man U supporting mates watching it said it wasn't a penalty, and from memory the commentator said it wasn't a penalty.
The professional ref during the game thought it was of course, which is ultimately all that really matters, but it goes to prove, not that any proof is needed, that they're a long way from being infallible.
-
I'm not going to quote that word salad Ian, but this isn't about a difference of opinion. This is a professional referee who clearly changed his mind on a penalty because the defender got the ball.
That's not a matter of opinion, it's fact, and I'm pretty sure the ref hasn't got the rule wrong or he won't be reffing again this season.
and another professional referee on BT sports said it was pen. Last season a professional ref on the pitch gave fernandes a penalty and another upheld it. Refs get things wrong and a number of laws are subjective enough to allow for that. That said there is nothing in the laws that says kickng someone in the shin is ok if the ball brushes your heel on the way through.
Yep. To say "he's a professional ref so he's right and you're wrong' is facile beyond belief. You're exactly right to bring up the Fernandes example last season. The ref gave it, VAR didn't overrule it, but after the game when it had been reviewed, PGMOL gave a statement that evening saying the ref had made a mistake. I said it wasn't a penalty, my Villa supporting mate I was watching with said it wasn't a penalty, my two Man U supporting mates watching it said it wasn't a penalty, and from memory the commentator said it wasn't a penalty.
The professional ref during the game thought it was of course, which is ultimately all that really matters, but it goes to prove, not that any proof is needed, that they're a long way from being infallible.
Good job I didn't say that then.
The fact a professional referee so blatantly said he changed his mind because the defender got the ball proves that getting the ball is a relevant factor.
Now you can argue about whether the penalty decision was right, sure, but saying that the fact he got the ball is irrelevant is demonstrably bollocks. That's the whole reason we didn't get a penalty.
And I stand by the fact that if that had been us defending, everyone on here would've been saying it was the ultimately the right decision.
-
You can stand by what you like, a load of bollocks is a load of bollocks.
-
If it was reversed I'd think we'd been given a gift, just like we were against Sheff U last season.
-
You can stand by what you like, a load of bollocks is a load of bollocks.
Well there's something we can agree on.
-
It looks like you're pretty much out on a limb on this one. I'll leave everybody else to decide who's talking bollocks.
-
Graham Scott in the Spurs v Brighton let a decision go in the match which was the most blatant foul you could possibly see, he went to the VAR screen and stood by his decision that the Brighton defender didnt foul the Spurs player because his toe nail brushed the ball before he went through the Spurs player, it caused national condemnation of the Graham Scott and a former head of referees to come out on TV and say he cringed when Graham Scott used the touching of the ball as a validation as to why he allowed the goal to stand.
The touching of the ball does not detract from a player then going through another player.
-
There's also nothing in the official rules about touching the ball then subsequently fouling the player, meaning that it's not a foul. Anywhere else on the pitch and that's get's blown up as a foul 99.99% of the time.
-
There's also nothing in the official rules about touching the ball then subsequently fouling the player, meaning that it's not a foul. Anywhere else on the pitch and that's get's blown up as a foul 99.99% of the time.
I look forward to the PGMOL publicly stating Michael Oliver doesn't know the rules of football then.
-
He took the player out regardless of the minimal contact with the ball, the penalty should have stood and I wouldn’t have had any arguments if it was against us. March knew it too, his reaction said it all.
-
There's also nothing in the official rules about touching the ball then subsequently fouling the player, meaning that it's not a foul. Anywhere else on the pitch and that's get's blown up as a foul 99.99% of the time.
As i said earlier, I reckon I could go through the footage from all over Europe and find hundreds of tackles like that given as free kicks, you see it all the time.
-
I'd have challenged anyone at the time to watch any camera angle they wanted of that at normal speed and tell me he's played the ball. Even at slo-mo it was only evident that it had brushed past him when they zoomed in.
As was commented earlier, on another day and in another game that doesn't get given, var looks at it, and then it is.
And fwiw, had that been us defending today, my reaction would've been that we'd fkn got away with one there.
I'm also thinking that a bit like how they're now interpreting handballs to avoid inconsistencies, they're doing similar with fouls when it comes to penalties, and counting any contact with the ball as playing it. So scrape your studs over the top of the ball before going through the shins, fine. Miss the ball and plant your foot adjacent to the attacker's, penalty.
-
There's also nothing in the official rules about touching the ball then subsequently fouling the player, meaning that it's not a foul. Anywhere else on the pitch and that's get's blown up as a foul 99.99% of the time.
I look forward to the PGMOL publicly stating Michael Oliver doesn't know the rules of football then.
So the decision at Palace last season was correct because PGMOL didn't release a statement criticising Kevin Friend?
-
There's also nothing in the official rules about touching the ball then subsequently fouling the player, meaning that it's not a foul. Anywhere else on the pitch and that's get's blown up as a foul 99.99% of the time.
I look forward to the PGMOL publicly stating Michael Oliver doesn't know the rules of football then.
So the decision at Palace last season was correct because PGMOL didn't release a statement criticising Kevin Friend?
What's Palace got to do with anything?
People keep saying the fact he played the ball is irrelevant. The ref specifically said that was why he changed his mind. If the ref's got that wrong it's a pretty fundamental lack of understanding of the rules which the PGMOL will no doubt be along to tell us about any time soon.
-
The decision at Palace was wrong , the decision today was wrong. PMGOL are not going to release any statement.
-
There's also nothing in the official rules about touching the ball then subsequently fouling the player, meaning that it's not a foul. Anywhere else on the pitch and that's get's blown up as a foul 99.99% of the time.
I look forward to the PGMOL publicly stating Michael Oliver doesn't know the rules of football then.
So the decision at Palace last season was correct because PGMOL didn't release a statement criticising Kevin Friend?
What's Palace got to do with anything?
People keep saying the fact he played the ball is irrelevant. The ref specifically said that was why he changed his mind. If the ref's got that wrong it's a pretty fundamental lack of understanding of the rules which the PGMOL will no doubt be along to tell us about any time soon.
Again the laws of the game contain no mention of playing the ball in this regard, they do say that playing the ball if the follow-through is reckless or with excessive force shouldn't stop a yellow or red card (so by the letter of the law Mee on Wesley should've bene a straight red, but PGMOL didn't come out and criticise the ref there either). Where the result is just a free kick (where the tackle is deemed careless) thew ball isn't mentioned.
That leaves it completely open to interpretation, is kicking someone in the shin careless? Is it no long careless if you make tiny contact with the ball? Is it no longer careless if you clearly win the ball but still trip the player on the follow-through?
The middle question is the important one and I don't see how you have any consistency if you allow the answer to be yes or sometimes.
-
It was the same ref today who didn't send Pickford off against Liverpool. Was that a correct decision Adam? Does PGMOL's lack of public censure for Oliver afterwards mean it was the correct decision? Pickford should have at the very least got a booking for a reckless tackle, but most observers agreed that it should have been a red for a dangerous tackle with unnecessary force that put his opponent at risk.
In any case, VAR is supposed to overturn clear and obvious errors. Whatever you think, the decision wasn't clearly and obviously wrong, so the penalty decision should have stood.
-
It was the same ref today who didn't send Pickford off against Liverpool. Was that a correct decision Adam? Does PGMOL's lack of public censure for Oliver afterwards mean it was the correct decision? Pickford should have at the very least got a booking for a reckless tackle, but most observers agreed that it should have been a red for a dangerous tackle with unnecessary force that put his opponent at risk.
In any case, VAR is supposed to overturn clear and obvious errors. Whatever you think, the decision wasn't clearly and obviously wrong, so the penalty decision should have stood.
What on earth are you on about? Pickford should've been sent off for endangering the safety of an opponent - as per the rules. That's got sod all to do with what happened today.
But I will agree that the idea of VAR being used to correct clear and obvious errors continues to be a load of old shite. As has been proven by the millimetre offside decisions since VAR was introduced, that concept has only ever existed in name only.
-
Pickford should have been sent off, but wasn't. The same ref then overturned our penalty when a foul had been committed in the area.
-
I don't know if Ad@m himself thought it was the right decision, but he is correct in saying that it was the reason that the referee gave for overturning it. He mouthed it at the time, I'm assuming out loud so that the players could hear, and did that ball motion with his hands.
-
With the decision in our game and in the one at Newton Heath a precedent has been set and it will be interesting to see what happens in future games. The idea that if you get the ball then it isn't a foul went out with Saint and Greavsie but seems to have returned this weekend.
I see trouble ahead.....
-
I'd change your 'get' to 'touch', Nev. He didn't get it, he missed the challenge he went for, it touched him as an attacker played it back past him.
-
I think the following memo has gone out to all referees..
“It has been noticed that pitch side reviews have yet to see a decision overturned. This has to stop with immediate effect as we are being made to look very stupid. All referees should practice their imaginary drawing of a TV while running onto the pitch.”
-
I'd change your 'get' to 'touch', Nev. He didn't get it, he missed the challenge he went for, it touched him as an attacker played it back past him.
That’s the key bit for me. It’s hit him on the shin as Trezeguet cut the ball back. The touch on the player was much more significant than the touch on the ball.
-
I didn’t think for one second it was going to be overturned. Trez got the ball first and when he cut the ball back it hit the Brighton player who then caught his leg. Surely the fact that the Villa player got the ball first should be the deciding factor ?
-
I didn't watch the game live, all I've seen is the slow motion clip after the event but when I saw it I genuinely thought "fair enough". He barely, barely touches him. The dive is embarrassing. I get those have been given and this was in real time but I don't think we've been hard done to there.
-
I didn't watch the game live, all I've seen is the slow motion clip after the event but when I saw it I genuinely thought "fair enough". He barely, barely touches him. The dive is embarrassing. I get those have been given and this was in real time but I don't think we've been hard done to there.
I think people feeling aggrieved perhaps comes more from it being overturned than the actual decision. It just hasn’t happened previously. Konsa on Fernandes come to mind, but I’m sure there are plenty of other examples. I’ll admit, I don’t know all the rule nowadays, but the fact you seem to be able to make a fairly decent argument for both outcomes makes it strange that the decision was changed.
-
I didn't watch the game live, all I've seen is the slow motion clip after the event but when I saw it I genuinely thought "fair enough". He barely, barely touches him. The dive is embarrassing. I get those have been given and this was in real time but I don't think we've been hard done to there.
I think people feeling aggrieved perhaps comes more from it being overturned than the actual decision. It just hasn’t happened previously. Konsa on Fernandes come to mind, but I’m sure there are plenty of other examples. I’ll admit, I don’t know all the rule nowadays, but the fact you seem to be able to make a fairly decent argument for both outcomes makes it strange that the decision was changed.
Fair point. Agreed it could have gone either way so probably not clear and obvious error but for me the outcome wasn't an injustice. The Man United penalty against us last year definitely is one that should have been overturned but the fact it wasn't doesn't make what happened yesterday wrong.
-
The touch on the ball was unintentional by the Brighton defender, as he had been beaten by Trez. The touch on Trez was intentional and changed his movement to the ball and space he had created. Definite penalty (forget Trez's theatrics) look at the reactions of the Brighton defender whose hands went immediately towards his own head recognising his error.
The issue is poor refs and the poor application of var.
I saw it's introduction as something that would only really benefit the likes of manure and lobscouse (see manure's win vs Brighton earlier in the season to see where it is morely likely to benefit them than Villa yesterday). Nothing I've seen has changed my mind.
The reality is football as a spectacle has been in decline for a number of seasons for a number of reasons. Var is the latest reason. It distances and disengages the supporter and mutes any celebration whether it be for a goal, sending off or penalty.
It is ruining the game of football as a live event spectacle.
-
I didn't watch the game live, all I've seen is the slow motion clip after the event but when I saw it I genuinely thought "fair enough". He barely, barely touches him. The dive is embarrassing. I get those have been given and this was in real time but I don't think we've been hard done to there.
I think people feeling aggrieved perhaps comes more from it being overturned than the actual decision. It just hasn’t happened previously. Konsa on Fernandes come to mind, but I’m sure there are plenty of other examples. I’ll admit, I don’t know all the rule nowadays, but the fact you seem to be able to make a fairly decent argument for both outcomes makes it strange that the decision was changed.
Fair point. Agreed it could have gone either way so probably not clear and obvious error but for me the outcome wasn't an injustice. The Man United penalty against us last year definitely is one that should have been overturned but the fact it wasn't doesn't make what happened yesterday wrong.
Of course it doesn’t, but it was just the first example that came to mind regarding VAR intervention. My understanding was that there is/was a high bar applied when it comes to VAR getting involved with an on field decision. Previously, the fact that he touched Trezeguet would be enough to stay with the original verdict. The fact he touches the ball or that Trezeguet reacts how he does has no bearing on that.
-
I didn't watch the game live, all I've seen is the slow motion clip after the event but when I saw it I genuinely thought "fair enough". He barely, barely touches him. The dive is embarrassing. I get those have been given and this was in real time but I don't think we've been hard done to there.
I said at the time that reaction did us no favours at all. If he’d dropped straight to the ground then who knows, but the theatrical leap and scream was embarrassing. It’s what he does, and he’s done it since he’s been here.
I’m saying this as someone who’s been really impressed by Trez since the restart last season, it’s just a part of his game that I hate.
-
It looked to me like whoever was operating the referees replay gave priority to showing the defender getting a touch on the ball and not what happened after. It looked like it just showed the defenders touch on the ball then too soon after it rewound to show it again. The camera angle shown was also selected with this in mind.
-
I didn't watch the game live, all I've seen is the slow motion clip after the event but when I saw it I genuinely thought "fair enough". He barely, barely touches him. The dive is embarrassing. I get those have been given and this was in real time but I don't think we've been hard done to there.
I said at the time that reaction did us no favours at all. If he’d dropped straight to the ground then who knows, but the theatrical leap and scream was embarrassing. It’s what he does, and he’s done ii since he’s been here.
I’m saying this as someone who’s been really impressed by Trez since the restart last season, it’s just a part of his game that I hate.
Unfortunately it is part of the game nowadays. Players do it all the time. Salah is probably one of the best examples. Jack exaggerated the foul for the red card yesterday too. It almost completely irrelevant to whether it is a foul or not.
Also, sadly, it’s become almost necessary is some cases. Sterling last week for example, stays on his feet, no foul is given and Liverpool go up the other end and get a penalty. Can understand why players do it as infuriating as it is at times.
-
Simple question: if the foul committed by Solly March and the one committed on Gallagher at Old Triffid had happened outside the box, would a foul have been given? - Almost certainly, YES.
That's where the inconsistency lies in all this.
-
Absolutely right Mister E, anywhere else on the pitch it was a foul and you wouldn’t even need VAR to determine it.
What’s stupid as someone else said earlier if the ref would have missed it he would have recommended by VAR to give the penalty. It’s absolutely bollocks.
-
I didn't watch the game live, all I've seen is the slow motion clip after the event but when I saw it I genuinely thought "fair enough". He barely, barely touches him. The dive is embarrassing. I get those have been given and this was in real time but I don't think we've been hard done to there.
I said at the time that reaction did us no favours at all. If he’d dropped straight to the ground then who knows, but the theatrical leap and scream was embarrassing. It’s what he does, and he’s done ii since he’s been here.
I’m saying this as someone who’s been really impressed by Trez since the restart last season, it’s just a part of his game that I hate.
Unfortunately it is part of the game nowadays. Players do it all the time. Salah is probably one of the best examples. Jack exaggerated the foul for the red card yesterday too. It almost completely irrelevant to whether it is a foul or not.
Also, sadly, it’s become almost necessary is some cases. Sterling last week for example, stays on his feet, no foul is given and Liverpool go up the other end and get a penalty. Can understand why players do it as infuriating as it is at times.
If Jack had fallen to the ground after he was kicked in the chest by the Belgian defender after his sublime flick and turn, the defender would have had a second yellow (at least) and have been sent off.
-
With the decision in our game and in the one at Newton Heath a precedent has been set and it will be interesting to see what happens in future games. The idea that if you get the ball then it isn't a foul went out with Saint and Greavsie but seems to have returned this weekend.
I see trouble ahead.....
I think that's exactly what happened. He called the foul first time around, correctly in my opinion, then reversed it purely because he realised the defender touched the ball. It's still a foul on Trez though whether he touched the ball or not.
-
To me the whole system just magnifies the unconscious bias by officials (or anyone). You have the basics which hopefully VAR should get right, but anything down to interpretation of the rules rather than the rules is more open to abuse than before because the people making the decision are in their comfy studio miles away and don't have to listen to angry players/fans etc., and don't get that on the spot pointer from the player's reactions that the ref does. Also its turning our referees into cowards - none of them stick to their guns once VAR hints they may be wrong and of course when they do change their decision they just go "not me guv, VAR init" to the players. As I've said before, its like playing Subutteo against yourself - however much you try to be neutral, the team you like wins.
-
Can’t find anyone who knows anything about football who thinks that wasn’t a penalty to Villa yesterday, although some paid pundits (like Shearer) are taking the toadying line (they never know when they might need a job!).
Below is a typical opinion from my Liverpool supporting Scouse mate in Nottingham:-
The defender’s foot was heading for where the ball had been (mistimed tackle) and the ball only glanced off his leg by chance not intention. The Villa player was kicked in the shin by the follow through of the defender. Foul.
I think Oliver followed the strict interpretation of a rule purely to keep him on the UEFA list. You’re right Malc - he’s a twat.
-
And my niece’s Chelsea supporting partner:-
Yeah he fucked up. Even though there was a slight touch on the ball, your man was gonna reach the loose ball first had he not been kicked. Brighton defender was completely out of control of the situation. Penalty
-
Can’t find anyone who knows anything about football who thinks that wasn’t a penalty to Villa yesterday
I had a quick look at a BHA forum last night, and they were of the opinion that 99% of people with eyes agreed it wasn't a penalty, and that we're the second most deluded set of fans in the country, only surpassed by Leeds.
Edit: ah, sorry, just noticed you specified, "anyone who knows anything about football", when I was referencing irrelevant tinpotters.
-
There's also nothing in the official rules about touching the ball then subsequently fouling the player, meaning that it's not a foul. Anywhere else on the pitch and that's gets blown up as a foul 99.99% of the time.
I just can't understand what's so difficult about it. Oliver and VAR fucked up. A player accidently manages to get a touch on the ball after being soundly beaten and fouls the attacker. This is not OK and is an offence and should be a free kick.
-
I’ve just seen it and the defender just got lucky with the touch on the ball. He’d been done all ends up by Trez and but for the slightest touch on the ball it’s a pen.
We’ve just been done on a stupid technicality.
-
There never seems to be any nuance or balance with the management of VAR, from not referring the ref to the pitchside monitor at all last season, it's seemingly done for every decision now.
The Pepe sending off is a great example. It was cut and dried as soon as the replay was shown, did they really think that Taylor might have a different view?
-
There never seems to be any nuance or balance with the management of VAR, from not referring the ref to the pitchside monitor at all last season, it's seemingly done for every decision now.
The Pepe sending off is a great example. It was cut and dried as soon as the replay was shown, did they really think that Taylor might have a different view?
I think they got that spot on to be fair . It has to be the on pitch ref who makes the final decision.
-
Anyone got a link to the engels tackle on son from last season?
-
VAR was introduced to eliminate the clear and obvious errors .... there if it takes more than 20 seconds it really is not clear and obvious
Saturday took I guess three minutes to decide ....... where on the pitch it happens should have no bearing ...it was a free kick and therefore should have been a penalty ......
-
Anyone got a link to the engels tackle on son from last season?
There you go and don't be surprised if Son looks a little different in this tackle :)
-
Anyone got a link to the engels tackle on son from last season?
There you go and don't be surprised if Son looks a little different in this tackle :)
Perhaps London Villan is Steven Bergwijn's dad, though?
-
Must be my age... Engels fouls him first too...
-
What the fuck was Trezequet doing, rolling around as if in intense agony or if he was being rogered in the immediate aftermath? Twattery behaviour.
-
It's amazing how many football fans don't understand the rules. The Brighton player does get a little nick on the ball but that doesn't negate the fact that he kicks Trez straight in his shin. It's a foul therefore it's a penalty.
-
Why can’t football get VAR right? Cricket and Rugby get it right. Sometimes the players don’t even expect goals to be ruled out. I think the cricket model is best with a certain number of challenges allowed and if they are justified they don’t lose the challenge.
-
The Brighton player does get a little nick on the ball but that doesn't negate the fact that he kicks Trez straight in his shin. It's a foul therefore it's a penalty.
-
It's amazing how many football fans don't understand the rules. The Brighton player does get a little nick on the ball but that doesn't negate the fact that he kicks Trez straight in his shin. It's a foul therefore it's a penalty.
It’s not about fans knowing the rules or not knowing them. The decision not to award it went to multiple officials and they deemed it not a penalty. Your point assumes they don’t know the rules.
-
maybe someone should post the "Laws" and explain them
-
It's amazing how many football fans don't understand the rules. The Brighton player does get a little nick on the ball but that doesn't negate the fact that he kicks Trez straight in his shin. It's a foul therefore it's a penalty.
It’s not about fans knowing the rules or not knowing them. The decision not to award it went to multiple officials and they deemed it not a penalty. Your point assumes they don’t know the rules.
Yeah you can rely on those guys at Stockley Park to interpret the rules correctly every time.
-
It doesn't fuckin' work.
-
They are applying a rule so literally that it is ruining the game. There is almost nothing about VAR that fans agree on that is a benefit for the game.
-
They are applying a rule so literally that it is ruining the game. There is almost nothing about VAR that fans agree on that is a benefit for the game.
But they are not. If Ollie was offside he was also fouled. So ok disallow the goal but don't ignore the obvious foul that anyone with two eyes can see.
-
Got to go back and think of the intent of the rule and then apply the tech from there.
-
I’d rather we sorted our own shit in defence and in front of goal than debating something we have no control over.
We do that and it becomes peripheral in this particular contest. I’m more pissed off with some of our players than VAR. Fuck me, Cash managed to give the ball back to them twice in the build up to their 2nd.
-
They are applying a rule so literally that it is ruining the game. There is almost nothing about VAR that fans agree on that is a benefit for the game.
But they are not. If Ollie was offside he was also fouled. So ok disallow the goal but don't ignore the obvious foul that anyone with two eyes can see.
Carragher and Neville are saying the same thing. The VAR has only looked at the offside and totally ignored the foul. If Watkins had gone down it would have been a penalty but he tried to stay up.
-
It is incredible that they didn’t spot the foul on Watkins with all that tech available.
-
Var has ruined the game of football.
Football as a live spectacle has lost its way.
-
Fuck it.
Burn it with fucking fire, put the ashes in a safe and drop into the deepest trench in the Pacific. Fucking ****** of a system.
Imagine being in the ground tonight having travelled 200 miles, paid £30, gone barmy and been told no lads, stop enjoying football, some ****** with a fucking ipad in Hillingdon reckons your arm is offside and cannot spot a nailed on penalty.
FUCK VAR.
-
Fuck it.
Burn it with fucking fire, put the ashes in a safe and drop into the deepest trench in the Pacific. Fucking ****** of a system.
Imagine being in the ground tonight having travelled 200 miles, paid £30, gone barmy and been told no lads, stop enjoying football, some ****** with a fucking ipad in Hillingdon reckons your arm is offside and cannot spot a nailed on penalty.
FUCK VAR.
I agree with Ads.
-
Somebody on the post match thread said he was going crazy when we scored but his 10 year old sat there quietly in case VAR ruled it out. What a sad image.
-
I’ve stopped celebrating goals now.
I guess that’s what SKY and the PL wanted all along. A nice passive, sanitised crowd, no reactions, nothing spontaneous or exiting.
Just sit there, let them them do the fake crowd noise thing, and enjoy people playing with lines on a screen, disallowing goals for every ridiculous reason imaginable.
If it wasn’t for the money, I’d take the championship and the ability to celebrate goals in the old traditional way.
-
It is shit now.
Anyone scores and the first thing in your head is VAR check.
-
In the last decade or so, changes to the Laws, or at least how they are interpreted have made football a better spectacle as it has prevented the flair, edge-of-our-seats players from simply being kicked out of the game. However, the whole point of the game is to put the ball in the net and when a system designed to present clear and obvious errors is in fact working on the presumption that there is a reason to disallow a goal, it is a massive retrograde step and is now destroying that spectacle.
-
They are applying a rule so literally that it is ruining the game. There is almost nothing about VAR that fans agree on that is a benefit for the game.
But they are not. If Ollie was offside he was also fouled. So ok disallow the goal but don't ignore the obvious foul that anyone with two eyes can see.
Your point is perfectly valid. I’m just saying the infraction was offside. That they missed the foul entirely is utter incompetence. It’s clearly a professional foul to stop him from getting the ball but I can only assume they decided the offside happened first deeming the foul a secondary issue. It’s fucking ludicrous however you look at it. Without VAR that’s a goal. Simple. And without VAR that could happen to us too. I have never heard a football fan complain when the margins were so tight it was impossible to see with the human eye.
-
In the last decade or so, changes to the Laws, or at least how they are interpreted have made football a better spectacle as it has prevented the flair, edge-of-our-seats players from simply being kicked out of the game. However, the whole point of the game is to put the ball in the net and when a system designed to present clear and obvious errors is in fact working on the presumption that there is a reason to disallow a goal, it is a massive retrograde step and is now destroying that spectacle.
I said sort of the same in the post-match thread. In attempting to fix the problem of match officials making mistakes, they've made the situation far, far worse by making just as many mistakes, and taking all the spontaneity out of the game in taking ages to do so.
If an offside decision requires drawing lines to 0.000001mm, then fuck it, just let it stand. Even if it goes against us, I'd rather concede the goal.
-
They are applying a rule so literally that it is ruining the game. There is almost nothing about VAR that fans agree on that is a benefit for the game.
But they are not. If Ollie was offside he was also fouled. So ok disallow the goal but don't ignore the obvious foul that anyone with two eyes can see.
Your point is perfectly valid. I’m just saying the infraction was offside. That they missed the foul entirely is utter incompetence. It’s clearly a professional foul to stop him from getting the ball but I can only assume they decided the offside happened first deeming the foul a secondary issue. It’s fucking ludicrous however you look at it. Without VAR that’s a goal. Simple. And without VAR that could happen to us too. I have never heard a football fan complain when the margins were so tight it was impossible to see with the human eye.
Never intended to disagree with you it is inconsistency in application that they can check offside in minute detail but ignore an obvious foul.
-
In the last decade or so, changes to the Laws, or at least how they are interpreted have made football a better spectacle as it has prevented the flair, edge-of-our-seats players from simply being kicked out of the game. However, the whole point of the game is to put the ball in the net and when a system designed to present clear and obvious errors is in fact working on the presumption that there is a reason to disallow a goal, it is a massive retrograde step and is now destroying that spectacle.
I said sort of the same in the post-match thread. In attempting to fix the problem of match officials making mistakes, they've made the situation far, far worse by making just as many mistakes, and taking all the spontaneity out of the game in taking ages to do so.
If an offside decision requires drawing lines to 0.000001mm, then fuck it, just let it stand. Even if it goes against us, I'd rather concede the goal.
Me too, it’s just bollocks. Technology should only be applied where it improves the game. How the fuck can anyone honestly argue that this in anyway enhances it?
-
You cannot possibly tell when the ball is kicked, because the ball changes shape when you kick it. But they reckon they can minutely check with a set square and protractor where their arms and legs are when it comes to offside. It's all bollocks. No-one bothers with the pass of the ball, they only really check the arms and legs. Unless it's absolutely obvious, play on.
-
It would be fairer if VAR just used the part of the body that was used to score. That way, measuring the position of an arm or the head would become redundant if a player scores with his foot and the foot is onside.
-
I have never been in favour of VAR and I never will be. I said to The Malandro earlier in the day that the problem lies with officials of one sort or another grafting themselves onto the body of the game. They are parasites. For decades the game has grown and prospered with just the players, the referee and the linesmen out on the field of play participating in the game. Along comes a clever, very expensive piece of equipment called VAR and suddenly the important people are the people with the equipment and they fucking love it. Referees and linesmen no longer regard the game as their first and only priority, they buy into VAR because they can bask in the extra attention it creates for them. Football became the Beautiful Game when nobody knew the referee or the linesmens' names. They were men in black who ran the game. What is that song about paving paradise and putting up a parking lot. You don't know what you've got til it's gone.
-
They have to eliminate slow motion.
I think you have to make the call in real-time. You can see anything you want in slow motion. It turns one second into 30 and makes unintentional things look malicious.. especially handballs.
VAR isn't used to review the current laws, its re-writing the rule book to give PMGOL a way out of every mistake they make.
This isn't football.
-
It would be fairer if VAR just used the part of the body that was used to score. That way, measuring the position of an arm or the head would become redundant if a player scores with his foot and the foot is onside.
An agreeable and simple solution, and I'm genuinely very surprised that this is the first time I've seen or heard it suggested. Gets my vote.
-
Even then if a striker has long hair, hair being part of the head and in the act of heading a goal his hair is marginally in an offside position it will be given offside. Case in point, check out Bamford's disallowed goal at Palace. It was part of his top FFS.
-
I'm going to be saying this forever now, because once I think of (more likely steal) a good point I hammer it home remorselessly so here goes:
When a decision is so millimetre-close how in the name of God can the exact split-second the ball is kicked possibly be judged?
-
I'm going to be saying this forever now, because once I think of (more likely steal) a good point I hammer it home remorselessly so here goes:
When a decision is so millimetre-close how in the name of God can the exact split-second the ball is kicked possibly be judged?
Keep preaching!
Also, does the "clear and obvious error" apply only for penalties? Do you or anyone know? Thanks in advance.
-
I'm going to be saying this forever now, because once I think of (more likely steal) a good point I hammer it home remorselessly so here goes:
When a decision is so millimetre-close how in the name of God can the exact split-second the ball is kicked possibly be judged?
Keep preaching!
Also, does the "clear and obvious error" apply only for penalties? Do you or anyone know? Thanks in advance.
Nobody knows and that's the thing. There's no clarity, and no consistent interpretation.
-
I'm going to be saying this forever now, because once I think of (more likely steal) a good point I hammer it home remorselessly so here goes:
When a decision is so millimetre-close how in the name of God can the exact split-second the ball is kicked possibly be judged?
That's what Chicago Lion said on the Post match zoom and the answer is if course that you can't which makes the whole process completely farcical. Plus of course the defender had his arm around Watkins' throat so that's a penalty but does var see that? No of course not.
-
I am still trying to work out what part of his body (hair) was offside?
-
VAR isn’t the problem as we all know. It’s the people running it - in this country - that are the problem, and they’re bullet proof.
-
I think someone mentioned it last night but it's long overdue that clubs execs stepped up and did something about this circus, they can't change it now we're underway but it either needs a complete overhaul or removing come the season end.
-
I'm going to be saying this forever now, because once I think of (more likely steal) a good point I hammer it home remorselessly so here goes:
When a decision is so millimetre-close how in the name of God can the exact split-second the ball is kicked possibly be judged?
Keep preaching!
Also, does the "clear and obvious error" apply only for penalties? Do you or anyone know? Thanks in advance.
Nobody knows and that's the thing. There's no clarity, and no consistent interpretation.
It’s my major gripe with the offside interpretation if we are going down the route of being precise to the extent we are. There seems to be no set rule as to the measurement of when a ball is played forward. They have a slow mo of the ball with trajectory. VAR people are not physicists obviously. The ball is kicked once the foot makes contact with it, not when it motions forward from the boot.
-
I'm going to be saying this forever now, because once I think of (more likely steal) a good point I hammer it home remorselessly so here goes:
When a decision is so millimetre-close how in the name of God can the exact split-second the ball is kicked possibly be judged?
It's a good point. Another one is why they decided that any other decision such as penalties have to be "clear and obvious" to keep the flow and the intensity of the game going, but offsides have to be exact to the nearest millimetre which can take a few minutes to ascertain. Why can't offsides have the clear and obvious rule as well? If they have to use their lines, then it's not clear and obvious, and the goal stands.
-
For offside I've said before they should flip it on its head. If any part is level with the defender it's a goal. Advantage to the attacking team.
-
Just bin offside entirely. It can't be any worse than this current shitshow.
-
The easiest and most logical solution is feet. If the player’s leading foot is level or behind the last defender’s trailing foot then he’s on. It’s a whole lot easier to manage, and clear cut too.
-
Somebody on the post match thread said he was going crazy when we scored but his 10 year old sat there quietly in case VAR ruled it out. What a sad image.
This says it all for me and an image that is truly sad indeed.
I don't want to see games ruined by a shoulder being offside, or goals being disallowed because there was an incident in the build up play. Those are the things I want to discuss in the pub with my mates after the game.
Trying to sanitize the decision-making process is slowly strangling the life out of the game.
-
What VAR really requires is fans to be unified against it - it doesnt help that grounds are empty because fans are denied a true voice!
Listening to a few minutes of talkSPORT this morning showed why fans won’t be unified unfortunately because every incident becomes tribal, West Ham fans feeling that they have to deflect or defend to justify the pen not being given.
It needs full stadiums all chanting in unison FCUK VAR or full stadiums all getting up and walking out at the same time in a game.
You look at PGMOL and the two top guys are Mike Riley & Neale Barry - two of the weakest most pedantic officials there were in 90’s / early 2000’s - would anyone seriously think they would administer any different to how they refereed games? Beyond that Elleray is knocking around in the game somewhere too.
-
I'm going to be saying this forever now, because once I think of (more likely steal) a good point I hammer it home remorselessly so here goes:
When a decision is so millimetre-close how in the name of God can the exact split-second the ball is kicked possibly be judged?
It's a good point. Another one is why they decided that any other decision such as penalties have to be "clear and obvious" to keep the flow and the intensity of the game going, but offsides have to be exact to the nearest millimetre which can take a few minutes to ascertain. Why can't offsides have the clear and obvious rule as well? If they have to use their lines, then it's not clear and obvious, and the goal stands.
They have to use the lines because of the camera angles. I must admit when I saw that first freeze frame flash up last night, my immediate thought was, "naaaahhh, he's off". So if I was in Stockley Park, you'd have had the same decision. Only quicker.
-
I'm going to be saying this forever now, because once I think of (more likely steal) a good point I hammer it home remorselessly so here goes:
When a decision is so millimetre-close how in the name of God can the exact split-second the ball is kicked possibly be judged?
It's a good point. Another one is why they decided that any other decision such as penalties have to be "clear and obvious" to keep the flow and the intensity of the game going, but offsides have to be exact to the nearest millimetre which can take a few minutes to ascertain. Why can't offsides have the clear and obvious rule as well? If they have to use their lines, then it's not clear and obvious, and the goal stands.
I’ve just made that exact point on the phone to my mate. If it takes numerous lines to be drawn and redrawn on a screen before a decision can be reached then that is totally against the spirit of the game. It is a technology brought in to supposedly reduce controversy around big decisions but it has delivered the complete opposite.
-
I like the way the Dutch have done it (albeit against FIFA guidelines). They still have VAR, they still have all the lines being drawn in the same way as we do, but the lines are 5cm wide, and if the lines are touching, then it stays with the original on-field decision. The decision only gets reversed if there is clear daylight between the lines.
We'd still have debates over whether the lines were touching, or not, on close calls, but at least that would then be a decision over whether the player was 10 or 10.5cm offside.
-
Exactly, the point the ball is kicked is still a guess. No technology can precisely determine this vital part of the criteria used to make an offside decision.
In Rugby and Cricket the advice is relayed live and the referee/umpire has the option to stick with the original decision or overturn it.
As it stands, VAR is subjective but binding. It can't and shouldn't be both.
-
Discussing it now on skys Football show, Dermot Gallagher would make one hell of a Politician.
-
I'm going to be saying this forever now, because once I think of (more likely steal) a good point I hammer it home remorselessly so here goes:
When a decision is so millimetre-close how in the name of God can the exact split-second the ball is kicked possibly be judged?
I bet if the the picture was frozen another 10th of a second later his arm would be back in and ball would be still in the process of being kicked.
-
I'm going to be saying this forever now, because once I think of (more likely steal) a good point I hammer it home remorselessly so here goes:
When a decision is so millimetre-close how in the name of God can the exact split-second the ball is kicked possibly be judged?
I bet if the the picture was frozen another 10th of a second later his arm would be back in and ball would be still in the process of being kicked.
This is what I've been saying. The exact moment the boot touches the ball the kick is made. Not when the ball has left the foot, or the moment the indent to the ball is made but the moment that force is applied. so they can fuck off with that backwards and forward slow mo graphic they show. Once they've got that split moment they can start playing with their lines.
-
Surely, the whole point of the offside rule is to stop an attacker gaining an advantage over a defender. How can an upper arm being a millimetre ahead of the last defender provide an advantage?
We are seeing fantastic play being nullified by absurdly negative laws.
Just go to daylight between the players. If any part of an attackers body is in line with the last defender then it's onside. Is that too much to bear?
-
I'm all for accuracy but you can't have half accuracy as we have now. The fancy lines of where the attackers arm is (which is another thing, which part of the arm and at what angle?) is all nonsense unless you bring everything to the equation. If you can't do that you go back to what it was before.
-
If Watkins was wearing a long sleeve shirt would they then draw the line at his wrist or would they then draw a line at where a short sleeved shirt would end on his bicep at a guess!? Has this ever been thought about at IFAB at all?
-
There has been photographic adjudication in horse racing for over 50 years. The reason why photo finishes have never been controversial is because the camera serves the stewards. The stewards make their decision based on the photographic evidence. Where football has lost its way disastrously is that the authorities have allowed a panel of interpreters to come between the referee (steward) and the evidence. I can live with, just about, one twat like Halsey getting a call wrong to our disadvantage. What I cannot abide at any price is a room full of Halseys pontificating on microscopically minute calls. They are the modern equivalent of bishops arguing about the number of angels dancing on a pinhead.
-
I'm going to be saying this forever now, because once I think of (more likely steal) a good point I hammer it home remorselessly so here goes:
When a decision is so millimetre-close how in the name of God can the exact split-second the ball is kicked possibly be judged?
It's a good point. Another one is why they decided that any other decision such as penalties have to be "clear and obvious" to keep the flow and the intensity of the game going, but offsides have to be exact to the nearest millimetre which can take a few minutes to ascertain. Why can't offsides have the clear and obvious rule as well? If they have to use their lines, then it's not clear and obvious, and the goal stands.
I’ve just made that exact point on the phone to my mate. If it takes numerous lines to be drawn and redrawn on a screen before a decision can be reached then that is totally against the spirit of the game. It is a technology brought in to supposedly reduce controversy around big decisions but it has delivered the complete opposite.
....and chalked off some bloody good goals in the process
-
In fact, for VAR offside decisions you don’t need referees, ex referees or anybody associated with football. You need People with O level maths who are proficient at operating and interpreting measuring equipment.
-
It's another example of what's wrong with football that technology is successfully used in other sports but the football powers that be think they can do it better and in the process fuck it up.
For offsides rugby is the best example - look at how they handle forward passes in the build up to a try. If there's a question mark over it, the video ref tells the on field ref to have another look. They stick it on the big screen for all to see, the mics pick up the refs thinking, no daft lines and unless it's an obvious forward pass the try stands.
It's that fucking simple!
-
It's another example of what's wrong with football that technology is successfully used in other sports but the football powers that be think they can do it better and in the process fuck it up.
For offsides rugby is the best example - look at how they handle forward passes in the build up to a try. If there's a question mark over it, the video ref tells the on field ref to have another look. They stick it on the big screen for all to see, the mics pick up the refs thinking, no daft lines and unless it's an obvious forward pass the try stands.
It's that fucking simple!
There are so many examples of that, but then they just seem absolutely determined to stick pig-headedly to their existing system. It actually worked a bit like that for the overturned penalty last week. In telling the ref to look at it again, they basically admitted it wasn't clear and obvious, thus going against their own rules. Fine if that's what they want to do going forward, but they can't have it both ways.
-
Absolutely Martin. It is the excruciating prevalence of "on the one hand this" "but on the other hand that" that is tearing the game apart. Everybody has to put in their twopennyworth and all the views have their own debating credentials.
-
Rugby is the perfect example of how it should work. The on field ref takes responsibility for all decisions, taking advice and even discussing with the video ref as needed asking for replays as needed, but ultimately the on-field ref makes the call. The only real exception to this is where the video ref is asked to look to see if the ball has been grounded properly, but even then they make it clear what their onfield decision is.
For me I'm ok witth VAR dealing with offside just so long as the parameters are fixed - the boots for example or even the upper body. I'd be comfortable with them using GPS in the back of the shirt. The point is everybody knows the parameters - yes theres still interpretation on when the ball is kicked, but I can live with that. Make the lines a bit wider to give some margin for error in favour of the attacking player if necessary.
But I want to see refs take responsibility for all other onfield decisions. They should look at every penalty decision on the video screen unless they are 100% happy. They should be able to ask the VAR to check quickly check any decision they want to and to show replays of any incident they want to. The VAR should draw their attention to fouls they might not see, like on Watkins yesterday, but the ref should look at it and make the decison. It doesn't take as long as people think and it would work.
-
Refs should certainly go to the monitor for offsides like last night and hopefully some common sense would be used for the ridiculously tight ones.
More crucial than deciding a penalty given a goal has actually been scored.
-
It would be interesting if they reset the poll at the top of this page. I'd be amazed if more that 5% are still in favour.
-
I get sent something on WhatsApp of how it is implemented in the Dutch league. Apparently they have introduced a margin of error by using lines 5cm wide. If the last man and attacker lines are touching VAR does not intervene. I’d rather ditch it altogether but if they are determined to stick with it that seems a more pragmatic approach - which obviously makes it extremely unlikely they’ll adopt anything similar over here.
-
In fact, for VAR offside decisions you don’t need referees, ex referees or anybody associated with football. You need People with O level maths who are proficient at operating and interpreting measuring equipment.
And on field you don't need a qualified referee you just need an actor who can follow instructions and is good at pointing and waving.
-
And completely devoid of respect for the followers of the game.
-
In fact, for VAR offside decisions you don’t need referees, ex referees or anybody associated with football. You need People with O level maths who are proficient at operating and interpreting measuring equipment.
And on field you don't need a qualified referee you just need an actor who can follow instructions and is good at pointing and waving.
May as well be a Villa fan then.
(https://i.ibb.co/gVG2Pth/forrestgump10.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gVG2Pth)
-
GPS in the little device they all wear on their backs would at least identify if the torso of the player is on/offside. What has the game come to that we are discussing that though.
-
GPS in the little device they all wear on their backs would at least identify if the torso of the player is on/offside. What has the game come to that we are discussing that though.
I actualy think that's a fine solution. No lines drawn, no woories about toeso or heels, no interpretation. If the technology works then either a player is offside or he isn't. Pefrect. What I'm not sure of is whether the technology is accurate enough though. I also appreciate this can't be replicated at grass routes, but then neither can VAR.
-
It would be interesting if they reset the poll at the top of this page. I'd be amazed if more that 5% are still in favour.
I didn't actually realise I was in the "for" camp. I'm still in favour of it in principle, I just despise how it's been implemented!
I think a reset of the poll would be useful but with an added option of "for but with changes".
-
GPS in the little device they all wear on their backs would at least identify if the torso of the player is on/offside. What has the game come to that we are discussing that though.
I actualy think that's a fine solution. No lines drawn, no woories about toeso or heels, no interpretation. If the technology works then either a player is offside or he isn't. Pefrect. What I'm not sure of is whether the technology is accurate enough though. I also appreciate this can't be replicated at grass routes, but then neither can VAR.
Well commercial GPS systems are accurate to about 16ft so they'd be a marginal improvement on what we have currently!!
-
It would be interesting if they reset the poll at the top of this page. I'd be amazed if more that 5% are still in favour.
I didn't actually realise I was in the "for" camp. I'm still in favour of it in principle, I just despise how it's been implemented!
I think a reset of the poll would be useful but with an added option of "for but with changes".
In principle I think we're all in the "for" column if that just means they get things right. But it just hasn't worked out that way. It feels like we've gone down the proverbial rabbit hole with it and now we're pretty much stuck there. It's as though logic and common sense have just been abandoned by the officials and with each passing week they seem to find a new cock up that surpasses the one they made last week. I would advocate a total suspension of the system until we can ascertain just what the hell is going on. In fact i think the top brass at every club should insist on it. Even the most hard nosed businessmen amongst them realise that without the fans the game is nothing and we the fans are reaching the end of our tether with this bullshit.
-
It would be interesting if they reset the poll at the top of this page. I'd be amazed if more that 5% are still in favour.
I didn't actually realise I was in the "for" camp. I'm still in favour of it in principle, I just despise how it's been implemented!
I think a reset of the poll would be useful but with an added option of "for but with changes".
Yeah I'm of some POV as you. I naively thought it would stop the injustice of being denied stonewall penalty e.g. when someone handles on the line and ref misses it.
I never thought it would be used in a way that some obvious penalties still get ignored and yet it gives so many where there's hardly any contact. And don't get me started on offsides like last night and the one Leeds got chalked off the other week.
-
GPS in the little device they all wear on their backs would at least identify if the torso of the player is on/offside. What has the game come to that we are discussing that though.
I actualy think that's a fine solution. No lines drawn, no woories about toeso or heels, no interpretation. If the technology works then either a player is offside or he isn't. Pefrect. What I'm not sure of is whether the technology is accurate enough though. I also appreciate this can't be replicated at grass routes, but then neither can VAR.
Well commercial GPS systems are accurate to about 16ft so they'd be a marginal improvement on what we have currently!!
The obvious problem is that the direction you're facing would have a big impact, regardless of the accuracy.
The wide lines thing would be a big improvement but the real problem is that the system isn't being used as it was designed. I'm in favour of a version of VAR that follows proper principles of 'clear and obvious error' and allows the whole 'play' to be reviewed.
On last night you put a margin for error in the offside (the 5cm lines thing is a good idea, I'd also only allow lines for feet and head) but you also have the VAR check the foul. Get it right and either the goal stands or we get a penalty, which are the only 2 reasonable outcomes.
-
Don't forget though that one of the beauties of football is that everyone, everywhere, regardless of age, sex or ability, plays to the same rules. So whatever outcome you knot-twisters dream up, remember that apart from ten games played once a week in this country, your madcap solutions have still got to be adjudged by some poor sap with a tiny flag.
-
Don't forget though that one of the beauties of football is that everyone, everywhere, regardless of age, sex or ability, plays to the same rules. So whatever outcome you knot-twisters dream up, remember that apart from ten games played once a week in this country, your madcap solutions have still got to be adjudged by some poor sap with a tiny flag.
This sort of comment is silly because whilst it's true in theory it hasn't been in practice for a very long time, the simple fact that at most amateur levels the linesmen aren't neutral blows the whole idea out.
-
Don't forget though that one of the beauties of football is that everyone, everywhere, regardless of age, sex or ability, plays to the same rules. So whatever outcome you knot-twisters dream up, remember that apart from ten games played once a week in this country, your madcap solutions have still got to be adjudged by some poor sap with a tiny flag.
This sort of comment is silly because whilst it's true in theory it hasn't been in practice for a very long time, the simple fact that at most amateur levels the linesmen aren't neutral blows the whole idea out.
You mean amateur like Women's Premier League, Women's Premier League 2, Championship, League One, League Two, Conference, and so on quite a long way down the pyramid?
-
If Watkins had missed...would the VAR cabin boys have been looking at a foul to get themselves noticed?
-
Don't forget though that one of the beauties of football is that everyone, everywhere, regardless of age, sex or ability, plays to the same rules. So whatever outcome you knot-twisters dream up, remember that apart from ten games played once a week in this country, your madcap solutions have still got to be adjudged by some poor sap with a tiny flag.
This sort of comment is silly because whilst it's true in theory it hasn't been in practice for a very long time, the simple fact that at most amateur levels the linesmen aren't neutral blows the whole idea out.
You mean amateur like Women's Premier League, Women's Premier League 2, Championship, League One, League Two, Conference, and so on quite a long way down the pyramid?
No but I'm not sure what your point is now. at first you were suggesting that the rules should be the same at all levels, now you seem to be suggeasting the cut off for changes just needs to lower down the pyramid. Pick an argument and then we can discuss it.
-
If Watkins had missed...would the VAR cabin boys have been looking at a foul to get themselves noticed?
100% yes. Another reason it's a load of old bollocks.
-
If Watkins had missed...would the VAR cabin boys have been looking at a foul to get themselves noticed?
100% yes. Another reason it's a load of old bollocks.
Absolutely, the limitations of what they can and can't look at are stupid, the bang the drum for rugby yet again one of the best things about how they do it is that when it goes to the TV official they check the whole final phase of play for anything dodgy from either team as well as checking the actual incident, they also have the authority to bring something to the attention of the ref if they believe he's missed it, another change that football could look at. As it's topical right now imagine that being in place when the cameras caught JT clearly being a twat towards Anton Ferdinand or various other off the ball stuff that has happened over the years.
-
I’ll say it I hate Var but I like goal line technology. I realise that VAR has significant support, to give us some respite I purpose that 50 percent of all home games are Var free, this enables some enjoyment for those who think it ruining the game, whilst also giving match officials the necessary experience for their independent decision making. Each club pre season would nominate which games where to be VAR Free
-
If Watkins had missed...would the VAR cabin boys have been looking at a foul to get themselves noticed?
100% yes. Another reason it's a load of old bollocks.
Absolutely, the limitations of what they can and can't look at are stupid, the bang the drum for rugby yet again one of the best things about how they do it is that when it goes to the TV official they check the whole final phase of play for anything dodgy from either team as well as checking the actual incident, they also have the authority to bring something to the attention of the ref if they believe he's missed it, another change that football could look at. As it's topical right now imagine that being in place when the cameras caught JT clearly being a twat towards Anton Ferdinand or various other off the ball stuff that has happened over the years.
Imagine how long that would take: it takes them minutes at the moment just to deal with an offside. If you're at the ground you haven't got a clue what's going on at the moment and looking at the whole phase of play would make things ten times worse. The game was better without it.
-
Survey on VAR up on the BBC, plus the full list of teams affected most by it.
BBC linky (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55160134)
-
The issue with VAR is trying to attain a high level of accuracy based on subjective decisions. I saw an official recently stating that accuracy in decisions had improved by a few percentage points due to VAR, which struct me as an odd metric to focus on given the massive interruptions VAR is having on the game (not to mention that they're effectively making their own homework).
When there were lots of calls for technology to be introduced it was when the officials had missed proper obvious decisions. In those events you only needed another quick look to see the defender got the ball or he's two yards offside. The premier league introduced VAR by saying there would be a high threshold bar for intervention, which is simply not the case.
VAR should have a max review duration of say 30 seconds, if it's not clear then, keep to the onfield decision. No drawing straight lines based on oblique camera angles, or slow frame replays. No reviewing every goal just in case. Put more faith in the officials (that was difficult to write) and except that marginal calls will always be debated.. that's part of the fun surely, no one wants to have to admit their team were accurately beaten!
-
The trouble with a table like that is it doesn't differentiate between clear off sides or the dubious, contrived decisions that are becoming so contentious.
Off side should be the leading foot and only if there is daylight between the two and none of this stupid 1mm lines. minimum 5mm.
-
Many years ago, I was an amateur referee and the biggest thing in my favour was the players were approximately 6 feet tall. At Stockton Park, they are looking at their screen where the players are approximately 2 inches tall.
I can assure you that when an incident is magnified by 36 times you get a much clearer picture of what actually happened. Was their contact, was it a dive etc. On the pitch, you hear a lot of banter and this can also give you a better idea of individual players behaviour. Are they a thug, honest, revengeful etc and this can help you in making correct decisions.
Stockton Park have miniature screenshots/angles and no understanding of the behaviour of each individual player. They have no 'feel' for the actual game on the pitch and do not have the full picture.
Because of VAR we all have a better understanding on how difficult it is to referee a match. There will always be decisions that are contentious, not every decision is black or white. My biggest problem was keeping up with play for 90 minutes. I was fit then but a long clearance from a corner had me 50 meters from the ball and not in a good position to make any decision that had to be made.
I propose that we scrap VAR as it is killing the passion and the enjoyment of the game. Replace it with an assistant referee ON the pitch who can position themselves appropriately ON the pitch to cover more angles/distance etc. The referee will still make final decisions but the assistant can offer an opinion when required.
Just a thought. :)
-
I like the idea of a second official on the pitch which is a bit like the experiment they did with the official on the goal line. Does anyone know what happened to that?
If that was in place against West Ham, the foul against Watkins would have been seen and the whole offside shananigans could have been avoided.
-
Two umpires works well in Hockey.
-
If you got rid of VAR and added a second ref with two assistants I think everyone would take that over the disaster that it is today. I feel bad for refs having to keep up with today's incredible top level athletes. It would still be one ref in each half of the pitch and I would make it the decision of the on field team alone on all plays with the exception of goal line tech as needed.
-
Currently, all the 4th official does is parade around the technical boxes getting bollocked by managers. They also lift a board every 45 minutes.
They would be better employed on the pitch, miked up to the main ref. An extra set of eyes and ears in the middle of the action can only be good.
Football is a real game played by real people in real time. It should not be treated as a video game (with stupid gadgets) by people sitting in the darkness at Stockley Park. ::)
-
West Ham fans crying on Twitter has to be the sweetest bit of irony you’ll see this weekend.
-
West Ham fans crying on Twitter has to be the sweetest bit of irony you’ll see this weekend.
"The boys are pretty relaxed about it". Shower of whoppers. Being beaten by them is going to irritate me for some time.
Looking at their forum, they're not so relaxed about it. I'm glad it was VAR that drew first blood. Mind you, they were dropping off them and getting deeper, like the negative shower they are, anyway. But still, the universe delivered balance.
-
West Ham fans crying on Twitter has to be the sweetest bit of irony you’ll see this weekend.
"The boys are pretty relaxed about it". Shower of whoppers. Being beaten by them is going to irritate me for some time.
Looking at their forum, they're not so relaxed about it. I'm glad it was VAR that drew first blood. Mind you, they were dropping off them and getting deeper, like the negative shower they are, anyway. But still, the universe delivered balance.
Well spotted Ads.Was it Declan Rice or Moyes that made the comment "the boys are pretty relaxed about it"?Their crying about var the previous week and now this week just makes them look like total wankers. The response after the Ollie Watkins farce should have been "we got one in our favour this time" Then I might have some sympathy with them but they can go fuck themselves now. That defeat at West Ham has really stuck in my craw. Can't wait for our "lads" to get revenge at Villa Park. Hopefully with a dodgy Var decision just to make it a little sweeter.
-
Let's not forget that in relation to the 'goal' at West Ham, an official sat in an office and watched the incident several times in slow motion and couldn't spot the foul on Watkins - for the precisely the reason that VAR is shit, they are looking for minute infringements and reasons to be seen to be 'right'.
So the introduction of another official on the pitch doesn't address that. That means another set of eyes but will inevitably lead to uncertainty given different perspectives/opinions and endless discussions slowing the game further.
The beauty of football is that it is simple to understand and play and is (should be) a fluid and continuous game.
I can think of very few changes, interpretations or new rules in my lifetime that have been positive other than no tackling from behind (a license to wipe people out) and the back-pass law.
Tinkering often has unintended consequences - like the nonsense of the 't-shirt line' to bring clarity to the difference between the shoulder and the arm!!
Very unlikely to happen, but what I would like to see:
1. We recognise that there is some interpretation and that a single official makes a final judgement, even when supported by technology. Rugby is rightly referenced for the effective use of technology, but it is a different sport and crucially everyone involved recognises there is interpretation (pretty much every breakdown sees both sides committing an offence and everyone accepts the judgement of the ref).
2. All clubs and fans consider VAR in the context of what it is doing to the game as a whole - for better or worse - rather than in relation to the impact on their side as the present debate is mostly tribal and hence self-interest renders most comments meaningless as we all contradict ourselves, i.e. it's shit when we miss out and others need to 'suck it up' when it happens to them.
3. As VAR is not going away anytime soon - in real-time it should only be used to correct very obvious mistakes or things not spotted. The kind of thing that happens a few times a season to each side, not several instances in every game.
Critically, though I think all games should be reviewed and serious foul play identified and players cited and punished. This should include a review of what might already have been ruled by the match official on the day.
It would quickly be evident to players and clubs that they will not get away with serious foul play and games will improve quickly as they will not want to risk missing games. The review panel can include players and coaches as well as referees/former referees - in part because former players have insight to offer and also because it might limit some of the moaning from lazy pundits looking for easy comments to spout.
Not holding my breath and sadly I expect my enjoyment of the professional game to continue to diminish as a result.
-
Let's not forget that in relation to the 'goal' at West Ham, an official sat in an office and watched the incident several times in slow motion and couldn't spot the foul on Watkins - for the precisely the reason that VAR is shit, they are looking for minute infringements and reasons to be seen to be 'right'.
So the introduction of another official on the pitch doesn't address that. That means another set of eyes but will inevitably lead to uncertainty given different perspectives/opinions and endless discussions slowing the game further.
The beauty of football is that it is simple to understand and play and is (should be) a fluid and continuous game.
I can think of very few changes, interpretations or new rules in my lifetime that have been positive other than no tackling from behind (a license to wipe people out) and the back-pass law.
Tinkering often has unintended consequences - like the nonsense of the 't-shirt line' to bring clarity to the difference between the shoulder and the arm!!
Very unlikely to happen, but what I would like to see:
1. We recognise that there is some interpretation and that a single official makes a final judgement, even when supported by technology. Rugby is rightly referenced for the effective use of technology, but it is a different sport and crucially everyone involved recognises there is interpretation (pretty much every breakdown sees both sides committing an offence and everyone accepts the judgement of the ref).
2. All clubs and fans consider VAR in the context of what it is doing to the game as a whole - for better or worse - rather than in relation to the impact on their side as the present debate is mostly tribal and hence self-interest renders most comments meaningless as we all contradict ourselves, i.e. it's shit when we miss out and others need to 'suck it up' when it happens to them.
3. As VAR is not going away anytime soon - in real-time it should only be used to correct very obvious mistakes or things not spotted. The kind of thing that happens a few times a season to each side, not several instances in every game.
Critically, though I think all games should be reviewed and serious foul play identified and players cited and punished. This should include a review of what might already have been ruled by the match official on the day.
It would quickly be evident to players and clubs that they will not get away with serious foul play and games will improve quickly as they will not want to risk missing games. The review panel can include players and coaches as well as referees/former referees - in part because former players have insight to offer and also because it might limit some of the moaning from lazy pundits looking for easy comments to spout.
Not holding my breath and sadly I expect my enjoyment of the professional game to continue to diminish as a result.
The point of having the TV screen at pitchside is entirely to make it the decision of a single official. The issue right now is that it's not working that way when they go to the screen and some decisions (offside and handball) are being made entirely by VAR.
I still think the underlying idea is ok but the implementation is just not fit for purpose.
-
Rugby is rightly referenced for the effective use of technology, but it is a different sport and crucially everyone involved recognises there is interpretation (pretty much every breakdown sees both sides committing an offence and everyone accepts the judgement of the ref).
Some of this is down to the historic respect the ref has been given in rugby, but when it comes to video technology, a huge chunk of this respect is down to the fact the fans can see and hear exactly the same as the ref. Occasionally there's still a residual difference of opinion, but generally, once the ref has explained his decision there's not much left to argue.
Australian "soccer" did an experiment not long ago where they miked the ref up in a game which had VAR and it was a breath of fresh air.
Half the trouble with football is that the powers that be treat fans like children/imbeciles - "we can't let them see the replay as they might kick off", "we can't let them hear the bad language of the players as it might upset them". It's frankly bollocks and if they got over that the options available would be much improved.
-
Some years ago the offside rule was determined by the adjudged offside player being behind the last defender. Basically saying that level with the last defender is offside. It was then changed to level being not offside to hopefully produce more goals in the game. With VAR that has now gone and we’ve reverted back to the previous rule.
-
The ref being mic'd up would at least explain a lot of the decisions - as it does in NFL, cricket, rugby etc etc, Football's arrogance is to be expected.
-
I honestly can't see how micing up the ref wouldn't lead to making football grounds and crowds even more volatile. I'm a placid man, if I see a goose I'm more likely to nip back to the car to get the bag of emergency bird feed I keep in the glove box for just such occasions than I am to say 'boo' to it, but all that gets the afternoon off at the Villa. If you think that my opinion of the w****r in the black is going to be improved by my getting to listen to why he's f***ing wrong AGAIN, then you're as mistaken as he usually is.
-
If fans can't control their anger at the sound of a ref explaining his decision then they deserve the shambles we've currently got.
-
... I think all games should be reviewed and serious foul play identified and players cited and punished. This should include a review of what might already have been ruled by the match official on the day.
It would quickly be evident to players and clubs that they will not get away with serious foul play and games will improve quickly as they will not want to risk missing games. The review panel can include players and coaches as well as referees/former referees - in part because former players have insight to offer and also because it might limit some of the moaning from lazy pundits looking for easy comments to spout ...
I agree with the idea of reviews and citations. Clearly, there would need to be explicit boundaries but the concept of messaging to all that certain behaviours (serious foul play, serial diving, etc) are unacceptable would be a useful antidote to those very behaviours.
The review board would need to include referees and recent ex-players.
-
I honestly can't see how micing up the ref wouldn't lead to making football grounds and crowds even more volatile. I'm a placid man, if I see a goose I'm more likely to nip back to the car to get the bag of emergency bird feed I keep in the glove box for just such occasions than I am to say 'boo' to it, but all that gets the afternoon off at the Villa. If you think that my opinion of the w****r in the black is going to be improved by my getting to listen to why he's f***ing wrong AGAIN, then you're as mistaken as he usually is.
Why does it work so well in other sports then? You may not agree with the decision, but at least you'll have "some" idea of why a decision has been made.
-
I'm pretty sure I've said it before but if not then I'm firmly of the opinion that VAR can't work until the ref is mic'ed up and the audio is available in the ground. Getting the pictures onto the big screen would be even better. That should've always been a core part of the process. If they're concerned about bad language from players being picked up then how about they actually uphold the rules of showing the referee some respect and give yellow cards for it. If swearing at the ref gets you booked then you either learn not to do it or you spend a lot of time on the sidelines.
On that topic I think football could really do with a sin bin system because the amount of players who'll ignore the rules until they get a yellow is far too high.
-
We can pussy-foot around VAR as much as we like, saying it needs to be used for this, offside laws need to be changes to accommodate it etc. For me, the biggest single problem with the whole thing is that as long as it is in use you can never properly celebrate a goal - I don't care if I can hear what the ref is saying afterwards, when Villa score I want to be able to go mad and we honestly can't at the moment. Whilst fans aren't in the ground it's bad enough, but once we are back it's going to be awful.
Stick with goal-line technology and that is as far as it needs to go. The rest of it is just bullshit and is ruining the spectacle.
-
Agree 100% Pat.
The instinctive reaction of celebrating a goal, a penalty award in Villa's favour even an opposition sending off is missing from my enjoyment of the game at the moment making football as a live spectacle on the tv and at the ground (when football returns to VP) a hollow experience that can only really be reacted to on a 5 minute delay basis. That is not football as I know it.
-
I wonder what referees want, do they think it helps to have a colleague look over a decision that there not sure of,only to tell them to go back and look at the small monitor and decide. Just to add to the confusion the baggies had a player sent off yesterday for what appeared a marginal offence even after the ref had reviewed it on the pitch monitor crazy.
-
West Ham fans crying on Twitter has to be the sweetest bit of irony you’ll see this weekend.
Which is exactly why there is zero chance of ever ridding the game of VAR now, game is so tribal that when a call goes against a team the fans are up in arms but as we saw with PornoDwarfFC last week when you benefit from the call all is happy & justify the VAR.
PS I thought the same sweet irony too :-)
-
Oh remember the days of a set of fans celebrating a goal only to have to stop a couple of seconds later when they spot the linesman's flag and duly getting a load back from their opponents?
-
I wonder what referees want, do they think it helps to have a colleague look over a decision that there not sure of,only to tell them to go back and look at the small monitor and decide. Just to add to the confusion the baggies had a player sent off yesterday for what appeared a marginal offence even after the ref had reviewed it on the pitch monitor crazy.
This is another reason why refs should be mic'd up.
I also thought it was a harsh red, but if you heard a discussion between the on field ref and the VAR it might bring some clarity. That has the twin benefit of explaining that decision, and educating people where rules are open to interpretation.
When Premier League managers routinely give interviews where they say things like "I don't think anyone knows what's a penalty anymore" you know the system is fucked.
-
Now I don't completely understand the VAR technology but how does Stockley Park determine the exact moment the ball is kicked when adjudging offsides ?
Feels like it is somewhat subjective, but has a large impact over the decision when looking at tiny fractions of a second. We are entirely focused on the body positions of the players involved and I never hear any comments on the accuracy of the timing of the pass that created the controversy.
Personally, I'd like to see a 'green-zone' that extends say 6" back behind the defender in which no offsides are given. Should speed up decisions significantly and stop (most of) the bad decisions.
-
It is totally subjective. The precise moment the boot touches the ball is the kick not the moment the ball leaves the boot. It’s assumed, making the blue and yellow lines they use redundant because if you are going to guess the one you may as well guess the other.
-
It is totally subjective. The precise moment the boot touches the ball is the kick not the moment the ball leaves the boot. It’s assumed, making the blue and yellow lines they use redundant because if you are going to guess the one you may as well guess the other.
It's the elephant in the room. The exact moment when the ball is passed has to be known precisely before they start drawing stupid bloody lines on the screen. When someone at Stockley Park suggested the lines on the screen why on earth didn't one of these so called experts ask this simple question "before we start drawing lines on the screens to pinpoint a toenail offside how are we going to to know the precise moment when the ball leaves the passing players boot?" Seems so bloody obvious to me and I've been banging on about it since the first time I saw them using their silly lines.
-
It is totally subjective. The precise moment the boot touches the ball is the kick not the moment the ball leaves the boot. It’s assumed, making the blue and yellow lines they use redundant because if you are going to guess the one you may as well guess the other.
It's the elephant in the room. The exact moment when the ball is passed has to be known precisely before they start drawing stupid bloody lines on the screen. When someone at Stockley Park suggested the lines on the screen why on earth didn't one of these so called experts ask this simple question "before we start drawing lines on the screens to pinpoint a toenail offside how are we going to to know the precise moment when the ball leaves the passing players boot?" Seems so bloody obvious to me and I've been banging on about it since the first time I saw them using their silly lines.
The lines are the pseudo-science of VAR offside.
-
It is totally subjective. The precise moment the boot touches the ball is the kick not the moment the ball leaves the boot. It’s assumed, making the blue and yellow lines they use redundant because if you are going to guess the one you may as well guess the other.
It's the elephant in the room. The exact moment when the ball is passed has to be known precisely before they start drawing stupid bloody lines on the screen. When someone at Stockley Park suggested the lines on the screen why on earth didn't one of these so called experts ask this simple question "before we start drawing lines on the screens to pinpoint a toenail offside how are we going to to know the precise moment when the ball leaves the passing players boot?" Seems so bloody obvious to me and I've been banging on about it since the first time I saw them using their silly lines.
The lines are the pseudo-science of VAR offside.
I had to check the definition tbh. You're spot on
-
Another swindle at the Amex tonight by all accounts. No credit cards involved, thankfully.
-
It doesn't work.
-
Another swindle at the Amex tonight by all accounts. No credit cards involved, thankfully.
You'd guess it was cold, hard cash in play wouldn't you?
What a farce. Watched it tens of times in slow motion to determine a 'clear and obvious mistake' had been made, and yet still most people seem to disagree with the outcome.
If they really must continue with it, they need to remove referees from the VAR Room and have an independent person making the decision.
-
I’d do it.
I might credit really good acting, but only if there was a song and tap routine.
-
I’d do it.
I might credit really good acting, but only if there was a song and tap routine.
So no change from what we have then?
-
Maybe it's my memory, but before VAR there would be about 10 iffy decisions a season, now there seems to be 3 or 4 a week.
-
Maybe it's my memory, but before VAR there would be about 10 iffy decisions a season, now there seems to be 3 or 4 a week.
This is very much how I see it. There is a big difference between clear and obvious errors and the marginal calls, they really need to move a long way towards the former.
-
I think there was at least one (questionable) a weekend, now its every game.
The fact that they have changed the Laws to accomadate VAR as opposed to using it to to deal with clear and obvious tells you where it has gone wrong.
I have mentioned befoore, the problem starts with handing over the adjudicationof the whole process to a for profit independant company with no acccountability.
-
Offside doesn't have to be clear and obvious errors. It's just checking what they perceive to be facts.. And now refs can look at the monitors it shouldn't really apply to penalty decisoions either. The ref should be allowed to double check without it seeming like he's being frog marched to the naughty corner.
-
Offside doesn't have to be clear and obvious errors. It's just checking what they perceive to be facts.. And now refs can look at the monitors it shouldn't really apply to penalty decisoions either. The ref should be allowed to double check without it seeming like he's being frog marched to the naughty corner.
When it was introduced they said it was being brought in specifically to cut out the clear and obvious errors. The goal Chelsea scored at Cardiff a while back was cited as an example of this as it was clearly a terrible decision on the day. They have fucked it up royally by getting themselves involved in being excruciatingly pedantic with it. It should have been a fantastic tool to assist referees but the way these plonkers have administered it it's become the total opposite. Heads should roll over the whole debacle but that won't happen. They will close ranks and cover each others arse.
-
Sky commendably showing some self-awareness in realising that if you don't want VAR to be an endless talking point, don't endlessly talk about it. BT, take note.
-
Sky commendably showing some self-awareness in realising that if you don't want VAR to be an endless talking point, don't endlessly talk about it. BT, take note.
Yeah, noticed that today. No need to be constantly saying “VAR is checking that”, as we know it will be.
-
Can I be the first to say, fuck VAR.
-
Fuck it off. It is ludicrous.
-
Can I be the first to say, fuck VAR.
No. There's thousands ahead of you. It a complete and utter farce.
-
Ollie must be fuming. Two perfectly good goals for him chalked off. That’s just not fair and not what VAR should be about.
-
It doesn't work.
-
VAR is fine, it’s the morons that operate it who are the problem
-
I’m guessing it’s going nowhere. So...Just make it any part of the body in line with the defender and your are level, it’s a goal?
But then does it all have to square internationally??? As it is, doesn’t work.
I really feel for Ollie, great goals, nicked off him.
-
VAR is absolute shite. The really really close ones should just be given, whether for us or against as I honestly don't think you can really tell the precise moment the ball is passed into the box. Rule needs to be changed to clear daylight.
-
VAR is fine, it’s the morons that operate it who are the problem
It’s not though is it, they are enforcing silly offside rules...
-
I’m guessing it’s going nowhere. So...Just make it any part of the body in line with the defender and your are level, it’s a goal?
But then does it all have to square internationally??? As it is, doesn’t work.
I really feel for Ollie, great goals, nicked off him.
Nope, we don't have to be consistent with any other league. How VAR is applied to offside is down to each competition to decide for themselves.
The lines should just go. They give a false sense of accuracy to a system that's inherently inaccurate.
Plus, if you can't tell it's offside without silly lines then it's not offside.
-
It should be feet that are the gauge, well the front foot. Plain and simple.
-
VAR is fine, it’s the morons that operate it who are the problem
It’s not though is it, they are enforcing silly offside rules...
VAR didn't make them draw lines on a screen and spend 2 minutes deciding who's bicep is closest to the goal. As came up last time Watkins was robbed of one in the Dutch league they use much wider lines and if there's no daylight between them the goal stands because that allows for the inaccuracy of the timing. Things like the framerate of the cameras and the choice of what constitutes the completion of the passing action make it impossible to be as accurate with the timing as you'd need for the 1-2cm calls to be irrefutably correct.
-
Time to bring in the equivalent of 'umpire's call' in cricket.
Let the lino make an on-field decision – in this case, he'd have given the Watkins goal. Then, refer it if needs be, but with wider lines – not the hairline ones like now, that ignore the fact that the ball could be struck over the course of about five frames of footage. 10cm lines, which in this case would overlap; verdict is 'assistant's call', goal given.
-
VAR is fine, it’s the morons that operate it who are the problem
It’s not though is it, they are enforcing silly offside rules...
VAR didn't make them draw lines on a screen and spend 2 minutes deciding who's bicep is closest to the goal. As came up last time Watkins was robbed of one in the Dutch league they use much wider lines and if there's no daylight between them the goal stands because that allows for the inaccuracy of the timing. Things like the framerate of the cameras and the choice of what constitutes the completion of the passing action make it impossible to be as accurate with the timing as you'd need for the 1-2cm calls to be irrefutably correct.
It’s not really that hard as other countries have shown. I think our rule makers are far to arrogant to listen to advice and watch other nations use it properly.
-
If VAR existed back when Owen or Lineker had played they would have lost 25-30% of their career goals.
-
Just seen Maddison’s rules out goal, again a ridiculous goal ruled out for a fingertip. Do you remember when back in the day if it was uncertain the linesman was advised to give the the benefit of doubt to the attacker.
Who are making these rules?
-
Just seen Maddison’s rules out goal, again a ridiculous goal ruled out for a fingertip. Do you remember when back in the day if it was uncertain the linesman was advised to give the the benefit of doubt to the attacker.
Who are making these rules?
And that was actually a rule change because tactics had become so negative and really helped to open up the game. Not they are entirely looking at the attackers position and nobody is zooming in on the ball to see precisely when it is kicked. You cannot do one without the other yet they are.
-
Just seen Maddison’s rules out goal, again a ridiculous goal ruled out for a fingertip. Do you remember when back in the day if it was uncertain the linesman was advised to give the the benefit of doubt to the attacker.
Who are making these rules?
And that was actually a rule change because tactics had become so negative and really helped to open up the game. Not they are entirely looking at the attackers position and nobody is zooming in on the ball to see precisely when it is kicked. You cannot do one without the other yet they are.
Would have to see it again, but it didn't look like it was measured by the arm for Watkins' goal tonight. Looked like it was measured by the feet.
Edit - just seen it again on MOTD2 and seems it wasn't measured by the arm. So have we got different people using different methods now?
-
On behalf of Watkins, f-ck var!
-
They seem to have forgotten that the offside rule is there to stop forwards from gaining an unfair advantage. You can't tell me players are trying to do that in these instances where it's hairline. It's an aspect that needs to be reviewed and the sooner the better.
-
Rubbish again, continual goals over turned for arms. They'll ignore it and look to fuck around with another rule like they did with the handball problem they've engineered this season.
-
I've mentioned this before, the bit in bold appears to have been binned with no explanation.
A player is not in an offside position if:
he is in his own half of the field of play
he is level with the second last opponent
he is level with the last two opponents
Nothing constitutes as level anymore. The pseudo science has taken over. Imaginary lines to what accuracy? Precise moment ball is kicked, to what accuracy? Var officials competency, to what standard...is there a standard?
-
I would like to know who agreed that the media doing the commentary are listening to the conversation between shed and ref and seemingly get the result before anyone else.
Everyone else, players, managers, fans (remember them days) just stand around bemused by WTF is going on - surely TV companies cannot hold that sort of power over the game
-
They seem to have forgotten that the offside rule is there to stop forwards from gaining an unfair advantage. You can't tell me players are trying to do that in these instances where it's hairline. It's an aspect that needs to be reviewed and the sooner the better.
Part of the problem is that in many attacking situations, the striker's body is going towards the goal and the defender's away from it. This means that the attacker's arms etc. are probably going to be in front of the defender's in most cases.
For me, it just needs to be simplified. Draw a line with a built in margin for error at the last defender's back foot and if part of the attacker's foot is over that line then it is offside.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it needs to go. It is absolutely changing the nature of how people watch games - every time there is a goal, foul, penalty or any decision our first reaction is becoming 'what about VAR?'. Football isn't like Rugby, Cricket or American Football where there are natural breaks in play every few seconds that allow decisions to be reviewed, and where the scoring of points, runs or touchdowns are so rare as to be celebrated in the same way that goals are. In the quest for perfection in decisions (which, as we are seeing, isn't realistically achievable when humans are still running the system) we are throwing away the best parts of the game and it is destroying the spectacle.
-
There's a bloke employed to judge certain things. He's given a flag to wave to indicate an infringement, he didn't wave it so no infringement.
It used to be so simple....
-
To be fair, Watkins just needs to drop 30cm or start his run a nano-second later, he's in an offside position.
I can't stand the system and the judgement that's used as it's not a clear and obvious error; that would only be the case, in my view, if there was daylight between the two players.
-
To be fair, Watkins just needs to drop 30cm or start his run a nano-second later, he's in an offside position.
I can't stand the system and the judgement that's used as it's not a clear and obvious error; that would only be the case, in my view, if there was daylight between the two players.
Just so we are on the same page - do you mean in reverse to now in as much as if there is any body part in line with the defender then you are on side?
I think that would be a better measure - i always though the advantage or benefit was to be with the attacker to make the game even more exciting
Also could you imagine the pantomime we would have if that Red Faced united fucker was still around, it feels like he is sitting in the VAR shed now with the amount of benefit them wankers get on a regular basis
-
To be fair, Watkins just needs to drop 30cm or start his run a nano-second later, he's in an offside position.
I can't stand the system and the judgement that's used as it's not a clear and obvious error; that would only be the case, in my view, if there was daylight between the two players.
Just so we are on the same page - do you mean in reverse to now in as much as if there is any body part in line with the defender then you are on side?
I think that would be a better measure - i always though the advantage or benefit was to be with the attacker to make the game even more exciting
Also could you imagine the pantomime we would have if that Red Faced united fucker was still around, it feels like he is sitting in the VAR shed now with the amount of benefit them wankers get on a regular basis
Yep, any part in line you're onside. That makes the game more interesting and gives the attacker the benefot of the doubt. Plus it's the only way it can be argued to be a clear error, as they should perhaps have seen daylight... Whereas there's no way under the current set-up that a lino could see the moment the ball is kicked that there is an inch of fabric on a sleeve ahead of the opponents bit of fabric.
-
To be fair, Watkins just needs to drop 30cm or start his run a nano-second later, he's in an offside position.
I can't stand the system and the judgement that's used as it's not a clear and obvious error; that would only be the case, in my view, if there was daylight between the two players.
Just so we are on the same page - do you mean in reverse to now in as much as if there is any body part in line with the defender then you are on side?
I think that would be a better measure - i always though the advantage or benefit was to be with the attacker to make the game even more exciting
Also could you imagine the pantomime we would have if that Red Faced united fucker was still around, it feels like he is sitting in the VAR shed now with the amount of benefit them wankers get on a regular basis
Yep, any part in line you're onside. That makes the game more interesting and gives the attacker the benefot of the doubt. Plus it's the only way it can be argued to be a clear error, as they should perhaps have seen daylight... Whereas there's no way under the current set-up that a lino could see the moment the ball is kicked that there is an inch of fabric on a sleeve ahead of the opponents bit of fabric.
Never catch on, too much like common sense for my liking
-
To be fair, Watkins just needs to drop 30cm or start his run a nano-second later, he's in an offside position.
I can't stand the system and the judgement that's used as it's not a clear and obvious error; that would only be the case, in my view, if there was daylight between the two players.
Just so we are on the same page - do you mean in reverse to now in as much as if there is any body part in line with the defender then you are on side?
I think that would be a better measure - i always though the advantage or benefit was to be with the attacker to make the game even more exciting
Also could you imagine the pantomime we would have if that Red Faced united fucker was still around, it feels like he is sitting in the VAR shed now with the amount of benefit them wankers get on a regular basis
Yep, any part in line you're onside. That makes the game more interesting and gives the attacker the benefot of the doubt. Plus it's the only way it can be argued to be a clear error, as they should perhaps have seen daylight... Whereas there's no way under the current set-up that a lino could see the moment the ball is kicked that there is an inch of fabric on a sleeve ahead of the opponents bit of fabric.
This is the most baffling thing about it when it comes to offsides. When it comes to goals the law is that if any part of the ball doesn't cross the line then it's not a goal, corner etc. So why is it that the offisde law is enforced in contradiction to this i.e. if any part of the player is offside then it is offside - surely it should all be about if a player has a part of the body onside then they are still legitimately in play.
The only issue with this is then you will end up in exactly the same situation we are in now, just looking a a part of the defenders body rather than the attacker and still ending up with these stupid f**king lines being drawn without any recourse to someone being able to accurately say when the ball was played. Just get rid of the whole thing!
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it needs to go. It is absolutely changing the nature of how people watch games - every time there is a goal, foul, penalty or any decision our first reaction is becoming 'what about VAR?'. Football isn't like Rugby, Cricket or American Football where there are natural breaks in play every few seconds that allow decisions to be reviewed, and where the scoring of points, runs or touchdowns are so rare as to be celebrated in the same way that goals are. In the quest for perfection in decisions (which, as we are seeing, isn't realistically achievable when humans are still running the system) we are throwing away the best parts of the game and it is destroying the spectacle.
I assume you don't watch a whole lot of rugby. The days of the game stopping every 30seconds are long gone, it's no more stop start than football now. How it's managed and run in rugby is spot on and is exactly the model football should've followed. There's 4 main points and I don't think football has any of them right:
If play stops (for a booking, set piece or score) then, if needed, a review happens before the restart of play, if it's not clear the refs original decision stands. - football mostly gets the first bit right but the 2nd bit is a mess.
If the game carries on then it can only be called back if the ref has missed serious foul play. - I haven't seen this happen often in football, not sure what the rules are around it.
If the ref is unsure they can ask for a review. - This never happens and is a big part of the problem.
The ref is mic'ed up and explains his reasoning for decisions that are reviewed. - This makes it hard for people to understand the decisions and creates as many problems as VAR is meant to fix.
Of those the only one where 'natural breaks in play' would make a difference is in the 2nd case but think about the sort of incidents that covers. Someone getting kicked or elbowed off the ball and it not being seen by any of the officials for example. Surely something that allows those players to be punished during the game rather than just a post match review/ban is better.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it needs to go. It is absolutely changing the nature of how people watch games - every time there is a goal, foul, penalty or any decision our first reaction is becoming 'what about VAR?'. Football isn't like Rugby, Cricket or American Football where there are natural breaks in play every few seconds that allow decisions to be reviewed, and where the scoring of points, runs or touchdowns are so rare as to be celebrated in the same way that goals are. In the quest for perfection in decisions (which, as we are seeing, isn't realistically achievable when humans are still running the system) we are throwing away the best parts of the game and it is destroying the spectacle.
I assume you don't watch a whole lot of rugby. The days of the game stopping every 30seconds are long gone, it's no more stop start than football now. How it's managed and run in rugby is spot on and is exactly the model football should've followed. There's 4 main points and I don't think football has any of them right:
If play stops (for a booking, set piece or score) then, if needed, a review happens before the restart of play, if it's not clear the refs original decision stands. - football mostly gets the first bit right but the 2nd bit is a mess.
If the game carries on then it can only be called back if the ref has missed serious foul play. - I haven't seen this happen often in football, not sure what the rules are around it.
If the ref is unsure they can ask for a review. - This never happens and is a big part of the problem.
The ref is mic'ed up and explains his reasoning for decisions that are reviewed. - This makes it hard for people to understand the decisions and creates as many problems as VAR is meant to fix.
Of those the only one where 'natural breaks in play' would make a difference is in the 2nd case but think about the sort of incidents that covers. Someone getting kicked or elbowed off the ball and it not being seen by any of the officials for example. Surely something that allows those players to be punished during the game rather than just a post match review/ban is better.
I’ve played Rugby for over 30 years, and while the game may have sped up it is nothing like football even now. Every scrum, line-out, penalty and free-kick takes at least 30 seconds to set up and eats up huge amounts of game time. That is before you get to periods of play where little is happening due to back and forth kicking, or tied up slowly going through phases of possession.
I love Rugby, but it is nowhere near as free-flowing as football and does allow for reviews as it is rare you will get more than a couple of minutes of play before there is a significant stoppage for a set-piece. You would also never get a situation in Rugby like one in the Burnley-Bournemouth game last season where a goal was disallowed and a penalty awarded at the other end because one team broke and the first opportunity to review the decision came after the ball had gone into the net of the team who got the penalty. Finally, Rugby also stops the clock for injuries, reviews etc in a way football doesn’t, so if we have VAR decisions that take 3-4 minutes then we are going to see games that last nearly 2 hours before long.
If we have VAR then I absolutely accept that football can learn a lot from the way the assistance is used in Rugby. My problem with it is that it fundamentally changes the nature of the game and our relationship with it as spectators. If it was just used to review serious foul play that the ref might have missed then I could just about accept it, but it will never stop at that and so I don’t think that’s a price worth paying.
-
I’ve played Rugby for over 30 years, and while the game may have sped up it is nothing like football even now. Every scrum, line-out, penalty and free-kick takes at least 30 seconds to set up and eats up huge amounts of game time. That is before you get to periods of play where little is happening due to back and forth kicking, or tied up slowly going through phases of possession.
I love Rugby, but it is nowhere near as free-flowing as football and does allow for reviews as it is rare you will get more than a couple of minutes of play before there is a significant stoppage for a set-piece. You would also never get a situation in Rugby like one in the Burnley-Bournemouth game last season where a goal was disallowed and a penalty awarded at the other end because one team broke and the first opportunity to review the decision came after the ball had gone into the net of the team who got the penalty. Finally, Rugby also stops the clock for injuries, reviews etc in a way football doesn’t, so if we have VAR decisions that take 3-4 minutes then we are going to see games that last nearly 2 hours before long.
If we have VAR then I absolutely accept that football can learn a lot from the way the assistance is used in Rugby. My problem with it is that it fundamentally changes the nature of the game and our relationship with it as spectators. If it was just used to review serious foul play that the ref might have missed then I could just about accept it, but it will never stop at that and so I don’t think that’s a price worth paying.
TL;DR For Most posters, I agree that it marks a fundamental change for football but it did for rugby and cricket as well, the difference is the officials in those sports wanted it to succeed, I don't think they do in football.
Playing at a level below the top flight doesn't really have much bearing on this, I've played for 20 years myself and I barely see my level and international and European standard as the same sport, the difference in fitness levels alone is frightening. I watch as much rugby as football and I'd say the number of slow stop-start games and faced passed back and forth is about the same between the 2. Most of the long delays that used to happen around scrums in particular are gone now the hit has been removed. Football has shorter but more regular breaks for things like corners, goal kicks and throw-ins compared to line-outs and drop-outs with free kicks and penalties taking as long in each sport in my opinion. The 1 difference is the penalty kicked into the corner for a line-out there's no equivalent of using a set-piece to gain another in football.
First bold bit - how is that any different to teams passing it around their back 4 for 30-40 seconds as happens regularly when they need a breather?
Second, is that honestly not true for most football games? how often do you see a period where stuff that might be reviewed is happening and the ball stays in play for 3-4 minutes? It's not as common as a lot of people think.
Third, last season or the one before Cobus Reinach had a try disallowed to give a penalty against saints in their 22, I remember it well because I was fucking livid.
Fourth, They already take this into account 4-5 minutes at the end of each half isn't that unusual. On top of that Football is designed around the ball being in play for roughly 2/3rds of the game time and rugby is pretty similar, if you look it up the stats back this up. Most of the clock stopping now is because of injuries or reviews, clubs taking the piss getting ready for scrums and line outs doesn't happen now.
-
I’ve played Rugby for over 30 years, and while the game may have sped up it is nothing like football even now. Every scrum, line-out, penalty and free-kick takes at least 30 seconds to set up and eats up huge amounts of game time. That is before you get to periods of play where little is happening due to back and forth kicking, or tied up slowly going through phases of possession.
I love Rugby, but it is nowhere near as free-flowing as football and does allow for reviews as it is rare you will get more than a couple of minutes of play before there is a significant stoppage for a set-piece. You would also never get a situation in Rugby like one in the Burnley-Bournemouth game last season where a goal was disallowed and a penalty awarded at the other end because one team broke and the first opportunity to review the decision came after the ball had gone into the net of the team who got the penalty. Finally, Rugby also stops the clock for injuries, reviews etc in a way football doesn’t, so if we have VAR decisions that take 3-4 minutes then we are going to see games that last nearly 2 hours before long.
If we have VAR then I absolutely accept that football can learn a lot from the way the assistance is used in Rugby. My problem with it is that it fundamentally changes the nature of the game and our relationship with it as spectators. If it was just used to review serious foul play that the ref might have missed then I could just about accept it, but it will never stop at that and so I don’t think that’s a price worth paying.
TL;DR For Most posters, I agree that it marks a fundamental change for football but it did for rugby and cricket as well, the difference is the officials in those sports wanted it to succeed, I don't think they do in football.
Playing at a level below the top flight doesn't really have much bearing on this, I've played for 20 years myself and I barely see my level and international and European standard as the same sport, the difference in fitness levels alone is frightening. I watch as much rugby as football and I'd say the number of slow stop-start games and faced passed back and forth is about the same between the 2. Most of the long delays that used to happen around scrums in particular are gone now the hit has been removed. Football has shorter but more regular breaks for things like corners, goal kicks and throw-ins compared to line-outs and drop-outs with free kicks and penalties taking as long in each sport in my opinion. The 1 difference is the penalty kicked into the corner for a line-out there's no equivalent of using a set-piece to gain another in football.
First bold bit - how is that any different to teams passing it around their back 4 for 30-40 seconds as happens regularly when they need a breather?
Second, is that honestly not true for most football games? how often do you see a period where stuff that might be reviewed is happening and the ball stays in play for 3-4 minutes? It's not as common as a lot of people think.
Third, last season or the one before Cobus Reinach had a try disallowed to give a penalty against saints in their 22, I remember it well because I was fucking livid.
Fourth, They already take this into account 4-5 minutes at the end of each half isn't that unusual. On top of that Football is designed around the ball being in play for roughly 2/3rds of the game time and rugby is pretty similar, if you look it up the stats back this up. Most of the clock stopping now is because of injuries or reviews, clubs taking the piss getting ready for scrums and line outs doesn't happen now.
Rugby is still a fundamentally different game, not least in the way the ball is turned over, meaning it is far easier to slow down a game. Even though they have been sped up, it still takes a good 30 seconds every time a line out or scrum is set up, and they often lead directly into another period where the ball is held up either through kicking exchanges or the ball being kept tight.
None of this is to criticise the game, but VAR can work much better in a sport where the expectation is for regular breaks in play, or at least extended periods of slow play. I think the biggest difference between the two sports can be seen from possession metrics - games are regularly won by teams with 30% possession in football. I don’t have the stats to hand, but I would be very surprised if many Rugby teams win matches with that level of possession.
All of this though comes back to what do we want football to be? As you said, top level Rugby might as well be a different sport to the one we have played on a Saturday afternoon - that doesn’t appeal to me at all when it comes to football.
It’s ludicrous that we effectively have different rules operating in the Premier League to every other level of football in England because of VAR. I hate the fact that my first reaction now to a tackle, free kick, penalty or goal is ‘what is VAR going to do’. One of football’s beauties is its spontaneity, and I just don’t think whatever advantages VAR supposedly brings are worth the price of what is being lost at the moment.
-
My eyes are bleeding
-
The system is in part subjective. The camera angle is usually not in line as required for horse racing. The precise moment the ball is kicked is impossible to determine accurately compared to arbitrary lines that leave no room for judgement. Who checks the pitch dimensions that I assume are the points of reference for said drawn lines? Is the lens aberration in the camera and the monitor checked? Sounds a bit extreme I know but if one part of the process is definitive then everything else has to be. Otherwise a margin for error needs to be included which should favour the attacker.
-
The system is in part subjective. The camera angle is usually not in line as required for horse racing. The precise moment the ball is kicked is impossible to determine accurately compared to arbitrary lines that leave no room for judgement. Who checks the pitch dimensions that I assume are the points of reference for said drawn lines? Is the lens aberration in the camera and the monitor checked? Sounds a bit extreme I know but if one part of the process is definitive then everything else has to be. Otherwise a margin for error needs to be included which should favour the attacker.
Fantastic post. I fully agree.
-
Why should it favour the attacker? It's a law meant to stop goals being scored.
-
Why should it favour the attacker? It's a law meant to stop goals being scored.
It's a law to stop an attacker from gaining an unfair advantage.
-
It used to favour the defenders. That was when the attacking player receiving the ball had to be behind the last defender. The law changed because everyone wanted to see more goals as that is what the game is all about so they allowed level to be deemed onside. Now, there is no such thing as level. That’s how it appears to me anyway. So we have reverted back to it favouring the defender.
-
It’s really only to stop goal hanging, so surely if we’re talking about fingertips, elbows or heals something has gone wrong.
Last season Jack had his back to goal, out on the wing and the back of his heal was slightly off. That’s one of probably over twenty ridiculous decisions we’ve had with VAR.
-
It’s really only to stop goal hanging, so surely if we’re talking about fingertips, elbows or heals something has gone wrong.
Last season Jack had his back to goal, out on the wing and the back of his heal was slightly off. That’s one of probably over twenty ridiculous decisions we’ve had with VAR.
I think it was Wes wasn't it? The Burnley game.
But you're right, the rule is to stop strikers taking the piss and with VAR it's got ridiculously out of hand.
-
I was thinking of Jack being called for offside when he crossed for someone, can’t remember who scored and I’m sure it was against Man Utd. The Wes one was yet another stupid VAR incident. Jacks header was ruled out wasn’t it?
-
I really don't care how lines are drawn, different angles, what part of a body counts etc. I still wouldn't care if they somehow managed to come up with a 100% fool proof accurate and quick way of doing it. What I do care about is celebrating bloody goals. It massively pisses me off and is turning me off the game fast that I sit at home watching us score against the stripeys and I just sit there knowing there's no point celebrating as it might not count. Is that the game we all want to see...we score a goal...waaaaait, waaaaait bit more, hang on, bit longer...nearly done, yeah goal stands...wahey!!! Nope.
-
I really don't care how lines are drawn, different angles, what part of a body counts etc. I still wouldn't care if they somehow managed to come up with a 100% fool proof accurate and quick way of doing it. What I do care about is celebrating bloody goals. It massively pisses me off and is turning me off the game fast that I sit at home watching us score against the stripeys and I just sit there knowing there's no point celebrating as it might not count. Is that the game we all want to see...we score a goal...waaaaait, waaaaait bit more, hang on, bit longer...nearly done, yeah goal stands...wahey!!! Nope.
