Standard of Refereeing

[simon ward 50]

Even though the new angles have shown it wss out by some distance i bet if yhat was manure goal would have been given

And Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City could be added to that list?

[Brend'Watkins]

Did VAR have access to these ‘new’ angles to allow them to get to their decision? I’m not disputing that the ball was out having seen the new angles I just want it confirmed that this evidence is what made VAR come to their decision. If they didn’t then there has to be some serious questions. However, given it took 4 minutes then I assume the incriminating views were provided in the 3rd 4th minute.

[London Villan]

Not seen any official definitive angle… and the 4 minutes would indicate an educated guess was made, which is against all VAR rules.

[Demitri_C]

Even though the new angles have shown it wss out by some distance i bet if yhat was manure goal would have been given

And Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City could be added to that list?

100% mate. I will also gurantee if that rogers goal went utds way at OT goal would have been given and then they would have "sorry our bad" meaningless  apology  that shafts  us over.

Its the inconsistency and how var always favours the bigger sides

They really need to fucking just make a dule if a decision  cant be made within 2 minutes goal is given  end of make everyones life easier.
Taking 5 minutes to make a decision with no proper angle is ridiculous

[paul_e]

Did VAR have access to these ‘new’ angles to allow them to get to their decision? I’m not disputing that the ball was out having seen the new angles I just want it confirmed that this evidence is what made VAR come to their decision. If they didn’t then there has to be some serious questions. However, given it took 4 minutes then I assume the incriminating views were provided in the 3rd 4th minute.

Nope, the only footage that is conclusive is filmed by a fan in the corner looking along the line, that clearly wouldn't be available to them. That's what my real issue is with this, unless they can say they had 100% certainty that the ball was out during that 4minute check then the rules as they exist don't allow for them to reverse the decision without sending the ref to the monitor. It's arguing a technicality but it is an important one because if that rule is no longer being followed it should be common knowledge not something that just slips in like this.

If VAR are now allowed to re-referee the game what other cases will come into it? Does this only apply if a goal is scored and, if so, would we have been better off if Kelleher had tipped it round the post instead of pushing it back to Tammy? Meaning instead of having to defend a throin we'd have had an attacking corner? How does that make sense?

Edited because I'm a moron who wrote would instead of wouldn't.

[Brend'Watkins]

Did VAR have access to these ‘new’ angles to allow them to get to their decision? I’m not disputing that the ball was out having seen the new angles I just want it confirmed that this evidence is what made VAR come to their decision. If they didn’t then there has to be some serious questions. However, given it took 4 minutes then I assume the incriminating views were provided in the 3rd 4th minute.

Nope, the only footage that is conclusive is filmed by a fan in the corner looking along the line, that clearly would be available to them. That's what my real issue is with this, unless they can say they had 100% certainty that the ball was out during that 4minute check then the rules as they exist don't allow for them to reverse the decision without sending the ref to the monitor. It's arguing a technicality but it is an important one because if that rule is no longer being followed it should be common knowledge not something that just slips in like this.

If VAR are now allowed to re-referee the game what other cases will come into it? Does this only apply if a goal is scored and, if so, would we have been better off if Kelleher had tipped it round the post instead of pushing it back to Tammy? Meaning instead of having to defend a throin we'd have had an attacking corner? How does that make sense?

That being the case then heads should roll. I can’t believe we’re so accepting of the decision given that the evidence they have used to come to that decision is inconclusive.

[London Villan]

In reality this is all now a total non-story. Villa haven’t complained, the media have moved on, just us on here still shaking our heads.

[paul_e]

In reality this is all now a total non-story. Villa haven’t complained, the media have moved on, just us on here still shaking our heads.

We haven't complained publicly, I'd hope we have at the very least asked for clarification in private.

[tomd2103]

Did VAR have access to these ‘new’ angles to allow them to get to their decision? I’m not disputing that the ball was out having seen the new angles I just want it confirmed that this evidence is what made VAR come to their decision. If they didn’t then there has to be some serious questions. However, given it took 4 minutes then I assume the incriminating views were provided in the 3rd 4th minute.

Nope, the only footage that is conclusive is filmed by a fan in the corner looking along the line, that clearly wouldn't be available to them. That's what my real issue is with this, unless they can say they had 100% certainty that the ball was out during that 4minute check then the rules as they exist don't allow for them to reverse the decision without sending the ref to the monitor. It's arguing a technicality but it is an important one because if that rule is no longer being followed it should be common knowledge not something that just slips in like this.

If VAR are now allowed to re-referee the game what other cases will come into it? Does this only apply if a goal is scored and, if so, would we have been better off if Kelleher had tipped it round the post instead of pushing it back to Tammy? Meaning instead of having to defend a throin we'd have had an attacking corner? How does that make sense?

Edited because I'm a moron who wrote would instead of wouldn't.

Think you are spot on in your first paragraph Paul.  The big issue in this is that the officials have not followed a proper, logical process and have instead made one up themselves.  There should be clear processes in place around VAR interventions and get should be followed.  Once they decided to check whether the ball gone out (which is a question in itself) it should have followed this process:

On-field ref: Can you check if the ball went out and I need to overturn my decision

VAR official: Will find best angle and you can go to screen and have a look

Conversation between pair at screen: Can't make a definitive decision from the best angle available, so no 'clear and obvious' error made and decision stands.

It would be interesting to hear the audio and see if the ref asked the VAR official to review or they just intervened.

 

[luke95]

Did VAR have access to these ‘new’ angles to allow them to get to their decision? I’m not disputing that the ball was out having seen the new angles I just want it confirmed that this evidence is what made VAR come to their decision. If they didn’t then there has to be some serious questions. However, given it took 4 minutes then I assume the incriminating views were provided in the 3rd 4th minute.

Nope, the only footage that is conclusive is filmed by a fan in the corner looking along the line, that clearly wouldn't be available to them. That's what my real issue is with this, unless they can say they had 100% certainty that the ball was out during that 4minute check then the rules as they exist don't allow for them to reverse the decision without sending the ref to the monitor. It's arguing a technicality but it is an important one because if that rule is no longer being followed it should be common knowledge not something that just slips in like this.

If VAR are now allowed to re-referee the game what other cases will come into it? Does this only apply if a goal is scored and, if so, would we have been better off if Kelleher had tipped it round the post instead of pushing it back to Tammy? Meaning instead of having to defend a throin we'd have had an attacking corner? How does that make sense?

Edited because I'm a moron who wrote would instead of wouldn't.

Watch Utds first goal on Sunday.... totally re reffed

Ref blows for a penalty ( not free kick outside the area) var review & awards free kick for a shirt pull.