Standard of Refereeing

[Somniloquism]

I think it's this one against Arsenal.

Does anyone remember  was this one pulled back ir did it go straight to var?

That is the VAR box being freeze framed. VAR stated that they couldn't honestly state the whole ball was out from that angle, or that they couldn't honestly confirm if a handball happened or that they couldn't state that the scoring player was offside or not who bundled it over the line.

All of those checks took 3 minutes from start to finish, the over-the-line took less then 30 seconds to dismiss. Ours took almost 3.5 minutes to decide it was over the line I believe.

[Nev]

Whether the ball went out or not isn't the issue. There are no parameters regarding how far a check can go back, where phases of play start or finish so in effect the officials have an open book on disallowing goals and we have to attend games not knowing how this is going to be interpreted.

As we constantly see with VAR, in order to protect themselves the officials come up with more bizarre excuses every week, the 5cm rule was one and they will come up with another for this you can guarantee. 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.

[Demitri_C]

I think it's this one against Arsenal.

Does anyone remember  was this one pulled back ir did it go straight to var?

That is the VAR box being freeze framed. VAR stated that they couldn't honestly state the whole ball was out from that angle, or that they couldn't honestly confirm if a handball happened or that they couldn't state that the scoring player was offside or not who bundled it over the line.

All of those checks took 3 minutes from start to finish, the over-the-line took less then 30 seconds to dismiss. Ours took almost 3.5 minutes to decide it was over the line I believe.

Thanks thats helpful.
It does seem very odd and inconsistent- as this one is less blatent than that ine that they dismissed

[Monty]

Between this and the Everton goalscorer being the guy who should've been sent off, not to mention the injuries, it's clear our last two home games were sweated under curses and maledictions. Hopefully it's al been lifted now.

[andyh]

It seems that the primary purpose of VAR is to find a reason why a goal cannot be awarded.

But the biggest issue is the spurious reasons why it’s wrong decisions are subsequently defended.
1. There is a 5cm tolerance
2. It was in the build up to an attaching phase of play.
3. You can’t be offside with a part of the body you can’t score with.
4. You CAN  be offside with a part of the body you can’t score with
5. You can’t be offside if you are running back from an offside position.
6. You ARE offside if you are running back from an offside position.

And many others, I’m sure.
No one seems to know the rules of the game, it is far, far too convoluted.

[curiousorange]

VAR has led to, and will continue to produce, weak officiating on the pitch. It's clear that VAR doesn't help, it hinders. We may hate the decision given on the pitch and want to bitch about it for the next week, but it was a flash movement in the heat of the moment and that's about as fair as you're going to get. Having a safety net leads to doubt, which leads to trying to cover your arse.

[Mister E]

All of those checks took 3 minutes from start to finish, the over-the-line took less then 30 seconds to dismiss. Ours took almost 3.5 minutes to decide it was over the line I believe.

They couldn't honestly determine whether the ball was out! Given that the linesman (asst ref) on the Witton Lane side was in the other half of the pitch and would not have been able to see whether the ball was in or out, it was always on the ref to call it; which he didn't. The VAR cameras at Villa Park did not decisively show, one way or another, whether the whole of the ball was over the line.
In the example from the Barcode-Arse game, the VAR / ref rightly ignored the ambiguity because it could not be proven by the VAR cameras.

[Mister E]

VAR has led to, and will continue to produce, weak officiating on the pitch. It's clear that VAR doesn't help, it hinders. We may hate the decision given on the pitch and want to bitch about it for the next week, but it was a flash movement in the heat of the moment and that's about as fair as you're going to get. Having a safety net leads to doubt, which leads to trying to cover your arse.

I agree that refs have become weaker o the pitch where VAR is present. Compare the reffing during the FAC3 games: refs appeared to be more decisive and made quick decisions that players generally did not challenge.

[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. 

[tomd2103]

VAR has led to, and will continue to produce, weak officiating on the pitch. It's clear that VAR doesn't help, it hinders. We may hate the decision given on the pitch and want to bitch about it for the next week, but it was a flash movement in the heat of the moment and that's about as fair as you're going to get. Having a safety net leads to doubt, which leads to trying to cover your arse.

I agree that refs have become weaker o the pitch where VAR is present. Compare the reffing during the FAC3 games: refs appeared to be more decisive and made quick decisions that players generally did not challenge.

I thought the ref was really weak yesterday.  Yes he gave them.a red card, but he let them get away with so much.

[Beard82]

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.

Yes this is the issue - football is using it in completely the wrong way to remake subjective calls with other subjective calls. 

Yesterday was like giving it not out because the previous ball was a no-ball. 

[aj2k77]

I fucking hate all this video shit.

[trinityoap]

Are we entitled to see the evidence upon which the decision was based and hear a recording of any discussion leading to that decision?It really is time we started to kick up a fuss given some of the crap decisions which have gone against us.

[paul_e]

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.