This is how I feel. Watching a goal being scored is reduced to a soulless waiting period. It’s Like banking a cheque. You make an application to have 1 added to your account. If all is correct and above board your funds will be available shortly.
-
We now find ourselves in a situation where an elbow or a toe can rule out a goal which of course is ludicrous because the technology right now just can't be so precise and it's really not in the spirit of the game. When they got hold of var originally were the club's involved? If not why not. Those who were originally involved got it wrong royally. They've dug themselves into a hole and just kept on digging rather than admit they got it wrong. There's an old saying that goes "when you're in a hole stop digging" I just wish someone at the top had the common sense and the balls to call a halt to the whole shabby mess and admit they've messed up and go back to the drawing board. Then re-introduce it once there's a unanimous agreement on how to implement it. In my view it could still be the useful addition to the game that we all hoped for. I'd break it down simply as:
Reviewers at Stockley Park are there to help cut out the OBVIOUS mistakes by referees. If a blatant offside is missed by the officials the ref is told to go to the monitor and have a look. No lines on the screen. Just the ref getting a better view of what he may have missed.
In the case of a possible penalty once again he goes to the monitor. No slow mo's just replays of better angles. And the same for serious foul play with the same criteria.
That's it. That's all that's needed from var, applied fairly and equally.
-
My take on VAR FWIW:
Camera's to cover all perimeter lines of the pitch so that there can be no doubt that the whole of the ball is over the whole of the line should it ever be contentious.
Camera's to cover the half way line to determine if an attacking player is in his own half in a contentious off-side a la Dean Saunders/Jimmy Greaves scenario.
Camera's to cover the penalty area lines to determine inside or not.
Camera's to be used in a case of mistaken identity.
The rest can be put in the fucking bin and hand the game back to the referee and linesmen/women. We've lived with the game for the best part of one hundred and fifty years and survived until this shit-show and the fools that operate it showed up, I could still live with it.
-
Not bad for a starting point.
ATM, we have strikers who have goals disallowed because their finger is offside, but when a defender's arm is keeping them onside, the goal is disallowed anyway!!
-
Not bad for a starting point.
ATM, we have strikers who have goals disallowed because their finger is offside, but when a defender's arm is keeping them onside, the goal is disallowed anyway!!
Ollie Watkins has been particularly hard done by. Of the two he's had chalked off recently the one at West Ham was ridiculously tight. The one against the Olbiyun was wrong. Plain and simple.
-
The Edge's post has made me think that the best way to solve the current fiasco is to make the referee rule on every bit of pedantic geometry that VAR suggests.
If a referee had to go to the monitor to judge whether one of Traoré's bollock hairs being ahead of the last-but-one defender actually constituted an advantage, they might start showing a bit more common sense.
-
Wot The Edge said.
It's there to help, not take over!
-
As has been said on here previously: which foot did he score with? The right one. Was this foot in an offside position as the ball came in? No. Then the goal is given.
What's wrong with that?
-
As has been said on here previously: which foot did he score with? The right one. Was this foot in an offside position as the ball came in? No. Then the goal is given.
What's wrong with that?
its nothing to do with which foot he scores with the rule states:-
A player is in an offside position if: any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents' half (excluding the halfway line) and. any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.
-
I still would argue that whether it is offside or handball there needs to be evidence of a clear and obvious advantage being created. So when Ollie score against Albion did he have a clear and obvious advantage that he created by his position played in real time? I would say absolutely not.
And with handball offences, there are too many incidental contacts of the ball hitting an arm where the player is adjudged to have that part of the body in an unnatural position. At full speed, it’s almost impossible to make that adjustment for the defender. So again I would argue, at full speed did the defender create a clear and obvious advantage when the ball hits his arm or hand?
-
The logical argument though is that if the player scored as a result of either being offside or handling the ball he must've got an advantage. If you then say it's whether he had enough of an advantage from doing that you're just adding another element of subjectivity in to it.
It's an easy fix for me - ditch the lines and limit the review to 15 seconds. If you can't tell whether it's offside within those parameters the goal stands.
As has been said a million times already (but seems to be being ignored by those in charge of implementing it), VAR isn't there to make decisions 100% correct, it's there to stop absolute howlers.
-
football is all about opinions. I am anti VAR but if we must have it then leave it to the referee to check at the touchline. Another pair of eyes is certainly not helping.
-
football is all about opinions. I am anti VAR but if we must have it then leave it to the referee to check at the touchline. Another pair of eyes is certainly not helping.
Agreed. I have always been anti VAR, because I don’t like the idea of the game being different at the highest level from lower levels like Sunday league. I like the idea of all football being unified by the same set of rules and interpretations. I was also sceptical that adding another layer of subjectivity would instantly solve the problems that people were trying to solve. The reality though has been worse than I could have anticipated. It seems fundamentally wrong to try to reach categorical conclusions about something so fluid, dynamic and nuanced. Much better I think to accept that a player is offside or onside ‘as far as I can tell with my bare eyes in real time’.
-
When events are slowed down they seem to become detached from, or take on a different reality. Football isn’t played in slow motion, and your perception of the causality between actions is often lost when slowed down.
Football is supposed to be a contact sport. It’s more about the rules than VAR, but what seems to have been lost is whether the outcome was materially affected by the infraction. Yes, there might have been contact, but is that the reason why the player lost balance? Or was an advantage gained?
-
I wonder if VAR would work better if say, instead, managers had the chance to make a maximum of 2 challenges a game.
-
As we’ve seen though Stockley Park still get it wrong and are inconsistent.
-
I wonder if VAR would work better if say, instead, managers had the chance to make a maximum of 2 challenges a game.
I've said that in the past that all decisions should be by the on field referee. He can call for help to VAR if he and/or the assistant feels it is warranted or simply go to the monitor. But like the NFL the coaches get two challenges per game. Now, if you make the first challenge and you fail then you lose the second, so it is important that you make them for the right reason. But this whole notion of VAR drawing lines for 3 minutes or watching everything in super slow motion multiple times a game would be over almost immediately
-
Interesting that Clattenburg said VAR wouldn’t even check our goal as they’d cleared the cross and so the play was reset.
Just casting my mind back to the goal we had chalked off at Burnley where that was exactly what happened. Hmm....
-
How anyone could think Jack had actually fouled in the build up was beyond me. He was running with the ball and Christensen just stands and blocks him off.
-
How anyone could think Jack had actually fouled in the build up was beyond me. He was running with the ball and Christensen just stands and blocks him off.
Didn't Christensen stick a leg out and foul Jack as he was passed? Looked like it to me.
-
I said the same, if anything Jack was impeded. I didn’t understand what the commentators were on about.
-
Get rid of VAR.
I'd rather think that the referee needed spectacles.
-
Some form of rolling viewing by an external official who can alert the on pitch ref when he has severely dropped a bollock might be more palatable.
-
It doesn't work.
-
Having technology is a great thing; no problem.
The challenge is to agree how to use it to its advantage and to put in place the guidelines for refs that make sense and minimise subjectivity. The offside rule is the obvious example of this: because of the precision now available, the rule clearly needs to change to retain the spirit of the law. This has not happened.
My sense is that refs saw VAR as an opportunity to justify their own decisions and cover their arse: look how linemen are now instructed not to flag for offside until a move has concluded - this is crazy and frustrating for players and fans, but it is done to avoid embarrassment of the officials.
-
5 minute long forensic analysis has now turned into a cursary glance and "fuck it" attitude.
-
Know I'm preaching to the converted, but the way VAR is used is utterly ludicrous. One example is the offside rule. If you're judging something based on millimeters, that's happening in a fraction of a second - how on earth is either the attacking or defending player going to judge that in real life? They can't decide to start their run with an accuracy measured in hundreths of a second. The decision is being made on very little more than random chance.
A similar argument could be made on how much of a conscious decision was made for Doug's "foul", resulting in a penalty. It's a nonsense to award a penalty based on something where you choose easily argue that the foul is neither deliberate, nor a clear cut case. An indirect free kick at a push, but certainly not a penalty.
All of this is especially brought in to focus when it's also *not* being used to clamp down on clear cut foul play, like the Mings-Zaha incident, where there was clearly a punch in the stomach.
I don't have any problem at all with the principle of VAR, but the way it's being applied is nothing short of ridiculous, and causes far more harm than good.
-
When the PL/ FA allowed the creation of the PGMOL and its full control over VAR, It was the equivalent of the Federal Aviation Authority abdicating Air Safety responsibility to Boeing in respect of the 737 Max.
Quit custodiet ipsos custodes?
-
Can anyone tell me when an indirect free kick was last awarded in the penalty area?
-
Can anyone tell me when an indirect free kick was last awarded in the penalty area?
Back pass to goalkeeper yesterday.
-
and that was then taken from outside!
-
and that was then taken from outside!
Really? That's something basic that refs should be all over, like trying to sneakily take a free kick for offside in the opposition's half.
-
I've looked at a random selection of other clubs fan forums and one thing is for certain. Football fans have had a belly full of all the VAR nonsense. They always say that without the fans football is nothing and the whole not being able to celebrate a goal properly is turning fans against the sport in droves and the only place where we get to express our feelings about VAR is on our respective forums. There's no joined up thinking. So I'm wondering if it could it be possible to form an alliance of Premier League supporters to make ourselves heard. Something like "Football fans against VAR" I really feel like we need to make ourselves heard on this.
-
I've looked at a random selection of other clubs fan forums and one thing is for certain. Football fans have had a belly full of all the VAR nonsense. They always say that without the fans football is nothing and the whole not being able to celebrate a goal properly is turning fans against the sport in droves and the only place where we get to express our feelings about VAR is on our respective forums. There's no joined up thinking. So I'm wondering if it could it be possible to form an alliance of Premier League supporters to make ourselves heard. Something like "Football fans against VAR" I really feel like we need to make ourselves heard on this.
I find it odd that the Premier League are allowing PGMOL to damage their really valuable brand as they are doing.
-
The only thing VAR has proved is that you can’t remove subjectivity from football. People will forever see incidents differently - tackles, handballs, red cards and no amount of VAR analysis is changing that as we have seen from one game to the next.
It should be used for fact based line decisions only - so offsides but even there the technology needs to be improved and a worldwide standard used. Other than that, get rid and let referees get on with it.
-
Is the PL brand being damaged, though? I dreaded its introduction, it's proven to be every bit as shit and problematic as I hoped it wouldn't, and I'd be beyond elated to see the back of it. But that said, I find I only get worked up when I perceive an injustice against us. Couldn't give a remotest toss about what happens with other teams and other games. I'd even be in favour of keeping it if it just fucked everybody else over. I don't think the global audience will be turning off their tellies or buying fewer shirts any time soon because they think differently.
-
The only thing VAR has proved is that you can’t remove subjectivity from football. People will forever see incidents differently - tackles, handballs, red cards and no amount of VAR analysis is changing that as we have seen from one game to the next.
It should be used for fact based line decisions only - so offsides but even there the technology needs to be improved and a worldwide standard used. Other than that, get rid and let referees get on with it.
I agree with your point about subjectivity. The Man Utd penalty absolutely proves that one. We even have some of our own fans on here who saw that footage as a correct decision. I look at the same footage and simply can't believe that people still think that's a pen. In my view (which I'm aware I'm repeating) VAR should only be used in an advisory capacity. When they see a debatable decision that leads to a goal or a penalty award Stockley Park simply tells the ref to go to the pitch side monitor and review it. And he watches it in normal speed but with the various angles to help him. No lines on screen and no slow mo. But even then it would be subjective as Stockley Park sometimes doesn't review a decision even though it looks very debatable. Like when Harry McGuire had a Chelsea player in a full headlock recently which should have been a penalty but they didn't even look at it. Why didn't they? That's the million dollar question.
-
I still think it can work, but only with a serious re-think.
I agree with Edge, the control needs to be handed back to the on-field ref. We need to get rid of this 'clear and obvious' bollocks and the ref and VAR should be able to have a grown up discussion - "I think he clipped his calf, do you think that's enough for a pen?" etc. It is utter madness that with all this technology the onfield ref can't just take another look at the screen to check his decison without it looking like he's being frogmarched to the naughty step.
I think offside could be tidied up, but generally I'm in favour of technology checking it. I'd prefer a fixed data point though based on, for example, trunk of upper body (ie chest/back) or furthest foot forward, rather than guesswork on shirt sleeve lines, togehter with wider lines to allow more margin for error.
-
I still think it can work, but only with a serious re-think.
I agree with Edge, the control needs to be handed back to the on-field ref. We need to get rid of this 'clear and obvious' bollocks and the ref and VAR should be able to have a grown up discussion - "I think he clipped his calf, do you think that's enough for a pen?" etc. It is utter madness that with all this technology the onfield ref can't just take another look at the screen to check his decison without it looking like he's being frogmarched to the naughty step.
I think offside could be tidied up, but generally I'm in favour of technology checking it. I'd prefer a fixed data point though based on, for example, trunk of upper body (ie chest/back) or furthest foot forward, rather than guesswork on shirt sleeve lines, togehter with wider lines to allow more margin for error.
It's that margin of error which is crucial to me when it comes to offside decisions. The technology just isn't accurate enough to be giving an offside for millimetres and it's actually laughable that they think it is. No just let the ref look at the monitor and avail himself with the various angles in normal speed. No stupid bloody lines just the refs eyesight. If it's too close to call it's not offside. They will soon spot an obvious offside and won't have to feel like they've made a mistake. They would just be using better angles which they can't get at pitch level. They need to stop over complicating it because they're making themselves look very foolish and incompetent ar the moment.
-
Dermot Gallaghers take on the penalty on Ref Watch was that another referee on another day might have given a different decision which I guess is as close as he will go to saying no penalty.
He also expressed a view though that as Oliver was in a good position to see the incident there was "no way VAR was EVER going over rule it Surely this begs the question what IS the point of VAR then. He felt Oliver had seen the clash of legs and felt that has been down to Luiz. Perhaps however if he had been recommended to go to the monitor he would have had the chance to correct that decision. VAR shoukd have given him that help
-
Dermot Gallaghers take on the penalty on Ref Watch was that another referee on another day might have given a different decision which I guess is as close as he will go to saying no penalty.
He also expressed a view though that as Oliver was in a good position to see the incident there was "no way VAR was EVER going over rule it Surely this begs the question what IS the point of VAR then. He felt Oliver had seen the clash of legs and felt that has been down to Luiz. Perhaps however if he had been recommended to go to the monitor he would have had the chance to correct that decision. VAR shoukd have given him that help
It's the inconsistency that drives me mad. That and referee's/ex referee's covering each others arse. VAR having seen the angles that Michael Oliver didn't clearly had an obligation to at least inform the ref that he may have made a mistake. They are driving me mad this season with VAR. I was in favour of it when it was first mooted but now I've seen what a total fuck up they have made of it I will throw a party if they bin it. In my view the biggest problem with the whole thing is referees egos and that really boils my piss.
-
I can't help but feel that if that had been in a Manchester derby (or even given the other way) the referee would have been asked to look at it again.
For me that is where a lot of the frustration comes from, the feeling that it increases or engenders unconscious biases rather than eliminates them.
-
It really should be very simple.
Offsides - if you have to draw a line to the nearest tenth of a millimetre, then just about all football fans would rather the goal was given, even if against their team. We wanted it for the 'clear and obvious errors' where somebody was 6 feet offside, not their shoulder blade being ahead of the defender's knee by a micron.
Everything else - should be there to point out where a ref has missed something, or where the ref himself is unsure of something he has seen. In the former case, the VAR team can ask him to watch it on the monitor while discussing. In the latter, he goes to the monitor and does the same thing, then makes a decision within 60 seconds of viewing the replay. If he can't in that time, it's not clear and obvious, so play on.
And it really should be as easy as that.
-
It really should be very simple.
Offsides - if you have to draw a line to the nearest tenth of a millimetre, then just about all football fans would rather the goal was given, even if against their team. We wanted it for the 'clear and obvious errors' where somebody was 6 feet offside, not their shoulder blade being ahead of the defender's knee by a micron.
Everything else - should be there to point out where a ref has missed something, or where the ref himself is unsure of something he has seen. In the former case, the VAR team can ask him to watch it on the monitor while discussing. In the latter, he goes to the monitor and does the same thing, then makes a decision within 60 seconds of viewing the replay. If he can't in that time, it's not clear and obvious, so play on.
And it really should be as easy as that.
You make it sound so simple! If only common sense prevailed with these people.
-
Call me a Luddite, but I would honestly prefer to have none of it - now it is there we are just on a slippery slope to everything being reviewed and completely killing the flow of the game. I would accept the fact that Man Utd get dodgy penalties every week if it was just the referee doing it - the fact that a third party is looking at it and still awarding them week after week is insufferable. Add this to the biggest problem of all, that no-one can truly celebrate a goal now until the game has kicked off again, and we are losing a huge part of the soul of the game.
One final thing on the offside lines as well, it is a literal impossibility to judge calls to the degree they are being scrutinised now. How are the VAR officials deciding when the ball is kicked? Is it from the time the foot makes contact with the ball, or from the point at which it leaves? When striking a football there will be an arc of contact between the foot and the ball that is measured in centimetres rather than millimetres, which means there must be a range of tolerance of a similar degree. On top of this, when viewed on a side on camera it is impossible to distinguish the precise moment that the foot is in contact with the ball - how then, are offsides like the ones Watkins has seen given in the last few games even possible to decide upon?
I will put up with a lot of shit when it comes to football, but I honestly think VAR is the worst innovation in the history of the game and is massively damaging. Teams will talk about the millions of pounds that can ride upon some of these decisions making total accuracy a necessity - the problem is, fundamentally change it in the way VAR has, and a lot of the reasons for those millions of pounds start to disappear. Once fans are back in the grounds it will become really apparent how unpopular VAR is.
-
It really should be very simple.
Offsides - if you have to draw a line to the nearest tenth of a millimetre, then just about all football fans would rather the goal was given, even if against their team. We wanted it for the 'clear and obvious errors' where somebody was 6 feet offside, not their shoulder blade being ahead of the defender's knee by a micron.
Everything else - should be there to point out where a ref has missed something, or where the ref himself is unsure of something he has seen. In the former case, the VAR team can ask him to watch it on the monitor while discussing. In the latter, he goes to the monitor and does the same thing, then makes a decision within 60 seconds of viewing the replay. If he can't in that time, it's not clear and obvious, so play on.
And it really should be as easy as that.
This.
Please, just this.
It isn't complicated but they've made an absolutely fucking complex mess of the whole thing.
-
Call me a Luddite, but I would honestly prefer to have none of it - now it is there we are just on a slippery slope to everything being reviewed and completely killing the flow of the game. I would accept the fact that Man Utd get dodgy penalties every week if it was just the referee doing it - the fact that a third party is looking at it and still awarding them week after week is insufferable. Add this to the biggest problem of all, that no-one can truly celebrate a goal now until the game has kicked off again, and we are losing a huge part of the soul of the game.
One final thing on the offside lines as well, it is a literal impossibility to judge calls to the degree they are being scrutinised now. How are the VAR officials deciding when the ball is kicked? Is it from the time the foot makes contact with the ball, or from the point at which it leaves? When striking a football there will be an arc of contact between the foot and the ball that is measured in centimetres rather than millimetres, which means there must be a range of tolerance of a similar degree. On top of this, when viewed on a side on camera it is impossible to distinguish the precise moment that the foot is in contact with the ball - how then, are offsides like the ones Watkins has seen given in the last few games even possible to decide upon?
I will put up with a lot of shit when it comes to football, but I honestly think VAR is the worst innovation in the history of the game and is massively damaging. Teams will talk about the millions of pounds that can ride upon some of these decisions making total accuracy a necessity - the problem is, fundamentally change it in the way VAR has, and a lot of the reasons for those millions of pounds start to disappear. Once fans are back in the grounds it will become really apparent how unpopular VAR is.
Good post
-
It really should be very simple.
Offsides - if you have to draw a line to the nearest tenth of a millimetre, then just about all football fans would rather the goal was given, even if against their team. We wanted it for the 'clear and obvious errors' where somebody was 6 feet offside, not their shoulder blade being ahead of the defender's knee by a micron.
Everything else - should be there to point out where a ref has missed something, or where the ref himself is unsure of something he has seen. In the former case, the VAR team can ask him to watch it on the monitor while discussing. In the latter, he goes to the monitor and does the same thing, then makes a decision within 60 seconds of viewing the replay. If he can't in that time, it's not clear and obvious, so play on.
And it really should be as easy as that.
Difficulty is that the genii is out of the bottle. Pre VAR there would be endless reviews of "mistakes" on/off side and penalty calls [usually favouring the Sky Six] after the game. Scottish fans would have wanted VAR for Henry's hand ball, Be in no doubt I certainly would have wanted VAR to review if that dirty b*stard Vidic should have been sent off at Wembley ...
VAR does work, the issue is the numpties interpreting it. It is the delay. I thought it worked quite well in the World Cup, conversely I was screaming at the TV to "just make a decision one way or the other" on the Watkins "goal" at West Ham. 5 minutes!
The off-side rule needs to be changed, perhaps to a foot or a head off side not the knee or shoulder ... no one deliberately "shoulders" the ball in the net, well not many people.
-
If you're offside, you're offside. I couldn't give a fig by how much it is.
-
If you're offside, you're offside. I couldn't give a fig by how much it is.
But the only way this can possibly work is if we go back to the situation where a player is only offside if there is a clear gap between the striker and the last defender - there isn't, and can never be, a precise moment where a pass is made to the degree the current system requires and is interpreting the offside law. It almost becomes a philosophical debate at that point!
-
If you're offside, you're offside. I couldn't give a fig by how much it is.
Do you mean you are happy for someone to be offside by there elbow or finger like we’re seeing now?
-
If you're offside, you're offside. I couldn't give a fig by how much it is.
But the only way this can possibly work is if we go back to the situation where a player is only offside if there is a clear gap between the striker and the last defender - there isn't, and can never be, a precise moment where a pass is made to the degree the current system requires and is interpreting the offside law. It almost becomes a philosophical debate at that point!
Exactly. Say a player like Jack stops the ball dead, and then passes it 2 seconds later to Watkins. At what point is VAR doing their line drawing? When there's a mm of daylight between ball and foot? How on earth can they physically ascertain that?
-
If you're going to measure it, then you have to do that accurately. If you don't want questionable or immoral offsides, no fucking end of pissing about with definitions of body parts and ball playing and line width is going to eradicate them while you've still got them being measured. You can't measure it a bit.
I'm long standing in my opinion of var that it would be, is, and shall continue to be a massive sack of shit. I'd rather see one shot a decade slam back off the inside of a stanchion and not be given than the fucking crap that's now inflicted upon me.
You'll have to excuse the profanities, they reflect my strength of feeling on this subject.
-
The original point of the offside rule was to stop attackers gaining an advantage and it still should be. If part of the attacker's body is offside by a margin which can only be determined by use of geometry and 5 minutes of match time and all based on a guess as to when the ball was actually kicked; he surely can't be reasonably said to have gained any advantage.
If they think a decision is wrong and ask the pitch referee to look at it again and HE decides what happens next, I can just about see its merits (Pogba's dive would have been exposed etc.). That really is the limit of its use though. Otherwise fuck the whole thing off.
-
If you're offside, you're offside. I couldn't give a fig by how much it is.
The offside law states that to be offside you must be ahead of the last defender when the ball is played. The crucial part here is "when the ball is played" Is it judged from the first contact with the ball or the point where contact is broken? That's the first problem. If they're going to be so forensically pedantic that they draw lines everywhere to get pinpoint accuracy then it stands to reason that they have to be just as precise as to when the ball is played. Anything else is just a guess.They can not do this so those people who say "well offside is offside no matter how small the margin is" need to have a rethink.
-
The original point of the offside rule was to stop attackers gaining an advantage and it still should be. If part of the attacker's body is offside by a margin which can only be determined by use of geometry and 5 minutes of match time and all based on a guess as to when the ball was actually kicked; he surely can't be reasonably said to have gained any advantage.
If they think a decision is wrong and ask the pitch referee to look at it again and HE decides what happens next, I can just about see its merits (Pogba's dive would have been exposed etc.). That really is the limit of its use though. Otherwise fuck the whole thing off.
Hallelujah! Why it's not implemented like this is beyond me.
-
Interesting comments from Mark Clattenburg on his take on Man US diving team. Specifically on Pogba versus Villa "There was slight contact from Villa's Douglas Luiz but Pogba tripped himself causing the fall. I would have waved play on. I was very surprised that VAR did not recommend a pitch side review"
Bugger all use to us now though!
-
Hmmmmm.
Clattenberg talking about shit refereeing decisions!
I think my Ironyometer has just exploded.
-
Hmmmmm.
Clattenberg talking about shit refereeing decisions!
I think my Ironyometer has just exploded.
I'm with you on this one dcdavecollett. A poor referee not as bad as that first Uriah Rennie but on them lines.
-
It’s corrupt, I’m absolutely convinced of it.
-
It doesn't work.
-
Mings should have wellied it but to be tackled by a player who was 10 yards offside is bollocks. That’s interfering with play.
-
FFP and VAR protect the product.
-
So the precedent is set.I expect all forwards to now goal hang.
-
Var or no bloody var the ref just has to give the city player offside when he tackles Mings. And the pen is almost as bad. The ball is headed straight at Cash from point blank range. He's got no chance of avoiding the ball hitting his hand. It's a robbery in plain sight of the watching world.
-
The more I'm seeing of var the more I'm convinced it was brought in to aid the so-called sky 6 (when they need a goal or when they need one chalked off). The way it's being applied does not help itself in convincing people that it's not a corrupt tool!
-
Shit again. Really fed up with the whole process.
-
So effectively we’ve changed the laws of the game again tonight. It is fine for a striker to stand offside all game now, and just wait for the defender to touch the ball to come back into play.
The absolute bullshit spouted to justify that goal was ridiculous. Of course Mings deliberately played the ball - if he hadn’t then one of the non- offside players can just run through unchallenged, the fact is the offside player got an advantage from being offside!!!!!!
As per the last game though, I can almost accept these shit decisions if it was just the on field ref making them. The fact someone 100 miles away who can see what has happened just backs it up is untenable.
-
That's the biggest pile of shite as an excuse for a wrong decision I've ever heard.
Utter bullshit.
-
Wrong on ever level. Inept maybe. If that had happened in Russia you would have said Putin was behind it.
-
So effectively we’ve changed the laws of the game again tonight. It is fine for a striker to stand offside all game now, and just wait for the defender to touch the ball to come back into play.
The absolute bullshit spouted to justify that goal was ridiculous. Of course Mings deliberately played the ball - if he hadn’t then one of the non- offside players can just run through unchallenged, the fact is the offside player got an advantage from being offside!!!!!!
As per the last game though, I can almost accept these shit decisions if it was just the on field ref making them. The fact someone 100 miles away who can see what has happened just backs it up is untenable.
If Mings catches the ball then they give the offside? It's mental and I'm sick of those ex refs in the media justifying every wrong decision their former colleagues are making
-
How many bad decisions have we had now?
I really don't care if we lose fairly, but this is ridiculous.
-
Shit again. Really fed up with the whole process.
Same for me. Look at what actually gets called offside now and what can get given and it's a total nonsense.
-
This is the law they've used to allow the goal:
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage."
So, they're arguing that Rhodri "received" the ball from Mings, rather than "took it" from. If Tyrone had headed the ball back to Emi and Rhodri had got it and scored, then I can see how this law would apply - but I don't see how you can argue Rhodri "received" the ball from Mings.
I think this is going to lead to some significant changes to how teams approach offside. No more forwards rushing to get back onside, why not wait for the defender to take a touch and try to steal it?
I predict there will be a clarification in the next couple of weeks, because this interpretation of the laws does not lead to the sort of behaviour it's designed to prevent.
-
Its so full of holes. Cross field pass, defender flicks it on to an attacking player... now onside. Its utter bollocks it would never be given.
-
This is the law they've used to allow the goal:
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage."
So, they're arguing that Rhodri "received" the ball from Mings, rather than "took it" from. If Tyrone had headed the ball back to Emi and Rhodri had got it and scored, then I can see how this law would apply - but I don't see how you can argue Rhodri "received" the ball from Mings.
I think this is going to lead to some significant changes to how teams approach offside. No more forwards rushing to get back onside, why not wait for the defender to take a touch and try to steal it?
I predict there will be a clarification in the next couple of weeks, because this interpretation of the laws does not lead to the sort of behaviour it's designed to prevent.
Exactly this. The defender (Mings) is tackled, possession is won from him.
It is not like the attacker latches onto a back-pass.
-
What does ‘plays the ball’ mean?
Is it an attempt to head it clear?
Chest it?
Touch it?
-
The big question is, would it have stood if it was us that had benefitted?
-
That tosser of an ex referee doing a complete 180 after the game. "I've spoken to the governing body who have explained it to me. I understand now and I got it wrong"
What a load of utter shite. They told him to change his stance. Or else. What a pathetic human being. He had the chance there to really make a name for himself. Instead of him peddling the obvious bullshit explanation he could of said:
"well I've listened to their explanation but I believe they are wrong. Mings didn't play the ball deliberately and concede possession he was dispossessed by a player coming back from an offside position "
I've forgotten his name already but I guarantee I'd have remembered it if he'd had the balls to call out their bullshit.
-
That Peter Walton is about as much use as a pair of sunglasses to a bloke with one ear.
-
That Peter Walton is about as much use as a pair of sunglasses to a bloke with one ear.
Damn it you've reminded me of his name. I really wanted to forget the gutless tosser.
-
I dread to think what shit Adrian Durham will come out with today about this, pretty sure it’ll be superior sky 6 shit about players and managers not knowing the rules.
-
That tosser of an ex referee doing a complete 180 after the game. "I've spoken to the governing body who have explained it to me. I understand now and I got it wrong"
What a load of utter shite. They told him to change his stance. Or else. What a pathetic human being. He had the chance there to really make a name for himself. Instead of him peddling the obvious bullshit explanation. He could of said:
"well I've listened to their explanation but I believe they are wrong. Mings didn't play the ball deliberately and concede possession he was dispossessed by a player coming back from an offside position "
I've forgotten his name already but I guarantee I'd have remembered it if he'd had the balls to call out their bullshit.
Sounds like the kind of shit spoken by a cult member. I understand now, it's me, I'm wrong.
-
I dread to think what shit Adrian Durham will come out with today about this, pretty sure it’ll be superior sky 6 shit about players and managers not knowing the rules.
Jim White's being saying just that already. My blood pressure's just shot up again already.
-
Don't think I've ever been so irate about an incident since Thierry Henry and his fucking free kick. Still raging.More so with the mealy mouthed "experts" explaining how it patently is a rule and any other narrative is irrelevant.
-
I dread to think what shit Adrian Durham will come out with today about this, pretty sure it’ll be superior sky 6 shit about players and managers not knowing the rules.
Jim White's being saying just that already. My blood pressure's just shot up again already.
Just seen Pep’s post game presser. Turns out he didn’t know that was the rule either.
-
I dread to think what shit Adrian Durham will come out with today about this, pretty sure it’ll be superior sky 6 shit about players and managers not knowing the rules.
Jim White's being saying just that already. My blood pressure's just shot up again already.
Just seen Pep’s post game presser. Turns out he didn’t know that was the rule either.
It's because that's not really the rule! It just got reinterpreted last night.
The rule as written is to say that if a defender does a dodgy backpass which is intercepted by the striker, that's ok.
It was never written to mean a striker in an offside position can tackle the last defender with impunity!
-
The more I look at it, the more I wonder whether the linesman kept his flag down, as they have been doing all season in these offside situations, and then, when they scored, he lost his nerve about calling it offside.
If that's the case, then we've been done by the polar opposite of the Lansbury goal at Palace last season.
-
That tosser of an ex referee doing a complete 180 after the game. "I've spoken to the governing body who have explained it to me. I understand now and I got it wrong"
What a load of utter shite. They told him to change his stance. Or else. What a pathetic human being. He had the chance there to really make a name for himself. Instead of him peddling the obvious bullshit explanation. He could of said:
"well I've listened to their explanation but I believe they are wrong. Mings didn't play the ball deliberately and concede possession he was dispossessed by a player coming back from an offside position "
I've forgotten his name already but I guarantee I'd have remembered it if he'd had the balls to call out their bullshit.
Trump?
-
I must admit I didn't understand why it's happening but I think it was Risso explained it's due to allowing VAR to be used so play is not stopped. However keeping the flag is another crazy situation because of VAR.
VAR is rubbish as well as the rules to accommodate it and it's spoiling too many things all at once. Also we're now seeing tweaks to the rule part way through a season and it does sometimes feel we are becoming guinea pigs. Ollie would have had maybe two more goals ti his name if the same thing happened this weekend.
-
All I can tell you is they talk about the clear and obvious error and intervention yet what exactly did Moss feed back to VAR in what he had seen. Andy Madderly on Var, from the info provided, despite the clear images, thought it was not enough to intervene and therefore he stood by and let the senior man Moss have his way so not to look as undermining him.
-
Match of the Day last night supporting the goal, but admitting the law needs changing - but I still feel it was misinterpreted due to the 'receives' definition.
if they DON'T make a change, or clarify this, then I don't see how it won't lead to change in the way some forwards play the line. Imagine making a run in behind, but knowing you're offside, so you stop running, the flag stays down, the defender goes to get it, the second he touches it, you can tackle him - perhaps 30 or 40 years further upfield. There will be no penalty for making fake offside runs that force defenders into retreating to get the ball. I can see there being a bit of carnage for a few weeks as wiley forward try to benefit fro this.
-
On any set piece we should put a player close to the goal. The taker should shoot, a defender will try to block it, thus deliberately playing the ball and any ricochet or deflection can be seized upon.
It's bollocks and they know it. Wankers.
-
Match of the Day last night supporting the goal, but admitting the law needs changing - but I still feel it was misinterpreted due to the 'receives' definition.
if they DON'T make a change, or clarify this, then I don't see how it won't lead to change in the way some forwards play the line. Imagine making a run in behind, but knowing you're offside, so you stop running, the flag stays down, the defender goes to get it, the second he touches it, you can tackle him - perhaps 30 or 40 years further upfield. There will be no penalty for making fake offside runs that force defenders into retreating to get the ball. I can see there being a bit of carnage for a few weeks as wiley forward try to benefit fro this.
Spot on!
Exactly why they were saying on MOTD last night that it was "a rubbish law"!
-
On any set piece we should put a player close to the goal. The taker should shoot, a defender will try to block it, thus deliberately playing the ball and any ricochet or deflection can be seized upon.
It's bollocks and they know it. Wankers.
The law they used excludes a "save", so I would imagine that won't be allowed. I think it's more likely it'll be used by the long ball merchants to gain yards up the pitch. Make run you know is offside, stop - let the defender go and get it and press from the second he touches it. It's a free way to buy yourself 40 yards.
-
The worst thing with us getting fucked over by VAR is the bellends on social media that cant form an opinion of their own claiming its justice for the Sheff Utd goal line technology mistake.
-
Can anybody tell me how these two statements from the official FA offside rules aren't completely contradictory?
A player IS offside, if:
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
A player is not offside if
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
The latter bit, is what the Premier League are saying is the rule that means it was a valid goal.
However, what this means is that in last night's situation, Rodri is an offside position when the ball is played. However, if he stays where he is, and in a made up scenario Mings controls the ball, then attempts to play the ball back to the keeper, ie pass it, if Rodri intercepts it then and scores, fair enough it's a valid goal. The first bit I've copied however, says that if a player challenges the defender for the ball, then he IS offside. 'Deliberately plays the ball' from the "not offside" bit, can't then surely mean just controlling the ball like Mings did, because if it did, then the first bit becomes nonsensical as how can the attacker attempt to tackle a player who hasn't got the ball?
Utter, utter bollocks.
-
The worst thing with us getting fucked over by VAR is the bellends on social media that cant form an opinion of their own claiming its justice for the Sheff Utd goal line technology mistake.
This is really winding me up too. It's as if Man City's goal is allowable because of what happened with a failure in technology last season.
No mention that we admitted we got away with one then.
-
The worst thing with us getting fucked over by VAR is the bellends on social media that cant form an opinion of their own claiming its justice for the Sheff Utd goal line technology mistake.
This is really winding me up too. It's as if Man City's goal is allowable because of what happened with a failure in technology last season.
No mention that we admitted we got away with one then.
Pisses me off too. We got away with one, but it was a failure of technology, and nothing else. And no point after did we try to argue about how some bizarre interpretation of a rule meant that it genuinely wasn't a goal.
-
It comes down to this to me.
Look at the goals we had chalked off for offside v West Brom, Arsenal and West Ham. Probably another this season I've forgotten about.
No neutral can say the current offside ruling is perfect for the game when we get those three ruled out for fractions of bodies offside (or Barkley by the keeper when he wasn't saving it anyway) and yet you can get a guy coming back from 10 yards offside to take the ball off a CB.
It's wrong for what we want the game to be and a scandal that VAR is making things worse by a second eye reviewing things and yet allowing these decisions.
I really was naive in thinking VAR would sort many of these bad calls but the opposite has happened.
-
Can anybody tell me how these two statements from the official FA offside rules aren't completely contradictory?
A player IS offside, if:
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
A player is not offside if
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
The latter bit, is what the Premier League are saying is the rule that means it was a valid goal.
However, what this means is that in last night's situation, Rodri is an offside position when the ball is played. However, if he stays where he is, and in a made up scenario Mings controls the ball, then attempts to play the ball back to the keeper, ie pass it, if Rodri intercepts it then and scores, fair enough it's a valid goal. The first bit I've copied however, says that if a player challenges the defender for the ball, then he IS offside. 'Deliberately plays the ball' from the "not offside" bit, can't then surely mean just controlling the ball like Mings did, because if it did, then the first bit becomes nonsensical as how can the attacker attempt to tackle a player who hasn't got the ball?
Utter, utter bollocks.
Superb, Risso. All of this talk about just implementing the rules, when most of the people saying it probably haven't looked at the rules in the first place.
It's even more annoying the goal stood, reading that.
-
On any set piece we should put a player close to the goal. The taker should shoot, a defender will try to block it, thus deliberately playing the ball and any ricochet or deflection can be seized upon.
It's bollocks and they know it. Wankers.
The law they used excludes a "save", so I would imagine that won't be allowed. I think it's more likely it'll be used by the long ball merchants to gain yards up the pitch. Make run you know is offside, stop - let the defender go and get it and press from the second he touches it. It's a free way to buy yourself 40 yards.
If anyone is going to try and exploit it as you describe it's got to be Burnley and Dyche tonight. Be interesting to see how the next few games pan out after this farce.
-
Wasn't there some sort of change to the offside law when Allardyce was in charge at Bolton, that he tried to exploit. I seem to remember him leaving acouple of his players lurking around the penalty area for a while.
edit: to answer my own question, yes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3479755.stm
-
I posted on another thread a link to the 1925 FA meeting that approved the “new” offside law that stood the test of time until 1990
Have a look at Law 6
Clear, concise and unambiguous and then compare it to the dog’s breakfast we now have
https://ssbra.org/ifab/assets/pdf/1925min.pdf
-
https://vimeo.com/191798927
https://youtu.be/e_eEQrgkOmw
2 more examples as to why it's not a goal
-
Still fuming
-
The worst thing with us getting fucked over by VAR is the bellends on social media that cant form an opinion of their own claiming its justice for the Sheff Utd goal line technology mistake.
It's noticeable that those bell-ends are more often than not Leeds fans.
-
What annoys me is that I'm guessing and I cant confirm this but because its caused so much controversy this sort of decision hasn't happened before, at least I cant remember it.
Because usually the minute an offside player goes towards the ball or a player with the ball the flag goes up and its called offside.
So if the officials and all those stating by the letter of the law it was the right decision why haven't we seen it make the headlines before?
Of course perhaps all those times it didn't meant the outcome would mean a Manchester top wankathon.
-
Still fuming
I'm actually getting angrier. I'd think Rhodri himself had no doubt in his mind that the flag would go straight up the moment he made that challenge. Better to concede a free kick there than let Mings launch a counter with citeh high up the pitch.
-
Yes Risso. “Challenging for” the ball or “receiving” the ball. It’s really not hard is it. Utter bias in defending the on pitch decision rather than any fair analysis. Surely there needs to be a principle of objectivity enshrined to mitigate for covering each other’s back?
-
Still fuming
I'm actually getting angrier. I'd think Rhodri himself had no doubt in his mind that the flag would go straight up the moment he made that challenge. Better to concede a free kick there than let Mings launch a counter with citeh high up the pitch.
I think this too. It is the Man City MO. foul as early and as deep as you can get your shape back and there’s very little chance of punishment. All the top teams do it actually. It’s why the possession and territory stats are so good and their foul count so high. This time, and I would expect for evermore, there was an added bonus.
I can’t imagine it was not on every teams tactics board today. I bet Vardy can hardly sleep with excitement waiting for The next game.
-
Can anybody tell me how these two statements from the official FA offside rules aren't completely contradictory?
A player IS offside, if:
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
A player is not offside if
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
The latter bit, is what the Premier League are saying is the rule that means it was a valid goal.
However, what this means is that in last night's situation, Rodri is an offside position when the ball is played. However, if he stays where he is, and in a made up scenario Mings controls the ball, then attempts to play the ball back to the keeper, ie pass it, if Rodri intercepts it then and scores, fair enough it's a valid goal. The first bit I've copied however, says that if a player challenges the defender for the ball, then he IS offside. 'Deliberately plays the ball' from the "not offside" bit, can't then surely mean just controlling the ball like Mings did, because if it did, then the first bit becomes nonsensical as how can the attacker attempt to tackle a player who hasn't got the ball?
Utter, utter bollocks.
It’s so they can let favoured teams score dodgy goals with one law and penalise other teams with the other law.
-
Can anybody tell me how these two statements from the official FA offside rules aren't completely contradictory?
A player IS offside, if:
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
A player is not offside if
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
The latter bit, is what the Premier League are saying is the rule that means it was a valid goal.
However, what this means is that in last night's situation, Rodri is an offside position when the ball is played. However, if he stays where he is, and in a made up scenario Mings controls the ball, then attempts to play the ball back to the keeper, ie pass it, if Rodri intercepts it then and scores, fair enough it's a valid goal. The first bit I've copied however, says that if a player challenges the defender for the ball, then he IS offside. 'Deliberately plays the ball' from the "not offside" bit, can't then surely mean just controlling the ball like Mings did, because if it did, then the first bit becomes nonsensical as how can the attacker attempt to tackle a player who hasn't got the ball?
Utter, utter bollocks.
I'm not defending either the rule or the decision, because it was quite clearly wrong, but those two aren't necessarily contradictory.
A player can "challenge" before the opposition player has control. So in last night's example, had Rhodri been close enough to Mings to challenge him for the ball at the point Mings tried to bring it down that would presumably have been called offside.
But as soon as Mings controlled it, they decided he'd "deliberately" played the ball and that put Rhodri onside.
It's clearly bollocks and absolutely not the intention of the rule though.
We'll see more strikers in an offside position from now on, waiting for defenders to control the ball, and no doubt a "clarification" of the rule will follow in due course.
-
These convoluted rules are obviously written so that shit refs like Fat Boy Moss can interpret them however they like, depending on their mood, and be proved correct and therefore beyond reproach. It absolutely stinks.
-
That's not right though. The law for NOT being offside says that the attacker has to receive the ball from the defender. Nothing there about being onside simply by virture of the defender getting the ball.
-
That's not right though. The law for NOT being offside says that the attacker has to receive the ball from the defender. Nothing there about being onside simply by virture of the defender getting the ball.
Russo is correct. The rules are correct and do not need changing. They have been interpreted wrongly. Rodri challenged for the ball and at that point should have been called for being offside, free kick to mings. It doesnt matter that mings touched the ball, it doesnt matter whether he had it under control or not. Rodri did not receive the ball from mings, he took it and was therefore offside.
-
Can anybody tell me how these two statements from the official FA offside rules aren't completely contradictory?
A player IS offside, if:
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
A player is not offside if
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
The latter bit, is what the Premier League are saying is the rule that means it was a valid goal.
However, what this means is that in last night's situation, Rodri is an offside position when the ball is played. However, if he stays where he is, and in a made up scenario Mings controls the ball, then attempts to play the ball back to the keeper, ie pass it, if Rodri intercepts it then and scores, fair enough it's a valid goal. The first bit I've copied however, says that if a player challenges the defender for the ball, then he IS offside. 'Deliberately plays the ball' from the "not offside" bit, can't then surely mean just controlling the ball like Mings did, because if it did, then the first bit becomes nonsensical as how can the attacker attempt to tackle a player who hasn't got the ball?
Utter, utter bollocks.
I'm not defending either the rule or the decision, because it was quite clearly wrong, but those two aren't necessarily contradictory.
A player can "challenge" before the opposition player has control. So in last night's example, had Rhodri been close enough to Mings to challenge him for the ball at the point Mings tried to bring it down that would presumably have been called offside.
But as soon as Mings controlled it, they decided he'd "deliberately" played the ball and that put Rhodri onside.
It's clearly bollocks and absolutely not the intention of the rule though.
We'll see more strikers in an offside position from now on, waiting for defenders to control the ball, and no doubt a "clarification" of the rule will follow in due course.
but how is a player running towards him (and getting close enough to make a tackle before the ball hits the floor from his chest) not considered to be interfering with play? Remember Barkley got pinged for being vaguely near the goalkeeper so interfering so interfering with an opponent can clearly be used for being in someone's eyeline and not doing enough to get out of the way.
He just got it wrong and they've circled the wagons to defend him and cherry-picking part of the offside law to justify it whilst ignoring both the implication of that and the rest of the law which shows that there are a number of judgements Moss could've applied to do the sensible thing and give it as offside, he made a decision to do the one thing that almost everyone KNOWS was the wrong decision even if it can be justified by 1 very specific definition.
-
As Dean alluded to I want us to test this now against Newcastle. Where Watkins stays in an offside position and from behind the defender tries to take the ball off him as soon as it is touched from a forward pass. Let's see what happens.
-
If he does do that he will be given offside...as the law states. Just because moss was wrong doesnt mean others will be
-
That's not right though. The law for NOT being offside says that the attacker has to receive the ball from the defender. Nothing there about being onside simply by virture of the defender getting the ball.
Russo is correct. The rules are correct and do not need changing. They have been interpreted wrongly. Rodri challenged for the ball and at that point should have been called for being offside, free kick to mings. It doesnt matter that mings touched the ball, it doesnt matter whether he had it under control or not. Rodri did not receive the ball from mings, he took it and was therefore offside.
Absolutely spot on, this was an example of making a monumental cock up (I reckon VAR didn’t even look far enough back on the replay). Then misinterpreting (deliberately) the rule book to justify it. Rather than just putting their hands up and apologising
-
That's not right though. The law for NOT being offside says that the attacker has to receive the ball from the defender. Nothing there about being onside simply by virture of the defender getting the ball.
Russo is correct. The rules are correct and do not need changing. They have been interpreted wrongly. Rodri challenged for the ball and at that point should have been called for being offside, free kick to mings. It doesnt matter that mings touched the ball, it doesnt matter whether he had it under control or not. Rodri did not receive the ball from mings, he took it and was therefore offside.
Absolutely spot on, this was an example of making a monumental cock up (I reckon VAR didn’t even look far enough back on the replay). Then misinterpreting (deliberately) the rule book to justify it. Rather than just putting their hands up and apologising
Yes I agree. Two days on and I'm still seething with these arrogant bastards. It feels like a watershed moment but time will tell. Clubs need to speak out and quickly. The problem is that it's only ever the aggrieved club that is in uproar at any one time. City this week for instance are very quiet on this and there fans are sticking to the line that "it's the rules so shut up whinging Villa" But next week it could be them getting shafted and their opponents laughing because it was their turn to win the VAR lottery. Us football fans have very short and selective memories and only care a jot when our own club is on the receiving end. VAR is stinking out the game. PGMOL have proven beyond doubt that they are incapable of using the technology either fairly or correctly. The clubs need to stick together on this. I'm amazed that Premier League clubs with such vast resources are allowing their interests to be treated so badly by a bunch of self appointed overlords.
-
These convoluted rules are obviously written so that shit refs like Fat Boy Moss can interpret them however they like, depending on their mood, and be proved correct and therefore beyond reproach. It absolutely stinks.
Without doubt the rules are a cop out designed to give the officials plenty of wriggle room. It's the only sport I can think of where the rules are constantly re-written in order to help officials get each other off the hook. Association football has been played since the 1870's and they still haven't settled on a set of rules by which to play the game. It's absolutely ludicrous. The city "goal" the other night shows what an absolute rabbit hole they have got themselves into yet they still feel the need to keep on digging. How about this: when a player is way offside like Rhodri was he's ignored while the game is going upfield giving him time to get back onside. Once the ball is won back by the opponents (city) and a forward ball is played he's instantly flagged as offside. Seems obvious. Oh wait a minute that's exactly how the game has been played for donkeys years until some idiots decided to bloody complicate everything.
-
Like everybody I am becoming angrier about this. The offside rule was changed to ensure there were two defenders between the goal and the attacking players. It was done to outlaw what was known for decades as "goal hanging". It worked successfully for many years. But we have seen a whole generation of football administrators riding on technology and especially VAR to convulse the laws with ever more labyrinthine language for one reason only, to buttress their own power. To use the old, crude but utterly proven, proverb 'Why do dogs lick their bollocks? Because they can'. What is happening is the destabilizing of the game by increments with knee jerk fiddling on a basis of trial and error. What happened to us and our manager will be regarded as another dead lab rat in the experiment. It will never be allowed to happen again but the faces and the finances of the suits will be saved to allow them to tinker on. The Devil take the hindmost mindset will prevail with the other clubs and the victims not only suffering loss on the field but dismissed as whingers for trying to voice perfectly legitimate protests.
-
If this is such an obvious ruling to all the experts, why I have I never seen it before in a game?
-
Nothing has changed with the offside rule. They got it wrong pure and simple.
-
Nothing has changed with the offside rule. They got it wrong pure and simple.
And they were able to weasel their way out of it because they surreptitiously inserted little nuances into the rule book to allow them to screw things up and yet still be able wriggle off the hook. Player's didn't know, ex-referees didn't know, managers didn't know. It seems only those on top of the ivory tower knew about the latest rule alterations. How many more little nuggets lie hidden in the small print of the ever increasing rule book?
-
If this is such an obvious ruling to all the experts, why I have I never seen it before in a game?
It's actually worse than that. If the decision in our game WAS the correct one, then it means forwards in matches across the country are regularly being incorrectly called offside for coming back to make a challenge, and yet, not ONCE have I ever seen the attacking team complain about it being legal in the laws of the game.
Not once.
-
I know it's gone our way tonight, but Ings' goal being disallowed because the end of his sleeve was allegedly offside is another absolute VAR nonsense.
And as for spending, sorry, wasting two minutes of everyone's life pissing about with Matty Cash - if the VAR room needs to see the replay 20 times, it's pretty clearly not a clear and obvious error.
I live in hope that one day they'll work out how to do VAR properly.
-
It’s ridiculous, Ings whole body is onside except his shoulder and arm. Surely you have to look at the position of his bloody feet. It’s fucking football.
Good for us for a change but it’s interpretations of it are nonsense. Everyone involved needs talking too by someone who knows the game.
-
I feel like I have to be consistent, absolutely ludicrous that Ings "goal" was offside. The millimetres offside decisions piss me off the most yet they're the ones people (including Dean) say are black and white. No way he has gained an unfair advantage from his shirt sleeve being marginally ahead of Cash's arse. Ridiculous. They have to change how they interpret these, be it thicker lines (as I think they're doing in Netherlands?) or my favoured approach of making any part level onside.
In terms of the non penalty. Think it can go either way. One of those where we were probably a bit lucky but had plenty we've been on wrong side of this season. Far more relaxed about those because I think you can argue it either way.
-
It’s ridiculous, Ings whole body is onside except his shoulder and arm. Surely you have to look at the position of his bloody feet. It’s fucking football.
Good for us for a change but it’s interpretations of it are nonsense. Everyone involved needs talking too by someone who knows the game.
Ings was judged to be offside by the Assistant Referee. VAR only confirmed on field decision.
-
VAR somehow should be changed to make it up as they go along
-
It’s ridiculous, Ings whole body is onside except his shoulder and arm. Surely you have to look at the position of his bloody feet. It’s fucking football.
Good for us for a change but it’s interpretations of it are nonsense. Everyone involved needs talking too by someone who knows the game.
Ings was judged to be offside by the Assistant Referee. VAR only confirmed on field decision.
I see that and it was surprising to see a flag go up. Surely though when they reviewed it on VAR they could see Ings is not gaining an advantage. It’s no worse than what happened to us on a fair few occasions now so I’m obviously glad for once it went our way. It’s still crap though.
-
Basically level, as we knew it, is no longer onside. I cannot stand these VAR offside even if tonight went for us. Needs changing.
-
A few things from yesterday
1.the obvious one. The Southampton equaliser yesterday and ollie's one at West ham who are VAR trying to protect both should have been given
2.owing down incidents - distorts things. Irrespective of whether the ball hit cash's body first there was no way he could have moved his arm away in time. As soon as you slow things down it looks as if he does have time
VAR is the best protector of a referee but more incorrect decisions appear to being made than ever
-
30cm lines. If they overlap not offside, if they don’t then offside. That should give daylight between players.
-
VAR is basically being used as a buffer so the players can’t moan at the ref as the decision was made “by them upstairs”.
Also is clear and obvious even a thing with VAR anymore, initially it was but clearly it’s not being used as such anymore.
-
The freeze frame I saw they used to draw the lines, the image of the players foot kicking the ball was a blurred mess, they've got no way of knowing which frame to use. Correct decision using the mess of rules they've concocted, but never offside in real life football.
-
It doesn't work.
-
it doesn't work in football and never can, perhaps for offsides but only if the law is clear and fair, but football is an aerobic sport, Rugby and Cricket are anaerobic (sorry for the big word - I know it doesn't suit me)
-
All it really needed for offsides was to leave the on field rules as they were, and for VAR to review the ones that the assistant refs miss that are a foot or more offside.
-
It’s shite
-
I see that and it was surprising to see a flag go up. Surely though when they reviewed it on VAR they could see Ings is not gaining an advantage.
But he IS gaining an advantage as he is poised on front foot to move towards the goal if ball comes through. Assistant Ref was very good to catch that VAR or no VAR. The official should be praised for excellent work but all that is forgotten with VAR around.
-
Yup it went for us yesterday but it remains a load of cobblers, we’ve all given it a go, it annoyed everyone so now get rid.
-
For what it's worth I thought both decisions were wrong.
Off his knee or not it hit Cash's arm which was sticking out. It's a pen for me and I'd be fuming if that was against us.
For the offside, it's almost as bad as the Watkins one, except Watkins was being fouled at the same time. I reckon if the flag hadn't gone up VAR would have called it onside.
I still reckon we're 3 or 4 down on the VAR shit decision metre, so I'm not losing sleep over it. The VAR Gods still owe us, but yesterday helped.
-
I dont think ings was offside at the initial shot. I do think he was in an offside position when it came back off the keeper.
-
I dont think ings was offside at the initial shot. I do think he was in an offside position when it came back off the keeper.
That doesn't make him offside though.
-
As he recieved the ball from Martinez and there was only Martinez between him and the goal, I believe that is offside.
-
No!
-
Definitely not. It was from the initial pass.
-
I see that and it was surprising to see a flag go up. Surely though when they reviewed it on VAR they could see Ings is not gaining an advantage.
But he IS gaining an advantage as he is poised on front foot to move towards the goal if ball comes through. Assistant Ref was very good to catch that VAR or no VAR. The official should be praised for excellent work but all that is forgotten with VAR around.
I don’t know, I think being offside when an arm is the only part of you is not what Offside should be about. The majority of his body is clearly onside, with the birth of VAR we’ve gone from the benefit of doubt from the attacker to now the defender. Too many good goals and acts of brilliance are being chalked off.
I will say though it was nice to see a flag go up for a change and very brave of the linesman, I wonder if that was impulse and they forget they are not supposed to now, which again is a silly rule.
-
Abysmal again. Please, please, post season can we knock this failed experiment on the head.
-
VAR for offsides should work but its not basically in my thoughts so that they dont make the officials look like fools. Not sure what the role of the current linesman is now. Looks like he's as redundant as the coalman
-
I think it definitely should be used for offsides but needs changes. There's loads of pics knocking around, making the lines a bit wider giving the striker a tiny bit more leway to prevent people being offside by a bum hair.
Using something along those lines would mean most of the pathetic decisions this season would be eradicated and it would be used occasionally to rectify the bad ones. There will always be a margin of mm wherever you decide to draw the lines, but I think people would accept it more if they knew the striker already had a slight advantage, margin of error, or whatever you want to call it.
-
It needs to be a fixed point, front of nearest foot etc and no single mm wide line. if they're too close to tell, it's not offside.
-
For what it's worth I thought both decisions were wrong.
Off his knee or not it hit Cash's arm which was sticking out. It's a pen for me and I'd be fuming if that was against us.
For the offside, it's almost as bad as the Watkins one, except Watkins was being fouled at the same time. I reckon if the flag hadn't gone up VAR would have called it onside.
I still reckon we're 3 or 4 down on the VAR shit decision metre, so I'm not losing sleep over it. The VAR Gods still owe us, but yesterday helped.
Bold bit - that means it's working properly.
As for the rest the penalty would've been harsh and was 50/50 at best but again the ref didn't give it and VAR just didn't see enough to say he'd got it wrong. As has happened a number of times this year fans are moaning about VAR when it's worked exactly as intended, the 'mistakes' if you want to call them as such were made by on-field officials and not overturned because VAR couldn't see a reason to do so.
-
Re the penalty decision. I would suggest that the referee was in a very good position to see the deflection from Cash's thigh thereby bringing it in to the scenario 'ball to hand, no intent', something that has always been part of the laws, i.e. In the opinion of the referee...
-
Re the penalty decision. I would suggest that the referee was in a very good position to see the deflection from Cash's thigh thereby bringing it in to the scenario 'ball to hand, no intent', something that has always been part of the laws, i.e. In the opinion of the referee...
Agree Dave, in hindsight, it’s the obvious reason it wasn’t given
-
It needs to be a fixed point, front of nearest foot etc and no single mm wide line. if they're too close to tell, it's not offside.
Agree - this sleeve thing is rubbish. Are all sleeves the same length? It should either be something fixed on the body - say the middle if you were to cut the players in half from the head down, or daylight in the attackers favour.
-
It needs to be a fixed point, front of nearest foot etc and no single mm wide line. if they're too close to tell, it's not offside.
Agree - this sleeve thing is rubbish. Are all sleeves the same length? It should either be something fixed on the body - say the middle if you were to cut the players in half from the head down, or daylight in the attackers favour.
At least if the foot is planted, it can't be so critical ref the ball actually leaving the passers foot. Then it's the same for all. Ie. nothing contentious and fair for all.
-
Well, no. You can score with your head/knee/arse etc. Counting the nearest body part which can legally score a goal seems sensible to me. My issue would be how closely it is scrutinised. Attacking teams are supposed to get the benefit of the doubt. If there is clear daylight, disallow the goal. If there isn't, no drawing lots of supplementary lines. Attacking team gets benefit of doubt, give the goal.
-
On the subject of VAR, why didn't they review that alleged foul "by" McGinn when he broke free and was brought down? The Southampton player was last man, so if they hadn't ludicrously given the free kick to them, it should have been a red card offence. Surely any incident that is a potential red card offence should be reviewed?
-
Re the penalty decision. I would suggest that the referee was in a very good position to see the deflection from Cash's thigh thereby bringing it in to the scenario 'ball to hand, no intent', something that has always been part of the laws, i.e. In the opinion of the referee...
I think Lee Mason was very good as was his assistant in spotting the offside. Problem is VAR is overshadowing ridiculing good officials. Both calls in Cricket would have gone with the on field officials.
-
For what it's worth I thought both decisions were wrong.
Off his knee or not it hit Cash's arm which was sticking out. It's a pen for me and I'd be fuming if that was against us.
For the offside, it's almost as bad as the Watkins one, except Watkins was being fouled at the same time. I reckon if the flag hadn't gone up VAR would have called it onside.
I still reckon we're 3 or 4 down on the VAR shit decision metre, so I'm not losing sleep over it. The VAR Gods still owe us, but yesterday helped.
Bold bit - that means it's working properly.
As for the rest the penalty would've been harsh and was 50/50 at best but again the ref didn't give it and VAR just didn't see enough to say he'd got it wrong. As has happened a number of times this year fans are moaning about VAR when it's worked exactly as intended, the 'mistakes' if you want to call them as such were made by on-field officials and not overturned because VAR couldn't see a reason to do so.
VAR on offsides isn't meant to be about clear and obvious errors, it's meant to be a factual decision. As per the West Ham decision I think it was wrong in terms of the spirit of the law and the point I was making is I suspect the VAR could have come to a decision either way he wanted by moving a frame or two on the point of impact on the ball or a pixel or two either way on the players arm / backside.
I agree with the point you make about the handball as the ref didn't give it. However you won't find many football fans who think that wasn't a handball as we know it, but the law is such a mess noby knows anymore.
-
Re the penalty decision. I would suggest that the referee was in a very good position to see the deflection from Cash's thigh thereby bringing it in to the scenario 'ball to hand, no intent', something that has always been part of the laws, i.e. In the opinion of the referee...
The referee was better positioned to see a deflection than any of the cameras, I thought. I was particularly bemused by the angle they kept showing from towards the corner flag where Cash was obscured by so many bodies that you could barely see any of him, let alone the ball!
-
I see lots of benefit of the doubt type statements about offside. This degree of doubt is exactly what VAR was introduced to help. That’s why we are where we are, the lines however thin or thick need to be drawn somewhere and I have no issues with that being the closest part of the body to goal. VAR has ruined the game for the folks at the games, this is my main issue with it.
-
I see lots of benefit of the doubt type statements about offside. This degree of doubt is exactly what VAR was introduced to help. That’s why we are where we are, the lines however thin or thick need to be drawn somewhere and I have no issues with that being the closest part of the body to goal. VAR has ruined the game for the folks at the games, this is my main issue with it.
They absolutely don't have to be drawn at all.
We don't have the technology to definitively state when the ball was played so authority should be given back to the onfield linesman, let them make the call, send it to VAR if it's close and if they can't tell if an error has been made without drawing silly lines we stick with the original decision.
It's a bit like only changing clear and obvious errors...
-
To be fair to the officials last night, and this is not something I often say about officials, they got both decisions spot on, on the field of play last night. Mason pointed for a goal kick for the penalty, having stated that it was not a penalty and his assistant correctly called that Ings was offside. Two quite brilliant decisions. VAR simply backed up their decisions making itself out to be rather superfluous.
-
Our game today, VAR wasnt involved at all?
BTW I have decided that I m against VAR after giving it some thought. Some of the beauty of football is the simplicity of the rules. Probl the most complex rule are you cant be offside and the most basic rule has to be that you cant use your hands on the ball (its FOOTball). Another important rule is that you have to go for the ball and not the man (espescially not in a way that is dangerous to the other). To judge some of the incidents during a game and deciding wheter one of these rules are violated will always have to have a subjective element to it. And because of that the subjectivity of the refree IS PART OF THE GAME - it has to be (two diferent refrees will never make similar decisions in all of one and the same game - if an expriment where set up fx). The players and the fans trying to influence the refree s judgments is also part of the game as we are used to and is also some of the charm? of the game IMO. When the offside or the handball in the box are questionable VAR get involved. VAR and the following decision from the refree are also subjective (and questionable) - red card to the West Ham player today is an xample of that. With VAR the judgments are just brought to another level - nothing gained really BUT the simplicity and some flow of the game and then some of the beauty of the game get lost.
Do I make a case and a proven point here or am I just to drunk? Anyway happy with the win tonight.
-
Love your post Astnor and whatever you are drinking is good. :)
-
Get rid. It's over turning tight off-side decisions but creating new errors. Slows the game down and players & fans can't celebrate in case it goes to VAR.
-
Even the pundits are turning against it. VAR is embarrassing especially for the likes of that arrogant fecker Mike Dean.
-
VAR was brought in to address the issues of refereeing errors & idiotic decisions. The problem with VAR it’s the same idiots making the decisions.
On the offside rules, elite sport is about fractions of a second & fine margins. I think most people are OK with this & how it’s applied in football. It’s not ideal but it’s consistent & fair. There’s never going to be a perfect solution that suits everyone’s opinion.
It’s the penalty decisions that seem to be made up on the fly.
-
I don’t mind the use of VAR on offside, where it’s factual but it should also be used on divers.
-
I don’t mind the use of VAR on offside, where it’s factual
If only it was factual. It’s anything but.
-
It’s not useless, it’s the people who are observing it that are useless and the new rules to accommodate it.
Again how can they look at that and judge it to be a deliberate elbow. It should not even have been advised for Dean to view it. Ridiculous every week.
-
It’s not useless, it’s the people who are observing it that are useless and the new rules to accommodate it.
Again how can they look at that and judge it to be a deliberate elbow. It should not even have been advised for Dean to view it. Ridiculous every week.
But that is your opinion, and mine as a matter of fact, but it wasn't the opinion of the officials and that's where VAR is doomed to failure, these decisions are subjective. However it's adjusted, nudged, changed, fiddled with, there is no getting over that.
VAR should only be used for matters of fact, everything else should be left to the on field officials.
It will never, ever work otherwise.
-
It's based on bullshit, that's the problem. At 50 frames per second, they're trying to say that the ball is hit by the boot for 0.02 seconds, which is nonsense.
If it's going to stay, you can't just have that one frame as the point of contact, and then start drawing lines that seem to defy the actual plane of perspective to fit the narrative. The way to bring in some sort of 'linesman's call' is to spread the judgement over a few frames of footage. If the striker is onside in any of them, he's on.
-
It's based on bullshit, that's the problem. At 50 frames per second, they're trying to say that the ball is hit by the boot for 0.02 seconds, which is nonsense.
If it's going to stay, you can't just have that one frame as the point of contact, and then start drawing lines that seem to defy the actual plane of perspective to fit the narrative. The way to bring in some sort of 'linesman's call' is to spread the judgement over a few frames of footage. If the striker is onside in any of them, he's on.
And it’s take 2-3 minutes now, imagine if they are drawing 3 set of lines over three frames 😂
-
'Clear and obvious' shouldn't need lines at all. Quick cycle through all frames where the ball is being played, and the vast majority could be done by eye.
-
It's leading to the rules of the game being applied to the absolute letter, which means they're under a magnifying glass, rather than applying the spirit in which they were intended. The Soucek sending off for West Ham was an example of that. It should have just been a case of the ref telling the players to get on with it but instead the VAR takes several minutes to watch it over and over again before calling the ref over. Then the ref watched it again and again, over and over for several minutes before deciding it was a sending off. How many times do they need to be told it has to be clear and obvious? If it takes that long and needs to be watched that many times, it wasn't clear and obvious.
-
It’s not useless, it’s the people who are observing it that are useless and the new rules to accommodate it.
Again how can they look at that and judge it to be a deliberate elbow. It should not even have been advised for Dean to view it. Ridiculous every week.
But that is your opinion, and mine as a matter of fact, but it wasn't the opinion of the officials and that's where VAR is doomed to failure, these decisions are subjective. However it's adjusted, nudged, changed, fiddled with, there is no getting over that.
VAR should only be used for matters of fact, everything else should be left to the on field officials.
It will never, ever work otherwise.
I agree, it’s not going to work. I’ve said before when they were talking about introducing VAR, you have fans and pundits arguing after the match about decisions so how can that work during a game. It’s too subjective.
What I really don’t get at the moment though, is we’ve had so many clearly obvious things happen which the pundits and fans are agreeing with but the match officials are looking at the screen and not seeing what everyone else is seeing.
-
As the season draws to what is I believe a satisfactory end for Aston Villa, I sincerely hope that the referee's association will look thoroughly at their decisions throughout the year and ask themselves what they MUST do better to enable VAR to do what it was intended to - make decisions fair and unbiased.
Offside. To be honest although we have had a number of toenail decisions go against us I do feel that by and large this has been pretty evenly applied. It will always be flawed in that it is restricted by the challenge of choosing the exact frame when the ball is released but I think most sides have had goals chalked off for those marginal decisions (I was surprised West Hams was awarded the other night though) The only change I think I would make is to have the decision purely isolated around the foot. Trying to determine whether a shoulder or arse is beyond the foot just adds an extra layer of complexity so stick to the feet and if in doubt give the advantage to the striker.
Clear and Obvious Errors.
It's a simple enough statement but this is where I see the problems lie. Offside is offside but their are a number of decisions which rely on interpretation and therefore VAR tend to not overule the on field referee in these cases. On balance that appears the fair and reasonable approach except this year Villa have found to their cost that not all referees interpret scenarios in the same way and usually that means not Villas way.
Others will have more but the obvious one for me are:-
1. Where a foul is committed in the penalty area does prior contact with the ball mitigate the offence and if so how significant does that contact need to be?
I am thinking here Villa v Brighton. Trez turns the ball inside, Solly March sticks out a leg and gets a feint touch on the ball before his studs catch Trez's shin and he goes down (theatrically I know) VAR examine it and recommend the ref views it. Michael Oliver does so and signals no penalty as he "got the ball". A week later Brighton play Liverpool and a pool defender does the same thing gets a touch on the ball but folks Wellbeck. Verdict penalty. Which is it?
2. Where a ball hits a defenders hand in the area, what constitutes an "unnatural position" and how do you assess when a player can't get out of the way?
Here I offer as an example of Cash ve Man City. Cash is running back to block the cross and his arm is swinging as a natural part of running. The ball clearly hits that arm and the penalty is given. For me no complaints in insolation but then against Man United Greenwood's jumps with his arms above his head (to me arms to shoulder height for leverage is normal) a blocks Volleyball style the flick on from Luiz a ball going goalwards (but not into the goal). Verdict No Penalty. I accept Greenwood was nearer but the act of raising your arms over your head make contact with the ball more likely. So handball or not which is it?
3. Does it matter if the ball is running out of play and cannot be stopped by either player.
I give you Kane at Villa Park where he realises he can't get a cross/shot in and so steps into Cash's attempt to block the shot. Penalty supported later by Dermot Gallagher because if the foul I committed whilst the ball is in play its a penalty. Except on Wednesday when Loris bring Oli down Craig Pawson appears to think that the fact the ball was going out means it is not a penalty. Again which is it?
Referee's need to be absolutely clear and consistent about these and no doubt other scenarios. If they are then VAR can intervene and call out where a "clear and obvious error" has been made instead of being reluctant to do so for fear of undermining the onfield referee.
VAR was supposed to avoid the accepted tendency for referee's to favour the "bigger" clubs but this year - and not just with us - it has clearly failed to do so. Do I think they will look at issues like this and try and do something? If I'm honest no, because they think they are right, but unlike before we can now all look accurately at all of those inconsistencies and see their failings.
For me the 14 clubs outside the Super 6 need to gather all their examples like above and present them to the league and referee's referee's demand a change in approach and outcome.
I wait with bated breath
-
Could someone with a better knowledge of the laws please clarify whether it makes any difference if the ball is going out of play or not. What does the law state?
Thanks
-
As the season draws to what is I believe a satisfactory end for Aston Villa, I sincerely hope that the referee's association will look thoroughly at their decisions throughout the year and ask themselves what they MUST do better to enable VAR to do what it was intended to - make decisions fair and unbiased.
Offside. To be honest although we have had a number of toenail decisions go against us I do feel that by and large this has been pretty evenly applied. It will always be flawed in that it is restricted by the challenge of choosing the exact frame when the ball is released but I think most sides have had goals chalked off for those marginal decisions (I was surprised West Hams was awarded the other night though) The only change I think I would make is to have the decision purely isolated around the foot. Trying to determine whether a shoulder or arse is beyond the foot just adds an extra layer of complexity so stick to the feet and if in doubt give the advantage to the striker.
Clear and Obvious Errors.
It's a simple enough statement but this is where I see the problems lie. Offside is offside but their are a number of decisions which rely on interpretation and therefore VAR tend to not overule the on field referee in these cases. On balance that appears the fair and reasonable approach except this year Villa have found to their cost that not all referees interpret scenarios in the same way and usually that means not Villas way.
Others will have more but the obvious one for me are:-
1. Where a foul is committed in the penalty area does prior contact with the ball mitigate the offence and if so how significant does that contact need to be?
I am thinking here Villa v Brighton. Trez turns the ball inside, Solly March sticks out a leg and gets a feint touch on the ball before his studs catch Trez's shin and he goes down (theatrically I know) VAR examine it and recommend the ref views it. Michael Oliver does so and signals no penalty as he "got the ball". A week later Brighton play Liverpool and a pool defender does the same thing gets a touch on the ball but folks Wellbeck. Verdict penalty. Which is it?
2. Where a ball hits a defenders hand in the area, what constitutes an "unnatural position" and how do you assess when a player can't get out of the way?
Here I offer as an example of Cash ve Man City. Cash is running back to block the cross and his arm is swinging as a natural part of running. The ball clearly hits that arm and the penalty is given. For me no complaints in insolation but then against Man United Greenwood's jumps with his arms above his head (to me arms to shoulder height for leverage is normal) a blocks Volleyball style the flick on from Luiz a ball going goalwards (but not into the goal). Verdict No Penalty. I accept Greenwood was nearer but the act of raising your arms over your head make contact with the ball more likely. So handball or not which is it?
3. Does it matter if the ball is running out of play and cannot be stopped by either player.
I give you Kane at Villa Park where he realises he can't get a cross/shot in and so steps into Cash's attempt to block the shot. Penalty supported later by Dermot Gallagher because if the foul I committed whilst the ball is in play its a penalty. Except on Wednesday when Loris bring Oli down Craig Pawson appears to think that the fact the ball was going out means it is not a penalty. Again which is it?
Referee's need to be absolutely clear and consistent about these and no doubt other scenarios. If they are then VAR can intervene and call out where a "clear and obvious error" has been made instead of being reluctant to do so for fear of undermining the onfield referee.
VAR was supposed to avoid the accepted tendency for referee's to favour the "bigger" clubs but this year - and not just with us - it has clearly failed to do so. Do I think they will look at issues like this and try and do something? If I'm honest no, because they think they are right, but unlike before we can now all look accurately at all of those inconsistencies and see their failings.
For me the 14 clubs outside the Super 6 need to gather all their examples like above and present them to the league and referee's referee's demand a change in approach and outcome.
I wait with bated breath
I agree with all of this, but I'm not hopeful that the change needed will occur especially while there are 6 clubs who believe they can operate outside the rules and referees who pander to their every need.
-
The law states that if Aston Villa are attacking and it's going out of play - no penalty, but if Aston Villa are defending and the ball is going out, then it's definitely a penalty, and significant consideration then needs to be given as to whether or not to send off the Aston Villa player involved (in both cases).
-
The law states that if Aston Villa are attacking and it's going out of play - no penalty, but if Aston Villa are defending and the ball is going out, then it's definitely a penalty, and significant consideration then needs to be given as to whether or not to send off the Aston Villa player involved (in both cases).
Cheers Kevin
I thought that was the law!!
Presumably if it’s Villa the law will soon be changed to also make a 60 point deduction spread over 3 seasons
-
Could someone with a better knowledge of the laws please clarify whether it makes any difference if the ball is going out of play or not. What does the law state?
Thanks
Unless it has been changed and I've missed it; which wouldn't surprise me, the law is that once the ball has been kicked-off and travelled the distance of its own circumference, it is deemed to be in play until it has wholly crossed the whole of any boundary lines, a goal has been scored or, in the opinion of the referee an infringement of any law that results in a free-kick. That's how it used to be anyway.Could someone with a better knowledge of the laws please clarify whether it makes any difference if the ball is going out of play or not. What does the law state?
Thanks
Check out Law 9 Ball In And Out Of Play on the FA website under Laws and Rules. It's fairly brief and should answer things for you. Sorry but I don't know how to do links on a tablet, waiting for eight-year-old grandson to show me.
-
I've given VAR a long time to settle down and i'm afraid it's still utter arse. If I have the opportunity to see a game whoever that is, I now find myself wondering whether to bother in case VAR manufacturers a controversy - I didn't watch the Cup final and i'm glad I didn't. It's no coincidence that a fussy, useless and determined to be the star of the show referee in David Elleray was co-founder of a fussy, useless system that's determined to be the star of the show. No doubt Uriah Rennie and Howard Webb will be brought on board to improve it if they haven't been asked already.
-
I've given VAR a long time to settle down and i'm afraid it's still utter arse.
Yes. You and everyone else if the percentages at the front of this thread are any indication. They started off slightly against and have only moved more and more definitively against since, to the point now where more than 3 out of every four people think that VAR is cack. Three more people getting off the fence and it would be '4 in every 5 people'. How many pints of beer do you think a company would sell if 3 in every 4 of their customers told them they thought it tasted llike sewage?
When will the managing boards of Premier League member clubs decide this is nowhere near good enough? They had a chance during the season to address it (it was an item on their PL meeting agenda) and bottled it. Maybe they didn't want to change the system during a season. But that's not an issue now; use the off-season to grasp the nettle and get rid of this inefficient, damaging, unequal and unfair set of meretricous grifters and commit to giving their audience a level playing field.
Is a fair chance on the playing field too much to ask?
-
My view is VAR is doing exactly what it was intended to do . Shift the criticism and reputational damage from the referees to a computer and faceless interpreters. Now they're just shoulder shrugging plebs who can go "not me guv" when before the ire of the players and fans were directed at them for the rest of the game and the media crucified them the next day.. Now the flack is directed at some bloke hundreds of miles away who doesn't give a fuck if he's given a homer decision or helped ManU to another penalty award.. The whole clear and obvious error line is also utter bollocks. Who decides that? I've seen obvious errors ignored, and non-obvious errors penalised. The whole thing has made me less likely to watch football than the likes of Gould, Wilkinson, Graham and co managed with long-ball in the 80's
-
Could someone with a better knowledge of the laws please clarify whether it makes any difference if the ball is going out of play or not. What does the law state?
Thanks
Unless it has been changed and I've missed it; which wouldn't surprise me, the law is that once the ball has been kicked-off and travelled the distance of its own circumference, it is deemed to be in play until it has wholly crossed the whole of any boundary lines, a goal has been scored or, in the opinion of the referee an infringement of any law that results in a free-kick. That's how it used to be anyway.Could someone with a better knowledge of the laws please clarify whether it makes any difference if the ball is going out of play or not. What does the law state?
Thanks
Check out Law 9 Ball In And Out Of Play on the FA website under Laws and Rules. It's fairly brief and should answer things for you. Sorry but I don't know how to do links on a tablet, waiting for eight-year-old grandson to show me.
Cheers Dave
Seems like the fact that the ball was going out is irrelevant; therefore should have been a penalty
Good luck with the grandson and the links. If he’s any good could he teach me the LBW law or is that pushing it?
-
The problem with VAR is that there’s just massive shades of grey in most challenges, and the black and white ones tend not to need VAR as the ref normally spots them.
Ex-pros and fans can watch the same challenge ten times and disagree whether it’s a foul or not. VAR therefore doesn’t really add anything, it just slows the game down.
The exception is offsides, which can categorically be assessed, but most fans don’t really like the marginal ones being ruled out and would rather see benefit of the doubt being given to the attacker.
So VAR doesn’t make the game better for most fouls or offsides.
I don’t think the problem is that ex-refs want to be the star of the show, it’s just that VAR doesn’t really do anything positive.
-
My view is VAR is doing exactly what it was intended to do . Shift the criticism and reputational damage from the referees to a computer and faceless interpreters. Now they're just shoulder shrugging plebs who can go "not me guv" when before the ire of the players and fans were directed at them for the rest of the game and the media crucified them the next day.. Now the flack is directed at some bloke hundreds of miles away who doesn't give a fuck if he's given a homer decision or helped ManU to another penalty award.. The whole clear and obvious error line is also utter bollocks. Who decides that? I've seen obvious errors ignored, and non-obvious errors penalised. The whole thing has made me less likely to watch football than the likes of Gould, Wilkinson, Graham and co managed with long-ball in the 80's
The way it's been implemented has just given them further opportunities to reinforce their bias, it's bollocks. I think Kevin has nailed the unwritten rule.
-
It also has that shitty habit of making fairly innocuous, slightly mistimed tackles look like an outtake from a Jackie Chan film when run through super slo-mo.
-
I don't disagree with some of these comments but I don't believe we and other clubs shoukd just accept it. I also don't think we can just take it away because every time there is a mistake (that effects a Super 6 team) it will get analysed to death to show how they were robbed and if only VAR had been in place. Its not working not because the technology doesn't work but because officials are making the wrong decisions even with the benefit of more information. That's negligence or corrupt and either way shoukd be tackled head on.
-
I've given VAR a long time to settle down and i'm afraid it's still utter arse.
Yes. You and everyone else if the percentages at the front of this thread are any indication. They started off slightly against and have only moved more and more definitively against since, to the point now where more than 3 out of every four people think that VAR is cack. Three more people getting off the fence and it would be '4 in every 5 people'. How many pints of beer do you think a company would sell if 3 in every 4 of their customers told them they thought it tasted llike sewage?
When will the managing boards of Premier League member clubs decide this is nowhere near good enough? They had a chance during the season to address it (it was an item on their PL meeting agenda) and bottled it. Maybe they didn't want to change the system during a season. But that's not an issue now; use the off-season to grasp the nettle and get rid of this inefficient, damaging, unequal and unfair set of meretricous grifters and commit to giving their audience a level playing field.
Is a fair chance on the playing field too much to ask?
I voted in favour but the way it's being corruptly applied has changed my mind! Is it possible to change my vote?
-
As has been pointed out, it is making subjective decisions so will always rely on the view of a human, regardless of the technology.
I can accept an on field referee making a split decision mistake such as Pawson on Weds and the Cavani goal the night before, but when presented with clear evidence and still coming to the wrong decision is infuriating, doubling the appearance of incompetence amongst officials.
it doesn't work, and it will never work because it cannot do what everyone wants it to.
-
With or without VAR Kane would still have got his pen, Watkins would have still been sent off, Watkins still wouldn't have got his pen against spurs etc etc
Cancelling VAR isn't necessarily the answer as we're still going to get the rough end of the decisions. Operating it correctly is what needs to happen.
-
I don't believe we and other clubs shoukd just accept it.
the technology doesn't work but because officials are making the wrong decisions even with the benefit of more information. That's negligence or corrupt and either way shoukd be tackled head on.
Precisely. Yes.
The people who shouldn't accept this situation aren't just us, it's the owners of the clubs. They are in a major position to do something about it. There are ways of doing it differently, even with video technology, just look at other sports. And please don't 'But we're not the same as rugby/american football/cricket' etc. Everyone knows that BUT they make it work for them a lot better than our sport does. In none of those sports does anyone seriously think that there is bias or unfairness.
In ours everyone thinks that because it's so obvious. That needs to change.
-
With or without VAR Kane would still have got his pen, Watkins would have still been sent off, Watkins still wouldn't have got his pen against spurs etc etc
Cancelling VAR isn't necessarily the answer as we're still going to get the rough end of the decisions. Operating it correctly is what needs to happen.
Except that referees with VAR in place make decisions knowing they can be checked and confirmed or overruled. Without it they have to be more confident they are getting it right as the scrutiny sits with them.
One thing I'd like to see with VAR is for a decision to be explained. As an example the Watkins pen the other night. Why wasn't it? Then we'd all know.
-
With or without VAR Kane would still have got his pen, Watkins would have still been sent off, Watkins still wouldn't have got his pen against spurs etc etc
Cancelling VAR isn't necessarily the answer as we're still going to get the rough end of the decisions. Operating it correctly is what needs to happen.
Except that referees with VAR in place make decisions knowing they can be checked and confirmed or overruled. Without it they have to be more confident they are getting it right as the scrutiny sits with them.
One thing I'd like to see with VAR is for a decision to be explained. As an example the Watkins pen the other night. Why wasn't it? Then we'd all know.
This is where the rugby version works so well. The ref has an open conversation with the VAR and they work through the logic and step by step come to a joint decision - with the ref having the final say. Eg a high tackle - "so theres contact with the head from the shoulder at force with the tackler out of control, there's no clear mitigating factors,,, so we're agreed it's a red card?" It doesn't take any longer than the football shitshow version and it works brilliantly. They could have done exactly the same with the Watkins decision "so the keeper clearly makes significant contact with the attacher and brings him down. The defender made no contact with the balll first. The attacker had lost control of the ball but it's still clearly in play, so the decision is...."
To be clear, in rugby the fans in the ground don't hear this exchange ad nor would they in football. But the key thing is there's logic and accountability for every decision.
In my view the ref should go to the monitor for every penalty and red card decision - even if the latter is by way of a second yellow - as it has such a major impact on the game. They can have 6 or 8 monitors around the ground so he never has to jog more then 30 yards or so to get to one and it's not right in from of the managers.
It just seems there's this huge arrogance that they can't possibly copy another sport and have to come up with their own shitter version.
-
It's there for the clear an obvious error we are told. The ref makes a clear and obvious error so why aren't they straight on to correct him? The clear and obvious error in this Var camp is that Kevin Friend is there.
It can't even be shoved under the ref's interpretation mat either. It's a foul and therefore a penalty.
-
The 'clear and obvious error' requirement is why the whole thing is bullshit. VAR will only ever work if they drop that and allow the refs to work as a team to come to the right decision.
At the moment if the ref if called to the monitor it's akin to him being put on the naughty step - he's being told he's fucked up and the monitor is just window dressing, not an honest appraisal of the decision.
I honestly think it would be hard to think of a more ridiculously flawed system if you tried.
-
As far as I'm concerned the best option for VAR would be to do away with the clear and obvious interpretation, and just allow each team two reviews per half. The ref could then go to the monitor and get another look at it. It would also do away with the Stockley Park guys.
-
As far as I'm concerned the best option for VAR would be to do away with the clear and obvious interpretation, and just allow each team two reviews per half. The ref could then go to the monitor and get another look at it. It would also do away with the Stockley Park guys.
I’ve been saying that for ages. Do it like the NFL where on field refs make most of the decisions. In a stop start sport like NFL football they can afford the delays for all scoring plays. I wouldn’t do that for us unless a manager requested it. But it would speed up the game immeasurably and put the onus back on the refs and assistants who could choose to get assistance from the monitor when they couldn’t as a team make a decision. Also managers can challenge key incidents twice and lose the second if they were not successful with the first.
-
I don't see how the two challenge rule helps. We appeal the Watkins pen, get over ruled and we're even more fucked over as we've just lost our second challenge. An even better way to give the Big 6 more advantage.
Used properly VAR would take no more time than it does now but the decision making could be improved.
-
With or without VAR Kane would still have got his pen, Watkins would have still been sent off, Watkins still wouldn't have got his pen against spurs etc etc
Cancelling VAR isn't necessarily the answer as we're still going to get the rough end of the decisions. Operating it correctly is what needs to happen.
Except that referees with VAR in place make decisions knowing they can be checked and confirmed or overruled. Without it they have to be more confident they are getting it right as the scrutiny sits with them.
One thing I'd like to see with VAR is for a decision to be explained. As an example the Watkins pen the other night. Why wasn't it? Then we'd all know.
This is where the rugby version works so well. The ref has an open conversation with the VAR and they work through the logic and step by step come to a joint decision - with the ref having the final say. Eg a high tackle - "so theres contact with the head from the shoulder at force with the tackler out of control, there's no clear mitigating factors,,, so we're agreed it's a red card?" It doesn't take any longer than the football shitshow version and it works brilliantly. They could have done exactly the same with the Watkins decision "so the keeper clearly makes significant contact with the attacher and brings him down. The defender made no contact with the balll first. The attacker had lost control of the ball but it's still clearly in play, so the decision is...."
To be clear, in rugby the fans in the ground don't hear this exchange ad nor would they in football. But the key thing is there's logic and accountability for every decision.
In my view the ref should go to the monitor for every penalty and red card decision - even if the latter is by way of a second yellow - as it has such a major impact on the game. They can have 6 or 8 monitors around the ground so he never has to jog more then 30 yards or so to get to one and it's not right in from of the managers.
It just seems there's this huge arrogance that they can't possibly copy another sport and have to come up with their own shitter version.
Absolutely.
I'm sure when I went to Twickenham (a while ago the last time) and I had one of those radio things I could hear the discussion regarding the decision.
-
On the subject of asking referee's to explain their decisions, I can't see it ever happening simply because it would raise more questions than it answered. As has been said, VAR is still at the whim of a human being probably with a different interpretation than the one who made the original decision.
IMO, football with VAR is no further enhanced and decision making no more improved than it was before we ever heard of it.
-
The problem as I see it, is that VAR is great in matters of 'fact'. Was he offside/onside, did the keeper move before the kick, did the ball cross the line etc. What it's not very good at is helping with matters of interpretation - was that a foul/dive, was he too close to move his arm out the way etc - which if we're all honest are probably the decisions that are the biggest problem for most fans.
You can show two refs one incident and they'll potentially disagree on their interpretation of the laws of the game and what should happen next - VAR is NEVER going to fix that. The "clear and obvious error" thing is just an extension of that. If they think the ref has seen the incident, VAR is not going to call him out - I think it's only used if they genuinely believe a ref has missed something.
I was a big advocate for VAR, but in its current format, I'm not sure it's helping as much as it should to warrant the negative impact it has on the match-day experience.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/37hDMwm/Screenshot-20210521-172944.png) (https://ibb.co/37hDMwm)
Twats
-
Mic them up. Let us listen to them justifying their baffling decision making.
If nothing else it will give me less time to listen to Jenas' inane wittering.
-
I know it was Albion but that decision against Liverpool to disallow a goal the other night because a player was standing offside and deemed to be in front of the goalkeeper was an absolute shocker as it would have gone in if there had been two goalkeepers. It was the wrong interpretation and has probably cost Leicester a place in the champions league.
-
I know it was Albion but that decision against Liverpool to disallow a goal the other night because a player was standing offside and deemed to be in front of the goalkeeper was an absolute shocker as it would have gone in if there had been two goalkeepers. It was the wrong interpretation and has probably cost Leicester a place in the champions league.
Don't you remember we had one exactly the same as that and ours was disallowed too?
-
I know it was Albion but that decision against Liverpool to disallow a goal the other night because a player was standing offside and deemed to be in front of the goalkeeper was an absolute shocker as it would have gone in if there had been two goalkeepers. It was the wrong interpretation and has probably cost Leicester a place in the champions league.
Don't you remember we had one exactly the same as that and ours was disallowed too?
Yes, A McGinn belter which was in from the moment it left his boot regardless of Barkley blocking the keeper’s view. He could have had an hour meeting before hand telling him what McGinn was going to do with Barkley nowhere in sight and he still wouldn’t have had a sniff. We still went on to win and as galling as it was I accepted the decision.
-
The problem as I see it, is that VAR is great in matters of 'fact'. Was he offside/onside,
You have seen the dozens of absolutely farcical VAR offside decisions haven't you?!
-
The problem as I see it, is that VAR is great in matters of 'fact'. Was he offside/onside,
You have seen the dozens of absolutely farcical VAR offside decisions haven't you?!
Of course, but they're still matters of fact, i.e. this tiny part of his body is fractionally ahead of that tiny part of HIS body. Someone being offside by the width of a toe is ridiculous, but, it's still a matter of fact, not opinion or interpretation.
When I said VAR is "great" at those decisions, perhaps I should have been clearer, I don't mean great as in "thumbs up, everything is fine", I mean that it's a tool that is obviously designed for THOSE sorts of decisions, where part of someone's body is ahead, or not, of someone else. I don't like waiting two minutes to see if a goal is disallowed because the forward's nose is longer than the defender's, but as a tool, it WILL definitively show if someone is offside, or not (in 99% of the cases).
-
Smithy is quite right, the law needs adapting if we are to carry on. The offside rule is to prevent goal hanging so we need to have some kind of tolerance. Either a very thick line or it needs to be a the whole foot over the line. A bit like on the goal line with the ball.
Hand ball is another which really needs fixing. It’s always been down to description of it was ball to hand or not. To be honest I haven’t got a clue what the rule is anymore. It seems different rules apply to different players positions and where you are on the pitch. It’s a mess and generally believe the officials and players haven’t got a clue what the rule is.
These incidents with simulation is tough, we’ve been caught a cropper a few times which have been wrong in my book. Jack last season was booked, Ollie this season was trying to get out the way from a high foot. Neither were a dive.
That incident with Ollie at Spurs was ridiculous. Who cares if the ball was going out. If the keeper would have run out and punched him, it would have been a penalty. He clearly took him out.
-
The whole offside thing is farcical. Who cares if someone is offside by the width of a knat's arse. 0.00001% of an advantage is not an advantage when the reality is the pace or direction of the defenders/attackers involved will be a much more important advantage. if they are as near as dammit inline then a simple rule to bring back some sort of sanity to the situation would be which way the last man was facing. Facing away from goal and with the attacker facing forward then its offside. Both players facing towards the goal and its not. They'd still have their ESL box-office suspense to get excited about.
-
The problem as I see it, is that VAR is great in matters of 'fact'. Was he offside/onside,
You have seen the dozens of absolutely farcical VAR offside decisions haven't you?!
Of course, but they're still matters of fact, i.e. this tiny part of his body is fractionally ahead of that tiny part of HIS body. Someone being offside by the width of a toe is ridiculous, but, it's still a matter of fact, not opinion or interpretation.
When I said VAR is "great" at those decisions, perhaps I should have been clearer, I don't mean great as in "thumbs up, everything is fine", I mean that it's a tool that is obviously designed for THOSE sorts of decisions, where part of someone's body is ahead, or not, of someone else. I don't like waiting two minutes to see if a goal is disallowed because the forward's nose is longer than the defender's, but as a tool, it WILL definitively show if someone is offside, or not (in 99% of the cases).
