The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[Stevo985]

"Clear and obvious" has always been bollocks and just muddies the waters

[desensitized43]

23 hours ago, sne said:

Eye candy?

It's like they're all clones!

[theboyangel]

Just now, desensitized43 said:

It's like they're all clones!

Clones or Clowns? 
either fits

[Mjvilla]

On 20/12/2020 at 09:21, Mjvilla said:

Came in here to have a look at opinions on the Newcastle decision last night. Watching the game (no sound as I cannot stand most of the commentary), when it went to VAR, I presumed it was to see if there was a foul. Clearly there wasn't and I presumed the ref was being sent over to reverse his decision. Imagine my surprise when he brandishes a red card and it's a penalty.

Absolutely shocking. Absolutely shocking. How they can justify it is absolutely embarrassing.

I see this red card has now been overturned. Shows how shocking the decision was, and it was made by VAR. This shows that the system is wrong and flawed in so many ways.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, Mjvilla said:

it was made by VAR

Not really - the Ref "live" gave a pen, then VAR said "You need to look at it again, on the monitor" and the Ref stuck with his ludicrous decision and sent the poor bloke off.

In that instance, I don't think you can blame VAR at all - it was the on field ref who messed up.

Don't get me wrong, like basically the whole world, I think they're failing to use VAR appropriately and it's harming the spectacle and enjoyment hugely.

The idea (in my mind at least) is that VAR should be used when the Ref or Lino makes a clear error. When a player is clearly offside, but not flagged, when a pen is a clear dive, or when a pen isn't given for a blatant foul, or when a tackle should have been a red card, but wasn't or shouldn't have been but was. And it should only be when it is crystal clear. Everything else should be left to the on-field officials judgement - "Umpire's call" in cricket terminology.

I mean thinking back to when it was in the World Cup in Russia, VAR was basically fine. It can be a good thing, overturning proper injustices, but they're just using it way too heavy handedly.

The lines for offsides - where it's millimetres are an example. The freeze frame they use for the lines is selected by human hand, from a monitor, but they cannot tell exactly when the pass happened - the point at which the foot (or head) first makes contact with the ball, to the point at which it leaves the foot (or head) is not discernable with total accuracy, so the lines, when they're basically on top of each other, or with a tiny, tiny gap - that's a margin of unavoidable error and should not be used to rule out a goal. The same applies to the position of the player's sleeve - it's a subjective judgement of where the sleeve ends.

[a-k]

35 minutes ago, Mjvilla said:

I see this red card has now been overturned. Shows how shocking the decision was, and it was made by VAR. This shows that the system is wrong and flawed in so many ways.

Surely then the refs involved (on-pitch and VAR) have to be reprimanded in some way for using video and STILL getting the decision wrong??

[Mjvilla]

3 minutes ago, a-k said:

Surely then the refs involved (on-pitch and VAR) have to be reprimanded in some way for using video and STILL getting the decision wrong??

Exactly, and what I was getting at. @blandy was spot on and I was wrong in that VAR never made the actual decision. But the VAR is not blameless in this at all. And if they are getting it wrong using the technology, then there's huge problems somewhere.

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Mjvilla said:

Exactly, and what I was getting at. @blandy was spot on and I was wrong in that VAR never made the actual decision. But the VAR is not blameless in this at all. And if they are getting it wrong using the technology, then there's huge problems somewhere.

Yeah, as @a-ksays as well, when they mess up they need some "additional training". In this particular instance, the on field Ref made the error "live" which is understandable, but compounding it by not correcting his mistake when he had the chance is cause for action. The VAR ref was faultless in that instance.

Human beings will always, always make mistakes, so there needs to be understanding of 3 things

1. People (players, fans, media) need to understand mistakes will (still) happen. We'll never get rid of all errors.

2. People (Refs and their representative PGMOL) need to work hard to minimise the number of mistakes and correct them when they make them. They are mostly doing that, it seems.

3. People (Refs and the PGMOL) need to understand that making an initial mistake can happen, but not to be so arrogant as to double down on them. There seems to be a bit of a bunker mentality  -  like with the Ollie Watkins off side goal v West Ham - if it was offside, it was only because he was being fouled, and that should have led to a pen. But they missed that too, then said "nah, we saw that, honest we did and it wasn't". Ludicrous.

