VAR avoiding decisions

[A Storm of Blades]

You might be technically correct with what you say but the final sentence is key, on a lot of decisions you could wait 10 minutes whilst some unknown bunch of people 100 miles away decide what the outcome of an incident and there's still controversy. They are changing the rules to suit the technology which is definitely a bad thing and the review process is still necessarily arbitrary. It's shit and detracts from the drama of the live match in order to give the media companies something to talk about. It stands a good chance of killing football for the supporters in the ground.

You say giving reviews would turn football into a game show, maybe, but at least accountability is brought back to the immediate environment of the stadium. The crowd would at least understand why the review was happening, the review itself becomes a tactical aspect of the match, not an add on to it.

Exactly right. At the moment, nobody precisely knows what or when reviews are happening in real-time. What that means is, when incidents like this happen or the various ‘penalties’ not given in recent weeks, fans quite rightly question the point of the system.

 

[DaleHillBlade]

I’m in the ground and I want the decisions to be correct with the laws so I’m one who doesn’t fit your generalisation. The issue is the subjectivity.
I’d remove the PL protection of the integrity of the on field official and let VAR make the call if it’s incorrect on a goal or a sending off or a penalty.
Corners, throw ins and free kicks I’ve leave alone. Team should defend properly even if that goes against them.
However, I’m fully aware how hard it is to make these decisions, and how easy it is for everyone to pick at what’s wrong with them while they are tweaked.

Is the “field official” the referee?

All goals, fouls and penalty box decisions to be reviewed by how ever many referees staring at a screen rather than one up to speed with the fluidity of the game.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Is the “field official” the referee?

All goals, fouls and penalty box decisions to be reviewed by how ever many referees staring at a screen rather than one up to speed with the fluidity of the game.

Not sure more people making largely subjective decisions will help speed anything up.

 

[Charlieblade]

Not sure more people making largely subjective decisions will help speed anything up.

This.

Some PL refs are very good, others are average. Add another layer of decision making, and you will get differing opinions. If the on field guy and the var guy are of varying competence, some decisions will always be questionable.
Add in the fact that refereeing is a shit job anyway, there will always be an inbuilt reluctance to turn over the on field decision.

 

[Sheffsteel]

This.

Some PL refs are very good, others are average. Add another layer of decision making, and you will get differing opinions. If the on field guy and the var guy are of varying competence, some decisions will always be questionable.
Add in the fact that refereeing is a shit job anyway, there will always be an inbuilt reluctance to turn over the on field decision.

It’s not even about competence.

Watch Sky and they have several top very experienced pundits and after watching numerous replays they still can’t agree if it’s a penalty.
One says it’s clearly a penalty and the other says minimal contact, the player fell, so no penalty.

People need to accept that certain events in football are 50/50, there’s not a right or wrong decision.

 

[Sheffsteel]

There are other options:

1 Scrap VAR
2 Introduce appeals like cricket, two each per side per match. Can also add one for games with extra time?
3 Make an offside review only successful if the entire upper torso is offside, owt else then the on field decision wins.
4 Apply the attacking players handball to defenders.
6 Scrap VAR

1: VAR has been a success to date with more advantages then disadvantages. It’s corrected loads of wrong decisions, just because it might have only been correct 90% of the time it’s illogical to think scrap it because it’s not correcting 100% of decisions. Without VAR there would be errors and massive controversy every week.
Also has anyone noticed with VAR there’s less disrespect and dissent towards refs, gradually less diving to gain a penalty because ref’s can’t be conned anymore.
Less post match comments from managers about poor ref decisions and poor refs, it’s not perfect but is better.

2: That would turn the game into a farce it only 10% of decisions were reviewed which has to be chosen by a manager.
Why not have 100% of important decisions reviewed, like they do now, it’s not exactly slowed down the game and is fairer/ more consistent.

3: Could work but it needs a change to the offside rule. Agree it does seem harsh if someone toes are offside but that’s not VAR’s fault.

4: It could make a mockery of the game because players will concentrate on blasting the ball at a players arms from close distance.
Can you imagine all defenders in the area would be running with their arms behind their backs, it would look weird and funny.
Some games would basically become a penalty shootout with about 5 penalties being awarded each match.

6: Won’t happen because it’s been a proven success, most managers love it, it’s just not as good or as full proof as some people hoped.

 

[Charlieblade]

It’s not even about competence.

Watch Sky and they have several top very experienced pundits and after watching numerous replays they still can’t agree if it’s a penalty.
One says it’s clearly a penalty and the other says minimal contact, the player fell, so no penalty.