They are most certainly not matters of fact. The technology as it is isn’t accurate enough to adjudge a toenail offside or the precise moment a ball is kicked in an offside incident. Until we have that technology facts are not present in such decisions and with that being the case there has to be a tolerance for error.
-
The problem as I see it, is that VAR is great in matters of 'fact'. Was he offside/onside,
You have seen the dozens of absolutely farcical VAR offside decisions haven't you?!
Of course, but they're still matters of fact, i.e. this tiny part of his body is fractionally ahead of that tiny part of HIS body. Someone being offside by the width of a toe is ridiculous, but, it's still a matter of fact, not opinion or interpretation.
When I said VAR is "great" at those decisions, perhaps I should have been clearer, I don't mean great as in "thumbs up, everything is fine", I mean that it's a tool that is obviously designed for THOSE sorts of decisions, where part of someone's body is ahead, or not, of someone else. I don't like waiting two minutes to see if a goal is disallowed because the forward's nose is longer than the defender's, but as a tool, it WILL definitively show if someone is offside, or not (in 99% of the cases).
They are most certainly not matters of fact. The technology as it is isn’t accurate enough to adjudge a toenail offside or the precise moment a ball is kicked in an offside incident. Until we have that technology facts are not present in such decisions and with that being the case there has to be a tolerance for error.
This.
Drawing silly lines implies a degree of accuracy the technology isn't capable of. So until it is, offside is still a subjective decision.
And I'm all for VAR helping to make subjective decisions - that's how it's used in cricket and rugby to great effect. But it works in those sports because it's quick and transparent - two factors football are failing miserably on.
Mic the refs up and share the audio. Then have a cap on decisions of 20 seconds with the burden of proof being to overturn the onfield decision. If they can't prove the onfield decision was clearly wrong within 20 seconds the decision stands.
It's no more difficult than that.
-
The trouble is, onfield decisions aren't being made. They're waiting to see what happens then turning a blind eye if it suits.
How many times do they not flag for close but obvious off sides, the ball goes out for a corner, instead of giving the free kick they allow the corner and it results in a goal. It should not happen.
-
The trouble is, onfield decisions aren't being made. They're waiting to see what happens then turning a blind eye if it suits.
How many times do they not flag for close but obvious off sides, the ball goes out for a corner, instead of giving the free kick they allow the corner and it results in a goal. It should not happen.
But that's because the onfield refs have been told to do that.
Tell them they're back in charge but VAR is there to help if they've dropped a bollock, just like it is in rugby.
It's not too late to fix VAR but if they carry on with the clusterfuck it currently is, fans will lose faith in it.
I'm certainly not looking forward to not being able to celebrate a goal tomorrow because we don't know if VAR will decide Ollie's penis was marginally offside.
-
Too many incompetent referees around at the present! Including at Stockley park!
-
if the referees and linesmen had been good at their jobs over the years we wouldn't have needed VAR.
-
Then have VAR as back up.
-
As football fans, it's not cutting out the things that I think its proponents hoped it would. Diving, still happening. Rolling around on the floor, still happening. Debatable decisions given, fuck me, they're off the fucking chart now. Ball smashing back off a stanchion and not being given, sorted by something else entirely.
Keep tweaking it, lads, you'll get it right in the end*.
*will they bollocks.
-
Every suggestion in the last 3 pages or so which 'will improve it because it's done in other sports far better' are all things they could and should have been doing for the last 2 years of this monstrous experiment. They haven't done them.
Time to face some stark facts;
They don't want to do them.
They are not aiming to have a fair system, just one they like for themselves and which the owners/FA accept.
They will keep going with the awful, damaging and disastrous way they officiate at the moment until someone stops them because they can't stop themselves. They don't know how to.
They aren't listening to us.
They don't care about us; if they did they'd have stopped being so bad years ago.
Unless we the fans unite and demand it the only people who can do somethihng about this disaster are the club owners.
-
The bit that doesn’t get talked about enough is if the offside being adjudged created a clear and obvious advantage of the attacking team. I’m all for offside being called then. But even when someone scored from a hairs width offside I woods argue strongly that wasn’t the deciding factor in the goal being scored. In some of the stuff we’ve seen it’s utterly ludicrous what is being disallowed.
-
if the referees and linesmen had been good at their jobs over the years we wouldn't have needed VAR.
And now that we’ve got it you’d think there would be an improvement. Can you imagine if all these officials including Var were in charge of air traffic control?
-
if the referees and linesmen had been good at their jobs over the years we wouldn't have needed VAR.
And now that we’ve got it you’d think there would be an improvement. Can you imagine if all these officials including Var were in charge of air traffic control?
or the government.....
-
Well, finally the clowns in charge got it right today.
Took them long enough.
-
Dragging this back up, there's a story on sky that they've agreed to use thicker lines for offside decisions.
Good decision in principle but I'd like to see this in action before giving them credit. Personally I'd say 8-10cm and any overlap is onside that has the same effect as "Umpire's call" in the cricket and makes the decision making process far quicker.
I don't mind them keeping VAR so long as they are willing to make changes like this, again though I will change my mind if the change is pointless and means it's still a mess.
-
This might be an improvement, as it's about line decisions.
VAR won't have any credibility until it starts cleaning up the 'opinion' decisions like in our game against ManUre.
-
Don't they do the thicker lines thing on the continent? I think it's the Netherlands or Germany...
Recognising that the technology isn't capable of the accuracy a millimetre thick line implies is a start but unless it comes with a 20 second or so cap on the time allowed to the VAR I can still see them poring over seventeen different angles for minutes while we sit in the ground waiting to hear if we're allowed to celebrate a goal.
-
Personally I’d scrap it until the real time offside system is ready.
Sensors on boots, ball and along the pitch….job done. Change the offside to feet only and you’re sorted.
-
Personally I’d scrap it until the real time offside system is ready.
Sensors on boots, ball and along the pitch….job done. Change the offside to feet only and you’re sorted.
They should have the players in those full body CGI suits
-
This might be an improvement, as it's about line decisions.
VAR won't have any credibility until it starts cleaning up the 'opinion' decisions like in our game against ManUre.
VAR will never work on subjective decisions.
-
This might be an improvement, as it's about line decisions.
VAR won't have any credibility until it starts cleaning up the 'opinion' decisions like in our game against ManUre.
VAR will never work on subjective decisions.
It does in rugby.
-
Don't they do the thicker lines thing on the continent? I think it's the Netherlands or Germany...
Recognising that the technology isn't capable of the accuracy a millimetre thick line implies is a start but unless it comes with a 20 second or so cap on the time allowed to the VAR I can still see them poring over seventeen different angles for minutes while we sit in the ground waiting to hear if we're allowed to celebrate a goal.
They do, it's in the Netherlands, and it seems to work quite well. If the lines touch, it's not offside. There is still controversy, but the thicker lines give that margin for error and takes away the whole "he was off by the thickness of his shirt" rubbish that we've seen.
-
VAR 'opinion' decisions may or may not be possible, but when the outcomes repeatedly go in favour of the 'big' clubs, there is a credibility problem.
-
Personally I’d scrap it until the real time offside system is ready.
Sensors on boots, ball and along the pitch….job done. Change the offside to feet only and you’re sorted.
I just don't agree with the whole principle of a player being give offside for such fine margins. The offside rules were never meant to punish the attacking player so harshly and once again it raises the spectre of not being able to celebrate a goal properly which takes away the biggest enjoyment of following a football team. We need to get away from relying on technology to such an extent that we forget why we actually attend football matches which is the spontaneous enjoyment of celebrating a goal. It was bought in to remove the "clear and obvious errors" from the game. A quick check of a monitor by a ref a couple of times per game is the only way I can accept var as part of the game. If it's not a clear and obvious error from that initial viewing the goal stands. I would introduce a monitor in each dug out so clubs can get the benefit of that same view and allow 2 "challenges" for each team. Also refs to be miked up whilst they are reviewing a decision so everyone can understand his decision in real time.
-
Personally I’d scrap it until the real time offside system is ready.
Sensors on boots, ball and along the pitch….job done. Change the offside to feet only and you’re sorted.
I just don't agree with the whole principle of a player being give offside for such fine margins. The offside rules were never meant to punish the attacking player so harshly and once again it raises the spectre of not being able to celebrate a goal properly which takes away the biggest enjoyment of following a football team. We need to get away from relying on technology to such an extent that we forget why we actually attend football matches which is the spontaneous enjoyment of celebrating a goal. It was bought in to remove the "clear and obvious errors" from the game. A quick check of a monitor by a ref a couple of times per game is the only way I can accept var as part of the game. If it's not a clear and obvious error from that initial viewing the goal stands. I would introduce a monitor in each dug out so clubs can get the benefit of that same view and allow 2 "challenges" for each team. Also refs to be miked up whilst they are reviewing a decision so everyone can understand his decision in real time.
But a real time automatic system would give an almost instant offside decision. Just like when a player scores and checks the linesman before celebrating
-
The use of VAR in the Euros has been pretty sensible so far. None of the mayhem we get in the Premier League.
-
Maybe these lot aren't being paid by Manure ::)
-
It has also stopped the diving and rolling about, as play is being allowed to carry on!
-
It's funny how other countries seem to use it sensibly but as soon as we try it it become like the blind leading the blind. It will never work until all ego is taken out of it and refs are willing to just double check thie own decisions, with a bit of help as and when needed.
-
It has also stopped the diving and rolling about, as play is being allowed to carry on!
Refs seem to be taking a more sensible approach to robust challenges; refreshing to see.
-
I think our referees are just not good enough and do all they can to protect each other. That’s apart from looking after the “big 6 twats”!
-
It's funny how other countries seem to use it sensibly but as soon as we try it it become like the blind leading the blind. It will never work until all ego is taken out of it and refs are willing to just double check thie own decisions, with a bit of help as and when needed.
I agree. They have massively over complicated it in this country. And Premier League referees are definitely influenced by their own egos.
-
Personally I’d scrap it until the real time offside system is ready.
Sensors on boots, ball and along the pitch….job done. Change the offside to feet only and you’re sorted.
I just don't agree with the whole principle of a player being give offside for such fine margins. The offside rules were never meant to punish the attacking player so harshly and once again it raises the spectre of not being able to celebrate a goal properly which takes away the biggest enjoyment of following a football team. We need to get away from relying on technology to such an extent that we forget why we actually attend football matches which is the spontaneous enjoyment of celebrating a goal. It was bought in to remove the "clear and obvious errors" from the game. A quick check of a monitor by a ref a couple of times per game is the only way I can accept var as part of the game. If it's not a clear and obvious error from that initial viewing the goal stands. I would introduce a monitor in each dug out so clubs can get the benefit of that same view and allow 2 "challenges" for each team. Also refs to be miked up whilst they are reviewing a decision so everyone can understand his decision in real time.
But a real time automatic system would give an almost instant offside decision. Just like when a player scores and checks the linesman before celebrating
Yes but even if they can guarantee accuracy like toenail or a fingernail may be offside is that what we really want? It's not in the spirit that it was intended and would massively affect matchday enjoyment which is what draws us to the game in the first place.
-
I dunno. If it's feet only and accurate techno;ogy I can't see the problem with that. People seem to forget the amount of shite decisions there was before VAR, so I'm all for technology taking dodgy decisions out of the hands of incompetants if there was a way to deal with offside. I don't think it would effect match day entetainment any more than a flag.
-
Personally I’d scrap it until the real time offside system is ready.
Sensors on boots, ball and along the pitch….job done. Change the offside to feet only and you’re sorted.
I just don't agree with the whole principle of a player being give offside for such fine margins. The offside rules were never meant to punish the attacking player so harshly and once again it raises the spectre of not being able to celebrate a goal properly which takes away the biggest enjoyment of following a football team. We need to get away from relying on technology to such an extent that we forget why we actually attend football matches which is the spontaneous enjoyment of celebrating a goal. It was bought in to remove the "clear and obvious errors" from the game. A quick check of a monitor by a ref a couple of times per game is the only way I can accept var as part of the game. If it's not a clear and obvious error from that initial viewing the goal stands. I would introduce a monitor in each dug out so clubs can get the benefit of that same view and allow 2 "challenges" for each team. Also refs to be miked up whilst they are reviewing a decision so everyone can understand his decision in real time.
But a real time automatic system would give an almost instant offside decision. Just like when a player scores and checks the linesman before celebrating
Yes but even if they can guarantee accuracy like toenail or a fingernail may be offside is that what we really want? It's not in the spirit that it was intended and would massively affect matchday enjoyment which is what draws us to the game in the first place.
They could set it up however we wanted. An inch, a foot or a yard. It will be accurate and do away with linesman
-
Personally I’d scrap it until the real time offside system is ready.
Sensors on boots, ball and along the pitch….job done. Change the offside to feet only and you’re sorted.
I just don't agree with the whole principle of a player being give offside for such fine margins. The offside rules were never meant to punish the attacking player so harshly and once again it raises the spectre of not being able to celebrate a goal properly which takes away the biggest enjoyment of following a football team. We need to get away from relying on technology to such an extent that we forget why we actually attend football matches which is the spontaneous enjoyment of celebrating a goal. It was bought in to remove the "clear and obvious errors" from the game. A quick check of a monitor by a ref a couple of times per game is the only way I can accept var as part of the game. If it's not a clear and obvious error from that initial viewing the goal stands. I would introduce a monitor in each dug out so clubs can get the benefit of that same view and allow 2 "challenges" for each team. Also refs to be miked up whilst they are reviewing a decision so everyone can understand his decision in real time.
But a real time automatic system would give an almost instant offside decision. Just like when a player scores and checks the linesman before celebrating
Yes but even if they can guarantee accuracy like toenail or a fingernail may be offside is that what we really want? It's not in the spirit that it was intended and would massively affect matchday enjoyment which is what draws us to the game in the first place.
They could set it up however we wanted. An inch, a foot or a yard. It will be accurate and do away with linesman
Linesmen aren't just there for offsides. I'm a traditionalist all the way and computers making decisions is just wrong in my view. I do think there’s a place for technology but only in a limited way. Just a monitor that gives the referee a better view of events. That's it. If it's not a clear and obvious error the original decision stands and limit it's use to 2 appeals each per game.
-
If the Premier League want to see how VAR should work they can watch France's second goal tonight.
Linesman flags offside, striker sticks the ball in the goal. VAR review, no silly lines, decide the striker looks onside and the goal is given. All sorted within 5 seconds.
It's no more complicated than that.
-
If the Premier League want to see how VAR should work they can watch France's second goal tonight.
Linesman flags offside, striker sticks the ball in the goal. VAR review, no silly lines, decide the striker looks onside and the goal is given. All sorted within 5 seconds.
It's no more complicated than that.
I have no doubt the little Englander’s at Stockley Park won’t be employing any of those foreign type rules
-
Personally I’d scrap it until the real time offside system is ready.
Sensors on boots, ball and along the pitch….job done. Change the offside to feet only and you’re sorted.
I just don't agree with the whole principle of a player being give offside for such fine margins. The offside rules were never meant to punish the attacking player so harshly and once again it raises the spectre of not being able to celebrate a goal properly which takes away the biggest enjoyment of following a football team. We need to get away from relying on technology to such an extent that we forget why we actually attend football matches which is the spontaneous enjoyment of celebrating a goal. It was bought in to remove the "clear and obvious errors" from the game. A quick check of a monitor by a ref a couple of times per game is the only way I can accept var as part of the game. If it's not a clear and obvious error from that initial viewing the goal stands. I would introduce a monitor in each dug out so clubs can get the benefit of that same view and allow 2 "challenges" for each team. Also refs to be miked up whilst they are reviewing a decision so everyone can understand his decision in real time.
But a real time automatic system would give an almost instant offside decision. Just like when a player scores and checks the linesman before celebrating
Yes but even if they can guarantee accuracy like toenail or a fingernail may be offside is that what we really want? It's not in the spirit that it was intended and would massively affect matchday enjoyment which is what draws us to the game in the first place.
They could set it up however we wanted. An inch, a foot or a yard. It will be accurate and do away with linesman
Linesmen aren't just there for offsides. I'm a traditionalist all the way and computers making decisions is just wrong in my view. I do think there’s a place for technology but only in a limited way. Just a monitor that gives the referee a better view of events. That's it. If it's not a clear and obvious error the original decision stands and limit it's use to 2 appeals each per game.
If you are a traditionalist why do you want 2 appeals per game?
-
If the Premier League want to see how VAR should work they can watch France's second goal tonight.
Linesman flags offside, striker sticks the ball in the goal. VAR review, no silly lines, decide the striker looks onside and the goal is given. All sorted within 5 seconds.
It's no more complicated than that.
I have no doubt the little Englander’s at Stockley Park won’t be employing any of those foreign type rules
VAR has worked brilliantly at the euros without all the nonsense we have seen over two years in the premier league. If the authorities must look to the efficiency of the VAR at the euros and learn. Otherwise scrap it as the way it works in the premier league is like a clown show in comparison.
-
If the Premier League want to see how VAR should work they can watch France's second goal tonight.
Linesman flags offside, striker sticks the ball in the goal. VAR review, no silly lines, decide the striker looks onside and the goal is given. All sorted within 5 seconds.
It's no more complicated than that.
It becomes more complicated when after the event sky put the lines on and talk about how VAR got it wrong. Villa fans (as obviously we're the club that has lost out) then start banging on about how corrupt VAR is and Utd are paying them (as they're the club that benefited, obviously) etec, etc and forevermore...
-
I hate the two appeals per game idea tbh. There would be absolutely no need for this is refs just started using it properly and had the courage to review their own decisions.
-
Appeals should be coupled with a zero tolerance approach to dissent. Complain about anything (like the opposition being awarded a throw in) and you automatically trigger an appeal. After you've used the first two up (appeals retained if successful as in the cricket), then it's automatic cards for any complaints.
-
How about we fuck it off completely and recognise that the game wasn't so bad before VAR existed? Complete sack of shit. Goalmouth technology should stay. VAR into room 101.
-
Steve, can I have your babbles
-
Steve, can I have your babbles
I’d like to be involved too.
-
But they won’t fuck it off. Too much investment in the technology. If it is used as it has been at the Euros most games it wouldn’t even be noticed.
-
Even when used well it can still get in the bin - there is too much subjectivity involved in decision making that is best left to the ref on the field. It fundamentally changes the match-going experience if you can never properly celebrate a goal, which will still happen regardless of how well it's implemented.
The technology still doesn't exist that will accurately measure marginal offside decisions, and a 2D image cannot always show whether or not contact has been made on a trip in the area, or certain handballs for instance - do we end up with a snickometer or hot-spot camera for these decisions?
I was against the introduction of VAR from the start as it is the thin end of the wedge when it comes to divorcing the top-level of football from the rest of the game. The one thing in it's favour was supposedly that it would even out the disparity in decisions that most of us perceive to go for the so-called big teams. Even this has been shown up to be bollocks, and if anything it's worse than it ever was. At least before it could be put down to genuine error - now it just looks like actual corruption.
-
Even when used well it can still get in the bin - there is too much subjectivity involved in decision making that is best left to the ref on the field. It fundamentally changes the match-going experience if you can never properly celebrate a goal, which will still happen regardless of how well it's implemented.
The technology still doesn't exist that will accurately measure marginal offside decisions, and a 2D image cannot always show whether or not contact has been made on a trip in the area, or certain handballs for instance - do we end up with a snickometer or hot-spot camera for these decisions?
I was against the introduction of VAR from the start as it is the thin end of the wedge when it comes to divorcing the top-level of football from the rest of the game. The one thing in it's favour was supposedly that it would even out the disparity in decisions that most of us perceive to go for the so-called big teams. Even this has been shown up to be bollocks, and if anything it's worse than it ever was. At least before it could be put down to genuine error - now it just looks like actual corruption.
Totally agree, the other night with the Lukaku disallowed goal for his toe being offside but the pass to him had already been played to him shown by the blurred shot of the ball leaving the player's pass! It was ridiculous as there was no way they could categorically say that he was offside when the pass was played!
Just ruins the game as it shows when Benzema scored his first goal but was flagged offside but got overruled and allowed to stand, the instant elation of scoring has gone!
-
Even when used well it can still get in the bin - there is too much subjectivity involved in decision making that is best left to the ref on the field. It fundamentally changes the match-going experience if you can never properly celebrate a goal, which will still happen regardless of how well it's implemented.
The technology still doesn't exist that will accurately measure marginal offside decisions, and a 2D image cannot always show whether or not contact has been made on a trip in the area, or certain handballs for instance - do we end up with a snickometer or hot-spot camera for these decisions?
I was against the introduction of VAR from the start as it is the thin end of the wedge when it comes to divorcing the top-level of football from the rest of the game. The one thing in it's favour was supposedly that it would even out the disparity in decisions that most of us perceive to go for the so-called big teams. Even this has been shown up to be bollocks, and if anything it's worse than it ever was. At least before it could be put down to genuine error - now it just looks like actual corruption.
Totally agree, the other night with the Lukaku disallowed goal for his toe being offside but the pass to him had already been played to him shown by the blurred shot of the ball leaving the player's pass! It was ridiculous as there was no way they could categorically say that he was offside when the pass was played!
Just ruins the game as it shows when Benzema scored his first goal but was flagged offside but got overruled and allowed to stand, the instant elation of scoring has gone!
That Lukaku goal is a perfect example of the stupidity of trying to use those ridiculous lines to measure offside. At first glance they offer some kind of definitive proof if someone is on or offside, but as soon as you break it down it all falls apart.
Firstly, there is the question of whether someone is offside when the ball is played. The frame rate on the cameras used doesn’t necessarily capture the precise moment the ball gets played, so already the officials are guessing on the frame to use. Secondly, it’s not clear from a 2D image when the ball has been struck by the passing player, so again there is guesswork. Finally, what is being measured when we say the ball is passed - is it the point contact is made with the ball, or when it leaves the players foot? When the ball is passed with any force it remains in contact with the foot for some time - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z3oJ9r42Rc.
I know all the above sounds ridiculous, but essentially we are trying to apply a scientific approach to decisions without all of the evidence we need. VAR isn’t making things more accurate, it is simply replacing one set of subjective decisions with another, and ones take much longer to arrive at. Given the impact it then has on the match going experience I just don’t think the price is worth paying.
-
But they won’t fuck it off. Too much investment in the technology. If it is used as it has been at the Euros most games it wouldn’t even be noticed.
The decision to award the penalty for the supposed foul on Mbappe the other night was as bad as anything I've seen from VAR.
-
Not one of the PL refs were selected to officiate at the last World Cup. The problem isn’t VAR, it’s the idiots running it. The refs in this country are well below the best in Europe.
I’ll guarantee the PL will make a mess of any new rules implemented by over interpretation. It needs to be simple & quick. It can & should be done by eyesight alone & on the basis that if it looks ok it’s ok.
-
But they won’t fuck it off. Too much investment in the technology. If it is used as it has been at the Euros most games it wouldn’t even be noticed.
The decision to award the penalty against for the supposed foul on Mbappe the other night was as bad as anything I've seen from VAR.
I agree. That’s two very poor VAR decisions so far in the competition.
-
But they won’t fuck it off. Too much investment in the technology. If it is used as it has been at the Euros most games it wouldn’t even be noticed.
The decision to award the penalty for the supposed foul on Mbappe the other night was as bad as anything I've seen from VAR.
It’s still someone making a decision based on video replay. The human side of the officiating has to be better. I was taking more about the eternity it takes in England to come to a decision on marginal offsides and the handball rule. VAR will still come to a conclusion on incidents we don’t agree with much like if it was just the ref and the assistants. But what has to happen is that decisions are made quicker and the offensive player given the benefit of the doubt when level for offside and defenders in handballs where intent has to proven.
-
On paper, this sounds promising re both penalties and offsides.
VAR set to end Premier League players ‘buying a penalty’ next season:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/aug/02/var-set-to-end-premier-league-players-buying-a-penalty-next-season
“Referees will look for contact and establish clear contact, then ask themselves the question: does that contact have a consequence?” Riley said. “They will then ask themselves a question: has the player used that contact to actually try and win a foul penalty? So it’s not sufficient just to say: ‘Yes, there’s contact.’ "
“We’ve now reintroduced the benefit of the doubt to the attacking player,” Riley said. “Effectively what we have given back to the game is 20 goals that were disallowed last season by using quite forensic scrutiny. It’s the toenails, the noses of the players that last season were offside – this season they will be onside.”
-
Wesley’s heel or whatever the fuck that made that Bamford goal offside didn’t create clear advantages to the attacking side in those goals being scored. If they now deem those as onside as well attempting to clean up penalties it “should” be much better.
-
It will still have a red filter on it so that decisions that don't favour Man U are unseeable.
-
Hilarious that they've only just realised that knocking goals off for a player being a pubic hair offside isn't really the way to go. Clever guys this lot. No doubt they'll find something this coming season to concentrate penalising out of all proportion to its effect on the game so they can justify their existence.
-
I'll take any improvement over the painful experiences of kat year,. Watkins will be happier a he's probably going to be 3 or 4 goals better off! However sterling will be gutted as he will now have to dribble more than 10 yards before falling dramatically to the ground
-
Hilarious that they've only just realised that knocking goals off for a player being a pubic hair offside isn't really the way to go. Clever guys this lot. No doubt they'll find something this coming season to concentrate penalising out of all proportion to its effect on the game so they can justify their existence.
Staggering isn’t it? They certainly ruined the game for the people actually there, although they only care about the TV audience.
-
Yep, its all about being seen to be doing something rather than anything that benefits the game. I think we all know what will happen this season. First 2 months of the season managers/players/fans will be confused by the ref/VAR suddenly giving penalties/red cards for something they've never bothered with before. Then we'll find out its some directive from on-high that every other country's refs has ignored. And by the start of November it will all go back to normal.
-
Forgive me if I wait to see what actually happens before I believe the numpties in charge of this in the UK won't screw it up again.
-
Just turned the Charity Shield on and quelle surprise, the first thing I see is Grealish hitting the deck under pressure from the defence.
However, unlike last season the ref waves play on. I do wonder whether this new interpretation of what contact means will chalk half Grealish's free kicks off. Man City will wonder exactly what they've paid for if it does!!
-
“Referees will look for contact and establish clear contact, then ask themselves the question: does that contact have a consequence?” Riley said. “They will then ask themselves a question: has the player used that contact to actually try and win a foul penalty? So it’s not sufficient just to say: ‘Yes, there’s contact.’ "
If the answer to the second question is yes, then the player should be booked.
-
Said this before on another thread, the powers that be have stated that this season referees will take the same attitude to players going down as those in the Euros. In other words those who fall over at the slightest touch will just see the ref waving at them to get up. We can only hope that this interpretation is enforced consistently across every match.
-
“Referees will look for contact and establish clear contact, then ask themselves the question: does that contact have a consequence?” Riley said. “They will then ask themselves a question: has the player used that contact to actually try and win a foul penalty? So it’s not sufficient just to say: ‘Yes, there’s contact.’ "
If the answer to the second question is yes, then the player should be booked.
That's not how it works though, there's plenty of reasons a player might go down under a challenge without trying to trick the referee but without it being a foul either. Yellow cards for diving should be used solely for cases where the player has obviously cheated (and should be applied retrospectively as well). However the flip side of that is that referees have to start giving fouls to players who try to stay on their feet but don't "gain an advantage". Fix both sides of this at once and you have a carrot and stick approach to reducing cheating.
-
In-game referee explanations could be introduced for 2022/23 season
Automated, immediate offside calls are also in development, with hopes that a system could be ready for the 2022 World Cup
Source Daily Telegraph:
'Referees in England are open to introducing an NFL-style model of direct explanations of key decisions, potentially from as early as next year.
Changes to the use of the Video Assistant Referee (Var) this coming season will include a wider margin of error for offside, so as to avoid penalising the most marginal calls, but there is also a recognition that fans want quicker and more transparent decision-making.
New automated technology which could assess offside decisions almost immediately is currently being developed, and Fifa hope that it could be ready for the Qatar World Cup from November 2022.
This is regarded as a game-changer inside football, with Var decision-time for a close offside potentially being reduced from more than 30 seconds to just a few seconds.
There will also be an examination of whether the decision-making process between referees and the Var could be more accessible to fans. Fifa and Ifab, the body which governs the football’s global rules, have resisted making any changes this season but they do have a working group to examine potential changes.
Rather than broadcasting the full live dialogue between officials, one option would be some variation on the NFL when the on-field referee can go to a monitor by the side of the pitch and provide a succinct explanation to viewers of a contentious decision once it had been made.
Another variation would be to broadcast an audio clip of the relevant discussions between the referee and the Var, potentially during the next break in play or at half-time or full-time.
The Premier League have displayed information on screens and also replays of controversial incidents but are mindful of how fans, especially inside stadiums, can be left unsure of how decisions have been made or even what the Var is examining. Leagues must operate within the boundaries of Ifab’s rules but the Professional Game Match Officials' Limited (PGMOL) - the body which oversees professional refereeing - is open to going much further in broadcasting in-game explanations from their officials.
-
If someone could explain some of Moss's and Friend's decisions against Villa, that'd be just fine ...
-
if they were to trying to get things right then getting it right as fans come back into the stadiums was something that likely came up in discussions. Last season was better than the season before which isn't much of compliment because we know they got loads wrong and mainly down to how the rules were being interpreted and applied. But with supporters returning the very last thing I hope the PL and refs want is massive delays while they drawn razor thin lines from multiple angles takin minutes to decide. Let's hope this, the foul rule and the better definition regarding penalties helps this season.
-
In-game referee explanations could be introduced for 2022/23 season
Automated, immediate offside calls are also in development, with hopes that a system could be ready for the 2022 World Cup
Source Daily Telegraph:
'Referees in England are open to introducing an NFL-style model of direct explanations of key decisions, potentially from as early as next year.
Changes to the use of the Video Assistant Referee (Var) this coming season will include a wider margin of error for offside, so as to avoid penalising the most marginal calls, but there is also a recognition that fans want quicker and more transparent decision-making.
New automated technology which could assess offside decisions almost immediately is currently being developed, and Fifa hope that it could be ready for the Qatar World Cup from November 2022.
This is regarded as a game-changer inside football, with Var decision-time for a close offside potentially being reduced from more than 30 seconds to just a few seconds.
There will also be an examination of whether the decision-making process between referees and the Var could be more accessible to fans. Fifa and Ifab, the body which governs the football’s global rules, have resisted making any changes this season but they do have a working group to examine potential changes.
Rather than broadcasting the full live dialogue between officials, one option would be some variation on the NFL when the on-field referee can go to a monitor by the side of the pitch and provide a succinct explanation to viewers of a contentious decision once it had been made.
Another variation would be to broadcast an audio clip of the relevant discussions between the referee and the Var, potentially during the next break in play or at half-time or full-time.
The Premier League have displayed information on screens and also replays of controversial incidents but are mindful of how fans, especially inside stadiums, can be left unsure of how decisions have been made or even what the Var is examining. Leagues must operate within the boundaries of Ifab’s rules but the Professional Game Match Officials' Limited (PGMOL) - the body which oversees professional refereeing - is open to going much further in broadcasting in-game explanations from their officials.
This needs to happen if they want to carry on with VAR. Allowing fans to hear the conversation as they make their decision is why rugby and cricket fans have accepted it.
-
Said this before on another thread, the powers that be have stated that this season referees will take the same attitude to players going down as those in the Euros. In other words those who fall over at the slightest touch will just see the ref waving at them to get up. We can only hope that this interpretation is enforced consistently across every match.
We should probably be generally affected then, much as I love Deano and what he has done for us, there is no doubt in my mind that he coaches his players to go down easily - it's not just Grealish. His Brentford team used to do it and so do we to an extent, so we will have to find a way round that maybe?
-
I think if introduced it would be a great step forward but it still won't stop some people on here and other forum's sagging they still got it wrong. ;)
-
Went in our favour today, twice, but why can't they just ditch the sodding offside lines?! Two or three teams have suffered from that today.
If they need to draw silly lines on a replay then it's not a clear and obvious error.
-
Gotta be honest, I couldnt tell Wilson was offside for the pen. Compare it to the one Fernandes was given the benefit of the doubt for Man Utd last week and the new rule its already looking a bit hit and miss.
-
Gotta be honest, I couldnt tell Wilson was offside for the pen. Compare it to the one Fernandes was given the benefit of the doubt for Man Utd last week and the new rule its already looking a bit hit and miss.
No one could tell Wilson was offside. VAR was brought in to get rid of the clangers. That wasn't a clanger.
I'm glad it went the way it did today obviously but you just know we'll be on the other end of one of those decisions before long and it'll piss me off no end.
-
Yeah we'd be fuming if that offside went against us. Our pen I think could have gone either way.
-
It was a strange one, 2 big game changing decisions made by var but in real time I didn't see any player or fan appeal for either.
-
I think I have entered a parallel universe where Villa fans sing 'there's only 1 Kevin Friend' and 'VAR my Lord' ;D
-
Went in our favour today, twice, but why can't they just ditch the sodding offside lines?! Two or three teams have suffered from that today.
If they need to draw silly lines on a replay then it's not a clear and obvious error.
This confuses me. If we ditched the lines then how do they evidence the VAR decisions? Players are either off or on when the balls played, you can’t introduce some sort of discretion as that’s the same as having no VAR at all (which I’d prefer). They’ve made em thicker and until there’s real-time technology that’s as good as we are going to get. We’d all be moaning about it even more if a goal was given when the opponent was 6/7 inches off side. Where do you draw the line?
-
It was diabolical they didnt ahve a pen in my eyes. We would be going mental if that happened to us.
Martinez got away with one there. Hopefully he will learn on that. He looks a lil rusty but im sure he will.be unbelievable when he is up to speed again
-
The offside wasn't that close, by recent standards, you could certainly tell he was further forward, even wthout the help of the lines.
-
Went in our favour today, twice, but why can't they just ditch the sodding offside lines?! Two or three teams have suffered from that today.
If they need to draw silly lines on a replay then it's not a clear and obvious error.
This confuses me. If we ditched the lines then how do they evidence the VAR decisions? Players are either off or on when the balls played, you can’t introduce some sort of discretion as that’s the same as having no VAR at all (which I’d prefer). They’ve made em thicker and until there’s real-time technology that’s as good as we are going to get. We’d all be moaning about it even more if a goal was given when the opponent was 6/7 inches off side. Where do you draw the line?
You don't!
The lines give a false sense of accuracy where the technology isn't up to it. VAR is there to correct clear and obvious errors. If there has been a clear and obvious error on an offside decision you don't need lines to show it. If it's too close to tell without the lines then it can't be a clear and obvious error.
It's that simple.
-
Went in our favour today, twice, but why can't they just ditch the sodding offside lines?! Two or three teams have suffered from that today.
If they need to draw silly lines on a replay then it's not a clear and obvious error.
This confuses me. If we ditched the lines then how do they evidence the VAR decisions? Players are either off or on when the balls played, you can’t introduce some sort of discretion as that’s the same as having no VAR at all (which I’d prefer). They’ve made em thicker and until there’s real-time technology that’s as good as we are going to get. We’d all be moaning about it even more if a goal was given when the opponent was 6/7 inches off side. Where do you draw the line?
You don't!
The lines give a false sense of accuracy where the technology isn't up to it. VAR is there to correct clear and obvious errors. If there has been a clear and obvious error on an offside decision you don't need lines to show it. If it's too close to tell without the lines then it can't be a clear and obvious error.
It's that simple.
Ok then , you’d freeze the frame and see his foot is clearly off side. It’s that simple
-
Who said it was an error!
Lino might have said at the time "that was close, probably off but let it run, then we can check".
-
Went in our favour today, twice, but why can't they just ditch the sodding offside lines?! Two or three teams have suffered from that today.
If they need to draw silly lines on a replay then it's not a clear and obvious error.
This confuses me. If we ditched the lines then how do they evidence the VAR decisions? Players are either off or on when the balls played, you can’t introduce some sort of discretion as that’s the same as having no VAR at all (which I’d prefer). They’ve made em thicker and until there’s real-time technology that’s as good as we are going to get. We’d all be moaning about it even more if a goal was given when the opponent was 6/7 inches off side. Where do you draw the line?
You don't!
The lines give a false sense of accuracy where the technology isn't up to it. VAR is there to correct clear and obvious errors. If there has been a clear and obvious error on an offside decision you don't need lines to show it. If it's too close to tell without the lines then it can't be a clear and obvious error.
It's that simple.
they do not apply the clear and obvious rule to offside they never have done.
I am not saying that is right, it is just how they how it’s done.
-
It was diabolical they didnt ahve a pen in my eyes. We would be going mental if that happened to us.
Martinez got away with one there. Hopefully he will learn on that. He looks a lil rusty but im sure he will.be unbelievable when he is up to speed again
I'll say this about you. You're fair to every club except one.
-
the offsides are factual - it's annoying but it's fair.
The decisions that are still referees opinions need working on - however, the handball one yesterday was spot on. It was a handball.
-
I actually found it quite impressive that the officials found a definite penalty when almost everyone had no idea it had happened. A very pleasant surprise
-
It was diabolical they didnt ahve a pen in my eyes. We would be going mental if that happened to us.
Martinez got away with one there. Hopefully he will learn on that. He looks a lil rusty but im sure he will.be unbelievable when he is up to speed again
Well this is a pointless comment when everyone knows full well why it wasn't a pen. You're being purposely obtuse by the looks of it.
-
The thing with the Newcastle penalty is you know sometime this season the same will happen to us with it being much closer than their offside and it will be disallowed as well. And you can probably have a good punt at guessing the team we'll be playing. That is the problem with VAR in a nutshell
-
Who said it was an error!
Lino might have said at the time "that was close, probably off but let it run, then we can check".
He almost certainly did and that is literally what they're told to do in tight calls. To then moan that it wasn't 'clear and obvious' is ignoring how the officials are operating. Look at the freeze frame with the lines and pay attention to the lines in the grass and it's clear that he was 5-6 niches offside, it was nothing like some of the tight calls from last season.
As for our penalty, anyone who doesn't see that as a clear handball just doesn't know the laws of the game, the controversy there is that the ref was looking straight at it and didn't spot it, that was the definition of a clear and obvious error.
-
As for our penalty, anyone who doesn't see that as a clear handball just doesn't know the laws of the game, the controversy there is that the ref was looking straight at it and didn't spot it, that was the definition of a clear and obvious error.
And despite what Brucey said, there were loads of shouts of handball from the crowd, we could see it from where we were sat in the Trinity.
-
As for our penalty, anyone who doesn't see that as a clear handball just doesn't know the laws of the game, the controversy there is that the ref was looking straight at it and didn't spot it, that was the definition of a clear and obvious error.
And despite what Brucey said, there were loads of shouts of handball from the crowd, we could see it from where we were sat in the Trinity.
Same in L3. Clear as day.
-
I like Brucey's attempted defence of it. He raised his leg so he had to raise his arm as well. What is he, a fucking puppet?!
-
I like Brucey's attempted defence of it. He raised his leg so he had to raise his arm as well. What is he, a fucking puppet?!
It was desperate.
You can tell he just didn't have the bollocks to say "We wasn't good enough today"
-
As for our penalty, anyone who doesn't see that as a clear handball just doesn't know the laws of the game, the controversy there is that the ref was looking straight at it and didn't spot it, that was the definition of a clear and obvious error.
And despite what Brucey said, there were loads of shouts of handball from the crowd, we could see it from where we were sat in the Trinity.
Same in L3. Clear as day.
My lad said it was handball. I wasn’t sure. There were plenty of shouts for sure, then the game stopped and he said to me “told you so, this is handball”.
-
I like Brucey's attempted defence of it. He raised his leg so he had to raise his arm as well. What is he, a fucking puppet?!
It was desperate.
You can tell he just didn't have the bollocks to say "We wasn't good enough today"
"It was one of those horrible ones."
-
As for our penalty, anyone who doesn't see that as a clear handball just doesn't know the laws of the game, the controversy there is that the ref was looking straight at it and didn't spot it, that was the definition of a clear and obvious error.
And despite what Brucey said, there were loads of shouts of handball from the crowd, we could see it from where we were sat in the Trinity.
Same in L3. Clear as day.
My lad said it was handball. I wasn’t sure. There were plenty of shouts for sure, then the game stopped and he said to me “told you so, this is handball”.
It was easily missed on the first angle on the TV because you just couldn't tell where it hit him so I can forgive people in the ground missing it but the ref was in a perfect position for it and I can't work out what he was thinking to not blow up immediately.
Bruce trying to argue against it was just sad really but this is a guy who wasn't prepared for the wet type of rain so he's not really all there.
-
Not sure why people are saying the offside wasn't clear and obvious. Wilson's foot was in different coloured grass to Konsa and Mings. The lines made it look closer than it was. It was definitely offside, and the officials would have been failing to uphold the law had they ignored it.
Plus, Wilson was a twat all game so ha ha ha ha.
-
Watched the goals in the Roma game and to think I've been complaining about VAR over here. For a minute I thought Serie A didn't celebrate goals anymore or his new teammates just hated Tammy, but it was actually VAR taking about 2 minutes to make a decision! Totally killed the atmosphere and goal celebrations.
-
Who said it was an error!
Lino might have said at the time "that was close, probably off but let it run, then we can check".
He almost certainly did and that is literally what they're told to do in tight calls. To then moan that it wasn't 'clear and obvious' is ignoring how the officials are operating. Look at the freeze frame with the lines and pay attention to the lines in the grass and it's clear that he was 5-6 niches offside, it was nothing like some of the tight calls from last season.
As for our penalty, anyone who doesn't see that as a clear handball just doesn't know the laws of the game, the controversy there is that the ref was looking straight at it and didn't spot it, that was the definition of a clear and obvious error.
You've missed the point.
It's not about how the officials are operating, it's about how they should be operating.
No one asked for VAR to try to deal with marginal offsides. VAR was introduced as a concept in football to stop the dropped bollocks; the ridiculous decisions that were obvious to everyone except the on-field ref.
In the ground on Saturday, no one was appealing for offside. Players and fans included. To the point that when it flashed up on the screen that VAR were checking the penalty, no one around me could even work out what they might be checking!
VAR should be there to help the on-field refs, not to re-ref the game. If it's a clanger of an offside decision, you'll see that on a replay within seconds without drawing silly lines. That means we're not stood there in the ground waiting in the dark for Stockley Park to get their Etch-a-sketch out and if it's marginal, no one's going to get that upset if it doesn't go your way.
-
It is clearly offside. Look at the grass, not the lines. It would have been ludicrous if they'd allowed it.
-
Who said it was an error!
Lino might have said at the time "that was close, probably off but let it run, then we can check".
He almost certainly did and that is literally what they're told to do in tight calls. To then moan that it wasn't 'clear and obvious' is ignoring how the officials are operating. Look at the freeze frame with the lines and pay attention to the lines in the grass and it's clear that he was 5-6 niches offside, it was nothing like some of the tight calls from last season.
As for our penalty, anyone who doesn't see that as a clear handball just doesn't know the laws of the game, the controversy there is that the ref was looking straight at it and didn't spot it, that was the definition of a clear and obvious error.
You've missed the point.
It's not about how the officials are operating, it's about how they should be operating.
No one asked for VAR to try to deal with marginal offsides. VAR was introduced as a concept in football to stop the dropped bollocks; the ridiculous decisions that were obvious to everyone except the on-field ref.
In the ground on Saturday, no one was appealing for offside. Players and fans included. To the point that when it flashed up on the screen that VAR were checking the penalty, no one around me could even work out what they might be checking!
VAR should be there to help the on-field refs, not to re-ref the game. If it's a clanger of an offside decision, you'll see that on a replay within seconds without drawing silly lines. That means we're not stood there in the ground waiting in the dark for Stockley Park to get their Etch-a-sketch out and if it's marginal, no one's going to get that upset if it doesn't go your way.
I haven't missed anything, we've heard repeatedly that, for tight calls, linesmen have been instructed to not flag so play can continue and it can be checked by VAR. That means almost every argument against it is pointless because no one knows what he would've done if VAR didn’t exist.
With that in mind watch it again and ask if the decision is correct and pretty obvious without lines (it is, as CD says the shading of the grass makes it really clear). There have been marginal calls in the past that wouldn't have been given on the pitch but this wasn't one of them and if it hadn't been called back it would've been a mistake.
-
Who said it was an error!
Lino might have said at the time "that was close, probably off but let it run, then we can check".
He almost certainly did and that is literally what they're told to do in tight calls. To then moan that it wasn't 'clear and obvious' is ignoring how the officials are operating. Look at the freeze frame with the lines and pay attention to the lines in the grass and it's clear that he was 5-6 niches offside, it was nothing like some of the tight calls from last season.
As for our penalty, anyone who doesn't see that as a clear handball just doesn't know the laws of the game, the controversy there is that the ref was looking straight at it and didn't spot it, that was the definition of a clear and obvious error.
You've missed the point.
It's not about how the officials are operating, it's about how they should be operating.
No one asked for VAR to try to deal with marginal offsides. VAR was introduced as a concept in football to stop the dropped bollocks; the ridiculous decisions that were obvious to everyone except the on-field ref.
In the ground on Saturday, no one was appealing for offside. Players and fans included. To the point that when it flashed up on the screen that VAR were checking the penalty, no one around me could even work out what they might be checking!
VAR should be there to help the on-field refs, not to re-ref the game. If it's a clanger of an offside decision, you'll see that on a replay within seconds without drawing silly lines. That means we're not stood there in the ground waiting in the dark for Stockley Park to get their Etch-a-sketch out and if it's marginal, no one's going to get that upset if it doesn't go your way.
Much as I love the tables being turned, I don't think Paul is missing the point at all. It wasn't that marginal - the new margin for error makes that clear. We have got to the correct decision whether the linesman called it or not. I can't understand why people are still moaning about this. We're getting the correct decsions with the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. Isn't that what we all wanted?
-
I like Brucey's attempted defence of it. He raised his leg so he had to raise his arm as well. What is he, a fucking puppet?!
<applause>
-
Saturday's event just happened to take place where there was a line in the grass. And even then it still took 30 seconds or more for a decision. What if Wilson had been 5 yards further forward or back? The grass wouldn't have helped then and as no one in the ground appealed for offside it can't have been that obvious an error.
My issue is less with Saturday's specific event, and more with the fact we're using lines at all. Rugby don't use lines for offside and it works fine there. Ditch the lines - if the result is blatantly wrong, change it. If it's not blatantly wrong, the decision stands.
-
Offside has never had the 'clear and obvious error' test with VAR - thats is just for refereeing decisions. Offside has always been a 'yes or no.' It's amazing how many people haven't picked up on this.
They've now built in a margin for error. Stop worrying, it's the same for everyone. We'll lose a goal for a similar reason this season and whilst being dissapointing, I'll be ok with that.
-
All the VAR decisions were spot on and all of them without the assistance of VAR would have been accepted by those at the game had they not been given.
Our penalty...a clear and obvious mistake or miss by the ref.
Their penalty that was overruled for offside, a clear and obvious decision missed by the lino. 6" is clear and obvious, anything less is less so. I notice now they are using thicker imaginary lines in their pseudo science calculations, this should hopefully clear up the really tight calls until the science is improved.
-
All the VAR decisions were spot on and all of them without the assistance of VAR would have been accepted by those at the game had they not been given.
Our penalty...a clear and obvious mistake or miss by the ref.
Their penalty that was overruled for offside, a clear and obvious decision missed by the lino. 6" is clear and obvious, anything less is less so. I notice now they are using thicker imaginary lines in their pseudo science calculations, this should hopefully clear up the really tight calls until the science is improved.
But as above, offside does not have to be clear and obvious. It's black or white (subject to the built in margin of error).
-
All the VAR decisions were spot on and all of them without the assistance of VAR would have been accepted by those at the game had they not been given.
Our penalty...a clear and obvious mistake or miss by the ref.
Their penalty that was overruled for offside, a clear and obvious decision missed by the lino. 6" is clear and obvious, anything less is less so. I notice now they are using thicker imaginary lines in their pseudo science calculations, this should hopefully clear up the really tight calls until the science is improved.
But as above, offside does not have to be clear and obvious. It's black or white (subject to the built in margin of error).
I agree. It's still an error mistake or whatever by the lino and VAR, even as it is corrected that error. On or offside should be instant with VAR but for now I'd settle for quicker with the decision.
-
Saturday's event just happened to take place where there was a line in the grass. And even then it still took 30 seconds or more for a decision. What if Wilson had been 5 yards further forward or back? The grass wouldn't have helped then and as no one in the ground appealed for offside it can't have been that obvious an error.
My issue is less with Saturday's specific event, and more with the fact we're using lines at all. Rugby don't use lines for offside and it works fine there. Ditch the lines - if the result is blatantly wrong, change it. If it's not blatantly wrong, the decision stands.
They're not going to change it though, so arguing about it is a bit like pissing in the wind. They've made the lines a bit thicker so the margin of error is a bit less ridiculous, but that's as far as they're going to go I reckon. By usual VAR offside standards, he was miles off on Saturday.
-
Rewatching it on the telly, he looks offside. Without the lines on that still with Mings (I've not seen a picture with the lines), he looks offside. I don't see why some people with poor eyesight want to deprive the rest of us of one of the funniest things to happen in yonks.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, "but what if it had happened to us", don't care. It didn't. It happened to Steve Bruce's Newcastle. Ergo, fucking funny.
-
Saturday's event just happened to take place where there was a line in the grass. And even then it still took 30 seconds or more for a decision. What if Wilson had been 5 yards further forward or back? The grass wouldn't have helped then and as no one in the ground appealed for offside it can't have been that obvious an error.
My issue is less with Saturday's specific event, and more with the fact we're using lines at all. Rugby don't use lines for offside and it works fine there. Ditch the lines - if the result is blatantly wrong, change it. If it's not blatantly wrong, the decision stands.
I don’t particularly like VAR, mainly because of the delay, and the fact I found that pre pandemic, my son stopped celebrating immediately after we scored, automatically presuming each goal could be ruled out by VAR for some reason or other, that’s the real tragedy of over scientifically analysing football.
I think the offside aspect has always been the most contentious as especially last season, it seemed like they were looking for the toenail or elbow rather than clear or obvious. I don’t buy the black and white aspect of offside in this regards.
However, saying all that, so far and it’s early days, it seem to be used with a lot more sense this season and I’m not just saying this as decisions went for Villa. There has to be a point where someone is offside and Wilson was and not just a toenail. I think the crowd not appealing is largely irrelevant, for all the years I’ve been going to VP, I rarely remember the crowd appealing for offsides other than something really really blatant. If VARs here to stay I also prefer the refs being called to the monitors more.
-
Bumping this.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of last nights penalty, allowing the game to play on for so long before the referee looks and makes a decision got me thinking.
Firstly, I think Smith is wrong claiming that the ref should have blown up immediately Martinez saved. As mentioned elsewhere when the incident occurred there were still quite a few seconds left so when VAR is upheld the whole game is taken back those number of seconds thus allowing them to convert the rebound.
My big concern is what happens if something major occurs in the passage of play before the ref then refers to VAR ?
What if we had gone up the other end and scored a perfectly legitimate goal? Would the ref then have chalked off our goal while then awarding them a penalty, turning 1-1 into a likely 2-0 with a single decision.
What if Arsenal had scored a perfectly good goal in that passage of play ? If it's deemed a penalty would their goal making it 2-0 be chalked off and replaced with the chance to make it 2-0 instead ?
I'm not aware of something like this happening up to now but it's going to sometime.
-
If we had scored, it would have been cancelled out, and they would have been awarded the penalty. I think the same happened in the first year of VAR. May have been Man U v Liverpool, not sure. If they'd scored, they would have counted it as advantage and allowed the goal. They would still maybe have sent off the defending player if they'd made a red card worthy tackle (which obviously wasn't the case yesterday).
-
That’s crazy what if we had been awarded a penalty in that time, and also what would happen if a player committed a really bad red card tackle injuring an opponent?
-
Our penalty would have been nullified for their earlier penalty. A red card would have been cancelled if it caused the cancelled penalty, unless it was for something like violent conduct, dissent, or racist/homophobic language. I think!
-
Still nowhere near a fit for purpose system though yesterdays farce was more about the users than the system.
- monitors are utterly pointless, the moment the ref goes to a monitor the doubt has been seen in his mind and they always change the decision - complete waste of time that spectators have paid for.
- usage of slo-mo replays creates incidents when there is no incident, should only use real speed replays.
- crowd in ground are still in the dark about checks & progress of the checks - pathetic
- offsides given by var are still subjective because absolutely no technology to measure the split second a pass is made so no proof that the lines are placed on the correct video frame
Pathetic system administered by clueless oafs like a Riley was never going to be foolproof but it still creates more arguments than it solves.
-
I view it as entertainment gimmick now so it doesn't bother me so much. it's whole purpose is to stir up controversy rather than stop it and it certainly works with that aim in mind. Sky obviously love it. If we get penalised, its par for the course, if we benefit from it, I still hate it
-
I really don't think they should show anything in slow motion.
-
If they stick to the “clear and obvious” error methodology, VAR isn’t so bad.
But in reality, they are overusing the technology to wade in where there is no “clear and obvious” error.
-
Agreed.
We've now been robbed v Arsenal and on Sunday as well.
-
The Ref should be in charge just like in rugby and have a dialogue with the VAR official, ask for more views and watch the whole incident from every available angle.
It boils my piss that the ref is told to go and look at 1 freeze frame from a certain angle normally showing the "worst" possible view favouring the way the var wants the decision to go.
For example Watkins vs Evans through kn goal the other day. I think everyone would be much happier for the play to continue to it's conclusion for the ref to then say, VAR I think there was a foul in that passage of play let's have a look. Then, Show it on the big screen for everyone to see what's being viewed to inform the decision.
I'm sure players would like twice about diving and rolling around like they've been shot for a penalty if its going to be rewatched in slow mo from 4 different angles by 40/50k people in the crowd.
The ref should be charge of the entire game and should have the balls to own decisions infront of the crowd.
-
The VAR process treats supporters with utter contempt. It’s OK for the sofa fans to see the replays and understand what VAR are looking at, but oh no, not the actual fans at the game. We are just a bunch of knuckle dragging hooligans that would riot at every controversial decision…When we score I want to see the instant replay on the screen, not a blank screen and a ref with his hand to his ear.. it’s pathetic and I hate the whole process with a passion
-
I like the rugby approach. Everyone can see what the officials are looking at and can hear the discussions taking place. My only concern is the time that some of the rugby decisions take. It can sometimes take a couple of minutes to review everything from every conceivable angle
I would advocate adopting the rugby system but putting a time limit on the VAR review.
If, say, after 30 seconds it is still unclear, then obviously a “clear and obvious error” has not been made and the on-pitch decision should be upheld
-
If they stick to the “clear and obvious” error methodology, VAR isn’t so bad.
But in reality, they are overusing the technology to wade in where there is no “clear and obvious” error.
Yeah but its not about the rules, its about entertainment. and stirring up controversy. If you see it from that POV then it all makes perfect sense. If the ref had disallowed our goal/given it, the amount of media scrutiny would have been far less. It's the aspect of changing a decision already made that generates the entertainment.
-
I like the rugby approach. Everyone can see what the officials are looking at and can hear the discussions taking place. My only concern is the time that some of the rugby decisions take. It can sometimes take a couple of minutes to review everything from every conceivable angle
I would advocate adopting the rugby system but putting a time limit on the VAR review.
If, say, after 30 seconds it is still unclear, then obviously a “clear and obvious error” has not been made and the on-pitch decision should be upheld
I'd say you see 1 or 2 that take longer than 30 seconds per weekend in the rugby (I watch pretty much every minute of it, either live or here - https://www.premiershiprugby.com/prtv/) they have the balance spot on. Having the ref mic'ed up it a big part because you know what is going on all the time and they are explaining the decisions. As I said on the match thread, the one where he blew up as Watkins was about to shoot was, in my opinion, a far bigger problem than the one everyone is talking about. It's exactly the sort of scenario where VAR gives the ref extra tools to ensure he's gettings right but too many of them are scared of using it that way.
-
The Ref should be in charge just like in rugby and have a dialogue with the VAR official, ask for more views and watch the whole incident from every available angle.
It boils my piss that the ref is told to go and look at 1 freeze frame from a certain angle normally showing the "worst" possible view favouring the way the var wants the decision to go.
For example Watkins vs Evans through kn goal the other day. I think everyone would be much happier for the play to continue to it's conclusion for the ref to then say, VAR I think there was a foul in that passage of play let's have a look. Then, Show it on the big screen for everyone to see what's being viewed to inform the decision.
I'm sure players would like twice about diving and rolling around like they've been shot for a penalty if its going to be rewatched in slow mo from 4 different angles by 40/50k people in the crowd.
The ref should be charge of the entire game and should have the balls to own decisions infront of the crowd.
Like the flag system in NFL - play it to the conclusion and then review if there has been a "flag". Not seen a replay of Watkins and Evans but I can imagine it was very marginal.
-
And yes the ref should tell the fans in the ground why the decision has been overturned. Arrogant twats.
-
I like the rugby approach. Everyone can see what the officials are looking at and can hear the discussions taking place. My only concern is the time that some of the rugby decisions take. It can sometimes take a couple of minutes to review everything from every conceivable angle
I would advocate adopting the rugby system but putting a time limit on the VAR review.
If, say, after 30 seconds it is still unclear, then obviously a “clear and obvious error” has not been made and the on-pitch decision should be upheld
I'd say you see 1 or 2 that take longer than 30 seconds per weekend in the rugby (I watch pretty much every minute of it, either live or here - https://www.premiershiprugby.com/prtv/) they have the balance spot on. Having the ref mic'ed up it a big part because you know what is going on all the time and they are explaining the decisions. As I said on the match thread, the one where he blew up as Watkins was about to shoot was, in my opinion, a far bigger problem than the one everyone is talking about. It's exactly the sort of scenario where VAR gives the ref extra tools to ensure he's gettings right but too many of them are scared of using it that way.
It's been alluded to before, but the difference between rugby and football crowds is like night and day. At rugby all fans go quiet for whichever team's player is trying to kick a conversion, can you imagine that at a football match.? I like the idea of the ref explaining VAR decisions in theory, but I think in practice it would lead to trouble.
-
I like the rugby approach. Everyone can see what the officials are looking at and can hear the discussions taking place. My only concern is the time that some of the rugby decisions take. It can sometimes take a couple of minutes to review everything from every conceivable angle
I would advocate adopting the rugby system but putting a time limit on the VAR review.
If, say, after 30 seconds it is still unclear, then obviously a “clear and obvious error” has not been made and the on-pitch decision should be upheld
I'd say you see 1 or 2 that take longer than 30 seconds per weekend in the rugby (I watch pretty much every minute of it, either live or here - https://www.premiershiprugby.com/prtv/) they have the balance spot on. Having the ref mic'ed up it a big part because you know what is going on all the time and they are explaining the decisions. As I said on the match thread, the one where he blew up as Watkins was about to shoot was, in my opinion, a far bigger problem than the one everyone is talking about. It's exactly the sort of scenario where VAR gives the ref extra tools to ensure he's gettings right but too many of them are scared of using it that way.
It's been alluded to before, but the difference between rugby and football crowds is like night and day. At rugby all fans go quiet for whichever team's player is trying to kick a conversion, can you imagine that at a football match.? I like the idea of the ref explaining VAR decisions in theory, but I think in practice it would lead to trouble.
Of course it's different but I think there needs to be some attempt at connecting with fans because what happens now is fucking awful.
-
Whats the worst that is going to happen?
Refs get abused, booed etc because the crowd don't agree with the decision? It all happens now.
I'd wager that more transparent the decision making process the less abuse officials and players would get.
By all means make a bad decision if people know you've gone through all the available information and still made a bad decision it is what it is.
It's this closed shop, behind closed doors, closing ranks, monumental arse covering that goes on from the whole set up that riles everyone up because it makes them look more crooked than they are. (Apart from Kevin friend he's definitely a cheating ******)
-
As someone explained above, the VAR experience for fans at home watching on TV is SO far removed from the experience in the ground that something has to change, surely?
I completely understand why they don't show everything, particularly the 'clear and obvious error reviews' because it doesn't matter how many times you show it, there will always be differences of opinion on those. Much less so for balls crossing lines and offsides, where the decision is much more clear-cut.
Can you imagine if they HAD shown the Schmeichel/Ramsey incident in slow-motion and freeze-frame on the big screen? You'd have 40k fans utterly convinced he didn't have "control of the ball" and that a goal would definitely be awarded, then absolute carnage when it wasn't. I'm generally pretty calm at the football (excited by the good, but rarely too angered by the bad), but watching at home I was completely incensed - I can't imagine how the mood would have evolved had I been sat in the Holte with similarly aggrieved fans having seen the same angles.
So I get the dilemma that they have, but something needs to change. What, or how, I don't know.
I like the idea of the refs being mic'd up for VAR reviews, so they can at least explain the decision - even if you haven't seen it. A ref saying "Goalkeeper had his hand on top the ball while it was on the ground, foul given" might have helped - maybe? They couldn't be mic'd for the rest of the game as broadcasters would be forever apologising for the bad language heard from the players. Rugby has a definite advantage there in terms of player behaviour.
-
They want the controversy They want the pissed off fans. The clear and obvious mistake error is totally ignored - if it wasn't then they wouldn't take 5 minutes looking at them! All about entertainment, pure and simple, adding a bit of jeopardy to the SKY armchair viewers. Once you realise that, then you can ignore it.
-
Whats the worst that is going to happen?
Refs get abused, booed etc because the crowd don't agree with the decision? It all happens now.
I'd wager that more transparent the decision making process the less abuse officials and players would get.
By all means make a bad decision if people know you've gone through all the available information and still made a bad decision it is what it is.
It's this closed shop, behind closed doors, closing ranks, monumental arse covering that goes on from the whole set up that riles everyone up because it makes them look more crooked than they are. (Apart from Kevin friend he's definitely a cheating ******)
Referee's are not crooks, incompetent at times yes but not crooks. No referee, no football.
-
No Kevin Friend more points for Aston Villa.
It's beyond incompetent.
-
Whats the worst that is going to happen?
Refs get abused, booed etc because the crowd don't agree with the decision? It all happens now.
I'd wager that more transparent the decision making process the less abuse officials and players would get.
By all means make a bad decision if people know you've gone through all the available information and still made a bad decision it is what it is.
It's this closed shop, behind closed doors, closing ranks, monumental arse covering that goes on from the whole set up that riles everyone up because it makes them look more crooked than they are. (Apart from Kevin friend he's definitely a cheating ******)
Referee's are not crooks, incompetent at times yes but not crooks. No referee, no football.
I don't think they're bent Dave, but I do think they suffer from unconscious bias. I also don't think going professional has helped matters at all.
-
They want the controversy They want the pissed off fans. The clear and obvious mistake error is totally ignored - if it wasn't then they wouldn't take 5 minutes looking at them! All about entertainment, pure and simple, adding a bit of jeopardy to the SKY armchair viewers. Once you realise that, then you can ignore it.
All about entertainment, pure and simple, adding a bit of jeopardy to the SKY armchair viewers. This
-
As someone explained above, the VAR experience for fans at home watching on TV is SO far removed from the experience in the ground that something has to change, surely?
I completely understand why they don't show everything, particularly the 'clear and obvious error reviews' because it doesn't matter how many times you show it, there will always be differences of opinion on those. Much less so for balls crossing lines and offsides, where the decision is much more clear-cut.
Can you imagine if they HAD shown the Schmeichel/Ramsey incident in slow-motion and freeze-frame on the big screen? You'd have 40k fans utterly convinced he didn't have "control of the ball" and that a goal would definitely be awarded, then absolute carnage when it wasn't. I'm generally pretty calm at the football (excited by the good, but rarely too angered by the bad), but watching at home I was completely incensed - I can't imagine how the mood would have evolved had I been sat in the Holte with similarly aggrieved fans having seen the same angles.
So I get the dilemma that they have, but something needs to change. What, or how, I don't know.
I like the idea of the refs being mic'd up for VAR reviews, so they can at least explain the decision - even if you haven't seen it. A ref saying "Goalkeeper had his hand on top the ball while it was on the ground, foul given" might have helped - maybe? They couldn't be mic'd for the rest of the game as broadcasters would be forever apologising for the bad language heard from the players. Rugby has a definite advantage there in terms of player behaviour.
They did show it on the big screen and a few fans got grumpy and booed. That was it. It certainly wasn't carnage and it's a hell of a lot better than the mushroom approach generally taken to fans in grounds of keeping them in the dark and feeding them shit.
-
They showed it, but it was only once without any explanation or context.
-
It was a bit more that a few fans getting grumpy and booing. It was a collective expression of disbelief and then reference to the referees assumed sexual behaviour.
-
It was a bit more that a few fans getting grumpy and booing. It was a collective expression of disbelief and then reference to the referees assumed sexual behaviour.
And his cardiovascular capacity for carrying out his duties.
-
It was a bit more that a few fans getting grumpy and booing. It was a collective expression of disbelief and then reference to the referees assumed sexual behaviour.
So just the same as every other match then?
I'd rather see the video, especially as the forecasted scenes of "carnage" didn't happen when we did.
-
It was a bit more that a few fans getting grumpy and booing. It was a collective expression of disbelief and then reference to the referees assumed sexual behaviour.
So just the same as every other match then?
I'd rather see the video, especially as the forecasted scenes of "carnage" didn't happen when we did.
I dunno, it was pretty hostile in the Holte. It wouldn't take a huge leap to see that overspilling with some fans, particularly if in relation to a bad foul etc.
I'm all for the 'rugby' type model, but football fans are very different to rugby and cricket and I'm not convinced about the wisdom of showing potentially inflammatory footage on the screens. A more detailed written explanation may be worthwhile though.
-
Jesus! I thought we stopped treating football fans as animals at the end of the 80s.
-
For offside, I’d like to see the assistant referee give it, let play continue and allow the equivalent of Umpire’s Call in the VAR review if the technology thinks it’s close. So hopefully getting rid of the offside-by-a-toenail.
-
For offside, I’d like to see the assistant referee give it, let play continue and allow the equivalent of Umpire’s Call in the VAR review if the technology thinks it’s close. So hopefully getting rid of the offside-by-a-toenail.
They seem to be quite happy to make players run 60 yards and challenge each other when everyone can see there's an obvious clear offside in every other game I watch.
It only seems to be in our games that the ref can't wait to blow his whistle to rule the technology out.
-
Two days on still think the way they used VAR on Sunday was disgusting, showing Oliver that one slo-mo & freeze frame shot completely changed the context of the incident, not in a million years did Schmeichel have control of the ball or was applying any pressure to it when Ramsey scored. Clear & obvious errors not re-refereeing games playing at being clever dicks! Sure there is more debate about decisions since this farcical system was introduced than before
-
The rule says nothing about applying pressure. Ramsey might have been unlucky that he didn't get to the ball half a second earlier but the decision was ultimately correct.
The bigger issue was the ref deciding not to use VAR for the Ollie/Evans incident.
-
Jesus! I thought we stopped treating football fans as animals at the end of the 80s.
Show me a rugby game in the last 30 years, anwhere in the world, where there has been violence like at the Euro final. Of frankly any violence of any note in the crowd whatsoever.
-
In terms of interestingness, it goes
Rugby < VAR < football
-
In terms of interestingness, it goes
Rugby < VAR < football
Perhaps. Not really the point though is it? This was in reference to showing controversial decisions on the screens within the stadium. Football fans tend to be a lot more volotile so I can understand the reticence.
-
The rule says nothing about applying pressure. Ramsey might have been unlucky that he didn't get to the ball half a second earlier but the decision was ultimately correct.
The bigger issue was the ref deciding not to use VAR for the Ollie/Evans incident.
I didn't think they did decide whether or not to get VAR involved. My understanding was that VAR looks at penalty box, goal and red card incidents regardless of any instruction from on the field.
-
The rule says nothing about applying pressure. Ramsey might have been unlucky that he didn't get to the ball half a second earlier but the decision was ultimately correct.
The bigger issue was the ref deciding not to use VAR for the Ollie/Evans incident.
I didn't think they did decide whether or not to get VAR involved. My understanding was that VAR looks at penalty box, goal and red card incidents regardless of any instruction from on the field.
The ref made the decision when he blew his whistle. At that point VAR couldn't do anything. Had the onfield ref let it go, he could've checked VAR afterwards. That was the mistake.
-
The rule says nothing about applying pressure. Ramsey might have been unlucky that he didn't get to the ball half a second earlier but the decision was ultimately correct.
The bigger issue was the ref deciding not to use VAR for the Ollie/Evans incident.
I didn't think they did decide whether or not to get VAR involved. My understanding was that VAR looks at penalty box, goal and red card incidents regardless of any instruction from on the field.
The ref made the decision when he blew his whistle. At that point VAR couldn't do anything. Had the onfield ref let it go, he could've checked VAR afterwards. That was the mistake.
The mistake is the system. In a sensible system he could let it go and then taken a look himself or asked for assistance, no obligation either way. In the current system by letting it go it will only be overturned by way of a 'clear and obvious' error - ie the benefit of the doubt moves to the attacker. He clearly felt it was a foul and didn't want that to happen.
-
The rule says nothing about applying pressure. Ramsey might have been unlucky that he didn't get to the ball half a second earlier but the decision was ultimately correct.
Didn't the final wording in the official rules show that the decision wasn't ultimately correct?
-
The rule says nothing about applying pressure. Ramsey might have been unlucky that he didn't get to the ball half a second earlier but the decision was ultimately correct.
Didn't the final wording in the official rules show that the decision wasn't ultimately correct?
I don't think so. Where did you see/hear that?
-
That one hand could pin the ball to a surface except if the 'keeper had made a save/ parried the ball. So rather as Schmeichel did by saving the ball parrying it adn then falling down woth one hand on the ball. 'Except' if the keeper has made a save or parried the ball.
-
That one hand could pin the ball to a surface except if the 'keeper had made a save/ parried the ball. So rather as Schmeichel did by saving the ball parrying it adn then falling down woth one hand on the ball. 'Except' if the keeper has made a save or parried the ball.
Jesus! Don't listen to Micah Richards!!!
The 'except' bit in the rule is there to say that if the keeper makes a save, it doesn't mean the ball is under control. But having the ball in his hands or having the ball between a hand and a surface is under control.
When refs get a matter of fact wrong the PGMOL normally come out and say so, but there's been no such comment since Sunday.
-
It was whatsisface the prestenter that raised the issue. Regardless, we won the game. It is, however, symptomatic of vague and poor legislation that is allowing for the game to be slowed to a crawl. Video is handled better in just about every other sport in which it is used. That is a fact. It is a clunky and divisive system that is creating more ill feeling than it is solving.
-
They want to overturn the decisions that add to the drama and spectacle for their viewers.
You can interpret the incident however you like. Was it the correct decision by VAR? Possibly. Was it a clear and obvious error? Nope.
The ref missing a player being 3 foot offside is a clear and obvious error. A ref missing someone being a knee or arm offside is not. The clear and obvious error line is only there to be used as a "get-out" when they miss something. i.e. "Yes Player A could have been fouled in the build-up to a goal, but it wasn't a clear and obvious error by the referee." They can't lose.
-
The want to overturn the decisions that add to the drama and spectacle for their viewers.
You can interpret the incident however you like. Was it the correct decision by VAR? Possibly. Was it a clear and obvious error? Nope.
The ref missing a player being 3 foot offside is a clear and obvious error. A ref missing someone being a knee or arm offside is not. The clear and obvious error line is only there to be used as a "get-out" when they miss something. i.e. "Yes Player A could have been fouled in the build-up to a goal, but it wasn't a clear and obvious error by the referee." They can't lose.
There's enough scope for them to apply their bias as they see fit, and that's the way they like it.
-
The NFL manage this superbly well and it is all aided by the Refs being miked up and a quick explanation of the reason for the foul and the penalty given. Once done they then support the decision by a quick video reference (although not sure if this is live in the stadium or just on TV)
I am sure this could be used in our football.
I hate the way currently the TV commentators and the TV audience seem to know what the decision is quite a time before the fans in the stadium do and that should not happen
-
Live in the stadium for NFL.
-
VAR has been in place in the Premier League for two and a half years now and the PGMOL still can't use it correctly. Far from levelling the playing field, its widened it. There's no transparency and I'm sick to death of games being decided by it. It needs to be removed or at the very least, requires a total overhaul.
-
It's got to be taken out of the hands of PGMOL!
-
The big NFL difference is the ability to challenge a decision. But its still not used for every type of play which leads to as much controversy as here.
-
For me, VAR ought to be the easiest thing to implement:
1. The referee can, at their discretion, signal that they want a VAR review on an incident. They know they've (potentially) seen something, they want to check it. In this case, they can use whatever they want - a million different angles, slow motion etc. This must come from the referee, unprompted by the VAR official.
2. There's something that has happened outside of the referee's field of vision* that can *clearly* be seen in real time. One this instance, it can be shown to the referee once, at the speed that it happened at. No replays, no slow motion, one camera angle. If it's clear and obvious, that should be sufficient.
* Field of vision - this should be shown *to the crowd & players* to be the case. They can do those lines for offside, so they can also do them to say that it happens >30° of the direction the referee is looking or more than, say, 40m away. You could also show if their line of sight is blocked. You should easily be able to show that the referee couldn't possibly have seen the incident, and that they could've judged it under the same circumstances - played once at real time - as they would've done if they had seen it.
-
The 'V' bit of VAR isn't where the root of fan disgruntlement lies, it's the inconsistent subjective interpretation and application of the Laws by the 'R' bit.
-
Perhaps the captain of the team can contest a decision once during the game and ask a referee to view the monitor? A bit like the three reviews cricket teams get. VAR absolutely has to work for both sides. Yesterday it didn’t and makes people look like they are cheating.
-
I think the following would help:
* bringing back the daylight rule (if that ever was a rule, I can’t remember) for offside and using VAR for detecting that. That would stop stupid armpit stuff.
* Removing the ‘clear and obvious’ guideline as this is at the core of where a lot of problems are coming from. I’m not even sure that terminology is part of how VAR is used in other leagues.
* No freeze frames to base decisions on, except for offside.
* More than one angle of replays of incidents as this is often subjective in its selection as we’ve seen.
* The referees and Stockley Park to me miked up so there is transparency in why and how decisions are made.
* A much better communication with matchday fans on what’s going on. VAR shouldn’t just be a tv audience thing.
* As someone mentioned before, taking it out of the hands of the PGMOL. They’re just reviewing themselves and guess what; they always find themselves correct.
That would probably be a decent start.
-
Disastrous w/end for VAR.
Palace/Everton -blatant foul by Saha on Coleman in the build-up to Palace's second goal. Not even reviewed, apparently.
Leicester/Newcastle -blatant dive by Maddison to get the penalty. Reviewed by VAR yet STILL awarded!!
Burnley/West Ham -blatant foul on Dawson in the box, reviewed by VAR -no penalty given!!
What a shambles!!!
-
I think the following would help:
* bringing back the daylight rule (if that ever was a rule, I can’t remember) for offside and using VAR for detecting that. That would stop stupid armpit stuff.
* Removing the ‘clear and obvious’ guideline as this is at the core of where a lot of problems are coming from. I’m not even sure that terminology is part of how VAR is used in other leagues.
* No freeze frames to base decisions on, except for offside.
* More than one angle of replays of incidents as this is often subjective in its selection as we’ve seen.
* The referees and Stockley Park to me miked up so there is transparency in why and how decisions are made.
* A much better communication with matchday fans on what’s going on. VAR shouldn’t just be a tv audience thing.
* As someone mentioned before, taking it out of the hands of the PGMOL. They’re just reviewing themselves and guess what; they always find themselves correct.
That would probably be a decent start.
First one seems unnecessary, offside has been ok this season since they made changes, but I agree with the rest.
-
... The bigger issue was the ref deciding not to use VAR for the Ollie/Evans incident.
Why didn't they ask Evans?
-
I think the following would help:
* bringing back the daylight rule (if that ever was a rule, I can’t remember) for offside and using VAR for detecting that. That would stop stupid armpit stuff.
* Removing the ‘clear and obvious’ guideline as this is at the core of where a lot of problems are coming from. I’m not even sure that terminology is part of how VAR is used in other leagues.
* No freeze frames to base decisions on, except for offside.
* More than one angle of replays of incidents as this is often subjective in its selection as we’ve seen.
* The referees and Stockley Park to me miked up so there is transparency in why and how decisions are made.
* A much better communication with matchday fans on what’s going on. VAR shouldn’t just be a tv audience thing.
* As someone mentioned before, taking it out of the hands of the PGMOL. They’re just reviewing themselves and guess what; they always find themselves correct.
That would probably be a decent start.
First one seems unnecessary, offside has been ok this season since they made changes, but I agree with the rest.
As a cynic, i’m waiting for offside controversies to return. If they’ve managed to sort that out then that would be something.
-
It doesn't work. It never will because it's subjective, hence the continuing controversy. We are in no better a position than we were before being reliant on the ref.
-
It doesn't work. It never will because it's subjective, hence the continuing controversy. We are in no better a position than we were before being reliant on the ref.
I disagree.
It can work and work extremely well. I'd say it's now working well for offsides other than the no flag thing that needs looking at. For open play, it's just the current way it is being used that is at fault and this could be swiftly sorted if some common sense was brought in.
-
We know it can work because you don't see fans clamouring for the removal of technology from rugby, cricket and tennis.
Unfortunately, for it to work, it relies on FIFA and the FA to sort their shit out, neither of which I have any confidence in.
-
It doesn't work. It never will because it's subjective, hence the continuing controversy. We are in no better a position than we were before being reliant on the ref.
I completely agree - it has replaced one set of subjective decisions with another, and as we saw at the weekend these all seem to continue going in the favour of the bigger teams. If it isn't making decision any fairer, then all it does is ruin the spectacle for match-going fans in favour of creating more controversies for those watching on TV. I absolutely hate that my first reaction now to a goal going in is to be concerned it's going to get ruled out for some minor infringement that may or may not have occurred in the build-up.
Also, don't get me started on the sheer physical impossibility of accurately measuring when a player is offside from static images!
-
It doesn't work. It never will because it's subjective, hence the continuing controversy. We are in no better a position than we were before being reliant on the ref.
I completely agree - it has replaced one set of subjective decisions with another, and as we saw at the weekend these all seem to continue going in the favour of the bigger teams. If it isn't making decision any fairer, then all it does is ruin the spectacle for match-going fans in favour of creating more controversies for those watching on TV. I absolutely hate that my first reaction now to a goal going in is to be concerned it's going to get ruled out for some minor infringement that may or may not have occurred in the build-up.
Also, don't get me started on the sheer physical impossibility of accurately measuring when a player is offside from static images!
the offside issue has largely been sorted in that they've increased the width of the imaginary lines. This will slightly benefit the attacking team in very tight decisions.
-
... The bigger issue was the ref deciding not to use VAR for the Ollie/Evans incident.
Why didn't they ask Evans?
He would have been a dumb witness.
-
Was going to be shit, was shit, is shit, will remain shit. Can a proponent, if there still is such a thing, indicate how this has in any tiny way made the game not even better, just not worse?
-
It doesn't work. It never will because it's subjective, hence the continuing controversy. We are in no better a position than we were before being reliant on the ref.
I completely agree - it has replaced one set of subjective decisions with another, and as we saw at the weekend these all seem to continue going in the favour of the bigger teams. If it isn't making decision any fairer, then all it does is ruin the spectacle for match-going fans in favour of creating more controversies for those watching on TV. I absolutely hate that my first reaction now to a goal going in is to be concerned it's going to get ruled out for some minor infringement that may or may not have occurred in the build-up.
Also, don't get me started on the sheer physical impossibility of accurately measuring when a player is offside from static images!
the offside issue has largely been sorted in that they've increased the width of the imaginary lines. This will slightly benefit the attacking team in very tight decisions.
The width of the lines still can't address 2 fundamental issues, however.
Firstly, it is impossible to tell from a 2D image exactly at what point the ball is kicked and whether that coincides with the player being offside. Secondly, how do you judge the moment when the ball is kicked? Is it when the foot makes contact with the ball, or when it has left the foot - the contact distance between foot and ball for a long pass, for instance, is measured in centimetres rather than millimetres, and with players running at full speed that translates into a margin of error that the lines are simply not equipped to deal with. To have true tolerance, the lines would need to be about half a metre wide, which id patently not the case.
I just can't see how the system will ever make decisions that much more accurate that it is worth the sacrifice of what has been lost. Innovations should make the match-going experience better, but VAR has categorically made it worse.
-
It was invented to stop the Maradona and Henry type handballs... not goals like Ramsey's last weekend.
-
You either check everything or you check nothing. The powers that be have spent the entirety of the thing's existence tying themselves in knots attempting to define a middle ground between those two positions.
-
The width of the lines still can't address 2 fundamental issues, however.
Firstly, it is impossible to tell from a 2D image exactly at what point the ball is kicked and whether that coincides with the player being offside. Secondly, how do you judge the moment when the ball is kicked? Is it when the foot makes contact with the ball, or when it has left the foot - the contact distance between foot and ball for a long pass, for instance, is measured in centimetres rather than millimetres, and with players running at full speed that translates into a margin of error that the lines are simply not equipped to deal with. To have true tolerance, the lines would need to be about half a metre wide, which id patently not the case.
I just can't see how the system will ever make decisions that much more accurate that it is worth the sacrifice of what has been lost. Innovations should make the match-going experience better, but VAR has categorically made it worse.
Exactly right. They've gone with the "clear and obvious" error for everything else, but on offsides have then tried to get it millimetre perfect, which is impossible for the reasons you say. If they'd applied the clear and obvious rule for offside as well, and left it at say, a 30cm gap, then that would have allowed for the tolerances you mention, and kept more to the spirit of football. Scoring a goal when somebody is 3 foot offside because the linesman has missed it isn't acceptable, but then nobody asked for the width of an imaginary toenail to be the answer to the problem.
-
Goal-line technology is fine as it is easily implemented, and the decision is black and white (with one or two notable exceptions!). Everything else should go back to how it was, as you say you either check nothing or check everything, and checking everything isn't working.
-
It doesn't work. It never will because it's subjective, hence the continuing controversy. We are in no better a position than we were before being reliant on the ref.
I completely agree - it has replaced one set of subjective decisions with another, and as we saw at the weekend these all seem to continue going in the favour of the bigger teams. If it isn't making decision any fairer, then all it does is ruin the spectacle for match-going fans in favour of creating more controversies for those watching on TV. I absolutely hate that my first reaction now to a goal going in is to be concerned it's going to get ruled out for some minor infringement that may or may not have occurred in the build-up.
Also, don't get me started on the sheer physical impossibility of accurately measuring when a player is offside from static images!
the offside issue has largely been sorted in that they've increased the width of the imaginary lines. This will slightly benefit the attacking team in very tight decisions.
The width of the lines still can't address 2 fundamental issues, however.
Firstly, it is impossible to tell from a 2D image exactly at what point the ball is kicked and whether that coincides with the player being offside. Secondly, how do you judge the moment when the ball is kicked? Is it when the foot makes contact with the ball, or when it has left the foot - the contact distance between foot and ball for a long pass, for instance, is measured in centimetres rather than millimetres, and with players running at full speed that translates into a margin of error that the lines are simply not equipped to deal with. To have true tolerance, the lines would need to be about half a metre wide, which id patently not the case.
I just can't see how the system will ever make decisions that much more accurate that it is worth the sacrifice of what has been lost. Innovations should make the match-going experience better, but VAR has categorically made it worse.
I've been saying exactly this ever since I first clapped eyes on VAR. As you pointed out what's the actual rule on when the ball is deemed to have been passed? Is it the first contact with the ball or is it the precise moment it loses contact with the passers boot? We're talking tiny margins but a professional footballer will have moved quite a distance in that split second and that's the difference between offside and onside. Maybe tracking technology in the players boots and the ball could fix this because until they can solve that problem offsides are still subject to interpretation.
-
Apparently "our Cas", Tony Cascarino, has written in his Times article today, suggesting a new type of penalty for soft ones/fouls in the box that don't directly prevent a goalscoring chance.
In this case (I think he cites Rudiger going down from a tap to the ankle on the edge of the box, facing away from goal , Chelsea v Leeds on Saturday) he recommends a penalty from 18 yards! And only the stonewaller ones to be taken from 12 yards. What d'yer reckon - does Tone have a point or is he away with the fairies/bookies ?
-
Normal distance, but it can't be given to your penalty taker but someone designated beforehand who's crap at it so for us you'd have Davis and then Martinez
-
It’s quite an insightful and creative solution I think. The issue is of course that goals have such a scarcity value that the awarding or not of a penalty is often a game changing call, in a way it mostly isn’t with other sports.
We all get hung up on whether they should or shouldn’t be given and it’s often the case that people who know the game pretty well can disagree even after 5 slomo replays.
So a great alternative is to make the punishment less. Well done Cas!
-
The 'precise moment' is not quite as importnant now given the margin for error with the lines. The reality now is under the current system if you are called offside then you were almost certainly offside. There will always be a margin of debate wherever you draw the line, but I think the balance is fine now. And of course the 'big errors' (for offside) have been eliminated.
Some people will never be happy, but I don't see how you can say the current system is worse than someone guessing.
It's ever other part of VAR that is being implemented horrendously. It should be a tool for the ref, not someone peering over his shoulder. Refs should be brave enough to say, I'm taking another look at that...
-
Normal distance, but it can't be given to your penalty taker but someone designated beforehand who's crap at it so for us you'd have Davis and then Martinez
What about like they do in basketball where the person fouled has to take the shot?
-
The 'precise moment' is not quite as importnant now given the margin for error with the lines. The reality now is under the current system if you are called offside then you were almost certainly offside. There will always be a margin of debate wherever you draw the line, but I think the balance is fine now. And of course the 'big errors' (for offside) have been eliminated.
Some people will never be happy, but I don't see how you can say the current system is worse than someone guessing.
It's ever other part of VAR that is being implemented horrendously. It should be a tool for the ref, not someone peering over his shoulder. Refs should be brave enough to say, I'm taking another look at that...
It is still someone guessing though, just someone sat in front of a monitor one hundred miles away. At best it is pseudo-science, but it is certainly not any better by an order of magnitude that makes it worth losing the spontaneity of a goal celebration that we used to have. The lines aren't thick enough to account for the number of conflicting movements in an offside decision (when the ball is kicked, when the player running at pace is physically offside etc.), and actually the frame rate of the cameras also make it even less possible to know precisely when the ball is kicked. There is no perfect way to judge offside at the moment, so VAR has actively made this worse.
Also, there is the additional problem of goals being scored following offsides that the assistants no longer give. There is now a reticence to flag for clear offsides because of VAR, which then directly impacts the following passages of play. We've seen examples of corners being given following an offside not being flagged, which can then lead directly to goals. So in this instance again I think we can say that the new system is worse as it has introduced new problems that weren't there previously.
-
The 'precise moment' is not quite as importnant now given the margin for error with the lines. The reality now is under the current system if you are called offside then you were almost certainly offside. There will always be a margin of debate wherever you draw the line, but I think the balance is fine now. And of course the 'big errors' (for offside) have been eliminated.
Some people will never be happy, but I don't see how you can say the current system is worse than someone guessing.
It's ever other part of VAR that is being implemented horrendously. It should be a tool for the ref, not someone peering over his shoulder. Refs should be brave enough to say, I'm taking another look at that...
It is still someone guessing though, just someone sat in front of a monitor one hundred miles away. At best it is pseudo-science, but it is certainly not any better by an order of magnitude that makes it worth losing the spontaneity of a goal celebration that we used to have. The lines aren't thick enough to account for the number of conflicting movements in an offside decision (when the ball is kicked, when the player running at pace is physically offside etc.), and actually the frame rate of the cameras also make it even less possible to know precisely when the ball is kicked. There is no perfect way to judge offside at the moment, so VAR has actively made this worse.
Also, there is the additional problem of goals being scored following offsides that the assistants no longer give. There is now a reticence to flag for clear offsides because of VAR, which then directly impacts the following passages of play. We've seen examples of corners being given following an offside not being flagged, which can then lead directly to goals. So in this instance again I think we can say that the new system is worse as it has introduced new problems that weren't there previously.
That's true but there is a bigger margin of tolerance with the technology. The precise moment of ball being kicked with movement initiated and that linked to the attacker and last defender is covered with the increased tolerance of the line width. These are all minute fractions of a second which was more important when the thinner lines that were initially used. The technology is now better than a linesman's visual assessment for most of the game if you take into account linesman's positioning. Is the linesman exactly in line with the last defender and does the linesman's vision take into account his position when the ball is precisely kicked in relation to the forward's position and the part of his body that could make him offside? Technology wins that decision more often than the linesman.
The last point has some credence and is something which needs sorting. I think once the technology is improved even further offside decisions will be taken out of the linesman's duty.
-
The other thing to consider for those that say VAR is working is the penalties issue. On field refs award penalties even if they're not sure because they expect VAR to review them and tell them if they've got it wrong. But alot of the time VAR doesn't because it follows the 'it's not clear and obvious, therefore we can't get involved' cop out. So you have an increase in penalties that are not penalties being awarded. Not only that, but it doesn't review enough those that should be penalties but which haven't been awarded by the on field ref. The reason; because the ref hasn't awarded it.
-
The whole debate about whether or not VAR is good for the game boils down to one thing. It's just not the same celebrating a goal anymore because you half expect it to be ruled out. Both our goals against Leicester had muted celebrations. Yours truly who's been known to celebrate wildly didn't get that same buzz thanks to VAR. It's taken more out of the game than its given and I don't think that's even debatable.
-
Funny seeing the outcry about VAR yesterday when a couple of decisions go against Liverpool. Klopp, Sky, all having meltdowns. ‘VAR needs to change. It’s not working.’ Etc, etc, etc ad nauseam. Yet nothing the week before. Not a peep.
-
Scrap VAR for everything but offsides but let the match referee still use the technology!!
I used to referee and still have 'nightmares' about a decision I made about 40 years ago. I wish I could have seen that incident again!!
Between obstructions, distractions, distance, angles, pressure etc it is humanly impossible to make the correct 'split second' decision on every occasion.
I propose, if the match referee suspects an infringement leading to a goal or a sending off, he/she makes a clear 'square' signal and at the next stop in play goes to a TV monitor to see an 'action replay' from a few angles before they make their final decision. Twelve eyes should be better than two.
For any serious incident not seen by the match officials, each manager has twenty seconds to lodge a 'review' with the 4th official. Along same format as Test Cricket. It amazes me how many cricket players soon 'shut up' when they have to make a decision!! One legitimate review per team allowed. Match referee views monitor and makes final decision.
I wish the technology was available in my day.
-
Scrap VAR for everything but offsides but let the match referee still use the technology!!
I used to referee and still have 'nightmares' about a decision I made about 40 years ago. I wish I could have seen that incident again!!
Between obstructions, distractions, distance, angles, pressure etc it is humanly impossible to make the correct 'split second' decision on every occasion.
I propose, if the match referee suspects an infringement leading to a goal or a sending off, he/she makes a clear 'square' signal and at the next stop in play goes to a TV monitor to see an 'action replay' from a few angles before they make their final decision. Twelve eyes should be better than two.
For any serious incident not seen by the match officials, each manager has twenty seconds to lodge a 'review' with the 4th official. Along same format as Test Cricket. It amazes me how many cricket players soon 'shut up' when they have to make a decision!! One legitimate review per team allowed. Match referee views monitor and makes final decision.
I wish the technology was available in my day.
I mostly agree with this but I wouldn't give reviews, they have too much potential to be used tactically to slow/stop the game at a key time. I would keep VAR though but the only time I'd allow them to signal to the referee is for a incident that they believe has been missed that should be a yellow/red card that the referee hasn't seen (or hasn't signalled as having seen).
The big change for me is that refs need t allow play to go on if they're not sure and them whistle at the end of that "period of play" (either the ball goes dead or possession has clearly changed to the other team). Then they, mic'ed up and audible in the stadium, tell the VAR what they want to check and go to a screen where they get 2-3 angles at full speed, if they're still not sure play continues from wherever it left off and if a goal was scored during that period it stands. Done properly it only applies to a couple of incidents per game and takes no longer than the current situation of the ref dealing with players from both sides arguing over his decision.
-
I really like the idea of the review. I'm convinced it will help stop the simulation. It will make the indiviuals players and the teams collectively take responsibility for their own actions.
Only downside I see to it is the tactical review especially when teams have reviews left and they concede a late goal
-
Only downside I see to it is the tactical review especially when teams have reviews left and they concede a late goal
And if there is nothing wrong with said goal, then there will be no issue.
-
Teams have faking injury as a 'time out' since the beginning of mankind. Be no different from a tactical review.
-
I think reviews are bullshit. The refereeing team has all the facilities they need to get key decisions right. It's just the way they are operating VAR that is mind boggling. The lack of common sense beggars belief. Watch some rugby games. Copy the best bits of how their teams work together. People keep saying 'yeah but rugby is stop start etc etc'. I don't think these people have watched how slick the refereeing is in rugby. The only thing that takes much time is ball grounding decisions and by their very nature they neeed as many camera angles as possible. And no, the ref mic doesn't need to be piped into the stadium, it isn't in rugby it's just the tv audience who hear it. If using the big screens is seen as problematic there should be 6 screens arounds the ground and the ref shouldn't be afraid to check his own decisions. It's so simple.
-
I still struggle with why anyone thinks there's anything wrong with how rugby handle video assistance. A qualified ref is watching on TV to help the onfield ref. The onfield ref can either refer something or the VAR can speak to him live to say he thinks he's missed something. The ref's miked up so everyone at home and in the ground can hear what he's saying and the ref watches the replay on the big screen so fans at home and in the ground can see what he sees.
Why the obsession with reinventing the wheel?
-
So other than the miked up bit, what's the difference now?
-
So other than the miked up bit, what's the difference now?
They don't discuss it and come to a joint decision, they don't work as a team. The ref can't say, 'I think there's possibly a foul there what do you think' etc - it's still down to the clear and obvious error issue.
-
I still struggle with why anyone thinks there's anything wrong with how rugby handle video assistance. A qualified ref is watching on TV to help the onfield ref. The onfield ref can either refer something or the VAR can speak to him live to say he thinks he's missed something. The ref's miked up so everyone at home and in the ground can hear what he's saying and the ref watches the replay on the big screen so fans at home and in the ground can see what he sees.
