Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
A lot depends on the mindset of the VAR referee. Some of them are anxious to make their mark and disallow goals, like Darren England for Burnley v Forest. For both their allowed goal and our disallowed goal, he looked at it from all angles in hopes of seeing it brush an arm. He couldn't find one for them but he found one for us.Hits defenders hand as he dives in front of Mcatee’s shot, which was on target. Looked a pen to me. Not even discussed on MOTD.
Thoughts? Bearing in mind Egan v Man City I thought it may have been given.
Hits defenders hand as he dives in front of Mcatee’s shot, which was on target. Looked a pen to me. Not even discussed on MOTD.
Thoughts? Bearing in mind Egan v Man City I thought it may have been given.
Was a stonewall penalty in my opinion.
Player threw himself in front of the ball to block the shot.. it ricocheted of his chest and onto his arm which was raised away from his body and in the air.
Totally agree, and it should definitely be the latter. VAR should be there to correct the absolute howlers and nothing more. The biggest mistake they made was to not incorporate some form of umpire’s call whereby the onfield decision remained unless it was wrong by a certain degree (granted that’s easier in cricket).There’s seems to be no agreement or understanding of what the VAR is for to me. Some managers and supporters seem to want him to referee the game: so the ref on the pitch makes initial decisions, but then the one with the video actually checks everything and decides if he thinks it’s a penalty or whatever based on watching the videos - so really he’s the one reffing the game.
Is that what the VAR is meant to do?
Or is he just there to check blatant mistakes (rather than misjudgements) e.g. “No, it hasn’t actually hit his hand - it’s hit his chest”; “No he hasn’t touched him actually - no contact at all, he’s just fallen over”; “No, he’s not even in the box” etc.
Is that what the VAR is for?
If it’s the latter, then the guy on the pitch is actually reffing the game, and any decision where two different people after the match are still debating (“We’ll I think it was a penalty” - “No, I don’t think it was”) should just be waved aside by the VAR leaving it up to whatever the ref on the pitch decided.
Until everyone is clear on what the VAR is meant to do, nobody is going to be happy with the job he’s doing.
There’s seems to be no agreement or understanding of what the VAR is for to me. Some managers and supporters seem to want him to referee the game: so the ref on the pitch makes initial decisions, but then the one with the video actually checks everything and decides if he thinks it’s a penalty or whatever based on watching the videos - so really he’s the one reffing the game.
Is that what the VAR is meant to do?
Or is he just there to check blatant mistakes (rather than misjudgements) e.g. “No, it hasn’t actually hit his hand - it’s hit his chest”; “No he hasn’t touched him actually - no contact at all, he’s just fallen over”; “No, he’s not even in the box” etc.
Is that what the VAR is for?
If it’s the latter, then the guy on the pitch is actually reffing the game, and any decision where two different people after the match are still debating (“We’ll I think it was a penalty” - “No, I don’t think it was”) should just be waved aside by the VAR leaving it up to whatever the ref on the pitch decided.
Until everyone is clear on what the VAR is meant to do, nobody is going to be happy with the job he’s doing.
That's definitely what they've consistently said, it's just to correct "clear and obvious" errors. However, the application of it has been the total opposite of what they've said - it's been used for the tiniest errors and for refs to cover for each other.It’s been made very clear by the authorities - it’s there to correct clear and obvious errors. The only exception is off-side, which is black and white, so the ‘clear and obvious’ bit doesn’t apply.
In this match there were several decisions which were borderline, but I’m not sure you could say any of them were clear and obvious errors, so they weren’t overturned.
If the Baldock penalty hadn’t been given by the ref on the field, VAR wouldn’t have overturned his decision. It was a borderline foul, in which neither decision would be considered a clear and obvious error. The same applies to the handball a few minutes earlier.
I’d get rid of VAR tomorrow, but I don’t think there’s any question what it’s supposed to be doing.
This is the standard of refereeing we're up against. Wasn't even looking, just saw the wolves player on the floor and gave them a free kick.
The ref also had the best view in the ground and gave the pen without any hesitancy. If VAR felt it was a clear and obvious mistake they would have asked him to look at it again on the monitor. But they did'nt.It’s been made very clear by the authorities - it’s there to correct clear and obvious errors. The only exception is off-side, which is black and white, so the ‘clear and obvious’ bit doesn’t apply.