With cricket, when they brought in the review system, there was a lot of talk and fear early on that it would "undermine the authority and standing" of umpires if and when they were shown to be making mistakes. But it didn't do that (unless there was an umpire who kept repeatedly getting things wrong over and over - but umpires that keep messing up lose credibility with or without TV reviews). It also enhanced the standing of some umpires, because they were being seen to get so many tight calls right. If refs are humble, the same benefit will happen for them

 

[a-k]

 

23 hours ago, Mjvilla said:

Exactly, and what I was getting at. @blandy was spot on and I was wrong in that VAR never made the actual decision. But the VAR is not blameless in this at all. And if they are getting it wrong using the technology, then there's huge problems somewhere.

23 hours ago, blandy said:

Yeah, as @a-ksays as well, when they mess up they need some "additional training". In this particular instance, the on field Ref made the error "live" which is understandable, but compounding it by not correcting his mistake when he had the chance is cause for action. The VAR ref was faultless in that instance.

 

Is that correct? As I mentioned earlier, on commentary they mentioned as the ref was going to the monitor that they understood the penalty decision would stand and that the ref was being asked to check for a red card offense. Apparently the commentators get to listen directly to the conversations between VAR and the on-field ref, so I would guess they are correct. I haven't read anything official saying otherwise.

This is where the transparency of fans also being able to listen to these conversations is needed. What did VAR actually tell the on-field ref to send him to the monitor? Why did the ref reach for his pocket, then stop and go back to the monitor to watch it again? 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, a-k said:

Is that correct?

He blew for a pen, so I believe so.

[StefanAVFC]

VAR is pointless due to 2 factors

1) Ambiguity and subjectivity in the rules

2) Painfully awful officiating standard

[Keyblade]

Wonder if Arsenal weren't so shit, how they'd feel about City scoring that offside third goal yesterday.

[a-k]

23 hours ago, blandy said:

He blew for a pen, so I believe so.

Yes, the on-field ref gave the pen. But, the point is VAR had him come to the monitor because they believed the on-field ref made a clear and obvious error by not sending the player off. IMO, VAR is just as much at fault because they could (and should) have told the on-field ref to look at the monitor because it is NOT even a pen. I could be wrong about this, but that's how I view it based on the available information.

[rodders0223]

Just watched a replay at least 25 times. Please. Please sack this garbage off.

[StefanAVFC]

The VAR ref was a massive problem here. If taylor gives the penalty, then the VAR ref doesnt tell him to look at it again as he clearly thought it was a pen despite Cash clearly getting the ball. 

[fightoffyour]

Nice to have a game not ruined by VAR (how ridiculous is it that I feel it’s worth writing that), spoilt a bit though despite the correct decision being made. If you have to watch it so many times it’s clearly and obviously not a clear and obvious error!

Also nice to see a ref go over to the monitor and stand by his original decision, although he was incompetent after that.

[PaulC]

20 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

The VAR ref was a massive problem here. If taylor gives the penalty, then the VAR ref doesnt tell him to look at it again as he clearly thought it was a pen despite Cash clearly getting the ball. 

I actually thought Taylor did well yesterday. 

[BG_Villa_Fan]

How is this Leeds penalty given but Villa’s against Brighton not. There’s no consistency.

[colhint]

One thing I wonder. Just watched the Leeds pen. Not the incident but the pen. A leeds player was running to follow up, but he was just inside the box when the kick was taken. So if the kick is retaken if the keepers foot is over the line, why shouldn't it if a Leeds player was?

[a-k]

8 minutes ago, BG_Villa_Fan said:

How is this Leeds penalty given but Villa’s against Brighton not. There’s no consistency.

I'd like to see that again but sure looked like Pope got the ball before the man.

Just now, colhint said:

One thing I wonder. Just watched the Leeds pen. Not the incident but the pen. A leeds player was running to follow up, but he was just inside the box when the kick was taken. So if the kick is retaken if the keepers foot is over the line, why shouldn't it if a Leeds player was?

Apparently, the rule is that if the attacking player is in the box but doesn't score on the rebound or interfere somehow, then it's OK, which is bollocks because an attacking player standing in the box can definitely put the keeper off.