Why the obsession with reinventing the wheel?
No, not in the ground, just on telly.
-
Right now it's shit.
It's not transparent. It's not clear. It's not consistent. It's mates looking after each other rather than an independent review. Mic them up. Broadcast the review. Play the footage in real time, no slowing down or speeding up. No multiple angles.
Or ditch it.
-
I still struggle with why anyone thinks there's anything wrong with how rugby handle video assistance. A qualified ref is watching on TV to help the onfield ref. The onfield ref can either refer something or the VAR can speak to him live to say he thinks he's missed something. The ref's miked up so everyone at home and in the ground can hear what he's saying and the ref watches the replay on the big screen so fans at home and in the ground can see what he sees.
Why the obsession with reinventing the wheel?
No, not in the ground, just on telly.
I've been at games where they've sold those little radios outside the ground where you can listen to what the refs saying to the video ref. Maybe that's not all of them - I'm not an avid egg-chaser!
-
It’s the same idiots who were making mistakes before VAR that are still making mistakes with VAR.
Their interpretation of the rules change depending on what happened the previous week / day or even half. I’m convinced Robertson was sent off yesterday because Kane wasn’t in the first half.
A load of soft penalties last week, for which they were rightly criticised, translates into no penalties this week. They’ve gone back to protecting the refs on field decisions unless 100% wrong. The Man City pen vs Wolves being a prime example. Nobody saw that as a pen yet it stands.
We’ve got the best players in the world. But not one of the PL refs will be in Qatar later this year for a reason. We should be paying to bring the best refs in the world to the PL replacing these self-regulating amateurs.
-
Right now it's shit.
It's not transparent. It's not clear. It's not consistent. It's mates looking after each other rather than an independent review. Mic them up. Broadcast the review. Play the footage in real time, no slowing down or speeding up. No multiple angles.
Or ditch it.
I disagree about no slow motion, mutliple angles etc. If they're going to use VAR then I want them to get it right as often as possible and if that takes 2 or 3 angles then so be it.
-
And in the 18/20 Premier League grounds that have big screens, put what the ref is watching up on the big screen. None of this 'we're not going to show it to protect the ref' nonsense. Maybe that'll stop the ref in a shed trying to protect the ref on the pitch. If you've made a mistake, that's fine, you're human. Just overturn the obvious decision.
And the Prem should insist that all grounds have a big screen to show those replays. Let's see how much of a fortress for decisions Anfield and Old Trafford are when 3,000 away fans in the ground get to see the replay too.
-
Right now it's shit.
It's not transparent. It's not clear. It's not consistent. It's mates looking after each other rather than an independent review. Mic them up. Broadcast the review. Play the footage in real time, no slowing down or speeding up. No multiple angles.
Or ditch it.
I disagree about no slow motion, multiple angles etc. If they're going to use VAR then I want them to get it right as often as possible and if that takes 2 or 3 angles then so be it.
As with Rugby, the more a slowed-down version of the incident is shown, the more it looks ugly and deliberate. So, there's a compromise required to show what actually happened without distorting the incident.
I wonder whether it should be a current referee in the VAR booth ... maybe retired refs could be deployed, to reduce the sense that the current crop are looking after their own. Or, ship in a foreign ref each weekend to do VAR duty; and do the same elsewhere with English refs (this may help the game to be more equitably refereed across Europe as well).
-
The same arguments that instigated the introduction of VAR are still being made now which leads you to conclude that it hasn't worked. However you frame it the system is reliant on human judgement in most cases and not objective so one mans red card is another mans caution and so on.
You can dance around it 'till the cows come home but despite alterations here and there the facts remain, while it is used for subjective decisions it is impossible to get everything correct. Only now we have long delays before decisions are made, strangled goal celebrations and an even bigger sense of injustice.
It doesn't work.
-
Right now it's shit.
It's not transparent. It's not clear. It's not consistent. It's mates looking after each other rather than an independent review. Mic them up. Broadcast the review. Play the footage in real time, no slowing down or speeding up. No multiple angles.
Or ditch it.
I disagree about no slow motion, mutliple angles etc. If they're going to use VAR then I want them to get it right as often as possible and if that takes 2 or 3 angles then so be it.
I agree about the angles. The ref should get all the available angles as that's usually their excuse for a wrong decision "the referee didn't get a clear view of the incident" Take that easy option away from them. I can think of at least two incidents last weekend where the ref had a perfect view of things and gave nothing. At Newcastle and Spurs but again you need their mates in the VAR studio to pull him up on it and make him look useless.
If one var ref does that to his mate then the others will view it as a stitch up and do the same to him when its their turn in the studio. Human error and ego's are playing a massive part in why it's such a monumental fuck up thus far. But not slow-mo. That's total nonsense and makes everything look completely different to the actual event.
-
The problem is that the referees are either useless and or biased.
Instead of VAR making things better it’s made it worse and shown these idiots up for what they are.
-
Right now it's shit.
It's not transparent. It's not clear. It's not consistent. It's mates looking after each other rather than an independent review. Mic them up. Broadcast the review. Play the footage in real time, no slowing down or speeding up. No multiple angles.
Or ditch it.
I disagree about no slow motion, mutliple angles etc. If they're going to use VAR then I want them to get it right as often as possible and if that takes 2 or 3 angles then so be it.
I agree about the angles. The ref should get all the available angles as that's usually their excuse for a wrong decision "the referee didn't get a clear view of the incident" Take that easy option away from them. I can think of at least two incidents last weekend where the ref had a perfect view of things and gave nothing. At Newcastle and Spurs but again you need their mates in the VAR studio to pull him up on it and make him look useless.
If one var ref does that to his mate then the others will view it as a stitch up and do the same to him when its their turn in the studio. Human error and ego's are playing a massive part in why it's such a monumental fuck up thus far. But not slow-mo. That's total nonsense and makes everything look completely different to the actual event.
You really don't. This is a big part of the problem.
Again, I know I keep banging on about rugby, but the way VAR is applied there works. The video ref is there to save his mate on the field from making an absolute horlicks of a decision. He's not re-referreeing and he's not there to show the onfield ref up. If the onfield ref misses something, he's there to say "you might want to have another look at that one mate as I think you might have missed something".
The relationship is one of being part of a team who's overall aim is to avoid being the story in the Monday papers. Not as a team under seige having to prove that the onfield ref always makes the right decision and the VAR is there to back that up.
-
Exactly. And I've seen a video of an Aussie ref doing exactly the same with VAR in football and it seemed to work well. The answer is there right in front of them yet they are too arrogant or stupid to grab it.
-
Thirded, it's very easy to get VAR to a point of being a useful part of the refs toolkit but the first step is for refs to stop thinking they have to project a air of perfection.
They're human and will make mistakes but instead of covering them up and hiding behind obscure interpretations of the rules they need to own up to them and agree to do better and, importantly, they need to admit that doing that means giving themselves time to think.
As happens a lot with tech if you try to keep things as they are and implement some sort of 'halfway' solutiion you normally end up with the worst of both worlds, which is where we were last season (the offside changes have moved us on slightly), but we now really need to move on to a solution where the tech is at the heart of it and change how things work to allow for that.
-
I was coming from the perspective of a clear and obvious error. If you remove that wording, and just let them help out, then slow mo etc is fine. If a ref just said, 'I didn't see that clearly, would you check for me please?' or the VAR official, said 'I think you may have missed that foul, I'll double check it' it may work.
-
I was coming from the perspective of a clear and obvious error. If you remove that wording, and just let them help out, then slow mo etc is fine. If a ref just said, 'I didn't see that clearly, would you check for me please?' or the VAR official, said 'I think you may have missed that foul, I'll double check it' it may work.
I'm not against using a slo-mo but I do think in a lot of cases it distorts the timings too much to be of use. To stick with using rugby as the benchmark the one I don't like is using a slo-mo when reviewing a late tackle, it becomes very easy to convince yourself a player had time to adjust when you're watching it frame by frame, if it looks late on a real-time replay then that's fine but if you have to slow it down to be sure then you're already on tyhe path of giving a bad decision. Coming back to football I think that applies perfectly to the disallowed Ramsey goal, in real time there's no chance you say the keeper has it under control but slowed down it changes things.
I can't think of many cases where slowing things down will give a better view other than the ball crossing a line or offside, and I think they've got the important parts of those right now (maybe needs to be reviewed for the ball going out of play in the build up to goals/incidents but that's a very rare problem anyway.
-
Again, I know I keep banging on about rugby, but the way VAR is applied there works. The video ref is there to save his mate on the field from making an absolute horlicks of a decision. He's not re-referreeing and he's not there to show the onfield ref up. If the onfield ref misses something, he's there to say "you might want to have another look at that one mate as I think you might have missed something".
The relationship is one of being part of a team who's overall aim is to avoid being the story in the Monday papers. Not as a team under seige having to prove that the onfield ref always makes the right decision and the VAR is there to back that up.
I agree with it in principle, but you have to factor in the big difference between rugby and football crowds. Even in the biggest derby in rugby, fans all go quiet for both sets of kickers. Imagine the crowd watching multiple replays of a tackle like the Harry Kane one at a Villa - Blues match (I know, unlikely, but bear with me) or Leeds - Man U.
-
Again, I know I keep banging on about rugby, but the way VAR is applied there works. The video ref is there to save his mate on the field from making an absolute horlicks of a decision. He's not re-referreeing and he's not there to show the onfield ref up. If the onfield ref misses something, he's there to say "you might want to have another look at that one mate as I think you might have missed something".
The relationship is one of being part of a team who's overall aim is to avoid being the story in the Monday papers. Not as a team under seige having to prove that the onfield ref always makes the right decision and the VAR is there to back that up.
I agree with it in principle, but you have to factor in the big difference between rugby and football crowds. Even in the biggest derby in rugby, fans all go quiet for both sets of kickers. Imagine the crowd watching multiple replays of a tackle like the Harry Kane one at a Villa - Blues match (I know, unlikely, but bear with me) or Leeds - Man U.
The cultural differences do matter but I'm not sure decision making should be decided on the basis that there are people in the crowd who just want to go and fight the opposition, that's the sort of thinking that leads to fences around the pitch again.
-
I do think it's an issue. But they can still work it without showing it all on the big screen. They can have several monitors around the ground (not next to the dug outs) and let the ref watch it again there and make his mind up. If necessary there could be headphones available so he can hear the VAR and block out the croud noise whilst he makes his decision. So long as fans are informed what is going on they don't necessarily need to see re-runs of the incident in close up within the stadium.
-
So Kane's red card was not a red card because, erm, he is Kane?
Peter Walton pretty much confirming that players will be treated differently in terms of punishment because of their reputation (despite last para caveat):
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/18f9cc02-6116-11ec-b279-fa13aec304af?shareToken=0ff350ae701060acd7f4b643a1075865
-
So Kane's red card was not a red card because, erm, he is Kane?
Peter Walton pretty much confirming that players will be treated differently in terms of punishment because of their reputation (despite last para caveat):
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/18f9cc02-6116-11ec-b279-fa13aec304af?shareToken=0ff350ae701060acd7f4b643a1075865
If Walton is right (and I'm not sure he is), "clear and obvious" has to go as a concept. To say that allowing play to carry on after Jota was pushed over as he was about to shoot was not a clear and obvious error is mental. The ref got it wrong. VAR should be there to help him.
It's a mess.
-
So Kane's red card was not a red card because, erm, he is Kane?
Peter Walton pretty much confirming that players will be treated differently in terms of punishment because of their reputation (despite last para caveat):
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/18f9cc02-6116-11ec-b279-fa13aec304af?shareToken=0ff350ae701060acd7f4b643a1075865
Is it any wonder how much of a clusterfuck they have made from var when a former senior official like him can tie himself up in knots like this? How can a tackle be deemed less dangerous because a players foot isn't quite planted on the ground? Kane was out of control and his studs catching Robertson in the shin could easily have still snapped bone by driving the foot straight into the turf. He goes on to say that each incident is judged solely on its merits so why does it matter if Kanes last red was 10 years ago or 10 days ago? Why even bring that up?
-
Clear and obvious is their means of never having to admit to getting it wrong. it's actually a work of genius if you think about it.
-
I know it was in a rather one-sided game, but has there been much mention of the incident in the Newcastle game where Edison wiped out Fraser?
-
I know it was in a rather one-sided game, but has there been much mention of the incident in the Newcastle game where Edison wiped out Fraser?
Shearer went to town on it on MotD.
-
I know it was in a rather one-sided game, but has there been much mention of the incident in the Newcastle game where Edison wiped out Fraser?
Shearer went to town on it on MotD.
The explanation I've heard is that it didn't matter because Cancelo came away with the ball? Wouldn't that set a precedent that means any challenge off the ball need never be punished?
-
Peter Walton is an utter waste of oxygen.
-
I know it was in a rather one-sided game, but has there been much mention of the incident in the Newcastle game where Edison wiped out Fraser?
Shearer went to town on it on MotD.
The explanation I've heard is that it didn't matter because Cancelo came away with the ball? Wouldn't that set a precedent that means any challenge off the ball need never be punished?
Precisely what Shearer said.
-
Someone needs to embarrass them. Pass to your 'keeper with the ball in play and get him to just crouch there with his palm on the ball for 5 minutes.
-
Was it you, sb, that opined that there's not actually a problem where the powers that be are concerned? Fwiw, I'm in agreement with whoever said it. The Race For The Title is going to plan, and should manure and spuds clock up a win from the games in hand they have over the spammers, The Race For Fourth wil be exactly, exactly that which excites the Premier League bagman's trouser department.
-
Was it you, sb, that opined that there's not actually a problem where the powers that be are concerned? Fwiw, I'm in agreement with whoever said it. The Race For The Title is going to plan, and should manure and spuds clock up a win from the games in hand they have over the spammers, The Race For Fourth wil be exactly, exactly that which excites the Premier League bagman's trouser department.
yep its about entertainment just like every other adaptation they've made over the last 20 years
-
Right now it's shit.
It's not transparent. It's not clear. It's not consistent. It's mates looking after each other rather than an independent review. Mic them up. Broadcast the review. Play the footage in real time, no slowing down or speeding up. No multiple angles.
Or ditch it.
I disagree about no slow motion, mutliple angles etc. If they're going to use VAR then I want them to get it right as often as possible and if that takes 2 or 3 angles then so be it.
To me, it depends. If the referee has requested that VAR look at an incident because they're not sure, then it's fair enough to slow it down, multiple actions, etc.
If it's VAR flagging something that's clear & obvious, then it has to be played once, at full speed. Otherwise it's not clear and obvious, is it, if you need to see it several times in slow motion to see it?
-
All irrelevant points when they're clearly cheating.
-
As funny as Newcastle's result today is, anyone know how the Cambridge player kicking the ball out from under Newcastle's goalies hand was any different from the one that was disallowed for us against Leicester?
-
As funny as Newcastle's result today is, anyone know how the Cambridge player kicking the ball out from under Newcastle's goalies hand was any different from the one that was disallowed for us against Leicester?
It was probably the cheating Stockley Park wankers day off. No difference whatsoever, just purely down to opinion.
-
West Ham's goal against Leeds today should not have stood. Bowen was clearly offside and was active in the goal. VAR is a fucking joke. An abomination that is ruining the beautiful game.
-
West Ham's goal against Leeds today should not have stood. Bowen was clearly offside and was active in the goal. VAR is a fucking joke. An abomination that is ruining the beautiful game.
I'm first in the queue for volunteering to permanently pull the plug on VAR, but I disagree. He didn't touch the ball, and I don't think he came into the keeper's vision or thinking until he flashed past him after the ball had already gone.
-
West Ham's goal against Leeds today should not have stood. Bowen was clearly offside and was active in the goal. VAR is a fucking joke. An abomination that is ruining the beautiful game.
I'm first in the queue for volunteering to permanently pull the plug on VAR, but I disagree. He didn't touch the ball, and I don't think he came into the keeper's vision or thinking until he flashed past him after the ball had already gone.
I think he did get a toe on the ball. He totally caused the keeper to spill it in my view and for that reason it should of been chalked off. Reason 287 to throw var in the fucking dustbin.
-
Does anybody remember the days when you could cheer your own team scoring a goal? That instantaneous reaction of 3k-40k supporters suddenly reacting to their own team's goal was defining and has been stripped from football because of var. I'm a match going supporter of 50 years and yet the only reaction I could muster over Ings goal last night was to matter of factly inform my wife Villa had scored to which she replied "what does var have to say about it?"
Football is fast becoming an empty shell of a sport.
-
It used to be a quick glance to the linesman’s flag as you were celebrating in a mass of screaming bodies. Now you wait to properly celebrate until an electronic screen tells you it’s ok to.
-
It used to be a quick glance to the linesman’s flag as you were celebrating in a mass of screaming bodies. Now you wait to properly celebrate until an electronic screen tells you it’s ok to.
Not at Old Trafford - the tip hasn't left 1994. Imagine being a fan at the ground last night. You'd have absolutely no idea what on earth was going on and why the goal was dissallowed.
-
It used to be a quick glance to the linesman’s flag as you were celebrating in a mass of screaming bodies. Now you wait to properly celebrate until an electronic screen tells you it’s ok to.
Not at Old Trafford - the tip hasn't left 1994. Imagine being a fan at the ground last night. You'd have absolutely no idea what on earth was going on and why the goal was dissallowed.
And this is the thing. As far as the authorities are concerned, as a match going fan you're irrelevant. All that's important is to be able to show "decision accuracy" stats to gazillionaire club owners and to make sure the millions watching on TV in China get a dramatic show.
-
It used to be a quick glance to the linesman’s flag as you were celebrating in a mass of screaming bodies. Now you wait to properly celebrate until an electronic screen tells you it’s ok to.
Not at Old Trafford - the tip hasn't left 1994. Imagine being a fan at the ground last night. You'd have absolutely no idea what on earth was going on and why the goal was dissallowed.
This. Standing waiting for nearly 4 minutes with no idea what was going on, watching Oliver with his finger in his ear. If they are going to insist on this they should make Man U & L'pool put screens up and forego the revenue from a few seats.
-
We were in the away end and had to call family at home to see what was going on. It was like the old days of fans listening to the radio to find the scores. Ridiculous situation for a paying supporter.
-
It doesn't work.
-
It doesn't work.
It does work. It's the implementation and interpretation that doesn't work.
-
It doesn't work.
It does work. It's the implementation and interpretation that doesn't work.
Yeah, which is why it doesn't work.
-
We have replaced an perfect but nearly instantaneous system, with a more accurate but fairly drawn out one, which IMO will do irreparable to the the Premier League
-
It doesn't work.
It does work. It's the implementation and interpretation that doesn't work.
By it's very nature it relies on interpretation which is a matter of opinion and not fact. Opinions differ therefore what we think was wrong last night, others will think is correct.
We are no further forward in the quest for better refereeing standards and consistency but the game is routinely spoiled by delays, the drama and emotion is flattened and the officials even more of a target.
There is no upside to VAR because it cannot be what everyone wants it to be. Very reminiscent of Brexit.
-
By it's very nature it relies on interpretation which is a matter of opinion and not fact. Opinions differ therefore what we think was wrong last night, others will think is correct.
We are no further forward in the quest for better refereeing standards and consistency but the game is routinely spoiled by delays, the drama and emotion is flattened and the officials even more of a target.
There is no upside to VAR because it cannot be what everyone wants it to be. Very reminiscent of Brexit.
As Sickbeggar has said a couple of times, the 'clear and obvious error' rule is a deviously brilliant definition for the refs and VAR to use, as it can be used to justify any decision whichever way it goes.
If the roles had been reveresed last night and Man U scored our goal, there's no way it would have been ruled out, as it it wasn't clear and obvious. As it was us though, they can simply say that's what the rulebook says and we need to get over it.
-
I don't think and would never accuse any official - even Moss, Friend and Oliver - of cheating or deliberately favouring "big" teams BUT until PGMOL recognise that there is without doubt an unconscious bias towards Sky 6 clubs it will never improve.
For me it's the application of VAR that is wrong and that is demonstrated by last night decision. I accept the rule which has been dug out means Ramsey was offside according to the law. What I don't believe is that VAR would have done more than check the offside/handball if that had been Uniteds goal and the obscure rule would have stayed obscure for a little while longer.
Only the PGMOL can change this and only then if they see the bias and want to change it.
As an aside I presume this routine was a Nanny MacPhee cunning plan that in the end worked against us.
-
It's taken what used to be a suspicion that the officials are biased in favour of the 'big' teams, and absolutely confirmed it.
-
It doesn't work.
It does work. It's the implementation and interpretation that doesn't work.
Exactly.
-
until PGMOL recognise that there is without doubt an unconscious bias towards Sky 6 clubs it will never improve.
For me it's the application of VAR that is wrong and that is demonstrated by last night decision. I accept the rule which has been dug out means Ramsey was offside according to the law. What I don't believe is that VAR would have done more than check the offside/handball if that had been Uniteds goal and the obscure rule would have stayed obscure for a little while longer.
Only the PGMOL can change this and only then if they see the bias and want to change it.
Exactly.
-
until PGMOL recognise that there is without doubt an unconscious bias towards Sky 6 clubs it will never improve.
For me it's the application of VAR that is wrong and that is demonstrated by last night decision. I accept the rule which has been dug out means Ramsey was offside according to the law. What I don't believe is that VAR would have done more than check the offside/handball if that had been Uniteds goal and the obscure rule would have stayed obscure for a little while longer.
Only the PGMOL can change this and only then if they see the bias and want to change it.
Exactly.
David Ellery runs it like a fiefdom, so fuck all chance of that.
-
I've said it before, but in this, the most rigged of all possible worlds, where everything is set up for the always-already winners to prosper and the perpetual losers to suffer, we are asked to believe that football refereeing is the one great oasis of objective truth in this post-apolyptic desertscape. Like fuck it is.
I think the better sides do get more penalties because they're making more chances, I think that's fine. But we're not really talking about more or fewer here - we're talking about the self-evident double standards on display. Remember the insane Pogba tripping over himself, fouling our player and getting a penalty? Something like this happens once every two weeks to favour one of six clubs (though in practice one of four - maybe the norf Landaners have misplaced their brown envelopes). Every time there's a marginal - and sometimes they're not even that marginal - you know which way it's going to go.
I made a glib allusion there to bribery, but I don't think it's that. I don't even think it's anything particular that the clubs themselves do behind the scenes or on the pitch. I just think it's craven starfuckery, power-worship from the type of people who see the glorious chaos on a football pitch and instinctively wish to control it. Most referees are, of course, totally fine, but someone like Elleray, who always wanted to be the centre of attention, is naturally drawn to fame and the glamour of association with the powerful. You don't need to corrupt people who corrupt themselves with such relish.
-
In a shock move, VAR has been called in to examine the "Zapruder home movie" of that fateful day in Dallas, Texas. After painstakingly watching the piece of footage for a total of 3 minutes and 36 seconds, the Stockley Park officials have declared that President John F Kennedy was not assassinated.
"It's very clear to us," said ex- referee R. A. S. Clart, "that the President moves his head into the path of the bullets. There is no other explanation. It is in fact, an unfortunate accident."
Manchester Utd fan, Lee Harvey Oswald, was unavailable for comment.
-
In a shock move, VAR has been called in to examine the "Zapruder home movie" of that fateful day in Dallas, Texas. After painstakingly watching the piece of footage for a total of 3 minutes and 36 seconds, the Stockley Park officials have declared that President John F Kennedy was not assassinated.
"It's very clear to us," said ex- referee R. A. S. Clart, "that the President moves his head into the path of the bullets. There is no other explanation. It is in fact, an unfortunate accident."
Manchester Utd fan, Lee Harvey Oswald, was unavailable for comment.
You sir have won the internet!
-
until PGMOL recognise that there is without doubt an unconscious bias towards Sky 6 clubs it will never improve.
For me it's the application of VAR that is wrong and that is demonstrated by last night decision. I accept the rule which has been dug out means Ramsey was offside according to the law. What I don't believe is that VAR would have done more than check the offside/handball if that had been Uniteds goal and the obscure rule would have stayed obscure for a little while longer.
Only the PGMOL can change this and only then if they see the bias and want to change it.
Exactly.
David Ellery runs it like a fiefdom, so fuck all chance of that.
Aye, one of most fussy, nit-picking, star of the show, never wrong refs, produces a system that is nit-picking fussy, the star of the show and never wrong. Don't think anyone saw that coming....
-
I dont think it should be used unless there is a specific need to eg if a goal looks offside then double check. Last night they had no idea about the obstruction when they started checking, that can't be right can it?
For me its driving more inconsistency not less, why werent the West Ham and Cambridge goals disallowed over the weekend as both had infringements?
basically its bollock, use it for clear and obvious errors like offsides and handballs. Perhaps give the managers 2 challenges a game.
-
I don't think and would never accuse any official - even Moss, Friend and Oliver - of cheating or deliberately favouring "big" teams BUT until PGMOL recognise that there is without doubt an unconscious bias towards Sky 6 clubs it will never improve.
For me it's the application of VAR that is wrong and that is demonstrated by last night decision. I accept the rule which has been dug out means Ramsey was offside according to the law. What I don't believe is that VAR would have done more than check the offside/handball if that had been Uniteds goal and the obscure rule would have stayed obscure for a little while longer.
Only the PGMOL can change this and only then if they see the bias and want to change it.
As an aside I presume this routine was a Nanny MacPhee cunning plan that in the end worked against us.
It wasn't disallowed for offside. Murphy fouled Cavani by standing still and allowing the defender to run into him. Let's see how that works on Saturday if we do the same thing!!
-
I don't think and would never accuse any official - even Moss, Friend and Oliver - of cheating or deliberately favouring "big" teams BUT until PGMOL recognise that there is without doubt an unconscious bias towards Sky 6 clubs it will never improve.
For me it's the application of VAR that is wrong and that is demonstrated by last night decision. I accept the rule which has been dug out means Ramsey was offside according to the law. What I don't believe is that VAR would have done more than check the offside/handball if that had been Uniteds goal and the obscure rule would have stayed obscure for a little while longer.
Only the PGMOL can change this and only then if they see the bias and want to change it.
As an aside I presume this routine was a Nanny MacPhee cunning plan that in the end worked against us.
It wasn't disallowed for offside. Murphy fouled Cavani by standing still and allowing the defender to run into him. Let's see how that works on Saturday if we do the same thing!!
It WAS offside, we know this because the ref gave an indirect free-kick, not a direct one as would be the case with a foul. The element under discussion with the ref going to the monitor wasn't whether he was in an offside position (or not), which is usually where VAR comes in (because JJ clearly was in an offside position), but whether he interfered with Cavani's ability to challenge for the ball. That's why he went to the monitor, because that's a matter of opinion, not fact, and hence the ref's call. It wasn't a "foul" in the sense it would have been given elsewhere on the pitch, but the standards are different here because he started in an offside position so technically ANY interference counts as offside.
I was really angry last night, and I still think they took WAY too long to reach their decision, but I accept it was unfortunately the right one.
My view is that the ref saw the coming together in real-time and thought "no foul, it's just players coming together" - but he did that not realising JJ was offside. Once he saw JJ was offside on the replay, that coming together becomes an offside offence, even if it doesn't reach the level of a 'foul' anywhere else on the pitch. You don't have to foul them to be offside, unfortunately.
-
The decision given was essentially offside. Because he was in an offside position he became active when the players collided and effectively 'interfered with play.'
I think in the final analysis they will say the contact probably wasn't sufficient for a foul, but was sufficient to inerfere with play and he therefore beacame actively offside. They will say the decision was offside but they went to the ref to check he was happy with the interpretation that he impacted on play.
I'm not defending the decision, I'm fuming about it. I don't think for one moment it would have been given the other way round, I just think this is how it will be justified and how they will further justify not having to give a pen from every corner when defenders make similar (and significantly worse) blocking actions.
edit - think me and Smithy were typing at the same time and broadly agree on the interpretation, save for I don't think it should have been given, nor would it the other way around.
-
I don't think and would never accuse any official - even Moss, Friend and Oliver - of cheating or deliberately favouring "big" teams BUT until PGMOL recognise that there is without doubt an unconscious bias towards Sky 6 clubs it will never improve.
For me it's the application of VAR that is wrong and that is demonstrated by last night decision. I accept the rule which has been dug out means Ramsey was offside according to the law. What I don't believe is that VAR would have done more than check the offside/handball if that had been Uniteds goal and the obscure rule would have stayed obscure for a little while longer.
Only the PGMOL can change this and only then if they see the bias and want to change it.
As an aside I presume this routine was a Nanny MacPhee cunning plan that in the end worked against us.
It wasn't disallowed for offside. Murphy fouled Cavani by standing still and allowing the defender to run into him. Let's see how that works on Saturday if we do the same thing!!
It WAS offside, we know this because the ref gave an indirect free-kick, not a direct one as would be the case with a foul. The element under discussion with the ref going to the monitor wasn't whether he was in an offside position (or not), which is usually where VAR comes in (because JJ clearly was in an offside position), but whether he interfered with Cavani's ability to challenge for the ball. That's why he went to the monitor, because that's a matter of opinion, not fact, and hence the ref's call. It wasn't a "foul" in the sense it would have been given elsewhere on the pitch, but the standards are different here because he started in an offside position so technically ANY interference counts as offside.
I was really angry last night, and I still think they took WAY too long to reach their decision, but I accept it was unfortunately the right one.
My view is that the ref saw the coming together in real-time and thought "no foul, it's just players coming together" - but he did that not realising JJ was offside. Once he saw JJ was offside on the replay, that coming together becomes an offside offence, even if it doesn't reach the level of a 'foul' anywhere else on the pitch. You don't have to foul them to be offside, unfortunately.
If it is that clear a decision why did it take over 3 minutes for the VAR ref to ask Oliver to have a look at it?
-
I don't think and would never accuse any official - even Moss, Friend and Oliver - of cheating or deliberately favouring "big" teams BUT until PGMOL recognise that there is without doubt an unconscious bias towards Sky 6 clubs it will never improve.
For me it's the application of VAR that is wrong and that is demonstrated by last night decision. I accept the rule which has been dug out means Ramsey was offside according to the law. What I don't believe is that VAR would have done more than check the offside/handball if that had been Uniteds goal and the obscure rule would have stayed obscure for a little while longer.
Only the PGMOL can change this and only then if they see the bias and want to change it.
As an aside I presume this routine was a Nanny MacPhee cunning plan that in the end worked against us.
It wasn't disallowed for offside. Murphy fouled Cavani by standing still and allowing the defender to run into him. Let's see how that works on Saturday if we do the same thing!!
It WAS offside, we know this because the ref gave an indirect free-kick, not a direct one as would be the case with a foul. The element under discussion with the ref going to the monitor wasn't whether he was in an offside position (or not), which is usually where VAR comes in (because JJ clearly was in an offside position), but whether he interfered with Cavani's ability to challenge for the ball. That's why he went to the monitor, because that's a matter of opinion, not fact, and hence the ref's call. It wasn't a "foul" in the sense it would have been given elsewhere on the pitch, but the standards are different here because he started in an offside position so technically ANY interference counts as offside.
I was really angry last night, and I still think they took WAY too long to reach their decision, but I accept it was unfortunately the right one.
My view is that the ref saw the coming together in real-time and thought "no foul, it's just players coming together" - but he did that not realising JJ was offside. Once he saw JJ was offside on the replay, that coming together becomes an offside offence, even if it doesn't reach the level of a 'foul' anywhere else on the pitch. You don't have to foul them to be offside, unfortunately.
[/b]
*sigh* but that's not a clear and obvious error. I presume VAR is for stuff a ref should have seen from his position? Not for stuff its takes 6 minutes to look at?
-
Also, am I the only one who saw Lidelof hauling Ollie back when he hit the bar? He had a big handful of his shirt - how is that not a foul? Surely it made it harder for Ollie to get his shot off?
-
I don't think and would never accuse any official - even Moss, Friend and Oliver - of cheating or deliberately favouring "big" teams BUT until PGMOL recognise that there is without doubt an unconscious bias towards Sky 6 clubs it will never improve.
For me it's the application of VAR that is wrong and that is demonstrated by last night decision. I accept the rule which has been dug out means Ramsey was offside according to the law. What I don't believe is that VAR would have done more than check the offside/handball if that had been Uniteds goal and the obscure rule would have stayed obscure for a little while longer.
Only the PGMOL can change this and only then if they see the bias and want to change it.
As an aside I presume this routine was a Nanny MacPhee cunning plan that in the end worked against us.
It wasn't disallowed for offside. Murphy fouled Cavani by standing still and allowing the defender to run into him. Let's see how that works on Saturday if we do the same thing!!
It WAS offside, we know this because the ref gave an indirect free-kick, not a direct one as would be the case with a foul. The element under discussion with the ref going to the monitor wasn't whether he was in an offside position (or not), which is usually where VAR comes in (because JJ clearly was in an offside position), but whether he interfered with Cavani's ability to challenge for the ball. That's why he went to the monitor, because that's a matter of opinion, not fact, and hence the ref's call. It wasn't a "foul" in the sense it would have been given elsewhere on the pitch, but the standards are different here because he started in an offside position so technically ANY interference counts as offside.
I was really angry last night, and I still think they took WAY too long to reach their decision, but I accept it was unfortunately the right one.
My view is that the ref saw the coming together in real-time and thought "no foul, it's just players coming together" - but he did that not realising JJ was offside. Once he saw JJ was offside on the replay, that coming together becomes an offside offence, even if it doesn't reach the level of a 'foul' anywhere else on the pitch. You don't have to foul them to be offside, unfortunately.
If it is that clear a decision why did it take over 3 minutes for the VAR ref to ask Oliver to have a look at it?
I don't agree with how long it took, OBVIOUSLY it was far too long, but I think they looked at the Wakins touch that would have made Ings offside, and Ings' possible handball first because they are matters of FACT. They're binary. VAR can disallow the goal on those decisions without having to get the ref to review a decision at the monitor based on an 'interpretation'.
Imagine a scenario where they got the Ref to look at the screen first for the JJ block, and he says, "Nah, that's ok", and THEN they disallow the goal for an Ings handball? The place would be absolute bedlam.
They did the reviews in the right order, but took WAY too long on it.
-
Also, am I the only one who saw Lidelof hauling Ollie back when he hit the bar? He had a big handful of his shirt - how is that not a foul? Surely it made it harder for Ollie to get his shot off?
You know in the scheme of things it just does not matter with them cnuts
-
Also, am I the only one who saw Lidelof hauling Ollie back when he hit the bar? He had a big handful of his shirt - how is that not a foul? Surely it made it harder for Ollie to get his shot off?
And while we're on it, the Konsa thing. Fouls are given on the halfway line for the barest flicker of a hand towards the face, even if by the player in possession of the ball. The foulee always goes down like Ric Flair, but fine, if that's the rule then that's what it is.
Konsa last night actually got bloodied up like, well, like Ric Flair. But penalty? The idea wasn't even laughed off. Even on the Graun MBM they just skated over it with a cursory 'no penalty, but...', and I'm there yelling, HANG ON! If that was fifty yards back it would've been a foul, why as soon as it crosses the magic white line does the burden of proof shoot upwards all of a sudden? A foul somewhere is a foul anywhere, and if in the box then a penalty is awarded. But everyone just seems to accept this. I was baffled.
-
I don't think and would never accuse any official - even Moss, Friend and Oliver - of cheating or deliberately favouring "big" teams BUT until PGMOL recognise that there is without doubt an unconscious bias towards Sky 6 clubs it will never improve.
For me it's the application of VAR that is wrong and that is demonstrated by last night decision. I accept the rule which has been dug out means Ramsey was offside according to the law. What I don't believe is that VAR would have done more than check the offside/handball if that had been Uniteds goal and the obscure rule would have stayed obscure for a little while longer.
Only the PGMOL can change this and only then if they see the bias and want to change it.
As an aside I presume this routine was a Nanny MacPhee cunning plan that in the end worked against us.
It wasn't disallowed for offside. Murphy fouled Cavani by standing still and allowing the defender to run into him. Let's see how that works on Saturday if we do the same thing!!
It WAS offside, we know this because the ref gave an indirect free-kick, not a direct one as would be the case with a foul. The element under discussion with the ref going to the monitor wasn't whether he was in an offside position (or not), which is usually where VAR comes in (because JJ clearly was in an offside position), but whether he interfered with Cavani's ability to challenge for the ball. That's why he went to the monitor, because that's a matter of opinion, not fact, and hence the ref's call. It wasn't a "foul" in the sense it would have been given elsewhere on the pitch, but the standards are different here because he started in an offside position so technically ANY interference counts as offside.
I was really angry last night, and I still think they took WAY too long to reach their decision, but I accept it was unfortunately the right one.
My view is that the ref saw the coming together in real-time and thought "no foul, it's just players coming together" - but he did that not realising JJ was offside. Once he saw JJ was offside on the replay, that coming together becomes an offside offence, even if it doesn't reach the level of a 'foul' anywhere else on the pitch. You don't have to foul them to be offside, unfortunately.
If it is that clear a decision why did it take over 3 minutes for the VAR ref to ask Oliver to have a look at it?
I don't agree with how long it took, OBVIOUSLY it was far too long, but I think they looked at the Wakins touch that would have made Ings offside, and Ings' possible handball first because they are matters of FACT. They're binary. VAR can disallow the goal on those decisions without having to get the ref to review a decision at the monitor based on an 'interpretation'.
Imagine a scenario where they got the Ref to look at the screen first for the JJ block, and he says, "Nah, that's ok", and THEN they disallow the goal for an Ings handball? The place would be absolute bedlam.
They did the reviews in the right order, but took WAY too long on it.
My concern is that if you want to you can find an infringement. At every corner. At every free kick. If you want to...
And there's the issue. Some times the refs want to more than others.
-
Also, am I the only one who saw Lidelof hauling Ollie back when he hit the bar? He had a big handful of his shirt - how is that not a foul? Surely it made it harder for Ollie to get his shot off?
Yup, saw that at the time, and thought it would have maybe been a soft penalty, but he certainly had his shirt as he was leaning back for the shot, and it only missed by a couple of inches, so the shirt pull might have been the difference.
Given how VAR spent nearly 4 minutes on our disallowed goal, I'm disappointed they didn't at least check it.
Just checked it on iPlayer - yep - handful of shirt.
(https://i.ibb.co/hFKn6bc/Screenshot-2022-01-11-at-11-29-39.png) (https://ibb.co/hFKn6bc)
(https://i.ibb.co/hFKn6bc/Screenshot-2022-01-11-at-11-29-39.png) (https://ibb.co/hFKn6bc)
-
If colliding with a player in an offside position is now given irrespective of whether it is interfering with play then surely sides defending a similar dead ball can engineer the same situation every time.
-
I don't think and would never accuse any official - even Moss, Friend and Oliver - of cheating or deliberately favouring "big" teams BUT until PGMOL recognise that there is without doubt an unconscious bias towards Sky 6 clubs it will never improve.
For me it's the application of VAR that is wrong and that is demonstrated by last night decision. I accept the rule which has been dug out means Ramsey was offside according to the law. What I don't believe is that VAR would have done more than check the offside/handball if that had been Uniteds goal and the obscure rule would have stayed obscure for a little while longer.
Only the PGMOL can change this and only then if they see the bias and want to change it.
As an aside I presume this routine was a Nanny MacPhee cunning plan that in the end worked against us.
It wasn't disallowed for offside. Murphy fouled Cavani by standing still and allowing the defender to run into him. Let's see how that works on Saturday if we do the same thing!!
It WAS offside, we know this because the ref gave an indirect free-kick, not a direct one as would be the case with a foul. The element under discussion with the ref going to the monitor wasn't whether he was in an offside position (or not), which is usually where VAR comes in (because JJ clearly was in an offside position), but whether he interfered with Cavani's ability to challenge for the ball. That's why he went to the monitor, because that's a matter of opinion, not fact, and hence the ref's call. It wasn't a "foul" in the sense it would have been given elsewhere on the pitch, but the standards are different here because he started in an offside position so technically ANY interference counts as offside.
I was really angry last night, and I still think they took WAY too long to reach their decision, but I accept it was unfortunately the right one.
My view is that the ref saw the coming together in real-time and thought "no foul, it's just players coming together" - but he did that not realising JJ was offside. Once he saw JJ was offside on the replay, that coming together becomes an offside offence, even if it doesn't reach the level of a 'foul' anywhere else on the pitch. You don't have to foul them to be offside, unfortunately.
If it is that clear a decision why did it take over 3 minutes for the VAR ref to ask Oliver to have a look at it?
I don't agree with how long it took, OBVIOUSLY it was far too long, but I think they looked at the Wakins touch that would have made Ings offside, and Ings' possible handball first because they are matters of FACT. They're binary. VAR can disallow the goal on those decisions without having to get the ref to review a decision at the monitor based on an 'interpretation'.
Imagine a scenario where they got the Ref to look at the screen first for the JJ block, and he says, "Nah, that's ok", and THEN they disallow the goal for an Ings handball? The place would be absolute bedlam.
They did the reviews in the right order, but took WAY too long on it.
My concern is that if you want to you can find an infringement. At every corner. At every free kick. If you want to...
And there's the issue. Some times the refs want to more than others.
I agree, but we have to stop thinking of the goal as being disallowed for a 'foul'. It wasn't. It wasn't the severity of the contact, it was JJ's starting position, which meant ANY interference constitutes offside. As we've already seen with VAR to our detriment, just being in someone's eyeline is enough interference for it to be offside, so blocking a run is always going to count.
Anywhere else on the pitch, that incident doesn't get given as a foul, and rightly so - and WASN'T foul here, either.
-
If colliding with a player in an offside position is now given irrespective of whether it is interfering with play then surely sides defending a similar dead ball can engineer the same situation every time.
Indeed, and I expect it will stop a lot of teams having a player in an offside position anywhere close to where the ball is being aimed. Many will still start in an offside position, as it's a good way to avoid touch-tight marking, but I can't see anyone trying to do what we did again.
EDIT: Actually the 'interfering' threshold still stands, because the ref felt JJ's block preventing him from challenging for the header across goal. So his offside position DID interfere.
-
If colliding with a player in an offside position is now given irrespective of whether it is interfering with play then surely sides defending a similar dead ball can engineer the same situation every time.
No, because it won't be given all the time. Sometimes it will, other times it won't be a clear and obvious error. If only you decide what the definition of that phrase is then you can basically decide what you like. Which is what they do.
-
Also, am I the only one who saw Lidelof hauling Ollie back when he hit the bar? He had a big handful of his shirt - how is that not a foul? Surely it made it harder for Ollie to get his shot off?
And while we're on it, the Konsa thing. Fouls are given on the halfway line for the barest flicker of a hand towards the face, even if by the player in possession of the ball. The foulee always goes down like Ric Flair, but fine, if that's the rule then that's what it is.
Konsa last night actually got bloodied up like, well, like Ric Flair. But penalty? The idea wasn't even laughed off. Even on the Graun MBM they just skated over it with a cursory 'no penalty, but...', and I'm there yelling, HANG ON! If that was fifty yards back it would've been a foul, why as soon as it crosses the magic white line does the burden of proof shoot upwards all of a sudden? A foul somewhere is a foul anywhere, and if in the box then a penalty is awarded. But everyone just seems to accept this. I was baffled.
It's the definition of being gaslighted.
-
I don't think and would never accuse any official - even Moss, Friend and Oliver - of cheating or deliberately favouring "big" teams BUT until PGMOL recognise that there is without doubt an unconscious bias towards Sky 6 clubs it will never improve.
For me it's the application of VAR that is wrong and that is demonstrated by last night decision. I accept the rule which has been dug out means Ramsey was offside according to the law. What I don't believe is that VAR would have done more than check the offside/handball if that had been Uniteds goal and the obscure rule would have stayed obscure for a little while longer.
Only the PGMOL can change this and only then if they see the bias and want to change it.
As an aside I presume this routine was a Nanny MacPhee cunning plan that in the end worked against us.
It wasn't disallowed for offside. Murphy fouled Cavani by standing still and allowing the defender to run into him. Let's see how that works on Saturday if we do the same thing!!
It WAS offside, we know this because the ref gave an indirect free-kick, not a direct one as would be the case with a foul. The element under discussion with the ref going to the monitor wasn't whether he was in an offside position (or not), which is usually where VAR comes in (because JJ clearly was in an offside position), but whether he interfered with Cavani's ability to challenge for the ball. That's why he went to the monitor, because that's a matter of opinion, not fact, and hence the ref's call. It wasn't a "foul" in the sense it would have been given elsewhere on the pitch, but the standards are different here because he started in an offside position so technically ANY interference counts as offside.
I was really angry last night, and I still think they took WAY too long to reach their decision, but I accept it was unfortunately the right one.
My view is that the ref saw the coming together in real-time and thought "no foul, it's just players coming together" - but he did that not realising JJ was offside. Once he saw JJ was offside on the replay, that coming together becomes an offside offence, even if it doesn't reach the level of a 'foul' anywhere else on the pitch. You don't have to foul them to be offside, unfortunately.
Okay. I based my comment on what I read in the paper today, and by what our very own Dave Woodhall said in his piece about the game.
-
If any opposition player is offside you can run in to them and get a free kick? That's bollocks isn't it?
-
As I said last night,I believe Cavani was guilty of gamesmanship and the goal should have stood ,then Cavani booked.
-
If any opposition player is offside you can run in to them and get a free kick? That's bollocks isn't it?
It still has to be interfering with the player's ability to challenge for the ball. If the JJ/Cavani incident is on the other side of the box, away from where the ball was going, I don't think it gets disallowed.
But, I do think this will change the way teams think about having players in offside positions when the ball is kicked. We do it quite a lot, with some success, but you can't have players blocking runs from an offside position, that would be absolute chaos.
However, all of this could be avoided if players didn't, you know, go into offside positions at free-kicks and rely on the refs/VARs interpretation of 'interfering' to be in their favour.
-
By it's very nature it relies on interpretation which is a matter of opinion and not fact. Opinions differ therefore what we think was wrong last night, others will think is correct.
We are no further forward in the quest for better refereeing standards and consistency but the game is routinely spoiled by delays, the drama and emotion is flattened and the officials even more of a target.
There is no upside to VAR because it cannot be what everyone wants it to be. Very reminiscent of Brexit.
As Sickbeggar has said a couple of times, the 'clear and obvious error' rule is a deviously brilliant definition for the refs and VAR to use, as it can be used to justify any decision whichever way it goes.
If the roles had been reveresed last night and Man U scored our goal, there's no way it would have been ruled out, as it it wasn't clear and obvious. As it was us though, they can simply say that's what the rulebook says and we need to get over it.
It is my belief also that the role reversal would have had a different outcome in that the defender deliberately charged into the offside (non interfering until that point) attacker to take him out of the play so the incident is nullified by the awarding of the goal. Sad that an official of Oliver’s standing could not stand by his own decision of an incident that happened directly in front of him.
-
If any opposition player is offside you can run in to them and get a free kick? That's bollocks isn't it?
It still has to be interfering with the player's ability to challenge for the ball. If the JJ/Cavani incident is on the other side of the box, away from where the ball was going, I don't think it gets disallowed.
But, I do think this will change the way teams think about having players in offside positions when the ball is kicked. We do it quite a lot, with some success, but you can't have players blocking runs from an offside position, that would be absolute chaos.
However, all of this could be avoided if players didn't, you know, go into offside positions at free-kicks and rely on the refs/VARs interpretation of 'interfering' to be in their favour.
“Interfering” will mean different things dependant on who it benefits. There is no way they’d spend three and half minutes trying to rule out a Manu goal.
-
An own goal maybe.
-
If any opposition player is offside you can run in to them and get a free kick? That's bollocks isn't it?
It still has to be interfering with the player's ability to challenge for the ball. If the JJ/Cavani incident is on the other side of the box, away from where the ball was going, I don't think it gets disallowed.
But, I do think this will change the way teams think about having players in offside positions when the ball is kicked. We do it quite a lot, with some success, but you can't have players blocking runs from an offside position, that would be absolute chaos.
However, all of this could be avoided if players didn't, you know, go into offside positions at free-kicks and rely on the refs/VARs interpretation of 'interfering' to be in their favour.
“Interfering” will mean different things dependant on who it benefits. There is no way they’d spend three and half minutes trying to rule out a Manu goal.
It's up to the interpretation of the ref, unfortunately, which guarantees inconsistency, but the threshold for 'interference' is WAY lower than for a foul. Getting in a player's eye line can count as interference.
I'm sure the coaching staff will be tweaking our set-pieces this week to ensure it doesn't happen again.
-
An own goal maybe.
"Rule 24 part Z - An attacker can be offside even though the defender made the last touch, if the moon is in it's waxing gibbous phase and the player lives in Alderley Edge.
-
If any opposition player is offside you can run in to them and get a free kick? That's bollocks isn't it?
It still has to be interfering with the player's ability to challenge for the ball. If the JJ/Cavani incident is on the other side of the box, away from where the ball was going, I don't think it gets disallowed.
But, I do think this will change the way teams think about having players in offside positions when the ball is kicked. We do it quite a lot, with some success, but you can't have players blocking runs from an offside position, that would be absolute chaos.
However, all of this could be avoided if players didn't, you know, go into offside positions at free-kicks and rely on the refs/VARs interpretation of 'interfering' to be in their favour.
Cavani was nowhere near being able to get to the ball though, so your point about "the other side of the box" suggests it wasn't a free kick.
-
As I said last night,I believe Cavani was guilty of gamesmanship and the goal should have stood ,then Cavani booked.
Cavani was lazy and lost his man, realised he'd fucked up and ran into JJ to buy a free kick, as evidenced by him lying on the floor and appealing for the foul. I don't care if there's a way of twisting the rule to justify it, everyone (other than Man U fans and our neighbours) who saw that knows it was wrong, just like the Ramsey goal at Leicester, just like the Man City goal last year, just like the Trez penalty against Brighton, over and over again in the last 2 1/2 years we've had to put up with bad decisions going agianst us being justified by "but the law says..." as if people aren't aware of exactly what the 'normal' interpretation of those laws are.
I get why Gerrard doesn't want to say anything but I'd fucking love Purslow to make a statement about this shit happening so often, not a sulk but a question of why it's always us that seems to be on the wrong side of these. At the same time I'd love him to raise the fact that the threshold for yellow cards against us seems to be really high right now, with some players (Shaw last night) commiting multiple fouls that could've been bookings without even a meaningful warning.
-
It's not necessarily the incident last night or the efforts they went to to find a reason to disallow the goal. It the combination of incidents over an extended period of time all favouring the same team. As bad as the decision last night was it wasn't the worst we've seen against this shower & I have no confidence we won't see more at the weekend.
A compilation of these incidents would make shocking viewing.
-
Apologies if already posted
https://mobile.twitter.com/LukeRoper/status/1480861042385297411?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
-
If any opposition player is offside you can run in to them and get a free kick? That's bollocks isn't it?
It still has to be interfering with the player's ability to challenge for the ball. If the JJ/Cavani incident is on the other side of the box, away from where the ball was going, I don't think it gets disallowed.
But, I do think this will change the way teams think about having players in offside positions when the ball is kicked. We do it quite a lot, with some success, but you can't have players blocking runs from an offside position, that would be absolute chaos.
However, all of this could be avoided if players didn't, you know, go into offside positions at free-kicks and rely on the refs/VARs interpretation of 'interfering' to be in their favour.
Cavani was nowhere near being able to get to the ball though, so your point about "the other side of the box" suggests it wasn't a free kick.
I would disagree. If you look at the incident again, you'll see Cavani is about level with Konsa when JJ blocks him. They are both running towards the same area. Konsa was clearly Cavani's 'man'. Would Cavani have won the ball? Probably not. Would he have been able to make some sort of challenge on Konsa to prevent a free header? Possibly. Either way, he was prevented from doing so. And interference includes stopping a player making a challenge.
We can't allow offside attackers to block runs of defenders to give on-side attackers a free header. Much as I hated last night, and think they took WAY too long looking at other parts of the build-up, allowing that goal opens a whole can of worms around teams getting clever by blocking off players from offside positions. It had to be disallowed, not matter how pissed off we all are about it.
-
As I said last night,I believe Cavani was guilty of gamesmanship and the goal should have stood ,then Cavani booked.
Cavani was lazy and lost his man, realised he'd fucked up and ran into JJ to buy a free kick, as evidenced by him lying on the floor and appealing for the foul. I don't care if there's a way of twisting the rule to justify it, everyone (other than Man U fans and our neighbours) who saw that knows it was wrong, just like the Ramsey goal at Leicester, just like the Man City goal last year, just like the Trez penalty against Brighton, over and over again in the last 2 1/2 years we've had to put up with bad decisions going agianst us being justified by "but the law says..." as if people aren't aware of exactly what the 'normal' interpretation of those laws are.
I get why Gerrard doesn't want to say anything but I'd fucking love Purslow to make a statement about this shit happening so often, not a sulk but a question of why it's always us that seems to be on the wrong side of these. At the same time I'd love him to raise the fact that the threshold for yellow cards against us seems to be really high right now, with some players (Shaw last night) commiting multiple fouls that could've been bookings without even a meaningful warning.
I have no doubt Cavani tried to get the foul, but he didn't get it (it wasn't given as a foul). He got lucky that JJ was stood in an offside position when the ball was kicked, because if he wasn't, that doesn't get given as offside.
There are times when it's right to complain and question VAR, the Man City goal - definitely (it led to a clarification and confirmation it would be disallowed in future), the Leicester disallowed goal - definitely - and again led to clarification but the rules were clear, just not well understood. But last night I think was the right decision, reached in a poor way, and repeatedly claiming VAR got it wrong makes us look small time.
VAR took too long, DEFINITELY. VAR handled it badly, DEFINITELY. VAR should be everywhere or nowhere in the FA Cup, DEFINITELY. VAR got the decision wrong? No, unfortunately, they didn't.
-
If any opposition player is offside you can run in to them and get a free kick? That's bollocks isn't it?
It still has to be interfering with the player's ability to challenge for the ball. If the JJ/Cavani incident is on the other side of the box, away from where the ball was going, I don't think it gets disallowed.
But, I do think this will change the way teams think about having players in offside positions when the ball is kicked. We do it quite a lot, with some success, but you can't have players blocking runs from an offside position, that would be absolute chaos.
However, all of this could be avoided if players didn't, you know, go into offside positions at free-kicks and rely on the refs/VARs interpretation of 'interfering' to be in their favour.
Cavani was nowhere near being able to get to the ball though, so your point about "the other side of the box" suggests it wasn't a free kick.
I would disagree. If you look at the incident again, you'll see Cavani is about level with Konsa when JJ blocks him. They are both running towards the same area. Konsa was clearly Cavani's 'man'. Would Cavani have won the ball? Probably not. Would he have been able to make some sort of challenge on Konsa to prevent a free header? Possibly. Either way, he was prevented from doing so. And interference includes stopping a player making a challenge.
We can't allow offside attackers to block runs of defenders to give on-side attackers a free header. Much as I hated last night, and think they took WAY too long looking at other parts of the build-up, allowing that goal opens a whole can of worms around teams getting clever by blocking off players from offside positions. It had to be disallowed, not matter how pissed off we all are about it.
Well, yes Smithy, if you think that Ramsey blocked Cavani. I don't. I saw Cavani run into Ramsey who put his hands up at the last second to protect himself.
Oliver deemed it to be okay. and there was no clear and obvious error in that. And - yes - I get that it was subsequently adjudged to be offside but neither ref nor linesman gave it and it was only uncovered after a TV review lasting over 3 minutes.
Players being blocked, buffeted and tugged at set pieces has - frankly - become part of the modern game; I don't like it but it is now in the game. Furthermore, look at other incidents in the game where players were blocked, without the game being stopped for an infringement.
If we're going to use VAR to check goalscoring incidents, there should be a time limit on it and after the designated time the on-field decision should stand.
-
I swear if that happens at the other end it’s a penalty to Man U!
Seriously imagine us trying to run straight into one of their attackers in the penalty area and trying to claim offside!
-
As I said last night,I believe Cavani was guilty of gamesmanship and the goal should have stood ,then Cavani booked.
Cavani was lazy and lost his man, realised he'd fucked up and ran into JJ to buy a free kick, as evidenced by him lying on the floor and appealing for the foul. I don't care if there's a way of twisting the rule to justify it, everyone (other than Man U fans and our neighbours) who saw that knows it was wrong, just like the Ramsey goal at Leicester, just like the Man City goal last year, just like the Trez penalty against Brighton, over and over again in the last 2 1/2 years we've had to put up with bad decisions going agianst us being justified by "but the law says..." as if people aren't aware of exactly what the 'normal' interpretation of those laws are.
I get why Gerrard doesn't want to say anything but I'd fucking love Purslow to make a statement about this shit happening so often, not a sulk but a question of why it's always us that seems to be on the wrong side of these. At the same time I'd love him to raise the fact that the threshold for yellow cards against us seems to be really high right now, with some players (Shaw last night) commiting multiple fouls that could've been bookings without even a meaningful warning.
I have no doubt Cavani tried to get the foul, but he didn't get it (it wasn't given as a foul). He got lucky that JJ was stood in an offside position when the ball was kicked, because if he wasn't, that doesn't get given as offside.
There are times when it's right to complain and question VAR, the Man City goal - definitely (it led to a clarification and confirmation it would be disallowed in future), the Leicester disallowed goal - definitely - and again led to clarification but the rules were clear, just not well understood. But last night I think was the right decision, reached in a poor way, and repeatedly claiming VAR got it wrong makes us look small time.
VAR took too long, DEFINITELY. VAR handled it badly, DEFINITELY. VAR should be everywhere or nowhere in the FA Cup, DEFINITELY. VAR got the decision wrong? No, unfortunately, they didn't.
Nope, I disagree, they've managed to justify the decision after the fact, just like with previous ones that have gone against us, but no referee ever gives that as an offside live in play and if that was the only thing to check VAR wouldn't have got involved. For me it was a case of VAR had wasted 3 minutes checking things that were fine so they felt the need to justify the time by finding something to ask him to review. Also being annoyed at having a goal ruled out doesn't ever make anyone 'small time' and the repeated use of that term on here to kill an argument is fucking annoying.
-
As I said last night,I believe Cavani was guilty of gamesmanship and the goal should have stood ,then Cavani booked.
Cavani was lazy and lost his man, realised he'd fucked up and ran into JJ to buy a free kick, as evidenced by him lying on the floor and appealing for the foul. I don't care if there's a way of twisting the rule to justify it, everyone (other than Man U fans and our neighbours) who saw that knows it was wrong, just like the Ramsey goal at Leicester, just like the Man City goal last year, just like the Trez penalty against Brighton, over and over again in the last 2 1/2 years we've had to put up with bad decisions going agianst us being justified by "but the law says..." as if people aren't aware of exactly what the 'normal' interpretation of those laws are.
I get why Gerrard doesn't want to say anything but I'd fucking love Purslow to make a statement about this shit happening so often, not a sulk but a question of why it's always us that seems to be on the wrong side of these. At the same time I'd love him to raise the fact that the threshold for yellow cards against us seems to be really high right now, with some players (Shaw last night) commiting multiple fouls that could've been bookings without even a meaningful warning.
I have no doubt Cavani tried to get the foul, but he didn't get it (it wasn't given as a foul). He got lucky that JJ was stood in an offside position when the ball was kicked, because if he wasn't, that doesn't get given as offside.
There are times when it's right to complain and question VAR, the Man City goal - definitely (it led to a clarification and confirmation it would be disallowed in future), the Leicester disallowed goal - definitely - and again led to clarification but the rules were clear, just not well understood. But last night I think was the right decision, reached in a poor way, and repeatedly claiming VAR got it wrong makes us look small time.
VAR took too long, DEFINITELY. VAR handled it badly, DEFINITELY. VAR should be everywhere or nowhere in the FA Cup, DEFINITELY. VAR got the decision wrong? No, unfortunately, they didn't.
Nope, I disagree, they've managed to justify the decision after the fact, just like with previous ones that have gone against us, but no referee ever gives that as an offside live in play and if that was the only thing to check VAR wouldn't have got involved. For me it was a case of VAR had wasted 3 minutes checking things that were fine so they felt the need to justify the time by finding something to ask him to review. Also being annoyed at having a goal ruled out doesn't ever make anyone 'small time' and the repeated use of that term on here to kill an argument is fucking annoying.
I disagree, but that's okay, it's a game of opinions :-)
My personal view is that the ref saw the collision in real-time, deemed it wasn't a foul, which it obviously wasn't - but when shown JJ was offside it immediately became "interference", where the threshold is much lower than for a foul. The ref didn't see it on the monitor and then think "I got that wrong, it WAS a foul", he saw JJ was offside (which is why the first view they gave him off the incident was side on)
We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.
-
We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.
Yes, hence the indirect free kick.
The point is: it took over 3 minutes to uncover that 'clear and obvious error', which is not really what VAR should be about.
-
We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.
Yes, hence the indirect free kick.
The point is: it took over 3 minutes to uncover that 'clear and obvious error', which is not really what VAR should be about.
Much as I hated this decision and the time it took, I have to point out that 'clear and obvious error' does not come in to play with offside decisions. The reason it took so long is they were desperately trying to fine 3 other reasons to disallow the goal before hitting the jackpot with the fourth.
-
We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.
Yes, hence the indirect free kick.
The point is: it took over 3 minutes to uncover that 'clear and obvious error', which is not really what VAR should be about.
But I think Smithy explained earlier, they looked at the fact based incidents first - was Ings offside, did he handle it? The JJ incident was a subjective decision for Oliver. Did he interfere from an offside position?
It just took too long to decide if Watkins toe nail had touched the ball.
-
We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.
Yes, hence the indirect free kick.
The point is: it took over 3 minutes to uncover that 'clear and obvious error', which is not really what VAR should be about.
Much as I hated this decision and the time it took, I have to point out that 'clear and obvious error' does not come in to play with offside decisions. The reason it took so long is they were desperately trying to fine 3 other reasons to disallow the goal before hitting the jackpot with the fourth.
Which is why VAR decisions should be timebound.
And, if you look at the use of the Video ref in Rugby Union, the refs usually ask for a specific issue to be checked, not have a carte blanche for anything that perhaps might have taken place. In this instance, it would have worked thus:
Oliver: "Darren, I'm concerned that Ings may have been offside when he scored. Can you check that for me, please."
D England: "Michael, Ings was onside when he put the ball in. You may award the goal."
Used this way, both the VAR and the onfield ref retain their integrity ... even if some minor, rarely-used rule that could have been invoked is not so.
-
If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.
Admittedly I've hit peak paranoia, but I reckon if he was onside they'd have spent another 30 seconds in ultra slo-mo before deciding it was a foul. Obviously, we'll never know.
There are many, many, many reasons to hate modern football, but as I watched a frame-by-frame infinite repeat of the ball rolling over Watkins' outstretched leg I almost started considering Nordic skiing as an alternative source of entertainment. Talk about sucking all the joy out of a sport.
-
Even with that incident, whilst had Watkins got the merest of touches Ings would have been 'offside', but is that really what the thing is supposed to be for?
-
I disagree, but that's okay, it's a game of opinions :-)
My personal view is that the ref saw the collision in real-time, deemed it wasn't a foul, which it obviously wasn't - but when shown JJ was offside it immediately became "interference", where the threshold is much lower than for a foul. The ref didn't see it on the monitor and then think "I got that wrong, it WAS a foul", he saw JJ was offside (which is why the first view they gave him off the incident was side on)
We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.
I agree that it can be interpreted that way, in much the same way you could interpret the Leicester one as correct, and the man city one but the point is that the laws of football are all about the refs interpretation and the precedent, in the premier league, is a different interpretation than the ones given in all 3 cases so why is it decisions that have a negative impact on us have so often involved a reinterpretation of an obscure law?
If this was the first time it had happened I'd be much more willing to agree with your view but this is 3 or 4 (depends on your view of the trez penalty) times in a couple of years now.
-
Can the PMGOL be happy with how this is developing?
More ridicule, more scrutiny, the whole of English football saying it's a mess. Last night, a massive TV audience and a team denied a deserved goal by some technicality and odd interpretation of the laws. Only makes them look worse.
-
Can the PMGOL be happy with how this is developing?
More ridicule, more scrutiny, the whole of English football saying it's a mess. Last night, a massive TV audience and a team denied a deserved goal by some technicality and odd interpretation of the laws. Only makes them look worse.
I am sure their Cayman Island Financial Advisor will lighten the mood.
-
I disagree, but that's okay, it's a game of opinions :-)
My personal view is that the ref saw the collision in real-time, deemed it wasn't a foul, which it obviously wasn't - but when shown JJ was offside it immediately became "interference", where the threshold is much lower than for a foul. The ref didn't see it on the monitor and then think "I got that wrong, it WAS a foul", he saw JJ was offside (which is why the first view they gave him off the incident was side on)
We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.
I agree that it can be interpreted that way, in much the same way you could interpret the Leicester one as correct, and the man city one but the point is that the laws of football are all about the refs interpretation and the precedent, in the premier league, is a different interpretation than the ones given in all 3 cases so why is it decisions that have a negative impact on us have so often involved a reinterpretation of an obscure law?
If this was the first time it had happened I'd be much more willing to agree with your view but this is 3 or 4 (depends on your view of the trez penalty) times in a couple of years now.
My personal view - based on nothing more than a gut feel, is that we've had far more VAR decisions go against us since its introduction, than for us. But then other fans will point to the Sheff Utd goal-line incident and say "you're taking the piss mate".
EDIT: I just looked up the stats around "beneficiaries" from VAR last season, and my guy was WAY off. Only 5 clubs did better in net terms of decisions for and against. Those claret and blue glasses are pretty strong. We were +2 across the season for VAR decisions in our favour. There were 138 VAR overturns in the season (for goals and pens and red cards). Joint bottom were Liverpool and Arsenal at -6, which kind of goes against the narrative that the big guys always get the benefit. The top club was Burnley at +4. Man Utd were zero, as many for as against. Man City +1.
-
I disagree, but that's okay, it's a game of opinions :-)
My personal view is that the ref saw the collision in real-time, deemed it wasn't a foul, which it obviously wasn't - but when shown JJ was offside it immediately became "interference", where the threshold is much lower than for a foul. The ref didn't see it on the monitor and then think "I got that wrong, it WAS a foul", he saw JJ was offside (which is why the first view they gave him off the incident was side on)
We need to stop comparing the Cavani/JJ collision to what goes on at corners and so on. It wasn't a foul. It wasn't GIVEN as a foul. Cavani didn't win a foul (though I definitely think he was trying to). If JJ wasn't offside when the ball was kicked, the goal stands.
I agree that it can be interpreted that way, in much the same way you could interpret the Leicester one as correct, and the man city one but the point is that the laws of football are all about the refs interpretation and the precedent, in the premier league, is a different interpretation than the ones given in all 3 cases so why is it decisions that have a negative impact on us have so often involved a reinterpretation of an obscure law?
If this was the first time it had happened I'd be much more willing to agree with your view but this is 3 or 4 (depends on your view of the trez penalty) times in a couple of years now.
My personal view - based on nothing more than a gut feel, is that we've had far more VAR decisions go against us since its introduction, than for us. But then other fans will point to the Sheff Utd goal-line incident and say "you're taking the piss mate".
EDIT: I just looked up the stats around "beneficiaries" from VAR last season, and my guy was WAY off. Only 5 clubs did better in net terms of decisions for and against. Those claret and blue glasses are pretty strong. We were +2 across the season for VAR decisions in our favour. There were 138 VAR overturns in the season (for goals and pens and red cards). Joint bottom were Liverpool and Arsenal at -6, which kind of goes against the narrative that the big guys always get the benefit. The top club was Burnley at +4. Man Utd were zero, as many for as against. Man City +1.
I'd take those sorts of stats with a pinch of salt. They only count decisions specifically looked at by VAR. In any game there are plenty more examples where VAR doesn't even look at it which won't get captured.
-
As I said last night,I believe Cavani was guilty of gamesmanship and the goal should have stood ,then Cavani booked.
Cavani was lazy and lost his man, realised he'd fucked up and ran into JJ to buy a free kick, as evidenced by him lying on the floor and appealing for the foul. I don't care if there's a way of twisting the rule to justify it, everyone (other than Man U fans and our neighbours) who saw that knows it was wrong, just like the Ramsey goal at Leicester, just like the Man City goal last year, just like the Trez penalty against Brighton, over and over again in the last 2 1/2 years we've had to put up with bad decisions going agianst us being justified by "but the law says..." as if people aren't aware of exactly what the 'normal' interpretation of those laws are.
I get why Gerrard doesn't want to say anything but I'd fucking love Purslow to make a statement about this shit happening so often, not a sulk but a question of why it's always us that seems to be on the wrong side of these. At the same time I'd love him to raise the fact that the threshold for yellow cards against us seems to be really high right now, with some players (Shaw last night) commiting multiple fouls that could've been bookings without even a meaningful warning.
I have no doubt Cavani tried to get the foul, but he didn't get it (it wasn't given as a foul). He got lucky that JJ was stood in an offside position when the ball was kicked, because if he wasn't, that doesn't get given as offside.
There are times when it's right to complain and question VAR, the Man City goal - definitely (it led to a clarification and confirmation it would be disallowed in future), the Leicester disallowed goal - definitely - and again led to clarification but the rules were clear, just not well understood. But last night I think was the right decision, reached in a poor way, and repeatedly claiming VAR got it wrong makes us look small time.
VAR took too long, DEFINITELY. VAR handled it badly, DEFINITELY. VAR should be everywhere or nowhere in the FA Cup, DEFINITELY. VAR got the decision wrong? No, unfortunately, they didn't.
Nope, I disagree, they've managed to justify the decision after the fact, just like with previous ones that have gone against us, but no referee ever gives that as an offside live in play and if that was the only thing to check VAR wouldn't have got involved. For me it was a case of VAR had wasted 3 minutes checking things that were fine so they felt the need to justify the time by finding something to ask him to review. Also being annoyed at having a goal ruled out doesn't ever make anyone 'small time' and the repeated use of that term on here to kill an argument is fucking annoying.
For the record, I didn't mean to cause offence with the "small time" comment. I was furious with the decision at the time, and I still am angry, but I understand why they made it.
I meant small time in the context of I don't want us looking like those plucky losers you see focusing on "if only it wasn't for VAR" - because it detracts from the fact that for large chunks of that match we battered them. We SHOULD have won, VAR or not. THAT should be the takeaway, for me. I actually think we played better last night than in our 1-0 win earlier in the season. VAR eventually got to the right decision, in a very poor way. I'm actually more angry about them not taking another look at when Ollie hit the bar with Lindelof having a handful of his shirt.
-
We need someone to start asking questions lik" I couldn't understand why VAR was not involved, especially when blood was coming from Konsa" and " why were they looking at offside and couldn't find anything wrong, seems they were looking for a reason to disallow the goal", remember Alex Ferguson he was a mouthy so and so
-
I think the Konsa thing is a red herring. It wasn't a pen and it dilutes the argument when we cry foul over incidents like that. I do think the Watkins pull back is a better shout and I can't help thinking our players should have made far more of a meal of it after the incident. Schmeichel made it impossible for VAR to ignore his claims and maybe we should do the same - cause a fuss and delay so VAR will feel obliged to at least have a look.
-
The main point that is being missed here is that the bar for reviewing a 'clear and obvious' error apparently has to be quite high. The contact by Ramsey or whether he was offside or not was the THIRD thing that was reviewed. How can that be a high bar for a clear and obvious error which is enough to justify asking the referee to review it?
-
The main point that is being missed here is that the bar for reviewing a 'clear and obvious' error apparently has to be quite high. The contact by Ramsey or whether he was offside or not was the THIRD thing that was reviewed. How can that be a high bar for a clear and obvious error which is enough to justify asking the referee to review it?
The answer to that is that offside doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error. I'd guess the reason the ref was called to the monitor was to check he agreed that Ramsey interfered with play.
-
The main point that is being missed here is that the bar for reviewing a 'clear and obvious' error apparently has to be quite high. The contact by Ramsey or whether he was offside or not was the THIRD thing that was reviewed. How can that be a high bar for a clear and obvious error which is enough to justify asking the referee to review it?
The answer to that is that offside doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error. I'd guess the reason the ref was called to the monitor was to check he agreed that Ramsey interfered with play.
What was the first thing that was reviewed?
-
The main point that is being missed here is that the bar for reviewing a 'clear and obvious' error apparently has to be quite high. The contact by Ramsey or whether he was offside or not was the THIRD thing that was reviewed. How can that be a high bar for a clear and obvious error which is enough to justify asking the referee to review it?
The answer to that is that offside doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error. I'd guess the reason the ref was called to the monitor was to check he agreed that Ramsey interfered with play.
What was the first thing that was reviewed?
I don't want to sit here and defend the decison as I think it was bullshit. But there's been a few posts above explaining what happened, take a look Smithy explains it pretty well.
I am just adding the point re clear and obvious for offsides as it is often missed.
-
For the record, I didn't mean to cause offence with the "small time" comment. I was furious with the decision at the time, and I still am angry, but I understand why they made it.
I meant small time in the context of I don't want us looking like those plucky losers you see focusing on "if only it wasn't for VAR" - because it detracts from the fact that for large chunks of that match we battered them. We SHOULD have won, VAR or not. THAT should be the takeaway, for me. I actually think we played better last night than in our 1-0 win earlier in the season. VAR eventually got to the right decision, in a very poor way. I'm actually more angry about them not taking another look at when Ollie hit the bar with Lindelof having a handful of his shirt.
Again though my argument is more about precedence and how the rule has been applied previously, have you ever seen a player given offside for being run into before? That's my issue with it, yet again we're on the wrong end of a decision that has required people to sift through the laws to justify when alomst every football fan in the world would tell you that the decision would go the other way if they saw it once. How can an overruling be 'clear and obvious' if people have to double check the laws to explain why it's been given. I don't like it when refs get things wrong from the middle of the pitch but you accept those decisions as one of those things but these calls are someone going out of their way to justify a game-changing decision to overrule the referee.
The 3 we all know, no one bats an eyelid if the man city goal is disallowed, no one cares if Ramsey and Ings goals stand, all 3 original decisions were reasonable by the ref int he middle and wouldn't have been considered remotely controversial. By overruling them the ref and VAR officials become the talking point of the games, not the teams/players. It's bullshit and we can't be so accepting of it happening to us 3 times in less than a year.
-
I have no doubt they came to a correct decision. What irritates me beyond belief is the very existence of VAR. A quest for perfection in decision-making sounds unarguably good in theory. In reality, it just diminishes the major pleasure of the game. I'll take refereeing errors any day over tedious delays while they slo-mo the shit out of my will to live. I even prefer managerial moaning in post-match interviews to having Gary Lineker read out rule 17b, Subsection VIII, Sub-clause Z at baffled pundits. Can the game not be enjoyably imperfect? It shouldn't attempt to be live-action FIFA.
-
The main point that is being missed here is that the bar for reviewing a 'clear and obvious' error apparently has to be quite high. The contact by Ramsey or whether he was offside or not was the THIRD thing that was reviewed. How can that be a high bar for a clear and obvious error which is enough to justify asking the referee to review it?
The answer to that is that offside doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error. I'd guess the reason the ref was called to the monitor was to check he agreed that Ramsey interfered with play.
What was the first thing that was reviewed?
I don't want to sit here and defend the decison as I think it was bullshit. But there's been a few posts above explaining what happened, take a look Smithy explains it pretty well.
I am just adding the point re clear and obvious for offsides as it is often missed.
.
I watched the game on Television and on the coverage I watched, the first thing that it showed that VAR was reviewing was a potential Ings hand ball - not an offside. The rule quoted on offside also talks about "impacting on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball." Smithy may have discussed this earlier, but are we saying that we think Cavani had a chance to play or challenge for the first ball that was delivered into the box? Because from memory, he was nowhere near it.
-
I’m staying off Twitter as it’s driving me nuts, with people debating whether Ramsey fouled Cavani.
-
I think people forget how angry we got about wrong decisions before VAR.
In theory, it should be a check and measure against a ref having a stinker or worse... Notwithstanding that I think they are implementing it terribly and also that we have had some incredibly poor decisons against us, I suspect that overall they are still getting more decisions right than they used to.
I remain an advocate of the principal of VAR, but fuck me they are trying their best to kill it with incompetence.
-
I think people forget how angry we got about wrong decisions before VAR.
In theory, it should be a check and measure against a ref having a stinker or worse... Notwithstanding that I think they are implementing it terribly and also that we have had some incredibly poor decisons against us, I suspect that overall they are still getting more decisions right than they used to.
I remain an advocate of the principal of VAR, but fuck me they are trying their best to kill it with incompetence.
I would rather VAR disappeared. But it’s not going to and they really must improve the VAR experience for those poor sods in the stadium. It’s made football less enjoyable for me at the match.
-
The main point that is being missed here is that the bar for reviewing a 'clear and obvious' error apparently has to be quite high. The contact by Ramsey or whether he was offside or not was the THIRD thing that was reviewed. How can that be a high bar for a clear and obvious error which is enough to justify asking the referee to review it?
The answer to that is that offside doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error. I'd guess the reason the ref was called to the monitor was to check he agreed that Ramsey interfered with play.
What was the first thing that was reviewed?
I don't want to sit here and defend the decison as I think it was bullshit. But there's been a few posts above explaining what happened, take a look Smithy explains it pretty well.
I am just adding the point re clear and obvious for offsides as it is often missed.
.
I watched the game on Television and on the coverage I watched, the first thing that it showed that VAR was reviewing was a potential Ings hand ball - not an offside. The rule quoted on offside also talks about "impacting on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball." Smithy may have discussed this earlier, but are we saying that we think Cavani had a chance to play or challenge for the first ball that was delivered into the box? Because from memory, he was nowhere near it.
It's a stretch Leon, but yes they are saying Cavani woud have had an opportunity to track Konsas run and compete fro the ball. He was arguably tracking the run when he got blocked. I add once again here that I think it was a poor decision.
-
I think people forget how angry we got about wrong decisions before VAR.
In theory, it should be a check and measure against a ref having a stinker or worse... Notwithstanding that I think they are implementing it terribly and also that we have had some incredibly poor decisons against us, I suspect that overall they are still getting more decisions right than they used to.
I remain an advocate of the principal of VAR, but fuck me they are trying their best to kill it with incompetence.
People got angry, and they're still getting angry.
It's human nature to think technology will solve our problems. It doesn't. VAR will not make anything better, watching football is diminished by it.
-
We need someone to start asking questions lik" I couldn't understand why VAR was not involved, especially when blood was coming from Konsa" and " why were they looking at offside and couldn't find anything wrong, seems they were looking for a reason to disallow the goal", remember Alex Ferguson he was a mouthy so and so
He got airtime whenever he wanted it and the media lapped it up. It's different for other managers.
-
I think people forget how angry we got about wrong decisions before VAR.
In theory, it should be a check and measure against a ref having a stinker or worse... Notwithstanding that I think they are implementing it terribly and also that we have had some incredibly poor decisons against us, I suspect that overall they are still getting more decisions right than they used to.
I remain an advocate of the principal of VAR, but fuck me they are trying their best to kill it with incompetence.
People got angry, and they're still getting angry.
It's human nature to think technology will solve our problems. It doesn't. VAR will not make anything better, watching football is diminished by it.
It's all about opinions. Rugby if far better with TMO. Therer's absolutely no reason football can't be with VAR. I don't acept the differences in the game make that much difference. It's just about the implementation. If they got that right you still may not like it, but it wouldn't be huge the issue it is now.
-
The issue is that Cavani was arguably attempting to play the ball. Whether he'd have got there or not is another question. Our tactic (or Ramsey's) was clearly to get in the way and gain an advantage.
It's shit and semantics.
What VAR is doing though, is deflecting the fans' ire from the referee and blaming VAR. So for the referees etc it must be working well. I bet they don't get the same number of death threats etc now.
-
Rugby is incredibly technical in some parts, and yes it works there but at international level, with elite refs, not the fucking chinless strapons we get courtesy of Mike Riley and David Ellery.
-
The main point that is being missed here is that the bar for reviewing a 'clear and obvious' error apparently has to be quite high. The contact by Ramsey or whether he was offside or not was the THIRD thing that was reviewed. How can that be a high bar for a clear and obvious error which is enough to justify asking the referee to review it?
The answer to that is that offside doesn't have to be a clear and obvious error. I'd guess the reason the ref was called to the monitor was to check he agreed that Ramsey interfered with play.
What was the first thing that was reviewed?
I don't want to sit here and defend the decison as I think it was bullshit. But there's been a few posts above explaining what happened, take a look Smithy explains it pretty well.
I am just adding the point re clear and obvious for offsides as it is often missed.
.
I watched the game on Television and on the coverage I watched, the first thing that it showed that VAR was reviewing was a potential Ings hand ball - not an offside. The rule quoted on offside also talks about "impacting on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball." Smithy may have discussed this earlier, but are we saying that we think Cavani had a chance to play or challenge for the first ball that was delivered into the box? Because from memory, he was nowhere near it.
It's a stretch Leon, but yes they are saying Cavani woud have had an opportunity to track Konsas run and compete fro the ball. He was arguably tracking the run when he got blocked. I add once again here that I think it was a poor decision.
Yeah that's the core bit that I think is causing disagreement and hence why the jury is still out on whether the decision was correct or not; VAR's view that Cavani could have had an 'opportunity.' Any one has an 'opportunity' but how realistic is that opportunity?
-
Granted I've always been a bit less bothered by poor refereeing decisions than most - I don't see the Vidic non-red card as being as big a factor as our inability to beat 11 men for example. But anger, joy, bitterness, ecstasy... they are what makes football a bit more enticing than a nice drama on the telly. The more you edge out error the more the game becomes stolid. Refs make so few errors anyway that VAR is less answering a problem as striving for uniformity. Come and watch the game - same as the last game.
-
I have no doubt they came to a correct decision. What irritates me beyond belief is the very existence of VAR. A quest for perfection in decision-making sounds unarguably good in theory. In reality, it just diminishes the major pleasure of the game. I'll take refereeing errors any day over tedious delays while they slo-mo the shit out of my will to live. I even prefer managerial moaning in post-match interviews to having Gary Lineker read out rule 17b, Subsection VIII, Sub-clause Z at baffled pundits. Can the game not be enjoyably imperfect? It shouldn't attempt to be live-action FIFA.
I'm ok with VAR as a concept still but the implementation is shocking. I'd happily keep the offside stuff now that it's pretty much fixed, If they could automate it so that it's reviewed within a couple of seconds and sent to the refs watch as an alert (like goalline tech) then even better. Offside is, as Smithy says, a factual decision. It's when things get subjective that VAR becomes a problem and I suspect that's because it's being used for things it wasn't designed for. A clear error is something like a ref gives a penalty when there's no contact or a player trips an opponent outsides the refs eyeline. In those cases a simple alert from the VAR to say you've missed this, you should reverse the decision or penalise this player. If it's something the ref has seen and judged on and there's no immediate evidence he's wrong then it should stay with his decision.
How I'd implement it is to have a main 'live' stream and then 3-4 other angles that are 5-10 seconds behind. If you see something on live you switch to watching the others and if something jumps out as wrong you alert the ref within 15 seconds and you can rewatch it once, if you still think it's wrong you tell the ref to reverse it, if you're stil lnot sure play continues. That way things are being watched over and over, play isn't being stpped for long preiods and nothing is in slow-mo. I'd also add the option for the ref to ask for a review but again that would be 1-2 views at most. If you can't make a decision in 30 seconds then there's no reason to keep checking. This is where football and rugby differ and need different solutions, rugby naturally has longer breaks so taking their time (and crucially stopping the clock) is more suitable.
-
Rugby is incredibly technical in some parts, and yes it works there but at international level, with elite refs, not the fucking chinless strapons we get courtesy of Mike Riley and David Ellery.
it's not just international level, TMO is required in all fully professional competitions.
-
Football is about money.
Money is about eyeballs on the game.
VAR generates interest albeit negative and more eyeballs on the game. - for now.
So VAR makes money.
-
And next up from Stockley Park - Mike Dean. With David Coote in the middle presumably Dean will see himself as the senior man on duty and therefore feel obliged to take charge.
-
Rugby is incredibly technical in some parts, and yes it works there but at international level, with elite refs, not the fucking chinless strapons we get courtesy of Mike Riley and David Ellery.
it's not just international level, TMO is required in all fully professional competitions.
Fair enough I didn't realise that, but then I doubt many others did, as hardly anyone watches the game at that level.
And without making a dig at Rugby in general, it's a poor spectacle to watch unless you're invested in it. Why would football want to go down that path?
To answer myself, I reckon it's because further down the line they can use it to squeeze in ad breaks during play
-
Rugby is incredibly technical in some parts, and yes it works there but at international level, with elite refs, not the fucking chinless strapons we get courtesy of Mike Riley and David Ellery.
it's not just international level, TMO is required in all fully professional competitions.
Fair enough I didn't realise that, but then I doubt many others did, as hardly anyone watches the game at that level.
And without making a dig at Rugby in general, it's a poor spectacle to watch unless you're invested in it. Why would football want to go down that path?
To answer myself, I reckon it's because further down the line they can use it to squeeze in ad breaks during play
The bold bit is true of almost any sport but I think you need to look into it a little more. English rugby in particular is in a fantastic place right now with match scores this season averaging the highest on record (I believe that's still correct, it was the case before christmas) and most games being between 2 teams determined to win rather than anyone just trying to hang in and sneak a result at the end like you often see in the football.
The problem rugby has is one of image, there are still to many people wo think of the sport as it was 30 years ago with teams full of amateur toffs from public schools. I promise you if you get to know the basic rules of the game and give it a chance the premiership is one of the most exciting leagues to watch in any sport in the world right now.
-
It's improved nothing, worsened others, still just as many controversial decisions as before - just at another level - fans are left in limbo for minutes at a time and don't know whether they can celebrate or not, the spontaneity and joy has been drained from the game. players don't like it, fans don't like it, managers don't like it - get rid for God's sake.
Oh - and the whole decision-making process STILL seems to favour certain clubs.
-
I think people forget how angry we got about wrong decisions before VAR.
In theory, it should be a check and measure against a ref having a stinker or worse... Notwithstanding that I think they are implementing it terribly and also that we have had some incredibly poor decisons against us, I suspect that overall they are still getting more decisions right than they used to.
I remain an advocate of the principal of VAR, but fuck me they are trying their best to kill it with incompetence.
People got angry, and they're still getting angry.
It's human nature to think technology will solve our problems. It doesn't. VAR will not make anything better, watching football is diminished by it.
Absolutely and the one thing above all else is that you can't celebrate a goal properly any more. No amount of technology can make up for that. The unbridled joy of celebrating a goal for your club has been taken away. Reason numer 1 of 350 to fuck it in the bin. Also I heard a suggestion a long time ago that the reason the officials are making such an unholy mess of it is they dont want it. It questions their authority and it questions their competence and it dents their precious egos.There could be some truth in that.
-
I still maintain that VAR is not the problem, it's the way it is implemented that is. It's the throbbers sat watching the screen at Stockley Park, just dying to get involved and hear their name on the TV that are the issue and they clearly haven't grasped the concept of "clear and obvious error".
Instead of having the mindset that it's a goal and it should only be ruled out if an exceptional mistake has been made, it goes straight away into looking for a reason to rule it out.
As in rugby and cricket, the question should be framed "is there a clear and obvious reason why that decision should be overturned?". Cutting it down to the act of scoring and the immediate phase before that would also help.
-
Is the player that scored offside would be a start.
-
Mike Dean on VAR this Saturday.
-
Mike Dean on VAR this Saturday.
Jesus H Fucking Christ.
Even the Bluenose I play football with on a Tuesday night* said that the decision last night was a farce.
*I scored an absolute screamer past him tonight
-
Whether its the technology, the human implementation or a bit of both, i judge VAR on this. My 11 year old has been going to the Villa since he was around 5, the relegation season onwards, in the last two and a bit seasons, he doesn’t know whether to let himself go and celebrate when we score a goal. That for me says it all, a kid not wanting to immediately and instinctively celebrate each and every goal that his team scores, just in case.
-
I've said it before, but in this, the most rigged of all possible worlds, where everything is set up for the always-already winners to prosper and the perpetual losers to suffer, we are asked to believe that football refereeing is the one great oasis of objective truth in this post-apolyptic desertscape. Like fuck it is.
I think the better sides do get more penalties because they're making more chances, I think that's fine. But we're not really talking about more or fewer here - we're talking about the self-evident double standards on display. Remember the insane Pogba tripping over himself, fouling our player and getting a penalty? Something like this happens once every two weeks to favour one of six clubs (though in practice one of four - maybe the norf Landaners have misplaced their brown envelopes). Every time there's a marginal - and sometimes they're not even that marginal - you know which way it's going to go.
I made a glib allusion there to bribery, but I don't think it's that. I don't even think it's anything particular that the clubs themselves do behind the scenes or on the pitch. I just think it's craven starfuckery, power-worship from the type of people who see the glorious chaos on a football pitch and instinctively wish to control it. Most referees are, of course, totally fine, but someone like Elleray, who always wanted to be the centre of attention, is naturally drawn to fame and the glamour of association with the powerful. You don't need to corrupt people who corrupt themselves with such relish.
Well said, Monty. Agree with every word.
-
Me too.
-
I would not write off the idea of largesse, once they gone with the idea that a little help (cheating) is the natural order of things.
-
Well put, Monty.
-
I've said it before, but in this, the most rigged of all possible worlds, where everything is set up for the always-already winners to prosper and the perpetual losers to suffer, we are asked to believe that football refereeing is the one great oasis of objective truth in this post-apolyptic desertscape. Like fuck it is.
I think the better sides do get more penalties because they're making more chances, I think that's fine. But we're not really talking about more or fewer here - we're talking about the self-evident double standards on display. Remember the insane Pogba tripping over himself, fouling our player and getting a penalty? Something like this happens once every two weeks to favour one of six clubs (though in practice one of four - maybe the norf Landaners have misplaced their brown envelopes). Every time there's a marginal - and sometimes they're not even that marginal - you know which way it's going to go.
I made a glib allusion there to bribery, but I don't think it's that. I don't even think it's anything particular that the clubs themselves do behind the scenes or on the pitch. I just think it's craven starfuckery, power-worship from the type of people who see the glorious chaos on a football pitch and instinctively wish to control it. Most referees are, of course, totally fine, but someone like Elleray, who always wanted to be the centre of attention, is naturally drawn to fame and the glamour of association with the powerful. You don't need to corrupt people who corrupt themselves with such relish.
Well said, Monty. Agree with every word.
Great post Monty. Superbly put.
-
*puts tinfoil hat on*
Watched the referee performance last night in the Spurs vs Chelsea game. Now I know Mariner is bobbins but if you wanted to engineer a situation where you could demonstrate the advantages of VAR after a period of bad criticism then some ref giving frankly barmy penalty decisions and goals for you to overturn would do it.
-
*puts tinfoil hat on*
Watched the referee performance last night in the Spurs vs Chelsea game. Now I know Mariner is bobbins but if you wanted to engineer a situation where you could demonstrate the advantages of VAR after a period of bad criticism then some ref giving frankly barmy penalty decisions and goals for you to overturn would do it.
I thought exactly that watching last night
-
Cool. Thought it may just be me.
*passes tinfoil hat to Luke*
-
The Spurs Chelsea game last night is exactly why we need VAR
There's a long way to go in getting the implementation right, but incompetence like that should not be allowed to stand.
-
FWIW, I only saw the last half-hour so cannot comment on what went before but, on the Kane penalty incident, as we know he was through to a one-on-one with the 'keeper and from the referee's position it looked a certain penalty and remember he only gives what he sees, it's only afterwards when VAR intercedes to inform him he's in error.
Where the criticism arises IMO, is the linesman who, is supposed to be as near as possible level with the last defender, had he been so he would have had a much clearer view of the incident and as a matter of course drew the referee's attention to it. Notwithstanding the relatively poorer standard of refereeing we have at the moment, it's still all too easy to blame them for an honest mistake. VAR served its purpose on that one, it's the linesman who should be called into question.
-
At least the referee didn't finish the match after 85 minutes.
-
FWIW, I only saw the last half-hour so cannot comment on what went before but, on the Kane penalty incident, as we know he was through to a one-on-one with the 'keeper and from the referee's position it looked a certain penalty and remember he only gives what he sees, it's only afterwards when VAR intercedes to inform him he's in error.
Where the criticism arises IMO, is the linesman who, is supposed to be as near as possible level with the last defender, had he been so he would have had a much clearer view of the incident and as a matter of course drew the referee's attention to it. Notwithstanding the relatively poorer standard of refereeing we have at the moment, it's still all too easy to blame them for an honest mistake. VAR served its purpose on that one, it's the linesman who should be called into question.
Dave, with your experience do you not think the very existence of VAR is leading to the officials not getting involved anymore, because they don't want to look like fools when the camera looks again but also knowing that the camera will do the work for them?
-
Do linesmen even give penalties anymore? I can't remember the last time I was one signal for a spot-kick..
-
The Spurs Chelsea game last night is exactly why we need VAR
There's a long way to go in getting the implementation right, but incompetence like that should not be allowed to stand.
SB makes a very valid point regarding this just before you posted. Those penalties were such poor decisions by the onfield the ref var had an easy tap in to get involved and make themselves look good. Fortunate timing for them after they were universally ridiculed for ruling out our equaliser at OT.
-
Do linesmen even give penalties anymore? I can't remember the last time I was one signal for a spot-kick..
I don't think they do I can't remember the last time I saw a linesman put his flag across his chest. The linesman did flag for a foul in Spurs first penalty incident before the ref decided to award the pen.
-
The Spurs Chelsea game last night is exactly why we need VAR
There's a long way to go in getting the implementation right, but incompetence like that should not be allowed to stand.
SB makes a very valid point regarding this just before you posted. Those penalties were such poor decisions by the onfield the ref var had an easy tap in to get involved and make themselves look good. Fortunate timing for them after they were universally ridiculed for ruling out our equaliser at OT.