In this match there were several decisions which were borderline, but I’m not sure you could say any of them were clear and obvious errors, so they weren’t overturned.
If the Baldock penalty hadn’t been given by the ref on the field, VAR wouldn’t have overturned his decision. It was a borderline foul, in which neither decision would be considered a clear and obvious error. The same applies to the handball a few minutes earlier.
I’d get rid of VAR tomorrow, but I don’t think there’s any question what it’s supposed to be doing.
AyeWas a stonewall penalty in my opinion.
Player threw himself in front of the ball to block the shot.. it ricocheted of his chest and onto his arm which was raised away from his body and in the air.
The trouble with VAR is when a goal is scored they look for any reason too disallow that goal, but they don't seem too apply that reasoning the other way round. by that i mean how can they give the chance of a goal like yesterday in the fact it hit his hand but the Ref didn't give it so we won't get involved, but if the same thing happened in the build up to a goal they would have alerted the ref who would have disallowed the goal.There’s seems to be no agreement or understanding of what the VAR is for to me. Some managers and supporters seem to want him to referee the game: so the ref on the pitch makes initial decisions, but then the one with the video actually checks everything and decides if he thinks it’s a penalty or whatever based on watching the videos - so really he’s the one reffing the game.
Is that what the VAR is meant to do?
Or is he just there to check blatant mistakes (rather than misjudgements) e.g. “No, it hasn’t actually hit his hand - it’s hit his chest”; “No he hasn’t touched him actually - no contact at all, he’s just fallen over”; “No, he’s not even in the box” etc.
Is that what the VAR is for?
If it’s the latter, then the guy on the pitch is actually reffing the game, and any decision where two different people after the match are still debating (“We’ll I think it was a penalty” - “No, I don’t think it was”) should just be waved aside by the VAR leaving it up to whatever the ref on the pitch decided.
Until everyone is clear on what the VAR is meant to do, nobody is going to be happy with the job he’s doing.
Wasn’t it also to be used to check for straight red cards for ‘dangerous play’, when was the last time that was used ?There’s seems to be no agreement or understanding of what the VAR is for to me. Some managers and supporters seem to want him to referee the game: so the ref on the pitch makes initial decisions, but then the one with the video actually checks everything and decides if he thinks it’s a penalty or whatever based on watching the videos - so really he’s the one reffing the game.
Is that what the VAR is meant to do?
Or is he just there to check blatant mistakes (rather than misjudgements) e.g. “No, it hasn’t actually hit his hand - it’s hit his chest”; “No he hasn’t touched him actually - no contact at all, he’s just fallen over”; “No, he’s not even in the box” etc.
Is that what the VAR is for?
If it’s the latter, then the guy on the pitch is actually reffing the game, and any decision where two different people after the match are still debating (“We’ll I think it was a penalty” - “No, I don’t think it was”) should just be waved aside by the VAR leaving it up to whatever the ref on the pitch decided.
Until everyone is clear on what the VAR is meant to do, nobody is going to be happy with the job he’s doing.
Probably by the one that was 30 yards away, yet couldn’t see the blatant pull back on Brewster about 10 seconds before he got his knee injury, from around 3 yards away.I presumed the linesman called it myself
Yes , they always said the 'clear and obvious' thing. A obvious mistake can be spotted in a couple of seconds on video. If it's taking minutes, it obviously isn't clear and obvious.That's definitely what they've consistently said, it's just to correct "clear and obvious" errors. However, the application of it has been the total opposite of what they've said - it's been used for the tiniest errors and for refs to cover for each other.
There's maybe evidence from this weekend's games (including ours) that they're starting to use it a little more for what it's intended to do.
I'd still scrap it immediately though.
I presumed the linesman called it myself
How funny it is that opinions can be so polar opposite. I thought he had a terrible game from start to finish. He missed so many incidents/fouls and appeared to guess on several occasions when he did blow for things. Fortunately for us, he was in the right place at the right time to see the minimal contact on George Baldock for the penaltyThought the referee had a great game yesterday apart from helping players up(one for each side) leaving himself open to criticism from the ref haters.
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?