Another VAR debate…..

[steve26272]

He's probably worse than hecky, as Burnley was given a budget in summer and didn't sell their 2 most important players 1 week before start if the season. He also inherited a good youthful squad with Burnley.

Only difference is Kompany tried to play attacking football and hecky tried playing safety first. Both tactically inept.

Always thought Hecky was a good coach but maybe not strong a personality enough to be a manager
Kompany is mentally strong given his playing career, but tactically naive

If they became manager & assistant, would it be dream team material and tick every box, or would they cancel each other out and players just tick a taka in the centre circle?

Agree, to only be the win against us when Hecky was in palliative care ahead having spent £100m is a worse performance than us

 

[BladesOnToast]

I thought it was the correct decision. This season all manner of body checks and holding seem to be allowed in open play so why should this be any different?The Luton player was only standing there and Trafford should have been stronger

I agree completely. The goalie flopped feebly into the striker. If that's a foul, then every time the ball comes into the box the goalie should just run into an opposition player and fall to the ground, knowing any goal will be disallowed.

Both the ref and VAR did a good job. Conversely, had the ref ruled out the goal, I don't think VAR would or should have overruled the ref - good example of the on-field official having the say on tight calls where you wouldn't cll either decision a "clear and obvious error".

 

[Rupicola]

I thought it was a foul. Surprised it wasn't given as a foul, adeybayo did block him off and more often than not that would be given. But what is Trafford doing there. If he'd have stayed on his line he would have caught it. I just hope we have a bit of consistency with these type of decisions. Can't see that happening though.

 

[Grey Blade]

I thought it was a foul. Surprised it wasn't given as a foul, adeybayo did block him off and more often than not that would be given. But what is Trafford doing there. If he'd have stayed on his line he would have caught it. I just hope we have a bit of consistency with these type of decisions. Can't see that happening though.

This decision yet again shows how difficult it is to make a 'correct ' decision when so many of the decisions are subjective. Some handballs are clearly definite (eg Maradonna's hand of God) but at the other extreme a player turns his back and unbeknown to him, the ball hits his arm. Most decisions are not 'black and white'. Off sides should be obvious but the close calls when the attacker has his toe off side don't give any real advantage to the attacker. The more I watch football the more confusing it all becomes (that might be down to my age though ).

 

[PokerBlade]

This decision yet again shows how difficult it is to make a 'correct ' decision when so many of the decisions are subjective. Some handballs are clearly definite (eg Maradonna's hand of God) but at the other extreme a player turns his back and unbeknown to him, the ball hits his arm. Most decisions are not 'black and white'. Off sides should be obvious but the close calls when the attacker has his toe off side don't give any real advantage to the attacker. The more I watch football the more confusing it all becomes (that might be down to my age though ).

Very much this. One of my (many) arguments against VAR and how it was going to be implemented is that we as fans bicker for days about decisions. They'll argue about it on the telly. There's decisions in football that are very difficult to determine if not outright subjective. The idea that adding in an extra layer of subjectivity on top would clear things up in a timely matter was always a joke. Now we don't simply argue about decisions, we also argue whether the decision is "clear and obvious" (an entirely subjective concept). Worse than that is now I hear TV pundits and the likes talking about "Was it clear and obvious enough" as though we now accept some things were clear and obvious, but we should have a third subjective debate about the exact extent to which it's clear and obvious. It's total nonsense.

Looked like the player gets a nudge from the defender, and the keeper is the one running in. I think the foul would be for "charging or jumping at an opponent" (can't remember exactly how it's phrased) if it were given but it doesn't look like the Luton player is doing that so much as happens to get in the way.

The other thing is: the ref already gave the goal, so it's not actually a situation where VAR helped even if they got it right. Everyone would be just as well off without it.

We have no fewer arguments about decisions than ever before. Possibly more because so many pathetic things are reviewed. The game is no better to watch for the sheer number of delays in play and big moments ruined because someone found a minor discrepancy that nobody other than the VAR refs noticed. People can give all the arguments they want but the game is worse for having it.