But that is why it's there. One thing I can guarantee you is the onfield ref didn't deliverately make 3 shit decisions so they could make VAR look good.
-
FWIW, I only saw the last half-hour so cannot comment on what went before but, on the Kane penalty incident, as we know he was through to a one-on-one with the 'keeper and from the referee's position it looked a certain penalty and remember he only gives what he sees, it's only afterwards when VAR intercedes to inform him he's in error.
Where the criticism arises IMO, is the linesman who, is supposed to be as near as possible level with the last defender, had he been so he would have had a much clearer view of the incident and as a matter of course drew the referee's attention to it. Notwithstanding the relatively poorer standard of refereeing we have at the moment, it's still all too easy to blame them for an honest mistake. VAR served its purpose on that one, it's the linesman who should be called into question.
Dave, with your experience do you not think the very existence of VAR is leading to the officials not getting involved anymore, because they don't want to look like fools when the camera looks again but also knowing that the camera will do the work for them?
I do Lee, I think it's now all too easy to delegate the responsibility to someone else. I also think human nature enters into it. None of us are going to stick our heads above the parapet to get it shot off as is exactly what will and is happening.
The officials are miced up and I don't know who else other than them can hear any conversation going on but if it is just the four of them then there should be no fear in alerting the referee to the fact that he may have been in error, the referee can then call in VAR if he's unsure.
We also don't know what instructions the referee has given to his linesmen prior to kick-off. I can only relate to my own experience of receiving and giving instructions and basically you do what you are asked to do. It isn't really a new observation but football is now, more so than ever, a blame game.
-
VAR should be a good addition to our game. Unfortunately the way it's managed is shockingly inconsistent. And that's the problem.
-
VAR should be a good addition to our game. Unfortunately the way it's managed is shockingly inconsistent. And that's the problem.
Decision needs to be more transparent ie discussions should be broadcast so all their thinking is exposed.
They shouldn't be allowed to hide away from criticism of their decision making processes.
-
FWIW, I only saw the last half-hour so cannot comment on what went before but, on the Kane penalty incident, as we know he was through to a one-on-one with the 'keeper and from the referee's position it looked a certain penalty and remember he only gives what he sees, it's only afterwards when VAR intercedes to inform him he's in error.
Where the criticism arises IMO, is the linesman who, is supposed to be as near as possible level with the last defender, had he been so he would have had a much clearer view of the incident and as a matter of course drew the referee's attention to it. Notwithstanding the relatively poorer standard of refereeing we have at the moment, it's still all too easy to blame them for an honest mistake. VAR served its purpose on that one, it's the linesman who should be called into question.
Totally with you regarding the linesman not doing his job. Even if he was a yard behind the play he should have spotted that it wasn't a penalty. With the presence of VAR is there really any need for linesmen? Awarding throw ins and corners correctly to keep the flow of the game going would be the only reason but as we see most weekends they can get that wrong too.
-
Do linesmen even give penalties anymore? I can't remember the last time I was one signal for a spot-kick..
I don't think they do I can't remember the last time I saw a linesman put his flag across his chest.
I don't think that is the signal for a penalty anymore. It changed a few years ago for some reason.
-
Unless it changes from its current guise VAR needs to go. It’s not delivering on its premise. At all.
-
Although it has just got two decisions spot on in the Brighton/Palace game.
-
Rugby does it so much better. The ref ask the TMO specific incidents they want to look at and then goes through a series of sequential questions to make their assessment. All of this can heard (on TV, not sure about at the ground) so there is a transparent application of the rules.
-
Although it has just got two decisions spot on in the Brighton/Palace game.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
-
VAR has just ruled out a (4th) goal for Leeds at West Ham. A real situation where the rules over-rule common sense.
-
It doesn't work.
-
VAR is fucking shit, but when referees go the screen, watch a super slow motion replay countless times and STILL arrive at the wrong decision then you realise the problems are deeper than the technology.
-
No, for VAR to even intervene on the matter of that Liverpool penalty was ridiculous, and to end up with a decision so grossly wrong, made with the benefit of VAR, is shocking.
-
No matter how outraged everyone is, including me, and Shearer is not holding back either, it is a subjective decision, a matter of opinion and not fact so it renders the technology redundant.
That's why it just doesn't work.
-
It lets professional referees look at a situation multiple times, in slow motion, from multiple angles. If they still get the decision wrong, then it's because they're fucking shit.
-
And who is on VAR today, telling the ref to have a look at the monitor after today's Guaita/Jota coming together? Why, none other than the referee at our game yesterday who didn't want to know when Pickford took out Watkins in identical fashion.
-
I think they seriously need to bin off the current top flight refs in this country and restructure their organisation, they're getting worse year on year.
-
But yeah, Nev is right. It doesn't work and never will.
-
I'm all for improving refereeing standards but VAR was never the answer, and never will be. All you get is the huge frustration of 2 officials getting it wrong rather than one. It's also shone a spotlight on the bias towards the top clubs.
-
I'm still for it because without it you know some absolute stone wall pens wouldn't be given at places like OT. Just needs some competent people to use it correctly.
I'd love someone to make a montage of like for like situations where decisions were/weren't given. Then get the officials to try and weasel out of it.
-
I'm still for it because without it you know some absolute stone wall pens wouldn't be given at places like OT. Just needs some competent people to use it correctly.
I'd love someone to make a montage of like for like situations where decisions were/weren't given. Then get the officials to try and weasel out of it.
That would require them to communicate/elaborate. Something we know that the PGMOL won’t do. They don’t want dialogue because it will highlight the inconsistencies in VAR’s application/use.
-
Vat would be absolutely fine if it were a different organisation running it. At the moment it's all pals together with no real accountability, a bit like the Tory government.
-
I'm all for improving refereeing standards but VAR was never the answer, and never will be. All you get is the huge frustration of 2 officials getting it wrong rather than one. It's also shone a spotlight on the bias towards the top clubs.
It has also absolved responsibility of the on field referee, as they can simply turn round and say "it wasn't my decision, I was advised to give it".
-
That Liverpool decision was a disgrace today. The keeper was already stationary and the Liverpool player runs into him. Far less a penalty than the Ings one for us against Liverpool.
-
That Liverpool decision was a disgrace today. The keeper was already stationary and the Liverpool player runs into him. Far less a penalty than the Ings one for us against Liverpool.
Yeah, Jota mis-controlled the ball, and there was another Palace player covering the goal line. Really soft penalty.
-
That Liverpool decision was a disgrace today. The keeper was already stationary and the Liverpool player runs into him.
Even worse, he seemed to move over to run into him once he realised he'd lost the ball. Absolutely scandalous, worst penalty decision I've seen this season.
They should just tell the ref. to make whatever decision favours the big 6. That would result in less VAR interruptions and speed the whole thing with little affect on the outcomes.
-
With everything available to review decisions how could anybody come to the conclusion that Jota gets a penalty for that?
-
No surprise it's our mate Kevin Friend having a shocker there. The fact he's still considered a top flight referee should tell you everything. Its quite astonishing what an utter shit show they've made of a process which should help them make better decisions.
Someone summed it up perfectly earlier, I don't think they're corrupt for 1 minute but they do a flippin good job of giving the impression they are.
-
With everything available to review decisions how could anybody come to the conclusion that Jota gets a penalty for that?
Because it's a matter of opinion, not fact.
-
If it's a matter opinion (Pawson's) that it was a foul then there is no reason to call Friend to the monitor. That might be Pawsons opinion but no way is that a clear and obvious error by Friend in his initial view.
-
Kevin Friend makes a complete horlicks of an easy decision. Shock. He made the correct decision in the first place but clearly doesn't have the minerals to stick to it. How many times has it got to be said before these fkn chumps get it into their thick heads? "Var is there to correct clear and obvious errors" If you're having to look at lots of different angles slowed right down and it takes so bloody long to decide then how can you come to the "clear and obvious" conclusion? All it takes is for one referee to look at the monitor at a couple of angles IN NORMAL SPEED and for him to say "it's not a clear and obvious error, I stand by my original decision " Is there a single ref in the Premier League with the moral fortitude and the cohoneys do that? It doesn't look that way right now.
-
Not seen it until today... oh dear. Clear and obviously wrong? Not a chance.
-
Colin Wanker calling out Kevin Friend for what he is on TalkShite.
-
Not sure where to put this so I've put it in here, Mods feel free to move. It's not really about VAR as such.
As you may know I do my fair share of defending referee's on here but I'm not afraid to call them out when they are wrong.
If you wonder why the stanard or referring is so poor in the Premier League it was there for all and sundry to see yesterday in the Blackpool v Reading game.
Blackpool had a big lump of a striker who scored a goal by climbing above another big lump of a Reading defender. He rose to a height by leaning over the defender whilst at the same time holding down the defender by having his two hands firmly on the defender's shoulders then heading the ball into the net.
The referee had a perfect view of the incident. This is one of the most easiest fouls to spot as it's so obvious when officiating and this bloke just let it go and awarded the goal. How he got this far allowing things like that is beyond me, utterly disgraceful refereeing.
I despair, the evidence of what's coming through was plain to see yesterday in our game and Everton's.
-
Kevin Friend makes a complete horlicks of an easy decision. Shock. He made the correct decision in the first place but clearly doesn't have the minerals to stick to it. How many times has it got to be said before these fkn chumps get it into their thick heads? "Var is there to correct clear and obvious errors" If you're having to look at lots of different angles slowed right down and it takes so bloody long to decide then how can you come to the "clear and obvious" conclusion? All it takes is for one referee to look at the monitor at a couple of angles IN NORMAL SPEED and for him to say "it's not a clear and obvious error, I stand by my original decision " Is there a single ref in the Premier League with the moral fortitude and the cohoneys do that? It doesn't look that way right now.
"In normal speed", is the obvious improvement they can make to the decision process.
The game is played at normal speed, the referees and their assistants view the proceedings and officiate based on this, they are not robots with slow-mo vision capabilities, and, with the rules of the game based on actual live action (and not television replays), then all VAR views must be made at normal speed.
Either that, or change the fundamental rules of the game.
-
The Everton non-penalty was a disgraceful decision.
-
The Everton non-penalty was a disgraceful decision.
I was shocked watching the game back. But then I wasn’t when I remember VAR was involved. A friend of mine said ‘wasn’t VAR brought in to stop things like the Thierry Henry handball?’ You watch that and think if that’s true, it isn’t doing a good job. I don’t believe what i’m seeing any more.
-
It doesn't work. You can have all the technology on the world but it's still down to an opinion.
-
That’s one of the worst decisions yet. Many times it is down to judgment and in the studio the panel will argue, or with friends after a match has long finished you will disagree, but that was so blatantly obvious you do wonder if it is actually blatant cheating.
-
That’s one of the worst decisions yet. Many times it is down to judgment and in the studio the panel will argue, or with friends after a match has long finished you will disagree, but that was so blatantly obvious you do wonder if it is actually blatant cheating.
I think it's cheating or sabotage. Cheating in the sense that TV companies could be leaning on var to keep the major financial players in pole position because that's where the moneys at from advertising. Sabotage in the sense that the referee's association don't like the fact that their judgement was called into question the day var was introduced. Or thirdly just plain old incompetence. Nothing else can explain the bizzare decision not to give a penalty to Everton for that handball. Oh and Rhidri seems to be the new Vidic. He's had some shocking decisions go his way. Who can forget the goal var allowed against us? They scrambled around looking for a reason to give that goal eventually giving it anyway and rewriting the rules afterwards.
-
The Premier League have confirmed that it wasn't given because it wasn't clear and obvious that it was handball. So that's alright then, move on chaps, nothing dodgy at all.
-
What it was to anyone with even poor eyesight and very little knowledge of the game is that it was clear and obvious. Stone wall in fact. That pathetic excuse they give is doing some real heavy lifting lately.
-
The Premier League have confirmed that it wasn't given because it wasn't clear and obvious that it was handball. So that's alright then, move on chaps, nothing dodgy at all.
What a load of old claptrap.
Thsi clear and obvious thing is such a red herring. If something needs multiple replays from multiple angles, it's not clear and obvious.
VAR needs to be either 'Clear and Obvious' i.e. replay at normal speed, from one angle (and I include offside, so one replay no lines drawn etc), or it needs to be an absolute, i.e. numerous replays, run back and forth from every angle (and with offside you draw lines etc).
-
The Premier League have confirmed that it wasn't given because it wasn't clear and obvious that it was handball. So that's alright then, move on chaps, nothing dodgy at all.
What a load of old claptrap.
Thsi clear and obvious thing is such a red herring. If something needs multiple replays from multiple angles, it's not clear and obvious.
VAR needs to be either 'Clear and Obvious' i.e. replay at normal speed, from one angle (and I include offside, so one replay no lines drawn etc), or it needs to be an absolute, i.e. numerous replays, run back and forth from every angle (and with offside you draw lines etc).
That's all it ever needed to be. Clear daylight for incorrect offsides, and something blindingly obvious for general play.
That Man City handball WAS blindingly obvious and clear as day a handball all day long.
Our disallowed goal versus the Mancs in the Cup wasn't. They spent ages checking two different players for offside, then got the rule book out and had a desperate look for something else, which was a player running into ours head down, and falling over.
It's disgraceful.
-
It's disgraceful.
Yes, it is.
I also think that using current referees to call each other out is shite. And then asking the referee to go and have a look to see if he wants to change his mind is a fucking cop-out too. It again suggests there's no clear and obvious decision to be made.
-
We've basically moved from the refs favouring the big teams to VAR favouring the big teams (and then the ref can shrug and say "not me mate").
Does anyone doubt that the Man City pen would have been given if it was the other way around?
-
We've basically moved from the refs favouring the big teams to VAR favouring the big teams (and then the ref can shrug and say "not me mate").
Does anyone doubt that the Man City pen would have been given if it was the other way around?
Spot on.
-
We've basically moved from the refs favouring the big teams to VAR favouring the big teams (and then the ref can shrug and say "not me mate").
Does anyone doubt that the Man City pen would have been given if it was the other way around?
Spot on.
We all know the answer, its Crooked.
-
Like they really need the fucking extra help as well.
The whole VAR situation feels like I'm being constantly gaslighted, told that black is actually white, this decision that looks clear cut is actually extremely layered and is subject to 15 new law changes in the last 2 years that nobody has heard about until some prick points it out on Twitter for the first time, but that decision for an innoculous collision with the ball running out of play, away from goal but in the box, is actually a stonewall penalty and a red card for the defender.
-
It isn't too often I agree with pundits but Lineaker got it right on Saturday's MOTD when he said ' this type of thing will continue until referee's come out and explain decisions like that'. Words to that effect, at the same time as basically calling out Riley by name. This is something I've always railed against as I believe that it would cause more problems but, by Christ, VAR and it's misuse is rapidly pushing me to change my mind.
-
PGMOL or whoever they are should come out and have to explain all VAR decisions after the weekend. I can forgive a ref not seeing something first time, but not the blokes sat reviewing things. If you're going to ruin our game at least have the courage of your convictions to back up your decisions.
-
Its so instinctive that I doubt that anyone who has ever played football has not done the same thing.
You go to chest a bouncing ball, you misjudge the bounce and your arm instinctively moves towards the ball to get it under control.
Which makes it all the more ridiculous that it wasn't given.
-
Its so instinctive that I doubt that anyone who has ever played football has not done the same thing.
You go to chest a bouncing ball, you misjudge the bounce and your arm instinctively moves towards the ball to get it under control.
Which makes it all the more ridiculous that it wasn't given.
Time and again decisions like that happen where it seems the only person unaware of this is the referee, like they've been grown in a lab, educated only in the laws of the game without ever having watched a game of football take place.
-
When you look at the length of time some of the decisions take to be made by VAR it makes you realise that the delays are worth Millions around the globe in on line betting - opens the process up to huge manipulation and basically cheating via gambling.
If you analysed the time spent on decisions i bet the scum money 6 decisions take the longest of all teams to find a suitable "right" decision for them
That Everton handball - could you see
Man United
Liverpool
Chelsea
Man City - Obvs
Not getting that in real time and enforced with VAR? - thought not
-
PGMOL or whoever they are should come out and have to explain all VAR decisions after the weekend. I can forgive a ref not seeing something first time, but not the blokes sat reviewing things. If you're going to ruin our game at least have the courage of your convictions to back up your decisions.
This with bells on.
The people making these VAR decisions should attend a Monday morning review with the media to go over any contentious issues. If they have confidence in their decisions it would be an easy session for them.
-
PGMOL or whoever they are should come out and have to explain all VAR decisions after the weekend. I can forgive a ref not seeing something first time, but not the blokes sat reviewing things. If you're going to ruin our game at least have the courage of your convictions to back up your decisions.
Absolutely. However, they will just use the tried and tested non answer and nobody can hold them to account.
I still maintain there should be an independent panel instead of bloody referees.
-
PGMOL or whoever they are should come out and have to explain all VAR decisions after the weekend. I can forgive a ref not seeing something first time, but not the blokes sat reviewing things. If you're going to ruin our game at least have the courage of your convictions to back up your decisions.
Absolutely. However, they will just use the tried and tested non answer and nobody can hold them to account.
I still maintain there should be an independent panel instead of bloody referees.
And foriegn ref rotations, none of this "JT" chummy bollocks. Send our refs to fucking Russia, they'd fit in there the bent bastards.
-
One of the most telling things for me is that the VAR officials didn't invite the on pitch ref to go and look at City handball VS Everton on the monitor.
-
One of the most telling things for me is that the VAR officials didn't invite the on pitch ref to go and look at City handball VS Everton on the monitor.
they just needed enough time for a text from the Caymans
-
One of the most telling things for me is that the VAR officials didn't invite the on pitch ref to go and look at City handball VS Everton on the monitor.
they just needed enough time for a text from the Caymans
I have to say, I'm in the camp that things that how VAR is being used is bent. The Olympics, F1, why would football be immune to manipulation? It's happened before.
-
So I found this decision really confusing. I - like many was in no doubt that it was a penalty as it clearly hit his arm - not his shoulder - and what's more is that his arm appeared to move towards the ball. And yet recently obvious hand balls have been not given because it was felt that the hand ball was not "deliberate" and here is where it gets me. Do I think this was hand ball - 100% - do I think it was deliberately? Actually no, I think there is an unpredictable bounce and he instinctively goes to compensate. I absolutely get the "deliberate" line but it is so arbitrary the for me it should be removed. It either makes contact with the hand/arm or not and if it gives advantage to the defending team its a penalty. No ifs and no buts!
-
I see Everton aren't letting it lie, and have written to the PL demanding an apology. It'll make fuck all difference of course, but good on them anyway.
-
PGMOL or whoever they are should come out and have to explain all VAR decisions after the weekend. I can forgive a ref not seeing something first time, but not the blokes sat reviewing things. If you're going to ruin our game at least have the courage of your convictions to back up your decisions.
This with bells on.
The people making these VAR decisions should attend a Monday morning review with the media to go over any contentious issues. If they have confidence in their decisions it would be an easy session for them.
I agree. I don’t have Sky / BT and only watch MOTD and other occasional highlights but I’d probably subscribe to watch this.
-
Which is more of a handball: Rodri VS Everton or Moutinho VS Man City? One is given as a penalty and the other doesn't even require the ref to have a look on the monitor. Both are game changing decisions.
-
I see Everton aren't letting it lie, and have written to the PL demanding an apology. It'll make fuck all difference of course, but good on them anyway.
Agreed it will make no difference, but if nothing else it keeps the beyond dreadful decision, in the public eye for a bit longer. Lampard has already opened up the pandora’s box by insinuating it could be corrupt as opposed to just hugely incompetent. Moving aside from the fact he would of benefited from more decisions playing for a sky super six club, so degrees of hypocrisy, its about time this is called for what it is.
I was at the Man U cup game and the fact they checked 3 separate things has to be completely against what VAR was brought in for. There is no doubt in my mind, we win that game if that goal was allowed to stand.
There are so many issues, from generally using VAR to disregard previously sound conceptions, e.g. the forward being given the benefit of the doubt (see Watkins at Newcastle, Lukaku yesterday, both with a fingernail in front of the defender). To serious concerns potential corruption like up at Everton on Saturday.
-
I see Everton aren't letting it lie, and have written to the PL demanding an apology. It'll make fuck all difference of course, but good on them anyway.
Agreed it will make no difference, but if nothing else it keeps the beyond dreadful decision, in the public eye for a bit longer. Lampard has already opened up the pandora’s box by insinuating it could be corrupt as opposed to just hugely incompetent. Moving aside from the fact he would of benefited from more decisions playing for a sky super six club, so degrees of hypocrisy, its about time this is called for what it is.
I was at the Man U cup game and the fact they checked 3 separate things has to be completely against what VAR was brought in for. There is no doubt in my mind, we win that game if that goal was allowed to stand.
There are so many issues, from generally using VAR to disregard previously sound conceptions, e.g. the forward being given the benefit of the doubt (see Watkins at Newcastle, Lukaku yesterday, both with a fingernail in front of the defender). To serious concerns potential corruption like up at Everton on Saturday.
The Man Utd cup game decision was the first time I'd seen VAR applied to look at multiple things in that way. And you're right; that wasn't what VAR was brought in for. How many phases of play are you going to go back and review in the lead up to a goal? Til you find the result you're looking for.
-
Another thing about this ‘hand ball’ incident.
When the pundits have been discussing whether it was or wasn’t a penalty, why have they been talking about the tee shirt line?
I thought hand ball was to the shoulder not where the sleeve ends, and that tee shirt line bollocks was in reference to the marginal offside decisions that happen.
Seriously, do I not know ANY of the rules of football anymore, because I’m starting to wonder.
-
Another thing about this ‘hand ball’ incident.
When the pundits have been discussing whether it was or wasn’t a penalty, why have they been talking about the tee shirt line?
I thought hand ball was to the shoulder not where the sleeve ends, and that tee shirt line bollocks was in reference to the marginal offside decisions that happen.
Seriously, do I not know ANY of the rules of football anymore, because I’m starting to wonder.
No idea. My guess would probably be that it depends on the pundit, who they still work for and what they've said in the past that they feel they have to continually validate/justify.
-
Another thing about this ‘hand ball’ incident.
When the pundits have been discussing whether it was or wasn’t a penalty, why have they been talking about the tee shirt line?
I thought hand ball was to the shoulder not where the sleeve ends, and that tee shirt line bollocks was in reference to the marginal offside decisions that happen.
Seriously, do I not know ANY of the rules of football anymore, because I’m starting to wonder.
There is a graphic showing the t shirt line on it. It's meant to be the defining line for what's handball and what's not. It's still up to interpretation as to where the ball actually makes contact. So it just adds even more confusion to an already bewildering set of rules. A load of bollocks in other words.
-
I see Everton aren't letting it lie, and have written to the PL demanding an apology. It'll make fuck all difference of course, but good on them anyway.
And he'll probably be charged with bringing the game into disrepute, to add insult to injury.
-
"PGMOL General Manager Mike Riley has made personal phone calls to Bill Kenwright and Frank Lampard to apologise following the decision by VAR not to award Everton a penalty against Man City"
So thats ok then ...
What is the point
I'm not bothered whether they won or lost but its just making a mockery of the game
-
PGMOL or whoever they are should come out and have to explain all VAR decisions after the weekend. I can forgive a ref not seeing something first time, but not the blokes sat reviewing things. If you're going to ruin our game at least have the courage of your convictions to back up your decisions.
Absolutely, they have the same pictures as us and so should explain how the decisions have been arrived at. The clubs should explicitly ask for this under the guise of learning and adapting. Its not right often enough IMO.
-
"PGMOL General Manager Mike Riley has made personal phone calls to Bill Kenwright and Frank Lampard to apologise following the decision by VAR not to award Everton a penalty against Man City"
So thats ok then ...
What is the point
I'm not bothered whether they won or lost but its just making a mockery of the game
Exactly, that non-penalty could have huge ramifications at both ends of the table. VAR is shit, and the way it is used is shit, but if it got things like that and other major calls right then fans would grit their teeth and accept it. However, it's not only ruining the ability to celebrate goals, it's both getting the big calls wrong, and seemingly favouring the bigger teams, so it's triple the shit.
-
"PGMOL General Manager Mike Riley has made personal phone calls to Bill Kenwright and Frank Lampard to apologise following the decision by VAR not to award Everton a penalty against Man City"
So thats ok then ...
What is the point
I'm not bothered whether they won or lost but its just making a mockery of the game
In which case what can Riley see that the ref and more importantly the VAR ref couldn't? It wreaks.
-
I'm a bit pissed that they got an apology compared to the 2-3 ridiculous ones for us where they've circled the wagons and used obscure intepretations of the rules to defend the officials.
-
"PGMOL General Manager Mike Riley has made personal phone calls to Bill Kenwright and Frank Lampard to apologise following the decision by VAR not to award Everton a penalty against Man City"
So thats ok then ...
What is the point
I'm not bothered whether they won or lost but its just making a mockery of the game
Yet there seems to be no punishment for the on field pitch ref and the VAR ref. In fact, the VAR ref from the everton game is officiating the Burnley game tonight. No demotion to championship for a few games, seemingly nothing. Interesting to see which decisions lead to refs getting punished by the PGMOL and which don’t.
-
"PGMOL General Manager Mike Riley has made personal phone calls to Bill Kenwright and Frank Lampard to apologise following the decision by VAR not to award Everton a penalty against Man City"
So thats ok then ...
What is the point
I'm not bothered whether they won or lost but its just making a mockery of the game
In which case what can Riley see that the ref and more importantly the VAR ref couldn't? It wreaks.
Instead of an apology how about an explanation? How about they tell us how a handball so blatant was missed by not only the ref and his assistants but the myopic numnuts at Stockley Park? I've said for a while now I don't understand why a premier league club with enough clout doesn't call out var for negligence or cheating like someone earlier said that the ramifications are huge at both ends of the table. Who is actually in charge of the game? The referee's association or the clubs? Because it seems to me to be a clear case of the tail wagging the donkey.
-
"PGMOL General Manager Mike Riley has made personal phone calls to Bill Kenwright and Frank Lampard to apologise following the decision by VAR not to award Everton a penalty against Man City"
So thats ok then ...
What is the point
I'm not bothered whether they won or lost but its just making a mockery of the game
In which case what can Riley see that the ref and more importantly the VAR ref couldn't? It wreaks.
Instead of an apology how about an explanation? How about they tell us how a handball so blatant was missed by not only the ref and his assistants but the myopic numnuts at Stockley Park? I've said for a while now I don't understand why a premier league club with enough clout doesn't call out var for negligence or cheating like someone earlier said that the ramifications are huge at both ends of the table. Who is actually in charge of the game? The referee's association or the clubs? Because it seems to me to be a clear case of the tail wagging the donkey.
As for your point about explaining about how such a blatant hand ball could be missed, the simple answer is they can't. Unfortunately things get missed in matches, he may have been glancing in a different direction for that split second and not seen it, it happens .
This brings us on to your second point, you are 100% correct. The culpability lies with the VAR official who has the wherewithal of modern technology to amend that decision which he didn't use to it's full extent. Now that needs explaining.
-
Yes Dave, I don't think anybody was blaming the match ref for missing it in the first instance. Things happen in a split second in real time, and he may not have seen it clearly in which case he can't give it. That's the entire point of VAR though isn't it? It was the most obvious handball I've seen all season, short of somebody doing a Harlem Globetrotters impression and bouncing it up the pitch. VAR should have told the ref it was a handball, or at least told him to go and have another look at the monitor.
-
Yes Dave, I don't think anybody was blaming the match ref for missing it in the first instance. Things happen in a split second in real time, and he may not have seen it clearly in which case he can't give it. That's the entire point of VAR though isn't it? It was the most obvious handball I've seen all season, short of somebody doing a Harlem Globetrotters impression and bouncing it up the pitch. VAR should have told the ref it was a handball, or at least told him to go and have another look at the monitor.
To be fair Risso, in my VAR rage I did have a pop at the on field ref which was wrong of me. If he didn’t see it he couldn’t do anything. The VAR ref however. Different story altogether.
-
We got away with one against Sheffield Utd a couple of years ago. Every VAR decision against us since then has been referenced back to that & therefore nulls any complaint we have. This will be the case for at least the next decade, some will still be using it 2 or 3 generations time.
VAR was brought in to correct the errors made in real-time by the on-field officials. The very same people who are now making monumnetal errors despite having every camera angle known to man available.
The penalty for Man City vs Wolves & the one not given on Saturday tells us everything we need to know. It's not random.
Not one PL ref was at the last World Cup & when they have been there they've fucked up. The PL brings in the best players from around the world, why don't they employ the best refs from around the world?
-
We got away with one against Sheffield Utd a couple of years ago. Every VAR decision against us since then has been referenced back to that & therefore nulls any complaint we have. This will be the case for at least the next decade, some will still be using it 2 or 3 generations time.
VAR was brought in to correct the errors made in real-time by the on-field officials. The very same people who are now making monumnetal errors despite having every camera angle known to man available.
The penalty for Man City vs Wolves & the one not given on Saturday tells us everything we need to know. It's not random.
Not one PL ref was at the last World Cup & when they have been there they've fucked up. The PL brings in the best players from around the world, why don't they employ the best refs from around the world?
That wasn't a Var decision. That was the goal line technology not doing it's job. Var couldn't be used. Why I don't know.
-
The argument against VAR is that it still relies on interpretation and not matter of fact.
And here you have it laid bare for all to see in the Everton game.
-
Not one PL ref was at the last World Cup & when they have been there they've fucked up. The PL brings in the best players from around the world, why don't they employ the best refs from around the world?
Because there's no commercial reason for doing so. Does the average plastic Man City fan in Hong Kong or wherever care that it was a handball? No. Does the corruption preserve the status quo which rakes in billions? Yes.
-
Not one PL ref was at the last World Cup & when they have been there they've fucked up. The PL brings in the best players from around the world, why don't they employ the best refs from around the world?
Because there's no commercial reason for doing so. Does the average plastic Man City fan in Hong Kong or wherever care that it was a handball? No. Does the corruption preserve the status quo which rakes in billions? Yes.
That, and the potential fear of a more successful attempt at a Super League which was put on hold last year.
-
This whole situation around this incident is bad enough already, but if City win the league by one or two points, or if Everton get relegated by a point, I don't know how they continue with VAR 'as is'.
The argument of course would be "well, without VAR there wouldn't have been a penalty anyway", but if it's not going to pick up errors THAT obvious, who cares if someone is a toenail offside?
-
This whole situation around this incident is bad enough already, but if City win the league by one or two points, or if Everton get relegated by a point, I don't know how they continue with VAR 'as is'.
The argument of course would be "well, without VAR there wouldn't have been a penalty anyway", but if it's not going to pick up errors THAT obvious, who cares if someone is a toenail offside?
This is where the big difference is. In the past, an official or linesman would make a mistake (or worse). But with VAR, there is the chance to pick up things that the ref and linespeople don't see. That has opened up an entirely new field for decision making. People can say that officials have always given more favourable decisions to bigger clubs. But now with VAR, they've got even more opportunity to do that, by awarding things that the on field officials haven't seen or given. Not only that, but change decisions that have been given and not get involved when it's clear and obvious that they should.
-
The offside point is a good one, if the VAR ref can't see the blindingly obvious handball how can he be so sure over the marginal offsides like Watkins?
I'm not sure I go with the conspiracy though as there is more money to be had with Liverpool winning the league so a penalty would have helped that.
-
Yes Dave, I don't think anybody was blaming the match ref for missing it in the first instance. Things happen in a split second in real time, and he may not have seen it clearly in which case he can't give it. That's the entire point of VAR though isn't it? It was the most obvious handball I've seen all season, short of somebody doing a Harlem Globetrotters impression and bouncing it up the pitch. VAR should have told the ref it was a handball, or at least told him to go and have another look at the monitor.
I've only seen it once and I thought they did send the referee to the monitor? If not then why not? That's ridiculous. As for not blaming the match officials I think this opens up another can of worms. That handball was so blatant the whole ground was in uproar including the Everton players. Let's wind the clock back to pre-var times. If that was missed by the officials their would have been uproar and the officials would have been roundly condemned for such a massive blunder. Are we now saying that because var is here the match officials get a free pass?
-
I do think that much of the problem has come from the fact that VAR can't overrule a referee, but can send him to a monitor to look at an incident. Yet I can't think of a SINGLE incident where a ref has gone to the monitor and thought "no, I got that one right".
This means sending a ref to a monitor has become "the ref is definitely going to change his mind here", so referring a ref to a monitor is basically the same as overruling them. And because it's basically overruling them, VAR won't refer a ref to a monitor unless they are absolutely 100% confident a mistake has been made, when really it SHOULD be only 80-90% confident a mistake has been made.
The monitor shouldn't be used that way. It should be a case of VAR telling the ref "I THINK you MIGHT have made a mistake, on an important call, and I'd like you to take another look so you're comfortable with your decision."
It shouldn't be a foregone conclusion when they head to the pitch-side. Because if it is, then VAR won't refer anything with even a tiny bit of doubt. The handball should have been referred, obviously, but the fact there was a tiny tiny element of doubt in VAR's mind (wrongly), it didn't get referred.
Ironically, I think it would be good for VAR to be 'wrong' a few more times by referring a few decisions that aren't foregone, and which would see the ref stick to their original decision. It would also put an end to the crown cheering whenever a ref goes to the pitchside, which I fucking loathe.
If the VAR felt the ref might stick to his original decision, I think they'd be more willing to refer incidents like the Man City handball.
But then we might have the ref visiting the pitchside even more often, which is shit in itself. I guess I've no idea what the answer is...
-
I do think that much of the problem has come from the fact that VAR can't overrule a referee, but can send him to a monitor to look at an incident. Yet I can't think of a SINGLE incident where a ref has gone to the monitor and thought "no, I got that one right".
This means sending a ref to a monitor has become "the ref is definitely going to change his mind here", so referring a ref to a monitor is basically the same as overruling them. And because it's basically overruling them, VAR won't refer a ref to a monitor unless they are absolutely 100% confident a mistake has been made, when really it SHOULD be only 80-90% confident a mistake has been made.
The monitor shouldn't be used that way. It should be a case of VAR telling the ref "I THINK you MIGHT have made a mistake, on an important call, and I'd like you to take another look so you're comfortable with your decision."
It shouldn't be a foregone conclusion when they head to the pitch-side. Because if it is, then VAR won't refer anything with even a tiny bit of doubt. The handball should have been referred, obviously, but the fact there was a tiny tiny element of doubt in VAR's mind (wrongly), it didn't get referred.
Ironically, I think it would be good for VAR to be 'wrong' a few more times by referring a few decisions that aren't foregone, and which would see the ref stick to their original decision. It would also put an end to the crown cheering whenever a ref goes to the pitchside, which I fucking loathe.
If the VAR felt the ref might stick to his original decision, I think they'd be more willing to refer incidents like the Man City handball.
But then we might have the ref visiting the pitchside even more often, which is shit in itself. I guess I've no idea what the answer is...
The bold bit is key for me. I drone on about how they do it in rugby but that's one of the things that just works.
Video ref spots something and wants to check it.
Alerts ref and says he's checking and to pause the game at the next opportunity.
Watches a couple of angles in the meantime and either dismisses it or asks the ref to take a look.
Ref watches and chats to all of the officials and once they are all on the same page he tells the players the decision.
All done on a mic so you can hear on TV or by using a mini radio thing in the ground and then the decision is confirme on the big screens.
I don't get how you can live in a country that has got video referals so right in another sport and fuck it up to the degree tat PGMOL have, it can only be down to arrogance in my opinion.
-
I do think that much of the problem has come from the fact that VAR can't overrule a referee, but can send him to a monitor to look at an incident. Yet I can't think of a SINGLE incident where a ref has gone to the monitor and thought "no, I got that one right".
This means sending a ref to a monitor has become "the ref is definitely going to change his mind here", so referring a ref to a monitor is basically the same as overruling them. And because it's basically overruling them, VAR won't refer a ref to a monitor unless they are absolutely 100% confident a mistake has been made, when really it SHOULD be only 80-90% confident a mistake has been made.
The monitor shouldn't be used that way. It should be a case of VAR telling the ref "I THINK you MIGHT have made a mistake, on an important call, and I'd like you to take another look so you're comfortable with your decision."
It shouldn't be a foregone conclusion when they head to the pitch-side. Because if it is, then VAR won't refer anything with even a tiny bit of doubt. The handball should have been referred, obviously, but the fact there was a tiny tiny element of doubt in VAR's mind (wrongly), it didn't get referred.
Ironically, I think it would be good for VAR to be 'wrong' a few more times by referring a few decisions that aren't foregone, and which would see the ref stick to their original decision. It would also put an end to the crown cheering whenever a ref goes to the pitchside, which I fucking loathe.
If the VAR felt the ref might stick to his original decision, I think they'd be more willing to refer incidents like the Man City handball.
But then we might have the ref visiting the pitchside even more often, which is shit in itself. I guess I've no idea what the answer is...
If they had implemented it the way they were meant to from day one we would not be in this situation. It was meant to stop "clear and obvious errors" by the match officials. It's never ever been used how it was intended instead they chose to get involved in minutiae. They give fractional offsides which are patently flawed as the tech being used simply isn't capable and they ignore clear and obvious errors like that hand ball. It's that simple for me. They looked at it and decided to dive headfirst down a rabbit hole instead.
-
I do think that much of the problem has come from the fact that VAR can't overrule a referee, but can send him to a monitor to look at an incident. Yet I can't think of a SINGLE incident where a ref has gone to the monitor and thought "no, I got that one right".
This means sending a ref to a monitor has become "the ref is definitely going to change his mind here", so referring a ref to a monitor is basically the same as overruling them. And because it's basically overruling them, VAR won't refer a ref to a monitor unless they are absolutely 100% confident a mistake has been made, when really it SHOULD be only 80-90% confident a mistake has been made.
The monitor shouldn't be used that way. It should be a case of VAR telling the ref "I THINK you MIGHT have made a mistake, on an important call, and I'd like you to take another look so you're comfortable with your decision."
It shouldn't be a foregone conclusion when they head to the pitch-side. Because if it is, then VAR won't refer anything with even a tiny bit of doubt. The handball should have been referred, obviously, but the fact there was a tiny tiny element of doubt in VAR's mind (wrongly), it didn't get referred.
Ironically, I think it would be good for VAR to be 'wrong' a few more times by referring a few decisions that aren't foregone, and which would see the ref stick to their original decision. It would also put an end to the crown cheering whenever a ref goes to the pitchside, which I fucking loathe.
If the VAR felt the ref might stick to his original decision, I think they'd be more willing to refer incidents like the Man City handball.
But then we might have the ref visiting the pitchside even more often, which is shit in itself. I guess I've no idea what the answer is...
More than inconsistently being applied, the key bit here is that sometimes VAR asks the on field ref to review a decision he hasn't made and sometimes it says it can't get involved because the on field ref didn't make a decision (i.e. hides behind the 'clear and obvious' nonsense). Look at our disallowed goal against the Manc reds in the cup. VAR initially reviewed it for handball, but the ref hadn't whistled for handball and had initially allowed the goal. That was the first thing that was checked. Had Ings clearly and obviously handled the ball? No chance whatsoever, yet VAR got involved. Then because it was involved, other elements started to be reviewed. But the key thing is that VAR checked for handball first. Konsa gets bundled over by Ake in the home game against the Manc Blues and yet VAR isn't involved because the ref didn't make a decision that required review i.e. not 'clear and obvious' enough to get involved. This is season 3 of VAR not working, not season 1. The inconsistencies stink and always seem to favour the same teams.
-
The apology for Everton is of no use whatsoever. It's possibly denied Everton a much needed point and it won't change a thing. Like someone else said, three season's in and we're still talking about it.
-
The rodrigo hand-ball is exactly what it should be used for. Ref didn't get a clear view, so he needs to check.
-
PGMOL or whoever they are should come out and have to explain all VAR decisions after the weekend. I can forgive a ref not seeing something first time, but not the blokes sat reviewing things. If you're going to ruin our game at least have the courage of your convictions to back up your decisions.
Absolutely. However, they will just use the tried and tested non answer and nobody can hold them to account.
I still maintain there should be an independent panel instead of bloody referees.
100% this, from day one I’ve always said the VAR official should not just be another referee having a day off running! It is a full time role being a VAR official and they should train as such so they can work the technology / manage the communications etc. independent would be great although I do see it as a role some ex refs could fill also.
-
I'm in the "rugby camp" on VAR. Either ref asks them to check it or they invite him to have a look ,but in each case the crowd are informed of the reason and the discussion is broadcast ,and everything is shown on screen. At least all premier league grounds have big screens don't they? Oh,just a minute........
-
I'm in the "rugby camp" on VAR. Either ref asks them to check it or they invite him to have a look ,but in each case the crowd are informed of the reason and the discussion is broadcast ,and everything is shown on screen. At least all premier league grounds have big screens don't they? Oh,just a minute........
Liverpool & Man you are the only two that don't I think. Seems strange.
-
VAR is just taking the controversy of ref decisions and turning it into great TV. It’s of no benefit to the actual fans at the game, when we have no clue what’s going on. At very least they need to mic up the refs.
-
I'm in the "rugby camp" on VAR. Either ref asks them to check it or they invite him to have a look ,but in each case the crowd are informed of the reason and the discussion is broadcast ,and everything is shown on screen. At least all premier league grounds have big screens don't they? Oh,just a minute........
I don't think it is inside the ground.
-
I'm in the "rugby camp" on VAR. Either ref asks them to check it or they invite him to have a look ,but in each case the crowd are informed of the reason and the discussion is broadcast ,and everything is shown on screen. At least all premier league grounds have big screens don't they? Oh,just a minute........
I don't think it is inside the ground.
paul e will probably be able to confirm, but I think they tried it out with the ref's mic being heard by the crowd for TMOs at the end of last year.
-
At very least they need to mic up the refs.
I remember 30-odd years ago when David Ellery was mic’d up ( is that how you spell
It?) for a game as some sort of experiment. Of all the games to choose, “they” decided on Millwall v Arsenal at The Den and it was fantastic entertainment. Seem to remember Tony Adams calling Ellery a cheat a few times
-
At very least they need to mic up the refs.
I remember 30-odd years ago when David Ellery was mic’d up ( is that how you spell
It?) for a game as some sort of experiment. Of all the games to choose, “they” decided on Millwall v Arsenal at The Den and it was fantastic entertainment. Seem to remember Tony Adams calling Ellery a cheat a few times
-
That’s the one
-
At very least they need to mic up the refs.
I remember 30-odd years ago when David Ellery was mic’d up ( is that how you spell
It?) for a game as some sort of experiment. Of all the games to choose, “they” decided on Millwall v Arsenal at The Den and it was fantastic entertainment. Seem to remember Tony Adams calling Ellery a cheat a few times
He really was a pompous headmaster - but a damn sight better ref than some of the shit we see today
Would rather him than dont leave the half way line, ready to give a pen to the scum 6 at any time fatty Jon Moss
-
At very least they need to mic up the refs.
I remember 30-odd years ago when David Ellery was mic’d up ( is that how you spell
It?) for a game as some sort of experiment. Of all the games to choose, “they” decided on Millwall v Arsenal at The Den and it was fantastic entertainment. Seem to remember Tony Adams calling Ellery a cheat a few times
He really was a pompous headmaster - but a damn sight better ref than some of the shit we see today
Would rather him than dont leave the half way line, ready to give a pen to the scum 6 at any time fatty Jon Moss
He basically runs the show now mate, gets to decide who gets to become a Premier League ref.
He was an outlier back then, a pompous wanker, and what we have now is in his image. Why couldn't it have been Roger Milford or Keith Hackett that took over? It's always the arseholes.
-
At very least they need to mic up the refs.
I remember 30-odd years ago when David Ellery was mic’d up ( is that how you spell
It?) for a game as some sort of experiment. Of all the games to choose, “they” decided on Millwall v Arsenal at The Den and it was fantastic entertainment. Seem to remember Tony Adams calling Ellery a cheat a few times
He really was a pompous headmaster - but a damn sight better ref than some of the shit we see today
Would rather him than dont leave the half way line, ready to give a pen to the scum 6 at any time fatty Jon Moss
You mean on the halfway line but can see the merest of stud touchs on a ball at the goal line (even when not looking) Ellery? Wasn't he also the ref who gave deliberate handball against Delany when the ball bounced up and Mark spun around looking for it and it bounced onto his arm behind his back?
-
He's a fuckin' arshole.
See: Handball, M.Delaney. Sunderland.
-
Ellery was probably better suited to rugby.
-
I think refs should be asking very specific questions of VAR - using Ings vs the red-manc entitled bastards, the ref should simply have said "was Ings offside and - if not - did he use his hand?" Simple.
It's the clear-and-obvious bit which gives VAR the licence to roam over all and sundry.
I'd also add that the linesmen have been neutered in this whole approach, where in fact they could be far more useful.
-
I still get a strong sense of referees not having played the game and not understanding nuances and intent/lack of when it comes to their reviewing of incidents on the touchline camera.
Added to that, they're usually watching the replays in super slow-mo at the same angle and no doubt emboldened by Stockley Park's suggestion to have a re-watch; it's almost like they're scared to stick to their original decision.
-
VAR doesn't work in football because it's become an old boys' club, with everyone covering each others' arses.
The TMO works in Rugby because they focus on establishing the truth of what actually happened.
A small but vital difference.
-
Var decisions should take no longer 10 sec otherwise refs on field decision counts. Clear and Obvious should be the criteria.
-
It should be fucked off, it's shit.
-
It should be fucked off, it's shit.
Concise. Accurate. I like it.
-
Var decisions should take no longer 10 sec otherwise refs on field decision counts. Clear and Obvious should be the criteria.
I was meant to be but never happened. They somehow managed to forget or ignore that pretty important point.
-
Kevin Friend has retired. Thank fuck and good riddance.
-
Kevin Friend has retired. Thank fuck and good riddance.
I wish they would retire VAR with him.
-
From the Beeb:
"Breaking news
The Premier League is to review the operation of VAR with referees' organisation PGMOL as a matter of priority.
More to follow."
VAR has gone to VAR.
Verdict - not enough information to overturn VAR.
-
As I’ve said before (I’m sure) all it seems to have done is pass the controversy to some person sat watching a replay, rather the actual ref. It’s also a very poor experience to the actual paying spectator.
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/09/04/keith-hackett-seven-point-plan-fix-premier-leagues-failing-var/
-
Now Brighton punished?
-
Yep.
-
TBF it was offside…but 4 1/2 minutes to check it and the spectators had no clue.
It’s a joy killer
-
Yep, the time was the problem there, not the decision.
-
I am for it in principle. But the implementation of the rules don’t seem right. This weekend has seemed a mess all round for VAR & officials.
-
It took Rugby 10 years to get TMO working and they introduced this with very little preparation.
It’s a complete fuck up.
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/09/04/keith-hackett-seven-point-plan-fix-premier-leagues-failing-var/
Not mentioning the goal that Villa had disallowed because the stupid linesman didn't allow play to continue so that the outcome could be VARred as required. Doesn't suit the narrative to mention when the Sky 6 have had a decision against them.
-
The issue is that referees and Linos still get too much wrong.
-
It's shit and not fixing the issues it was bought in for. As someone said, it' taking the joy out the game.
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/09/04/keith-hackett-seven-point-plan-fix-premier-leagues-failing-var/
Not mentioning the goal that Villa had disallowed because the stupid linesman didn't allow play to continue so that the outcome could be VARred as required. Doesn't suit the narrative to mention when the Sky 6 have had a decision against them.
The thing that annoys me most isn't so much that the linesman was premature in flagging but that he had no reason to flag at all, it clearly wasn't offside. He's a walking advert for Specsavers.
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/09/04/keith-hackett-seven-point-plan-fix-premier-leagues-failing-var/
Not mentioning the goal that Villa had disallowed because the stupid linesman didn't allow play to continue so that the outcome could be VARred as required. Doesn't suit the narrative to mention when the Sky 6 have had a decision against them.
The problem is that yesterday's incident won't count in a discussion of VAR, because the ref blew his whistle, which removed VAR from the equation. They can't 'undo' him doing that. You could quite rightly argue that the linesman shouldn't have flagged, and the ref shouldn't have blown (both believing VAR would correct a marginal mistake), but it wasn't really a VAR failure, because if VAR didn't exist, the on-pitch decision would have been exactly the same.
-
It was an example of an official failing to use VAR properly, by flagging too early so it couldn't be used at all, so absolutely should be part of the discussion.
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/09/04/keith-hackett-seven-point-plan-fix-premier-leagues-failing-var/
Not mentioning the goal that Villa had disallowed because the stupid linesman didn't allow play to continue so that the outcome could be VARred as required. Doesn't suit the narrative to mention when the Sky 6 have had a decision against them.
The thing that annoys me most isn't so much that the linesman was premature in flagging but that he had no reason to flag at all, it clearly wasn't offside. He's a walking advert for Specsavers.
Humans make mistakes. I can accept that. But alongside VAR, the process was changed to ensure officials gave themselves the opportunity to use VAR to validate their decision. By flagging early the linesman went against the process and that's unacceptable.
Again, there's so much to learn from how rugby handle these sorts of situations. If FIFA could drag themselves out of their own arse we stand half a chance of making VAR work.
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/09/04/keith-hackett-seven-point-plan-fix-premier-leagues-failing-var/
Not mentioning the goal that Villa had disallowed because the stupid linesman didn't allow play to continue so that the outcome could be VARred as required. Doesn't suit the narrative to mention when the Sky 6 have had a decision against them.
The thing that annoys me most isn't so much that the linesman was premature in flagging but that he had no reason to flag at all, it clearly wasn't offside. He's a walking advert for Specsavers.
I find it very amusing that Specsavers are the sleeve sponsors on Scottish ref's shirts.
-
But surely one of the supposed benefits of VAR is the late flag to correct marginal decisions and get them right. Exactly what should have happened with Phil’s goal.
-
Coutinho, nothing to do with VAR and simply an officials mistake. Can accept that.
Newcastle's goal, yes the keeper was not hurt and unclear as to how much contact the Palace defender made on the Newcastle striker. I remain unsure.
West Ham's goal was a goal. Mendy cheated end of.
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/09/04/keith-hackett-seven-point-plan-fix-premier-leagues-failing-var/
Not mentioning the goal that Villa had disallowed because the stupid linesman didn't allow play to continue so that the outcome could be VARred as required. Doesn't suit the narrative to mention when the Sky 6 have had a decision against them.
The thing that annoys me most isn't so much that the linesman was premature in flagging but that he had no reason to flag at all, it clearly wasn't offside. He's a walking advert for Specsavers.
Having watched it again a few times I suspect he thought Ramsey got a touch on the ball just before Phil picked it up (it was very close to him) and, if he had, the offside would be correct. Not that it matters because even if that had happened he should've have flagged until the play was complete. That's what we should be shouting about as a club because this is yet another example of a rule not being applied consistently to our detriment, this is 7-8 times now since we came back up.
-
On the Newcastle one, I saw another angle of it today which supposedly was meant to make it clearer the Newcastle player was fouled but to me it looked like he did clatter into the keeper pretty recklessly
-
The most satisfactory criterion for whether decisions should be reviewed would be whether I personally like the club on the receiving end.
-
The most satisfactory criterion for whether decisions should be reviewed would be whether I personally like the club on the receiving end.
That's the current system, isn't it? Just that it's run by cockneys & mancs instead of sensible folks like your good self.
-
https://twitter.com/pwgray/status/1566400879242125312?t=t5LE99uGtsmYC5Br1-d7Aw&s=08
The lino officiating our game got another match quickly.
-
Trying to blame the linesman, but ref couldn't wait to blow his whistle
-
There is nothing wrong with VAR.
There is everything wrong with the officials.
-
Now that the silly season is upon us for VAR/officials I would like to join in and offer a solution. Just extend the lines of the 18 yard box and change the rules so that's the only area where you can be offside. Would be much easier to officiate and the cameras would be much more accurate if they are only covering those areas. You're welcome.
-
That would just encourage a load of Pulisball so no thanks.
-
That would just encourage a load of Pulisball so no thanks.
I did say I was joining in with the silly season.
-
That would just encourage a load of Pulisball so no thanks.
I don't think it would, I think it'd go the other way. Teams wouldn't be able to defend with the same high line that has become pretty common so you'd see a lot more space open up in the middle of the park.
It's not a good idea for other reasons though.
-
My solution would be just to apply the laws equally to all teams, instead of being obviously biased starfuckers run by arsehole previous starfuckers.
-
That would just encourage a load of Pulisball so no thanks.
Especially as they are thinking of replacing the throw-in for a kick.
-
As I have noted before, VAR is like Brexit. It can't deliver what everyone thought it would.
Take the Chelsea game. Both the on field and off field officials saw it as a foul, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, they are the ones in charge and it is a subjective view therefore cannot be "proven" either way. The competence of the officials of course is another argument.
-
It is infuriating when they make these massive ricks and everyone in the stadium can see it, the pundits see it but the only people who see it differently are the prats who seem hellbent on ruining the matchday experience for us all. It does nothing to improve the game and it takes away so much. I hate VAR.
-
There is nothing wrong with VAR.
There is everything wrong with the officials.
There's nothing wrong with the theory of var but in practical terms it falls flat on it's face even without the idiots implementing it. Take offside for example. They draw silly lines on the pitch from an angle where it's impossible to be as precise as they are trying to be. It's still guesswork and interpretation just as it was before var was introduced.
-
Apologies if this has been covered before, but a new offside rule is being trialled in some under 21s in Sweden, Italy and the Netherlands.
If this were to get implemented, it would mean that a player will be onside if any part of the body that you can score with is onside, which I think would be an improvement.
https://sweden.postsen.com/sports/31118/Sweden-is-testing-a-new-offside-rule-during-the-autumn.html (https://sweden.postsen.com/sports/31118/Sweden-is-testing-a-new-offside-rule-during-the-autumn.html)
-
That would just encourage a load of Pulisball so no thanks.
Especially as they are thinking of replacing the throw-in for a kick.
Sorry what?
-
If the ref has doubts let him look at a replay and make a final judgment simple
-
Here's a fix for offside calls - is there daylight between the attacker and last defender? Then it's offside. If none, give the advantage to the attacker. Simples :-)
-
There is nothing wrong with VAR.
There is everything wrong with the officials.
There's nothing wrong with the theory of var but in practical terms it falls flat on it's face even without the idiots implementing it. Take offside for example. They draw silly lines on the pitch from an angle where it's impossible to be as precise as they are trying to be. It's still guesswork and interpretation just as it was before var was introduced.
I'm not sure I agree. I think with the margin for error now built in VAR is getting most offside calls correct. It's the interpretation and implementation that remains a problen in cases such as ours on Saturday. That's down to human error, not the technology.
I truly think with a few tweaks and a few egos put to one side, it would be possible to massively improve VAR generally and very quickly. Right now it's the perfect example of a system designed by commitee and implemented by idiots.
The first change - more monitors around the ground. Let the ref re-watch any marginal / key decisions in his own time, without being called to the sideline like a naughty schoolboy. Make the ref re-check any penalty call himself, and ask for input / extra angles if required. Make the converations publically available to the broadcasters in real time. This alone would probably have stopped the ridulous West Ham and Newcastle decisions.
-
Now that the silly season is upon us for VAR/officials I would like to join in and offer a solution. Just extend the lines of the 18 yard box and change the rules so that's the only area where you can be offside. Would be much easier to officiate and the cameras would be much more accurate if they are only covering those areas. You're welcome.
I can't fully remember but there's something in the back of my head that's telling me they tried this a good few years ago, possibly. In one of these made up competitions like the Anglo Scottish cup or something like that. Apologies if I'm wrong.
-
Here's a fix for offside calls - is there daylight between the attacker and last defender? Then it's offside. If none, give the advantage to the attacker. Simples :-)
McGinn turning sideways anywhere in the defensive quarter plays everyone onside. It's a bad idea
-
I've never gone to a football match in the hope of seeing a ref watch replays on TV. Just bin it and let refs ref.
-
I've never gone to a football match in the hope of seeing a ref watch replays on TV. Just bin it and let refs ref.
It's just porn for technocrats. It's solved nothing and gets in the way. In any right thinking world it would be scrapped immediately, but I think people are still seduced by the thought that technology can solve every problem.
-
I've never gone to a football match in the hope of seeing a ref watch replays on TV. Just bin it and let refs ref.
Amen.
-
I've never gone to a football match in the hope of seeing a ref watch replays on TV. Just bin it and let refs ref.
Have you never left a match pissed off with a ridiculous offside or penalty decision? If they can get VAR right, that's something that they should be able to resolve fairly easily and painlessly. They are just nowhere near geting it right.
-
Are we the only country that has VAR that is struggling with how to implement it properly? We’ve not got 1 VAR official going to the World Cup and that says it all.
Regarding the Coutinho incident, all we get is the linesman was wrong but how long have they been told to keep their flag down? How can you suddenly get that wrong and decide it should go up? It wasn’t raised a few times when the shoe was on the other foot so what’s going on? The sooner we can watch an interview with the officials the day after the game the better. Transparency and all that.
-
The linesman was wrong, but the ref was more wrong for blowing up, the twat.
-
Both at fault. The ref should’ve waved play on and not blow. There’s no excuse for it considering they are supposed to be professionals and know the rules.
-
I've never gone to a football match in the hope of seeing a ref watch replays on TV. Just bin it and let refs ref.
Have you never left a match pissed off with a ridiculous offside or penalty decision? If they can get VAR right, that's something that they should be able to resolve fairly easily and painlessly. They are just nowhere near geting it right.
Loads of times. I've also gone out smiling for much the same reason.
I'm not saying people are wrong to want (near) perfection, it's just not something I particularly value in football. I like the randomness, the emotion, the suddenness. I don't want VAR is all, but I totally get that others do.
-
I've never gone to a football match in the hope of seeing a ref watch replays on TV. Just bin it and let refs ref.
Have you never left a match pissed off with a ridiculous offside or penalty decision? If they can get VAR right, that's something that they should be able to resolve fairly easily and painlessly. They are just nowhere near geting it right.
Loads of times. I've also gone out smiling for much the same reason.
I'm not saying people are wrong to want (near) perfection, it's just not something I particularly value in football. I like the randomness, the emotion, the suddenness. I don't want VAR is all, but I totally get that others do.
I get that others do to, but they're wrong.
-
I get that others do to, but they're wrong.
I know, but I wanted to sound magnanimous.
-
That would just encourage a load of Pulisball so no thanks.
Especially as they are thinking of replacing the throw-in for a kick.
Sorry what?
Is was a brainstorm from last season I think. A way to speed up the game by replacing throw-ins with a kick.
-
They trialled kick-ins in one of the lower non-league divisions a few years ago. Thankfully nothing came of it, although I think that arse[ne] Wenger suggested them again recently.
-
That would just encourage a load of Pulisball so no thanks.
Especially as they are thinking of replacing the throw-in for a kick.
Sorry what?
Is was a brainstorm from last season I think. A way to speed up the game by replacing throw-ins with a kick.
Jesus, every throw in will become a set piece, with delays while the defenders trundle forward.
Do they ever think this shit through?
-
My pedant grumble - when people say something along the lines of “VAR isn’t the problem it’s the people running and operating it.” Like this is some insightful observation that nobody has ever heard. I’m pretty sure it’s well understand that the technology is just that, and therefore isn’t to blame, it’s the process and interpretation that’s the issue. When people say VAR isn’t working I don’t think most literally mean the video technology itself.
-
My pedant grumble - when people say something along the lines of “VAR isn’t the problem it’s the people running and operating it.” Like this is some insightful observation that nobody has ever heard. I’m pretty sure it’s well understand that the technology is just that, and therefore isn’t to blame, it’s the process and interpretation that’s the issue. When people say VAR isn’t working I don’t think most literally mean the video technology itself.
VAR is more than the technology, it's the whole process of having a video assistant referee. The point is many are calling for it to be scrapped, whereas I think that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It can and should work well, but christ they're making a pigs ear of it at the moment.
-
There is nothing wrong with VAR.
There is everything wrong with the officials.
There's nothing wrong with the theory of var but in practical terms it falls flat on it's face even without the idiots implementing it. Take offside for example. They draw silly lines on the pitch from an angle where it's impossible to be as precise as they are trying to be. It's still guesswork and interpretation just as it was before var was introduced.
I'm not sure I agree. I think with the margin for error now built in VAR is getting most offside calls correct. It's the interpretation and implementation that remains a problen in cases such as ours on Saturday. That's down to human error, not the technology.
I truly think with a few tweaks and a few egos put to one side, it would be possible to massively improve VAR generally and very quickly. Right now it's the perfect example of a system designed by commitee and implemented by idiots.
The first change - more monitors around the ground. Let the ref re-watch any marginal / key decisions in his own time, without being called to the sideline like a naughty schoolboy. Make the ref re-check any penalty call himself, and ask for input / extra angles if required. Make the converations publically available to the broadcasters in real time. This alone would probably have stopped the ridulous West Ham and Newcastle decisions.
I realise im in a minority of one but I do think Bowen left a foot in on the keeper which is normally a free kick. It wasn't exactly brutal though and the theatrics from the keeper was comical.
-
I'm beginning to wonder if PGMOL want VAR to fail because they see it as a challenge to their absolute authority so are operating it in such a way that everyone will be glad to see the back of it.
-
I also thought Bowen left his leg "in there" on purpose, and can see why they called it a foul.
He could have jumped over Mendy, but was looking for a penalty, justice done i reckon.
-
If Bowen was looking for a penalty he’d have gone down. His leading leg cleared Mendy as he came flying out but his trailing leg barely skimmed Mendys chest/arm, and his reaction to being brushed was pathetic. These are well built athletic players that can easily take a hit and get up again, and it’s this kind of play acting that has boiled my piss for years. Mendy fucked up, rolled around like a baby and the match officials fell for it.
-
Haarland went down really easily from a lame tussle with Mings as well.
-
More communication between ref and Var officials, need to be publicly available.
Just as RFU does, ref calls for help and the discussion is audible and visual.
-
Goal-line technology rather than VAR, but I look forward to people banging on about this for years to come same as they have about us
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/62794705
-
My pedant grumble - when people say something along the lines of “VAR isn’t the problem it’s the people running and operating it.” Like this is some insightful observation that nobody has ever heard. I’m pretty sure it’s well understand that the technology is just that, and therefore isn’t to blame, it’s the process and interpretation that’s the issue. When people say VAR isn’t working I don’t think most literally mean the video technology itself.
VAR is more than the technology, it's the whole process of having a video assistant referee. The point is many are calling for it to be scrapped, whereas I think that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It can and should work well, but christ they're making a pigs ear of it at the moment.
Quite.
-
VAR was supposed to be about "clear and obvious errors" or "serious missed incidents". Not offside decisions which are theoretically measurable by electron microscope and collisions which another referee, standing somewhere else might have given as a foul (or not).
To paraphrase Alan "Elbows" Shearer: What's needed is for the trigger-happy fuckers watching their free streams in Stockley Park to hold back and ask themselves if the on-pitch decision can be justified. If it can, don't press the button.
-
Agreed GJ. It appears that Stockley Park has morphed into some sort of super power base where decision are made on the outcome of PL games whilst they are chewing their prawn sandwiches and downing copious amount of Espresso Macchiato. Money for nothing and kicks for free!
Why was VAR so much better executed during the Euro20 games? I know one reason could be that it wasn't managed at Stockley Park.
-
I thought VAR worked pretty well at the world cup. Biggest difference was it wasn't their mates in the VAR room. I would make the 2 completely separate roles, preferably with no bloody contact between them. Then if something needs a second look, there is no talking, it's just signalled to the ref on pitch to have a second look. When they do, it's up to them if they want to change their mind, but it has to be clear, not a 50/50 that on the 19th angle shows something different.
Was a lovely finished film little Phil, hope it gave him a bit of confidence.
-
I've never gone to a football match in the hope of seeing a ref watch replays on TV. Just bin it and let refs ref.
It's just porn for technocrats. It's solved nothing and gets in the way. In any right thinking world it would be scrapped immediately, but I think people are still seduced by the thought that technology can solve every problem.
Have you ever tried Virtual Reality tour of a caravan?
-
I've never gone to a football match in the hope of seeing a ref watch replays on TV. Just bin it and let refs ref.
Have you never left a match pissed off with a ridiculous offside or penalty decision? If they can get VAR right, that's something that they should be able to resolve fairly easily and painlessly. They are just nowhere near geting it right.
Loads of times. I've also gone out smiling for much the same reason.
I'm not saying people are wrong to want (near) perfection, it's just not something I particularly value in football. I like the randomness, the emotion, the suddenness. I don't want VAR is all, but I totally get that others do.
I think there's nothing better than a Villa crowd on a referee's back. It really gets the atmosphere going. When you bring VAR in to things it a just slows it down and stops the moodiness.
-
I thought VAR worked pretty well at the world cup. Biggest difference was it wasn't their mates in the VAR room. I would make the 2 completely separate roles, preferably with no bloody contact between them. Then if something needs a second look, there is no talking, it's just signalled to the ref on pitch to have a second look. When they do, it's up to them if they want to change their mind, but it has to be clear, not a 50/50 that on the 19th angle shows something different.
Was a lovely finished film little Phil, hope it gave him a bit of confidence.
It was good see the ref at one of the matches (Michael Oliver?) being sent to the screen by VAR, but then sticking with his original decision. I don't think I've seen a ref do that before.
-
I thought VAR worked pretty well at the world cup. Biggest difference was it wasn't their mates in the VAR room. I would make the 2 completely separate roles, preferably with no bloody contact between them. Then if something needs a second look, there is no talking, it's just signalled to the ref on pitch to have a second look. When they do, it's up to them if they want to change their mind, but it has to be clear, not a 50/50 that on the 19th angle shows something different.
Was a lovely finished film little Phil, hope it gave him a bit of confidence.
It was good see the ref at one of the matches (Michael Oliver?) being sent to the screen by VAR, but then sticking with his original decision. I don't think I've seen a ref do that before.
Agreed. VAR will only work when refs feel they have the freedom to take a quick look at their decisions without a feeling of obligation or insult. There should be nothing wrong with a ref saying, "my first instict is that it's a pen, but let me take another quick look to double check." Extra monitors would make this quick and pretty painless.
-
Again, rugby shows how the screen should work.
Scenario 1 - Ref misses something really obvious and significant - VAR in his ear says "You might want to have a look at something here I think you might've missed"
Scenario 2 - Ref isn't sure so asks the VAR for help
They should be the only times the onfield ref goes to the screen and it should be done in the context of helping the onfield ref, not telling him he's wrong. The comms should be broadcast live for transparency and those shitty little screens should be ditched in favour of the monstrously big ones already installed at all proper grounds.
-
Again, rugby shows how the screen should work.
Scenario 1 - Ref misses something really obvious and significant - VAR in his ear says "You might want to have a look at something here I think you might've missed"
Scenario 2 - Ref isn't sure so asks the VAR for help
They should be the only times the onfield ref goes to the screen and it should be done in the context of helping the onfield ref, not telling him he's wrong. The comms should be broadcast live for transparency and those shitty little screens should be ditched in favour of the monstrously big ones already installed at all proper grounds.
Rugby games are much more sanitised affairs though, with everybody politely accepting the ref's decisions, good or bad. Imagine the crowd in a bad-tempered local derby listening to the ref decide whether to give Man U a penalty against Liverpool in an important game, I think it would get ugly. I'd like to see it, and agree it works well at rugby, I just don't think it would at football.
-
Again, rugby shows how the screen should work.
Scenario 1 - Ref misses something really obvious and significant - VAR in his ear says "You might want to have a look at something here I think you might've missed"
Scenario 2 - Ref isn't sure so asks the VAR for help
They should be the only times the onfield ref goes to the screen and it should be done in the context of helping the onfield ref, not telling him he's wrong. The comms should be broadcast live for transparency and those shitty little screens should be ditched in favour of the monstrously big ones already installed at all proper grounds.
Rugby games are much more sanitised affairs though, with everybody politely accepting the ref's decisions, good or bad. Imagine the crowd in a bad-tempered local derby listening to the ref decide whether to give Man U a penalty against Liverpool in an important game, I think it would get ugly. I'd like to see it, and agree it works well at rugby, I just don't think it would at football.
They don't pipe the ref discussions in the ground at rugby, they are just available to the tv audience. Football could easily work the same.
But I do think the smaller monitors are more advisable than replaying the controversial moments on the big screen whilst the ref makes a decision.
I honestly think the above, together with common sense flagging and the current margin for error would fix the vast majority of VARs problems in one fell swoop.
-
I've never gone to a football match in the hope of seeing a ref watch replays on TV. Just bin it and let refs ref.
100% this….stick the monitors in the bin, get rid of half the cameras so the crap pundits can’t spend ludicrous hours pouring over every decision played at snails pace to spark debate & whilst there take with it all that xG rubbish….it’s a game played by athletes not nerds on spreadsheets
-
I thought VAR worked pretty well at the world cup. Biggest difference was it wasn't their mates in the VAR room. I would make the 2 completely separate roles, preferably with no bloody contact between them. Then if something needs a second look, there is no talking, it's just signalled to the ref on pitch to have a second look. When they do, it's up to them if they want to change their mind, but it has to be clear, not a 50/50 that on the 19th angle shows something different.
Was a lovely finished film little Phil, hope it gave him a bit of confidence.
It was good see the ref at one of the matches (Michael Oliver?) being sent to the screen by VAR, but then sticking with his original decision. I don't think I've seen a ref do that before.
I watched Dermot Gallagher yesterday something I don't normally do because I don't see the point but because of all the contentious issues that had happened over the weekend piqued my interest. I think when discussing Oliver sticking by his original decision in the Forest Bournemouth game the presenter said he thinks it may have happened once before and it could have been Mike Dean which came as no surprise to me as he would certainly have been arrogant enough to do it.
-
They don't pipe the ref discussions in the ground at rugby, they are just available to the tv audience. Football could easily work the same.
But I do think the smaller monitors are more advisable than replaying the controversial moments on the big screen whilst the ref makes a decision.
I honestly think the above, together with common sense flagging and the current margin for error would fix the vast majority of VARs problems in one fell swoop.
They did do it for those with the Ref Link earpiece thingy (at the 6 Nations), maybe it's changed.
-
They don't pipe the ref discussions in the ground at rugby, they are just available to the tv audience. Football could easily work the same.
But I do think the smaller monitors are more advisable than replaying the controversial moments on the big screen whilst the ref makes a decision.
I honestly think the above, together with common sense flagging and the current margin for error would fix the vast majority of VARs problems in one fell swoop.
They did do it for those with the Ref Link earpiece thingy (at the 6 Nations), maybe it's changed.
I was at a Northampton game where it definitely happened as well. One of the Saints players got sent off, and the reasoning was heard over the PA system.
-
Works in NFL too.
-
The earpieces are available at every ground I've been too for the last 5-6 years. The PA version is less consistent but I think that's ok. I reckon you could pretty easily have a phone app that either plays the audio or provides a transcript in near real time.
I share some of the concerns Risso has with the difference between crowds means football fans are less likely to accept decisions but I'd still like to see the league try a more transparent approach to officiating before saying the concept of VAR is a failure.
-
They don't pipe the ref discussions in the ground at rugby, they are just available to the tv audience. Football could easily work the same.
But I do think the smaller monitors are more advisable than replaying the controversial moments on the big screen whilst the ref makes a decision.
I honestly think the above, together with common sense flagging and the current margin for error would fix the vast majority of VARs problems in one fell swoop.
They did do it for those with the Ref Link earpiece thingy (at the 6 Nations), maybe it's changed.
I was at a Northampton game where it definitely happened as well. One of the Saints players got sent off, and the reasoning was heard over the PA system.
OK, fair doos. I think in general they don't and of course there would be no need to for them to do so in football, nor offer a 'ref link' service. But having it available to the tv audience etc would add a level of scrutiny which I think would help.
-
I don't recall too many massively contentious VAR decisions going against the sky 6 and for a ''lesser'' club. There seems to be spates of dodgy, total bullshit decisions in their favour.
-
Interesting that most of the talk over the weekend concerning VAR focused on the Chelsea and Newcastle games, they were poor decision, whereas Coutinho’s offside was brushed over.
Listened to Rory Smith (journalist) today who thought it was the worse one of the weekend, considering in most games there’s a blatant offside and the player goes through, has a shot, then the flag goes up and it’s called back as per instructions that are given to the linesman.
It’s quite simple really and should be a level playing field, follow the same rules and implement them in every game for both teams. There was nothing really subjective about our ‘offside’ just let the play develop.
-
It's a failed experiment. Just get rid!
-
Change.org petition. 15k signatures so far in a few days. Probably won’t come to much but worth a try.
https://chng.it/DZpcL4PPVq
-
The earpieces are available at every ground I've been too for the last 5-6 years. The PA version is less consistent but I think that's ok. I reckon you could pretty easily have a phone app that either plays the audio or provides a transcript in near real time.
I share some of the concerns Risso has with the difference between crowds means football fans are less likely to accept decisions but I'd still like to see the league try a more transparent approach to officiating before saying the concept of VAR is a failure.
What do you mean by fans not "accepting" decisions? I just don't buy the view that football fans are animals who can't be trusted to control their emotions. That's the logic that put fences up at stadia and taking them down didn't result in mass disruption.
Plus, I struggle with the idea that fans who already get incredibly frustrated by decisions going against their team which they don't understand ("you're not fit to referee" chanted by 40,000 fans on Saturday for example), would be any more frustrated by having that decision explained to them. Again, that logic only stands if you believe football fans are inherently irrational. I don't buy that.
Anyway, if it's a genuine fear they can trial it first and I'm totally convinced that it would improve the situation, not worsen it.
-
I also think that the linesman prematurely waving his flag for offside at our game was the worst piece of officiating highlighted at games last weekend, since doing him that was totally contrary to what their instructions are, and nowt to do with subjective judgment and error.
-
Well, it kind of was down to a subjective error on the assistant's part, as Coutinho clearly wasn't offside, and perhaps more pertinently hadn't 'looked' offside at any point in the build-up, at least not to anyone with eyes.
Anyway, has there been any announcement yet as to when the inevitable raft of fresh guidelines will come into force to make football even shitter for the officials and match-going public?
-
The earpieces are available at every ground I've been too for the last 5-6 years. The PA version is less consistent but I think that's ok. I reckon you could pretty easily have a phone app that either plays the audio or provides a transcript in near real time.
I share some of the concerns Risso has with the difference between crowds means football fans are less likely to accept decisions but I'd still like to see the league try a more transparent approach to officiating before saying the concept of VAR is a failure.
What do you mean by fans not "accepting" decisions? I just don't buy the view that football fans are animals who can't be trusted to control their emotions. That's the logic that put fences up at stadia and taking them down didn't result in mass disruption.
Plus, I struggle with the idea that fans who already get incredibly frustrated by decisions going against their team which they don't understand ("you're not fit to referee" chanted by 40,000 fans on Saturday for example), would be any more frustrated by having that decision explained to them. Again, that logic only stands if you believe football fans are inherently irrational. I don't buy that.
Anyway, if it's a genuine fear they can trial it first and I'm totally convinced that it would improve the situation, not worsen it.
Unfortunately I think you are being far to kind.
There's a significant minority of tanked up aresholes at any match. Showing controversial incidents in slow motion and trying to listen to a referees reasons would just be a spark we don't need. I simply don't have faith in ALL football fans to behave in the way you hope they would, and it only takes a few to create an incident. Also, the noise created whilst the ref is trying to come to a rational decision would be deafening and make it much harder for him to be objective.
Certainly they could give a bit more detail after the event, but I do think piping the ref mike into the stadium would be a mistake.
-
The very fact that these arguments are going on is surely the proof that VAR categorically hasn't worked. It was supposed to put an end to games being decided on controversial decisions - instead people are talking even more incessantly about the bad calls that are still happening week in and week out.
No matter what you do, referee and assistant calls are still subjective. We all know that from week to week we are going to have refs who officiate the game differently - some will let things go, others blow the whistle non-stop. It's the way it's always been and VAR hasn't put a stop to that.
The only thing VAR is doing is creating even more content for broadcasters, which at this stage seems to be the main purpose. Let's still be taking about the weekend's controversies on SSN for the whole week in the build up to the next round of fixtures - now the window is closed, they have to have something to fill 24hrs of rolling football news. In the meantime, it's sucking the joy out of celebrating a goal, and leaving us all feel even more aggrieved when decisions inevitably go the way of the chosen few as there is no longer the excuse of it just being down to the ref on the pitch.
In conclusion, VAR is shit and we should just get rid!
-
The very fact that these arguments are going on is surely the proof that VAR categorically hasn't worked. It was supposed to put an end to games being decided on controversial decisions - instead people are talking even more incessantly about the bad calls that are still happening week in and week out.
No matter what you do, referee and assistant calls are still subjective. We all know that from week to week we are going to have refs who officiate the game differently - some will let things go, others blow the whistle non-stop. It's the way it's always been and VAR hasn't put a stop to that.
The only thing VAR is doing is creating even more content for broadcasters, which at this stage seems to be the main purpose. Let's still be taking about the weekend's controversies on SSN for the whole week in the build up to the next round of fixtures - now the window is closed, they have to have something to fill 24hrs of rolling football news. In the meantime, it's sucking the joy out of celebrating a goal, and leaving us all feel even more aggrieved when decisions inevitably go the way of the chosen few as there is no longer the excuse of it just being down to the ref on the pitch.
In conclusion, VAR is shit and we should just get rid!
This 100%.
-
The very fact that these arguments are going on is surely the proof that VAR categorically hasn't worked. It was supposed to put an end to games being decided on controversial decisions - instead people are talking even more incessantly about the bad calls that are still happening week in and week out.
No matter what you do, referee and assistant calls are still subjective. We all know that from week to week we are going to have refs who officiate the game differently - some will let things go, others blow the whistle non-stop. It's the way it's always been and VAR hasn't put a stop to that.
The only thing VAR is doing is creating even more content for broadcasters, which at this stage seems to be the main purpose. Let's still be taking about the weekend's controversies on SSN for the whole week in the build up to the next round of fixtures - now the window is closed, they have to have something to fill 24hrs of rolling football news. In the meantime, it's sucking the joy out of celebrating a goal, and leaving us all feel even more aggrieved when decisions inevitably go the way of the chosen few as there is no longer the excuse of it just being down to the ref on the pitch.
In conclusion, VAR is shit and we should just get rid!
This 100%.
I couldn't agree more
-
At some point they'll get it right and when they do I think you'll change your minds. But I accept we're miles from that at the moment.
I think people forget how often we used to have truly shit decisions before VAR and how much those also favoured the big teams. The reality is now we are probably having less shit decisions, but those that do happen are really under a microscope.
-
At some point they'll get it right and when they do I think you'll change your minds. But I accept we're miles from that at the moment.
I think people forget how often we used to have truly shit decisions before VAR and how much those also favoured the big teams. The reality is now we are probably having less shit decisions, but those that do happen are really under a microscope.
It’s added absolutely nothing to the game for match going fans. I think we still get just as many shit decisions with the added bonus than they spend several minutes getting there which gives SSN something to fill their programmes and a break for armchair fans to get a beer from the fridge.
-
At some point they'll get it right and when they do I think you'll change your minds. But I accept we're miles from that at the moment.
I think people forget how often we used to have truly shit decisions before VAR and how much those also favoured the big teams. The reality is now we are probably having less shit decisions, but those that do happen are really under a microscope.
It’s added absolutely nothing to the game for match going fans. I think we still get just as many shit decisions with the added bonus than they spend several minutes getting there which gives SSN something to fill their programmes and a break for armchair fans to get a beer from the fridge.
As I said, it's miles from being right at the moment.
-
At some point they'll get it right and when they do I think you'll change your minds. But I accept we're miles from that at the moment.
I think people forget how often we used to have truly shit decisions before VAR and how much those also favoured the big teams. The reality is now we are probably having less shit decisions, but those that do happen are really under a microscope.
So, in your subjective opinion, what does it look like once they "get it right"? What developments do we need to look out for by which to measure its progression towards that end point?
-
At some point they'll get it right and when they do I think you'll change your minds. But I accept we're miles from that at the moment.
I think people forget how often we used to have truly shit decisions before VAR and how much those also favoured the big teams. The reality is now we are probably having less shit decisions, but those that do happen are really under a microscope.
So, in your subjective opinion, what does it look like once they "get it right"? What developments do we need to look out for by which to measure its progression towards that end point?
I've said before, but I think the key thing is to put it back in the hands of the ref. Have several monotors around the ground and the ref should be able to say 'I think that's a pen but let me just have another quick look to double check' or the VAR should be able to say, 'take a quick look at this to double check,' without the ref feeling like he's been called to the headmasters office. The conversations should be recorded and available to live tv audiences (as with rugby)
I think they've already made big strides with offside now they have the margin for error. They are trialling a more automated system in the UCL where the lines are drawn automatically. The human input will then just need to be 'was there intererenace with play' etc. It's a work in progress but it should iron out the riciculous errors we used to see pre VAR (and are now still seeing with VAR due to human error)
In short, I don't think any other sport has been diminished by techology in refereeing decisions, once the systems have been ironed out. I don't think football is as unique as people think it is and once they get it right it will improve the game, just like it has in cricket, rugby, hockey, tennis etc. (and yes I know these are different more start stop sports, but I still think it can be done)
-
Were there ever really that many offsides that were critically wrong? I can't think of many down the years involving us.
-
Were there ever really that many offsides that were critically wrong? I can't think of many down the years involving us.
Every single week.
-
What subjective decision-making is it used in in any of those other sports you mentioned? And what's this margin of error of which you speak? Admittedly I've not watched a lot of telly analysis this season, but I'm still seeing dots drawn down from "tee-shirt lines".
-
What subjective decision-making is it used in in any of those other sports you mentioned? And what's this margin of error of which you speak? Admittedly I've not watched a lot of telly analysis this season, but I'm still seeing dots drawn down from "tee-shirt lines".
The margin for error is they increased the thickness of the lines for offside, which has made most decisions a lot less controversial. Automation will take out the controversy of human drawn lines, as would refining of which parts of the body are offside etc
For rugby it is used in tackle and dangerous play situations, if there's an offside or obstruction etc in the build up to a try, that sort of thing (in addition to ball grounding for a try, players in touch, forward passes etc). In hockey, mainly for fouls in the D - stick tackles etc.
-
The amount of goals pre-VAR that were actually offside is a scary thought. But then there would have been millions more penalties given too.
-
The offside thing is still the one that makes me most annoyed though, as it is being represented as though the technology is perfectly sound and it comes down to interpretation over what parts of a body can be offside. Apart from the clear inconsistencies in how it is being applied, the technology is still not there to make this foolproof, regardless of the thickness of the lines.
I've spouted off about this before, but who is deciding when the ball gets played? There are hundreds of examples of this, but here is a picture that shows the problem:
(https://i.ibb.co/Vts1vPy/i-img-photo-2021-0414-r840237-2-1296x729-16-9.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Vts1vPy)
Look at the ball in this picture, and how blurred the image is. On something this marginal, how has someone made the decision on when the pass has been made when you can't possibly tell from a 2D image? Whoever is sitting in the VAR room has made a decision on when the ball is played the same as the Assistant referee has to, just using a different criteria.
I appreciate this is from a couple of years ago and the lines are now thicker, but it doesn't change the fact that for it to be 100% accurate you would need camera technology that doesn't exist. You are also never going to get away from the fact that this leads to the ridiculous situation where you might not know if a goal has been awarded for 2 or 3 minutes.
Yes, there were occasions where goals were given in the past that maybe shouldn't, and vice versa, but it wasn't that prevalent - it maybe affected us a couple of times a season. It certainly isn't worth what we've lost in terms of the spontaneity of celebrating a goal, where you're never sure if it's going to count until the opposition are kicking off again.
-
What subjective decision-making is it used in in any of those other sports you mentioned? And what's this margin of error of which you speak? Admittedly I've not watched a lot of telly analysis this season, but I'm still seeing dots drawn down from "tee-shirt lines".
The margin for error is they increased the thickness of the lines for offside, which has made most decisions a lot less controversial. Automation will take out the controversy of human drawn lines, as would refining of which parts of the body are offside etc
For rugby it is used in tackle and dangerous play situations, if there's an offside or obstruction etc in the build up to a try, that sort of thing (in addition to ball grounding for a try, players in touch, forward passes etc). In hockey, mainly for fouls in the D - stick tackles etc.
Those are all objective decisions. With tennis, it's "did it hit or miss the line?". And the same with cricket, it's all establishment of fact, not validation of opinion.
I had to look at hockey as I wasn't sure how popular it was to be able to afford the technology. Am I right in believing it's only used in major global international tournaments, and then it's one appeal per team until they get a wrong one? And then still not without its flaws
https://www.thehockeypaper.co.uk/articles/2022/08/01/commonwealth-games-hockey-ghana-keep-wales-on-their-toes-despite-video-umpire-howler
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2021/07/25/hockey-has-somehow-achieved-impossible-has-irritating-var/
-
They aren't all objective in rugby. You are right about tennis and cricket, but even then 'umpire's call' comes in to it on lbw.
With hockey, it doesn't really matter how much it's used, it's whether it works when it is used. The point is, all of these sports have their own version of VAR and it all works incredibly well. There's nothing so unique about football that means our own version can't work well too, once they get it right.
Non of this changes my general point that in a ref taking a second look at a decision doesn't need to be massively time consuming or controversial. The major flaw at the moment is the way they have chosen to operate it and the repeated errors being made by the incompetants running it.
-
All the ones I highlighted are objective. They either happened or they didn't. As for the umpire's call, that's still reliant on using the best available technology to establish the fact that at least 50% of the ball would have hit at least one of the stumps, not somebody's opinion of whether or not it would have hit.
Other than offside and the ball being in the field of play, every decision in football is down to the opinion of the person making it, be they wearing boots and a whistle, sat at a monitor in Stockley Park, or propping up the bar in the Dog & Partridge. And I'm a proponent of technology's use for these two things.
-
They aren't all objective in rugby. You are right about tennis and cricket, but even then 'umpire's call' comes in to it on lbw.
With hockey, it doesn't really matter how much it's used, it's whether it works when it is used. The point is, all of these sports have their own version of VAR and it all works incredibly well. There's nothing so unique about football that means our own version can't work well too, once they get it right.
Non of this changes my general point that in a ref taking a second look at a decision doesn't need to be massively time consuming or controversial. The major flaw at the moment is the way they have chosen to operate it and the repeated errors being made by the incompetants running it.
Umpires call is the answer to offside.
Linos should let play run but once the play finishes, if they felt it was offside they stick their flag up. VAR then get 10 seconds to review. No longer. No silly lines. If an error is obvious from one replay, the decision is changed. If it's not an obvious error, umpires call, and stick with the onfield decision.
If you need silly lines or 3 minutes to work out if a player is offside, based on imperfect technology then you're doing it wrong.
-
I can't believe this was nigh-on a decade ago, but I have to admit that my position has not been changed in the very slightest. Our thread on the introduction of goal line technology from April 2013.
https://www.heroesandvillains.info/forumv3/index.php?topic=49540.0
-
The marginal offside decisions really piss me off. If an attacking players shoulder, toe or whatever other body part they decide is relevant, is a few centimetres ahead of the defender then they are level, and there is absolutely no reason to disallow a goal on this basis.
In the example image posted above by Pat, the players should be considered as being level. What ever happened to the consideration that “level is onside”? It’s been totally wiped out of the game with this VAR sanitisation, and now favours defenders by disallowing perfectly good goals rather than previously where the rules encouraged attacking play and scoring goals.
-
In terms of drawing the lines, the new automated system in the UCL is much, much quicker.
The technology will improve. They've tried sensors in the ball. It's possible all players will have a gps (they already wear one) between their shoulders and that will be the single measure - I think that's what I would be in favour of.
In short, the technical part of offside is very fixable and will be sorted shortly. There will still be refs interpretation of impacting play etc, as there should be.
As for everything else, I'm essentially saying in my view a ref should just have an opportunity to take a second look at major decisions on one of several monitors around the ground, with a VAR to assist with angles and advise as needed or not. It would be a quick sense check, with his attention drawn to anything he may have missed. I don't see why that wouldn't work or why it would be too painful for fans.
-
What subjective decision-making is it used in in any of those other sports you mentioned? And what's this margin of error of which you speak? Admittedly I've not watched a lot of telly analysis this season, but I'm still seeing dots drawn down from "tee-shirt lines".
LBW calls in cricket have been improved dramatically by the inclusion of technology, I can't imagine anyone would consider that a controversial point.
Hawkeye in Tennis is now so ingrained into top level competition that I can't imagine any scenario where people would prefer to not have it.
Rugby is very different so there's nothing so clear but using video to confirm the very tight calls on stepping out of play or grounding has had a positive impact.
All of the complaints about how bad VAR is feed into the point Ad@m objected to that football fans are less willing to accept VAR than has bene the case in other sports. In much the same way football fans are far more insistent on maintaining the lie that the professional game and grassroots are exactly the same, which is another part of the reason VAR will always struggle to be fully embedded. Football fans (in England at least) are, in comparison to most major sports, luddites who deep down feel that any changes to the game are examples of their sports being taken away from them. That means changes don't just need to be marginal, incremental improvements, they need to show a clear and immediate improvement to the game and even then you'll have complaints for years (just look at the backpass changes).
-
The marginal offside decisions really piss me off. If an attacking players shoulder, toe or whatever other body part they decide is relevant, is a few centimetres ahead of the defender then they are level, and there is absolutely no reason to disallow a goal on this basis.
In the example image posted above by Pat, the players should be considered as being level. What ever happened to the consideration that “level is onside”? It’s been totally wiped out of the game with this VAR sanitisation, and now favours defenders by disallowing perfectly good goals rather than previously where the rules encouraged attacking play and scoring goals.
I know I'm pretty much on my own with this opinion, but attackers shouldn't get the benefit of a margin of error. They're fucking offside, the cheating ******.
-
In terms of drawing the lines, the new automated system in the UCL is much, much quicker.
The technology will improve. They've tried sensors in the ball. It's possible all players will have a gps (they already wear one) between their shoulders and that will be the single measure - I think that's what I would be in favour of.
In short, the technical part of offside is very fixable and will be sorted shortly. There will still be refs interpretation of impacting play etc, as there should be.
As for everything else, I'm essentially saying in my view a ref should just have an opportunity to take a second look at major decisions on one of several monitors around the ground, with a VAR to assist with angles and advise as needed or not. It would be a quick sense check, with his attention drawn to anything he may have missed. I don't see why that wouldn't work or why it would be too painful for fans.
I've got a better idea for offsides. We just do away with Linesmen, and attach electrodes to the genitals of all the players which discharge an electric shock when their GPS detects that they are offside. The current passed through them would increase relevant to the distance they are offside.
Of course, this could introduce a whole new skillset for players. As the only way of knowing if someone is offside is by their reaction to having an electrical current passed through their gentlemen's area, we could get a stack of strikers whose main attribute is their relative imperviousness to pain. I could imagine this leading to a whole new generation of old-fashioned Mick Harford style centre forwards who spend their entire time goal-hanging around the 6 yard box whilst gritting their teeth as their danglies slowly get fried.
It would still be better than VAR.
-
What subjective decision-making is it used in in any of those other sports you mentioned? And what's this margin of error of which you speak? Admittedly I've not watched a lot of telly analysis this season, but I'm still seeing dots drawn down from "tee-shirt lines".
The margin for error is they increased the thickness of the lines for offside, which has made most decisions a lot less controversial. Automation will take out the controversy of human drawn lines, as would refining of which parts of the body are offside etc
For rugby it is used in tackle and dangerous play situations, if there's an offside or obstruction etc in the build up to a try, that sort of thing (in addition to ball grounding for a try, players in touch, forward passes etc). In hockey, mainly for fouls in the D - stick tackles etc.
Those are all objective decisions. With tennis, it's "did it hit or miss the line?". And the same with cricket, it's all establishment of fact, not validation of opinion.
I had to look at hockey as I wasn't sure how popular it was to be able to afford the technology. Am I right in believing it's only used in major global international tournaments, and then it's one appeal per team until they get a wrong one? And then still not without its flaws
https://www.thehockeypaper.co.uk/articles/2022/08/01/commonwealth-games-hockey-ghana-keep-wales-on-their-toes-despite-video-umpire-howler
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2021/07/25/hockey-has-somehow-achieved-impossible-has-irritating-var/
You have unlimited challenges in hockey but if the challenge is unsuccessful you first get a minor penalty (2 min in the booth) and for every subsequent challenge that is unsuccessful it is a 4 min penalty.
I think it works quite well. Coaches only challenge when they are very confident they are correct.
EDIT: Only now realized that by hockey you meant field hockey, sorry.
-
In terms of drawing the lines, the new automated system in the UCL is much, much quicker.
The technology will improve. They've tried sensors in the ball. It's possible all players will have a gps (they already wear one) between their shoulders and that will be the single measure - I think that's what I would be in favour of.
In short, the technical part of offside is very fixable and will be sorted shortly. There will still be refs interpretation of impacting play etc, as there should be.
As for everything else, I'm essentially saying in my view a ref should just have an opportunity to take a second look at major decisions on one of several monitors around the ground, with a VAR to assist with angles and advise as needed or not. It would be a quick sense check, with his attention drawn to anything he may have missed. I don't see why that wouldn't work or why it would be too painful for fans.
I've got a better idea for offsides. We just do away with Linesmen, and attach electrodes to the genitals of all the players which discharge an electric shock when their GPS detects that they are offside. The current passed through them would increase relevant to the distance they are offside.
Of course, this could introduce a whole new skillset for players. As the only way of knowing if someone is offside is by their reaction to having an electrical current passed through their gentlemen's area, we could get a stack of strikers whose main attribute is their relative imperviousness to pain. I could imagine this leading to a whole new generation of old-fashioned Mick Harford style centre forwards who spend their entire time goal-hanging around the 6 yard box whilst gritting their teeth as their danglies slowly get fried.
It would still be better than VAR.
Poor old JPA would have been neutered .
-
They aren't all objective in rugby. You are right about tennis and cricket, but even then 'umpire's call' comes in to it on lbw.
