VAR

[Drummond]

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.

[Somniloquism]

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.

[KRS]

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).

[Footy-Vill]

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

[aj2k77]

What are the mistakes in our favour?

[amfy]

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.

[Scratchins]

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 “

[Risso]

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!

[Nev]

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.

[Dave P]

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.

[Risso]

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.

[DrGonzo]

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!

[Somniloquism]

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).

[Somniloquism]

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.

[DrGonzo]

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...