People need to accept that certain events in football are 50/50, there’s not a right or wrong decision.

While i agree that there will always be 50/50 decisions, I don't see any point in listening to pundits. They are nearly always openly biased and the don't have the benefit of referees training and experience.
Of course competence is important, if only for the fact that it varies among officials. That's just human nature. Some will always be better than others and it does make a difference.
I am not in favour of scrapping it, just pointing out inherent variables.

 

[Sheffsteel]

If VAR is there to make sure the result is fair, then points for results should only be released mid week once the pundits and experts can review every single incident on the pitch.

VAR is shit and only suits TV fans. I guess that’s the future.

Think the argument is that there’s such vast fortunes involved in the game and referee decision can influence the result.
There’s been calls for years for better referees but what you find is that it’s only the losers that complain about ref decisions.
It does make you angry when there’s been clear injustices through terrible errors.

Other sports have technology, so it makes sense it should be used in football.
I think originally the idea was that the ref was called over to have a look at the VAR screen, so the ref can make the decision but that’s not happening.
It seems that although VAR checks loads of things they are very reluctant to over rule the ref.

VAR does seem to be being used very successfully for offside decisions which in the past have occasionally had mistakes.
Maybe VAR should only be used for offside as that’s clear cut and factual.

Regards penalties and fouls even with every camera angle studying loads of replays it can still be impossible to come to the correct decision.
Football is a physical contact game where players use their body strength. However some players wait for the smallest touch then fall down.
I believe VAR will be reviewed based on feedback from people within the game, then it will be tweaked and evolve so that it becomes a force for good,

 

[Sheffsteel]

While i agree that there will always be 50/50 decisions, I don't see any point in listening to pundits. They are nearly always openly biased and the don't have the benefit of referees training and experience.
Of course competence is important, if only for the fact that it varies among officials. That's just human nature. Some will always be better than others and it does make a difference.
I am not in favour of scrapping it, just pointing out inherent variables.

Agree about the pundits. They often give totally polar opinions, it’s as though they’ve been told to disagree with each other to make the show more interesting/ entertaining, Agree about the variables too, always thought VAR might be difficult to implement because some aspects are not an exact science and require judgement.

Maybe VAR should only be used for ball crossing the line, offsides and mistaken identities (to prevent the wrong person being booked or sent off).
Regards penalties and red card incidents the original plan was to call the ref over to watch a tv screen replay but understandable the PL have bottled that scenario due to adding pressure on a ref and also it could cause delays to matches.

 

[stringer]

No

You keep saying nobody appealed but Egan does afterwards, and Wilder did, such that he mentions it in his post-match interview. I’d argue a good few players won’t have seen it. Lack of appeal isn’t a valid argument at all. Was it a ‘clear and obvious’ error? Yes, the video shows that. Same, with the Tottenham penalty. VAR not overturning these incidents, yet disallowing the City goal for the handball, is alienating a lot of people.

Why do you think it wasn’t disallowed then if you think it was a clear and obvious error?

 

[A Storm of Blades]

Why do you think it wasn’t disallowed then if you think it was a clear and obvious error?

That’s precisely what I’m asking. Why wasn’t it disallowed, when the replay shows a clear foul which led to a goal?

 

[wizadry]

Why do you think it wasn’t disallowed then if you think it was a clear and obvious error?

I thought it was a clear foul at the time and after seeing a replay which they get a chance to do it looked even more of a foul. The only two reasons I can think that it wasn’t disallowed was because they were either cheating as they check every goal and the build up to it or it was David Blunkett on the panel.

If you can tell me a valid reason for not disallowing that goal I’m all ears D04, and I won’t accept that they thought it wasn’t a foul because it clearly and obviously was.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

Look, my point is we have some pretty advanced technology that can eradicate unjust decisions, I think we all welcome that. However, the clear and obvious rule is just replacing one inconsistency with another. If the foul on Egan isn’t clear and obvious then I don’t know what is! If anything, the fact that someone, somewhere watched it back and still gave the goal makes it worse. Surely, the eminently sensible consideration is was it a foul or not, not a completely subjective conversation about how much of a foul it was, and where the tipping point is to overturn it. That’s a nonsense.

I keep saying it, but review offside for each goal if you must, and goal line as standard, but use the rest as a referral system.

That way Wilder or Egan could have said “ref, there was a foul just before the goal, I’d like that checked”. We’d all know that was happening, and the assistant knows what to look for. And I guarantee the goal isn’t given.