With hockey, it doesn't really matter how much it's used, it's whether it works when it is used. The point is, all of these sports have their own version of VAR and it all works incredibly well. There's nothing so unique about football that means our own version can't work well too, once they get it right.
Non of this changes my general point that in a ref taking a second look at a decision doesn't need to be massively time consuming or controversial. The major flaw at the moment is the way they have chosen to operate it and the repeated errors being made by the incompetants running it.
Umpires call is the answer to offside.
Linos should let play run but once the play finishes, if they felt it was offside they stick their flag up. VAR then get 10 seconds to review. No longer. No silly lines. If an error is obvious from one replay, the decision is changed. If it's not an obvious error, umpires call, and stick with the onfield decision.
If you need silly lines or 3 minutes to work out if a player is offside, based on imperfect technology then you're doing it wrong.
Agreed 100%. This is a game of football not a 'Crime Scene Investigation'.
-
Agreed 100%. This is a game of football not a 'Crime Scene Investigation'.
That is a genius way of putting it.
-
Yet millions of pounds, sometimes 10's of millions can rest on a bad call. And funnily enough, the vast majority of these 'bad calls' fall in favour of the 'big' clubs.
Who knows, if we had (a functioning) VAR at the time we might well have won a trophy in 2010. I know I walked out the stadium disgusted at the refereeing on that day.
-
Yet millions of pounds, sometimes 10's of millions can rest on a bad call. And funnily enough, the vast majority of these 'bad calls' fall in favour of the 'big' clubs.
Who knows, if we had (a functioning) VAR at the time we might well have won a trophy in 2010. I know I walked out the stadium disgusted at the refereeing on that day.
That's still happening though, in fact if anything it's worse, it's giving them a chance to make sure they didn't miss an opportunity to be cheating, biased bastards.
-
Yet millions of pounds, sometimes 10's of millions can rest on a bad call. And funnily enough, the vast majority of these 'bad calls' fall in favour of the 'big' clubs.
Who knows, if we had (a functioning) VAR at the time we might well have won a trophy in 2010. I know I walked out the stadium disgusted at the refereeing on that day.
That's still happening though, in fact if anything it's worse, it's giving them a chance to make sure they didn't miss an opportunity to be cheating, biased bastards.
<a functioning>
-
Yet millions of pounds, sometimes 10's of millions can rest on a bad call. And funnily enough, the vast majority of these 'bad calls' fall in favour of the 'big' clubs.
Who knows, if we had (a functioning) VAR at the time we might well have won a trophy in 2010. I know I walked out the stadium disgusted at the refereeing on that day.
That's still happening though, in fact if anything it's worse, it's giving them a chance to make sure they didn't miss an opportunity to be cheating, biased bastards.
<a functioning>
Mate, they'd have pulled the play back and given a free kick because the ball hadn't gone forward from kick off, or a throw in where the foot was over the line a few minutes back.
See Bruno Fernandes penalty for stamping on Konsa, given by VAR, or Olly Watkins getting a 2nd yellow for being fouled by the keeper, or Ings goal in the cup etc.
-
Yet millions of pounds, sometimes 10's of millions can rest on a bad call. And funnily enough, the vast majority of these 'bad calls' fall in favour of the 'big' clubs.
Who knows, if we had (a functioning) VAR at the time we might well have won a trophy in 2010. I know I walked out the stadium disgusted at the refereeing on that day.
That's still happening though, in fact if anything it's worse, it's giving them a chance to make sure they didn't miss an opportunity to be cheating, biased bastards.
<a functioning>
Mate, they'd have pulled the play back and given a free kick because the ball hadn't gone forward from kick off, or a throw in where the foot was over the line a few minutes back.
See Bruno Fernandes penalty for stamping on Konsa, given by VAR, or Olly Watkins getting a 2nd yellow for being fouled by the keeper, or Ings goal in the cup etc.
The fact you are so jaundiced by all this is exactly why we need a proper working VAR system, not a reason to chuck it out because the idiots haven't figured out how to implement it yet.
-
The technology is here to stay, as in most sports. The EPL / Refs Association need to get off their high horse and accept that they need to change the way it's applied and who applies it.
Arrogance and fixed mindsets are getting in the way of using it positively and usefully.
-
Agreed 100%. This is a game of football not a 'Crime Scene Investigation'.
That is a genius way of putting it.
CSI Witton!
-
African VAR reverser. That would be the new technology to change VAR decisions. I’m bored. No villa game to idle away time at work...
-
I don't watch Champions League so don't know how well this works, but seems we'll have it from next season.
'Premier League set to adopt semi-automated offsides next season':
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e9fb9250-3293-11ed-838f-27529d647dcb?shareToken=c9270fa4613316e20f8cf59d41429186
-
I'm just looking forward to a time when we play games in the metaverse.
And it's Avatar Villa... we're by far the greatest meme, the world...
-
I'm just looking forward to a time when we play games in the metaverse.
And it's Avatar Villa... we're by far the greatest meme, the world...
You're gonna get your f**king Jpeg kicked in
-
I don't watch Champions League so don't know how well this works, but seems we'll have it from next season.
'Premier League set to adopt semi-automated offsides next season':
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e9fb9250-3293-11ed-838f-27529d647dcb?shareToken=c9270fa4613316e20f8cf59d41429186
qucker and more accurate. I can't see why anybody would be against correctly called offside decisions being given. The ref will still need to input in terms of impacting play etc. This is a good step for me.
-
I'm just looking forward to a time when we play games in the metaverse.
And it's Avatar Villa... we're by far the greatest meme, the world...
You're gonna get your f**king Jpeg kicked in
And it's Aston Villa, Aston Villa NFT. We're by far the biggest blockchain, the metaverse has ever seen.
-
VAR Serbian style.
https://twitter.com/sportbible/status/1570486776082440194?t=Gkbge6eV_UPOhHwTglowkQ&s=19
-
I'm just looking forward to a time when we play games in the metaverse.
And it's Avatar Villa... we're by far the greatest meme, the world...
You're gonna get your f**king Jpeg kicked in
And it's Aston Villa, Aston Villa NFT. We're by far the biggest blockchain, the metaverse has ever seen.
On the Web M'Lord, On the Web.....
-
VAR Serbian style.
https://twitter.com/sportbible/status/1570486776082440194?t=Gkbge6eV_UPOhHwTglowkQ&s=19
Sunday league football will be riotous if this catches on, I can just picture it.
-
Not wanting to start a new thread but I was pissed off with Var yesterday. I assume they check all goals for potential issues but was pleased that we weren't left hangin' too long. My big issue is with the Ref's decision to award the uncontested drop ball when the ball hit him to Brentford. There was no way he knew they had total possession of the ball it was 50/50 and should have been a contested drop ball shouldn't it?
-
I'm not sure they're allowed to award a contested drop ball, they have to decide who has possession and award it to them.
-
When (and why) did they change the rule that the ref was part of the field of play, and so if the ball hit them it was tough luck?
-
The law changed summer 2019. There are no more contested drop balls, and with hitting the ref, it's basically whoever touched it last gets it back. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropped-ball#Award
-
The law changed summer 2019. There are no more contested drop balls, and with hitting the ref, it's basically whoever touched it last gets it back. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropped-ball#Award
I owe the ref an apology. It’s a rule change like a lot of rule changes that I wasn’t aware of. Another rule change or, it appears to be a rule change is foul throws. Has there been a change or is it at the discretion of the officials?
-
The law changed summer 2019. There are no more contested drop balls, and with hitting the ref, it's basically whoever touched it last gets it back. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropped-ball#Award
I owe the ref an apology. It’s a rule change like a lot of rule changes that I wasn’t aware of. Another rule change or, it appears to be a rule change is foul throws. Has there been a change or is it at the discretion of the officials?
If you're seeing a high incidence of foul throws Brend', it's because the officials either don't recognise them or can't be bothered to award them. Boils my piss as there's nearly always one at least per game. You can't misinterpret a foul throw, FFS!
-
When (and why) did they change the rule that the ref was part of the field of play, and so if the ball hit them it was tough luck?
I think it changed around the same time they changed the handball rule in the build up to a goal - essentially not wanting goals to be awarded where they're the result of an inadvertant handball, the ref inadvertantly getting in the way, etc
-
When (and why) did they change the rule that the ref was part of the field of play, and so if the ball hit them it was tough luck?
I think it changed around the same time they changed the handball rule in the build up to a goal - essentially not wanting goals to be awarded where they're the result of an inadvertant handball, the ref inadvertantly getting in the way, etc
That sort of makes sense, it's just annoying whan a player from either team passes it to a team mate, it scuffs the ref on the way to them, and then they stop the game anyway.
-
When (and why) did they change the rule that the ref was part of the field of play, and so if the ball hit them it was tough luck?
I think it changed around the same time they changed the handball rule in the build up to a goal - essentially not wanting goals to be awarded where they're the result of an inadvertant handball, the ref inadvertantly getting in the way, etc
That sort of makes sense, it's just annoying whan a player from either team passes it to a team mate, it scuffs the ref on the way to them, and then they stop the game anyway.
Agreed. It also took a bit of football tradition away. I always loved it when the ref was described as "football furniture"!
-
Because I am a sad bastard, I have just watched a football match and concentrated on the the natural position of the players arms.
When they all walked or run their arms moved away from their bodies in a forward and backwards motion. Not one player walked or run with his arms straight down by his side. I kid you not, have a look for yourselves!!
What is this 'natural' position crap I hear every week from the Premier League big knobs. The only unnatural positions I see is when a defender puts his arms behind his back when going in for a block instead of protecting the family jewels.
Villa get more than their fair share of penalties awarded against them for having arms.
This 'natural' position of your arms lark needs to be clearly defined, or better still, scrapped altogether. Any fool knows the difference between a deliberate and accidental handball. At least we did before VAR.
Natural, my arse. >:(
-
I don't understand why the 3rd goal wasn't offside. When he shot, Joelinton is clearly offside.
-
Peter walton is a bellend but the bit about offside just was really interesting. Saying that the system at the world cup involves a chip in the ball that triggers when it's been kicked (so I assume a multi-direction accelerometer) and it 'pings' the server on kick which then snapshots the position of players and can give an instant offside decision. That is exactly what should've been implemented alongside the very first version of VAR because it makes it a factual decision and gets rid of one of the most contested parts of the whole concept.
-
Because I am a sad bastard, I have just watched a football match and concentrated on the the natural position of the players arms.
When they all walked or run their arms moved away from their bodies in a forward and backwards motion. Not one player walked or run with his arms straight down by his side. I kid you not, have a look for yourselves!!
What is this 'natural' position crap I hear every week from the Premier League big knobs. The only unnatural positions I see is when a defender puts his arms behind his back when going in for a block instead of protecting the family jewels.
Villa get more than their fair share of penalties awarded against them for having arms.
This 'natural' position of your arms lark needs to be clearly defined, or better still, scrapped altogether. Any fool knows the difference between a deliberate and accidental handball. At least we did before VAR.
Natural, my arse. >:(
The muppet on BT, Walton, I think, always talks about incidents being, & I quote, “subjective”. I always thought that the point of having rules & regulations is so that everyone knows what they can & can’t do. Adding “subjective” refereeing gives an excuse for the absolute one sided morons like Halsey, Hackett, etc. The worst of the worst who favour certain clubs & have an issue with others. “Subjective” rules & regulations aren’t worth the paper they are written on. They are not rules & regulations. They are made up on the spot. Usually by an authoritarian dickhead.
-
Because I am a sad bastard, I have just watched a football match and concentrated on the the natural position of the players arms.
When they all walked or run their arms moved away from their bodies in a forward and backwards motion. Not one player walked or run with his arms straight down by his side. I kid you not, have a look for yourselves!!
What is this 'natural' position crap I hear every week from the Premier League big knobs. The only unnatural positions I see is when a defender puts his arms behind his back when going in for a block instead of protecting the family jewels.
Villa get more than their fair share of penalties awarded against them for having arms.
This 'natural' position of your arms lark needs to be clearly defined, or better still, scrapped altogether. Any fool knows the difference between a deliberate and accidental handball. At least we did before VAR.
Natural, my arse. >:(
This is true, they have changed the Laws of the game to suit VAR when VAr should in fact be helping referees get the Laws right.
The un natural position is just bollocks.
-
Peter walton is a bellend but the bit about offside just was really interesting. Saying that the system at the world cup involves a chip in the ball that triggers when it's been kicked (so I assume a multi-direction accelerometer) and it 'pings' the server on kick which then snapshots the position of players and can give an instant offside decision. That is exactly what should've been implemented alongside the very first version of VAR because it makes it a factual decision and gets rid of one of the most contested parts of the whole concept.
This has been my biggest gripe since the introduction of VAR and we witnessed the first time they used stupid lines on the screen to give offside by the width of a nasal hair. If your going to attempt that kind of precision then you have to be certain of the precise moment the ball leaves the passing players boot. That just seems so blindingly obvious. When we resume domestic football the prats who run PMGOL will revert to guessing with blurry images and dodgy lines all over the place. Once we see this new technology being used accurately surely there's a case for PL clubs to demand it's introduction and suspend the use of VAR for offside decisions until they have it. The stakes are too high in the world's richest domestic football league to allow a bunch of amateurs to call the shots.
-
VAR was at fault for not giving Canada a second pen.
-
VAR was at fault for not giving Canada a second pen.
Yeah I thought that, the player had beat his man and he clearly trod on his foot
-
Villa didn't gain from any VAR decisions this year but suffered from two. Surprised it isn't more.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.espn.com/soccer/manchester-united-engman_utd/story/4836068/arsenals-goal-at-manchester-united-among-6-var-errors-in-premier-league%3fplatform=amp?espv=1
-
Surely the correct thing to do is give the goal retrospectively, or award whatever points has been denied by mistakes? If they are hellbent on trying to remove all mistakes from the game, surely they can alter results afterwards?
-
Surely the correct thing to do is give the goal retrospectively, or award whatever points has been denied by mistakes? If they are hellbent on trying to remove all mistakes from the game, surely they can alter results afterwards?
Seriously, think of revenue streams rather than justice and you will be on the road to redemption.
-
It's funny because it's Chelsea, but what an absolutely horrendous decision not to give a penalty against Soucek for handball. PGMOL have said it's because the hand that touched the ball was used to support him as he fell over. He didn't fall over, he dived to save it!
-
It's funny because it's Chelsea, but what an absolutely horrendous decision not to give a penalty against Soucek for handball. PGMOL have said it's because the hand that touched the ball was used to support him as he fell over. He didn't fall over, he dived to save it!
Yep.
Remember that Stripey fecker who who piked the ball into our net volleyball stylee? These incidents stay with you and make you bitter and twisted unless you achieve oneness with the universe.
AS Woody Allen, who you dislike IIRC, quipped: Once you achieve oneness you can move ahead to twoness.
That's it; that's the tweet.
-
It was glorious, I would have been fuming if that was us.
Didn't think the one at Celtic was deliberate so a pen AND a red card seems a bit harsh.
-
VAR had a mare today. Not just the Chelsea one but also in 2 other games. Drawing the offside line on the wrong defender is a special kind of stupid.
-
The offside line is for me the biggest fraud in amongst the litany of frauds that is VAR…plotting a line like it’s a true fact is terrible, picking the camera shot that they use to judge the split second a ball is played is impossible because they have no tech to judge the correct moment. Getting the line on the wrong player is a special type of incompetence.
Soucek handball is so obvious…
Unfortunately we will never get rid of this utter crapness now because the tribal nature means you celebrate decisions going for you and those going against your rivals.
-
Just out of interest - I'm away at the moment so only seen snippets on my phone but would Cam's goal have been awarded with Var ? Looks very tight as I try to slow it down on said phone but those of you who've seen a better image may have a more informed opinion. Also, the Soucek handball looks hilarious - for everyone except Potter who could ultimately lose his job because of it.
-
Just out of interest - I'm away at the moment so only seen snippets on my phone but would Cam's goal have been awarded with Var ?
From the looks of it, probably not.
I don't see what VAR has brought to the game, though. I generally have a lot of respect for referees; they put up with a lot of shit, and I do believe that most of them just love the game and do their best. (There are exceptions, of course.)
VAR was intended to remove the subjectivity from decisions, but it's done the opposite. It has mainly drawn attention to the failures of linesmen, and highlighted the weird, arbitrary way that professional refs go about their jobs.
Mistakes happen, but I'd rather the money spent on VAR went into assessing refs for unconscious bias, teaching them about what constitutes handball, and paying them a bonus for every fucking twat who gets up in their face.
If I was a ref, and the players behaved the way they do, every game would be abandoned due to shortage of players.
-
We have sacrificed drama, passion and the glory of celebrating a goal for absolutely nothing.
Well done everyone, well done.
-
Just out of interest - I'm away at the moment so only seen snippets on my phone but would Cam's goal have been awarded with Var ?
From the looks of it, probably not.
I don't see what VAR has brought to the game, though. I generally have a lot of respect for referees; they put up with a lot of shit, and I do believe that most of them just love the game and do their best. (There are exceptions, of course.)
VAR was intended to remove the subjectivity from decisions, but it's done the opposite. It has mainly drawn attention to the failures of linesmen, and highlighted the weird, arbitrary way that professional refs go about their jobs.
Mistakes happen, but I'd rather the money spent on VAR went into assessing refs for unconscious bias, teaching them about what constitutes handball, and paying them a bonus for every fucking twat who gets up in their face.
If I was a ref, and the players behaved the way they do, every game would be abandoned due to shortage of players.
Thanks. Plus agree with everything you've said.
-
Just out of interest - I'm away at the moment so only seen snippets on my phone but would Cam's goal have been awarded with Var ?
From the looks of it, probably not.
I don't see what VAR has brought to the game, though. I generally have a lot of respect for referees; they put up with a lot of shit, and I do believe that most of them just love the game and do their best. (There are exceptions, of course.)
VAR was intended to remove the subjectivity from decisions, but it's done the opposite. It has mainly drawn attention to the failures of linesmen, and highlighted the weird, arbitrary way that professional refs go about their jobs.
Mistakes happen, but I'd rather the money spent on VAR went into assessing refs for unconscious bias, teaching them about what constitutes handball, and paying them a bonus for every fucking twat who gets up in their face.
If I was a ref, and the players behaved the way they do, every game would be abandoned due to shortage of players.
Thanks. Plus agree with everything you've said.
Thanks buddy.
-
I see the UAE must’ve managed to persuade The VAR operator not to bother checking if Brentford goal was offside.
-
We have sacrificed drama, passion and the glory of celebrating a goal for absolutely nothing.
Well done everyone, well done.
This 100% for me too.
Plus Leicester playing goal music seconds after the ball hits the net. Fans don’t even get a chance to celebrate a goal naturally.
-
Just out of interest - I'm away at the moment so only seen snippets on my phone but would Cam's goal have been awarded with Var ?
From the looks of it, probably not.
I don't see what VAR has brought to the game, though. I generally have a lot of respect for referees; they put up with a lot of shit, and I do believe that most of them just love the game and do their best. (There are exceptions, of course.)
VAR was intended to remove the subjectivity from decisions, but it's done the opposite. It has mainly drawn attention to the failures of linesmen, and highlighted the weird, arbitrary way that professional refs go about their jobs.
Mistakes happen, but I'd rather the money spent on VAR went into assessing refs for unconscious bias, teaching them about what constitutes handball, and paying them a bonus for every fucking twat who gets up in their face.
If I was a ref, and the players behaved the way they do, every game would be abandoned due to shortage of players.
100%….the lack of respect referees have for themselves is absurd…chasing players to book them really annoys me…blow the whistle, call player to them, if they don’t immediately then a 2nd yellow is given, simple! Booking players like Bruno who are in their ears all game would also set a nice precedent…all for occasional discussion but he is there for 90 minutes.
Would also like that VAR cash spent on recruiting some of the players who don’t make the grade at 18-22 to fast track as referees so we have refs who are physically fit not 40 odd year olds waddling round the centre circle.
-
We have sacrificed drama, passion and the glory of celebrating a goal for absolutely nothing.
Well done everyone, well done.
This 100% for me too.
Plus Leicester playing goal music seconds after the ball hits the net. Fans don’t even get a chance to celebrate a goal naturally.
And me, 100%.
Fans can't celebrate a goal naturally (havn't hit the roof in a few years)
Defenders can't defend naturally (have to hold their arse with both hands)
Forwards can't attack naturally (have to be measure where their shoulder is lined up and not just their feet)
I don't celebrate a goal anymore to avoid the disappointment of it being disallowed. Not a conscious decision, just the way my body reacts naturally.
Naturally, I am pissed off.
-
We have sacrificed drama, passion and the glory of celebrating a goal for absolutely nothing.
Well done everyone, well done.
Totally agree. But you should change the "we" for "they". As others have said the whole "subjective" cobblers is just that. It's a cop out to let them get away with the kind of nonsense var come up with yesterday. It's not subjective when someone looks at a screen and decides where the lines should go when deciding on a really tight offside. Move forward a frame and a player is offside. Move back a frame and he's onside That's not being subjective that's playing god.
-
After all the VARtroversy of Saturday's games on MotD, there wasn't even a mention of Grealish's dive against us or VAR's approval of same on MotD 2.
Still, it's only Villa, eh? Best not to upset Pep's darlings when they've had such a tough week...
-
Officials removed from games didn't work before VAR so why they think it will work now is beyond me. It's just a sap to moaning Managers.
It doesn't work, it never will and we'll be having the same conversation in 5 years time.
-
I suppose it's too late now that the genie is out of the bottle, and perhaps the Premier League/FA wouldn't even now be permitted the change, but the biggest and quickest improvement to how VAR works would be to simply eliminate its use for offsides, and revert to reliance upon the linesmen doing their jobs, thereby making the game a whole lot simpler, and a whole lot more enjoyable.
-
I like VAR. It doesn't get everything right, but it gets more than enough right to justify its use.
-
I'm the other way round on it. Get it working like it was at the World Cup, digital, virtual, and take it completely out of the officials' hands/eyes, like has been done with goal line decisions. The physical act of being offside is about the only thing in football which is a black and white matter, you're either cheating or you're not. If there's a subjective decision to be made about whether somebody somewhere on the pitch is compliant with the latest wording and interpretation of Law 11 then that can be referred back to the referee on the pitch.
And sack it off for everything else. Cos it's shit.
-
Stop subjective nonsense for offside. If offside can be automated like goal line technology/no ball in cricket then stick with it otherwise get rid. Do NOT leave it to human beings to draw the fucking lines. Stop making decisions on different phases and someone was offide and they came back to block etc., just leave it to last man to touch the ball.
For other VAR decisions it's like as it's always been, human error will prevail however it's a lot better now that some errors can be corrected. I think on that VAR moves us from 60/40 to 90/10.
-
I suppose it's too late now that the genie is out of the bottle, and perhaps the Premier League/FA wouldn't even now be permitted the change, but the biggest and quickest improvement to how VAR works would be to simply eliminate its use for offsides, and revert to reliance upon the linesmen doing their jobs, thereby making the game a whole lot simpler, and a whole lot more enjoyable.
It's the one and only thing they can and should get right every time. Offside is offside, it's clear cut even if it's only "toe nail" accurate. If they miss an incident like at the weekend where there were a few offsides in one build up to a goal which weren't even considered that's down to VAR officials.
-
VAR was explicitly brought in to remove human error from the game.
I absolutely abhor it for all the reasons that have been provided umpteen times and which continue to be right.
-
The marginal offsides are stupid. I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid if decisions weren't given one way or the other.
-
The marginal offsides are stupid. I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid if decisions weren't given one way or the other.
The one with Harvey Barnes was particularly pedantic. He was level by the naked eye which would be good enough for me, for or against.
-
The marginal offsides are stupid. I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid if decisions weren't given one way or the other.
I think you either go with a scientific yes/no (even if its a millimetre) or you do away all together. You cant allow close ones because all you do is shift the line to another point of tolerance. Is 5cm ok but 10cm not?
personally I'd pare VAR back to factual decisions, over line, inside/ourtside area or offsides and leave the rest to officials. Man in tv only get involve is cases of mistaken identity. In its current form it simply doesn't work.
-
After all the VARtroversy of Saturday's games on MotD, there wasn't even a mention of Grealish's dive against us or VAR's approval of same on MotD 2.
Still, it's only Villa, eh? Best not to upset Pep's darlings when they've had such a tough week...
It's always the same. Ref's make subjective decisions in favour of better teams and media ignore it as it doesn't suit their narrative. I remember years ago at Villa Park Kompany bundled Agbonlahor into oblivion in a one one situation. Correct decision would have been red for Kompany and a free kick but Ref played on and no one in the media said a dicky bird about it, mainly because in their eyes surely Kompany is good enough to deal with a Villa forward.
-
The marginal offsides are stupid. I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid if decisions weren't given one way or the other.
The one with Harvey Barnes was particularly pedantic. He was level by the naked eye which would be good enough for me, for or against.
There is no such thing as level anymore. It is or it isn't. We go by the tech'. This, "it looked level to me" isn't progress. They just need to be far quicker with it so as to not spoil the overall viewing. The Harvey Barnes incident, what if a result hung on that decision? We have a system that removes all reasonable doubt which isn't we know 100% accurate but is better than the judgement of the naked eye.
-
After all the VARtroversy of Saturday's games on MotD, there wasn't even a mention of Grealish's dive against us or VAR's approval of same on MotD 2.
Still, it's only Villa, eh? Best not to upset Pep's darlings when they've had such a tough week...
It's always the same. Ref's make subjective decisions in favour of better teams and media ignore it as it doesn't suit their narrative. I remember years ago at Villa Park Kompany bundled Agbonlahor into oblivion in a one one situation. Correct decision would have been red for Kompany and a free kick but Ref played on and no one in the media said a dicky bird about it, mainly because in their eyes surely Kompany is good enough to deal with a Villa forward.
I remember Vidic at Wembley...
-
The marginal offsides are stupid. I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid if decisions weren't given one way or the other.
The one with Harvey Barnes was particularly pedantic. He was level by the naked eye which would be good enough for me, for or against.
There is no such thing as level anymore. It is or it isn't. We go by the tech'. This, "it looked level to me" isn't progress. They just need to be far quicker with it so as to not spoil the overall viewing. The Harvey Barnes incident, what if a result hung on that decision? We have a system that removes all reasonable doubt which isn't we know 100% accurate but is better than the judgement of the naked eye.
I'm happy to forgoe that accuracy, accept that mistakes are made in order to restore the unbridled joy of scoring goals and celebrating goals. Offside or otherwise, a foul or not.
-
I suppose it's too late now that the genie is out of the bottle, and perhaps the Premier League/FA wouldn't even now be permitted the change, but the biggest and quickest improvement to how VAR works would be to simply eliminate its use for offsides, and revert to reliance upon the linesmen doing their jobs, thereby making the game a whole lot simpler, and a whole lot more enjoyable.
It's the one and only thing they can and should get right every time. Offside is offside, it's clear cut even if it's only "toe nail" accurate. If they miss an incident like at the weekend where there were a few offsides in one build up to a goal which weren't even considered that's down to VAR officials.
This offside is offside idea just isn't right. It's fundamentally flawed because it's impossible to know the exact moment when the ball leaves the passing players boot. That's when the player is either on or off. One person in a studio gets to decide when he THINKS the ball lost contact with the boot. It's still guesswork. An absolutely undisputable version is achievable as they had the technology in the World Cup and used it brilliantly. You hardly knew it was there. Until we get that technology offsides will remain a subjective guess.
-
The best instant change they could make to ease some offside rage would be move handball back to the point of the shoulder. It'd stop people being offside for pointing at where they want the ball.
-
The marginal offsides are stupid. I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid if decisions weren't given one way or the other.
The one with Harvey Barnes was particularly pedantic. He was level by the naked eye which would be good enough for me, for or against.
There is no such thing as level anymore. It is or it isn't. We go by the tech'. This, "it looked level to me" isn't progress. They just need to be far quicker with it so as to not spoil the overall viewing. The Harvey Barnes incident, what if a result hung on that decision? We have a system that removes all reasonable doubt which isn't we know 100% accurate but is better than the judgement of the naked eye.
I'm happy to forgoe that accuracy, accept that mistakes are made in order to restore the unbridled joy of scoring goals and celebrating goals. Offside or otherwise, a foul or not.
100%
-
The marginal offsides are stupid. I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid if decisions weren't given one way or the other.
The one with Harvey Barnes was particularly pedantic. He was level by the naked eye which would be good enough for me, for or against.
There is no such thing as level anymore. It is or it isn't. We go by the tech'. This, "it looked level to me" isn't progress. They just need to be far quicker with it so as to not spoil the overall viewing. The Harvey Barnes incident, what if a result hung on that decision? We have a system that removes all reasonable doubt which isn't we know 100% accurate but is better than the judgement of the naked eye.
The problem is that the tech has become a facilitator at best, as ultimately it comes down to human judgement which remains fallible, and that it is why it is not as binary as you suggested.
I think VAR has solved one group of problems and created another.
I like it because it reduces the number of flawed decisions, but it doesn't eradicate them, not by a long shot, and the ones it does solve, it does so at the cost of insane delays whilst they pore over the footage.
If something takes 3 minutes to decide with 3 people staring over and over at the footage with lines all over it, then really whatever the referee's decision was must surely be hard to contradict, as he/she is making it in a split second decision.
It also has insane impact on the flow of the game and the supporter experience (although, obv, who gives a fuck about that any more?)
-
Talking about this shit the lines have just ruled out a brilliant PSG equaliser.
-
I suppose it's too late now that the genie is out of the bottle, and perhaps the Premier League/FA wouldn't even now be permitted the change, but the biggest and quickest improvement to how VAR works would be to simply eliminate its use for offsides, and revert to reliance upon the linesmen doing their jobs, thereby making the game a whole lot simpler, and a whole lot more enjoyable.
It's the one and only thing they can and should get right every time. Offside is offside, it's clear cut even if it's only "toe nail" accurate. If they miss an incident like at the weekend where there were a few offsides in one build up to a goal which weren't even considered that's down to VAR officials.
This offside is offside idea just isn't right. It's fundamentally flawed because it's impossible to know the exact moment when the ball leaves the passing players boot. That's when the player is either on or off. One person in a studio gets to decide when he THINKS the ball lost contact with the boot. It's still guesswork. An absolutely undisputable version is achievable as they had the technology in the World Cup and used it brilliantly. You hardly knew it was there. Until we get that technology offsides will remain a subjective guess.
Agreed about the "How to judge exactly when the pass was played" but what was it about the World Cup tech that sorted this out? I just remember a fancy new animated graphic which depicted the margin of offside better than the shitty red and yellow lines across a frozen replay that we get in club games.
-
There was a sensor in the ball that identified the precise moment it was kicked.
-
There was a sensor in the ball that identified the precise moment it was kicked.
Exactly. And we play in the richest league in the world so why don't we have it? The cynic in me thinks that the club's with most money and most clout are happy to carry on leaving it to human judgement which is how it's always been because over the years those clubs have had the benefit of big decisions going their way. They can't exert their influence over a computer.
-
I suppose it's too late now that the genie is out of the bottle, and perhaps the Premier League/FA wouldn't even now be permitted the change, but the biggest and quickest improvement to how VAR works would be to simply eliminate its use for offsides, and revert to reliance upon the linesmen doing their jobs, thereby making the game a whole lot simpler, and a whole lot more enjoyable.
It's the one and only thing they can and should get right every time. Offside is offside, it's clear cut even if it's only "toe nail" accurate. If they miss an incident like at the weekend where there were a few offsides in one build up to a goal which weren't even considered that's down to VAR officials.
This offside is offside idea just isn't right. It's fundamentally flawed because it's impossible to know the exact moment when the ball leaves the passing players boot. That's when the player is either on or off. One person in a studio gets to decide when he THINKS the ball lost contact with the boot. It's still guesswork. An absolutely undisputable version is achievable as they had the technology in the World Cup and used it brilliantly. You hardly knew it was there. Until we get that technology offsides will remain a subjective guess.
How can it be fundamentally flawed and have worked brilliantly at the world cup?
I understand the point but it's clearly possible to make this work with existing technology without any meaningful changes. What is fundamentally flawed in the Premier League is that PGMOL are a bunch of shits who are forcing half-arsed implementations of VAR so they can keep their wiggle room to pretend that a player coming from an offside position and tackling a defender is fine in the rules, or that falling over after treading on someones foot is a penalty or any of a number of other decisions that they can only justify so long as the entire lawbook is based on the singular interpretation of 1 man.
-
The basic premise of VAR in trying to get rid of clear and obvious errors is fine. Clear handballs and fouls in the build up to goals that are missed by the on-field ref, should see the goals ruled out, and likewise, obvious penalties missed by the ref should be given.
Where they went wrong is completely overriding this clear and obvious element for offsides. Absolutely nobody at all was calling for 3 minute breaks while ridiculous lines are hand drawn on a screen, lines that are only as good as the ability for the technology to measure the exact moment the ball left the attacking player's boot, who made the pass.
The next thing that is wrong is the completely random nature of what they decide is clear and obvious. There have been umpteen examples of 'hand ball' in the box, this season, with seemingly no consistency at all applied. So Ashley Young at Newcastle sliding in to make a challenge gets penalised, whereas Soucek for West Ham diving to make an actual save, doesn't.
-
The handball thing is a product of interpretations and guidance. Handballs are different in European Football to English football, for example. Then people stop saying it was brought in for "clear and obvious" and start bleating about "all we need is consistency".
I can live with offsides because (as long as it's applied correctly), it's consistent. There's a line, offside is offside. Just imagine Manchester City and Villa scoring similar goals but one was given for them on the field and ours wasn't and not "clear and obvious" enough to overturn. There'd be uproar. At least it's consistent (when done correctly)
-
The problem with VAR is they’re trying to solve a problem with more TV cameras that wasn’t there with far fewer cameras.
Back in the day the only view of a dodgy decision us fans got was live at the game, and often with some tall blokes’ head in the way.
We all went home arguing we were robbed but deep down knew we probably didn’t have as a good a view as the officials. Good though as nobody could prove your argument was wrong. And for me, that was much better.
-
Wasn't 'off side' originally to prevent goal hanging? I'm sure if they insist on VAR and these silly lines, wouldn't it be better to go back to giving the benefit of doubt to the the attacker and give them a bit more grace ? Let's face it, is 6 inches or so a massive advantage to anyone?
This handball rule is just a mess. Having different rules for different passages of play was always going to cause inconsistencies with the referees. I'm completely lost with it, I have no idea of the rules for that anymore.
-
I suppose it's too late now that the genie is out of the bottle, and perhaps the Premier League/FA wouldn't even now be permitted the change, but the biggest and quickest improvement to how VAR works would be to simply eliminate its use for offsides, and revert to reliance upon the linesmen doing their jobs, thereby making the game a whole lot simpler, and a whole lot more enjoyable.
It's the one and only thing they can and should get right every time. Offside is offside, it's clear cut even if it's only "toe nail" accurate. If they miss an incident like at the weekend where there were a few offsides in one build up to a goal which weren't even considered that's down to VAR officials.
This offside is offside idea just isn't right. It's fundamentally flawed because it's impossible to know the exact moment when the ball leaves the passing players boot. That's when the player is either on or off. One person in a studio gets to decide when he THINKS the ball lost contact with the boot. It's still guesswork. An absolutely undisputable version is achievable as they had the technology in the World Cup and used it brilliantly. You hardly knew it was there. Until we get that technology offsides will remain a subjective guess.
How can it be fundamentally flawed and have worked brilliantly at the world cup?
I understand the point but it's clearly possible to make this work with existing technology without any meaningful changes. What is fundamentally flawed in the Premier League is that PGMOL are a bunch of shits who are forcing half-arsed implementations of VAR so they can keep their wiggle room to pretend that a player coming from an offside position and tackling a defender is fine in the rules, or that falling over after treading on someones foot is a penalty or any of a number of other decisions that they can only justify so long as the entire lawbook is based on the singular interpretation of 1 man.
I called it fundamentally flawed because someone said it is the only thing that should be right every time so i was pointing out the flaws when they use in it's current form.It can be made to be right every time if they adopt the technology they used in the world cup. We're pretty much in agreement with our comments.
-
I suppose it's too late now that the genie is out of the bottle, and perhaps the Premier League/FA wouldn't even now be permitted the change, but the biggest and quickest improvement to how VAR works would be to simply eliminate its use for offsides, and revert to reliance upon the linesmen doing their jobs, thereby making the game a whole lot simpler, and a whole lot more enjoyable.
It's the one and only thing they can and should get right every time. Offside is offside, it's clear cut even if it's only "toe nail" accurate. If they miss an incident like at the weekend where there were a few offsides in one build up to a goal which weren't even considered that's down to VAR officials.
This offside is offside idea just isn't right. It's fundamentally flawed because it's impossible to know the exact moment when the ball leaves the passing players boot. That's when the player is either on or off. One person in a studio gets to decide when he THINKS the ball lost contact with the boot. It's still guesswork. An absolutely undisputable version is achievable as they had the technology in the World Cup and used it brilliantly. You hardly knew it was there. Until we get that technology offsides will remain a subjective guess.
How can it be fundamentally flawed and have worked brilliantly at the world cup?
I understand the point but it's clearly possible to make this work with existing technology without any meaningful changes. What is fundamentally flawed in the Premier League is that PGMOL are a bunch of shits who are forcing half-arsed implementations of VAR so they can keep their wiggle room to pretend that a player coming from an offside position and tackling a defender is fine in the rules, or that falling over after treading on someones foot is a penalty or any of a number of other decisions that they can only justify so long as the entire lawbook is based on the singular interpretation of 1 man.
I called it fundamentally flawed because someone said it is the only thing that should be right every time so i was pointing out the flaws when they use in it's current form.It can be made to be right every time if they adopt the technology they used in the world cup. We're pretty much in agreement with our comments.
and possible that the refs are on a power trip, because that the impression I got when watching certain local football games
-
The decisions need to lie with the on pitch officials. I still contend it should be like the NFL where coaches get a certain amount of challenges to on field rulings. If they lose the first challenge they don't get a second one. Maybe there is a place for the 4th official to intervene for things highly controversial genuinely missed by the ref and assistants. But literally everything going to VAR is killing the game.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64683971
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64683971
They’ll only leave it be punished for the “top” teams.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64683971
He was a shit ref and now he is recognised as a shit VAR ref.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64683971
Good. The PGMOL shouldn't be some empathetic safeguard for referees. Hold them to a higher standard and don't give us the "hard job" bullshit.
-
It’s a bit much to get fired for it, assuming that’s what has happened.
-
Yeah. Just sack people, that'll sort it.
-
It’s why I found Arteta’s response pretty distasteful. It was a ropey decision, but I find it ridiculous that he’s been canned for it. Should footballers get fired if they score an own goal? Or how about a manager who makes a bad substitution? People do make errors.
-
Refs think they are the most important people on the planet and no one should ever question them or their decisions and as most favour the big 6 ,stuff him
-
The game will be really good if there aren’t any left.
-
The game will be really good if there aren’t any left.
there won't be if they don't do the job correctly especially when sitting looking a TV monitor and getting it wrong
-
[/move] and they bring the shit storm on themselves
-
Lee Mason is absymal though. He was on VAR when he told the ref to disallow the Newcastle goal against Palace when a player was shoved into the goalie. He was dropped for a round of matches after that, so I guess the Arsenal game was the final straw.
-
The game will be really good if there aren’t any left.
there won't be if they don't do the job correctly especially when sitting looking a TV monitor and getting it wrong
[/move] and they bring the shit storm on themselves
I think that’s a bit of a sweeping generalisation and ignores the fact that the culture towards officiating in football is disgraceful. It’s also actively dangerous in terms of how it filters down to grassroots level. That Mason decision was clearly terrible, but there’s plenty of occasions where the referee’s decision is right and they’ll still get absolutely slaughtered by a manager or fans.
-
So, even with VAR all the refs are shit, useless wankers and deserve to be sacked. Progress eh?
-
So, even with VAR all the refs are shit, useless wankers and deserve to be sacked. Progress eh?
VAR is okay, it's the Muppets making crap decisions
-
So, even with VAR all the refs are shit, useless wankers and deserve to be sacked. Progress eh?
VAR is okay, it's the Muppets making corrupt decisions
-
Quite.
-
So who's getting sacked for not noticing the two Arse players offside and in the 'keeper's line of vision for their third goal?
Or doesn't it matter if you're a rich club?
-
So who's getting sacked for not noticing the two Arse players offside and in the 'keeper's line of vision for their third goal?
Or doesn't it matter if you're a rich club?
The different is clubs like the Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchesters create a fuss about it,we and other little clubs sit back and take it meekly,so this week lets create a fuss
-
This seems to have developed a bit of momentum over the last few days - any comments from PGMOL to explain the inconsistency?
-
As you know just like onfield decisions VAR outcomes have to be evened out over the season. Having made that ginormous error in Arse-Bford match last week this week they got an opportunity to pay back. Normal stuff, really!
-
Mega twat baldy Gallagher says the decision was subjective and some you win and some you lose. I thought the principle of VAR was to remove subjectivity? That was its selling point. They’re just making it up from week to week . I’m convinced the game decisions are corrupt. Haven’t Barcelona been accused of paying refs off recei?
-
I guess lots of referee calls are subjective to a certain extent, eg was it a foul, or was it a dive etc. But it's very difficult to argue that the Arsenal players weren't interfering with player given how close they both were to Martinez. If it was just one of them, then maybe there'd be a case, but both of them there and not getting the decision is a piss take. If that's not interfering with play, then I'd like to see an example of what clearly is.
-
This seems to have developed a bit of momentum over the last few days - any comments from PGMOL to explain the inconsistency?
The analysis seems to be how far the ball travelled and Emi had a chance to react and attempt a save. The fact that a split second delay in reaction time could be the difference seems to elude them.
Also, everyone knew Leno had no chance of saving McGinns shot, but were told that wasn't relevant at the time. As was the fact that Barkley wasn't actually blocking his view, just in the periphery of his sight.
It's the lack of consistency that boils your piss.
-
So does this mean if Martinez had made a worse attempt at a save we'd be more likely to get the goal ruled out for offside? (I appreciate it would still need to hit the back of his head...)
-
So does this mean if Martinez had made a worse attempt at a save we'd be more likely to get the goal ruled out for offside? (I appreciate it would still need to hit the back of his head...)
Ridiculous as it sounds, quite possibly yes. Although the distance it travelled is primarily what they're hanging their hats on. And perhaps more worryingly, the lack of protest by the players.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/english-premier-league/story/4878634/the-var-review-marcel-sabitzer-red-card-arsenal-offside-goal-kehrer-handball
-
So does this mean if Martinez had made a worse attempt at a save we'd be more likely to get the goal ruled out for offside? (I appreciate it would still need to hit the back of his head...)
Ridiculous as it sounds, quite possibly yes. Although the distance it travelled is primarily what they're hanging their hats on. And perhaps more worryingly, the lack of protest by the players.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/english-premier-league/story/4878634/the-var-review-marcel-sabitzer-red-card-arsenal-offside-goal-kehrer-handball
Thats the thing for me.
Zero protest by us although considering the time it was scored most players just fell to their knees.
I'm sure, though, that if it had happened at the other end, Arsenal players would have surrounded the ref urging VAR to take a look.
-
So does this mean if Martinez had made a worse attempt at a save we'd be more likely to get the goal ruled out for offside? (I appreciate it would still need to hit the back of his head...)
Ridiculous as it sounds, quite possibly yes. Although the distance it travelled is primarily what they're hanging their hats on. And perhaps more worryingly, the lack of protest by the players.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/english-premier-league/story/4878634/the-var-review-marcel-sabitzer-red-card-arsenal-offside-goal-kehrer-handball
What a load of shite, I've never seen such bizarre mental gymnastics. That artice says "and two of his own teammates are blocking the line to the ball." What the bloody hell has that got to with anything?
-
I guess lots of referee calls are subjective to a certain extent, eg was it a foul, or was it a dive etc. But it's very difficult to argue that the Arsenal players weren't interfering with player given how close they both were to Martinez. If it was just one of them, then maybe there'd be a case, but both of them there and not getting the decision is a piss take. If that's not interfering with play, then I'd like to see an example of what clearly is.
I refer you to exactly the same thing when we had a goal disallowed down there. That’s the difference. That goal should have been disallowed for simply obvious reasons but it wasn’t. I listened to Dermot Gallagher try and explain it the other day and like everything he explains it in favour of his VAR mates. Listening to him it’s excruciating. Like he’s taking one of those painful hard shits where the beast is coming out sideways.
-
I guess lots of referee calls are subjective to a certain extent, eg was it a foul, or was it a dive etc. But it's very difficult to argue that the Arsenal players weren't interfering with player given how close they both were to Martinez. If it was just one of them, then maybe there'd be a case, but both of them there and not getting the decision is a piss take. If that's not interfering with play, then I'd like to see an example of what clearly is.
I refer you to exactly the same thing when we had a goal disallowed down there. That’s the difference. That goal should have been disallowed for simply obvious reasons but it wasn’t. I listened to Dermot Gallagher try and explain it the other day and like everything he explains it in favour of his VAR mates. Listening to him it’s excruciating. Like he’s taking one of those painful hard shits where the beast is coming out sideways.
They stick together won't dare criticize each other even when they retire, there's like the freemasonry
-
I'm just wondering how many of these ''subjective'' decisions go in favour of one of the big 6 as opposed to against them over the course of the season. There is definite bias, unconscious or not.
-
So does this mean if Martinez had made a worse attempt at a save we'd be more likely to get the goal ruled out for offside? (I appreciate it would still need to hit the back of his head...)
No. If Martinez had made a worse attempt at saving that shot he would have been no where near the ball to head it back in.
-
So does this mean if Martinez had made a worse attempt at a save we'd be more likely to get the goal ruled out for offside? (I appreciate it would still need to hit the back of his head...)
No. If Martinez had made a worse attempt at saving that shot he would have been no where near the ball to head it back in.
I did caveat that, but in that instance, presumably either of the offside players would then be in a position to bundle it in from what was determined to be not an offside position as it rebounds from the crossbar
-
No as at that stage it was involvement issue. In rebound situation they were offside. Linesman would have indicated as the player who hits the ball would definitely be "involved" from an offside position. Having said that I wouldn't put it past VAR to come up with a different explanation to allow it.
-
Arsenal second goal from the short corner ,lad said possible offside from the actual corner kick, looking at it many times it looks like the linesman more concentrated on the ball
-
If Martinez didn't move and it flew into the top corner, then he and the rest of our team ran and surround the ref, I'm pretty sure it would've been ruled out.
-
Arsenal second goal from the short corner ,lad said possible offside from the actual corner kick, looking at it many times it looks like the linesman more concentrated on the ball
You can't be offside from a corner.
"Some Villa fans questioned a possible offside on the short corner which led to Arsenal's second goal, but you cannot be offside from the first play of a corner routine."
-
Arsenal second goal from the short corner ,lad said possible offside from the actual corner kick, looking at it many times it looks like the linesman more concentrated on the ball
You can't be offside from a corner.
"Some Villa fans questioned a possible offside on the short corner which led to Arsenal's second goal, but you cannot be offside from the first play of a corner routine."
Yep, this one is pretty simple, you can't be offside if you're behind the ball and you're automatically behind the ball when a corner is taken (because despite the option to physically move the ball around in the quadrant it's considered to be on the goalline in the laws).
The 'real' 2nd controversy that everyone has forgotten is that Saka should've been sent off for his challenge on Moreno. Take him out of the game with us leading 2-1 and I think it would've had a massive impacts on the result, especially given how important he was for them in the 15-20 minutes after half time.
-
I'm surprised no one mentioned the body check on Mings in the corner that led to the 4th. The Arse defender runs into him which takes all momentum from Mings causing him to slip. As the ball fell into the area Mings would have been attacking and he wasn't there, they then had the players to control and break.
-
I know the majority probably still hate it, but for me that's why we HAVE to have VAR.
I still think the way it is implemented is massively flawed (eg a ref should always re watch a controversial decision - not be called over like a naughty schoolboy) but I think it is getting better.
You can say bad decisions are swings and roundabouts, but two points and the red for Ollie could, theoretically, have been the difference between us qualifying for Europe or not. How could that possibly be right when it is so easy to double check?
-
It can be easy to forget the times that VAR gets the job done. It's not perfect but I'd rather have it than not. I'd be fuming this morning if that had gone against us.
Was Ollie sent off initially? Flashscore had it as a yellow that got rescinded
-
It can be easy to forget the times that VAR gets the job done. It's not perfect but I'd rather have it than not. I'd be fuming this morning if that had gone against us.
Was Ollie sent off initially? Flashscore had it as a yellow that got rescinded
I thought it was a red at first but turns out it was a yellow.
-
I read this morning it was a red, but not 100% sure
-
Looked like a yellow.
You can shoot me down but I still don't want VAR. I stayed rooted in my seat for Ollie's goal because it looked like a tight offside that would be checked. I'd swap the odd poor decision for the ability to properly celebrate a goal.
-
I've always thought that the issue was in implementation. Other countries managed to avoid some of the problems we had, for instance thicker lines to avoid offside calls being so officious. We by contrast inflicted on ourselves all kinds of weird piddling pedantries to abide by, which was needless.
The reality is we should've been able to do video review for about 30 years now, given the number of cameras and angles and so on, and it's interesting to think how football history might've been different had we had it (Ireland at the 2010 World Cup, for instance).
-
the ref got that penalty decision so wrong yesterday but the official leicester website match report is something else
That wasn't the last flashpoint. The ball bobbled up in Villa's area. Barnes ran onto it. Daka got to the loose ball and Watkins bundled him down, stopping him from converting easily. Referee Graham Scott pointed to the spot, but it wouldn't ever be struck. VAR instructed Scott to consult the pitchside screens. He reversed his decision. No penalty and no points for the Foxes.
-
Looked like a yellow.
You can shoot me down but I still don't want VAR. I stayed rooted in my seat for Ollie's goal because it looked like a tight offside that would be checked. I'd swap the odd poor decision for the ability to properly celebrate a goal.
It felt like a proper celebration where I was standing. So did Berties. Give me the correct decision every time.
-
Looked like a yellow.
You can shoot me down but I still don't want VAR. I stayed rooted in my seat for Ollie's goal because it looked like a tight offside that would be checked. I'd swap the odd poor decision for the ability to properly celebrate a goal.
It felt like a proper celebration where I was standing. So did Berties. Give me the correct decision every time.
Your mind is made up. Id just point out that VAR has shown on numerous occasions that it can equally get things wrong and fail to overturn incorrect decisions too.
And If the best argument is that “it gets more than it gets right” well so do referees.
-
Looked like a yellow.
You can shoot me down but I still don't want VAR. I stayed rooted in my seat for Ollie's goal because it looked like a tight offside that would be checked. I'd swap the odd poor decision for the ability to properly celebrate a goal.
It felt like a proper celebration where I was standing. So did Berties. Give me the correct decision every time.
Your mind is made up. Id just point out that VAR has shown on numerous occasions that it can equally get things wrong and fail to overturn incorrect decisions too.
And If the best argument is that “it gets more than it gets right” well so do referees.
But the no of right decisions is multiplied then isn't it?
I still think there's a long way to go in implementation. But I now think they have got the offside approach broadly right, once the semi automatic offside is introduced I don't think we'll look back with nostalgic fondness on shit offside decisions.
The open play bit still needs work, but it's getting much better.
-
Looked like a yellow.
You can shoot me down but I still don't want VAR. I stayed rooted in my seat for Ollie's goal because it looked like a tight offside that would be checked. I'd swap the odd poor decision for the ability to properly celebrate a goal.
It felt like a proper celebration where I was standing. So did Berties. Give me the correct decision every time.
Your mind is made up. Id just point out that VAR has shown on numerous occasions that it can equally get things wrong and fail to overturn incorrect decisions too.
And If the best argument is that “it gets more than it gets right” well so do referees.
But the no of right decisions is multiplied then isn't it?
I still think there's a long way to go in implementation. But I now think they have got the offside approach broadly right, once the semi automatic offside is introduced I don't think we'll look back with nostalgic fondness on shit offside decisions.
The open play bit still needs work, but it's getting much better.
Ha! Yes if it’s deemed “wrong enough” to look at.
It’s here to stay though, so *shrugs*
-
Still think it's a massive problem for the fans in the ground for them not to know what is going on - why? what are they looking at? etc then the decision finally comes through after the game has kicked off again.
-
Still think it's a massive problem for the fans in the ground for them not to know what is going on - why? what are they looking at? etc then the decision finally comes through after the game has kicked off again.
That’s it. Last night for instance, no one had a clue what was going on with the penalty incident. How many times is this replicated in a game up and down the country. There’s got to be a better way but like a lot of things the supports who can attend games are an after thought.
-
Mike up the ref or Stockely park to tell the fans in ground what is being looked at.
-
Mike up the ref or Stockely park to tell the fans in ground what is being looked at.
One way or another it should be an easy fix.
-
Wouldn't take much would it.
"VAR check on the defending player's challenge on the attacker - possible non-penalty."
-
As an aside, just go back to the weekend and the West Ham goal. There were four, I think, West Ham players in offside positions over a width of about eight to ten yards when that goal was scored, just one of those players in the position he was in was enough to wipe out that goal never mind four! Until that sort of shit gets sorted then I genuinely feel VAR is not fit for purpose. We benefited both at the weekend and last night but when we look back we certainly deserved a change in fortunes as far as VAR is concerned.
-
The conversation of OT in last years FA Cup would have been fascinating:
"Is it offside?"
No
"Handball"
No
"Did the goalscorer commit a foul"
No
"Can you find something else to rule it out?"
Hang on.......
-
Mike up the ref or Stockely park to tell the fans in ground what is being looked at.
"Sorry, John, they're looking at a possible push on Watkins. Hopefully they won't be long"
...
...
...
"Going anywhere nice this summer?"
-
The conversation of OT in last years FA Cup would have been fascinating:
"Is it offside?"
No
"Handball"
No
"Did the goalscorer commit a foul"
No
"Can you find something else to rule it out?"
Hang on.......
Ha, very true.
-
Surely one of the first things you learn as a ref is that if you don’t see something, you can’t give it. What on earth did the useless arse last night think he’d seen to justify giving a penalty. He clearly just guessed, probably in the hope that VAR would bail him out.
-
Exactly right.
VAR should be there if the ref misses something or is unsighted. It’s not to wipe out stuff he’s just making up. I can’t see what he would think he saw in that late incident.
-
Surely one of the first things you learn as a ref is that if you don’t see something, you can’t give it. What on earth did the useless arse last night think he’d seen to justify giving a penalty. He clearly just guessed, probably in the hope that VAR would bail him out.
He probably went with the notion that the Leicester forward had been bundled off the ball. And by another forward, the old nugget “it’s a forwards challenge”. Except that it was Daka who initiated contact on Ollie. Giving him the benefit of the doubt he might not have seen who pushed who first.
-
Surely one of the first things you learn as a ref is that if you don’t see something, you can’t give it. What on earth did the useless arse last night think he’d seen to justify giving a penalty. He clearly just guessed, probably in the hope that VAR would bail him out.
Yes, more should be made of that absolute clownshow. You do not give a penalty with seconds to go on the basis that 'something' may have happened you fucking idiot. The ball was out of play, he could've just stopped his watch and had a word in his mic to ask them to look again and check what happened, the twat.
-
Another thing I hate about VAR (you might have gathered that I'm not a fan), is that it only applies here and there.
Leicester had a corner given, which with the benefit of a replay could clearly be seen to be the incorrect decision, perhaps, I would venture, clear and obvious even. From said corner that big galumph almost scored. Now I know people will point to the fact that the corner itself is a different phase, which is correct but it's a phase of play that shouldn't have taken place because of an incorrect decision that quite simply could've been reversed.
-
Another thing I hate about VAR (you might have gathered that I'm not a fan), is that it only applies here and there.
Leicester had a corner given, which with the benefit of a replay could clearly be seen to be the incorrect decision, perhaps, I would venture, clear and obvious even. From said corner that big galumph almost scored. Now I know people will point to the fact that the corner itself is a different phase, which is correct but it's a phase of play that shouldn't have taken place because of an incorrect decision that quite simply could've been reversed.
That's how Man City scored their first in the League cup Final in 2020. They weren't using VAR that day but I was getting texts through in the stadium even before the corner had been taken that it was wrong.
-
Another thing I hate about VAR (you might have gathered that I'm not a fan), is that it only applies here and there.
Leicester had a corner given, which with the benefit of a replay could clearly be seen to be the incorrect decision, perhaps, I would venture, clear and obvious even. From said corner that big galumph almost scored. Now I know people will point to the fact that the corner itself is a different phase, which is correct but it's a phase of play that shouldn't have taken place because of an incorrect decision that quite simply could've been reversed.
That did my head in too. That's a crucial, potentially match deciding incident and it wasn't even bloody close. And the big clumsy twat had nobbled Ollie along the way, so not only do we have the injustice of the corner, but we have less men on the pitch to face it.
Blatently incorrect corner/goal kick calls are actually very common and you'd think are something that could be corrected very easily using the technology available, without causing any fuss.
-
Surely one of the first things you learn as a ref is that if you don’t see something, you can’t give it. What on earth did the useless arse last night think he’d seen to justify giving a penalty. He clearly just guessed, probably in the hope that VAR would bail him out.
Yes, more should be made of that absolute clownshow. You do not give a penalty with seconds to go on the basis that 'something' may have happened you fucking idiot. The ball was out of play, he could've just stopped his watch and had a word in his mic to ask them to look again and check what happened, the twat.
Quite right and another example of where the egg-chasers get it right. In rugby the TMO is asked to support the ref when they are not sure.
Football in general, and especially in this country, is fixated on the referee always being right because - as per their logic - that somehow reinforces their authority.
It is precislely the opposite. Insisting that the referee is always right and then introducing a system to deal with wrong decisions instantly creates a problem that need not exist - hence the many instances of "no clear and obvious mistake" where VAR could produce the right decision but fails to do so in order to 'support' the ref.
To compound the problem, it is clear that referees are making decisions or in some instances not making decisions in the knowledge that VAR will check anyway. Like the other night at Leicester - he clearly didn't see a foul by Watkins but guessed and left it to VAR. Shit.
-
Another thing I hate about VAR (you might have gathered that I'm not a fan), is that it only applies here and there.
Leicester had a corner given, which with the benefit of a replay could clearly be seen to be the incorrect decision, perhaps, I would venture, clear and obvious even. From said corner that big galumph almost scored. Now I know people will point to the fact that the corner itself is a different phase, which is correct but it's a phase of play that shouldn't have taken place because of an incorrect decision that quite simply could've been reversed.
That did my head in too. That's a crucial, potentially match deciding incident and it wasn't even bloody close. And the big clumsy twat had nobbled Ollie along the way, so not only do we have the injustice of the corner, but we have less men on the pitch to face it.
Blatently incorrect corner/goal kick calls are actually very common and you'd think are something that could be corrected very easily using the technology available, without causing any fuss.
Agree with you both. If they're going to look at reasons to rule out goals in the build up such as fouls and handball, then corners should be looked at as well. There was more than a hint of 'levelling things up" in that last minute, firstly by changing his mind on the free kick, then on awarding the penalty. Just pure guess work both times.
-
They feel they have to be so formal with how they conduct it that it precludes the obvious quick word in the ear to advise them of that stuff. Of course the argument is where do you draw the line? When does a 'word in the ear' move to checking 2 or 3 replays for every corner of throw in etc?
But I agree entirely, when it's that blatant it seems like common sense to correct it.
-
They feel they have to be so formal with how they conduct it that it precludes the obvious quick word in the ear to advise them of that stuff. Of course the argument is where do you draw the line? When does a 'word in the ear' move to checking 2 or 3 replays for every corner of throw in etc?
But I agree entirely, when it's that blatant it seems like common sense to correct it.
Yes there is a line I guess, maybe not with throw ins but we always see players claiming the keeper got a touch or it clipped the defender whilst the ref ignores them, the ball is already dead and it's usually obvious from a quick replay either way.
-
They feel they have to be so formal with how they conduct it that it precludes the obvious quick word in the ear to advise them of that stuff. Of course the argument is where do you draw the line? When does a 'word in the ear' move to checking 2 or 3 replays for every corner of throw in etc?
But I agree entirely, when it's that blatant it seems like common sense to correct it.
Yes there is a line I guess, maybe not with throw ins but we always see players claiming the keeper got a touch or it clipped the defender whilst the ref ignores them, the ball is already dead and it's usually obvious from a quick replay either way.
"How long would it take them just have a quick look" were the original words that led to all of this.
-
They feel they have to be so formal with how they conduct it that it precludes the obvious quick word in the ear to advise them of that stuff. Of course the argument is where do you draw the line? When does a 'word in the ear' move to checking 2 or 3 replays for every corner of throw in etc?
But I agree entirely, when it's that blatant it seems like common sense to correct it.
Yes there is a line I guess, maybe not with throw ins but we always see players claiming the keeper got a touch or it clipped the defender whilst the ref ignores them, the ball is already dead and it's usually obvious from a quick replay either way.
"How long would it take them just have a quick look" were the original words that led to all of this.
Well quite, and it goes back around to Nev's point that this selective use is problematic in it's own right.
-
They feel they have to be so formal with how they conduct it that it precludes the obvious quick word in the ear to advise them of that stuff. Of course the argument is where do you draw the line? When does a 'word in the ear' move to checking 2 or 3 replays for every corner of throw in etc?
But I agree entirely, when it's that blatant it seems like common sense to correct it.
Yes there is a line I guess, maybe not with throw ins but we always see players claiming the keeper got a touch or it clipped the defender whilst the ref ignores them, the ball is already dead and it's usually obvious from a quick replay either way.
You're right, there is a line, but when they spend 4 minutes looking at the tightest of offsides, (which even then can't be that accurate anyway because there's no way of knowing the precise moment the ball left somebody's foot) then taking a few seconds to look at things like corners, which you'd think would be easier, surely wouldn't cross that line.
-
They feel they have to be so formal with how they conduct it that it precludes the obvious quick word in the ear to advise them of that stuff. Of course the argument is where do you draw the line? When does a 'word in the ear' move to checking 2 or 3 replays for every corner of throw in etc?
But I agree entirely, when it's that blatant it seems like common sense to correct it.
Yes there is a line I guess, maybe not with throw ins but we always see players claiming the keeper got a touch or it clipped the defender whilst the ref ignores them, the ball is already dead and it's usually obvious from a quick replay either way.
You're right, there is a line, but when they spend 4 minutes looking at the tightest of offsides, (which even then can't be that accurate anyway because there's no way of knowing the precise moment the ball left somebody's foot) then taking a few seconds to look at things like corners, which you'd think would be easier, surely wouldn't cross that line.
With paranoid officialdom already apparent, you know they will make a bloody meal of it.
-
They feel they have to be so formal with how they conduct it that it precludes the obvious quick word in the ear to advise them of that stuff. Of course the argument is where do you draw the line? When does a 'word in the ear' move to checking 2 or 3 replays for every corner of throw in etc?
But I agree entirely, when it's that blatant it seems like common sense to correct it.
Yes there is a line I guess, maybe not with throw ins but we always see players claiming the keeper got a touch or it clipped the defender whilst the ref ignores them, the ball is already dead and it's usually obvious from a quick replay either way.
You're right, there is a line, but when they spend 4 minutes looking at the tightest of offsides, (which even then can't be that accurate anyway because there's no way of knowing the precise moment the ball left somebody's foot) then taking a few seconds to look at things like corners, which you'd think would be easier, surely wouldn't cross that line.
The famous "toenail" offsides have always been the biggest bone of contention since var was introduced, well that and the total farce of handball decisions for a possible penalty. When they do their forensic checks for offside with lines etc in particular when the passing player is visible in the images you always see a blurred ball leaving the passers boot even on my very expensive ultra HD TV!! In other words they are guessing. I am repeating myself when I say this but all they have to do is have a quick 30 second look and if it's not obvious either way then you stick with the original decision and give the goal. They have gone down a fucking rabbit hole with this one when all they had to do was stick with the original rule which was "var will only intervene where there is deemed to be a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR"
-
Clear and obvious was never a requirement for offside.
For what it's worth I think they get the vast majority of offsides right now, notwithstanding debates about the interpretation of active player etc. It will be even better once they bring in the semi automated system we saw in the world cup.
I can't see how or why anyone would be against this aspect of VAR. Far preferable to weekly dodgy decisions, mostly favouring the 'Big' clubs.
-
Clear and obvious was never a requirement for offside.
For what it's worth I think they get the vast majority of offsides right now, notwithstanding debates about the interpretation of active player etc. It will be even better once they bring in the semi automated system we saw in the world cup.
I can't see how or why anyone would be against this aspect of VAR. Far preferable to weekly dodgy decisions, mostly favouring the 'Big' clubs.
Because it takes too long, is of questionable accuracy and ruins the enjoyment of football. Other than that though, it's great.
-
Clear and obvious was never a requirement for offside.
For what it's worth I think they get the vast majority of offsides right now, notwithstanding debates about the interpretation of active player etc. It will be even better once they bring in the semi automated system we saw in the world cup.
I can't see how or why anyone would be against this aspect of VAR. Far preferable to weekly dodgy decisions, mostly favouring the 'Big' clubs.
Because it takes too long, is of questionable accuracy and ruins the enjoyment of football. Other than that though, it's great.
But as he says there is the version used in the world cup that covers most of that. I assume that was the version he was talking about.
-
My biggest issue with all of this has been that the Sky commentators know the result before the paying fans and in some cases clearly before the ref is informed
|That just cannot be right
-
I like the idea of each team having a set number of reviews each half.
-
The issue IMO is that the fans in the stadium are not informed and shown what’s going on. Seems fine for the armchair supporters to know, but not those at the games. . Stops treating us like potential rioters, we are paying customers…
-
Nah these are Premier League teams, they'd use this to shithouse so badly.
-
I like the idea of each team having a set number of reviews each half.
That will become a time wasting technique.
-
Wouldn't take much would it.
"VAR check on the defending player's challenge on the attacker - possible non-penalty."
Maybe they could do two announcements, one from the perspective of each set of supporters.
-
Clear and obvious was never a requirement for offside.
For what it's worth I think they get the vast majority of offsides right now, notwithstanding debates about the interpretation of active player etc. It will be even better once they bring in the semi automated system we saw in the world cup.
I can't see how or why anyone would be against this aspect of VAR. Far preferable to weekly dodgy decisions, mostly favouring the 'Big' clubs.
Because it takes too long, is of questionable accuracy and ruins the enjoyment of football. Other than that though, it's great.
But as he says there is the version used in the world cup that covers most of that. I assume that was the version he was talking about.
Yes. The semi-automated system is almost instantaneous. Frankly I prefer the current system to Man Utd always getting favourable decisions, but the new system is much better. Not having it would be like saying lets judge a horse race or a 1,500m Olympic final on who looks like they've won rather than who actually has (yes, I know there's 100's of reasons why there's no comparison, but y'know).
-
They feel they have to be so formal with how they conduct it that it precludes the obvious quick word in the ear to advise them of that stuff. Of course the argument is where do you draw the line? When does a 'word in the ear' move to checking 2 or 3 replays for every corner of throw in etc?
But I agree entirely, when it's that blatant it seems like common sense to correct it.
Yes there is a line I guess, maybe not with throw ins but we always see players claiming the keeper got a touch or it clipped the defender whilst the ref ignores them, the ball is already dead and it's usually obvious from a quick replay either way.
You're right, there is a line, but when they spend 4 minutes looking at the tightest of offsides, (which even then can't be that accurate anyway because there's no way of knowing the precise moment the ball left somebody's foot) then taking a few seconds to look at things like corners, which you'd think would be easier, surely wouldn't cross that line.
The famous "toenail" offsides have always been the biggest bone of contention since var was introduced, well that and the total farce of handball decisions for a possible penalty. When they do their forensic checks for offside with lines etc in particular when the passing player is visible in the images you always see a blurred ball leaving the passers boot even on my very expensive ultra HD TV!! In other words they are guessing. I am repeating myself when I say this but all they have to do is have a quick 30 second look and if it's not obvious either way then you stick with the original decision and give the goal. They have gone down a fucking rabbit hole with this one when all they had to do was stick with the original rule which was "var will only intervene where there is deemed to be a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR"
A toenail offside is offside as is half a toenail. I know the point you're trying to make though and will only say that the technology as it is is what we work to for now. Until we have a sensor in the ball which detects velocity is generated we will never know the precise time the forward motion of the ball started. Var for offsides while not totally accurate works better than a linesman's judgement so I'm all for it. Other uses of Var is subjective and that's where the real problem with it is. That subjectivity worked in our favour on Tuesday as the Ref's original penalty (WTF was he seeing) was correctly overruled.
-
Clear and obvious was never a requirement for offside.
For what it's worth I think they get the vast majority of offsides right now, notwithstanding debates about the interpretation of active player etc. It will be even better once they bring in the semi automated system we saw in the world cup.
I can't see how or why anyone would be against this aspect of VAR. Far preferable to weekly dodgy decisions, mostly favouring the 'Big' clubs.
Well we've got var now and the sky6 consistently get dodgy decisions go their way. I think everyone was in favour of var in the beginning because we naively thought it would stop all that but the way it's been implemented by the PL it's still open interpretation so they can favour said Sky6. Deliberately in my view. There's absolutely no reason why the technology used in Qatar can't be implemented in the PL next season for offsides. That would be a game changer so let's wait and see if it happens. If it doesn't come in next season it will confirm my cynical attitude towards VAR, the PL and the Sky6.
-
But there's some that suspect the only reason a penalty was awarded was because the referee thought he could, and if he was wrong he'd be told as much.
-
But there's some that suspect the only reason a penalty was awarded was because the referee thought he could, and if he was wrong he'd be told as much.
And by doing so he showed the world what a useless referee he is.
-
If Souttar had scored VAR would have disallowed the goal due to corner issue.
-
If Souttar had scored VAR would have disallowed the goal due to corner issue.
I'm loathe to use the phrase, "would it bollocks", but I will.
-
If Souttar had scored VAR would have disallowed the goal due to corner issue.
I'm loathe to use the phrase, "would it bollocks", but I will.
Absolutely correct. VAR couldn't have got involved as it would be classed as a different phase. A blatantly wrong decision could of resulted in a goal and var could do nothing to correct it. Reason numer 164 why I hate var.
-
Had a brainwave or perhaps it is a brain fart. To do with time wasting which happens in a lot of games. Not exactly VAR but it is a breach of the game.
If a referee considers a team is deliberately time wasting, they should give the captain a warning. If it happens again, the captain should get booked regardless of which player in his team is guilty of the crime. If it happens again, red card for the captain.
It would certainly cut out a lot of time wasting!!
Teams will try and manipulate this, change captain per match etc but if so, their intent is even more clear.
In cricket and on occasion, a captain is held responsible for the conduct of his team and appropriate penalties imposed upon the captain. Perhaps it is time a captain becomes more accountable for his team in football.
Just a thought on a quiet Monday.
-
Had a brainwave or perhaps it is a brain fart. To do with time wasting which happens in a lot of games. Not exactly VAR but it is a breach of the game.
If a referee considers a team is deliberately time wasting, they should give the captain a warning. If it happens again, the captain should get booked regardless of which player in his team is guilty of the crime. If it happens again, red card for the captain.
It would certainly cut out a lot of time wasting!!
Teams will try and manipulate this, change captain per match etc but if so, their intent is even more clear.
In cricket and on occasion, a captain is held responsible for the conduct of his team and appropriate penalties imposed upon the captain. Perhaps it is time a captain becomes more accountable for his team in football.
Just a thought on a quiet Monday.
Good idea, but obviously there must be exceptions, one of them if you play for Aston Villa
-
Then you just rotate the captaincy.
-
Then you just rotate the captaincy.
Yes, but should not be allowed mid game unless the captain is substituted.
-
Then you just rotate the captaincy.
Which would be considered clear time wasting unless he's subbed .
-
The arm band plays a lesser role these days, especially with foreign managers. There's expected to be a core of players who have leadership skills. For us, for example, Mings, Martinez, McGinn, Young, Luiz, even Watkins nowadays are all leaders in the dressing room. If other teams wanted to be cynical and take advantage of a rule like that, they could just rotate the arm band and since time wasting may only happen in the last 20 minutes, substitute the captain of the day.
-
I think we'd miss VAR if they did away with it now. At least when a crap decision goes against you now, there's a chance of it being corrected, even if they don't always get it right.
It's not perfect, but the way it's used just needs to be tweaked.
-
They keep tweaking it. They've even changed laws of the game to accommodate its flaws. It continues to get worse.
But we're in too deep now. Referees are relying on it. I'm convinced that penalty was awarded to Leicester because the ref thought (not knew, or even really believed) something, anything, dunno what, must have happened, fuck it, I'll blow my whistle and award a penalty, and if it's nothing then var will sort it out. No harm done, eh, lads?
-
You can't tweak subjective opinion, two people might share opposing views of an incident but if one happens to be the VAR official, what are you supposed to do?
All the wailing and moaning about the decisions over the weekend were precisely what VAR was bought in to stop. It didn't, it doesn't and it never will.
-
You can't tweak subjective opinion, two people might share opposing views of an incident but if one happens to be the VAR official, what are you supposed to do?
All the wailing and moaning about the decisions over the weekend were precisely what VAR was bought in to stop. It didn't, it doesn't and it never will.
Exactly.
-
That penalty incident for Brighton. It looked like a penalty at full speed when it happened, and you only needed to see it once slowed down to see it was definitely a penalty. You can just about forgive the on-field ref, as he may not have seen it properly, but instead of the meaningless apology from PGMOL I’d like to hear what the clowns on VAR actually thought they were watching to dismiss it.
-
So was the reversal of pen v Leicester a subjective decision?
-
So was the reversal of pen v Leicester a subjective decision?
Of course it was, it's not a matter of fact, it's matter of opinion. I, like the general consensus and indeed the VAR official didn't think it was a penalty but it's the VAR official who is on the spot. He might've backed the ref and given it and regardless of how outraged and incredulous we might be about it, that would've been that. Just like Brighton on Saturday.
-
I like the idea of each team having a set number of reviews each half.
That will become a time wasting technique.
Easily remedied though. You get 1 review. If you use it and it's correct, you can use it again whenever. Otherwise it renews after 20mins. Outside of that, it's referee's discretion. If you know something's happened and it's just the ref hasn't seen it - there's no reason not to call for a review as you'll get it back. Otherwise, you do it after 70mins and you're not getting another for the rest of the game. Going to be very hard to timewaste a huge amount that way, without punishing teams using it in the spirit intended.
-
So was the reversal of pen v Leicester a subjective decision?
Of course it was, it's not a matter of fact, it's matter of opinion. I, like the general consensus and indeed the VAR official didn't think it was a penalty but it's the VAR official who is on the spot. He might've backed the ref and given it and regardless of how outraged and incredulous we might be about it, that would've been that. Just like Brighton on Saturday.
So sort of agree with you but I am of the opinion that that was good and an unjust decision was corrected however I am also of an opinion that VAR should not be used for subjective reviews, only for stuff that can be technically proven. The balancing out over a season implies on subjective stuff. This is a terrible dichotomy.
-
So was the reversal of pen v Leicester a subjective decision?
Of course it was, it's not a matter of fact, it's matter of opinion. I, like the general consensus and indeed the VAR official didn't think it was a penalty but it's the VAR official who is on the spot. He might've backed the ref and given it and regardless of how outraged and incredulous we might be about it, that would've been that. Just like Brighton on Saturday.
So sort of agree with you but I am of the opinion that that was good and an unjust decision was corrected however I am also of an opinion that VAR should not be used for subjective reviews, only for stuff that can be technically proven. The balancing out over a season implies on subjective stuff. This is a terrible dichotomy.
How does that work then because surely every incident other than offside IS a subjective decision? Foul/no foul, interfering with play or not, intentiona lot played the ball or deflected etc etc
-
The linesman in the Liverpool versus Arsenal game didn’t exactly smash Robinson did he? Robinson approached him and the linesman gave him a bit of a get off me type raised arm. I appreciate it doesn’t look good but I honestly don’t think there’s anything in it, and Poor old Andy Robertson, giving it large because they were losing. I hope the FA show some common sense with this. But it seems in short supply when it comes to the FA.
-
You can't tweak subjective opinion, two people might share opposing views of an incident but if one happens to be the VAR official, what are you supposed to do?
All the wailing and moaning about the decisions over the weekend were precisely what VAR was bought in to stop. It didn't, it doesn't and it never will.
Of course where a situation is open to subjective interpretation, VAR will make no difference. But this ignores all those instances (and there are quite a few) where it results in a correct decision that otherwise would have seen an injustice allowed to stand.
If you abandon VAR, you maybe avoid those annoying pauses in play, but it's a simple fact that you will get more incorrect decisions and more whinging about them.
We'd probably only have got a point at Leicester, for a start. And I'd definitely have been whinging about that.
-
Had a brainwave or perhaps it is a brain fart. To do with time wasting which happens in a lot of games. Not exactly VAR but it is a breach of the game.
If a referee considers a team is deliberately time wasting, they should give the captain a warning. If it happens again, the captain should get booked regardless of which player in his team is guilty of the crime. If it happens again, red card for the captain.
It would certainly cut out a lot of time wasting!!
Teams will try and manipulate this, change captain per match etc but if so, their intent is even more clear.
In cricket and on occasion, a captain is held responsible for the conduct of his team and appropriate penalties imposed upon the captain. Perhaps it is time a captain becomes more accountable for his team in football.
Just a thought on a quiet Monday.
Not a bad shout. One big change Id make , is just let the trainers on if a player goes down injured. Play carries on. Professional footballers should be able to play around that. With the caveat that a clear “ really bad injury , such as head clash/leg break “ would see the game stopped, it would stop no end of time wasting.
-
Had a brainwave or perhaps it is a brain fart. To do with time wasting which happens in a lot of games. Not exactly VAR but it is a breach of the game.
If a referee considers a team is deliberately time wasting, they should give the captain a warning. If it happens again, the captain should get booked regardless of which player in his team is guilty of the crime. If it happens again, red card for the captain.
It would certainly cut out a lot of time wasting!!
Teams will try and manipulate this, change captain per match etc but if so, their intent is even more clear.
In cricket and on occasion, a captain is held responsible for the conduct of his team and appropriate penalties imposed upon the captain. Perhaps it is time a captain becomes more accountable for his team in football.
Just a thought on a quiet Monday.
Not a bad shout. One big change Id make , is just let the trainers on if a player goes down injured. Play carries on. Professional footballers should be able to play around that. With the caveat that a clear “ really bad injury , such as head clash/leg break “ would see the game stopped, it would stop no end of time wasting.
I agree if Rugby can continue then why not.
-
At the rugby league last Saturday you had all sorts of people hi-viz coats on the pitch during play: coaches, water carriers, ball-holder carriers. They might as well have someone wandering around selling Cornettos or the Evening Mail
-
At the rugby league last Saturday you had all sorts of people hi-viz coats on the pitch during play: coaches, water carriers, ball-holder carriers. They might as well have someone wandering around selling Cornettos or the Evening Mail
Le Courrier du Soir?
-
At the rugby league last Saturday you had all sorts of people hi-viz coats on the pitch during play: coaches, water carriers, ball-holder carriers. They might as well have someone wandering around selling Cornettos or the Evening Mail
Le Courrier du Soir?
Non, La 'ce qui signifie le mal' peut-etre?
BE- how close is that to The Meaning Evil?
-
I'm not a fan of the idea of reviews for captains or whoever. If you're trying to get the right decision, then it ought to be up to the officials.
VAR and its use reminds me of when I used to have a boss who micromanaged everything I did. They undermined me, expected everything to be perfect, got pissy when any mistake was spotted and destroyed any confidence I had in my own ability. To top that off, I had to help fix any mistake in their own practice.
-
Change the match time to 60 minutes but make it ball in play. The time wasting is therefore not effective anymore.
-
Change the match time to 60 minutes but make it ball in play. The time wasting is therefore not effective anymore.
They've more or less decided to do the opposite, haven't they? I think I read they're adopting the added time approach as seen at the World Cup.
-
You can't tweak subjective opinion, two people might share opposing views of an incident but if one happens to be the VAR official, what are you supposed to do?
All the wailing and moaning about the decisions over the weekend were precisely what VAR was bought in to stop. It didn't, it doesn't and it never will.
The simple answer is the ref should lead any VAR review (other than offside) and look at the monitor himself to check any potential big decisions, not wait 5 mins for VAR to do so and be called over like a naughty schoolboy. If they have 6 monitors around the ground, the ref taking a few seconds to double check something shouldn't be a problem.
-
You do have to wonder how "fast" the reviews are happening. For example the non-penalty given with Brighton. The stamp on the foot is hard to spot on initial viewing. It does look like a bundle together which could go either way. However on a couple of reviews it should have been obvious, but play is continuing. They are supposed to be in contact with the referee to see why he came to the conclusion he did and find out if he saw that part of the incident. I doubt that they are disracting him from other incidents happening. It seems to me it is very rare for a penalty to be overturned if play continues so again, I wonder if there is an unwritten rule that if play continues, side with the ref. (Unless it is a top 6 team.....)
-
There was that time Man U got to take a penalty after the final whistle had blown!
-
Time is definitely the biggest problem with VAR right now but it would really help if it wasn't just empty minutes with fans in the ground getting no feedback at all and TV only having guesswork from commentators about what is happening. I go on about the system in other sports far too often but in the rugby and cricket the TV viewers get to listen in to the discussions and the fans in the ground get big screens showing replays and can get comms to listen in on top.
Sometimes there are controversial decisions in those sports but everyone has the opportunity to hear why the decision has been made as it is and there is never the situation when even hours later people have no idea how a decisions has been reached. If PGMOL think they're doing a good job and are getting things right more often than not then they should be a lot more transparent. By hiding the decision making process in the way they do it does feel like they have a reason to hide it, which creates a lot of the distrust fans have towards them.
-
Time is definitely the biggest problem with VAR right now but it would really help if it wasn't just empty minutes with fans in the ground getting no feedback at all and TV only having guesswork from commentators about what is happening. I go on about the system in other sports far too often but in the rugby and cricket the TV viewers get to listen in to the discussions and the fans in the ground get big screens showing replays and can get comms to listen in on top.
Sometimes there are controversial decisions in those sports but everyone has the opportunity to hear why the decision has been made as it is and there is never the situation when even hours later people have no idea how a decisions has been reached. If PGMOL think they're doing a good job and are getting things right more often than not then they should be a lot more transparent. By hiding the decision making process in the way they do it does feel like they have a reason to hide it, which creates a lot of the distrust fans have towards them.
Whilst many may think it insulting, I understand why the authorities don't trust football fans to sit through detailed replays of controversial incidents. It could just be too incendiary in an already hostile atmosphere. There's also more chance of the ref being influenced by the crowd - tbh I think you even see this in rugby sometimes with cards for high tackles etc. The pressure would be worse at football.
But certainly, the communication could and should be much better. Also, for transparency, the decision-making process could be broadcast on live TV but not at the ground.
-
There was that time Man U got to take a penalty after the final whistle had blown!
Remind me of that one Martin as I genuinely can't remember it.
-
There was that time Man U got to take a penalty after the final whistle had blown!
Remind me of that one Martin as I genuinely can't remember it.
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/manchester-united/story/4192046/how-did-man-uniteds-bruno-fernandes-score-winner-vs-brighton-after-full-time-whistle-was-blown
-
There was that time Man U got to take a penalty after the final whistle had blown!
Remind me of that one Martin as I genuinely can't remember it.
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/manchester-united/story/4192046/how-did-man-uniteds-bruno-fernandes-score-winner-vs-brighton-after-full-time-whistle-was-blown
Cheers mate, it was Manure so I have a tendency to quickly erase anything to do with them from my memory bank.
I'm assuming that the same scenario applies if a goal is scored and the defending team kicks off for the restart. Surely it has to? It was always the case that once the game had been restarted after a goal had been scored, nothing could be done to disallow it and the goal stood. Must check.
-
I'm not going to say this is what actually happens, but...
-
Sky Sports Dermort Gallagher Ref Watch:
Gakpo disallowed goal
INCIDENT: With Liverpool trailing 1-0 to Aston Villa, Cody Gakpo scores an equaliser but an offside check is made on Virgil van Dijk, who was standing in an offside position in the build-up after Luis Diaz's header was blocked by Ezri Konsa. VAR rules that Konsa did not make a genuine attempt to play the ball, meaning Van Dijk was offside.
VERDICT: Correct decision in law, but it's tricky.
DERMOT SAYS: "In law Gakpo's goal shouldn't have stood, the officials have got it correct. The way it is written, the referees are in a pickle with it.
"This is a very tough law to interpret. It's all about if the player makes a genuine attempt to play the ball. Does he go to block the ball, does it strike him?
If you look at this incident, the VAR can't decide. He has to send the referee to the monitor because it has to be the referee's decision and it has to be subjective.
A block is a block. A genuine attempt to play the ball is to take the ball under control, clear it for a corner or to clear it up field.
The referee has to second guess the player's [Konsa] intention. The law as it is written doesn't help the officials. If I was that player I would probably be upset.
"It's a very unfortunate part of the law which leaves the officials hamstrung."
Mings booking
INCIDENT: In the first half, Tyrone Mings is penalised for a high boot on Cody Gakpo, in which the Villa defender catches the Liverpool forward in the chest. The referee gives Mings a yellow card.
VERDICT: It's a red card.
DERMOT SAYS: "There are stud marks all up his chest, he caught him at the top of his chest. He'll say he got the ball but that doesn't negate that as we saw with Casemiro earlier in the season.
"For me if you put your studs that high into someone's chest you are lucky to stay on the field.
"When you are face to face on the field you can't do that."
-
And right there is a third of the problem with refereeing across the world.
The fact that the laws of the game can be "interpreted" & are seen as "subjective" means they aren't laws of the game. They are guidelines. Which for a billion pound industry, is ridiculous.
Rules & laws should not be able to be interpreted or seen as subjective. They should be definitive. Set in stone. And simple enough for even the stupidest of referees (*cough*Mark Halsey*cough*) to be able to understand. So that even the stupidest of players (*cough*Grealish*cough*) can understand.
That way, we are all on the same playing field, physically & metaphorically.
The other two thirds are incompetence & corruption.
-
The game will never remove subjectivity but reducing it where possible, without damaging the game, and adding accountability where you can't is feasible. The biggest problem is that pgmol opposes the latter.
-
VAR: Almost two-thirds of supporters oppose system's use in English football, says new survey of nearly 10,000 fans on behalf of the FSA
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65971724
-
And right there is a third of the problem with refereeing across the world.
The fact that the laws of the game can be "interpreted" & are seen as "subjective" means they aren't laws of the game. They are guidelines. Which for a billion pound industry, is ridiculous.
Rules & laws should not be able to be interpreted or seen as subjective. They should be definitive. Set in stone. And simple enough for even the stupidest of referees (*cough*Mark Halsey*cough*) to be able to understand. So that even the stupidest of players (*cough*Grealish*cough*) can understand.
That way, we are all on the same playing field, physically & metaphorically.
The other two thirds are incompetence & corruption.
But to a large extent the laws have always been subjective
The old laws talked about whether a handball was deliberate or accidental?
Remember the old “ball to hand” argument?
Two referees seeing the same incident would arrive at different conclusions
Therefore the decision was a subjective one
It just seems that changes in recent years have made more and more decisions subjective
-
:-\Did you hear on the new format of TNT sports previously BT sport they aren't continuing with Peter Walton. Let's bring in Peter Walton is no more.
On Sky Sports this season Mike Dean will provide a detailed analysis and perspective on ref decisions on Sky Soccer Saturday.
-
Remind me not to watch that.
-
Mike Dean enjoyed a red card didn't he.
I remember there was a furore here there and everywhere about him celebrating a goal
-
VAR is still a pox on the game.
-
Mike Dean enjoyed a red card didn't he.
I remember there was a furore here there and everywhere about him celebrating a goal
Oh great he will be able to justify his mates shit / biased decisions In real time rather than the day after
-
I'll start the ball rolling early doors ahead of the new season here by stating, ahead of the endless arguments that it was meant to end, that it doesn't work and furthermore, never will.
-
You're right, it won't.
For one thing, they don't have enough competent referees to run the system.
-
I'd like to see the refs miked up like they have been at the women's world cup. I'd love to hear them trying to explain the latest shit decision they've made.
-
When I reffed US high school "soccer" there was a signal for each type of foul (push, trip, obstruction, etc.) and for when you were stopping the clock (which was sometimes operated by the scoreboard operator). There wasn't a way of explaining why you'd sent someone who hadn't committed a foul off though.
-
To be fair I don’t think they have explained i decisions in the Women’s World Cup. They’ve just announced their decision, and the overall end result is no different to a screen announcement.
-
Yes, it would have been nice to know why James initial 2nd goal was chalked off specifically. I know Bronze was offside when the high ball went into the box, but she actually walked back several yards to be onside when the ball came back to her. Have they removed "phases" from play, did they decide the defender played it under pressure under the "Mings" rule or something else?
-
To be fair I don’t think they have explained i decisions in the Women’s World Cup. They’ve just announced their decision, and the overall end result is no different to a screen announcement.
Good point. Wouldn't it be great though?
-
Another clanger dropped this evening?
-
Yep. Penalty all day long
-
I mentioned it in the other games thread but it always makes me laugh when football takes something that's already in place in other sports, and leaves out all the parts that make it work in those sports, and then act like it's a learning curve, or will take time to bed in or whatever other nonsense they come up with.
-
Football use the term “VAR” as a cop out. In reality the decision last night was made by three blokes sitting in a van watching the game on tv. It was a terrible call but to dehumanise it by calling it VAR’s fault is saying, it’s not really the fault of the PL or match officials … and of course our game is fair, unbiased.
The offside technology used at the World Cup wasn’t taken up by the PL. it left less room for “error” and decisions to be made quicker.
Im with AV84. Take a technology that works well in other sports, mess it up, blame the technology.
-
I said it on the other games thread but the new rules and VAR are used as a smokescreen to mask the fact the officials are not improving in any way. There is no need to change the rules every season, just keep it the same for 2/3 years and then take away the excuse. At the moment PGMOL will be loving every conversation being about injury time, bookings, 30 second off field rules rather than the ability of the officials.
VAR does what they want it to do…it’s the humans using it that are completely at fault and the humans that define the rules it is used for that are also at fault.
The ‘clear and obvious’ cop out that they conveniently used last night either applies to everything or nothing and shouldn’t be used to excuse rank incompetence.
I also think the pundits and commentators are at fault, never do you hear them call out the toe nail offsides as being completely fraudulent, as is my biggest bugbear they have no tech that tells them with 100% accuracy the moment the ball is played to ensure they draw the lines on the right frame. If you can’t prove one you have to have tolerance in the end result.
-
I've always thought that PGMOL don't want VAR so are operating it as poorly as possible.
-
I've always thought that PGMOL don't want VAR so are operating it as poorly as possible.
I think initially that was right, now I think they like the excuse.
Personally I don’t think the VAR should just be a referee on a day off from running around…it’s a specific role and as such should be full time VAR job to build competence.
-
I've mentioned before I'd like to see PGMOL disbanded and overseas officials brought into the Premier League while a new organisation is set up.
-
I've always thought that PGMOL don't want VAR so are operating it as poorly as possible.
I think initially that was right, now I think they like the excuse.
Personally I don’t think the VAR should just be a referee on a day off from running around…it’s a specific role and as such should be full time VAR job to build competence.
VAR should be run by tech nerds with absolutely no interest in football at all.
-
I've mentioned before I'd like to see PGMOL disbanded and overseas officials brought into the Premier League while a new organisation is set up.
Think if Howard Webb can’t be an improvement on that clown Riley then you maybe right though it’s kind of saying PL is more important than other leagues.
Perhaps if England / Spain / Germany / France & Italy all got together and formed a joint group of officials to work across the five leagues might work
-
The only conclusion I can draw from last night's decision not to give a penalty to Wolves is that it was the one that the officials on the pitch and at Stockley Park wanted to make, there being no objective evidence that could possibly justify it.
-
I said it on the other games thread but the new rules and VAR are used as a smokescreen to mask the fact the officials are not improving in any way. There is no need to change the rules every season, just keep it the same for 2/3 years and then take away the excuse. At the moment PGMOL will be loving every conversation being about injury time, bookings, 30 second off field rules rather than the ability of the officials.
VAR does what they want it to do…it’s the humans using it that are completely at fault and the humans that define the rules it is used for that are also at fault.
The ‘clear and obvious’ cop out that they conveniently used last night either applies to everything or nothing and shouldn’t be used to excuse rank incompetence.
I also think the pundits and commentators are at fault, never do you hear them call out the toe nail offsides as being completely fraudulent, as is my biggest bugbear they have no tech that tells them with 100% accuracy the moment the ball is played to ensure they draw the lines on the right frame. If you can’t prove one you have to have tolerance in the end result.
Agree with every word
-
All three officials responsible for not giving Wolves the pen yesterday not selected for next weekends games.
Should be unselected for at least a month to give them time to reflect on what the hell they were doing.
-
The only conclusion I can draw from last night's decision not to give a penalty to Wolves is that it was the one that the officials on the pitch and at Stockley Park wanted to make, there being no objective evidence that could possibly justify it.
Absolutely correct but the the elephant in the room is the question: "why is that the decision that the match officials and Stockley Park wanted to make?" Are they biased? Are they corrupt? Are they incompetent? It boils down to one of the three. Because as certain as eggs is eggs if that incident was at the other end they would give that pen in a heartbeat with no need for Stockley Park to review. It seems we are no nearer to fair, unbiased and competent match officiating as we've ever been.
-
As I've said before, all the technology has done is give them more tools with which to implement their biases.
-
I said it on the other games thread but the new rules and VAR are used as a smokescreen to mask the fact the officials are not improving in any way. There is no need to change the rules every season, just keep it the same for 2/3 years and then take away the excuse. At the moment PGMOL will be loving every conversation being about injury time, bookings, 30 second off field rules rather than the ability of the officials.
VAR does what they want it to do…it’s the humans using it that are completely at fault and the humans that define the rules it is used for that are also at fault.