 

[Grey Blade]

We have no fewer arguments about decisions than ever before. Possibly more because so many pathetic things are reviewed. The game is no better to watch for the sheer number of delays in play and big moments ruined because someone found a minor discrepancy that nobody other than the VAR refs noticed. People can give all the arguments they want but the game is worse for having it.

This is the reason I like watching occasional Harrogate Town matches. When a decision is given, you don't have to wait for 2 or 3 minutes for a faceless individual to verify it.

It's interesting to hear some Town fans bemoan the lack of VAR when a decision goes against them. They should be thankful for small mercies.

 

[bakeblade]

I thought it was a foul. Surprised it wasn't given as a foul, adeybayo did block him off and more often than not that would be given. But what is Trafford doing there. If he'd have stayed on his line he would have caught it. I just hope we have a bit of consistency with these type of decisions. Can't see that happening though.

I thought Trafford had a good game generally, he really helped his defence out on loads of Luton crosses by coming and claiming or punching.
Adeybayo was a little bit too clever for him at the end.
Contrast that with stay at home Wes, who offered no help to our defence against Luton.

 

[Argentinemanager]

Looking on bbc pages, some scottish official who was part of var being introduced is sudgesting a tennis style review system with each team getting 2 reviews, if succesful keeping the review, this is how i think it should be so hoping this has some legs

 

[Diamondlife]

Looking on bbc pages, some scottish official who was part of var being introduced is sudgesting a tennis style review system with each team getting 2 reviews, if succesful keeping the review, this is how i think it should be so hoping this has some legs

Not a bad idea that, it works the same with the review system in cricket, so once you’ve used your 3 reviews you’re back to umpire / referees decision, which is possibly the best of both worlds.

Just with the keeper in the Burnley game, I expected it to be given as a foul as it seems the norm where keepers are involved, but I never quite understand how it’s fine for a keeper to do his superman impersonation and knock everyone out of the way and no foul is given and then we give penalties because a player felt the contact. There was one in the Man U match earlier where a penalty wasn’t given as the player didn’t go down, and a yellow card for sliding tackle because a trailing leg caught a player but the tackle itself was a good one, I’m just not sure why they’ve changed rules that we understood and are interpreting var in the way they are. It was so nice in the cup game for a goal to be scored and you could celebrate it without looking at a screen waiting for it to say var checking for potential offside, foul, handball etc

 

[bornablade]

Trafford should have stayed on his line. Just like Wes at Villa.

1-0 up, final minutes and goalies decide to make themselves last minute heroes.

Trafford got what he deserved.

It would have been refreshing if Kompany had come out and said the same.

 

[MojoMuffin]

Here's my number one concern with VAR and it's something that is being proven quite often.

• On-field referee knows that there's a back up if he makes a wrong decision, therefore is hesitant to give red cards, offsides and penalties. This influences his decision making and nowadays we rarely see big calls made on-field. If someone goes down in the box, the referee in 9 out of 10 cases waves play on because he knows VAR will check it.
• VAR now not only have to check for a red card or penalty, but they have to do so keeping in mind that the on-field referee has made a decision and whether or not it's a "clear and obvious" error.

This leaves you with a situation where the first decision is a 50/50 because there's no conviction or bottle to get a big call wrong, knowing that someone else can check it. Followed by VAR having to work out if a 50/50 decision isn't necessarily correct, but if it's incorrect enough to overturn it.

Whichever call the ref made against Trafford, VAR would not have flipped the decision. The referees are making call after call with VAR in mind, that's what is wrong.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Here's my number one concern with VAR and it's something that is being proven quite often.

• On-field referee knows that there's a back up if he makes a wrong decision, therefore is hesitant to give red cards, offsides and penalties. This influences his decision making and nowadays we rarely see big calls made on-field. If someone goes down in the box, the referee in 9 out of 10 cases waves play on because he knows VAR will check it.
• VAR now not only have to check for a red card or penalty, but they have to do so keeping in mind that the on-field referee has made a decision and whether or not it's a "clear and obvious" error.

This leaves you with a situation where the first decision is a 50/50 because there's no conviction or bottle to get a big call wrong, knowing that someone else can check it. Followed by VAR having to work out if a 50/50 decision isn't necessarily correct, but if it's incorrect enough to overturn it.