 

[Champagneblade]

If a player climbs on the back of an opponent and has both hands on their shoulders, pushing the opponent down and gaining an unfair advantage themselves, I don't see how that can be anything other than a free kick to the defending team. Just because 'it happens a lot' doesn't make it any less of a foul. There are far softer fouls given with defenders going over the top of forward's back in the middle of the field of play without having hold of them, nevermind the obvious tell tale sign of having both hands on the shoulders and in the penalty area and leading to a goal.

It's not a question of football not being a physical game or someone using your body. Climbing on your opponent like that is a foul.

Cracking strike though. But it should have been irrelevant. If it's not seen as a foul then I suggest we do that at every free kick and corner at Chelsea and see how we get on!

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

Not a VAR fan really, happy with goaline technology but the rest not so much.

That said without VAR we would have still lost 2-1.

I did wonder what they were checking for Mcburnie’s goal mind couldn’t see anything at all but given the time it took there must have been something

 

[stringer]

I thought it was a clear foul at the time and after seeing a replay which they get a chance to do it looked even more of a foul. The only two reasons I can think that it wasn’t disallowed was because they were either cheating as they check every goal and the build up to it or it was David Blunkett on the panel.

If you can tell me a valid reason for not disallowing that goal I’m all ears D04, and I won’t accept that they thought it wasn’t a foul because it clearly and obviously was.

Who was ‘cheating’?
The reason for not disallowing it was because someone thought it wasn’t a foul; either the ref, the VAR or both. If you want to believe the conspiracy, that’s your decision

 

[Champagneblade]

Who was ‘cheating’?
The reason for not disallowing it was because someone thought it wasn’t a foul; either the ref, the VAR or both. If you want to believe the conspiracy, that’s your decision

Maybe they didn't see it? Or didn't focus on it when they had a few seconds to see the passage of play? With time to digest and review, as soon as you see one player climb on the other's back it's a foul.

 

[finlaytheblade]

No

You keep saying nobody appealed but Egan does afterwards, and Wilder did, such that he mentions it in his post-match interview. I’d argue a good few players won’t have seen it. Lack of appeal isn’t a valid argument at all. Was it a ‘clear and obvious’ error? Yes, the video shows that. Same, with the Tottenham penalty. VAR not overturning these incidents, yet disallowing the City goal for the handball, is alienating a lot of people.

Agree no consistency if var sees something that ref ( revolving around goals ) misses then he should be looking at the touchline screen.it wont happen that often as there are not that many game changing situations within the game.
If were gunna use it let's us it to get every big call var should right..Egan was fouled & Kane should have had a penalty,far should have intervened in both cases ,big calls and they changed the result of both games.

 

[PokerBlade]

Look, my point is we have some pretty advanced technology that can eradicate unjust decisions, I think we all welcome that. However, the clear and obvious rule is just replacing one inconsistency with another. If the foul on Egan isn’t clear and obvious then I don’t know what is! If anything, the fact that someone, somewhere watched it back and still gave the goal makes it worse. Surely, the eminently sensible consideration is was it a foul or not, not a completely subjective conversation about how much of a foul it was, and where the tipping point is to overturn it. That’s a nonsense.

I keep saying it, but review offside for each goal if you must, and goal line as standard, but use the rest as a referral system.

That way Wilder or Egan could have said “ref, there was a foul just before the goal, I’d like that checked”. We’d all know that was happening, and the assistant knows what to look for. And I guarantee the goal isn’t given.

This is how I see it. I don't see how it makes any sense to say that the decision is objective but then still have a flimsy subjective element about "clear and obvious". What possible benefit does that bring? And if it is the case that only clear and obvious errors get overturned, then how come we get things like the Man City goal ruled out for being a tenth of a shoulder offside, even when the technology isn't precise enough to judge exactly when the ball is played and no one can tell the exact point a shoulder begins and arm ends?

We've seen VAR get multiple things wrong. All we've achieved so far is taking the subjectivity away from the ref and giving it to the VAR team in exchange for greater delays to the game.

And fwiw the McBurnie goal looked offside because Sharp obstructs the defender from challenging McBurnie. So I guess that's not "clear and obvious" either but then isn't the whole point to pick up things the ref and linesmen miss?

 

[Chief14]

Not a VAR fan really, happy with goaline technology but the rest not so much.

That said without VAR we would have still lost 2-1.

I did wonder what they were checking for Mcburnie’s goal mind couldn’t see anything at all but given the time it took there must have been something

Goals on Sunday said our Sharp was offside and interfering with play so could of been disallowed.

Re Leicester’s goal, is this where we should become a bit more street wise. If Egan had fallen to the floor would the ref or assistant of recognised the foul?

I can only think the VAR team were to busy trying to work out how fast the shot was as that all the so called experts have spent their time doing.