The ‘clear and obvious’ cop out that they conveniently used last night either applies to everything or nothing and shouldn’t be used to excuse rank incompetence.
I also think the pundits and commentators are at fault, never do you hear them call out the toe nail offsides as being completely fraudulent, as is my biggest bugbear they have no tech that tells them with 100% accuracy the moment the ball is played to ensure they draw the lines on the right frame. If you can’t prove one you have to have tolerance in the end result.
Agree with every word
I also agree. One of my biggest problems with var has always been the offside by a nasal hair type decision. There was a great example of this last weekend in the Spurs/Brentford match. They know there's a problem with using the correct frame which was addressed at the last World Cup in Qatar. They used a very accurate computerised system which relied on sensors and top notch cameras. Our bunch of braindead numpties relied on trying to freeze the correct frame when Maddison took the free kick that Spurs scored from. We ended up with a blurred image of Maddison and after about an hour they applied those stupid lines from a really dodgy angle. It's pathetic it's totally unscientific and it's open to bias. What a bunch of cretins.
-
All three officials responsible for not giving Wolves the pen yesterday not selected for next weekends games.
Should be unselected for at least a month to give them time to reflect on what the hell they were doing.
None of them should ever be allowed near a game again!
-
Why have they been stood down? What's the reason? That hasn't been stated.
Is it:
Not good enough for the job?
To show PLMOG to be "doing" something?
Why did they all make the wrong decision?
Lack of knowledge of the rules?
Bias toward man u?
And more importantly, depending on the answers above, what will be done to stop it happening again?
Training?
Ban for the refs involved?
-
I disagree that video technology works well in other sports. In rugby union there can be ridiculously long waits for decisions on whether there was downward pressure, mitigating factors or indeed any other technicality of the law that the average fan doesn't understand being breached. In NFL there's similar agonising over whether a players foot is touching the paint. In GAA last year hawkeye was just completely wrong so they stopped using it.
It works particularly badly in football because it's a fluid game decided by relatively few moments of high importance.
-
I disagree that video technology works well in other sports. In rugby union there can be ridiculously long waits for decisions on whether there was downward pressure, mitigating factors or indeed any other technicality of the law that the average fan doesn't understand being breached. In NFL there's similar agonising over whether a players foot is touching the paint. In GAA last year hawkeye was just completely wrong so they stopped using it.
It works particularly badly in football because it's a fluid game decided by relatively few moments of high importance.
Rugby is a game naturally given to stopages. The technology works within the format of the game. Also, the fact the crowd in the stadium and at home can hear the discussions means they'll usually understand why a decision has been made, whether they're familiar with laws or not. The success rate of these decisions means that generally speaking the audience of a rugby match will trust the decision even if they're not up on the laws.
American sports are annoyingly given to stoppages, so again, the pause to get a decision right doesn't impact on the depressingly slow speed of a game.
You are correct though to say implementing it the same way in football would cause more problems and even if it resulted in 100% accuracy on every decision, people would still complain because a 90 minute game is now taking 2.5 hours to finish. So yeah, they can't just take what works in other sports and assume it will work in football. But the way they're not even trying to use the methods that work in other sports, even just the level of clarity in decision making, is still a hugely stupid way to go about it.
-
Fuck it off, it doesn't work.
-
I disagree that video technology works well in other sports. In rugby union there can be ridiculously long waits for decisions on whether there was downward pressure, mitigating factors or indeed any other technicality of the law that the average fan doesn't understand being breached. In NFL there's similar agonising over whether a players foot is touching the paint. In GAA last year hawkeye was just completely wrong so they stopped using it.
It works particularly badly in football because it's a fluid game decided by relatively few moments of high importance.
Please don't take this the wrong way but I'd suggest that if you think video referrals don't work in rugby it's because you don't know the game. At the very highest level the pace and power is so extreme that the game relies on the breaks in play it provides.
That said I agree that the delays for things like checking for a foot in touch or grounding can feel a bit long but it's generally a conversation between the officials that you can hear (on comms at home or with a little radio thing in the ground) that helps the decisions normally turn out correct.
-
All three officials responsible for not giving Wolves the pen yesterday not selected for next weekends games.
Should be unselected for at least a month to give them time to reflect on what the hell they were doing.
When they'll be let loose to go and do exactly the same thing again. They should incur a three month suspension on reduced pay, that'll learn 'em! I know I'm being flippant but it does need to be seen that steps are being taken to make referee's responsible for outrageous and unfair decisions like as seen last night. Next thing is, they'll taking the foot out of football.
-
Yes, this whole dropping them for the following games is just a waste of time.
-
It's just an act of them doing something - no explanation about why it happened or why it won't again.
-
I really hate the level of abuse and disrespect the ref's get from players, but I can understand their frustration when they're elite players and the games being controlled by an utter cretin. I'm surprised O'Neil managed to keep his cool when getting booked and not end up getting a red.
A lot of focus on the divs in VAR but the ref was looking straight at it as well, what's his excuse.
-
As others have said, video technology works well in rugby and even more so in cricket, because breaks in play are far more common. And in cricket they have the added bonus that 90% of it comes to down a relatively small bit of pitch, with only one person to concentrate on.
The problem with football is that decisions are very often highly subjective, and video replays can often make a passage of play look completely different to normal speed.
That said, last night was just a disgrace. It was as clear a penalty as you're ever going to see. The only excuse the ref could have was if he didn't see it, but then he's got the assistant ref to help as well. But for however many people are on VAR to look at that several times over and say "not a foul", well, the mind boggles. At the very least they should have sent the ref to have another look at it.
-
I really hate the level of abuse and disrespect the ref's get from players, but I can understand their frustration when they're elite players and the games being controlled by an utter cretin. I'm surprised O'Neil managed to keep his cool when getting booked and not end up getting a red.
A lot of focus on the divs in VAR but the ref was looking straight at it as well, what's his excuse.
Abuse and disrespect of the referee is in his own hands to control. If he's abused and he does nothing about it, then he will continue to be abused. If a referee gains a reputation for coming down hard on personal abuse it won't be too long before he receives very little. It's up to themselves. If you don't like headaches, stop banging your head off the wall.
-
They should have just dragged them out and let Wolves take the pen. Apologies and standing down reds doesn’t redress the issue that MUtd have 2 too many points.
-
The referee on the field will make a decision based on one angle around 5-6ft above the playing surface, with potential other players in the way and at speed. The referee should have seen it I wouldn't have fully blamed him. However, for VAR to state there was no clear error means he told them why he didn't think it was a penalty AND they saw the same thing. This is the conversations that need to be broadcast like they have in Rugby. Their refs are miked so they commentate their decisions out to the crowd. The recent Women's World Cup have trialled something but not the correct something. For example they never stated why they considered Bronze offside when in theory it was the second phase of play, just that it was offside (I suspected the Mings rule of defender only played it to bronze under pressure).
So we don't need the stop start of Rugby, just the addition if hearing the refs decisions as that would definitely put paid to any claims of bias and cheating. (So maybe why they haven't done it). As for the stop start, the incident being judged on was stopped anyway so sending the ref to the monitor wouldn't have delayed it. Especially as he was by the touchline to book O'Neill.
-
Decisions like last night call into question the integrity of the game and more specifically the integrity of specific individuals. These are supposed professionals who have a trained eye to quickly make decisions or review initial decisions to find obvious fault. I am finding it hard to believe, even if the on pitch refs missed it that with the help of multiple camera angles they could have found anything other than a penalty. And then for that prick Man U manager to see it the only way you knew he would, without a shred of honesty, well that’s another conversation.
-
Decisions like last night call into question the integrity of the game and more specifically the integrity of specific individuals. These are supposed professionals who have a trained eye to quickly make decisions or review initial decisions to find obvious fault. I am finding it hard to believe, even if the on pitch refs missed it that with the help of multiple camera angles they could have found anything other than a penalty. And then for that prick Man U manager to see it the only way you knew he would, without a shred of honesty, well that’s another conversation.
You’ve hit upon something there, I don’t get why he can’t just say “we got very lucky there”. It’ as if he fears by admitting the referee made an error that favoured him, he’s going to get a dodgy penalty given against him next match.
-
Exactly. We know decisions across the course of a season go both ways. So he could have easily said, I didn’t see it clearly at the time. I’ve looked since and we got lucky. Maybe we will be less fortunate in the future or decisions at this level need to be better. But to blatant say it wasn’t a penalty is just straight up nonsense
-
I disagree that video technology works well in other sports. In rugby union there can be ridiculously long waits for decisions on whether there was downward pressure, mitigating factors or indeed any other technicality of the law that the average fan doesn't understand being breached. In NFL there's similar agonising over whether a players foot is touching the paint. In GAA last year hawkeye was just completely wrong so they stopped using it.
It works particularly badly in football because it's a fluid game decided by relatively few moments of high importance.
Please don't take this the wrong way but I'd suggest that if you think video referrals don't work in rugby it's because you don't know the game. At the very highest level the pace and power is so extreme that the game relies on the breaks in play it provides.
That said I agree that the delays for things like checking for a foot in touch or grounding can feel a bit long but it's generally a conversation between the officials that you can hear (on comms at home or with a little radio thing in the ground) that helps the decisions normally turn out correct.
I'm both a player and spectator, I meant from the point of the average spectator who doesn't know the intricacies of the rules, the elongated pauses aren't entertaining. You're also right in that the sport has evolved around its rules as the TMO has been in place for a long time now. It's not infallible though, Farrell's TMO red card has been rescinded on appeal, that's a TMO 'error' (I thought it was a red based on the current rules) that could completely change the game. Thankfully this was a relatively meaningless warm up match, but all these years down the line, massive mistakes are being made by the TMO so it's not exactly 'working'
-
Chris Bascombe
Thu, 24 August 2023 at 10:27 pm BST
Mike Dean admits he failed to intervene on Var decision to protect his ‘mate’ Anthony Taylor
Former Premier League referee Mike Dean failed to intervene on a major Var call because he didn’t want to cause his friend Anthony Taylor any ‘grief’, he has revealed.
In a remarkably candid admission, Dean said he made the “pathetic” call at the climax of the 2-2 draw between Tottenham and Chelsea last August.
Cristian Romero pulled Marc Cucurella’s hair seconds before Harry Kane’s 96th minute equaliser, and Dean acknowledged that in the heat of the moment he made a bad choice not to suggest on-field official Taylor consider a sending off offence.
“I missed the stupid hair pull at Chelsea versus Tottenham which was pathetic from my point of view,” Dean told Up Front with Simon Jordan.
“It’s one of them where if I had my time again, what would I do? I’d send Anthony [Taylor] to the screen. I think I knew if I did send him to the screen … he’s cautioned both managers, he’s had a hell of a game, it’s been such a tough game end to end.
“I said to Anthony afterwards: ‘I just didn’t want to send you to the screen after what has gone on in the game’. I didn’t want to send him up because he is a mate as well as a referee and I think I didn’t want to send him up because I didn’t want any more grief than he already had.
“Anthony, he is big and bald and ugly enough to know if he is going to the screen he is going to the screen for a reason. If someone pulls their hair now it’s dead easy. It’s just a brainwave by me, a really bad call by me, and it kind of affected me as Var going forward.”
Dean’s remarks underline the human frailties which have often undermined the new technology. He was subsequently stood down from the next Premier League games and later decided he did not wish to continue as a video assistant referee.
“Probably I missed a few games because you get taken out of the limelight,” he added.
“That was a major error. If they don’t score from the corner it is not as big an issue. But I knew full well then I would be stood down the week after. I asked to take a bit of time off because it wasn’t for me.
“I used to get in the car on a Friday and was dreading Saturday. I was thinking, ‘I hope nothing happens’. I used to be petrified sitting in the chair.”
-
This is what we're dealing with. And people still treat the decision making in England as unimpeachably honest?
-
Chris Bascombe
Thu, 24 August 2023 at 10:27 pm BST
Mike Dean admits he failed to intervene on Var decision to protect his ‘mate’ Anthony Taylor
Former Premier League referee Mike Dean failed to intervene on a major Var call because he didn’t want to cause his friend Anthony Taylor any ‘grief’, he has revealed.
In a remarkably candid admission, Dean said he made the “pathetic” call at the climax of the 2-2 draw between Tottenham and Chelsea last August.
Cristian Romero pulled Marc Cucurella’s hair seconds before Harry Kane’s 96th minute equaliser, and Dean acknowledged that in the heat of the moment he made a bad choice not to suggest on-field official Taylor consider a sending off offence.
“I missed the stupid hair pull at Chelsea versus Tottenham which was pathetic from my point of view,” Dean told Up Front with Simon Jordan.
“It’s one of them where if I had my time again, what would I do? I’d send Anthony [Taylor] to the screen. I think I knew if I did send him to the screen … he’s cautioned both managers, he’s had a hell of a game, it’s been such a tough game end to end.
“I said to Anthony afterwards: ‘I just didn’t want to send you to the screen after what has gone on in the game’. I didn’t want to send him up because he is a mate as well as a referee and I think I didn’t want to send him up because I didn’t want any more grief than he already had.
“Anthony, he is big and bald and ugly enough to know if he is going to the screen he is going to the screen for a reason. If someone pulls their hair now it’s dead easy. It’s just a brainwave by me, a really bad call by me, and it kind of affected me as Var going forward.”
Dean’s remarks underline the human frailties which have often undermined the new technology. He was subsequently stood down from the next Premier League games and later decided he did not wish to continue as a video assistant referee.
“Probably I missed a few games because you get taken out of the limelight,” he added.
“That was a major error. If they don’t score from the corner it is not as big an issue. But I knew full well then I would be stood down the week after. I asked to take a bit of time off because it wasn’t for me.
“I used to get in the car on a Friday and was dreading Saturday. I was thinking, ‘I hope nothing happens’. I used to be petrified sitting in the chair.”
So in other words he wasn't doing his job that he was employed to do, he's up his own arse anyway
-
As if the world couldn't detest Dean any more.
It shows exactly why it shouldn't be fellow officials doing VAR.
-
Even with the technology VAR still requires human intervention. That is inevitably going to make the system subject to both conscious and unconscious bias. I suspect Dean is only voicing something that many more have been guilty of without admitting to it.
-
As if the world couldn't detest Dean any more.
It shows exactly why it shouldn't be fellow officials doing VAR.
Exactly….it’s a role in itself and shouldn’t be done amongst pals having a day off from thinking about.
Should be independent of referees
-
As if the world couldn't detest Dean any more.
It shows exactly why it shouldn't be fellow officials doing VAR.
Boom. This...
Independent & totally separate officials should be doing VAR.
Cant we hire some from other countries or something?
-
As if the world couldn't detest Dean any more.
It shows exactly why it shouldn't be fellow officials doing VAR.
Exactly….it’s a role in itself and shouldn’t be done amongst pals having a day off from thinking about.
Should be independent of referees
Hard to be independent of referees being as they have to interpret the same rules (albeit only a specific subset).
-
As if the world couldn't detest Dean any more.
It shows exactly why it shouldn't be fellow officials doing VAR.
Exactly….it’s a role in itself and shouldn’t be done amongst pals having a day off from thinking about.
Should be independent of referees
Hard to be independent of referees being as they have to interpret the same rules (albeit only a specific subset).
At least Den has admitted that he’s a c**t.
-
As if the world couldn't detest Dean any more.
It shows exactly why it shouldn't be fellow officials doing VAR.
Exactly….it’s a role in itself and shouldn’t be done amongst pals having a day off from thinking about.
Should be independent of referees
Hard to be independent of referees being as they have to interpret the same rules (albeit only a specific subset).
By independent I mean you shouldn’t be refereeing on the Saturday then be the VAR on Sunday. It should be a specialist job…I’d go as far as to say the VAR shouldn’t be a referee because as Deans example shows they side with the on field decision too much rather than saying it’s wrong. Similar the poxy screens don’t work either, as soon as they are sent the decision changes 90%+ of the time because they are shown a replay slowed to show what the VAR wants them to see…if they must have screens it should only show angles at real time speed.
-
I suppose with the advancement of AI Var will in time become 100% accurate. No doubt the ***** who run it will programme the AI to have Sky favourite bias.
-
By independent I mean you shouldn’t be refereeing on the Saturday then be the VAR on Sunday. It should be a specialist job…I’d go as far as to say the VAR shouldn’t be a referee because as Deans example shows they side with the on field decision too much rather than saying it’s wrong. Similar the poxy screens don’t work either, as soon as they are sent the decision changes 90%+ of the time because they are shown a replay slowed to show what the VAR wants them to see…if they must have screens it should only show angles at real time speed.
Of course the screen review will 90% of the time change the decision because the screen review usually means the initial decision on the field is called wrongly. If the ref states to the VAR operator that he didn't think it was a penalty because he didn't see contact, and then VAR has an angle that shows the contact, the ref will have to review to see if they believed it was enough to overrule his initial judgement. In most cases it is and slow-mo or not won't really make any difference. It is why if the ref states there was contact, but not enough in their view to class as a penalty, VAR rarely calls the ref over to the screen because any contact would be according to the on-field call.
In my view these are the ones where the ref could always have requested they want to re-look at that themselves. That is where VAR should have been useful, however due to the "delays" and other reasons, a ref won't go to the monitor to voluntarily double check their decision making.
-
As if the world couldn't detest Dean any more.
It shows exactly why it shouldn't be fellow officials doing VAR.
Exactly….it’s a role in itself and shouldn’t be done amongst pals having a day off from thinking about.
Should be independent of referees
Hard to be independent of referees being as they have to interpret the same rules (albeit only a specific subset).
The fact that they have to "interpret' the written down laws, rules & regulations of the game is the biggest problem from the get go.
Rules & regulations should not be subjective or have to be interpreted.
They should be simple to understand & be able to administer for both players & officials.
Because its not as if footballers are the brightest bunch on the planet.
They need a fucking law degree to be able to understand the convoluted & overly complicated rules that are currently in place...
-
Mike Dean - what a fucking worm.
A huge problem over the last decade or so has been this incompetant mans influence on too many matches. What a prick.
-
As I've said many times the best change that could come to VAR is to make the audio available.
The system works in Rugby and Cricket because, if you want to, you can hear the conversation between the on-field official and the TV ref. It wouldn't fix the specific issue that Dean raised there (which is gross negligence and not a VAR specific problem) but it would remove a lot of the problems.
How you play that out in the ground is more difficult but the little radios work reasonably well for the cricket and rugby so probably copy them there as well.
What the existence of VAR does do though is acknowledge that the rules (or more accurately how they're used) at the very highest level of sport has to be different to park matches. Trying to continue with the "it's the same game at every level" thing was commendable but hasn't really made worked since the amount of footage available and the money involved went through the roof in the early 90s.
-
Mike Dean - what a fucking worm.
A huge problem over the last decade or so has been this incompetant mans influence on too many matches. What a prick.
An arrogant worm at that. Some people aren't bothered by this but I, while not shocked, am extremely angry at the revelations and his hubris to admit it. Disgusting.
-
He should be horse whipped. He gives the rest of us a bad name as if we don't have a bad enough one as it is.
-
He was an absolutely shit refereee aswell. ''Top 6'' Fawning twat.
-
As I've said many times the best change that could come to VAR is to make the audio available.
The system works in Rugby and Cricket because, if you want to, you can hear the conversation between the on-field official and the TV ref. It wouldn't fix the specific issue that Dean raised there (which is gross negligence and not a VAR specific problem) but it would remove a lot of the problems.
How you play that out in the ground is more difficult but the little radios work reasonably well for the cricket and rugby so probably copy them there as well.
What the existence of VAR does do though is acknowledge that the rules (or more accurately how they're used) at the very highest level of sport has to be different to park matches. Trying to continue with the "it's the same game at every level" thing was commendable but hasn't really made worked since the amount of footage available and the money involved went through the roof in the early 90s.
I don’t think they’ll ever have the VAR audio available in real time because it will confirm what we all know and what Dean admitted to recently.
-
As I've said many times the best change that could come to VAR is to make the audio available.
The system works in Rugby and Cricket because, if you want to, you can hear the conversation between the on-field official and the TV ref. It wouldn't fix the specific issue that Dean raised there (which is gross negligence and not a VAR specific problem) but it would remove a lot of the problems.
How you play that out in the ground is more difficult but the little radios work reasonably well for the cricket and rugby so probably copy them there as well.
What the existence of VAR does do though is acknowledge that the rules (or more accurately how they're used) at the very highest level of sport has to be different to park matches. Trying to continue with the "it's the same game at every level" thing was commendable but hasn't really made worked since the amount of footage available and the money involved went through the roof in the early 90s.
I don’t think they’ll ever have the VAR audio available in real time because it will confirm what we all know and what Dean admitted to recently.
Which is exactly why we need it and why people should push for it.
-
I suppose with the advancement of AI Var will in time become 100% accurate. No doubt the ***** who run it will programme the AI to have Sky favourite bias.
Thought that was a new Saudi club for a minute :-)
-
Wenger was fined 40k and given a three match ban for calling Dean dishonest to his face.
Give that man his money back, with interest.
-
So Mr Dean, you've admitted acting dishonestly in that instance - so why should we believe you haven't acted dishonestly in others?
-
So Mr Dean, you've admitted acting dishonestly in that instance - so why should we believe you haven't acted dishonestly in others?
Simon Jordan normally rips into people concerning things like this,such as Toney match fixing, but today he didn't, was it because Dean admitted it on his podcast show, gutless
-
As I've said many times the best change that could come to VAR is to make the audio available.
The system works in Rugby and Cricket because, if you want to, you can hear the conversation between the on-field official and the TV ref. It wouldn't fix the specific issue that Dean raised there (which is gross negligence and not a VAR specific problem) but it would remove a lot of the problems.
How you play that out in the ground is more difficult but the little radios work reasonably well for the cricket and rugby so probably copy them there as well.
What the existence of VAR does do though is acknowledge that the rules (or more accurately how they're used) at the very highest level of sport has to be different to park matches. Trying to continue with the "it's the same game at every level" thing was commendable but hasn't really made worked since the amount of footage available and the money involved went through the roof in the early 90s.
I don’t think they’ll ever have the VAR audio available in real time because it will confirm what we all know and what Dean admitted to recently.
Which is exactly why we need it and why people should push for it.
I’m all in favour of it but there’s no way it will ever happen because it will demonstrate what we already know.
-
Mike Dean on sky Saturday football now
-
Get rid of VAR. More trouble than it’s worth. Game was better before.
-
VAR the way it was used at Hibs on Wednesday was fine. The way is is used in the Premier League by PGMOL is far from fine.
-
VAR the way it was used at Hibs on Wednesday was fine. The way is is used in the Premier League by PGMOL is far from fine.
Fully agree and you wonder why the Premier league VAR is so difficult to implement properly...........said entirely tongue in cheek.
-
Referee of the Juventus v Bologna match over the weekend banned for a MONTH over a non-penalty call for Dan Ndoye and Bologna.
Wow!
-
Fuck me, we'd have no refs if we did that over here.
-
It's my belief that referees and VAR officials don't want it because it shows up there incompetent and also biase to certain teams, there a different between that's maybe a penalty to that's definitely a penalty and so forth
-
Watching a bit of the rugby WC. Their VAR system is just superb. I know it’s a different game in terms of rugby is more stop start anyway, but just the speed and transparency is incredibly. On TV they show the discussion and video being reviewed.
-
Watching a bit of the rugby WC. Their VAR system is just superb. I know it’s a different game in terms of rugby is more stop start anyway, but just the speed and transparency is incredibly. On TV they show the discussion and video being reviewed.
Just watched the Wales game and thought exactly the same. Different game or not, there is no reason for it not to be operated in football in the same way.
-
The point that it's not the same game is that it's not the same game.
-
The point that it's not the same game is that it's not the same game.
Yes, there is a lack of respect among players and fans for officials.
The regulations enforced and stated by refs in rugby by being mic'd up should be implemented similarly for officials in football, however it would be difficult for some players in particular to speak without using offensive language.
They essentially lack discipline.
If a player is not booked anyway or sent off then I would like to see yellow card sin bin for players who make those cynical fouls those so called tactical ones. Similarly for any hand ball made. 10 mins off the pitch.
Teach the footballer discipline. Bring them in to line.
-
The point that it's not the same game is that it's not the same game.
And? The processes could still be applied in the same way, transparency etc
-
The point that it's not the same game is that it's not the same game.
And? The processes could still be applied in the same way, transparency etc
Indeed, rugby and cricket have worked out a lot of things that do and don't work and the only reason football hasn't looked into it is a mix of arrogance and an acceptance that the sport has lost respect for the officials.
-
The point that it's not the same game is that it's not the same game.
And? The processes could still be applied in the same way, transparency etc
Indeed, rugby and cricket have worked out a lot of things that do and don't work and the only reason football hasn't looked into it is a mix of arrogance and an acceptance that the sport has lost respect for the officials.
There's also a suggestion the crowds couldn't handle it. The lack of acceptance in the sport of football is astonishing.
It's a wonderful game but the attitudes despite what they like to claim is often lacking by players and fans alike.
-
I'm sorry but Rugby is shite to watch because of the ridiculous technicalities, and football is heading the same way if this nonsense carries on.
There's good reason why one sport is the most popular worldwide and the other is a minority sport everywhere but in a few outpost colonies.
-
The point that it's not the same game is that it's not the same game.
And? The processes could still be applied in the same way, transparency etc
Indeed, rugby and cricket have worked out a lot of things that do and don't work and the only reason football hasn't looked into it is a mix of arrogance and an acceptance that the sport has lost respect for the officials.
Or that PGMOL like to hide behind the lack of transparency and accountability.
-
I'm sorry but Rugby is shite to watch because of the ridiculous technicalities, and football is heading the same way if this nonsense carries on.
There's good reason why one sport is the most popular worldwide and the other is a minority sport everywhere but in a few outpost colonies.
Exactly.
Cricket was almost designed FOR video replays. It stops every 20 seconds anyway, and all the action is concentrated on one player and his bat, plus the wicket. It all happens in about a square metre of playing area, so is ridiculously easy to get right, and is happening when the filders are all moving around anyway.
Rugby is probably between football and cricket in terms of stop/start, but it's not like it's not without its controversies anyway, such as the recent red cards for head clashes etc.
-
The difference between the rugby union TMO and football's VAR system is like night & day.
The RU referee appears to clearly make a decision, ask the TMO to check/confirm it and then proceed accordingly. I feel that the ref is always in control of the situation, the game and the players.
It very much helps that any RU players showing disrespect for officials get short shrift.
VAR is still relatively new, but virtually everyone involved seems to have their own interpretation which leads to some of the dog's breakfasts we've seen recently.
-
The point that it's not the same game is that it's not the same game.
And? The processes could still be applied in the same way, transparency etc
Indeed, rugby and cricket have worked out a lot of things that do and don't work and the only reason football hasn't looked into it is a mix of arrogance and an acceptance that the sport has lost respect for the officials.
Or that PGMOL like to hide behind the lack of transparency and accountability.
That's the arrogance I'm talking about.
-
Nev's right though, there's no way you can implement the same video replay procedures, the games and the culture around them are just much too different. At rugby, both sets of fans go quiet when somebody is taking a kick, at football, the crowd goes mental if a throw in is awarded the wrong way, and I wouldn't have it any other way. You get about ten times more excitement and fan interaction at even the most boring 0-0 in football than you do egg chasing, I've been to watch the odd top of the table Northampton rugby clash, and it's been less exciting than most funerals I've been to. It's a nice day out, but that's about all it is.
-
I'm sorry but Rugby is shite to watch because of the ridiculous technicalities, and football is heading the same way if this nonsense carries on.
There's good reason why one sport is the most popular worldwide and the other is a minority sport everywhere but in a few outpost colonies.
I always feel that with rugby, the game itself is the most important thing, and must be protected. People want to see above all else a good game. Whereas with proper football, tribal allegiance trumps every other aspect. I honestly wouldn't give a toss if we won the league by Watkins literally punching a couple in every week and incompetent/biased officials not punishing it. The tears of other clubs' supporters would be like nectar to me.
-
The point is the stop start nature of var is here. I wish it wasn’t, id rather go back to subjective decision making by the on the field ref, including mistakes. But its not where we are, so given that, why not screen the conversation like they do in rugby. I understand rugby is a different game and there is a different culture behind both sports, but the idea football supporters can’t handle that kind of on screen action, feels like a much lesser version of conversations about why we all needed to be caged in, in the 80s.
-
The TMO audio isn't heard in grounds. Not every football game is broadcast in this country. To eavesdrop on any conversation would just be pandering to someone sat on a sofa potentially thousands of miles away.
-
The TMO audio isn't heard in grounds. Not every football game is broadcast in this country. To eavesdrop on any conversation would just be pandering to someone sat on a sofa potentially thousands of miles away.
|Every game of top flight rugby game I've been to had vendors outside selling comms devices for a few quid where you can listen in to the ref.
-
The few Rugby Union matches I've been to are like a social occasion with a game going on in the background, football is pretty much the reverse of this.
I can't speak for Rugby because it's an utter mystery to me in terms of the rules and indeed entertainment but technology works in Cricket and tennis, the latter is fact based which is even better. I'm not opposed to help for refs but VAR will never work because the whole idea is fundamentaly flawed.
It was bought in to satisfy the screaming hypocrisy and juvenile behaviour of Managers, assisted by brainless pundits. And guess what? They're still the same, with VAR their new target.
What a mess.
-
I watched the England vs Samoa game last week and there was a try that went to the TMO that was as close as any of the offsides you'll see in football. Had he put the ball down a micro second later his foot would have been grounded which meant it would have been no try. The TMO looked at the 1st frame then asked for the next frame where he could see the grounding was OK and try was given, this all took less than 30 seconds and this is in a game that is slower and the TMO doesn't have to rush and can take their time, so why VAR takes so much time with offsides is ridiculous.
All this clear and obvious rubbish, I'll tell you what is clear and obvious if it takes an age to check something then it isn't clear and obvious and like with the TMO where if the TMO cant see anything 100% conclusive (not even 99% it has to bee 100%) then the decision of the onfield ref stands.
-
The TMO audio isn't heard in grounds. Not every football game is broadcast in this country. To eavesdrop on any conversation would just be pandering to someone sat on a sofa potentially thousands of miles away.
|Every game of top flight rugby game I've been to had vendors outside selling comms devices for a few quid where you can listen in to the ref.
RefLink. But it doesn't alter the fact that unlike a lot of people seem to think, because they only ever watch it on the telly, the audio is not broadcast via the pa in the grounds.
-
My point bringing up rugby is on how VAR is used. There has been far too much investment for it to be binned. And it ultimately gets more right than wrong. But it is how it is used that’s the issue. And specifically by way of transparency and communication by the officials/VAR team to fans in the ground and watching on TV. That’s what needs to improve. Quicker decisions; a redefining of the term “clear and obvious” so that only those on field mistakes are corrected, clearly articulated to all.
-
When VAR wasn't there people moaned because refs were frequently making wrong decisions
Now it is here and still occasionally gets it wrong because, y'know, at the end of the day it's still people making the final decisions, they want it scrapped altogether.
Sometimes I think some people are only happy if they are moaning
-
The TMO audio isn't heard in grounds. Not every football game is broadcast in this country. To eavesdrop on any conversation would just be pandering to someone sat on a sofa potentially thousands of miles away.
|Every game of top flight rugby game I've been to had vendors outside selling comms devices for a few quid where you can listen in to the ref.
RefLink. But it doesn't alter the fact that unlike a lot of people seem to think, because they only ever watch it on the telly, the audio is not broadcast via the pa in the grounds.
They as part of the ticket get given these little radios, or did last time I spoke to anyone who had just been to a rugby match, which was in Wales 20 years ago.
I imagine there's an app now or some such...
-
It is the use of VAR which is the thing. The way it was used a the World Cup last year was mostly how it should be used but the way PGMOL choose to use it is not.
-
"People" weren't moaning. Managers were. The rest of us had moved on by the time we'd got home for our tea.
-
"People" weren't moaning. Managers were. The rest of us had moved on by the time we'd got home for our tea.
Hmmm... and the fact that Vidic stayed on the pitch when he should have been sent off, and would have been today without doubt, doesn't linger 13 1/2 years on, at all...
-
Refs on the pitch get about 90-95 % of decisions right. VAR I would say gets 90-95% of the wrong decisions right on review.
If it is scrapped, then with a few months there will be a clamour to bring it back
-
"People" weren't moaning. Managers were. The rest of us had moved on by the time we'd got home for our tea.
Hmmm... and the fact that Vidic stayed on the pitch when he should have been sent off, and would have been today without doubt, doesn't linger 13 1/2 years on, at all...
Are we convinced VAR would of intervened in the right way. Another poster earlier highlighted one if the differences with Rugby is the Ref seems to double check the decision made with the var. in football it frequently feels like those operating var trying to re ref the games and sometimes trying to find a way to justify a decision. One of the worst examples in my biased view, was our FA Cup game away at Man Utd in Jan 2022, when those operating var went back through 3 or 4 phases of play before they found a reason to disallow Danny Ings’ equaliser. Thats misuse and not having the crowd in the ground or at home hearing whats being discussed aggravates the problem
-
The TMO audio isn't heard in grounds. Not every football game is broadcast in this country. To eavesdrop on any conversation would just be pandering to someone sat on a sofa potentially thousands of miles away.
|Every game of top flight rugby game I've been to had vendors outside selling comms devices for a few quid where you can listen in to the ref.
RefLink. But it doesn't alter the fact that unlike a lot of people seem to think, because they only ever watch it on the telly, the audio is not broadcast via the pa in the grounds.
No it's not. And there's no headsets available to buy here in Marseille.
-
No longer fit for purpose. Was it ever?
-
Using it was the most clear and obvious error - in the bin for me
-
Was all for it coming in but not to be a plaything for four idiots in a room. If today's debacles don't consign it to the bin then nothing will.
-
Why do they not show the white line in all offside decisions?
-
One if the idiots on the radio saying they could not learn anything from Rugby which is obviously wrong.
For some reason PGMOL are fighting to protect the way they use the technology. One has to consider why a for profit organisation thinks like this.
-
Why not just extend goal line technology so that it covers lines all round the pitch ?
-
The genie isn't going back in the bottle so anyone thinking it is going to stop being used is delusional. I agree that its introduction has shown up top flight refereeing to be worringly incompetent. PGMOL have handled it very poorly in my opinion. Having said which, I've seen it suggested that someone other than PGMOL should run it but I'm not entirely sure who that would be? Are there a load of refs outside that organisation just waiting to step in? I doubt it.
-
The TMO audio isn't heard in grounds. Not every football game is broadcast in this country. To eavesdrop on any conversation would just be pandering to someone sat on a sofa potentially thousands of miles away.
|Every game of top flight rugby game I've been to had vendors outside selling comms devices for a few quid where you can listen in to the ref.
RefLink. But it doesn't alter the fact that unlike a lot of people seem to think, because they only ever watch it on the telly, the audio is not broadcast via the pa in the grounds.
No it's not. And there's no headsets available to buy here in Marseille.
RefLink is UK based and has a licence to operate from the RFU so no, you won’t get one in France.
-
Is it any better outside of the Premier league? Or just as shit? If not why do we have to employ British referees? If they are better elsewhere maybe the premier league should search further afield and spend some of their money on a better organisation.
-
Unless the Big Scab 6 get together and complain I doubt anything or anyone will change.
-
It works better in English rugby as you can hear the discussion and the laws often have a logic flow to them. The problem is this involves many stops in play which football fans insist is not tolerable. I do think we should hear the conclusion of such incidents. The Guimares elbow for example.
-
How was that c**t still on the pitch at the end by the way?
-
Is it any better outside of the Premier league? Or just as shit? If not why do we have to employ British referees?
It doesn't seem so problematic elsewhere. Or maybe people here just get angrier about it.
And we don't, Jarred Gillett came in from the A-League.
-
How was that c**t still on the pitch at the end by the way?
He's slowly become one of my most hated players. He's a good player, but he's a complete ******, and a perfect fit for that lot
-
I don't think the refs are that bad to be honest.
It's the intervention of VAR that's the problem.
There are 4 officials officiating a game , if they can't get a subjective decision right between them what is the point of adding another 2or3 officials & their opinions .
For on/offside decisions , did the refs & linesman really get that many clear & obvious decisions wrong to warrant VAR .
Scrap it .
-
How was that c**t still on the pitch at the end by the way?
He's slowly become one of my most hated players. He's a good player, but he's a complete ******, and a perfect fit for that lot
They've got a fair few, Burn and Wilson are a pair nob rots as well, Wilson another one that was lucky to stay on the pitch with his MMA antics.
-
I rarely watch Soccer Saturday but it really brings into focus how disruptive and counter productive VAR is when seen across more than one game. It slows the pace of what is an entertaining watch, just as it spoils actual games, adding in another opinion from that scouse ref which is utterly irrelevant and a waste of time.
Regardless of whether VAR gets decision right or wrong it's destroying the game.
-
Is it any better outside of the Premier league? Or just as shit? If not why do we have to employ British referees?
It doesn't seem so problematic elsewhere. Or maybe people here just get angrier about it.
And we don't, Jarred Gillett came in from the A-League.
If it’s working better elsewhere we really need to look into how other nations are implementing things. It’s been rubbish again this year and shows no signs of improvement.
The problem is, it’s so often far to subjective and when they slow it all down it takes away all context of what happened.
Fans and pundits have argued over incidents after the match for decades, now it seems this is happening during the game with a group of blokes with a load of tech, remote control and different camera angles and become a ridiculous joke.
-
VAR and referees are great when the decision goes in your favour.
VAR and referees are shit when the decision goes against you.
That is just how football works. In the main, opposing teams have opposing views.
Football is a game of differing opinions. Always has been, always will be. There never has been and never will be, a perfect solution!!
At least VAR has eliminated some of the glaring refereeing decisions. For this reason I would keep it, but certainly fine tune it.
-
The biggest thing for me is that it's taken away the element of spontaneus celebration after a goal is scored. The marginal benefits it's brought in in terms of eliminating mistakes isn't worth that sacrifice.
-
The biggest thing for me is that it's taken away the element of spontaneus celebration after a goal is scored. The marginal benefits it's brought in in terms of eliminating mistakes isn't worth that sacrifice.
Exactly this, I would not mind say if the VAR see something obvious and tell the ref to have a look before awarding the goal but checking every goal is just tedious and unnecessary.
-
It seemed to work a lot better at the last world cup than it ever has in the premier league
-
I think we're getting used to the checks as fans, for better or worse. To counter the comments about it ruining the atmosphere re spontaneous celebrations, which I don't completely disagree with, a couple of moments that spring to mind where the VAR decision itself was the cause of celebration. First the Leicester Chelsea cup final where a Chelsea equaliser was ruled out. Huge roar at Wembley and in my living room. Second, the Palace game where the ref still gave the pen after looking at the monitor. It might not have been celebrating a great bit of skill but moments of drama and joy nonetheless.
-
I think it works better in UEFA/FIFA competitions. They still haven't got it right in this country.
There's definitely times where I haven't celebrated goals, usually because I know it's borderline offside. And it is a shame when the goal counts and I've not been able to enjoy the moment. I still have that spontaneous moment of celebration a lot of time though because often I won't see anything with it.
In the Newcastle-Arsenal game last night, I can't believe they didn't call the ref over to the monitor and collaboratively reach a decision on it.
It's too much of a dark art. In other sports that use a video review, you hear the dialogue. If nothing else, it gives people something to do. When it's just silence, it seems to go on forever and just pisses people off.
-
If VAR was being used to adjudicate on actual obvious mistakes made by the on field officials, then no decision would take minutes to review. Most would be done quickly. In the case of offsides the benefit of the doubt would be given to the attacking team unless it caused a very obvious advantage, and we’d all get used to it. Handball for penalties would have show obvious intent versus this whole arm in unnatural position bollocks. The whole thing has gotten completely out of control now. The goal was to make the game better and rule out egregious errors. Instead it’s killed the spirit of the game and now scrutinizes decisions at an unnecessary granular level.
-
As much as I enjoy watching Arteta making an absolute tit of himself on TV I have to agree with him about the Newcastle goal. It could have been chalked off for three different things. You just know if that was at Mould Trafford or Scamfield they would have took the easy option and disallowed it for the push in the back. The cynic in me thinks that the Saudi money had an effect on the proceedings but what do I know.
-
Why not just extend goal line technology so that it covers lines all round the pitch ?
Because it is easier to point multiple cameras at the goals then point multiple cameras at every other area of the pitch?
-
You have semi-automated offsides in some competitions now where there's a chip in the ball. It's only a matter of time before technology catches up and we instantly know whether a ball has gone out of play or whether it's offside.
-
Nobody ever said that it'd make the game better. At the behest of whining and whinging 'elite' level managers, a demographic measurable in dozens amongst a world of billions, it was brought in to make sure we suffered the 'correct' decisions, which is important because there's millions, billions even, riding on them. Unlike your twee goal celebrations, povos.
-
It could have been chalked off for three different things.
But also, it *could* not have been. The ball wasn't out of play, and he wasn't offside as he's behind the ball when it's played to him. So while it could have been incorrectly disallowed for either of those, the fact that it wasn't is a good thing not a bad thing.
So that just leaves the "push", which I'd say is 50/50. I'd have been annoyed had it gone against us, I'd have been annoyed if it hadn't gone for us. So once it's deemed not to be a foul on the pitch, there are no VAR grounds to overturn that, given it's not an obvious mistake.
-
So that just leaves the "push", which I'd say is 50/50. I'd have been annoyed had it gone against us, I'd have been annoyed if it hadn't gone for us. So once it's deemed not to be a foul on the pitch, there are no VAR grounds to overturn that, given it's not an obvious mistake.
Depends whether it is VAR's job to ensure the laws are applied literally (hands placed on opponent, force exerted, it was clearly a push and therefore clearly an error) or to base decisions on what the ref would likely have done on the spot if he had been able to see all the angles they see simultaneously (er, maybe not enough, it's not like I can give them all [why not? don't want to differetiate myself from the refereeing crowd too much], dunno, not sure, glance at the assistant, no flag, too late to blow now anyway). If they take the latter perspective than it's rarely any good for anything other than offside, tackles where someone gets completely wiped out and things that happen well away from the ball. Anything else is open to interpretation and then VAR can't change the decision.
Was it a foul? All day long. Would you expect it to be given in our favour? Maybe 50/50 as you say, who are we playing against...?
-
It seemed to work a lot better at the last world cup than it ever has in the premier league
Yes it did because they embraced the technology available to them. Unlike our lot who think they know best.
-
It could have been chalked off for three different things.
But also, it *could* not have been. The ball wasn't out of play, and he wasn't offside as he's behind the ball when it's played to him. So while it could have been incorrectly disallowed for either of those, the fact that it wasn't is a good thing not a bad thing.
So that just leaves the "push", which I'd say is 50/50. I'd have been annoyed had it gone against us, I'd have been annoyed if it hadn't gone for us. So once it's deemed not to be a foul on the pitch, there are no VAR grounds to overturn that, given it's not an obvious mistake.
I might be wrong but I thought VAR could not rule on either as they were both inconclusive, the angle couldn't tell if the whole ball was over and the camera angle couldn't be conclusive if the scorer was just ahead of the ball or not due to the only camera angle showing it being blocked by attackers/ defenders bodies. I wonder if both of those could have been approved/disproved by the semi-automated system that wasn't picked up by the PL for this season.
Was the ref sent to the screen for the "push" as to me, when there is contact like that (two hands in the back) they should have sent him to the screen for confirmation what he saw and have the decision on whether it was a foul called by him and not Hut Boy.
-
It could have been chalked off for three different things.
But also, it *could* not have been. The ball wasn't out of play, and he wasn't offside as he's behind the ball when it's played to him. So while it could have been incorrectly disallowed for either of those, the fact that it wasn't is a good thing not a bad thing.
So that just leaves the "push", which I'd say is 50/50. I'd have been annoyed had it gone against us, I'd have been annoyed if it hadn't gone for us. So once it's deemed not to be a foul on the pitch, there are no VAR grounds to overturn that, given it's not an obvious mistake.
The ball wasn't out of play? I don't know how you can be so sure because the camera angles were inconclusive at best. I thought it was out but it's nigh on impossible to be certain. Put it this way if it was against us I'd have been jumping around wanting the throw in as would every other villa fan. And I really do think it was a push in the back. The petro-dollar is having an effect in my humble opinion but as I said in my op it's hilarious watching Arteta making a complete tit of himself on national TV. North London will be awash with rattles and dummies this morning.
-
The day a club, who are in receipt of a favourable refereeing/VAR decision that is clearly incorrect, issue a statement to support their opponents and ask for better standards then the conversation can take place. Anything else is just sour grapes.
-
With so many cameras involved in televised matches I find it incredulous they don't have one covering the goal line or ones enabling the offside decision. All very strange.
-
There are I think 7 cameras covering the goal for Hawkeye. That number might have gone up since the infamous match in 2020 when they were all blocked in such a way that it couldn't call the ball had gone over. So to cover all the touch lines and to ensure no blocking might would need a lot more potentially (or a totally different system like the offside one used in the WC). We had the problems with cameras not being able to be used for offsides when Wolves were denied a cup goal at RedScouse. I think part of the problem there is they also rely on TV cameras to supply some of the pictures and so it depends on their wants and setup for them.
-
Richard Keyes Presenter:
"Again - why aren’t we allowed to hear bunker/ref conversations? Why not? If there’s nothing to hide - why not ffs? I know IFAB met last week and ruled it out again - but what on earth is IFAB exec Lukas Brud talking about when he says hearing the conversations would be ‘too chaotic’ for viewers? How arrogant is that? No it wouldn’t.
If it truly is chaotic conversation in the bunker then change the protocol. Get some discipline. It’s all such bollocks - and it’s one excuse after another. It’s our game - not IFAB’s. Not the PGMOL’s. Our game. We want to be involved in it, not treated like second class citizens, who’re lucky to be able to spend hard earned money to see our team play, knowing that some of it ultimately goes to supporting the pompous tone-deaf clowns who run these various organisations. We should all have been listening to the farce at Newcastle v Arsenal as it unfolded.
I’m in the luxurious position of being able to say what I think about the falling standards of officialdom in our top league - but imagine taking a call from a high ranking PL broadcast official reminding you who pays your wages. Scary. It happened to two people that I know recently. The message was clear ‘stop criticising the refs’. What sort of world are we living in when people who run the game also want to steer the narrative?"
Keith Hackett, former PGMOL boss:
"I was nodding in agreement with Richard Keys. I was aware of the two people receiving a phone call and instructed to toe the line and to quieten down in the criticism of match officials. The standard is woeful both in the middle and VAR room at Stockley Park"
These comments are worth being shared here and to be discussed amoung us.
-
Nah, Richard Keyes is an absolute dickhead and whether he's right or not I've no time for him.
-
I stopped reading at Richard Keys
-
Richard Keys can fu ck off
-
"pompous tone-deaf clowns"
The day irony died.
-
It's just I find concerning that both Keyes and Hackett have said about two people receiving a phone call and instructed not to criticise match officials.
-
Nah, Richard Keyes is an absolute dickhead and whether he's right or not I've no time for him.
Gabby's "stopped clock is occasionally right" moment
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-E_pYBWAAAUwXw?format=jpg)
-
That's a magnificent retort.
-
Richard Keys is a Coventry fan so it's quite probable that he would have a dislike for all things Villa anyway.
-
No way Gabby wrote that.
-
Must have a social media person working for him.
-
Probably one of his kids.
-
Probably one of his kids.
That narrows it down :-\
-
Wrong twice tonight?
-
Seems to put paid to "it is better in Europe". Although it doesn't seem to help that the sport with a world wide rules office, and area wide rules office, seems to have different rules down the board for when VAR intervenes. For example, although it was funny for the Red Scouse to have their last minute equaliser ruled out, the handball was well down the field and nowhere near the goal, it wasn't even the assist.
-
Wrong twice tonight?
Wrong to disallow our first "goal" for offside.
Wrong not to call their striker offside for their goal.
And I know they cant call it, but fuck me, giving a corner for Kamara shitting himself in front of goal & hitting the centre of the sun from 3 yards out was just piss poor officiating. The fact that we scored from the resulting corner adds insult to their injury. But they weren't exactly crying for our first "goal" being disallowed, & their goal was offside too, so fuck them...
And did the ref lose his cards or something? Three times in the space of a few minutes we had players running clear into space who were cynically hacked down & not even a flicker of the refs finger towards his cards...
The officials were all shit in the game. Almost balanced itself out, but I wonder if we are going to get a week of whining from Emery & hourly media breaking news reports about the "tragedy" of poor officiating?
-
I think they couldn't believe a professional footballer would sky it from that position so assumed the defender had made the tackle.
-
Seems to put paid to "it is better in Europe". Although it doesn't seem to help that the sport with a world wide rules office, and area wide rules office, seems to have different rules down the board for when VAR intervenes. For example, although it was funny for the Red Scouse to have their last minute equaliser ruled out, the handball was well down the field and nowhere near the goal, it wasn't even the assist.
Until now, all I'd seen of the Liverpool one was the little bit of slo-mo. I'd assumed it was pivotal to the goal. I've just watched the highlights. That's a shocker. How's that in VAR's remit?
-
VAR officials having a mare.
-
Having now seen the late disallowed Liverpool goal it reminded me a bit of the one we had chalked off at Old Trafford a couple of years ago. That night VAR actively went looking for a reason to disallow the goal. They just kept going back through the play until they found one.
-
Having now seen the late disallowed Liverpool goal it reminded me a bit of the one we had chalked off at Old Trafford a couple of years ago. That night VAR actively went looking for a reason to disallow the goal. They just kept going back through the play until they found one.
It was that far back it was at Anfield the other week.
-
They wouldn’t have looked for any avenue to disallow if it had been 70 mins not 10 seconds from end of injury time
-
Very pleasing to hear Moyes call out the scum 6 and the fact that the media make it that they are the only voices heard when VAR goes against them.
He said VAR is shit for everyone not just the "bigger" teams
-
Very pleasing to hear Moyes call out the scum 6 and the fact that the media make it that they are the only voices heard when VAR goes against them.
He said VAR is shit for everyone not just the "bigger" teams
This is the point I keep making to my Liverpool supporting mates after their recent "oh woe is me" attitude over a couple of officiating fuck ups against them.
"Welcome to the real fucking world..."
-
I agree with what Pablo wrote re the officials at Thursday's game.
I would add that I thought the ref was top-notch in refusing to give free-kicks for players falling over due to a strong gust of wind and waving play-on. There's been more of this in the prem this season and I welcome it.
By all means fall over, but if you leave your team with 10 v 11, that's your watch-out.
-
I agree with what Pablo wrote re the officials at Thursday's game.
I would add that I thought the ref was top-notch in refusing to give free-kicks for players falling over due to a strong gust of wind and waving play-on. There's been more of this in the prem this season and I welcome it.
By all means fall over, but if you leave your team with 10 v 11, that's your watch-out.
Not giving free kicks because players fall over is a good step but needs to combined with giving fouls if the player stays on his feet. Diving is a problem that refs have fed for years by punishing players who try to carry on playing after they're fouled.
-
[Not giving free kicks because players fall over is a good step but needs to combined with giving fouls if the player stays on his feet. Diving is a problem that refs have fed for years by punishing players who try to carry on playing after they're fouled.
Agreed.
-
Same goes when players jump out of the way of a potentially dangerous tackle.
If the tackler is out of control or appearing to show deliberate intent, they should be carded regardless of the fact that the other player managed to get out of the way.
Also, shirt pulling should be penalised more.
-
Same goes when players jump out of the way of a potentially dangerous tackle.
If the tackler is out of control or appearing to show deliberate intent to, they should be carded regardless of the fact that the other player managed to get out of the way.
Also, shirt pulling should be penalised more.
This. A lot more. Instant yellow. First time. Every time. As soon as there is no advantage to it, it will stop.
Or at the very least, slow it the fuck right down,
You only have to look at the 'players going down "injured" & having to spend 30 seconds off the pitch' ruling to see how it has helped dramatically decrease that little bit of "game management".
Cynical "taking one for the team" yellows should be an instant red too. Would stop that pretty sharpish if it was more harshly punished.
I have been on the end of that more times than I can remember when I played because I had pace & I can say from first hand experience, it is incredibly frustrating.
Its not much different watching it happen either...
-
The 'no dive' two-handed push on Ollie at Wolves is a good example of what Paule was posting about.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67421748
-
Reading through all that makes me pine for the days before it. We seem to be determined to make football as complicated and sanitised as those robot butlers we were promised. There is and always has been absolutely zero need for VAR. I know it's not going to be ditched, but Jesus it's tedious, whiny shite whichever way you look at it.
Kick orb for 90 minutes, team with most goals gloats, other lot blame ref. Nothing else is needed.
-
Agree with every word.
-
There are more good decisions now than ever before. The days of being pissed off for a truly blatant offside Liverpool winner in the last minute are thankfully over. The trouble is that the Premier League has the worst implementation of any league on earth (I think De Zerbi was saying something similar).
-
There are more good decisions now than ever before. The days of being pissed off for a truly blatant offside Liverpool winner in the last minute are thankfully over.
Are there more good decisions? Or are there more times where officials rely on the second check?
Tell Wolves that thing about blatant.
-
There are more good decisions now than ever before. The days of being pissed off for a truly blatant offside Liverpool winner in the last minute are thankfully over.
Are there more good decisions? Or are there more times where officials rely on the second check?
Tell Wolves that thing about blatant.
There are definitely more correct decisions now than there were in the past, but there are still far too many bad decisions.
-
It's when VAR make a really bad call that you have to question corruption
-
Simplify the rules of the game and referees/var/microphones might stand a chance.
Currently, offsides and handball in particular are a joke. A lot of pundits avoid discussing those incidents to avoid making themselves look like a fool.
I was not surprised at how fast fans adapted to the difference between a deliberate pass back and an accidental pass back to the goalie. They are obvious. The same should apply with handball. We can all tell whats deliberate and whats accidental. They are obvious.
With offside, there needs to be 'clear daylight' between last defender and the forward. Be a lot more clear than armpits, toes and noses getting involved.
Simplify the rules 'first' and then VAR might stand a chance.
-
It's when VAR make a really bad call that you have to question corruption
There is no corruption, certainly not in the English / Scottish leagues anyway.
There may be (almost certainly is) unconscious 'big team' bias. But corruption is a phrase that gets trotted out by hysterics on Twitter and I'd like to think we're more balanced on here.
-
With offside, there needs to be 'clear daylight' between last defender and the forward. Be a lot more clear than armpits, toes and noses getting involved.
As in the whole body, including legs and feet must be entirely offside? Why? That would fundamentally change the dynamics of how the game is played and in particular be a disaster for our high line.
The semi-automated system works and is instantaneous. I've no idea why the PL voted against it's use this season.
-
It's when VAR make a really bad call that you have to question corruption
There is no corruption, certainly not in the English / Scottish leagues anyway.
There may be (almost certainly is) unconscious 'big team' bias. But corruption is a phrase that gets trotted out by hysterics on Twitter and I'd like to think we're more balanced on here.
haha yeah ok, Why are Ci£y still steam rollering along then despite 115 unresolved charges hanging over them
-
It's when VAR make a really bad call that you have to question corruption
There is no corruption, certainly not in the English / Scottish leagues anyway.
There may be (almost certainly is) unconscious 'big team' bias. But corruption is a phrase that gets trotted out by hysterics on Twitter and I'd like to think we're more balanced on here.
haha yeah ok, Why are Ci£y still steam rollering along then despite 115 unresolved charges hanging over them
I think it is naive to think that there is no corruption in the game.
The PGMOL, the fact that it even exists stinks.
-
Are they doing it because they have paid off every ref going then which seems to be the insinuation you made previously that Chrisw was replying to.
-
I think it is naive to think that there is no corruption in the game.
The PGMOL, the fact that it even exists stinks.
So referees and officials shouldn't be professional? I suspect there probably might have been more corruption in amateur days when they got pittances for reffing and needed other means of income.
As ChrisW alludes, there might be a favouritism towards the bigger teams from certain refs, but he doesn't think, and there certainly has been no evidence of someone actually paying off refs to ensure certain teams win. I think the last whiff of "hmm, was that match fixed" was when Hans Segers kept on throwing the ball into the net to ensure Everton's survival and was charged along with others of match fixing.
-
How about letting Ci£y win a treble unpunished despite all the charges etc
Don't think just refs , open your field of vision
-
How about letting Ci£y win a treble unpunished despite all the charges etc
Don't think just refs , open your field of vision
The problem is that not everyone's as clued up as you.
-
How about letting Ci£y win a treble unpunished despite all the charges etc
Don't think just refs , open your field of vision
Well I'm only thinking Refs as you made the statement that "It's when VAR make a really bad call that you have to question corruption". Which is also what ChrisW was replying to.
Of course, like your usual MO, your argument is now totally different and encompasses other things.
116 charges means 116 defensive arguments which then means 116 reviews. The FA very rarely make the deliberations public and also has a rule that until someone is found guilty of the offences, they don't apply punishments. So I expect the processes are ongoing and unfortunately we won't know a decision for awhile. Until then MCFC can obviously continue playing and winning trophies.
-
Given Football's reluctance to take things from other sports, I can't see this ever happening.
However, when asked in this interview whether he'd help with VAR, Wayne Barnes doesn't reject the idea
How would he react if Howard Webb, the former referee in charge of VAR, asked him to consider a role in football? “I speak to Howard quite a bit. I’m a big fan of his as a person and he’s doing really good things.”
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/nov/18/wayne-barnes-its-gone-to-the-next-level-of-abuse-in-the-last-12-months-aimed-at-my-family
-
VAR this season in the Premier League
Total overturns: 27
Rejected overturns: 1
Leading to goals: 8
Leading to disallowed goals: 12
Penalties awarded: 7 (7 scored)
Pens for handball: 3
Penalties overturned: 3
Penalties retakes (GK/DEF encroach): 0
Penalties retakes (ATT encroach): 0
Goals ruled out for offside: 9
Goals awarded after incorrect offside: 1
Goals ruled out for handball: 2
Goals allowed after wrong handball: 0
Goals ruled out for a foul: 0
Red cards: 5
Overturned red cards: 0
-
Villa So VAR this season
Overturns: 3
Rejected overturns: 1
Leading to goals for: 1
Disallowed goals for: 1
Leading to goals against: 0
Disallowed goals against: 0
Net goal score: 0
Subjective decisions for: 2
Subjective decisions against: 1
Net subjective score: +1
Red cards for / against: 0 / 1
Game: Crystal Palace (H; Sept. 16)
Incident: Moussa Diaby goal disallowed for offside, 34 minutes - AGAINST
Incident: Overturn rejected. Referee rules Chris Richards did foul Ollie Watkins, 90+3 minutes - FOR
Game: Chelsea (A; Sept. 24)
Incident: Malo Gusto sent off for serious foul play against Lucas Digne, 56 minutes - FOR
Game: Fulham (H; Nov. 11)
Incident: Penalty cancelled, no handball by Timothy Castagne, 7 minutes - AGAINST
-
How about letting Ci£y win a treble unpunished despite all the charges etc
Don't think just refs , open your field of vision
Well I'm only thinking Refs as you made the statement that "It's when VAR make a really bad call that you have to question corruption". Which is also what ChrisW was replying to.
Of course, like your usual MO, your argument is now totally different and encompasses other things.
116 charges means 116 defensive arguments which then means 116 reviews. The FA very rarely make the deliberations public and also has a rule that until someone is found guilty of the offences, they don't apply punishments. So I expect the processes are ongoing and unfortunately we won't know a decision for awhile. Until then MCFC can obviously continue playing and winning trophies.
To be clear, I don't think there's any corruption whatsoever in refereeing or VAR.
I do think the Man City issue stinks though and should be brought to a head. That they're allowed to continue to dominate all competitions with 115 charges seemingly on the back burner is horrendous. I also think the Newcastle takeover should be looked at more closely, one way or another it seems wheels were greased there.
-
How about letting Ci£y win a treble unpunished despite all the charges etc
Don't think just refs , open your field of vision
Well I'm only thinking Refs as you made the statement that "It's when VAR make a really bad call that you have to question corruption". Which is also what ChrisW was replying to.
Of course, like your usual MO, your argument is now totally different and encompasses other things.
116 charges means 116 defensive arguments which then means 116 reviews. The FA very rarely make the deliberations public and also has a rule that until someone is found guilty of the offences, they don't apply punishments. So I expect the processes are ongoing and unfortunately we won't know a decision for awhile. Until then MCFC can obviously continue playing and winning trophies.
To be clear, I don't think there's any corruption whatsoever in refereeing or VAR.
I do think the Man City issue stinks though and should be brought to a head. That they're allowed to continue to dominate all competitions with 115 charges seemingly on the back burner is horrendous. I also think the Newcastle takeover should be looked at more closely, one way or another it seems wheels were greased there.
They most certainly were, by the corrupt bastards in government no less.
-
How about letting Ci£y win a treble unpunished despite all the charges etc
Don't think just refs , open your field of vision
Well I'm only thinking Refs as you made the statement that "It's when VAR make a really bad call that you have to question corruption". Which is also what ChrisW was replying to.
Of course, like your usual MO, your argument is now totally different and encompasses other things.
116 charges means 116 defensive arguments which then means 116 reviews. The FA very rarely make the deliberations public and also has a rule that until someone is found guilty of the offences, they don't apply punishments. So I expect the processes are ongoing and unfortunately we won't know a decision for awhile. Until then MCFC can obviously continue playing and winning trophies.
To be clear, I don't think there's any corruption whatsoever in refereeing or VAR.
I do think the Man City issue stinks though and should be brought to a head. That they're allowed to continue to dominate all competitions with 115 charges seemingly on the back burner is horrendous. I also think the Newcastle takeover should be looked at more closely, one way or another it seems wheels were greased there.
What's the alternative though? They can't be punished until the case has been heard and setting up a case for that will take time, if they rush it there much more chance for a mistake that lets Man City escape on a technicality.
-
Tbh I don't know the details, but if some of these charges date back a number of years I just don't think the delays are acceptable. If Man City are continuing to frustrate the process then we need stronger sanctions. They are making a mockery of the system.
-
Tbh I don't know the details, but if some of these charges date back a number of years I just don't think the delays are acceptable. If Man City are continuing to frustrate the process then we need stronger sanctions. They are making a mockery of the system.
Yes the simple answer would be a time limit to respond to the accusations.
-
Can they do a Trump on City?
Instead of one big case dealing with 115 charges, as soon as one charge is ready to be heard, hear it.
Might be better if Man City got fined, deducted points, relegated every year over the next 1 to 10 years instead of one massive penalty at some unknown point in the future.
City would soon get their finger out.
-
I keep checking in expecting VAR discussion but it's FFP.
Again theres a specific thread for that.
Don't know what's going on.
I'll put it down to the international break.
And just to remind people who are actually interested in talking about VAR
What will the VAR review?
- Goal/no goal
- Penalty/no penalty
- Direct red card (not second yellow card/caution)
- Mistaken identity (when the referee cautions or sends off the wrong player)
What will it not review?
- Any yellow card (including second yellow card leading to red)
- Any free kick offence outside the box (other than red card offence)
-
Sorry Footie, I always get my FFP (Footballs Fiddlers Platform) and VAR (Virtually Always Refuted) mixed up.
-
Ref watch
A possible handball, then a foul on Bryan Gil by Aston Villa defender Diego Carlos.
Not enough there for a penalty or a red card
The VAR decides not to award Tottenham a penalty
Dermot says: "VAR Jarred Gillet cleared it. It looked and then looked again and just felt there was not enough there for a penalty or a red card.
It always looks worse when you have a tall player up against a smaller player like Gil, but it was checked and they felt there was no offence"
-
Ref Watch
Former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher believes officials made the correct decision to rule out Kai Havertz's late goal against Aston Villa.
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/13028091/ref-watch-kai-havertz-goal-disallowed-unlucky-but-right-decision
-
Havertz handballs it.
Presenter:- Could the goal have been ruled out but the second Matty Cash handball be given and a penalty. Dermot Gallagher looking like "are you stupid?" whilst politely stating "no as the Havertz handball is the offence given" (first).
-
And the Penalty one:
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/13028094/if-you-give-one-youve-got-to-give-both-penalty-pain-at-villa-park-and-selhurst-park
What none of the presenters, or Dermot are asking is what did the ref see and state to the VAR team. For the Palace one, I reckon he said he saw the defender get to the ball first and clear it. VAR goes back and states to the Ref, actually, the defender never touched the ball so do you want to review it again. He does and then gives the Pen. For our one, the ref had a perfect view and he states to VAR, there is contact but not a foul for him. VAR reviews it and can only show, yes there was contact but that is the same as the refs call on the pitch so nothing obvious to over rule it.
-
And the Penalty one:
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/13028094/if-you-give-one-youve-got-to-give-both-penalty-pain-at-villa-park-and-selhurst-park
What none of the presenters, or Dermot are asking is what did the ref see and state to the VAR team. For the Palace one, I reckon he said he saw the defender get to the ball first and clear it. VAR goes back and states to the Ref, actually, the defender never touched the ball so do you want to review it again. He does and then gives the Pen. For our one, the ref had a perfect view and he states to VAR, there is contact but not a foul for him. VAR reviews it and can only show, yes there was contact but that is the same as the refs call on the pitch so nothing obvious to over rule it.
Which is how it should work. The referee on the field is officiating the game and it shouldn't be the role of the VAR official to be refereeing it as well.
The Jesus penalty incident is a good example. Penalty not awarded on the field, quick check on VAR while the game is going on and if there's nothing clear and obvious to change the decision then a quick word in the ref's ear to play on.
I just think the 'clear and obvious' part has to be reinforced to the VAR officials and that they should only intervene when it's very apparent a mistake has been made.
-
Ref Watch
Former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher believes officials made the correct decision to rule out Kai Havertz's late goal against Aston Villa.
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/13028091/ref-watch-kai-havertz-goal-disallowed-unlucky-but-right-decision (https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/13028091/ref-watch-kai-havertz-goal-disallowed-unlucky-but-right-decision)
BE Watch
H&V poster present at the game notes that the score was 1-0 so who gives a shit Dermot. FTF!
-
And the Penalty one:
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/13028094/if-you-give-one-youve-got-to-give-both-penalty-pain-at-villa-park-and-selhurst-park
What none of the presenters, or Dermot are asking is what did the ref see and state to the VAR team. For the Palace one, I reckon he said he saw the defender get to the ball first and clear it. VAR goes back and states to the Ref, actually, the defender never touched the ball so do you want to review it again. He does and then gives the Pen. For our one, the ref had a perfect view and he states to VAR, there is contact but not a foul for him. VAR reviews it and can only show, yes there was contact but that is the same as the refs call on the pitch so nothing obvious to over rule it.
Which is how it should work. The referee on the field is officiating the game and it shouldn't be the role of the VAR official to be refereeing it as well.
The Jesus penalty incident is a good example. Penalty not awarded on the field, quick check on VAR while the game is going on and if there's nothing clear and obvious to change the decision then a quick word in the ref's ear to play on.
I just think the 'clear and obvious' part has to be reinforced to the VAR officials and that they should only intervene when it very apparent a mistake has been made.
Warnock felt it should have been a penalty for me Jesus after he made a minor contact with ball moves his leg into Luiz so making contact inevitable after which he theatrically throws himself to the ground. I reckon the ref saw that and and so stuck to his guns. Personally I would have carded the little price for simulation.
-
And the Penalty one:
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/13028094/if-you-give-one-youve-got-to-give-both-penalty-pain-at-villa-park-and-selhurst-park
What none of the presenters, or Dermot are asking is what did the ref see and state to the VAR team. For the Palace one, I reckon he said he saw the defender get to the ball first and clear it. VAR goes back and states to the Ref, actually, the defender never touched the ball so do you want to review it again. He does and then gives the Pen. For our one, the ref had a perfect view and he states to VAR, there is contact but not a foul for him. VAR reviews it and can only show, yes there was contact but that is the same as the refs call on the pitch so nothing obvious to over rule it.
Which is how it should work. The referee on the field is officiating the game and it shouldn't be the role of the VAR official to be refereeing it as well.
The Jesus penalty incident is a good example. Penalty not awarded on the field, quick check on VAR while the game is going on and if there's nothing clear and obvious to change the decision then a quick word in the ref's ear to play on.
I just think the 'clear and obvious' part has to be reinforced to the VAR officials and that they should only intervene when it very apparent a mistake has been made.
Warnock felt it should have been a penalty for me Jesus after he made a minor contact with ball moves his leg into Luiz so making contact inevitable after which he theatrically throws himself to the ground. I reckon the ref saw that and and so stuck to his guns. Personally I would have carded the little price for simulation.
There was contact, but it would have been an extremely soft penalty and there was no clear and obvious reason to overturn the decision. That would have probably been the case as well had it been given.
-
And the Penalty one:
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/13028094/if-you-give-one-youve-got-to-give-both-penalty-pain-at-villa-park-and-selhurst-park
What none of the presenters, or Dermot are asking is what did the ref see and state to the VAR team. For the Palace one, I reckon he said he saw the defender get to the ball first and clear it. VAR goes back and states to the Ref, actually, the defender never touched the ball so do you want to review it again. He does and then gives the Pen. For our one, the ref had a perfect view and he states to VAR, there is contact but not a foul for him. VAR reviews it and can only show, yes there was contact but that is the same as the refs call on the pitch so nothing obvious to over rule it.
Which is how it should work. The referee on the field is officiating the game and it shouldn't be the role of the VAR official to be refereeing it as well.
The Jesus penalty incident is a good example. Penalty not awarded on the field, quick check on VAR while the game is going on and if there's nothing clear and obvious to change the decision then a quick word in the ref's ear to play on.
I just think the 'clear and obvious' part has to be reinforced to the VAR officials and that they should only intervene when it very apparent a mistake has been made.
Warnock felt it should have been a penalty for me Jesus after he made a minor contact with ball moves his leg into Luiz so making contact inevitable after which he theatrically throws himself to the ground. I reckon the ref saw that and and so stuck to his guns. Personally I would have carded the little price for simulation.
Fucking right.
I cannot believe those tossers were on MOTD were claiming the two incidents were the same, the Palace lad touches the ball away then gets clattered, Doug lifts his leg and then drops it away as does mouse-face, who then arcs his body like 15,000v are passing through him. Get to fuck.
-
This is the audio of the discussion between Jared Gillett and VAR for the disallowed goal with some explanation by Howard Webb (and unfortunately Michael Owen).
https://youtu.be/TI11_iBm9Sk?feature=shared
-
At least they have got more professional with the communications after the Livarpool fiasco. Maybe the VAR lot hadn't just flown back from Saudi/UAE.
-
Christ, is anybody else completely bored with the tears regarding the fact that a referee made a right decision, and VAR made the correct decision not to overturn it?
-
Christ, is anybody else completely bored with the tears regarding the fact that a referee made a right decision, and VAR made the correct decision not to overturn it?
Yes. It's ridiculous, as is the continued whining from Spurs fans about Cash's challenge.
-
Christ, is anybody else completely bored with the tears regarding the fact that a referee made a right decision, and VAR made the correct decision not to overturn it?
This. Four days on and a couple of hairline decisions still being waffled on about. On talk sport this morning Alan Brazil (who has never forgiven us for stealing the title off Ipswich in 1981) was banging on about the disallowed goal saying it should of stood. Jesus christ it was a close call that could have gone either way and it went our way but not the kind of travesty to still be banging on about four fucking days after. It's almost like there's an agenda. Could it be that we've ruffled the feathers of the cosy cartel, the scab six? So if they kick up enough stink about us getting a couple of tight decisions go our way maybe they can influence referee's going forward to not be so favourable to clubs outside the cosy club? Maybe I'm getting a bit Arsenal but it seems they don't like it up em.
-
Christ, is anybody else completely bored with the tears regarding the fact that a referee made a right decision, and VAR made the correct decision not to overturn it?
Yes. It's ridiculous, as is the continued whining from Spurs fans about Cash's challenge.
The irony of Spuds fans all clutching their pearls at Cash's "thuggery", when they've got Romero in their team.
-
Christ, is anybody else completely bored with the tears regarding the fact that a referee made a right decision, and VAR made the correct decision not to overturn it?
This. Four days on and a couple of hairline decisions still being waffled on about. On talk sport this morning Alan Brazil (who has never forgiven us for stealing the title off Ipswich in 1981) was banging on about the disallowed goal saying it should of stood. Jesus christ it was a close call that could have gone either way and it went our way but not the kind of travesty to still be banging on about four fucking days after. It's almost like there's an agenda. Could it be that we've ruffled the feathers of the cosy cartel, the scab six? So if they kick up enough stink about us getting a couple of tight decisions go our way maybe they can influence referee's going forward to not be so favourable to clubs outside the cosy club? Maybe I'm getting a bit Arsenal but it seems they don't like it up em.
The video on Exeter 77's link above, makes it absolutely clear that both the Ref and VAR were 100% correct with the handball decision. It astounds me that 70% of Arsenal fans (and the manager) cannot see the handball. If the ref hadn't given it then VAR were obliged to, due to the (silly) rule. Just because the rule is daft, it doesn't mean that it can be ignored.
-
I think the rule is a good one personally.
-
I think the rule is a good one personally.
Me too and I thought Howard Webb did a good job of explaining why. The ball accidentally hitting a hand anywhere else on the pitch has no material impact on the game but if it hits the arm of a striker and falls at his feet for him to score then it has clearly altered the game and therefore should be subject to stricter rules. I see nothing controversial about it.
-
The one I thought it was a bit of an ass for was the Bournemouth 4th goal where the players arm comes down in motion and unintentionally clips the ball and doesn't give him any advantage as he was going to score anyway
-
The one I thought it was a bit of an ass for was the Bournemouth 4th goal where the players arm comes down in motion and unintentionally clips the ball and doesn't give him any advantage as he was going to score anyway
Yeah, there could be a bit of leniency some times but a strict black and white rule probably makes sense for this specific subject. I'm not sure I'd want refs having to consider hypotheticals in that situation.
-
The one I thought it was a bit of an ass for was the Bournemouth 4th goal where the players arm comes down in motion and unintentionally clips the ball and doesn't give him any advantage as he was going to score anyway
Yeah, there could be a bit of leniency some times but a strict black and white rule probably makes sense for this specific subject. I'm not sure I'd want refs having to consider hypotheticals in that situation.
Was just going to make the same point, at least this rule is black and white, and they don't have to go through all sorts of mental gymnastics in a split second over arms in a natural position and body shape etc.
-
Once again VAR fannies about for 5 minutes to find clear and obvious reasons to deny us a legitimate goal.
(Obviously, had it been Everton who had scored, it would have been a fair use of technology in aid of justice.)
-
Once again VAR fannies about for 5 minutes to find clear and obvious reasons to deny us a legitimate goal.
(Obviously, had it been Everton who had scored, it would have been a fair use of technology in aid of justice.)
Even then it was an element of guess work as the technology couldn't pinpoint the exact moment McGinn played the ball.
-
Once again VAR fannies about for 5 minutes to find clear and obvious reasons to deny us a legitimate goal.
(Obviously, had it been Everton who had scored, it would have been a fair use of technology in aid of justice.)
Even then it was an element of guess work as the technology couldn't pinpoint the exact moment McGinn played the ball.
TBH Bailey was well off compared to some decisions so I'm not sure why it too 4 minutes to prove it. Surely they should just look at incidents in order to see if one rules out anything afterwards. I wonder if they were looking whether Lenglet was fouling the Everton player to keep him playing everyone onside, which if that is a plan from MacPhee, is a stupid one with VAR around as we already found out with Ramsey doing a similar trick against Sheffield Utd.
-
Once again VAR fannies about for 5 minutes to find clear and obvious reasons to deny us a legitimate goal.
(Obviously, had it been Everton who had scored, it would have been a fair use of technology in aid of justice.)
Even then it was an element of guess work as the technology couldn't pinpoint the exact moment McGinn played the ball.
TBH Bailey was well off compared to some decisions so I'm not sure why it too 4 minutes to prove it. Surely they should just look at incidents in order to see if one rules out anything afterwards. I wonder if they were looking whether Lenglet was fouling the Everton player to keep him playing everyone onside, which if that is a plan from MacPhee, is a stupid one with VAR around as we already found out with Ramsey doing a similar trick against Sheffield Utd.
Yeah... it was offside, so I have no issue with the decision. Why on God's green fucking earth it a) took that long and b) they carried on to see whether Lenglet was blocking the keepers vision, which must have been what they was doing as they was showing the shot from behind the goal. Why? It was after the bastard offside. Completely baffled me.
-
From The Laws of the Game.
"Being in an offside position is not an offence in itself, but a player so positioned when the ball is played by a teammate can be judged guilty of an offside offence if they receive the ball or will otherwise become "involved in active play", will "interfere with an opponent", or will "gain an advantage" by being in that position. Offside is often considered one of the most difficult-to-understand aspects of the sport"
Did this apply to Bailey?
-
No, Bailey was offside when he received the ball back, and it was he who passed it to Moreno. Should have been dealt with in 30 seconds. I'm cross with Bailey for not getting himself back onside quicker.
-
No, Bailey was offside when he received the ball back, and it was he who passed it to Moreno. Should have been dealt with in 30 seconds. I'm cross with Bailey for not getting himself back onside quicker.
They were relying on Lenglet to stop the Everton player from moving out so fast but I also think the ball was supposed to go back to Luiz and not Bailey from the reaction of both players when McGinn played it. As I mentioned, if Lenglets actions were a call from MacPhee, he (and the players) needs to remember that VAR is around otherwise the odds are we get the goal ruled out anyway (like with Sheff Utd).
-
Bailey looked offside in real time, and then from the second they showed the replay. It was close but you could see it from the pitch lines in an instant, what the fuck were they doing?
-
Once again VAR fannies about for 5 minutes to find clear and obvious reasons to deny us a legitimate goal.
(Obviously, had it been Everton who had scored, it would have been a fair use of technology in aid of justice.)
Even then it was an element of guess work as the technology couldn't pinpoint the exact moment McGinn played the ball.
Spot on. It's always been my biggest gripe with var and I've probably said it on here dozens of times. If you're going to try and be forensically accurate and call offside for a nasal hair then you have to apply the same level of accuracy as to when the ball has actually left the passing players boot. I mean who decides which frame is the most accurate to use on screen? Forward just ONE frame and a player can be offside. Go back just ONE frame and the same player becomes onside. It's blindingly bleeding obvious but it's a point that no one seems willing to address. It is the elephant in the room.
-
Once again VAR fannies about for 5 minutes to find clear and obvious reasons to deny us a legitimate goal.
(Obviously, had it been Everton who had scored, it would have been a fair use of technology in aid of justice.)
Even then it was an element of guess work as the technology couldn't pinpoint the exact moment McGinn played the ball.
Spot on. It's always been my biggest gripe with var and I've probably said it on here dozens of times. If you're going to try and be forensically accurate and call offside for a nasal hair then you have to apply the same level of accuracy as to when the ball has actually left the passing players boot. I mean who decides which frame is the most accurate to use on screen? Forward just ONE frame and a player can be offside. Go back just ONE frame and the same player becomes onside. It's blindingly bleeding obvious but it's a point that no one seems willing to address. It is the elephant in the room.
It's the grey area where they can apply their bias.
-
Once again VAR fannies about for 5 minutes to find clear and obvious reasons to deny us a legitimate goal.
(Obviously, had it been Everton who had scored, it would have been a fair use of technology in aid of justice.)
Even then it was an element of guess work as the technology couldn't pinpoint the exact moment McGinn played the ball.
Spot on. It's always been my biggest gripe with var and I've probably said it on here dozens of times. If you're going to try and be forensically accurate and call offside for a nasal hair then you have to apply the same level of accuracy as to when the ball has actually left the passing players boot. I mean who decides which frame is the most accurate to use on screen? Forward just ONE frame and a player can be offside. Go back just ONE frame and the same player becomes onside. It's blindingly bleeding obvious but it's a point that no one seems willing to address. It is the elephant in the room.
They have to decide on one frame to use for the kicking and then the decision is on that specific frame. I'm guessing there has been as many close onsides as offsides using the same tactic.
-
How can VAR go back after Sheffield United had regained possession of the ball to a weak "foul" by a player also being fouled to disallow our goal and the in the Luton game ignore a an attacker not trying to play the ball deliberately backing into the keeper - he looks to make sure - and decide that is not a foul on the keeper. I know Trafford isn't looking and if the forward has stood his ground then no foul. I just have no idea how an extra referee and two VAR officials can look at that and decide there is no interference. I'd be seething if was us and can understand why Kompany ranted
-
I'm only seeing a couple of shots of that Luton goal on Sky highlights. Hard to see the forward look deliberately on where Trafford is but a major difference is the ball was falling directly where the Sheffield Keeper was and because Ramsey had his arm "hooked" he couldn't get to it, where in the Burnley match it actually looked like Trafford also misjudged the ball and was actually under it anyway so I don't know if he would have tipped it away from the attackers head
-
The problem is that no one knows the rules with regards to offside etc.., as the rules are too complicated.
-
The problem is that no one knows the rules with regards to offside etc.., as the rules are too complicated.
They were always clear in the past, in this effort to get everything correct they've just made it worse.
-
It's like what we are now doing at free kicks, where we have players in and around the keeper - it causes chaos and confusion and should be interfering with play and should be offside. But with the new rules, it isn't.
-
It's like what we are now doing at free kicks, where we have players in and around the keeper - it causes chaos and confusion and should be interfering with play and should be offside. But with the new rules, it isn't.
It's like they can only hold one new change in their heads at once as well.
They're all suddenly all over someone tapping the ball a few yards away, but have forgotten about leg snapping scissor tackles or huffing forwards in the air from behind as a result.
-
Christ, is anybody else completely bored with the tears regarding the fact that a referee made a right decision, and VAR made the correct decision not to overturn it?
This. Four days on and a couple of hairline decisions still being waffled on about. On talk sport this morning Alan Brazil (who has never forgiven us for stealing the title off Ipswich in 1981) was banging on about the disallowed goal saying it should of stood. Jesus christ it was a close call that could have gone either way and it went our way but not the kind of travesty to still be banging on about four fucking days after. It's almost like there's an agenda. Could it be that we've ruffled the feathers of the cosy cartel, the scab six? So if they kick up enough stink about us getting a couple of tight decisions go our way maybe they can influence referee's going forward to not be so favourable to clubs outside the cosy club? Maybe I'm getting a bit Arsenal but it seems they don't like it up em.
Exactly.
Below is a still from a single frame when a player is passing the ball.
(https://i.ibb.co/zxmSqqd/IMG-0139.png)
Where exactly do we measure on this, or the previous frame which has equal momentum in the still frame, if we are measuring to the accuracy of a gnats pube on the lines?
I have said it before, & I will say it again, the device they used in the World Cup inside the football that measured when a ball was kicked should be used, if they are measuring to a gnats pube.
At least the baseline would be the same for every decision if that device was used.
And none of this "we cant use it across the football pyramid, so no to Prem either".
They fucked that argument when they started using VAR at Prem grounds but not at EFL grounds in the same tournament.
There was a scenario that looked all too real in the game against Boro in the FA Cup where they made an incorrect call to rule out a goal for us via VAR & then us losing at Boros ground in the replay because they couldn't disallow a goal that was incorrect because they had no VAR in use.
That didn't happen, but like Mings getting injured for the season defending a ball he didn't have to chase while they kept the offside flag down in an offside situation, these events usually do happen eventually.
-
Exactly pp, I've made that point before. There's about 3 feet of motion blur in that shot, so all this width of a toe nail stuff is ludicrous.
-
Exactly pp, I've made that point before. There's about 3 feet of motion blur in that shot, so all this width of a toe nail stuff is ludicrous.
Yep.
-
One we have semi automated offside it will sort all of this out. The fact we haven't is a joke.
I'd be all for having GPS tags in the back of the players shirts so there's no sleeve / toe nonsense either. But I appreciate that would give a slightly different dynamic to offside which isn't replicable down the pyramid.
-
One we have semi automated offside it will sort all of this out. The fact we haven't is a joke.
I'd be all for having GPS tags in the back of the players shirts so there's no sleeve / toe nonsense either. But I appreciate that would give a slightly different dynamic to offside which isn't replicable down the pyramid.
If it was combined with some sort of sensor in the ball to know when it was kicked, it might work.
-
Exactly pp, I've made that point before. There's about 3 feet of motion blur in that shot, so all this width of a toe nail stuff is ludicrous.
Yep.
It's infuriating.
-
One we have semi automated offside it will sort all of this out. The fact we haven't is a joke.
I'd be all for having GPS tags in the back of the players shirts so there's no sleeve / toe nonsense either. But I appreciate that would give a slightly different dynamic to offside which isn't replicable down the pyramid.
If it was combined with some sort of sensor in the ball to know when it was kicked, it might work.
They had that sensor for the ball kicking at the World Cup...
-
One we have semi automated offside it will sort all of this out. The fact we haven't is a joke.
I'd be all for having GPS tags in the back of the players shirts so there's no sleeve / toe nonsense either. But I appreciate that would give a slightly different dynamic to offside which isn't replicable down the pyramid.
Why do we insist on taking so much fun, uncertainty and craziness out of football. This idea that we must use technology because it's there is making the game less enjoyable. The logical conclusion is AI refs and robot wars. Football is meant to be enjoyable, fun, unpredictable, infuriating, emotional. It's not a science project.
-
I noticed they had a camera showing the VAR plums but no sound, I didn't really see the point of that, they looked like they were just sitting there staring at the screens. TV show the replays but if you don't know what they are looking for what the fuck is the point?
Those lines never make any sense either, sometimes you have a dotted line to show the player in an offside position and then sometimes you don't. Why? It should be consistent in application. And the "looks ok to me" alacrity when checking an offside for the likes of Mo Salah is in stark contrast to the nonsense we saw yesterday.
-
One we have semi automated offside it will sort all of this out. The fact we haven't is a joke.
I'd be all for having GPS tags in the back of the players shirts so there's no sleeve / toe nonsense either. But I appreciate that would give a slightly different dynamic to offside which isn't replicable down the pyramid.
Why do we insist on taking so much fun, uncertainty and craziness out of football. This idea that we must use technology because it's there is making the game less enjoyable. The logical conclusion is AI refs and robot wars. Football is meant to be enjoyable, fun, unpredictable, infuriating, emotional. It's not a science project.
Money.
-
One we have semi automated offside it will sort all of this out. The fact we haven't is a joke.
I'd be all for having GPS tags in the back of the players shirts so there's no sleeve / toe nonsense either. But I appreciate that would give a slightly different dynamic to offside which isn't replicable down the pyramid.
Why do we insist on taking so much fun, uncertainty and craziness out of football. This idea that we must use technology because it's there is making the game less enjoyable. The logical conclusion is AI refs and robot wars. Football is meant to be enjoyable, fun, unpredictable, infuriating, emotional. It's not a science project.
Although I agree to a certain extent, I think in the last few years we've forgotten the pain and misery associated with a bad on-field decision that stood due to no one being around to correct it. Either from refs missing something, or giving something that they shouldn't. I think we're all guilty of romanticising football in the pre-VAR era. VAR is far from perfect, and downright annoying a lot of the time, but let's not pretend that pre-VAR football wasn't without it's own significant issues.
If VAR was turned off entirely tomorrow, I suspect people would be more incenced than they are now by bad officiating. It's here now, so in my opinion it's about getting it to work better, and faster, because in it's current format it's just so awful as to be detrimental to the game.
-
One we have semi automated offside it will sort all of this out. The fact we haven't is a joke.
I'd be all for having GPS tags in the back of the players shirts so there's no sleeve / toe nonsense either. But I appreciate that would give a slightly different dynamic to offside which isn't replicable down the pyramid.
Why do we insist on taking so much fun, uncertainty and craziness out of football. This idea that we must use technology because it's there is making the game less enjoyable. The logical conclusion is AI refs and robot wars. Football is meant to be enjoyable, fun, unpredictable, infuriating, emotional. It's not a science project.
Money.
How, and for who?
-
One we have semi automated offside it will sort all of this out. The fact we haven't is a joke.
I'd be all for having GPS tags in the back of the players shirts so there's no sleeve / toe nonsense either. But I appreciate that would give a slightly different dynamic to offside which isn't replicable down the pyramid.
Why do we insist on taking so much fun, uncertainty and craziness out of football. This idea that we must use technology because it's there is making the game less enjoyable. The logical conclusion is AI refs and robot wars. Football is meant to be enjoyable, fun, unpredictable, infuriating, emotional. It's not a science project.
Money.
How, and for who?
Money is the reason it's being sanitised; success and failure, and TV and betting revenues are so reliant on scores being right, lawyers are paid huge amounts and all to try and force their own points and agendas.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, and the arguments about shit refs and decisions used to be the topic of conversation whereas these days it's VAR and referees and shit decisions.
-
Although I agree to a certain extent, I think in the last few years we've forgotten the pain and misery associated with a bad on-field decision that stood due to no one being around to correct it. Either from refs missing something, or giving something that they shouldn't. I think we're all guilty of romanticising football in the pre-VAR era. VAR is far from perfect, and downright annoying a lot of the time, but let's not pretend that pre-VAR football wasn't without it's own significant issues.
If VAR was turned off entirely tomorrow, I suspect people would be more incenced than they are now by bad officiating. It's here now, so in my opinion it's about getting it to work better, and faster, because in it's current format it's just so awful as to be detrimental to the game.
I'm not forgetting bad (or to be exact, incorrect) decisions pre-VAR. But neither am I looking for perfect decisions. I don't want a game of chess, I want football. Part of football is people falling over, keepers throwing the ball in their own net, the linesman momentarily wondering about what's for tea and missing the blatant offside, the ref 'accidentally' missing the punch in the face of that gobby little shite at inside right.
VAR is not perfect, so we have bad decisions and tedious rows delaying the football. And if VAR was perfect, how is my emotional attachment to football increased? I'd be a lot happier today if the lino had missed yesterday's offside and there was no VAR.
Drummond, the agendas thing sounds a bit paranoid to me. TV, betting firms, lawyers didn't care when Man City were in Div 3, Everton were challenging, Leicester won the league, Wigan won the cup. Meanwhile, the richest clubs were winning plenty without VAR. I don't see the link.
-
One we have semi automated offside it will sort all of this out. The fact we haven't is a joke.
I'd be all for having GPS tags in the back of the players shirts so there's no sleeve / toe nonsense either. But I appreciate that would give a slightly different dynamic to offside which isn't replicable down the pyramid.
Why do we insist on taking so much fun, uncertainty and craziness out of football. This idea that we must use technology because it's there is making the game less enjoyable. The logical conclusion is AI refs and robot wars. Football is meant to be enjoyable, fun, unpredictable, infuriating, emotional. It's not a science project.
Because offside can and should be a factual non emotional decision. Why do we want to go back to the days of refs and linesmen being intimidated by the likes of Fergie (or the 'big clubs' generally)?
Argue all you like about whether VAR is right for other onfield decisions, but excluding a workable accurate technology for factual decisions like offsides and goaline tech would be romanticism for the sake of it.
-
One we have semi automated offside it will sort all of this out. The fact we haven't is a joke.
I'd be all for having GPS tags in the back of the players shirts so there's no sleeve / toe nonsense either. But I appreciate that would give a slightly different dynamic to offside which isn't replicable down the pyramid.
Why do we insist on taking so much fun, uncertainty and craziness out of football. This idea that we must use technology because it's there is making the game less enjoyable. The logical conclusion is AI refs and robot wars. Football is meant to be enjoyable, fun, unpredictable, infuriating, emotional. It's not a science project.
Because offside can and should be a factual non emotional decision. Why do we want to go back to the days of refs and linesmen being intimidated by the likes of Fergie (or the 'big clubs' generally)?
Argue all you like about whether VAR is right for other onfield decisions, but excluding a workable accurate technology for factual decisions like offsides and goaline tech would be romanticism for the sake of it.
Nah that's rubbish mate, nobody ever changed an offside because of pressure from a manager, and such influence is still being exerted in other ways and plays out in the unconcious (though I'm starting to doubt that) bias of the officials both on and off the pitch now.
Plus, as pointed out, the current technology cannot give factually correct outcomes.
-
You're talking about trackers on players, chips in a ball, stuff only available in the top leagues. But if it can be instant and infallible, I'm with you. This idea that manager intimidation and big club bias has been in any way altered by VAR is another myth. Look at the headlines, look at the apologies, look at the league table. VAR does nothing to make the game a more even contest.
-
It's like what we are now doing at free kicks, where we have players in and around the keeper - it causes chaos and confusion and should be interfering with play and should be offside. But with the new rules, it isn't.
The "new" rules on interference has been in place almost 30 years as I believe it came in the mid-90's. I know we had a perfectly good goal chalked off in the first leg of the Blues cup match because Richardson(?) was in an offside position no where near the keeper as he made a run but the player on the ball (Houghton(?) ran threw and scored*. And no one batted an eyelid in the commentary about interfering.
*I was looking for the Saunders "offside" a few months ago and noticed that decision as well.
Also, you can't be offside until the ball is played and McGinn is walking away from the keeper at that point when he goes in to "cause chaos and confusion".
-
You don't think a lino has ever bottled putting a flag up because of crowd pressure or big club pressure?
You've got more faith in human nature than me.
The semi-automated can give as close to factually correct decisions as we'll ever get. In a small number of instances it will need human input on whether a player is interfering with play, but him being offside or not should not be in question.
-
You're talking about trackers on players, chips in a ball, stuff only available in the top leagues. But if it can be instant and infallible, I'm with you. This idea that manager intimidation and big club bias has been in any way altered by VAR is another myth. Look at the headlines, look at the apologies, look at the league table. VAR does nothing to make the game a more even contest.
Did you not think the version they used in the world cup worked well? We have that tech available to us now. It takes about 20 seconds and no doubt they'll improve that further i time.
-
It's like what we are now doing at free kicks, where we have players in and around the keeper - it causes chaos and confusion and should be interfering with play and should be offside. But with the new rules, it isn't.
The "new" rules on interference has been in place almost 30 years as I believe it came in the mid-90's. I know we had a perfectly good goal chalked off in the first leg of the Blues cup match because Richardson(?) was in an offside position no where near the keeper as he made a run but the player on the ball (Houghton(?) ran threw and scored*. And no one batted an eyelid in the commentary about interfering.
