The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[villan95]

2 hours ago, luckyeddie said:

Talking about the wolves non penalty

What did the officials say?

Referee Hooper: "No way, that's a collision, we don't give those."

VAR Salisbury: "So Onana goes to challenge the ball..."

Referee Hooper: "Goal-kick."

VAR Salisbury: "Just delay. Delay, delay, checking possible penalty.

Referee Hooper: "No worries mate."

VAR Salisbury: "You'll want to view this because I think Onana collides into it. He tries to go to the ball and he makes aerial contact with the Wolves player. It's late and it's clumsy in my opinion. Dawson wins the header, but it's late, very late in the aerial challenge.

"I think because the Wolves player doesn't head the ball, yeah because Dawson heads it, therefore it's a normal collision as they've both challenged the ball. Check complete.

Referee Hooper: "Check complete."

Since when has taking out a random player been acceptable? He states it's late and clumsy. It's like listening to two plastic manure fans justifying a blatant foul. I can never work out whether it is incompetence or corruption. Either way it's killing top flight football.

Just came to post this because it annoyed me. Seems like the ref was desperate not to not give it.

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, luckyeddie said:

Talking about the wolves non penalty

What did the officials say?

Referee Hooper: "No way, that's a collision, we don't give those."

VAR Salisbury: "So Onana goes to challenge the ball..."

Referee Hooper: "Goal-kick."

VAR Salisbury: "Just delay. Delay, delay, checking possible penalty.

Referee Hooper: "No worries mate."

VAR Salisbury: "You'll want to view this because I think Onana collides into it. He tries to go to the ball and he makes aerial contact with the Wolves player. It's late and it's clumsy in my opinion. Dawson wins the header, but it's late, very late in the aerial challenge.

"I think because the Wolves player doesn't head the ball, yeah because Dawson heads it, therefore it's a normal collision as they've both challenged the ball. Check complete.

Referee Hooper: "Check complete."

Since when has taking out a random player been acceptable? He states it's late and clumsy. It's like listening to two plastic manure fans justifying a blatant foul. I can never work out whether it is incompetence or corruption. Either way it's killing top flight football.

If that's the conversation then it's utterly bonkers.  There's no longer any fouls in football because the players are challenging for the ball - who cares if one of them is late  

[villa4europe]

20 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Which has long been the issue with refs, they don’t understand the game, just the way PGMOL currently interpret the rules.

FTFY

with part of the difficulty being that the interpretation seems to be whatever PGMOL feel like at the time, to my knowledge the wording of the offside rule and interfering with play hasn't changed but how PGMOL interpret it and are telling their refs to enforce rules has changed, same with handball

[luckyeddie]

9 minutes ago, bobzy said:

If that's the conversation then it's utterly bonkers.  There's no longer any fouls in football because the players are challenging for the ball - who cares if one of them is late  

Yeah, that's copy and pasted off the BBC. But the conversation would have been completely different I'd Sa had taken out Fernandez in the same manner. That inconsistency is so obvious, but they act and talk as if it's not there.

[a-k]

Just watched an official replay review from the ongoing Basketball World Cup. On-court refs went to the screen, mics live, asking for different camera angles and freeze frames, and discussing their thoughts out loud for all to hear. I really don't see how this is so difficult to implement in football.

[a-k]

From the BBC article:

We see the VAR going through the checking phase while the penalty is not awarded. He starts to go down the road of recommending a review, but then he sort of overthinks it a little bit.

if the VAR is unsure, send the ref to the screen and let him decide himself.

 

[AndyM3000]

12 hours ago, Mic09 said:

How did that go?

Not great IMO as you can see from the posts this morning.

The Wolves/Utd audio, you can see the VAR thinks its a pen, he's even said its late and clumsy, then says its very late. It seems like he's about to recommend a penalty from the way he's talking and then there's a 5 second pause and he goes "Because that Wolves player doesn't head the ball, I think it's fine". Seems to me like they were stalling to find anything to not give this as a penalty.

City offside, the VAR think he's not had any impact on the keepers ability to save the shot and he's got out the way. If you've played any football in your life you'd know he has 100% impacted the keeper just by being there.

They need people who have played football to help them, because they clearly don't have a clue on this part of the game.

 

[HKP90]

3 hours ago, luckyeddie said:

Talking about the wolves non penalty

What did the officials say?

Referee Hooper: "No way, that's a collision, we don't give those."

VAR Salisbury: "So Onana goes to challenge the ball..."

Referee Hooper: "Goal-kick."

VAR Salisbury: "Just delay. Delay, delay, checking possible penalty.

Referee Hooper: "No worries mate."

VAR Salisbury: "You'll want to view this because I think Onana collides into it. He tries to go to the ball and he makes aerial contact with the Wolves player. It's late and it's clumsy in my opinion. Dawson wins the header, but it's late, very late in the aerial challenge.

