VAR

[LeeB]

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.

[Russ aka Big Nose]

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.

[Risso]

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.

[chrisw1]

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.

[LeeB]

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.

[Lastfootstamper]

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.

[LeeB]

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.

[Risso]

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.

[ChicagoLion]

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.

[The Edge]

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"

[chrisw1]

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.

[Risso]

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.

[paul_e]

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.

[Hookeysmith]

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

[Drummond]

I like the idea of each team having a set number of reviews each half.