*I was looking for the Saunders "offside" a few months ago and noticed that decision as well.
Also, you can't be offside until the ball is played and McGinn is walking away from the keeper at that point when he goes in to "cause chaos and confusion".
I well remember scoring an absolute screamer for my Sunday team down on the Jaffray pitches in Erdington, a 25 yarder right into the stanchion from a cleared corner and the shithead ref ruling it out because one of our lads was a yard offside nowhere near it.
-
Factual or mainly factual? Delays to games or not? Sorry, I can't remember what the difference was in the world cup, but if VAR can't give me an instant, factual response, I'll take the ref and a game that makes me feel as much as possible.
-
One we have semi automated offside it will sort all of this out. The fact we haven't is a joke.
I'd be all for having GPS tags in the back of the players shirts so there's no sleeve / toe nonsense either. But I appreciate that would give a slightly different dynamic to offside which isn't replicable down the pyramid.
GPS tags wouldn't work as the location would call someone onside when the attacker is facing forward and the defender is facing backwards.
The Semi Auto system works with camera around the stadium monitoring players on the pitch down to location and position of limbs. The ball accelerometer is the indicator of the pass (and probably suffers from the same exacto spot as choosing a frame) and then the computer works out were everyone is on the pitch and shows if someones leg is slightly ahead of the defender. Decision is still on the VAR operator for the goal but just takes out all the judgement of the lines etc.
Obviously it does use "AI" judgement so Simon won't like it.
-
Factual or mainly factual? Delays to games or not? Sorry, I can't remember what the difference was in the world cup, but if VAR can't give me an instant, factual response, I'll take the ref and a game that makes me feel as much as possible.
Well take a look at google. It was almost instant and it's computerised, so yeah, factual.
-
Factual or mainly factual? Delays to games or not? Sorry, I can't remember what the difference was in the world cup, but if VAR can't give me an instant, factual response, I'll take the ref and a game that makes me feel as much as possible.
Well take a look at google. It was almost instant and it's computerised, so yeah, factual.
Easy tiger.
What am I looking at on Google?
I was trying to get if you were talking about 100% accuracy because you said: "Because offside can and should be a factual non emotional decision," then followed it up with: "The semi-automated can give as close to factually correct decisions as we'll ever get."
I'm not trying to catch you out - or change your mind - but I really don't know what wonders tech can currently bring.
-
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/12643581/explained-how-exactly-will-semi-automated-offside-work
-
One we have semi automated offside it will sort all of this out. The fact we haven't is a joke.
I'd be all for having GPS tags in the back of the players shirts so there's no sleeve / toe nonsense either. But I appreciate that would give a slightly different dynamic to offside which isn't replicable down the pyramid.
Why do we insist on taking so much fun, uncertainty and craziness out of football. This idea that we must use technology because it's there is making the game less enjoyable. The logical conclusion is AI refs and robot wars. Football is meant to be enjoyable, fun, unpredictable, infuriating, emotional. It's not a science project.
Money.
How, and for who?
the people who run the game.
VAR came in partly as a reaction of TV over-analysing every decision, from handball to offside to "penalty decisions" and all points in between.
There were hours upon hours upon hours of Lineker, Shearer and the like across the game and continents analysing, drawing lines, slo-mo's on tackles and where the ball hit the arm. It partly came in because other sports - Rugby and Cricket spring immediately to mind, but tennis, horse racing and American sports - operate the system well on the whole. it is mainly used for line decisions and foul play missed by the officials. It involves the crowd, disputed decisions being part of the "entertainment".
UEFA and FIFA as well as the big leagues needed to show that it wasn't a crooked cabal running the sport or that their officials weren't incompetent. The Prem prides itself for example on being the "best league in the world ... ignore the fact that it has been won by one team for five out of the six years... it needed the self justification of VAR to stop it being criticised, to demonstrate that it was a "clean" product. Advertisers want to be associated with honest clean products. Similarly UEFA and FIFA.
The World Cup "offsides" were mainly quite quick decisions and the game got on with. I understand that's because FIFA used a ball with a micro-chip in. However, UEFA [or the Prem] have a different ball sponsor so that technology cannot be used in the English game.
VAR if used properly by officials who can make quick decisions with the aid of other supporting technology can work. Also, I do not get why i as a paying punter at the game have to be excluded from the decision process. Are 40,000 at Villa Park any less intimidating than 62,500 Boks at Ellis Park for example? I doubt it.
-
I know I celebrated Matty Cash’s goal at Boro a lot more crazily knowing VAR couldn’t pick through looking for a reason to spoil the fun. League games, no matter how good the goal, my celebration dies out after the initial jump as I try and think why it might be disallowed.. then see the ref standing still holding his ear and the ground goes silent.
Sadly it’s here to spoil our game evermore, no matter how much we moan - probably with dramatic sounds and lights like a tv quiz show while we await decisions.
-
I wasn't biting I was saying take a look. It was used in the World Cup and is used in Europe now. It's infinitely better than the lines malarkey we're relying on now. Why the PL clubs voted against it for this season is beyond me.
Personally, I'd prefer a single chip in the shirt giving a single reference point and it's irrelevant where the limbs are, but that's a slightly different discussion.
here you go
https://www.fifa.com/technical/football-technology/football-technologies-and-innovations-at-the-fifa-world-cup-2022/semi-automated-offside-technology
-
Now I appreciate that level of accuracy brings in the issue of incredibly marginal decisions. But at least they are correct and entirely unbiased.
-
I get all that simboy and agree with all except the need to show it wasn't a crooked cabal. That is far more to do with bribes for hosting tournaments than whether Michael Owen had strayed offside. But I don't see how any of that equates to money being the reason.
-
Now I appreciate that level of accuracy brings in the issue of incredibly marginal decisions. But at least they are correct and entirely unbiased.
Although the decision lines can still be changed by the VAR officials if they decided to be biased in some way.
-
As someone who works in technology, I'm always amused at people who think technology will solve problems.
-
Now I appreciate that level of accuracy brings in the issue of incredibly marginal decisions. But at least they are correct and entirely unbiased.
Although the decision lines can still be changed by the VAR officials if they decided to be biased in some way.
There's no lines with the automated tech, so they can't be adjusted manually.
-
Now I appreciate that level of accuracy brings in the issue of incredibly marginal decisions. But at least they are correct and entirely unbiased.
Although the decision lines can still be changed by the VAR officials if they decided to be biased in some way.
There's no lines with the automated tech, so they can't be adjusted manually.
Good point. So whether right or wrong it's what we go with...a bit like a ref and linesman only more accurate for a bigger percentage of the calls. It can't be manipulated by a biased official in other words. The only thing to worry about then is if the tech has a 'moment' like a cash machine spewing out £50 notes for no apparent reason.
-
I would have more belief in VAR if it allowed greater scrutiny of sustained attempts to wind up certain players with punches, elbows etc - off the ball as well as on. It was clear to me that the Everton full-backs must have been on a bonus to see who could get Duran to respond and explode in the face of their sly thuggery.
-
We’ve probably benefitted from VAR more than most clubs given we catch sides offside with our line so often. So there is value to it. It’s that now the people paid to make these decisions are taking an eternity to find ways to disallow goals and not give them. That seems to be their starting point. There needs to be clock introduced and the onfield decision needs to be the one that has to be clearly and obviously wrong to overturn. Also handball needs to be intentional not incidental. We may have to adjust our high line a bit or be even more precise but the game overall benefits. Right now VAR is absolutely killing it.
-
I'm only seeing a couple of shots of that Luton goal on Sky highlights. Hard to see the forward look deliberately on where Trafford is but a major difference is the ball was falling directly where the Sheffield Keeper was and because Ramsey had his arm "hooked" he couldn't get to it, where in the Burnley match it actually looked like Trafford also misjudged the ball and was actually under it anyway so I don't know if he would have tipped it away from the attackers head
I guess that just highlights the question of differences of interpretation. The player clearly moves away from the flight of the ball and into the space Trafford is moving to. If the Luton player stands his ground no problem but he moves towards him (and away from the ball) so its a foul.
For what it's worth Dermot Gallagher thought foul but says its up to the onfield referee to decide. Without being asked to look at the screen he's not going to change his mind so again one of those VAR black holes
-
Now I appreciate that level of accuracy brings in the issue of incredibly marginal decisions. But at least they are correct and entirely unbiased.
Although the decision lines can still be changed by the VAR officials if they decided to be biased in some way.
There's no lines with the automated tech, so they can't be adjusted manually.
Good point. So whether right or wrong it's what we go with...a bit like a ref and linesman only more accurate for a bigger percentage of the calls. It can't be manipulated by a biased official in other words. The only thing to worry about then is if the tech has a 'moment' like a cash machine spewing out £50 notes for no apparent reason.
The technology never fails
(https://i.ibb.co/bHw37yR/hawkeye.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bHw37yR)
-
One we have semi automated offside it will sort all of this out. The fact we haven't is a joke.
I'd be all for having GPS tags in the back of the players shirts so there's no sleeve / toe nonsense either. But I appreciate that would give a slightly different dynamic to offside which isn't replicable down the pyramid.
GPS tags wouldn't work as the location would call someone onside when the attacker is facing forward and the defender is facing backwards.
The Semi Auto system works with camera around the stadium monitoring players on the pitch down to location and position of limbs. The ball accelerometer is the indicator of the pass (and probably suffers from the same exacto spot as choosing a frame) and then the computer works out were everyone is on the pitch and shows if someones leg is slightly ahead of the defender. Decision is still on the VAR operator for the goal but just takes out all the judgement of the lines etc.
Obviously it does use "AI" judgement so Simon won't like it.
But it would be the same for every kick, so would be the baseline for all players to go from...
-
One failure in 1000's of games? I'll take that.
-
We’ve probably benefitted from VAR more than most clubs given we catch sides offside with our line so often. So there is value to it. It’s that now the people paid to make these decisions are taking an eternity to find ways to disallow goals and not give them. That seems to be their starting point. There needs to be clock introduced and the onfield decision needs to be the one that has to be clearly and obviously wrong to overturn. Also handball needs to be intentional not incidental. We may have to adjust our high line a bit or be even more precise but the game overall benefits. Right now VAR is absolutely killing it.
There is a table going around where they've used the results if VAR overturns had been ignored. i.e. the "on the field" decision stood as if VAR didn't exist. We were top of the league. And that was before we were denied a winner at Everton. We have not "benefitted" from VAR this season at all. If these things balance out over a season, we are due a couple of absolutely stinkers in our favour.
-
One failure in 1000's of games? I'll take that.
It's funny as that's the one bit of tech that's improved decisions and gets accepted without question, and has no detrimental effect on watching the games.
-
One failure in 1000's of games? I'll take that.
It's funny as that's the one bit of tech that's improved decisions and gets accepted without question, and has no detrimental effect on watching the games.
I think the semi-automated offside can be in that bracket once it's adopted. No simpletons drawing lines, just a quick answer.
-
One failure in 1000's of games? I'll take that.
It's funny as that's the one bit of tech that's improved decisions and gets accepted without question, and has no detrimental effect on watching the games.
I think the semi-automated offside can be in that bracket once it's adopted. No simpletons drawing lines, just a quick answer.
I hope you're right, it's driving me nuts watching anygame that goes to VAR, they look like a bunch of chimps trying to figure out a typewriter.
-
Now I appreciate that level of accuracy brings in the issue of incredibly marginal decisions. But at least they are correct and entirely unbiased.
Although the decision lines can still be changed by the VAR officials if they decided to be biased in some way.
There's no lines with the automated tech, so they can't be adjusted manually.
From your own link.
What happens if the video match officials do not agree with the proposed kick point and/or offside line?
If the video match officials do not agree with the kick point and/or offside line proposed by the system, they can manually select the kick point and use the existing tools to draw the offside line.
-
Fair enough. I'd see that as a failsafe in case of an obvious tech error, but I get your point.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of how well it has worked in Europe this season and whether clubs are happy with it.
-
But I don't see how any of that equates to money being the reason.
The easiest example is that football is a results driven business, and a few bad decisions on the pitch can be the difference between a win, draw or loss. These bad decisions can determine where teams end up in their final league positions or through to the next round of the cup, and therefore they can have financial consequences.
-
But I don't see how any of that equates to money being the reason.
The easiest example is that football is a results driven business, and a few bad decisions on the pitch can be the difference between a win, draw or loss. These bad decisions can determine where teams end up in their final league positions or through to the next round of the cup, and therefore they can have financial consequences.
That's the kind of thinking that has got us here. Yes bad decisions play a part, but then spending x on a load of shite players or dragging your players around the world off season can too.
-
We’ve probably benefitted from VAR more than most clubs given we catch sides offside with our line so often. So there is value to it. It’s that now the people paid to make these decisions are taking an eternity to find ways to disallow goals and not give them. That seems to be their starting point. There needs to be clock introduced and the onfield decision needs to be the one that has to be clearly and obviously wrong to overturn. Also handball needs to be intentional not incidental. We may have to adjust our high line a bit or be even more precise but the game overall benefits. Right now VAR is absolutely killing it.
There is a table going around where they've used the results if VAR overturns had been ignored. i.e. the "on the field" decision stood as if VAR didn't exist. We were top of the league. And that was before we were denied a winner at Everton. We have not "benefitted" from VAR this season at all. If these things balance out over a season, we are due a couple of absolutely stinkers in our favour.
But doesn't that table talk about goals scored or not versus just decisions related to VAR. We have caught teams offside miles more than our competitors. We definitely benefit from the marginal calls that on field officiating might miss.
-
There was something on the radio the other day that we are no1 for catching teams offside, more than double the amount of the team in third place.
-
There was something on the radio the other day that we are no1 for catching teams offside, more than double the amount of the team in third place.
To our credit.
Offside is part of the game and the easiest for Var to sort out quickly if we keep our line.
-
We’ve probably benefitted from VAR more than most clubs given we catch sides offside with our line so often. So there is value to it. It’s that now the people paid to make these decisions are taking an eternity to find ways to disallow goals and not give them. That seems to be their starting point. There needs to be clock introduced and the onfield decision needs to be the one that has to be clearly and obviously wrong to overturn. Also handball needs to be intentional not incidental. We may have to adjust our high line a bit or be even more precise but the game overall benefits. Right now VAR is absolutely killing it.
There is a table going around where they've used the results if VAR overturns had been ignored. i.e. the "on the field" decision stood as if VAR didn't exist. We were top of the league. And that was before we were denied a winner at Everton. We have not "benefitted" from VAR this season at all. If these things balance out over a season, we are due a couple of absolutely stinkers in our favour.
But doesn't that table talk about goals scored or not versus just decisions related to VAR. We have caught teams offside miles more than our competitors. We definitely benefit from the marginal calls that on field officiating might miss.
Most of our offsides are delay-flagged by the linos.
-
Most of our offsides are delay-flagged by the linos.
I feel that is almost a self fulfilling prophecy the same as Arsenal were back under Graham. We are so well drilled that linos call it anyway because they read we are really good at catching teams offside. VAR then confirms the decision in most cases. AFAIK, I don't think any goal called offside on the field has been overruled against us though.
-
As someone who works in technology, I'm always amused at people who think technology will solve problems.
The biggest problem for me is that there has never been any real clarity about what exactly it's role is in the game. Video technology was brought in to sports to eliminate the 'howler' and then also to pick up things that the on field officials have missed. It wasn't brought in for another level.of officiating to be in place and for them to have five minute conversations with the referee while everyone else in the ground waits.
If they wanted to, they could make it much more simple and eradicate a lot of the issues:
- Only look at the act of scoring and maybe the assist leading directly up to it. Anything before that can't be checked.
- VAR official only intervenes if ref confirms officials haven't seen an incident. If they say they have, then the VAR official only gets involved if they believe that an absolutely clear and obvious mistake has been made (ie a penalty awarded for handball when it clearly hits a player's chest).
- Introduce the semi automated system ASAP and again, only look at the direct act of scoring or a direct assist.
-
We could make it simpler still by giving someone a whistle and two other people flags.
-
The biggest problem for me is that there has never been any real clarity about what exactly it's role is in the game. Video technology was brought in to sports to eliminate the 'howler' and then also to pick up things that the on field officials have missed. It wasn't brought in for another level.of officiating to be in place and for them to have five minute conversations with the referee while everyone else in the ground waits.
If they wanted to, they could make it much more simple and eradicate a lot of the issues:
- Only look at the act of scoring and maybe the assist leading directly up to it. Anything before that can't be checked.
- VAR official only intervenes if ref confirms officials haven't seen an incident. If they say they have, then the VAR official only gets involved if they believe that an absolutely clear and obvious mistake has been made (ie a penalty awarded for handball when it clearly hits a player's chest).
- Introduce the semi automated system ASAP and again, only look at the direct act of scoring or a direct assist.
Your first two points are pretty much what VAR is supposed to already be for. It is when they arbitrarily decide to go back several levels in one match and not do that in another. The only other VAR intervention currently in the rules is the missed red card offence and they only normally call the ref for that if he states he didn't spot the studs up challenge.
-
As someone who works in technology, I'm always amused at people who think technology will solve problems.
Caravans classed as technology. New one on me.
-
We’ve probably benefitted from VAR more than most clubs given we catch sides offside with our line so often. So there is value to it. It’s that now the people paid to make these decisions are taking an eternity to find ways to disallow goals and not give them. That seems to be their starting point. There needs to be clock introduced and the onfield decision needs to be the one that has to be clearly and obviously wrong to overturn. Also handball needs to be intentional not incidental. We may have to adjust our high line a bit or be even more precise but the game overall benefits. Right now VAR is absolutely killing it.
There is a table going around where they've used the results if VAR overturns had been ignored. i.e. the "on the field" decision stood as if VAR didn't exist. We were top of the league. And that was before we were denied a winner at Everton. We have not "benefitted" from VAR this season at all. If these things balance out over a season, we are due a couple of absolutely stinkers in our favour.
But doesn't that table talk about goals scored or not versus just decisions related to VAR. We have caught teams offside miles more than our competitors. We definitely benefit from the marginal calls that on field officiating might miss.
It’s the same thing, because VAR gets involved in offside decisions ONLY if a goal is scored. So 95% of the time, us catching someone offside has no involvement of VAR at all.
That table going around includes goals for/against that were the result of a VAR intervention. So it includes goals chalked off by VAR that were given on the field (such as Moreno yesterday), and goals where it wasn’t given on the field but VAR intervenes to award it (for example, the lino gives offside after the ball goes in, but it wasn’t offside on review so VAR allows it, but pre VAR it would have been a disallowed goal).
In THAT table, we’re top of the league. VAR owes us…
-
I imagine that if you asked supporters of other Prem teams they would say that VAR has favoured Villa but that's largely just because of the high line which often needs VAR to confirm the decision. The media don't help by saying Son scored a "hat trick" of disallowed goals against Villa. No because if he's offside they aren't goals!
-
I imagine that if you asked supporters of other Prem teams they would say that VAR has favoured Villa but that's largely just because of the high line which often needs VAR to confirm the decision. The media don't help by saying Son scored a "hat trick" of disallowed goals against Villa. No because if he's offside they aren't goals!
I'm also pretty sure that the linesman gave every one of them offside, so they'd all have been disallowed even without VAR. Plus Ollie's first disallowed goal that was actually given on the field, but disallowed by VAR. So even in THAT game, VAR screwed us over...
-
Most of our offsides are delay-flagged by the linos.
I feel that is almost a self fulfilling prophecy the same as Arsenal were back under Graham. We are so well drilled that linos call it anyway because they read we are really good at catching teams offside. VAR then confirms the decision in most cases. AFAIK, I don't think any goal called offside on the field has been overruled against us though.
The last one I can think of was Brighton against us back in May.
-
We could make it simpler still by giving someone a whistle and two other people flags.
True. I do think it has a place and could benefit the game, but that it is being applied terribly at times.
-
Most of our offsides are delay-flagged by the linos.
I feel that is almost a self fulfilling prophecy the same as Arsenal were back under Graham. We are so well drilled that linos call it anyway because they read we are really good at catching teams offside. VAR then confirms the decision in most cases. AFAIK, I don't think any goal called offside on the field has been overruled against us though.
The last one I can think of was Brighton against us back in May.
Yep, I think it's that one too. Which just goes to show that the idea that VAR is saving our high-line strategy simply isn't correct.
-
I think if we involve var it mustn’t take longer than 60 secs and if no definitive decsion is reached its referees call
-
But I don't see how any of that equates to money being the reason.
The easiest example is that football is a results driven business, and a few bad decisions on the pitch can be the difference between a win, draw or loss. These bad decisions can determine where teams end up in their final league positions or through to the next round of the cup, and therefore they can have financial consequences.
Across various answers to this we've moved from suggestions it ensures the status quo is maintained to it's about righting the wrongs of financially costly human error. With or without VAR, trophies and final league placings are based on wealth and financial trickery. The same type of clubs are winning everything, the league table is as was. I don't see a link between VAR and money, except for those who make and maintain the tech.
So it comes back to has it improved the game? As a sporting contest, emotional ride, fair competitive endeavour and just plain fun event, the answer is clearly no. In terms of ending the arguments about decisions, has it fck. The analysing goes on for days now. You'd hope it has reduced the number of errors (I have no idea on the figures) but is the cost to other aspects of the game worth it?
I think it's always been a solution looking for a problem. While I've never seen the ref on the pitch as a problem, fair enough to those who do. Having found a problem, we've learned the solution solves little and creates new issues. But apparently because it exists we simply must use it. I'd rather they spent the time perfecting it in private rather than stumbling around pretending all is fine and it just needs the odd tweak.
-
Why hasn't the Prem implemented the automated offside system as UEFA have??? Much better than tedious of the drawing line method.
-
I think if we involve var it mustn’t take longer than 60 secs and if no definitive decsion is reached its referees call
Ideally that would be good. A minute should be enough, but in practice it could create more chaos in the decision making and more mistakes if they know they only have one minute.
It could also be open to suggestions of bias or favouritism if they take longer than a minute and then miss something.
-
The issue as I see it is that they need to be clear what it's for.
Is it absolutes or clear and obvious? If it's the former the slow motion, frame by frame is fine (if fucking dull and time consuming), if it's the latter, then it should be played once at full speed and the VAR official should then make a decision based on that.
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say fans at games generally hate VAR and fans watching on TV are less bothered because they can go for a piss and a beer whilst decisions are being made.
-
The issue as I see it is that they need to be clear what it's for.
Is it absolutes or clear and obvious? If it's the former the slow motion, frame by frame is fine (if fucking dull and time consuming), if it's the latter, then it should be played once at full speed and the VAR official should then make a decision based on that.
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say fans at games generally hate VAR and fans watching on TV are less bothered because they can go for a piss and a beer whilst decisions are being made.
From which angle, the same as the referee's? From only the right side of the pitch or only the left? From close up or far away? Slo-mo might make something look worse, but will also show a difference then full speed and a different angle would show a clear and obvious error from the one POV a ref gets to see a challenge.
-
Pretty sure the whole point of VAR is to get decisions right one way or another, and they use that as justification for the time it takes (whether we or the pundits agree with their decision or not, and complain about how long it takes). In theory it should have removed a lot of grey areas and bad decisions, but the piss poor implementation means we’re now talking about decisions made via VAR than by the match officials on the pitch at the first time of asking. As it stands, VAR in the PL is in a bad place so they need to have a rethink about how it works and how it’s used…or ditch it (which they won’t do).
-
Aston Villa been the biggest beneficiaries of mistakes from the technology - ESPN's report finds that three mistakes have gone in favour of Unai Emery's fourth-placed side.
The report has revealed that ‘of the 20 VAR errors this season, 17 have been for missed interventions, with two decisions changed incorrectly and one situation where the VAR wrongly rejected an overturn at the pitchside monitor’.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/39476749/premier-league-too-many-var-checks-takes-too-long-chief
The accuracy of key match decisions has increased from 82% pre-VAR to 96% this season
-
What are the mistakes in our favour?
-
I don’t see how the article can make any sense when it’s still judgements being applied by the same subjective decisions that interpret the rules differently from week to week.
We had a goal disallowed for a foul by Jacob Ramsay in a previous phase of play a few weeks ago, yet only this week we saw a goal allowed against us from a free kick that wasn’t a free kick. So they need to decide whether they are re-refereeing the game or not for a start.
The problem is a lack of consistency in how it’s applied and, whilst I can see that Wolves and Liverpool have had clear errors against them, I’d be interested to know how they’ve come up with all the others because I’d guess it’s with the same warped logic they used in the first place.
-
I've said it before, a nice little earner for some. Are they now involved in the rest of VAR?
Business Post 4/10/23
“Hawk-Eye Innovations, the company that provides goal-line technology for English football’s VAR and the GAA, had a rise in turnover from £59.8 million to £62 million last year.
……..
The vast majority of its money came from soccer amounting to £45.7 million “
-
I've said it before, a nice little earner for some. Are they now involved in the rest of VAR?
Business Post 4/10/23
“Hawk-Eye Innovations, the company that provides goal-line technology for English football’s VAR and the GAA, had a rise in turnover from £59.8 million to £62 million last year.
……..
The vast majority of its money came from soccer amounting to £45.7 million “
I won't have a word said against them!
-
What a load of PR nonsense. The vast majority of decisions are subjective so how can percentage claims be made? You cam bet it was never going to be Newton Heath or Stockport 115 who came out with the most decisions favour.
-
I've said it before, a nice little earner for some. Are they now involved in the rest of VAR?
Business Post 4/10/23
“Hawk-Eye Innovations, the company that provides goal-line technology for English football’s VAR and the GAA, had a rise in turnover from £59.8 million to £62 million last year.
……..
The vast majority of its money came from Aston Villa when they bribed them to turn it off in June 2020 “
I've fixed the last line for you.
-
What a load of PR nonsense. The vast majority of decisions are subjective so how can percentage claims be made? You cam bet it was never going to be Newton Heath or Stockport 115 who came out with the most decisions favour.
I'm sure there was a table going round a few weeks ago that showed we'd been done over the worst this season. And now the opposite is true apparently.
-
Yes and yet another report suggests that Villa's points tally would be exactly the same with or without the VAR decisions (admittedly this was at xmas so might have changed). If VAR had looked at the freekick that lead to Chelsea's 3rd we'd only have lost 2-1!
-
I've said it before, a nice little earner for some. Are they now involved in the rest of VAR?
Business Post 4/10/23
“Hawk-Eye Innovations, the company that provides goal-line technology for English football’s VAR and the GAA, had a rise in turnover from £59.8 million to £62 million last year.
……..
The vast majority of its money came from soccer amounting to £45.7 million “
The report also mentioned profits had dropped. And Hawkeye have been around for years in multiple sports and well before VAR. There are a lot more top level football matches around the world it is used at compared to top level tennis or cricket. It is also used in Gaelic Football for example but only at a couple of places and games. (Although marred by more errors then with Football it seems).
-
What a load of PR nonsense. The vast majority of decisions are subjective so how can percentage claims be made? You cam bet it was never going to be Newton Heath or Stockport 115 who came out with the most decisions favour.
I'm sure there was a table going round a few weeks ago that showed we'd been done over the worst this season. And now the opposite is true apparently.
The other lists were if VAR wasn't around to allow / disallow goals and just went on on-field decisions. For example we would have scored against Sheffield early, but Ben Mee would have stayed on the pitch against Brentford.
This one seems to be internally decided within PGMOL of referring errors when VAR didn't intervene when it should, or when it made the wrong decision. I suspect one of ours might be when the Ref gave the penalty for us against (I think) Crystal Palace when VAR sent him to the screen and he still gave it. That is at least the only time I remember a referee upholding his on-field decision after being sent to the screen for review this season for anyone, and they list an incorrect overturn by the ref in the 20 errors.
-
It's a load of arse though isn't it? You can't look at a single incident and say that if that had/hadn't happened the rest of the game would still have played out in the same way and the same result would have occurred but with that one thing changed. For a start the ball would have been played from a different position thus altering the pattern of play, plus the difference in player's attitudes/confidence levels because the goal was/wasn't given...
-
Aston Villa been the biggest beneficiaries of mistakes from the technology - ESPN's report finds that three mistakes have gone in favour of Unai Emery's fourth-placed side.
The report has revealed that ‘of the 20 VAR errors this season, 17 have been for missed interventions, with two decisions changed incorrectly and one situation where the VAR wrongly rejected an overturn at the pitchside monitor’.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/39476749/premier-league-too-many-var-checks-takes-too-long-chief
The accuracy of key match decisions has increased from 82% pre-VAR to 96% this season
Sorry but those figures are bollocks. Do they take into account the fact that the pinpoint accuracy for offsides that these plonkers try to apply is actually impossible? Who's to say a correct decision was reached when giving a nasal hair offside? They accepted that this leads to erroneous decisions when they introduced GPS trackers in players boots and the ball in the Qatar World Cup. The fact that the technology hasn't been introduced in the world's richest league remains a mystery. Why haven't they used it? They can shove their data up their harris until they do.
-
Nice of them to put "unconcious" bias in the ref's mind then before we play the media darlings at the weekend!!
-
I don’t see how the article can make any sense when it’s still judgements being applied by the same subjective decisions that interpret the rules differently from week to week.
We had a goal disallowed for a foul by Jacob Ramsay in a previous phase of play a few weeks ago, yet only this week we saw a goal allowed against us from a free kick that wasn’t a free kick. So they need to decide whether they are re-refereeing the game or not for a start.
The problem is a lack of consistency in how it’s applied and, whilst I can see that Wolves and Liverpool have had clear errors against them, I’d be interested to know how they’ve come up with all the others because I’d guess it’s with the same warped logic they used in the first place.
I posted my response before I read this. I absolutely agree. The data is absolute horseshit.
-
Yes and yet another report suggests that Villa's points tally would be exactly the same with or without the VAR decisions (admittedly this was at xmas so might have changed). If VAR had looked at the freekick that lead to Chelsea's 3rd we'd only have lost 2-1!
IS that how they come up with those theories? Just deduct the single goal and leave everything else about the match the same? That third goal set in chain series of events that couldn't have happened ever again in any circumstance. So the Villa goal would 100% not have happened and nor would any single touch of the ball, run from a player, cough, sneeze or burp of a fan that followed. It may have ended 2-1 or it may have ended 10-0 or 10-2 to Villa. Who knows? But the remainder of that game would have been wholly different.
-
Nice of them to put "unconcious" bias in the ref's mind then before we play the media darlings at the weekend!!
It is an internal report from PGMOL. I would be surprised if the refs were not already aware of it.
-
Villa have been the biggest beneficiaries? Does that not simply mean that they got more wrong against us and had to correct it?
-
What a load of old bullshit!
Re the ref's decision to uphold his original judgement vs CP, he was lauded by many for listening to other views and then deciding his penalty-award was correct! Re vs SheffU at home, the ref made 2 clear areas, and VAR upheld them!
So, I'm not really sure how any of this works in practice!
-
Any report from within PGMOL is basically going to consist of them sucking their own cocks, and they're all the kind of people that would have a rib removed to do so.
-
It seems the ESPN breakdown is based off the interview from Skysports which others have reported as well (did they follow it up with press releases with the breakdown?)
However another report on the same thing reckons the three which wasn't VAR failure to intervene were:-
As far as the three remaining errors, one happened during a debacle involving Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur. Liverpool winger Luis Diaz incorrectly had a goal chalked off in the match due to miscommunication in the VAR room. The remaining two mishaps were described as “subjective errors” by officials. This involved wrongly disallowing a Burnley goal against Nottingham Forest and Arsenal not receiving a penalty kick against Manchester United in September.
However a full breakdown of the VAR decisions this season seems to show only one time where the ref rejected an overturn all season (which is wrong terminology anyway) and that was the CP penalty. So if that is the one, PGMOL decided after the match that barely brushing the ball, then fouling the player before then "clearing" the ball is now allowed in the rules of the game.
As for the other two, I can only think of potential Duran elbow as I'm not sure which goals allowed or disallowed we thought were lucky the decision was given.
-
VAR doesn't work and the analysis is biased.
Great stuff.
-
Decisions For:
Game: Crystal Palace (H; Sept. 16)
Incident: Overturn rejected. Referee rules Chris Richards did foul Ollie Watkins, 90+3 minutes
Game: Chelsea (A; Sept. 24)
Incident: Malo Gusto sent off for serious foul play against Lucas Digne, 56 minutes -
Game: Brentford (A; Dec. 17)
Incident: Ben Mee sent off for serious foul play against Leon Bailey, 71 minutes -
Game: Man United (A; Dec. 26)
Incident: Alejandro Garnacho goal disallowed for offside, 48 minutes
Game: Sheffield United (A; Feb. 3)
Incident: Vinicius Souza goal disallowed for offside in the buildup against Auston Trusty, 90+1 minutes
-
Decisions Against :
Game: Crystal Palace (H; Sept. 16)
Incident: Moussa Diaby goal disallowed for offside, 34 minutes
Game: Fulham (H; Nov. 11)
Incident: Penalty cancelled, no handball by Timothy Castagne, 7 minutes
Game: Tottenham (A; Nov. 26)
Incident: Ollie Watkins goal disallowed for offside, 24 minutes
Game: Bournemouth (A; Dec. 3)
Incident: Diego Carlos goal disallowed for offside against Lucas Digne, 22 minutes
Game: Sheffield United (H; Dec. 22)
Incident: Leon Bailey goal disallowed for a foul in the buildup by Jacob Ramsey on Wes Foderingham, 59 minutes
Game: Everton (A; Jan. 14)
Incident: Álex Moreno goal disallowed for offside against Leon Bailey, 18 minutes
-
Just get rid of it. I couldn’t care less if there’s a few incorrect calls from the officials but please just kick this s***e into touch.
-
If you see the for and against, well, all the for and against decisions were technically correct, weren't they?
-
But the supposed errors your initial link cited were for ones that PGMOL feel VAR should have intervened in but didn't. So they wouldn't have been on those lists apart from the Crystal Palace one if the feel the one and only "Overturn Rejected" this season was wrong which they appear to believe.
-
Any report from within PGMOL is basically going to consist of them sucking their own cocks, and they're all the kind of people that would have a rib removed to do so.
Is the correct answer.
They are now marking their own homework, wankers.
-
Just get rid of it. I couldn’t care less if there’s a few incorrect calls from the officials but please just kick this s***e into touch.
Yes, yes and thrice yes
-
What a breath of fresh air with some FA cup matches not having VAR. Proper goal celebrations knowing that it’s not going to be over turned due to a player not having cut his toenails.
Get rid and we can get back to real football.
-
Get rid of VAR and you have referees giving decisions to the Manchester United of this world once again, maybe it's not perfect but remember Kane and others falling over there own feet, penalty referee, yes Harry three bags full Harry
-
Villa have been the biggest beneficiaries? Does that not simply mean that they got more wrong against us and had to correct it?
Exactly this, maybe they should be asking why do the officials have to have their decisions against us corrected so many times.
-
Do we have evidence that it works better in any other country? One would question, if so, why we are not all following their good examples and practice. If we all have the same problem, get shot. It seems to be a vehicle to rule out goals, instead of ruling them in. Unless it's really super obvious that the goal will count, I am finding it really difficult to celebrate and get excited. VAR is slowly ruining my love for the game.
-
Get rid of VAR and you have referees giving decisions to the Manchester United of this world once again, maybe it's not perfect but remember Kane and others falling over there own feet, penalty referee, yes Harry three bags full Harry
Although didn’t VAR confirm the decision of Penalty to Ratface when he kicked our defender in the leg and then fell over?
-
Get rid of VAR and you have referees giving decisions to the Manchester United of this world once again, maybe it's not perfect but remember Kane and others falling over there own feet, penalty referee, yes Harry three bags full Harry
He was still winning penalties like that anyway. It does need to go though, I hate it.
-
My opinion FWIW is: no matter how much technology is introduced the final decision is still determined by a human being and whether they concur and until there is more referee's standing by their on-field decisions then football is going to continue on its journey down the pan. No VAR in most FA Cup matches last weekend and rightly or wrongly the game was better for it.
-
My thoughts exactly Dave. I was one really in favour of VAR being brought in but seeing how it is being used and, making as many bad calls, as to prior to it being used, I now say get rid of it.
-
I still feel the on field decision should stand if in the space of a max 30-45 seconds of a multiple camera angles and the best technology trained professionals cannot see a clear and obvious error.
-
I still feel the on field decision should stand if in the space of a max 30-45 seconds of a multiple camera angles and the best technology trained professionals cannot see a clear and obvious error.
Until they keep looking at it and it ends up a bad call.
-
I still feel the on field decision should stand if in the space of a max 30-45 seconds of a multiple camera angles and the best technology trained professionals cannot see a clear and obvious error.
Until they keep looking at it and it ends up a bad call.
The current method doesn’t guarantee the right result and it takes an eternity for them to get there. VAR by its very definition is meant to be an assistant to the process. Assistant to the on field referee but instead it’s taken over as the judgement itself. So I feel it needs to get back to the original intent to make overall decisions better versus scrutinizing every detail killing the flow and joy of the game.
-
I still feel the on field decision should stand if in the space of a max 30-45 seconds of a multiple camera angles and the best technology trained professionals cannot see a clear and obvious error.
Until they keep looking at it and it ends up a bad call.
The current method doesn’t guarantee the right result and it takes an eternity for them to get there. VAR by its very definition is meant to be an assistant to the process. Assistant to the on field referee but instead it’s taken over as the judgement itself. So I feel it needs to get back to the original intent to make overall decisions better versus scrutinizing every detail killing the flow and joy of the game.
It's a wank system, get rid. I'd rather talk about the unlucky call we had to suffer when the Lino got it wrong, than the infernal chat about VAR. Killing the game. I agree with you.
-
It should be binned but it won't. They are too invested in it now. The jolly they enjoy at Stockley Park will not be given up lightly. We are stuck with it I'm afraid. If we must keep it I think it needs changing. Firstly I think they should feck off with the stupid lines on the screen and secondly they should cut out slow motion replays because they give a distorted view of what actually happened. If they think the on field officials have made a clear and obvious error send the ref to the screen and show him the different camera angles but only at full speed. He can then make his decision. Also I'd put a time limit on it of say one minute. That's plenty of time to show him replays.
-
Keep the video but scrap the off field assistant referee.
Have two extra assistant referees running the line!! At the moment each assistant referee covers the halfway line to one corner flag. They need supersonic eyesight to see the other 50 meters of the line or the far side of the pitch.
Currently, there are too many blind spots. Four extra eyes at pitch level can only help.
If one of the 4 assistant referees thinks the referee has 'missed' a foul, he/she brings it to the referees attention who then has the option to call for a 'replay' on the pitch side monitor. The referee and his assistant can then look at the replay together and the referee makes a final decision.
Same applies to 'offside' decisions if one of the assistant referees has a doubt.
Not perfect but has to be better than VAR.
-
It should be binned but it won't. They are too invested in it now. The jolly they enjoy at Stockley Park will not be given up lightly. We are stuck with it I'm afraid. If we must keep it I think it needs changing. Firstly I think they should feck off with the stupid lines on the screen and secondly they should cut out slow motion replays because they give a distorted view of what actually happened. If they think the on field officials have made a clear and obvious error send the ref to the screen and show him the different camera angles but only at full speed. He can then make his decision. Also I'd put a time limit on it of say one minute. That's plenty of time to show him replays.
So your argument on how to change it to be useable in decisions is to remove two of the main points for it being useable in decisions.
-
Keep the video but scrap the off field assistant referee.
Are you talking about the referee in the studio to determine if a football rule has been breached, or their assistant who helps concur? I assume the latter because if the former, are you just hoping the Video Replay Operator knows football rules?
-
Keep the video but scrap the off field assistant referee.
Are you talking about the referee in the studio to determine if a football rule has been breached, or their assistant who helps concur? I assume the latter because if the former, are you just hoping the Video Replay Operator knows football rules?
I am suggesting 'scrap' all referees in Stockley Park but keep the video operator. Then put two extra linesmen (assistant referees) on the pitch to cover the areas currently not catered for.
-
Keep the video but scrap the off field assistant referee.
Are you talking about the referee in the studio to determine if a football rule has been breached, or their assistant who helps concur? I assume the latter because if the former, are you just hoping the Video Replay Operator knows football rules?
I am suggesting 'scrap' all referees in Stockley Park but keep the video operator. Then put two extra linesmen (assistant referees) on the pitch to cover the areas currently not catered for.
Then what's the point of having the video operator, who reviews the footage? The only option that gives you is to call the ref over the monitor regularly on the say of the video operator.
I'm not sure extra linesmen adds much either, what if 11 puts up his flag and the other doesn't? How does the ref decide who to trust? You could say whoever is closer to the ball but that doesn't guarnatee a better view and what about if it's a cross-field pass and the defender and attacker are on opposite sides of the pitch?
Fixing offsides is simple, just use the automated system from the world cup, it's proven to work at the highest levels of competition and requires fairly minor changes from what we have already to implement.
-
I know the people trying to "fix" it would rather it is gone, but some of their ideas are even worse. The point of having the ref in the studio is to make a judgement call as a referee. I'm assuming the Assistant VAR is for a majority on whether a decision is seemingly wrong or right to then let the on field ref know, but I could see that additional role not being needed which is why I queried.
Didn't they try additional assistant referees behind the goals 10 years ago? They soon disappeared, partly because they were not needed and partly because they were superseded by Hawkeye and other means.
-
Sorry, didn't explain my thoughts very well:
- Scrap VAR but keep video technician available for the match referee to call upon if he/she so chooses to look at replay on pitch side monitor.
- two extra assistant referees running the side lines currently not catered for.
- Any dispute between officials, match referee ultimately decides, and if need be can view pitch side monitor.
- All replays in real speed and no 'offside lines' drawn.
Football is played in real time and not in slow motion. Players do not have the advantage of lines been drawn on the pitch and have to play with the naked eye.
It is a compromise between VAR and no VAR. Four extra eyes. Less blind spots. We can properly celebrate goals if no flag goes up.
-
They tried the two extra officials thing behind the goals. it didn't last, because it was a shit system.
-
They tried the two extra officials thing behind the goals. it didn't last, because it was a shit system.
I don't propose behind the goals. It's the 50 meters of the sidelines currently not covered. Basically, two linesmen (assistant referees) each side of the pitch.
-
Sorry, didn't explain my thoughts very well:
- Scrap VAR but keep video technician available for the match referee to call upon if he/she so chooses to look at replay on pitch side monitor.
- two extra assistant referees running the side lines currently not catered for.
- Any dispute between officials, match referee ultimately decides, and if need be can view pitch side monitor.
- All replays in real speed and no 'offside lines' drawn.
Football is played in real time and not in slow motion. Players do not have the advantage of lines been drawn on the pitch and have to play with the naked eye.
It is a compromise between VAR and no VAR. Four extra eyes. Less blind spots. We can properly celebrate goals if no flag goes up.
I agree on getting rid of slow-motion, it does have a habit of making things look different, particularly in giving people much longer to make a choice than they have in reality.
Lines on the pitch is a problem with this weird version of VAR offside the premier league chooses to run with, there are better options which would solve most of the problems.
I completely understand the desire to want fans to be able to celebrate goals but there are ways to get the decision making process down much further than it is right now. With the amount of cameras available and with sensors in the ball it's not inconceivable to have almost real-time tracking where the position of every player can be measured within millimetres on a delay of seconds. All that leaves is for the system or an official to choose which players are active in play and you have your decision.
-
They tried the two extra officials thing behind the goals. it didn't last, because it was a shit system.
I don't propose behind the goals. It's the 50 meters of the sidelines currently not covered. Basically, two linesmen (assistant referees) each side of the pitch.
That's why the ref basically runs a diagonal up and down to cover those spots. It means the linesman is mostly dealing with line decisions in two directions and the referee can pick things up in these "blind spots".
More referees on the pitch isn't the solution. Applying technology better and quicker is the aim
-
Our weekly we got fucked again by VAR conversation.
Ollie foul that wasn’t given
https://x.com/buendiazboyz/status/1758900489125585279?s=46
Offside that wasn’t
(https://i.ibb.co/dDHLg9C/IMG-1947.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dDHLg9C)
-
Really is a joke. Seems like we're not just against the opposition but the officials as well. Refs are shocking judges of what's onside and what's not.
-
Something we never seem to hear or read about is: do Villa make any complaints to PGMOL? and if so do we ever receive the apology we're due?
-
Really is a joke. Seems like we're not just against the opposition but the officials as well. Refs are shocking judges of what's onside and what's not.
It was called offside on the pitch, so even without VAR, the goal wouldn't have been given.
-
Really is a joke. Seems like we're not just against the opposition but the officials as well. Refs are shocking judges of what's onside and what's not.
It was called offside on the pitch, so even without VAR, the goal wouldn't have been given.
The linesman must have the eyes or a shithouse rat.
-
Really is a joke. Seems like we're not just against the opposition but the officials as well. Refs are shocking judges of what's onside and what's not.
It was called offside on the pitch, so even without VAR, the goal wouldn't have been given.
I'm waiting for automated offside to be adopted in the Premier League though, which seems like a much better system.
-
Pretty sure you could teach AI to do it better.
-
Pretty sure you could teach AI to do it better.
They'd still program it to be biased towards to Man Utd.
-
Really is a joke. Seems like we're not just against the opposition but the officials as well. Refs are shocking judges of what's onside and what's not.
It was called offside on the pitch, so even without VAR, the goal wouldn't have been given.
The linesman must have the eyes or a shithouse rat.
I expect as Moreno was offside from the corner being taken until the second before Watkins headed it, it was probably always going to be called offside on the field with VAR to show if it wasn't.
-
It doesn't work
-
Our weekly we got fucked again by VAR conversation.
Ollie foul that wasn’t given
https://x.com/buendiazboyz/status/1758900489125585279?s=46
Offside that wasn’t
(https://i.ibb.co/dDHLg9C/IMG-1947.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dDHLg9C)
From peoples comments on the "penalty" I have to say I was expecting something clearer cut than that. I think that sort of challenge will always come down to the on field refs decision
-
Im sorry but if you are allowing manures 1st goal last week then this goal stands. What frustrates the most of us is the inconsistent calls. You think that goal would have been disallowed id manure scored it?
Honestly we need to be more vocal about these errors and when i say we as in the players and unai. Ok it didnt cost us today but it could have. Last week it cost us bad
-
Can you tell me at which point Hojlund was offside or even as close as it was this week last week then? Watkins was still inside the 6 yard box when 50p got his head to it whilst Holjund was not even in it. There was not even any need to draw lines it was so obvious.
-
Players protesting against bad decisions could result in bookings, potentially further damaging our already-depleted squad.
I don't see why we can't make a formal complaint as a club. Who knows, we might start getting some apologies from PGMOL, like Brighton did.
-
Im sorry but if you are allowing manures 1st goal last week then this goal stands. What frustrates the most of us is the inconsistent calls. You think that goal would have been disallowed id manure scored it?
Honestly we need to be more vocal about these errors and when i say we as in the players and unai. Ok it didnt cost us today but it could have. Last week it cost us bad
of course not
-
Can you tell me at which point Hojlund was offside or even as close as it was this week last week then? Watkins was still inside the 6 yard box when 50p got his head to it whilst Holjund was not even in it. There was not even any need to draw lines it was so obvious.
Spot on 👍🏻 If somebody is going to make an argument then pick an example that’s at least questionable. Watkins didn’t get out quick enough and played Højlund onside.
-
Can you tell me at which point Hojlund was offside or even as close as it was this week last week then? Watkins was still inside the 6 yard box when 50p got his head to it whilst Holjund was not even in it. There was not even any need to draw lines it was so obvious.
Spot on 👍🏻 If somebody is going to make an argument then pick an example that’s at least questionable. Watkins didn’t get out quick enough and played Højlund onside.
Its funny because you are exactly using a example you yourself have said not the one i am mentioning.
Im talking about the player who was offside was not deemed interfering with play for manure NOT hojland like this goal bailey who is off but not interfering with play.
I do hope that clears it up for you why its "questionable"
-
Well I'm not sure which of the two Manure goals allowed you are talking about as the other one was a pass to McTominay from the wing. (And Watkins is playing everyone on for the first). But it is irrelevant anyway as only you and VillaTim don't get that (and I think he knows, just trolling about it,) the very faint dotted lines coming down from Moreno's shoulder is the line they have used to make the decision, which they have adjudged is offside. Massive arguments could be made on timings etc, but the decision is against Moreno and nothing to do with Bailey.
-
Our weekly we got fucked again by VAR conversation.
Ollie foul that wasn’t given
https://x.com/buendiazboyz/status/1758900489125585279?s=46
Offside that wasn’t
(https://i.ibb.co/dDHLg9C/IMG-1947.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dDHLg9C)
From peoples comments on the "penalty" I have to say I was expecting something clearer cut than that. I think that sort of challenge will always come down to the on field refs decision
Think that is right about the penalty. It was borderline as I don't think it was quite 'clear and obvious' enough that a mistake had been made. On the flip side, had it been given, I don't think it would have been overturned either.
No real issues with that approach, if it is applied consistently. The problem's that it is wildly inconsistent, especially when it comes to.certain clubs.
-
They said on the telly at the time that the check was on Moreno's backside.
-
It doesn't work
In today's example, one of the biggest problems is that you can't pinpoint the exact moment when Watkins has actually made contact with the ball. That is actually quite important when the margins are as tight as they are, as a split second earlier or later then the picture would look different.
-
It doesn't work
In today's example, one of the biggest problems is that you can't pinpoint the exact moment when Watkins has actually made contact with the ball. That is actually quite important when the margins are as tight as they are, as a split second earlier or later then the picture would look different.
It’s why the whole offside VAR is a fraud…with a whole bunch of thick pundits who will tell anyone listening that the offsides are factual….they are not!
-
Without VAR, it still wasn't a goal anyway. The linesman called it off at the start.
-
It doesn't work
In today's example, one of the biggest problems is that you can't pinpoint the exact moment when Watkins has actually made contact with the ball. That is actually quite important when the margins are as tight as they are, as a split second earlier or later then the picture would look different.
It’s why the whole offside VAR is a fraud…with a whole bunch of thick pundits who will tell anyone listening that the offsides are factual….they are not!
Would love to have had audio of the 3 minute check
-
It doesn't work
In today's example, one of the biggest problems is that you can't pinpoint the exact moment when Watkins has actually made contact with the ball. That is actually quite important when the margins are as tight as they are, as a split second earlier or later then the picture would look different.
It’s why the whole offside VAR is a fraud…with a whole bunch of thick pundits who will tell anyone listening that the offsides are factual….they are not!
Yep and when the VAR officials can choose which body part they want to.use to make their judgment, it just adds to the confusion.
-
Seems a couple of decisions didn't go for Citeh. Thought several on here were telling me decisions were surefire for them if they have similar.
-
Seems a couple of decisions didn't go for Citeh. Thought several on here were telling me decisions were surefire for them if they have similar.
The decisions that "didn't go for them" were speculative at best.
-
But those are the one they get.
-
But those are the one they get.
They were against one of the other 'big six' though.
Edit - WTF was that decision at Newcastle about? One of our players nearly got their shirt ripped off in the opposition box last weekend and got nothing.
-
The offside just isn't that bad of a call. It's questionable at what point of the body they use on Moreno but I've seen that loads of times. It just isn't one I can get worked up about or think there is a conspiracy. I do think there is maybe some bias with some decisions (I mainly think it's incompetence) but not on offsides. They're not banging out unparallel lines and parallel lines for different teams, it just isn't happening.
When you have multiple lines on a pitch, the grass patchwork and white lines, and then the drawn lines, your brain is frankly shit at deciphering it all properly, it's classic optical illusion stuff. The kids love it so I've seen a lot, lines appear wonky when they're dead straight. I also look forward to another ball that looks over the line when it's not but it looks it. The perception conversation is always fun and not exhausting.
-
I really hate VAR.
-
Officials can't even spot a foul throw so what chance have we got here eh?
-
The offside just isn't that bad of a call. It's questionable at what point of the body they use on Moreno but I've seen that loads of times. It just isn't one I can get worked up about or think there is a conspiracy. I do think there is maybe some bias with some decisions (I mainly think it's incompetence) but not on offsides. They're not banging out unparallel lines and parallel lines for different teams, it just isn't happening.
When you have multiple lines on a pitch, the grass patchwork and white lines, and then the drawn lines, your brain is frankly shit at deciphering it all properly, it's classic optical illusion stuff. The kids love it so I've seen a lot, lines appear wonky when they're dead straight. I also look forward to another ball that looks over the line when it's not but it looks it. The perception conversation is always fun and not exhausting.
Genuine question though - would you have got worked up
if we'd lost or drawn as a result of that being disallowed? I agree that it seems far fetched to talk of conspiracies, but I'm not sure the technology they use is 100% reliable.
Firstly, they can't freeze the frame at the exact moment a ball is played in or flicked on, yet go into minute detail when it comes to the position of the attackers and defenders. That means they are working on a picture that already isn't exactly accurate.
Then it's up to the VAR official.to choose from which body part the line is drawn and then be able to use the technology to draw a line to capture that accurately. Again, they are going into minute details with a picture that may not be completely accurate.
I've said it before on here, but I just think it could be simplified so much by just making it about the feet. Draw a line at the defender's last foot and if any part of the attacker's foot is over that line then it's offside.
-
Appearing shirt pulling is a penalty offence this week.
-
As soon as you need to start drawing lines the goal should be given.
If they can not determine from a freeze frame someone is offside then stop fucking around wasting time and give it.
I don’t think any one expected VAR to be used in this way so why are they being allowed to do it?
-
Can you tell me at which point Hojlund was offside or even as close as it was this week last week then? Watkins was still inside the 6 yard box when 50p got his head to it whilst Holjund was not even in it. There was not even any need to draw lines it was so obvious.
Spot on 👍🏻 If somebody is going to make an argument then pick an example that’s at least questionable. Watkins didn’t get out quick enough and played Højlund onside.
I don't think they are talking about offside from the corner but from the free kick - which shouldnt have been - where Casemiro challenges for the ball from an offside position. In that case Casemiro was in line with the flight of the ball and jumped for it.
That would only have any relevance here though if the offside was against Bailey which it wasn't. It was on Moreno. Harshly and questionable only if they used his elbow as a marker as he couldnt score with that (unless you are Patrixk Bamford)
-
The offside just isn't that bad of a call. It's questionable at what point of the body they use on Moreno but I've seen that loads of times. It just isn't one I can get worked up about or think there is a conspiracy. I do think there is maybe some bias with some decisions (I mainly think it's incompetence) but not on offsides. They're not banging out unparallel lines and parallel lines for different teams, it just isn't happening.
When you have multiple lines on a pitch, the grass patchwork and white lines, and then the drawn lines, your brain is frankly shit at deciphering it all properly, it's classic optical illusion stuff. The kids love it so I've seen a lot, lines appear wonky when they're dead straight. I also look forward to another ball that looks over the line when it's not but it looks it. The perception conversation is always fun and not exhausting.
Genuine question though - would you have got worked up
if we'd lost or drawn as a result of that being disallowed? I agree that it seems far fetched to talk of conspiracies, but I'm not sure the technology they use is 100% reliable.
Firstly, they can't freeze the frame at the exact moment a ball is played in or flicked on, yet go into minute detail when it comes to the position of the attackers and defenders. That means they are working on a picture that already isn't exactly accurate.
Then it's up to the VAR official.to choose from which body part the line is drawn and then be able to use the technology to draw a line to capture that accurately. Again, they are going into minute details with a picture that may not be completely accurate.
I've said it before on here, but I just think it could be simplified so much by just making it about the feet. Draw a line at the defender's last foot and if any part of the attacker's foot is over that line then it's offside.
It would help if they didn't use crayons to draw the lines. Amateur.
-
In my opinion if they canf make a decision within 60 seconds then goal should stand. These delays are so long and annoying also making the games have more added time that no one really wants.. 5 mins end if forst half 9 mins after 90 thats 14 extra minutes for example
-
As soon as you need to start drawing lines the goal should be given.
If they can not determine from a freeze frame someone is offside then stop fucking around wasting time and give it.
I don’t think any one expected VAR to be used in this way so why are they being allowed to do it?
Couldn't agree more. What a fuck up that was yesterday.
-
They make enough bad decisions without rushing them too.
I think as a club we should (privately) ask them to talk us through the non penalty decision which is beyond belief and smacks of not wanting to undermine the new ref. If that’s the case then VAR can get in the bin, it is not a referees ego trip. Cricket don’t fall for that and nor should football.
-
Appearing shirt pulling is a penalty offence this week.
Only in certain parts of the country and in certain situations…
-
Appearing shirt pulling is a penalty offence this week.
Only in certain parts of the country and in certain situations…
Even after the offside has been given.
-
Appearing shirt pulling is a penalty offence this week.
Only in certain parts of the country and in certain situations…
Even after the offside has been given.
That seems to be another new rule they made up yesterday.
-
The offside just isn't that bad of a call. It's questionable at what point of the body they use on Moreno but I've seen that loads of times. It just isn't one I can get worked up about or think there is a conspiracy. I do think there is maybe some bias with some decisions (I mainly think it's incompetence) but not on offsides. They're not banging out unparallel lines and parallel lines for different teams, it just isn't happening.
When you have multiple lines on a pitch, the grass patchwork and white lines, and then the drawn lines, your brain is frankly shit at deciphering it all properly, it's classic optical illusion stuff. The kids love it so I've seen a lot, lines appear wonky when they're dead straight. I also look forward to another ball that looks over the line when it's not but it looks it. The perception conversation is always fun and not exhausting.
Genuine question though - would you have got worked up
if we'd lost or drawn as a result of that being disallowed? I agree that it seems far fetched to talk of conspiracies, but I'm not sure the technology they use is 100% reliable.
Firstly, they can't freeze the frame at the exact moment a ball is played in or flicked on, yet go into minute detail when it comes to the position of the attackers and defenders. That means they are working on a picture that already isn't exactly accurate.
Then it's up to the VAR official.to choose from which body part the line is drawn and then be able to use the technology to draw a line to capture that accurately. Again, they are going into minute details with a picture that may not be completely accurate.
I've said it before on here, but I just think it could be simplified so much by just making it about the feet. Draw a line at the defender's last foot and if any part of the attacker's foot is over that line then it's offside.
It would help if they didn't use crayons to draw the lines. Amateur.
In the Netherlands, they use quite fat lines for VAR, and if they're touching, then the player is automatically onside. I quite like that approach, because it removes the possibility of someone being offside due to a shoelace or a nose.
-
It doesn't work
In today's example, one of the biggest problems is that you can't pinpoint the exact moment when Watkins has actually made contact with the ball. That is actually quite important when the margins are as tight as they are, as a split second earlier or later then the picture would look different.
Yep, said it a thousand times. At the point they draw the lines, the ball is somewhere in the vicinity of Ollie's head. But how can they possibly determine the exact moment it stopped being in contact? From the picture, it could still be on his head or a foot away, you really can't tell.
-
VAR has become 'analysis paralysis'.
Analysis paralysis occurs when over analysis or overthinking of alternatives prevents an individual or a group from making a decision.
Offside and handball rules in particular are currently understood by no-one. Pundits, managers, rocket scientists and fans alike scratch their head whenever the subjects are raised. How can VAR adjudicate when half the time nobody knows the rules.
Football is a simple game. Why make it complicated?. We all know what a 'deliberate' handball is. It falls in the same bracket as a 'deliberate' pass back to the goalie. Change the handball rule to one line 'any deliberate attempt to handle the ball is a foul'.
As for offside, simply go by the feet and cut out all this crap about armpits and arses.
Simplify the rules of the game and in turn, simplify VAR.
Rant over.
-
Far too sensible Baldy....which means zero chance of the incompetent authorities changing anything.
-
VAR has become 'analysis paralysis'.
Analysis paralysis occurs when over analysis or overthinking of alternatives prevents an individual or a group from making a decision.
Offside and handball rules in particular are currently understood by no-one. Pundits, managers, rocket scientists and fans alike scratch their head whenever the subjects are raised. How can VAR adjudicate when half the time nobody knows the rules.
Football is a simple game. Why make it complicated?. We all know what a 'deliberate' handball is. It falls in the same bracket as a 'deliberate' pass back to the goalie. Change the handball rule to one line 'any deliberate attempt to handle the ball is a foul'.
As for offside, simply go by the feet and cut out all this crap about armpits and arses.
Simplify the rules of the game and in turn, simplify VAR.
Rant over.
Agree. The handball one is a good case, as still frames completely take out the context of how quickly the ball is moving and how close the player is to it. I think it should only go to VAR if it's something the match officials haven't seen. If they're happy that they've seen it and it wasn't deliberate the just get on with the game.
-
I've played around with the image in Photoshop and it does look to me like Moreno is very fractionally offside using thin lines. I don't agree with this approach but I can see why it was given. It's also one where I bet if VAR didn't exist it would be given offside by the linesman almost every time due to Moreno running from a very offside position before the header.
I do wonder about the 'stand behind the keeper' tactic on this one. If the play is to get Moreno active it is dangerous to do this as it will always be difficult for him to be onside in time, I guess the point is he will always be unmarked so that is the trade off?
-
I've played around with the image in Photoshop and it does look to me like Moreno is very fractionally offside using thin lines. I don't agree with this approach but I can see why it was given. It's also one where I bet if VAR didn't exist it would be given offside by the linesman almost every time due to Moreno running from a very offside position before the header.
I do wonder about the 'stand behind the keeper' tactic on this one. If the play is to get Moreno active it is dangerous to do this as it will always be difficult for him to be onside in time, I guess the point is he will always be unmarked so that is the trade off?
Was it because he was offside?
-
What Baldy said!
-
It doesn't work
In today's example, one of the biggest problems is that you can't pinpoint the exact moment when Watkins has actually made contact with the ball. That is actually quite important when the margins are as tight as they are, as a split second earlier or later then the picture would look different.
Correct. And that has always been the elephant in the room as far as I'm concerned. Who decides which frame they use to determine the decision? The frames are something like 100th of a second and moving the image one frame forward or backwards makes all the difference. It's literally down to someone's opinion of which frame to go with.
-
I've played around with the image in Photoshop and it does look to me like Moreno is very fractionally offside using thin lines. I don't agree with this approach but I can see why it was given. It's also one where I bet if VAR didn't exist it would be given offside by the linesman almost every time due to Moreno running from a very offside position before the header.
I do wonder about the 'stand behind the keeper' tactic on this one. If the play is to get Moreno active it is dangerous to do this as it will always be difficult for him to be onside in time, I guess the point is he will always be unmarked so that is the trade off?
I think there was a momentary hesitation from Moreno to get back onside, and with all the coaching we do on offside, you would think he would have got his position right. Perhaps he would have done if he had been a little more switched on and acted quickly.
-
In the Netherlands, they use quite fat lines for VAR, and if they're touching, then the player is automatically onside. I quite like that approach, because it removes the possibility of someone being offside due to a shoelace or a nose.
Incorrect. If they are touching, it goes with the on-field decision. So again, in ours it would have been ruled offside. And tbh, isn't it still just moving the margin of error (if close) to still where they draw the lines. Yes they might be touching on this frame but woudn't be on that one.
-
I've played around with the image in Photoshop and it does look to me like Moreno is very fractionally offside using thin lines. I don't agree with this approach but I can see why it was given. It's also one where I bet if VAR didn't exist it would be given offside by the linesman almost every time due to Moreno running from a very offside position before the header.
I do wonder about the 'stand behind the keeper' tactic on this one. If the play is to get Moreno active it is dangerous to do this as it will always be difficult for him to be onside in time, I guess the point is he will always be unmarked so that is the trade off?
I think there was a momentary hesitation from Moreno to get back onside, and with all the coaching we do on offside, you would think he would have got his position right. Perhaps he would have done if he had been a little more switched on and acted quickly.
I think first and foremost, he is there to stop an easy claim for the keeper. As soon as he felt the keeper "give up", he was always going to be tight to get back on side and into that position.
-
I don't think they are talking about offside from the corner but from the free kick - which shouldnt have been - where Casemiro challenges for the ball from an offside position. In that case Casemiro was in line with the flight of the ball and jumped for it.
That would only have any relevance here though if the offside was against Bailey which it wasn't. It was on Moreno. Harshly and questionable only if they used his elbow as a marker as he couldnt score with that (unless you are Patrixk Bamford)
Well a goal would also have had to be scored for VAR to get involved! Surely that is the relevance on why last weeks was not given as offside and this weeks was. So why use it?
-
In the Netherlands, they use quite fat lines for VAR, and if they're touching, then the player is automatically onside. I quite like that approach, because it removes the possibility of someone being offside due to a shoelace or a nose.
Incorrect. If they are touching, it goes with the on-field decision. So again, in ours it would have been ruled offside. And tbh, isn't it still just moving the margin of error (if close) to still where they draw the lines. Yes they might be touching on this frame but woudn't be on that one.
Ah, that's interesting, my mistake. I actually quite like that. Keep with the onfield decision where possible, speed everything up.
-
Would it speed it up? I haven't seen their matches to confirm. But the slowness in the non-automated systems is still the freeze when it is played, then getting the angles to draw the lines. The only thing theirs does is decide that very close is ok. Maybe with the leeway, they are not as exact at drawing the lines so can be faster, but even in that system, there will be the debate that if they had drawn them more exact, the decision would have been different.
It would also be interesting if they still use it because they released a press release in the summer about the super Hi-Def cameras that have now been fitted in all the grounds to help with offside and all the quotes about the 5cm lines seem to be from 2020 or so. So maybe with 400fps cameras, they can be more exact.
-
The Moreno goal should have stood and that foul on Ollie in the box was definitely a penalty.
-
The Moreno goal should have stood and that foul on Ollie in the box was definitely a penalty.
Succinct and accurate. I like it.
-
The Moreno goal should have stood and that foul on Ollie in the box was definitely a penalty.
Succinct and accurate. I like it.
Yep
-
I don't think they are talking about offside from the corner but from the free kick - which shouldnt have been - where Casemiro challenges for the ball from an offside position. In that case Casemiro was in line with the flight of the ball and jumped for it.
That would only have any relevance here though if the offside was against Bailey which it wasn't. It was on Moreno. Harshly and questionable only if they used his elbow as a marker as he couldnt score with that (unless you are Patrixk Bamford)
Well a goal would also have had to be scored for VAR to get involved! Surely that is the relevance on why last weeks was not given as offside and this weeks was. So why use it?
I never said it was relevant I said it the incident that others were referring to.
-
I don't think they are talking about offside from the corner but from the free kick - which shouldnt have been - where Casemiro challenges for the ball from an offside position. In that case Casemiro was in line with the flight of the ball and jumped for it.
That would only have any relevance here though if the offside was against Bailey which it wasn't. It was on Moreno. Harshly and questionable only if they used his elbow as a marker as he couldnt score with that (unless you are Patrixk Bamford)
Well a goal would also have had to be scored for VAR to get involved! Surely that is the relevance on why last weeks was not given as offside and this weeks was. So why use it?
I never said it was relevant I said it the incident that others were referring to.
just block him.
-
I don't think they are talking about offside from the corner but from the free kick - which shouldnt have been - where Casemiro challenges for the ball from an offside position. In that case Casemiro was in line with the flight of the ball and jumped for it.
That would only have any relevance here though if the offside was against Bailey which it wasn't. It was on Moreno. Harshly and questionable only if they used his elbow as a marker as he couldnt score with that (unless you are Patrixk Bamford)
Well a goal would also have had to be scored for VAR to get involved! Surely that is the relevance on why last weeks was not given as offside and this weeks was. So why use it?
I never said it was relevant I said it the incident that others were referring to.
Apologies, not aimed at you baddows specifically, but the others who were apparently using it as a reason for VAR letting an offside off against us if that was the one being mentioned. I had to quote you to see what the reply was aimed at, but removed the rest to avoid a quote-a-thon.
-
No problem. I think despite the win the game left us all wanting a little. It was a good win and yet there was still an element of hanging on. Its been a while since we looked good amd cruised to a win against a decent team (ie ignoring Sheffield U. Let's hope we can put Forest to the sword at the weekend
-
Just caught up with Ref Watch and heard Dermot Gallaghers interpretation of the penalty incident. As I've said I thought it fell under the I've seen them given but also not and if the onfield referee had given it VAR wouldn't have disallowed it.
When Gallagher dismissed it however by saying that no because Watkins got into from of him so no penalty. How many times have we seen penalties given against us where Kane, Salah, Fernandez is described as "clever" because he gets in front of the defender and just stops and allowed our players momentum to take him down. Penalty given. I'm still convinced it was a pen, but I am convinced that if it had been one of the above mentioned it 100% would have been.
-
I thought it might have been because Watkins lost control of it with his touch (just before contact) and the keeper was claiming it anyway. As you mentioned, Gallaghers decision makes no sense as Watkins got in front of him because he was IN FRONT OF HIM. Does that mean no penalties should be given with defenders who are behind the striker.
As an aside, did they cover the penalty not given to Forest?
-
Just caught up with Ref Watch and heard Dermot Gallaghers interpretation of the penalty incident. As I've said I thought it fell under the I've seen them given but also not and if the onfield referee had given it VAR wouldn't have disallowed it.
When Gallagher dismissed it however by saying that no because Watkins got into from of him so no penalty. How many times have we seen penalties given against us where Kane, Salah, Fernandez is described as "clever" because he gets in front of the defender and just stops and allowed our players momentum to take him down. Penalty given. I'm still convinced it was a pen, but I am convinced that if it had been one of the above mentioned it 100% would have been.
You can’t win as they’ve got an excuse for everything.
-
I had a quick look at what videos were available on Ref watch to see for myself but they don't currently have the Watkins decision for free viewing. However I watched the Newcastle penalty one. You can see Dermot trying so hard to defend the decision that it was right for VAR to over-ride the offside on-field call even though he didn't really believe it himself.
-
I had a quick look at what videos were available on Ref watch to see for myself but they don't currently have the Watkins decision for free viewing. However I watched the Newcastle penalty one. You can see Dermot trying so hard to defend the decision that it was right for VAR to over-ride the offside on-field call even though he didn't really believe it himself.
Agreed. I thought Stephen Warnock did a great job of tripping him up with his own word soup. For those who haven't seen it Gallagher argues that Schar that although was in an offside position he wasn't interfering because the ball hadn't yet been played into that area so the shirt pulling was the offence and a penalty awarded. Warnock pointed out that as Schar was deemed not to be active then pulling his shirt wouldn't have made any difference so why give a pen. By the sound of it the match VAR officials potentially went beyond their remit here by literally making up a new rule live in game.
-
I had a quick look at what videos were available on Ref watch to see for myself but they don't currently have the Watkins decision for free viewing. However I watched the Newcastle penalty one. You can see Dermot trying so hard to defend the decision that it was right for VAR to over-ride the offside on-field call even though he didn't really believe it himself.
Agreed. I thought Stephen Warnock did a great job of tripping him up with his own word soup. For those who haven't seen it Gallagher argues that Schar that although was in an offside position he wasn't interfering because the ball hadn't yet been played into that area so the shirt pulling was the offence and a penalty awarded. Warnock pointed out that as Schar was deemed not to be active then pulling his shirt wouldn't have made any difference so why give a pen. By the sound of it the match VAR officials potentially went beyond their remit here by literally making up a new rule live in game.
Just because he wasn't in an offside position doesn't mean fouls don't count though.
-
Dermot Gallagher is a pointless monumental bellend.
His only agenda is to defend refs and just give reasons why the ref may have given a decision. I guarantee you if the ref had given the Watkins pen he would have whole heartedly agreed with it and come up with a narrative to defend it. He very rarely gives his own opinion of an incident irrespective of the onfield decision. He's the very definition of a fence sitter and it's remarkable they pay him for it.
-
I had a quick look at what videos were available on Ref watch to see for myself but they don't currently have the Watkins decision for free viewing. However I watched the Newcastle penalty one. You can see Dermot trying so hard to defend the decision that it was right for VAR to over-ride the offside on-field call even though he didn't really believe it himself.
Agreed. I thought Stephen Warnock did a great job of tripping him up with his own word soup. For those who haven't seen it Gallagher argues that Schar that although was in an offside position he wasn't interfering because the ball hadn't yet been played into that area so the shirt pulling was the offence and a penalty awarded. Warnock pointed out that as Schar was deemed not to be active then pulling his shirt wouldn't have made any difference so why give a pen. By the sound of it the match VAR officials potentially went beyond their remit here by literally making up a new rule live in game.
Just because he wasn't in an offside position doesn't mean fouls don't count though.
No but by making a challenge to win the ball he becomes active - remember Jacob Ramsey at the Red filth on VAR 3rd attempt to disallow Ings goal.
-
Dermot Gallagher is a pointless monumental bellend.
His only agenda is to defend refs and just give reasons why the ref may have given a decision. I guarantee you if the ref had given the Watkins pen he would have whole heartedly agreed with it and come up with a narrative to defend it. He very rarely gives his own opinion of an incident irrespective of the onfield decision. He's the very definition of a fence sitter and it's remarkable they pay him for it.
It's just about the worst football related thing on TV. "Why wasn't that given as a penalty?" "Because the ref didn't think it was a penalty." Well thank you for that insight.
-
Or VAR thought it was a penalty but didn't think it was clear and obvious. They're starting to disappear up their own backsides
-
Dermot Gallagher is the most painful example of fence sitting you will ever witness. He squeezes out the words he uses like he’s constipated taking a painful dry shit. He does the bare minimum in analyzing controversial issues and never, ever criticizes the refereeing establishment. The whole exercise of having him provide “analysis” is a complete waste of time.
-
I like the idea of refwatch but he's a really poor choice for it because he is clearly biased towards trying to ensure every decision is correct.
-
Dermot Gallagher is the most painful example of fence sitting you will ever witness. He squeezes out the words he uses like he’s constipated taking a painful dry shit. He does the bare minimum in analyzing controversial issues and never, ever criticizes the refereeing establishment. The whole exercise of having him provide “analysis” is a complete waste of time.
The weird thing is his put on English accent.
-
I've watched the Watkins penalty shout again, and it's unbelievable. Ollie is in full control of the ball, and he gets both a shoulder barge AND his leg being taken away. It's as clear a foul as you'll ever see, and if it was in the middle of the park it would be both a foul and a yellow card. Thank god we won anyway, but even so, it was abysmal from the ref and VAR.
-
I've watched the Watkins penalty shout again, and it's unbelievable. Ollie is in full control of the ball, and he gets both a shoulder barge AND his leg being taken away. It's as clear a foul as you'll ever see, and if it was in the middle of the park it would be both a foul and a yellow card. Thank god we won anyway, but even so, it was abysmal from the ref and VAR.
Are shoulder barges a foul? Always thought they were a general allowable thing. I think if Watkins had allowed the ball to run more left, it was more likely to be given because the shoulder to shoulder would have been impossible by Diop.
-
I've watched the Watkins penalty shout again, and it's unbelievable. Ollie is in full control of the ball, and he gets both a shoulder barge AND his leg being taken away. It's as clear a foul as you'll ever see, and if it was in the middle of the park it would be both a foul and a yellow card. Thank god we won anyway, but even so, it was abysmal from the ref and VAR.
A definite penalty. Referee's first game in the PL (we all have to start somewhere) and my take on it is that Fred in the Shed was under instructions to only interfere if things were blatantly obvious and decided that that particular incident wasn't whilst it obviously was.
-
I've watched the Watkins penalty shout again, and it's unbelievable. Ollie is in full control of the ball, and he gets both a shoulder barge AND his leg being taken away. It's as clear a foul as you'll ever see, and if it was in the middle of the park it would be both a foul and a yellow card. Thank god we won anyway, but even so, it was abysmal from the ref and VAR.
Are shoulder barges a foul? Always thought they were a general allowable thing. I think if Watkins had allowed the ball to run more left, it was more likely to be given because the shoulder to shoulder would have been impossible by Diop.
McGinn got booked for one (slightly harshly in my opinion) in the first half so clearly they can be according to that referee.
-
I've watched the Watkins penalty shout again, and it's unbelievable. Ollie is in full control of the ball, and he gets both a shoulder barge AND his leg being taken away. It's as clear a foul as you'll ever see, and if it was in the middle of the park it would be both a foul and a yellow card. Thank god we won anyway, but even so, it was abysmal from the ref and VAR.
A definite penalty. Referee's first game in the PL (we all have to start somewhere) and my take on it is that Fred in the Shed was under instructions to only interfere if things were blatantly obvious and decided that that particular incident wasn't whilst it obviously was.
I think you're right Dave. The ref gets no flack because it's then a VAR issue for missing/ignoring it.
-
I've watched the Watkins penalty shout again, and it's unbelievable. Ollie is in full control of the ball, and he gets both a shoulder barge AND his leg being taken away. It's as clear a foul as you'll ever see, and if it was in the middle of the park it would be both a foul and a yellow card. Thank god we won anyway, but even so, it was abysmal from the ref and VAR.
A definite penalty. Referee's first game in the PL (we all have to start somewhere) and my take on it is that Fred in the Shed was under instructions to only interfere if things were blatantly obvious and decided that that particular incident wasn't whilst it obviously was.
I think you're right Dave. The ref gets no flack because it's then a VAR issue for missing/ignoring it.
PGMOL giving a guy making his debut Brooks as a VAR was an awful call…would have only been worse if they’d given him Coote.
-
The Watkins non penalty is a joke. If you've seen the incident you say pen straight away. If the ref has not given it you give him a buzz in the ear and tell him to look at the monitor, more so that he's new and his first Prem Game. FFS it's the objective of VAR....to spot clear an obvious errors.
-
Same in the Forest-West Ham game, Forest player goes down in the box, ref waves play on, VAR didn't look at it. TV replays show the West Ham player stood on the Forest player's foot causing him to fall. Clear and obvious but ignored by VAR.
-
"Clear and obvious" is a bs excuse to cover their arses.
Just get the correct outcome, it's easy!
-
"Clear and obvious" is a bs excuse to cover their arses.
Just get the correct outcome, it's easy!
The problem is they make it up as they go along. A simple rule like measuring by foot of the player rather than elbows, hands, knees, shoulders, toes. It's nonsense.
-
"Clear and obvious" is a bs excuse to cover their arses.
Just get the correct outcome, it's easy!
The problem is they make it up as they go along. A simple rule like measuring by foot of the player rather than elbows, hands, knees, shoulders, toes. It's nonsense.
Aren't the toes on the foot?
-
"Clear and obvious" is a bs excuse to cover their arses.
Just get the correct outcome, it's easy!
The problem is they make it up as they go along. A simple rule like measuring by foot of the player rather than elbows, hands, knees, shoulders, toes. It's nonsense.
Aren't the toes on the foot?
Not at St Andrews.
-
We all rip the piss that he could be the star of the live action Lego Movie without the need of make-up, but it seems we should be praising him something rotten that he helped fix VAR for all the team...... what do you mean they have won a few so he doesn't have to blame the reffing suddenly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68381305
-
He’s a proper twat ain’t he?
-
He must be fuming though that VAR didn't award Liverpool a penalty for Odergards hand ball or is it just if it goes Arsenal way?
-
"Clear and obvious" is a bs excuse to cover their arses.
Just get the correct outcome, it's easy!
The problem is they make it up as they go along. A simple rule like measuring by foot of the player rather than elbows, hands, knees, shoulders, toes. It's nonsense.
Aren't the toes on the foot?
Not at St Andrews.
They make up for it with extra fingers.
-
We all rip the piss that he could be the star of the live action Lego Movie without the need of make-up, but it seems we should be praising him something rotten that he helped fix VAR for all the team...... what do you mean they have won a few so he doesn't have to blame the reffing suddenly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68381305
What he's actually saying is Arsenal have had more favourable var decisions since his massive whinge. The Captain Black lookalike wanker.
-
I see VAR got involved when 2 Sheff Utd players had a flair up against wolves earlier .
So where is the line where VAR gets involved why can't they correct a ref when he has given a corner wrong or throw in as examples ?
-
I see VAR got involved when 2 Sheff Utd players had a flair up against wolves earlier .
So where is the line where VAR gets involved why can't they correct a ref when he has given a corner wrong or throw in as examples ?
I don't know. Nobody knows.
-
I see VAR got involved when 2 Sheff Utd players had a flair up against wolves earlier .
So where is the line where VAR gets involved why can't they correct a ref when he has given a corner wrong or throw in as examples ?
Potential red card offence being investigated. Been part of their remit since it was introduced.
-
Premier League clubs have approved unanimously the use of semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) for the 2024-25 season.
The plan is to introduce the system after one of the international breaks in September or October, the Premier League said.
Fifa first used the technology at the 2022 men's World Cup in Qatar.
It is anticipated SAOT could cut the length of a video assistant referee (VAR) check for offside by 31 seconds.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68791135
-
The Turkish Super Lig will appoint foreign video assistant referees (VAR) for crucial matches until the end of the season following claims of bias.
Fenerbahce's president said an "underground network" in Turkey was deciding matches by "using referees".
The club was fined £98,450 after staging a walkout in the Super Cup against Galatasaray in protest.
The Turkish Football Federation struck deals with associations across Europe to appoint VAR officials until May.
Fenerbahce were unhappy with the scheduling of the Super Cup fixture before Thursday's Europa League tie against Olympiakos and had requested the appointment of a foreign referee, which was denied.
In March, Fenerbahce's players were attacked by Trabzonspor fans which prompted a vote on whether the club should withdraw from the Super Lig, but Fenerbahce members voted to remain.
Galatasaray, who were awarded a 3-0 win following Fenerbahce's Super Cup walkout, have a two-point lead over their Istanbul rivals with seven matches remaining in the title race.
A foreign VAR official will be assigned for both clubs' fixtures this week, with Fenerbahce facing Fatih Karagumruk and Galatasaray taking on Alanyaspor.
Officials will be appointed from Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands and Portugal.
-
This will be a big topic this week.
Forest statement on X - https://x.com/NFFC/status/1782056187652960764
Three extremely poor decisions - three penalties not given - which we simply cannot accept.
We warned the PGMOL that the VAR is a Luton fan before the game but they didn’t change him. Our patience has been tested multiple times.
NFFC will now consider its options.
Stan Collymore - https://x.com/StanCollymore/status/1782080083370402099
Unless anyone has proof that a referee or assistant referee is or has been involved in deliberate corruption then nobody has any place daring suggest it.
A fucking easy and growing out for supporters that is driving numbers of refs down, that is used as an excuse for underperforming teams and organisations and is a growing cancer in the sport.
So I invite any supporter or legal firm to do one thing. Provide examples and proof of corruption against your club, put up or shut up. Because the constant erosion of the standing of officials has created a dearth of talent and numbers, which in turn leaves us with arguably a poor pool to pick from.
But corrupt? Do me a fucking favour.
Just one ref, and one example of corruption that you'd be willing to fund in a court of law.
Being a poor ref and being a corrupt ref are worlds apart and it's now the fucking accepted go to excuse of clubs who have plenty of money and plenty of games to get their shit together.
Also listened to Stuart Pearce on TS and he was astonished and very disappointed in his former club.
-
The three penalties. Seen them given and seen them not given, however none of them would have been overturned by VAR in most matches I have seen if the ref hadn't given them on the play. Young's arm was close to his body for example for the handball. So was the ref on the field also employed by Luton?
-
Forest have royally embarrassed themselves with this. I agree. All 3 decisions are 50/50 in my view.
You can bet your life that if they had been for Everton and been given, that Forest would be making precisely the same ludicrous corruption claims and they they were "never penalties in a million years"
-
Yes I’ve just seen the penalty claims. None of them are exactly nailed on, they do seem to have got themselves a bit worked up.
-
I was happy when Forest came up. A club that were so successful for many of us growing up, but so much time outside the top flight. But they are becoming massively entitled and whinge constantly. Spent like drunken sailors then complained when they got done for FFP. And now hiring a former ref so they can criticize decisions. And I never took Nuno to be that way, but he’s bought into it too. They can fuck off back down.
-
The kick to the heel was a penalty, in my view, but the others are really questionable and they have embarrassed themselves, but this is what happens when you appoint a former referee to question current decisions. Might as well ask Donald Trump to preside over the 115 Manchester City charges.
-
They are out of order with this accusation.
-
The disallowed 4th Coventry goal is open to far more debate.
-
They are out of order with this accusation.
Totally. They should be punished for it. Stan Collymore’s comments are spot on.
-
The disallowed 4th Coventry goal is open to far more debate.
Would VAR have been used in that game if both clubs were from the football league?
-
Yes. The VAR not being used is down to the ground not having the facilities for it. Prem clubs and Wembley does.
-
The disallowed 4th Coventry goal is open to far more debate.
Absolutely. There is no way the Forest player is clearly in an offside position such that it gives him a discernible advantage. When it is that tight common sense has to come into it.
-
No, offside is offside, you don’t disapply it if it’s late in the match or close.
-
The analysis on MOTD2 was good on this. The handball and kick to the heal, like has been said, are 50/50. There's been instances like those given but also not given.
The third one was a mess because the ref signals that the defender played the ball when the replay showed that he didn't. The VAR should have seen this in the replay and called the ref over to the screen. He didn't, but that's not corruption, it's poor officiating.
-
I think allegations of corruption are in need of evidence and without it Forest should be punished, you can't be bandying around such unsubstantiated allegations.
-
VAR has sucked the life out of football. It should be scrapped simply on the decisions of the games at the weekend. Shambolic, corrupt and fucking useless.
-
It was just crap officiating on the pitch. But for the conspiracy theorists it is the perfect match with a great sub plot re the Luton fan in the VAR room. Everton have the points to overcome their deductions thereby justifiably surviving and Forest lose points so they fall enough points behind where their deduction made no difference to their finishing position. We all think it from time to time. Should the worst happen and Spurs pip us for 4th place with some controversial decisions some fans will be thinking it was a conspiracy. #bemoreemery
-
I’m not even sure Attwell is a Luton supporter. His family is well known in Nuneaton and he was believed to be a season ticket holder at Highfield Road. Thats why I’m always worried when he officiates the Villa.
I think the Luton thing may be a joke because he gave that phantom goal against Watford,
-
The analysis on MOTD2 was good on this. The handball and kick to the heal, like has been said, are 50/50. There's been instances like those given but also not given.
The third one was a mess because the ref signals that the defender played the ball when the replay showed that he didn't. The VAR should have seen this in the replay and called the ref over to the screen. He didn't, but that's not corruption, it's poor officiating.
Great debate, I actually thought the kick to the heel was the most obvious of the three. Shows how things are down to opinion. I would expect VAR to call the Referee across the monitor given his on field gesticulation that the defender played the ball. We've seen some shit officiating this season.
-
I don't think there's any conspiracy involved but there are definitely unconcious biases that play into some decisions. Emi getting booked for time wasting on Thursday being a perfect, and extreme, example. I don't think that was the case for Forest yesterday, they were just on the wrong side of a few 50/50 calls that VAR would've gone with the ref whichever way he went.
From a purely Villa perspective I think there's a belief within PGMOL that we can become a little overly aggressive if we think teams are being too physical and it's led to quite a few soft bookings this season as refs try to 'lay down the law' with us. I think Kamara and Emi both sufferd from it agianst Brentford, for example and Doug and SJM have been a bit unlucky a few times as well.
-
The penalty for handball that Chelsea should've had and the goal for Coventry was disallowed. In both cases human interpretation has screwed up. It was a clear and obvious handball by Grealish that didn't even get a corner. The Coventry goal also debatable - ok so the players toe is a millimetre or two offside on the photos but was that the point the ball left O Hare's boot? I don't think so. All this technology and yet we're still getting wrong decisions week in, week out. Is it conspiracy? I doubt it. Human fallacy? Yes, yes, yes. There's no point implementing technology if it still needs humans to analyse it. Either bring in the robots or fuck it off to the bin.
-
Clattenberg has admitted he gave a penalty to "even up decisions" as well other incompetence's in his life. So yes, he should be great at knowing what is incompetence and what is corruption. I suspect he is pissed off he was overlooked as PGMOL boss.
As for Attwell being a Luton fan? I'm not sure why he would be one as he was mostly brought up in the Midlands and at no point would Luton have been needed, apart from maybe at the time he "registered" who he was a fan of, it was when Luton were plummeting out of the league so he chose them instead of Coventry or who he did support at the time. But even if he was, wouldn't a draw be a better result for them?
-
Reason #4773 why everyone fucking hates Man U.
-
I was a Sunday League ref back in the early 90s and one game was getting so grim I finished five minutes early when one team slotted in an equaliser. It was hideous and something I recommend only to the fuckers who claim to know so much about the game.
-
I’m not even sure Attwell is a Luton supporter. His family is well known in Nuneaton and he was believed to be a season ticket holder at Highfield Road. Thats why I’m always worried when he officiates the Villa.
I think the Luton thing may be a joke because he gave that phantom goal against Watford,
They have to give a list of the clubs they support before the season kicks off.
The fact that the FA/Premier League/whoever decided to give an important relegation game to a Luton fan isn't ideal though.
It's like when we get given that official from Manchester to officiate games against both Manchester clubs.
Not ideal...
-
Yeah, I think Forest should have a word with whoever runs their twitter account. It was a crazy thing to post and it's kind of overshadowed the penalty claims. The fact that the third one wasn't even looked was ridiculous.
-
I’m not even sure Attwell is a Luton supporter. His family is well known in Nuneaton and he was believed to be a season ticket holder at Highfield Road. Thats why I’m always worried when he officiates the Villa.
I think the Luton thing may be a joke because he gave that phantom goal against Watford,
They have to give a list of the clubs they support before the season kicks off.
The fact that the FA/Premier League/whoever decided to give an important relegation game to a Luton fan isn't ideal though.
It's like when we get given that official from Manchester to officiate games against both Manchester clubs.
Not ideal...
Yes, they obviously can't ref games of the teams they support, but other than that, it's getting a bit difficult if they have to start considering games that their teams might have an effect on. You could have a situation where 5 or 6 teams might be threatened by relegation, in which case the pool of games you have officials for starts to get a bit small. It's not as if the VAR guy is sat in a room by himself, there's a whole team of them.
As the saying goes, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
-
All challenges in the box are looked at, it is just that most are knocked on the head fairly fast. As MOTD pointed out, the fact the Ref seemed to state "he got the ball" is perhaps why it should have been called back after the cursory review. But the on field ref could have just as easily been saying he lost control of the ball. Still would have been dubious but less of an "obvious error" then the other call.
Obviously it would be more stop-start, but I still feel most penalty claims should go for video review by the ref for a second check. But I also suspect more penalties would be given if they did that.
-
Yeah, I think Forest should have a word with whoever runs their twitter account. It was a crazy thing to post and it's kind of overshadowed the penalty claims. The fact that the third one wasn't even looked was ridiculous.
I would be pissed if that wasn't given as a pen for us, but yeah, how it wasn't looked at I'll never know. Murphy was right, ref signals he got the ball, he clearly didn't, so just have a look. It's a pen. It's not corruption though, it's just incompetence. The other 2 I don't think are pens.
-
I think the first penalty shout wasn't one, it was similar in a way to the Luiz incident against Arsenal at home, with a mild contact of legs where the attacker has made a massive meal of it. Fuck off with that shit, no penalty. The Ashley Young handball, I think he got the benefit of the doubt because he was so close to it, think 7 times out of 10 that wouldn't be given. The last one looked the most nailed on. The ref signalled that the defender had got the ball, but VAR probably should have had a much closer look than they did.
But just because there were three incidents all not given it doesn't mean that they were all wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean that cheating was afoot.
-
I have it in good authority that Stuart Attwell made the VAR decisions without bias, while wearing a full 85 retro Luton kit with Stein 8 on the back.
-
I’m not even sure Attwell is a Luton supporter. His family is well known in Nuneaton and he was believed to be a season ticket holder at Highfield Road. Thats why I’m always worried when he officiates the Villa.
I think the Luton thing may be a joke because he gave that phantom goal against Watford,
They have to give a list of the clubs they support before the season kicks off.
The fact that the FA/Premier League/whoever decided to give an important relegation game to a Luton fan isn't ideal though.
It's like when we get given that official from Manchester to officiate games against both Manchester clubs.
Not ideal...
As far as I am aware that list has never been published and he is staying silent.
I have never seen him ref a Cov game and that’s the assumption locally. It’s why I’ve always been nervous when he’s involved with Villa matches.
I think the Luton thing may be an internet myth because of the phantom Reading goal against Watford
-
I have it in good authority that Stuart Attwell made the VAR decisions without bias, while wearing a full 85 retro Luton kit with Stein 8 on the back.
And doing a David Pleat dance.
-
I think they got the first 2 correct but the last one was a stonewall penalty. I thought VAR was brought in for decisions like this and I think we all need to know what’s gone on.
The standard of refereeing is the worst I’ve seen it but some of that is down to the confusion that is VAR. How they can’t get decisions like this right with the aid of camera’s is beyond me.
Saying that, the Forest statement was somewhat child like and really hasn’t helped.
-
For me the first Ashley Young challenge wasn't a penalty.His second half tackle from behind was a stonewall penalty.
The handball was similar to the Coventry one which probably shouldn't have been given but without Ashley accidentally stopping the ball ,it would have reached Wood a few yards from goal.So I can understand Forest's anger there.
VAR infuriates me when they start drawing lines,if the naked eye on the replay and the assistant can't see an offside,forget it.
-
I like to think that I’m reasonably fair but, have to say, based on other penalties I’ve seen given this season, as Villa fans, we would all be spitting feathers if we were in Forest’s shoes.
-
I like to think that I’m reasonably fair but, have to say, based on other penalties I’ve seen given this season, as Villa fans, we would all be spitting feathers if we were in Forest’s shoes.
We, as fans, have complained about Watkins not getting the same type of penalty as the third at least twice this season. And the natural arm position non pen as well. What we haven't done is had our manager and captain complain to the cameras, released a couple of club statements, and had another paid employee of the club write a newspaper column over it. I would say we, as fans, have never claimed corruption over them either, but I know some of the more excitable posters have.
-
Did I read the other day that Forest are considering suing Gary Neville and Sky because Neville called their complaints out for what they are. Should we delete our responses to it to legally protect the website as well?