 

[stringer]

Maybe they didn't see it? Or didn't focus on it when they had a few seconds to see the passage of play? With time to digest and review, as soon as you see one player climb on the other's back it's a foul.

You can't not see it. It happens a second before the volley and the ball ends up in Barnes' path directly from the incident. They have as long as they need; they can tell the ref not to restart play if they haven't decided yet.
The reason was that they didn't think it was a foul.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

Goals on Sunday said our Sharp was offside and interfering with play so could of been disallowed.

Re Leicester’s goal, is this where we should become a bit more street wise. If Egan had fallen to the floor would the ref or assistant of recognised the foul?

I can only think the VAR team were to busy trying to work out how fast the shot was as that all the so called experts have spent their time doing.

To be totally fair then, Leicester could have asked for that to be reviewed too. I’m utterly lost with offside these days so Christ knows what outcome that would have been.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

1.) never going to happen.
2,) crazy idea, why not have VAR overrule everything?
3.) Thats a law change nothing to do with VAR.
4.) You want every time the ball hits a defenders hand to be a penalty, that’s even worse.
5.) again not going to happen.

I have thought of one alternate. The VAR ref is the highest authority and overrules the on pitch ref whenever he/she likes.
PS. You didn’t answer the conspiracy question. You don’t honestly believe it do you?

No there's no conspiracy theory against us.

The fact is though that VAR stills exposes mistakes will be made by officials so why bother, just leave it as it was and the game carries on as before.

At least we could live with that even if we all complained. The new greatly offended seem to love VAR.

 

[Bladesman]

You would hope VAR would get a decision like this right if it happened again:

 

[Sheffsteel]

At least we could live with that even if we all complained. The new greatly offended seem to love VAR.

There’s been a lot of media attention in the last 2 years saying that referees are making too mistakes, especially offside decisions, which are affecting results.
There’s also recently been a big increase in disrespect towards the ref and mangers constantly complaining about poor decisions.
At least VAR seems to have helped in these areas, there’s now less crowding around refs too trying to influence his decision.
It’s early days with VAR and it’s not working as well as expected but no doubt it will be reviewed, evolve and improve.

The answer might be to let VAR only monitor off-side decisions, Everything else leave to the ref as before,

There’s a weird logic going on that makes no sense. It’s like saying
seat belts are only saving the life’s of 60% of drivers involved in road accidents. So that means there are still still 40% of drivers that die
So as it’s not 100% effective let’s scrap seat belts and go back to what it was before.
Surely the more correct decisions the better. If VAR only corrects 3 out of 5 decisions, then that’s still 3 decisions that has been corrected.
Agree with the concerns though...but I’m sure there will be a review regards how successful it’s been and how it can be improved.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

At least we could live with that even if we all complained. The new greatly offended seem to love VAR.

Is that last comment aimed at me?

 

[Davalon]

Our goal must have had some kind of check because the referee told the players to wait before going back to the centre circle and spent a good few seconds stood just outside the box clearly listening to his ear piece.

I was half expecting it to be disallowed by VAR.

 

[Toronto Blade]

Our players have to demonstrate at the ref .
If that climb on Egan which resulted in a goal had happened to them they would have been all over that ref.Premier League teams do it all the time.We need to join the club.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

There’s been a lot of media attention in the last 2 years saying that referees are making too mistakes, especially offside decisions, which are affecting results.
There’s also recently been a big increase in disrespect towards the ref and mangers constantly complaining about poor decisions.
At least VAR seems to have helped in these areas, there’s now less crowding around refs too trying to influence his decision.
It’s early days with VAR and it’s not working as well as expected but no doubt it will be reviewed, evolve and improve.

The answer might be to let VAR only monitor off-side decisions, Everything else leave to the ref as before,

There’s a weird logic going on that makes no sense. It’s like saying
seat belts are only saving the life’s of 60% of drivers involved in road accidents. So that means there are still still 40% of drivers that die
So as it’s not 100% effective let’s scrap seat belts and go back to what it was before.
Surely the more correct decisions the better. If VAR only corrects 3 out of 5 decisions, then that’s still 3 decisions that has been corrected.
Agree with the concerns though...but I’m sure there will be a review regards how successful it’s been and how it can be improved.

I'd like someone to explain how chalking off the Man City goal for hand ball corrected a wrong decision.

 

[stringer]

I'd like someone to explain how chalking off the Man City goal for hand ball corrected a wrong decision.

Against Spurs? Because it hit Laporte’s hand so should have been disallowed on the field. It wasn’t, so VAR corrected the wrong decision