"I think because the Wolves player doesn't head the ball, yeah because Dawson heads it, therefore it's a normal collision as they've both challenged the ball. Check complete.

Referee Hooper: "Check complete."

Since when has taking out a random player been acceptable? He states it's late and clumsy. It's like listening to two plastic manure fans justifying a blatant foul. I can never work out whether it is incompetence or corruption. Either way it's killing top flight football.

Are the two highlighted paras said by the same person? 

If so they've done a 180

[luckyeddie]

2 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Are the two highlighted paras said by the same person? 

If so they've done a 180

Yes the guy on VAR, realised halfway through manure had a new keeper

[villan95]

5 hours ago, luckyeddie said:

Talking about the wolves non penalty

What did the officials say?

Referee Hooper: "No way, that's a collision, we don't give those to the opposition at Old Trafford."

What he really meant 

[Zatman]

Genuinely surprised a manager hasnt taken the team off the pitch to highlight this corruption. Smith should have done this at City

[StefanAVFC]

Has anyone got a link to the full segment?

[luckyeddie]

13 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Has anyone got a link to the full segment?

Try this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66724505

[El Zen]

On 05/09/2023 at 18:44, blandy said:

Do you think it’s just England, or everywhere?  To me it seems like it’s just here. World Cups and stuff it’s been fine, or at least has been better than with no VAR.

Everywhere. I hate it. Absolutely hate it. 

[MrBlack]

21 hours ago, HKP90 said:

Are the two highlighted paras said by the same person? 

If so they've done a 180

I believe this is the behind the scenes version:

Quote

VAR Salisbury: "You'll want to view this because I think Onana collides into it. He tries to go to the ball and he makes aerial contact with the Wolves player. It's late and it's clumsy in my opinion. Dawson wins the header, but it's late, very late in the aerial challenge.

*VAR Salisbury is handed a note reminding him that Man United don't concede penalties*

"I think because the Wolves player doesn't head the ball, yeah because Dawson heads it, therefore it's a normal collision as they've both challenged the ball. Check complete.

 

[Stevo985]

The two behind the scenes VAR clips that I've seen are the complete opposites of each other.

The Liverpool Newcastle one (where VVD is sent off) is excellent. That's exactly how this should work. 

The ref has given the foul and the red, the VAR works relatively quickly to determine that everyone was onside, the foul was outside of the box and that it would have been a goalscoring opportunity. Hearing them go through the logic makes it so much more understandable for why it takes so long and what they're doing when they look at all the clips.

 

Then you have the Utd Wolves one which just shows a complete misunderstanding of the rules, imo

[tinker]

It's incompetence , the ref and VAR officials,  for the Wolves Manure game,  are not fit for purpose and should be replaced. 

[AndyM3000]

The approach to how they want VAR to function means it's impossible for it to be successful and it will always annoy the fans.

You'll have situations like handball where if the ref gives a penalty it wouldn't be overturned by VAR but if he didn't give it then VAR won't get involved. That cannot work, you'll have very soft pens given and more blatant ones not with this approach. Example being Dunk's handball against Luton where he's not even looking at it, his arm isn't high and it's been given, yet Romero's against Utd looked worse and not given.

VAR needs to change it's approach from trying to fix "clear and obvious" errors and be about adding consistency. They are having a more difficult time deciding if something is clear and obvious over just making the best decision, they don't want to make the referee's decision look bad but they are adding way more pressure on themselves with this current method.

[sharkyvilla]

On 06/09/2023 at 10:30, AndyM3000 said:

Not great IMO as you can see from the posts this morning.

The Wolves/Utd audio, you can see the VAR thinks its a pen, he's even said its late and clumsy, then says its very late. It seems like he's about to recommend a penalty from the way he's talking and then there's a 5 second pause and he goes "Because that Wolves player doesn't head the ball, I think it's fine". Seems to me like they were stalling to find anything to not give this as a penalty.

City offside, the VAR think he's not had any impact on the keepers ability to save the shot and he's got out the way. If you've played any football in your life you'd know he has 100% impacted the keeper just by being there.

They need people who have played football to help them, because they clearly don't have a clue on this part of the game.

 

The problem is people who have played the game at the highest level have never shown any interest in refereeing.  They know what a horrible job it is, the money wouldn't be enough to get them out of bed in the morning plus most players are thick as mince and don't know the rules properly anyway.  I doubt they'd even want to get involved with sitting in the VAR truck.

[StewieGriffin]

They need ex pro's on the VAR panels - one forward and one defensive. Any defence-minded ex pro (or, indeed, anyone with a brain cell) would be able to spot the impediment to Leno and the foul on Dawson.

Two officials for rule clarity and the pros for common sense implementation.

Each VAR should be a 30 second "you're correct" or "look at the screen" - VAR shouldn't be making the decisions, the in field official(s) should