Whichever call the ref made against Trafford, VAR would not have flipped the decision. The referees are making call after call with VAR in mind, that's what is wrong.

The referee in a sense didn't make a call at all. He didn't signal anything - he didn't point upfield to the centre circle, he didn't signal free kick. He just stood there briefly, and then ambled back towards the middle of the field. The Luton players didn't pile into a heap near the corner flag as they normally would having scored a last minute goal, they stood around and looked at the referee before realising that he hadn't disallowed it.

VAR has just been on ref watch. The ref thought that Adebayo didn't move into Trafford and it was Trafford who barged Adebayo, which is clearly factually wrong. Adebayo moved into Trafford. That in itself is enough to tell the ref to take another look, because what the ref thinks he saw is not what actually happened. Bankes, VAR man, is inclined to think it's a foul but not enough to overturn, not clear and obvious. The assistant VAR man, whoever he may be, is convinced it's a foul and the ref ought to be told to look at the screen, but Bankes overrules him on the basis that the goalkeeper is allowed to jump and use his hands. (No explanation of whatever law makes that relevant.)

This idea of refereeing by committee is a shambles. Total shambles. In rugby league, the ref is in charge, the linesmen are there to help, the VAR man will only butt in if he is asked, the players have to keep their distance and accept the ref is the boss. Basically, the ref is the man in charge, and it works.

In football, the ref has the VAR man looking over his shoulder, PGMOL sitting on his other shoulder marking his every decision three or four times per minute, two linesmen rabbiting in his ear (and some of the never shut up, even in lower leagues), and the players having almost carte blanche to swear and shout and interfere. They're trying to referee a match by committee, and it doesn't work at all.

 

[Ace of Blades]

And now we have the situation re the Calvert - Lewin red card. The ref let play continue only for VAR to intervene and instruct the ref to go to the pitchside screen. The tackle was then deemed to be a straight red only for it to be now overuled after an independent panel. So the ref was correct to let play carry on. What a waste of playing time and an unnecessary inquest.

 

[jt64]

Looking on bbc pages, some scottish official who was part of var being introduced is sudgesting a tennis style review system with each team getting 2 reviews, if succesful keeping the review, this is how i think it should be so hoping this has some legs

Has this ever been introduced in a sport that is played continuously like football? It works in tennis as there is a gap between points. It works in American football as there is a gap between downs. In football, how quickly must the play be challenged? All you're going to have is either managers spunking the challenges here there and everywhere on pure emotion like idiots, slowing the game down for no reason (only need to look at how often people will claim "our ball" at every throw in when it's not even close), or you've got to allow enough time from someone from upstairs in the coaching staff to see a replay, look to see something's not worked out, then challenge, and then you've got to have the ref check it afterwards, as opposed to VAR starting to check stuff immediately once they see something not right all the time

 

[bornablade]

Trafford should have stayed on his line. Just like Wes at Villa.

1-0 up, final minutes and goalies decide to make themselves last minute heroes.

Trafford got what he deserved.

It would have been refreshing if Kompany had come out and said the same.

Once again. West Ham goalie should have stayed on his line.

Last minute madness

 

[ATL Recs]

Once again. West Ham goalie should have stayed on his line.

Last minute madness

Goalie had to come

 

[bornablade]

Goalie had to come

If a goalkeeper makes the decision to come for a cross then he has to be 100% (not 99.9%) sure they are going to get the ball.

It's an absolute given

 

[Proper Blade]

If anyone ever thinks the problem with VAR in this country is the refereeing behind it, just look at these VAR decisions from the Real Madrid game over the weekend. Utterly scandalous. The problem with VAR is VAR. Has never worked, will never work.

 

[Blacksea]

And all of a sudden,blocking at dead balls is illegal

 

[andy m]

And all of a sudden,blocking at dead balls is illegal

The free kick was for offside not blocking.

 

[Blacksea]

The free kick was for offside not blocking.

BBC Sport

Virgil van Dijk's goal is ruled out with Wataru Endo said to have been blocking a Chelsea defender from an offside position. Still 0-0 at Wembley.

www.facebook.com

 

[andy m]

Thanks for confirming I was correct, but there was no need.

