Standard of Refereeing

[oldhill_avfc]

They got to the right decision for all the wrong reasons.

We had a pretty good view from our seats it looked well out of play.  Looking at the highlight a couple of Brentford players paused which allowed us to break out of the corner more easily than we otherwise might have.  It might have been 19 seconds until we scored, but it was all part of the same counter attacking move.

Having said that, the VAR process is a joke.  There are no clear rules, no openness to the advice being given to on field ref, no accountability and I have no doubt that had it been Liverpool, Arsenal, etc the goal would have been given.

[The Edge]

I think we can now safely assume that VAR is happy to guess and give a subjective opinion of what they "think might of happened" Clearly that leaves the whole VAR system in an untenable position. This can't be allowed to continue. Brentford fans are currently laughing at it, understandable I guess but there's no bigger whingers than them and their turn will come.

To be fair, I don't think it's the VAR system that is the problem, it's the people using it.  I follow cricket and and there can sometimes be doubt around whether a clean catch is taken.  When the umpires in the middle refer it to the TV umpire, they often do so with a 'soft signal' of out or not out.  The TV umpire then has to find clear evidence of that not being the case and if they can't, they simply tell the on field umpire to stick with their original decision.  It really is that simple. 

Same in rugby, the ref chooses how to ask the question which guides the Video assistant "on filed decision is xx, do you have any evidence for me to overturn that?" and all the audio is shared live. I get the argument that people in the ground might not know as much as those watching on TV but at least there's a recorded conversation available immediately for anyone who wants to check it and there's clear guidance from the on-field officials. Football has this really poorly implemented and really poorly used in a way that encourages more obscurity and less oversight as they often use it as a means of circling thge wagons to protect themselves rather than to get the right decision.

Yesterdays decision was awful not because of how far they went back (even though that was also bullshit) but because it was a subjective decision made by someone other than the referee, which isn't supposed to happen. Unless there's a camera angle that shows it was 100% irrefutably out of play what they've done doesn't meet the criteria for VAR to overrule the decision.

I think the most nauseating thing yesterday was the wording of the on field referee when he gave his explanation on the mic. He called it "factually out" when clearly it can not be called factual because there's no proof of the ball being out. Why would he use those words when they know the literally can't prove it.

[Smoke]

So given that VAR are now able to "factually" prove if the ball is in or out of play conclusively from now on. We should fully expect the Hawk Eye goal line technology to be scrapped.

No, didn't think so. Useless pricks.

[geolex]

As I see it the ball was out, it seemed pretty conclusive from the TV pictures.
However was it a clear and obvious error by the officials on the pitch? NO
Was it in the attacking half of the pitch for Villa? NO
Did we gain and advantage from it? YES but did the opposition have enough time to re-set for the next phase of play? YES.
Is VAR going to referee the whole match now? It looks like YES
Is this the purpose VAR was introduced? NO

The ball was pout the officials called it  in that's a clear and obvious error

[eye digress]

It may or may not have had an effect on the game and is already more or less forgotten by everyone but us. I've never seen something like that before and you can bet we'll never see it again.

Am I going mad or did we have a near carbon copy situation last year?

Ollie (almost) saving the ball from going out, McGinn firing the ball into the back of the net.

The goal was ruled out, but at the time we were up in arms at the VAR over reach.

Think we lost or drew!

[tomd2103]

I think we can now safely assume that VAR is happy to guess and give a subjective opinion of what they "think might of happened" Clearly that leaves the whole VAR system in an untenable position. This can't be allowed to continue. Brentford fans are currently laughing at it, understandable I guess but there's no bigger whingers than them and their turn will come.

To be fair, I don't think it's the VAR system that is the problem, it's the people using it.  I follow cricket and and there can sometimes be doubt around whether a clean catch is taken.  When the umpires in the middle refer it to the TV umpire, they often do so with a 'soft signal' of out or not out.  The TV umpire then has to find clear evidence of that not being the case and if they can't, they simply tell the on field umpire to stick with their original decision.  It really is that simple. 

Same in rugby, the ref chooses how to ask the question which guides the Video assistant "on filed decision is xx, do you have any evidence for me to overturn that?" and all the audio is shared live. I get the argument that people in the ground might not know as much as those watching on TV but at least there's a recorded conversation available immediately for anyone who wants to check it and there's clear guidance from the on-field officials. Football has this really poorly implemented and really poorly used in a way that encourages more obscurity and less oversight as they often use it as a means of circling thge wagons to protect themselves rather than to get the right decision.

Yesterdays decision was awful not because of how far they went back (even though that was also bullshit) but because it was a subjective decision made by someone other than the referee, which isn't supposed to happen. Unless there's a camera angle that shows it was 100% irrefutably out of play what they've done doesn't meet the criteria for VAR to overrule the decision.

That last paragraph is spot on Paul.  I still maintain that given as it was a subjective decision to rule out a goal, the referee should have been asked to go to the screen to look at it.  As you say though, the VAR official has taken it on himself to overrule an on-field decision when he hasn't got the technology to be 100% sure. 

Even when they tried to explain it they got it wrong - the referee said it was 'factually' out whatever that means, but there was no fact about it and then the message that flashed up 10 minutes later said it had taken place in an 'attacking phase of play'.  I'd hardly call being in a dogfight facing your own goal in the corner between the touchline and your own goaline an 'attacking phase of play'.

[Somniloquism]

I think the most nauseating thing yesterday was the wording of the on field referee when he gave his explanation on the mic. He called it "factually out" when clearly it can not be called factual because there's no proof of the ball being out. Why would he use those words when they know the literally can't prove it.

VAR told him it was out so for him, the man in the middle it was "factually out" (ie not something the ref would normally go to a screen to check). Of course from their pictures it was more "subjectively out" although further footage since has shown it was factually out.

[Chris Harte]

VAR told him it was out so for him, the man in the middle it was "factually out" (ie not something the ref would normally go to a screen to check). Of course from their pictures it was more "subjectively out" although further footage since has shown it was factually out.

Where is this footage? I've not seen it.

Edit - found one. Now get PGMOL to draw the lines on it.

[Somniloquism]

It may or may not have had an effect on the game and is already more or less forgotten by everyone but us. I've never seen something like that before and you can bet we'll never see it again.

Am I going mad or did we have a near carbon copy situation last year?

Ollie (almost) saving the ball from going out, McGinn firing the ball into the back of the net.

The goal was ruled out, but at the time we were up in arms at the VAR over reach.

Think we lost or drew!

We drew against Bournemouth away. Similar with the other one of VAR showing an image of "there you are" when there was weird digital artifacts at the line and around the ball which couldn't guranetee a full definitely over the line. Although I would have accepted Sunday's decision if they had an angle like that to show. (Not on how far back they went though).

[Small Rodent]

VAR should be run by neck-bearded computer geeks who hate football but have an unshakeable belief in getting things perfect.

[Clive W]

Just for good measure can I throw this into the mix?

Limits: While there is no specific time limit, the review is limited to the immediate phase of play. If a new phase of play starts (e.g., the defending team clears the ball and establishes control), any previous offence is "written off".

I would suggest that when Kellener parried the ball, Brentford had effectively cleared the ball and therefore a new phase had started and the previous “offence” should have been written off

Although It could probably be argued that although he parried it they did not establish control because it went straight to Tammy

All very subjective - as was the original decision

[Nunkin1965]

VAR should be run by neck-bearded computer geeks who hate football but have an unshakeable belief in getting things perfect.

That sounds like my son!