 

[Blacksea]

Thanks for confirming I was correct, but there was no need.

No need to mention blocking as a reason then

 

[andy m]

The free kick was for offside. He was deemed to be interfering with play because he blocked someone off.

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

And all of a sudden,blocking at dead balls is illegal

As mentioned by others, the free kick was for off-side. However, deliberately blocking another player’s run, while making no attempt to get the ball yourself, has always been illegal - there’s nothing sudden about it. The key is to do it in a subtle way, so that it just looks like an accidental collision.

However, it’s true to say that free-kicks are rarely given for it in practice. That’s one of the problems with VAR - if you review every goal in detail in that way, quite a lot of them having something somewhere in the build-up for which the goal can be disallowed, but which would never have been given by a referee on the field in real time.

Those fans who are at the ground and aren‘t also following along on their phones must have absolutely no idea why that goal was disallowed, which for me is a ridiculous situation.

 

[bakeblade]

As mentioned by others, the free kick was for off-side. However, deliberately blocking another player’s run, while making no attempt to get the ball yourself, has always been illegal - there’s nothing sudden about it. The key is to do it in a subtle way, so that it just looks like an accidental collision.

However, it’s true to say that free-kicks are rarely given for it in practice. That’s one of the problems with VAR - if you review every goal in detail in that way, quite a lot of them having something somewhere in the build-up for which the goal can be disallowed, but which would never have been given by a referee on the field in real time.

Those fans who are at the ground and aren‘t also following along on their phones must have absolutely no idea why that goal was disallowed, which for me is a ridiculous situation.

VAR is getting really good at disallowing goals

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

VAR is getting really good at disallowing goals

I’d like to see VAR got rid of completely, but that’s not going to happen, so assuming we’re stuck with it I think the least bad version is to have each team permitted 1 appeal per match (if your appeal is upheld, you keep it). That way if a team genuinely feels an error has been made, they can appeal, but it gets rid of the forensic search for a reason to rule out every goal.

I‘d make it that the appealing captain has to do so within 10 seconds of the incident, and has to specify why he is appealing - you can’t just request that a goal is reviewed for ‘anything you can find’.

 

[bornablade]

Sky and BT (or whatever they're called nowadays) have cameras all over the place. Every single angle. Every single slow-mo. This gives the pundits the opportunity to analyse every decision an official makes during the game.

Referees were being crucified.

So they hit back and say 'Well if these pundits have the advantage of all these cameras and then that's what we want'.

The sooner matches return to one camera on the half way line with Keith Macklin, Hugh Johns or Kenneth Wolstenholme doing the commentary the better.

I'm not sure what the likes of Danny Murphy or Micah Richards will do for employment but we'll get our game back.

 

[bakeblade]

I’d like to see VAR got rid of completely, but that’s not going to happen, so assuming we’re stuck with it I think the least bad version is to have each team permitted 1 appeal per match (if your appeal is upheld, you keep it). That way if a team genuinely feels an error has been made, they can appeal, but it gets rid of the forensic search for a reason to rule out every goal.

I‘d make it that the appealing captain has to do so within 10 seconds of the incident, and has to specify why he is appealing - you can’t just request that a goal is reviewed for ‘anything you can find’.

I'd just give them 30 seconds to make a decision, if they can't decide go with the onfield decision. If it's clear and obvious that's plenty of time and it would do away with the TV screen nonsense.

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

I'd just give them 30 seconds to make a decision, if they can't decide go with the onfield decision. If it's clear and obvious that's plenty of time and it would do away with the TV screen nonsense.

The problem is, then we’d just end up in lots of arguments about whether it should have been possible to establish the on-field decision was wrong within 30 seconds. “If it had been a big six team they’d have worked it out in time”. It means that some wrong decisions would get over-turned and some not, based on how quickly the VAR worked, which would leave them wide open to accusations of bias. Most teams would believe they were being unfairly treated most of the time.

If you force the team themselves to decide whether they really believe the decision was wrong, and therefore to use their appeal, then if they get it wrong, they’ve only themselves to blame.